Some of my blogging friends are still talking about Karen Hancock’s Christian fantasy novel, Return of the Guardian-King. I thought I would highlight some of my favorite bits of wisdom they’ve shared over the past two days:
- Eve Nielsen has a good, concise review over on her site. She writes, “The seductiveness of evil was very well portrayed in this book. The action kept rolling and I was often surprised at different twists in the story.”
- In a blog tour that has been more critical than some (ironic considering the Karen Hancock’s obvious talent!), Speculative Faith reminds us to look at what the book does right: “Of all writers publishing in the CBA, Hancock stands out as the one carrying the standard for science fiction and fantasy. Each of her first four novels won Christy Awards, though the categories continued to shift—from allegory to visionary (a combination of fantasy with science fiction and spiritual warfare).”
- Karen Hancock herself, writing from the edge, insists that her work resists allegory. I agree. Fantasy fans know that C. S. Lewis’s Narnia books often get labeled allegory. We can argue semantics all day, but Karen proves her mettle when she describes her process like this: “I study the principles of the Christian life on a day by day basis. This is a vast amount of information, of which I retain a pathetically small amount, but nevertheless quite a body of material from which to draw. This I assimilate into my thinking and then try to apply to my life, usually a process akin to learning to ride bicycle: there’s lots of wobbling, falling down and messing up. It’s an ongoing process wherein I learn about myself, the principles, how exactly they apply, and God – who He is, how He operates, and how He deals with me.” Powerful stuff. Sounds like she recognizes (shameless plug coming) the high calling of her daily work! (And Karen, I know you must have a thick skin after publishing so much already. But I hope some of the overly critical comments haven’t caught you off guard on this tour. Your work is a credit to the CBA!)
- Shannon McNear has a fantastic interview in which Karen gives her next book pitch. It’s always good for prospective writers to see behind the scenes work like this. Here’s the pitch: “When Lacey McHenry accepts a prestigious research fellowship at the world-renowned Kendell-Jakes Longevity Institute, she sees it as a new start on a life shattered by an abusive, now-ended marriage. But when a disturbing late night encounter with a psychopathic intruder leads to an unexpected cover-up by Institute authorities, she soon finds herself in over her head, a lone mouse in an elaborate game of deception and seduction whose purpose she cannot begin to guess. Set in a bizarre world that is part of our own, yet separate from it, Black Box uses cults, cloning, ancient civilizations, aliens, and the nature of perception and deceit to explore the greatest mystery of all – human volition.”
- Rebecca Grabill (who has made the best use of blogger that I’ve ever seen—NICE layout!) lists some of the common grievances against CBA fiction. The discussion there goes from breasts to theology. So naturally, I had to comment there. I did my worst sort of comment hijacking there, so the least I can do is send some readers her way. You have to go at least see her blog design.
I think that’s enough for one post. As always, it’s been fun! Here’s that list of people on the blog tour again. I removed all stars so as not to be a Wemmick!
Nissa Annakindt
Wayne Thomas Batson
Jim Black
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
Karri Compton
Frank Creed
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Chris Deanne
Janey DeMeo
April Erwin
Kameron M. Franklin
Linda Gilmore
Beth Goddard
Rebecca Grabill
Andrea Graham
Katie Hart
Jill Hart
Sherrie Hibbs
Sharon Hinck
Christopher Hopper
Heather R. Hunt
Becca Johnson
Jason Joyner
Karen
Dawn King
Tina Kulesa
Lost Genre Guild
Kevin Lucia and The Bookshelf Reviews 2.0 – The Compendium
Rachel Marks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Shannon McNear
Caleb Newell
Nicole
Eve Nielsen
John W. Otte
Robin Parrish
Rachelle
Cheryl Russel
Hanna Sandvig
Chawna Schroeder
Mirtika Schultz
James Somers
Tsaba House Authors
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Daniel I. Weaver
{ 18 comments }
Mark, thanks for the link and the blurb (and I made it to the top of the list *snicker*). Ooops, did I open a whole new can of worms? *laughing evilly*-(is that 1 “L” or 2???)
I really was impressed with Rebecca G.’s blog too (I wonder how she did that….)
I have to say, though, the title for this post really caught me off guard, lol.
I’m still working out the words “Christian fantasy novel” and how that could possibly mean quality fiction. I’m buried in old bias. But now that I see a good recommendation I will keep my eyes open.
Eve, laughing evilly (2 Ls just like our friend Barkat) and causing trouble, as usual. : )
Rebecca, if you are out there let us know how you did your blog! It’s really neat.
About the title. I’m not above a little bit of innocent shock value. (I mean, I meant it to be innocent. If someone was offended, I guess it backfired.)
Julia, I adore science fiction and fantasy–and I’m right there with you.
