In the rustling grass, I hear him pass...

When I was in elementary school in the late seventies and early eighties, we talked a lot about the environment. We invented recycling machines, discussed litter and oil spills, and learned about air pollution.

I usually lived in suburban areas, so I knew about pollution and garbage on an intellectual level, but I had never seen a landfill or witnessed the sprawl of miles of concrete across countryside.

I do remember my sadness when "they" cut down a little wooded area where we used to play when I lived in England for a few years. That little woods was magical for us; there, we built forts, watched robins hop around, and poked at bugs and ants with sticks. We also discovered that dock leaves would ease the sting of nettles.

In England, I experienced the joy of climbing into an apple or plum tree, plucking my own fruit, and eating it straight from the bounty of nature. Blackberry bushes grew everywhere, even in suburbia. We could walk behind our back fence and pick blackberries.

When I lived and traveled on the east coast of America in my college years and young adulthood, I grew to dislike those huge concrete cities that have turned much of the Northeast into a grey mass of steel and smog. I understand why others find cities like New York and Philadelphia exciting, but I could never find space to breathe there.

Now, I live in a place with big skies, mountains, and sunsets that take my breath away. The countryside sweeps to the horizon in gracious curves and lines that speak of thousands of years of unchanged stillness. In the desert, life is precious. A black beetle that somehow survives the waterless stretches of sand and scrub brush becomes a tiny incarnation of the miracle of God's design.

The bare silence of the mesa contrasts sharply with the teeming plant and animal life of the valley. Every time I cross that long river bridge in my van, I make the passage from the land of beige and brown to the abundant living green of the river. I have the opportunity to remember another desert climate, where poets wrote that our bodies long for God in a dry and thirsty land-- and that those who meditate on the word of the Lord are like trees planted by streams of water, whose leaves never wither. I recall this promise:

Water shall gush forth in the wilderness
and streams in the desert.
The burning sand will become a pool,
the thirsty ground bubbling springs.
In the haunts where jackals once lay,
grass and reeds and papyrus will grow.

We walk through a world that is a living letter, signed by God's own hand. We need to cherish it and be careful not to obliterate its beauty.

Critique Partners

I have a very interesting and productive group of critique partners.

My first group consists of three women: one writes detective fiction, another writes women's fiction, and the third writes inspirational historical romance.

I belong to another group in which my critique partners are male. The ratio of males to females in the CBA market is very lopsided in favor of women, so it's an unusual privilege to find men in a critique group *at all,* let alone more than one of them. One of these men writes political thrillers; the other writes literary fiction.

My final critique partner is a wonderful woman I met online. She writes contemporary Christian romance.

My motley crew of critique partners is producing some fascinating and divergent responses to my work. The gender difference, in particular, seems to be profound.

The men aren't too fond of the romance-based chapters of my work. (Shock! LOL!) They like the dark, somewhat horrifying world of my hero, who works for a really bad guy.

Some of the women think that the hero's world is too dark and overpowering. They like the romantic chapters.

All of their commentary is valuable. My taste as a writer tends to be more similar to the men's, but I must not forget that I am writing for a female audience. When I step back to look at the big picture, I realize that there is weakness in my heroine's character arc, which is causing me to write more powerfully for my hero. That was not the case in novel #1, so the writing for both hero and heroine was more balanced. I haven't quite figured out how to solve this problem, but I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions!

Angels or Monsters?

Out of the blue, my five-year-old daughter asked: "Mom, are you an angel or a monster, a good guy or a villain?"

Me: (Laughing) "I'm an angel and a good guy. Where did you hear that?"

Daughter: "It was on Heroes. It said "Angels and Monsters, Good Guys and Villains."

We don't allow our daughter to watch Heroes, which is far too gory and dark for children. My husband was recording it on DVR the other day, and she must have noticed the episode title before we switched it off.

Someday when she's older, I might explain that most of us are part angel and part monster, and our job is to feed the angel and starve the monster. But I won't go into that just yet.