Here’s a big confession. I’m hesitant to pick up any Christian fiction at all. It’s a kind of damaged brand in my mind–shooting for a target audience of middle-aged mothers who have very different reading interests than I do.
But I am hoping the days of Christian harlequin are ending. Certainly there are a lot of people who want to see those days end!
Ahhh! So glad I have an editor as a friend
I wasn’t offended-it just wasn’t your typical post title *grin*
Was thinking of you yesterday when I picked up a non-fantasy young adult fiction book (Hattie Big Sky… I picked it up because I couldn’t believe I was seeing artwork I’d just seen on my cousin-in-law’s web portfolio!)
Anyway, it’s quite redemptive (so far) and even mentions praying to God, but it’s not with a Christian publisher. The writing is excellent, especially the dialog (I think it reminded me of your novel in this way, which is why I started thinking of you!)
Anyhow, a very non-related, off-topic comment, just ’cause I wanted to say it.
L.L., Hattie Big Sky, huh? Looks like a book for me to read to my daughter! We are finishing up one of the American Girl book series right now, but she loves historical fiction.
According to JacketFlap.com, it’s the #16 seller in its imprint.
And what’s this? It reminded you of my novel!? Sigh. I shelved it for awhile. Long, sad story.
I’m curious. Do you check traffic on this blog? I wonder whether the title of this post impacted the number of casusal visitors.
Craver, that’s a good reminder. I need to start doing that. I’m started logging the traffic a few months ago, but I haven’t done any data analysis yet.
I need to!
So… what’s your guess? Should we place bets or something–non-binding, non-gambling kinds of gentlemen’s wagers are what I mean, naturally.
Hmmm… a wager where the topic has something to do with feminine endowments? Something tells me I better pass on this one. Nevertheless, I am convinced (sadly so) that the title temporarily boosted your traffic for the wrong reason.
I wish we men were not so sick and wrong.
So am I sick and wrong for being playfully off-color with my title … and the wager?
I know that’s not what you are saying, but what I’m really asking is this: To what degree in marketing our blogs (and books and what have you) can we tap into the, um, visceral and instinctive impulses that are common to all people? Or in this case, all men?
Good question. I’ll bet that you could get a variety of volleying between proponents of visceral and virtuous views (Oops, did I just make a wager?)
And a thought. The adversary of our souls has been fishing for thousands of years. While this cunning one has been perfecting his technique, I doubt that he needs to carry many different lures in his tackle box.
Good analogy. The adversary fishes for our souls. And Christians fish for souls too.
Does that mean the bait he uses is off limits?
Obviously, he will twist a lot of the bait until it is perverse. Perversion is off limits for sure. But can we as Christians appeal to the same felt needs of our audience without resorting to perversion?
IThess. 5:22 does admonish us, though, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
The question then is, does this fall under that category?
I’d be a little leary to use the enemies tactics to lure people to the good. I wouldn’t want to go near anything he’s touched.
Not saying that any anatomy is wrong-but how it’s used could be and often is.
This whole topic reminds me of seeker-friendly churches. The whole thrust here is similar-to make the church as comfortable and inviting for sinners as possible, in order that many would enter the church doors.
The problem (s) with this is that we are not called to do this, but to GO and preach the gospel (itself an uncomfortable message to most). Go Evangelism has a bit more on this topic.
Eve, I’m not sure I was being very clear.
The enemy’s tactic is perversion. He persuades people by tapping into needs that all people feel–the desire for intimacy being the need under discussion. Then he perverts these needs.
All humans have a God-given and healthy need for intimacy.
Pornography is an evil perversion of intimacy. However, it is the human need for intimacy that makes pornography attractive, not its perversion.
I’m not comfortable saying I won’t go near anything the enemy touches, though. It is the enemy’s touch that I don’t want to go near. When he touches intimacy, it becomes pornography. But that doesn’t mean I can’t touch intimacy. I need it.
All people do.
So why did I use “breast” in the title? Partly because I still have this middle school boy outlook sometimes. I figured listing “breasts” alongside “theology” was kind of funny. And the fact that I put theology first would prevent people from expecting perversion. (Unless they pervert everything in their mind anyway.)
Breasts themselves are not perverted. Talking about breasts is not perversion. Talking about intimacy and human sexuality is not perversion. I would even say that sensual writing (not erotica, not pornography) in Christian fiction is not necessarily perversion.
True. The enemy takes all that he can get his hands on and tries to pervert it. The things in themselves are not wrong. He wants to destroy God’s good creations.
I’m just wondering what kind of thing we can actually take back.
I don’t think it’s a matter of taking something back. Instead, we just remind ourselves and those around us what we’ve been given.
For example, we can say that God provides intimacy in certain ways. Here is what healthy, godly intimacy looks like.
Good point.
Comments on this entry are closed.