Grimm vs. Andersen

While reading the original version of "The Snow Queen" tonight, I was struck by the beauty of Hans Christian Andersen's writing. It's truly breathtaking. I think that I've been heavily influenced by that style without realizing it. Not that I can come anywhere close to his mastery of language, but it hovers rights up there with the King James Bible as a prose style worthy of emulation. And "The Snow Queen" has always been my favorite fairy tale, if I had to pick just one.

The other celebrated authors of fairy tales are the Grimm brothers. And the Grimms, also, have a very special prose style that is simple but gut-wrenching --their dialogue sounds utterly convincing, at times. (I'm laboring under the disadvantage of reading only the English translation, so if any German speakers want to contradict me, go ahead.) Their stories are strangely realistic and mythical at the same time: violent tales of family dysfunction originally published in 1812, before the Victorian era had made such things unmentionable. The prettified, sanitized versions of Grimms' fairy tales are the most common fairy tales in our culture-- Disney tales that end happily in marriage.

What is your favorite fairy tale? And do you like the Grimms' tales or Andersen's tales better? Do you think there is a personal reason why you like one fairy tale best?

Here are some samples. If you have never read an original "The Juniper Tree" or "The Snow Queen," you are missing out! The Grimms and Andersen are writers whom I read to pump up my own awareness of what it means to write well.


The Brothers Grimm

Grimms' Fairy Tales are known for their violence and shocking (if unfortunately realistic) depictions of parental hostility toward children. For example, in the very first edition of the tales, Snow White and Hansel and Gretel were persecuted by their jealous mothers, not by stepmothers. I don't know if the same is true for "The Juniper Tree," which I have linked below, but the horror of that tale stands whether it was originally a mother or a step-mother.

The Juniper Tree

Snow White

The Girl WIthout Hands

Cinderella

Hansel and Gretel


Hans Christian Andersen

If you have only read re-told picture-book versions of Andersen's mid-19th-century tales, the best-kept secret about this author is that, as his middle name hints, he is seriously Christian. The original versions of his tales are often either overtly Christian or disguised Christian parables, like "The Ugly Duckling."

The Snow Queen

The Little Match-Girl

The Emperor's New Suit

The Ugly Duckling

The Brave Tin Soldier

Defending the Faith

I just read a very interesting article about a series of debates on atheism vs. Christianity.

The debaters are Christopher Hitchens, for atheism, and Douglas Wilson, for Christianity.

They first debated one another in a series of letters in Christianity Today; those letters were released in book form in September of last year.

Now, a film documentary is forthcoming in which the two men debate one another for three days in a variety of formal, informal, and personal settings.

According to a witness of the documentary process, Douglas Wilson is unfazed by Christopher Hitchens's well-known penchant for profanity and blasphemous humor. Wilson believes in humor and satirical exchange as a valuable method for apologetics.

Here are the goals that Wilson claims for his debates:
1) to protect and strengthen the faith of the believers who witness the interaction--care for the sheep before the wolves;
2)to rattle and shake the skepticism of those unbelievers present -- till soil and plant seeds;
3)to win the opponent himself.

I'm really looking forward to this documentary. I don't believe I've ever seen two expert debaters lock horns over faith and atheism. I may also have to go look up the Wilson/Hitchens book of letters.

Writers' Spouses

My husband just came into my office praising my new chapter to the skies.

"This is the best chapter you've ever written! It's great!"

I laughed.

When I gave him Chapter 8 a couple of days ago, all he said was: "Good chapter." I got mad. I told him that he didn't have to like it, but I wanted more feedback. No writer lets people continue to read her first draft if the sum total of their response is "Good chapter."

So, when he came in raving about Chapter 9, I couldn't help but be suspicious.

"You're just getting back into my good graces," I said.

"No, I'm not. I came up here because I mean it."

After a minute, I started to believe him. I don't think it's the best chapter I've ever written, but I do believe that he really liked it.

Writers' spouses have a hard road to hoe. ;-)

Female Friends

In high school, I had a large number of female friends. I probably would not have had so many girlfriends in high school except for my attendance at "Hogwarts," the state-funded boarding school I've mentioned before. Because the pool of students there was so academically-oriented, I found many girls with whom I had a great deal in common. I still count some of them among my closest friends.

Though I went to college over a thousand miles away from my high school, I made new female friends and ran with a sizeable, inclusive herd in college. I sang in an all-women's a cappella group, and I also made a lot of girlfriends through my involvement in theater.

Both my high school and my college had this in common: most of the women there were bright, hardworking people with many hobbies and intellectual interests. Their activities and their focus on the outside world meant that there were fewer women who were strictly interested in relationships, cliques, and gossip. That focus did still exist in some groups, of course; I don't think any large community of women will ever be free from that influence. But overall, the girls I knew were quite likely to be interested in ideas and in accomplishment.

I missed my friends terribly when I re-entered "the real world" after grad school. Like many women, I found it difficult to forge new friendships with the strength and trustworthiness of the old. I developed a new appreciation for the many virtues of my old friends, including loyalty, openness, compassion, wit, and intelligence.

Because I have moved twice in the last six years, I have started over twice with forming new local friendships. In Ohio, my friend-life never really clicked into place, probably because I had a new baby and couldn't actively seek out friends the way I should have.

But I'm feeling very encouraged about some friends I've met over the past two years here in our still new-ish state of residence. Yesterday, some of them took me out to a surprise lunch. They're really kind and down-to-earth people whose company I've always enjoyed. Then there are a few women I've *just* met who also possess a number of virtues that make for good friendships. I'm looking forward to exploring and deepening these relationships.

Women need female friends, just as men need to forge relationships with other men. In our highly-mobile society, it takes more effort to "make new friends and keep the old" (as my daughter's Daisy Scout song tells us). But those friends are out there, and if we keep looking, we'll eventually find them.

The Character Name Dilemma

There's a character in my work-in progress whose name keeps morphing, even as I am now one-quarter of the way through the novel.

He's a doctor. Initially, his name was Dr. Robert Loftin. Problem: I took his name from a Dr. Richard Loftin I knew back in my high school years, and I can't get past that distracting link. (This will amuse my friends from high school who read this blog.)

In the search for a non-used name, I tried out "Snowden," which is the name of a wealthy Pittsburgh family of that time. The problem is that I don't like using the names of real families unless I have researched them into the ground. (Ironically, "Dr. Snowden" is the name of ANOTHER guy I knew in high school, but for some reason it doesn't bother me as much.)

Finally, I settled on "Dr. Ludlow," which made me pretty happy. (I like British/Scottish origin "L" names for this particular character.) But then I watched the film version of Washington Square and remembered that the doctor in that Henry James novel is named Ludlow! AAAARGH!

Any suggestions? (This is a good guy, just so you know. I'm not going to use a name like "Lynch" or "Leporelli.")

Literary Fiction Soapbox

Every now and then, I am going to get up on my soapbox about the shortcomings of ABA "literary fiction."

I should explain that I'm a lover of literary classics, but my love finds its chronological limits, in most cases, sometime around 1910. I'm not a fan of modernist literary fiction, and I actively don't like most postmodernist literary fiction. I don't like the strict unspoken rules that govern its plot and style. I may not know *how* the contemporary literary novel will end, but I know it will be unhappy. I know that any work of literary fiction that takes place at a previous time in history will feature the word "entrails," and perhaps, if the author is really hip and earthy, some four-letter words for bodily functions. I know the author will show us convincingly that life is "much nastier than we like to admit." LOL! Just defining some of these unspoken rules makes me laugh.

I just read a very famous, prize-winning work of literary fiction that came out when I was in high school. (That's a couple of decades ago, for those who are counting.)

I found it exhausting. The prose was unrelentingly artistic. There were too many unusual similes; too many "deep thoughts." In my opinion, even literary fiction needs to allow the reader to rest. The author shouldn't turn on her art with a firehose, but instead sprinkle sparingly through the text her beautiful phrasings, striking figures of speech, and philosophical gems.

If you look at literary classics before 1910, you find that they are meant to be READ. They may move more slowly than our novels do today, but great authors of the past knew how to space their description, characterization, and plot so as to create an interesting narrative rhythm. Not every sentence had to be the greatest line ever composed by man.

To be fair, the prize-winning literary work that spawned this particular diatribe IS a couple of decades old. The prose of March by Geraldine Brooks is more recent, and is much more subtle, despite Brooks's entrail-loving tendencies.

What do you think of today's literary fiction? Have you read any contemporary novels that you feel could stand with the classics? And, while I'm at it, what are your favorite classics?

All the President's Deeds: A Non-Partisan Post

Last night, I studied the presidential election of 1824. I needed to figure out whether that election would pop up in any conversations during my novel set in 1825, and if so, which candidates my characters would have supported.

Al Gore thinks he got a raw deal? In 1824, Andrew Jackson beat John Quincy Adams in both the popular vote AND the electoral college. Because there were four candidates, Jackson achieved a plurality in the electoral college, but not a majority. As a result, the election went to the House to be decided.

Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, threw his weight behind John Quincy Adams. JQA won the House vote, and became president from 1825 to 1829!

To say that the Jacksonians of America were angry doesn't begin to describe it. Their opposition basically ruined the JQA presidency and ensured that he was defeated after one term...by Andrew Jackson, in 1829.

I found this story fascinating because JQA is now regarded as one of our less-successful presidents. He was a brilliant man, known to all as a great diplomat with a fine mind. He wrote the Monroe Doctrine while he was Secretary of State for President Monroe. But once he became president, he didn't do much. The Jacksonians swamped Congress in 1827, and that, as they say, was that.

What will be the legacies of our twenty-first century presidents? It's impossible to say yet.

I was totally surprised during the John Kerry/George W. Bush election to hear what seemed to be the entire country acknowledging the merits of Ronald Reagan. Anyone who grew up during the 80's knows that Ronald Reagan was vilified by many, many people during his presidency. I lived in England during part of that period: their anti-Reaganism was beyond bounds. The media depicted him as a doddering, senile cowboy who was going to blow up the whole world. Yet, two decades later, most people seem to accept Reagan's legacy as a good one.

I ask myself what the legacy of George W. Bush will be: will history define him as one of our weak presidents, or as a middling-to-good one? I don't think we can say for sure. The next four years will help to bring his presidency into focus. The deeds of a president send repercussions through history for years and years, and sometimes decades or even centuries.

The legacy of George Bush will be determined largely by what happens during the presidency of Barack Obama.

It's an historic day for America. From a non-partisan perspective, I'm very happy that we are inaugurating our first black president. For the rest of the story, we are all going to have to wait and see.

New Mexico Christian Writers

I've titled this post with a searchable title because as of now, there's no "New Mexico Christian Writers" group. There may be a few small local groups in the state, but we don't have a regional chapter of ACFW, nor do we have any statewide meetings.

I know of a few committed Christian writers who are interested in starting a group of some kind. I recently entered a new critique group with some friends I met at Glorieta who happen to live in my hometown. The only drawback to critique groups is that they must be limited in size. Our group is full, already, with one or two people on a hypothetical "wait list." For most writers, critique groups must be composed of no more than four members. If there are too many people in the group, the critiquing load gets too heavy and begins to interfere with novel progress.

There is ANOTHER kind of writers' group, however, that our critique group may be interested in starting. A writer's fellowship group doesn't participate in critiquing, but instead allows for professional networking, fun, and perhaps guest speakers, if the group is interested in that sort of thing.

If you are reading this post and you live in New Mexico, please let me know if you would have any interest in forming a networking/fellowship group for Christian writers. I'm contemplating an internet presence (perhaps a Facebook group/page) and an occasional coffeehouse meeting in Albuquerque (bimonthly? trimonthly?), and I wonder who else might be interested.

I have a comment alert set up so that even if you comment weeks after this particular post, I will see your comment.

PG for Language

We let our daughter watch disc 3 of The Scarlet Pimpernel with us.

If she has to go to the principal's office for saying:

"Sammy pushed me, deuce take it!"

or

"That's a demmed fine Build-a-Bear."

I take full responsibility.

Small Blessings

My dog's wagging tail and glazed eyes as she viciously chews her tennis ball

My quiet, somewhat messy house, which feels very comfortable

My friends who comment on my blog posts

My little girl's yells of delight about the dog someone brought to church tonight

The children in my class who played with animal puppets and made them "talk" in high voices

The relative warmth of the New Mexican winter

Nice people who take the time to write long responses to authors looking for historical information

A friend at church who put her arm around me as we talked, "just because"



Did you notice your own small blessings today (or yesterday, depending on when you're reading this post)?

Will I Never Learn?

I'm enjoying a good laugh at my own denseness today.

When will I get it through my thick skull that the answer to a casual acquaintance who asks:

"What have you been up to?"

is

"Oh, not much. Housework, errands, you know."

The answer is NOT:

"Well, I've been contacting members of the International Leatherworkers Guild to ask a question about saddles. I want to know if they would have done a specific kind of saddle ornamentation in America in 1825."

Nor is THIS the correct answer:

"I've spent the last three hours learning how to stitch, bevel, emboss, and cut leather as they would have in early America. I also learned how to set buckles and retainer loops, and what to do if you accidentally pierce your own stitching thread with your double needle system. And I learned how to stick flax thread to a hog bristle."

Writer brain fog. It's an occupational hazard. It's not that writers don't have anything to say. It's that frequently, what's on our minds is so bizarre and random that we're better off keeping our mouths shut and sticking to the rote script for small talk.

They Like Jesus, But Not the Church

I just read They Like Jesus, But Not the Church, by Dan Kimball. I was surprised by how much I liked the book and agreed with Kimball's conclusions.

The emerging church movement is complex. I'm not a "joiner," and I would never call myself "emerging." The label encompasses too many beliefs and behaviors, some of which I do not support at all.

I do find it refreshing, however, when I read something that I don't expect to like and instead find it well-reasoned, original, and convincing in many ways. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand what "outreach" means in this day and age.

My favorite of Kimball's points is that he believes that the art of apologetics is not dead--that in fact, what we need is better-educated ordinary Christians who are capable of truly answering the more difficult postmodern questions of the unchurched, like: "Aren't all of the major religions the same? Aren't they all just different ways to the top of the mountain?" Or "Why are Christian churches so sexist?"

He also cautions against the "Christian bubble" that tends to surround people after they join a church and become part of church life. Suddenly, they begin to spend all their time with other Christians. The problem is that if Christians immerse themselves in their own subculture, the non-Christian or unchurched public doesn't have a chance to see the good side of Christians--instead, they only see the cartoonish haters who make the nightly news by holding up disgusting signs at funerals. The news hasn't covered a single one of the hundreds of acts of kindness and unconditional love I've seen from Christian church members, so for the unchurched, those actions might as well not exist. The opinions of the unchurched may not be accurate, but unless we understand the widespread public perception of Christians, we can't do anything to change their misconceptions.

I like this book. I like it a lot. Check it out, if you get a chance. You may not agree with everything in it, but there's lots of food for thought in there.

How about you? Are you a "joiner," or a standoffish type like me who doesn't like to be part of movements? The world needs both types!

Priming the Pump: Movies as Writing Aid

So, if you saw my Facebook status, you know that I watched a movie last night. On a weeknight. Decadence!

It's true that I watched the movie in part as a reward to myself for doing so much writing this week. I also watched it because my husband wasn't home, and I wanted diversion.

I watch movies for another purpose, though. They trigger my sensory imagination for my writing.

Contemporary movies are no good to me for this purpose. It has to be a period piece set between 1820 and 1900. I take that back. I can probably allow some eighteenth-century movies as well, if they take place after 1780 or so.

Contemporary writers are able to constantly gather ideas and materials as they move through everyday life. It's not the same for historical writers--at least not for this one. Only very rarely does our culture provide us with anyone who even remotely resembles the characters who populate historical fiction. Most people don't live their lives based on firm abstract principles anymore--or, if they do, it's not cool to be obvious about it. Virtues skulk around the edges of our society, peeping surreptitiously through the curtains of postmodern ordinariness.

Social custom has changed so drastically that there are few twenty-first century situations that can be transplanted back into the nineteenth century. (Now that I've said that, I challenge myself and you to think of a very contemporary situation and how it could be rewritten in the Victorian period. No fair going medieval. It has to be nineteenth-century to count. If I think of one, I'll post it in the comments section. It would be ideal if I could include text messaging, individualism gone mad, and consumerism.)

Back to the point of this post. If you're writing a period piece, don't hesitate to watch movie after movie set in the time period in question. It will help you when you need to visualize your own settings and the way your characters behave. When your imagined scene becomes almost as vivid to you as a hallucination, it's a LOT easier to write well.

Just be prepared for a spousal backlash at some point. Eventually, they will jump up and down on your latest historical DVD and demand to watch Death Spree III.

As the Spirit Moves

If ANY of my non-believing friends were still reading this blog a few months ago, I'm certain they're gone by now. I've really "gone off the deep end" with my faith posts. But that's OK. It feels good to be able to talk freely about what's really going on in my head and in my soul, and the truth is, I'm often thinking about spiritual matters.

I'm excited about what's going on at our church. I think (to borrow the lyrics of one of my favorite songs) there's a stirring deep within us. Several women have spoken to me recently about wanting something more from our community life. We all want the same thing: authentic relationships with one another as we attempt to mold ourselves in the image of Christ. That means making sure that our conversation is driven by love, not by other motives.

This is encouraging not only because it's great for us as a church body, but because the more we love one another, the more we can share that example with others. We are called to be a light to the world, and one of the ways we do that is by creating a community where people truly care and make time for one another. We often fall short, but it is so exciting to see people try wholeheartedly to live together in Christ!

My co-teacher and I taught the last "stop gossip and criticism class" tonight. It's bittersweet to end a class that has meant a great deal to all of us, but I'm also filled with anticipation as I wonder how the Spirit will move next...

Time

Refreshed by my New Year's resolution to slow down and simplify, I'm paying attention to my daughter in a way that eluded me in the hectic weeks before Christmas. Sure, I spent time with her in December, and I always talk to her and respond to her needs. Still, during the holidays, a litle corner of my mind was always preoccupied by whatever pressing task faced me that day.

What a difference it makes now, to set aside everything else and give her my undivided mind and my unmeasured time. I realize again how I rob my family and myself when I'm too busy to breathe. Her presence is such a joy to me when I just listen to her thoughts, play games, or do schoolwork with her.

Meditating on this precious "slow time," I decided to see what the Bible had to say about slow time.

The passage that leapt out at me was Ecclesiastes 3, the most celebrated scriptural description of human time. It's one of those passages so rich that it gives the reader something different upon each reading. Tonight, I read it as an encouragement to take our slow time--as a speech addressed to those of us who want to make everything happen too quickly, who want to do too many things at once:

To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven...

I enjoyed reading the "time" sequences that follow, pausing especially on "a time to keep and a time to throw away." But what really took my breath away in this gorgeous Old Testament poetry was the next part:

What does the worker gain from his toil?
I have seen the burden God has laid on men.
He has made everything beautiful in its time.
He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and to do good while they live.
That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil--this is the gift of God.

This passage moves me to tears.

Some Bible scholars like to say that Ecclesiastes is the book of the "natural man," as if everything in it is suspect because the writer's vision is limited and he doesn't know true redemption and eternal life.

I see it instead as a book that contains many poignant reminders of the limits of our own vision. The writer's spots of blindness are matched by flashes of insight, such as the passage above. There is such wisdom and humility in these five verses that I will have to think on them for days. There's time for that.

An Impressive Audio Bible for Teens

If I ever get a bad product from Thomas Nelson in my capacity as a review-blogger, you can be sure that I will tell you so. Just thought I'd clarify that.

The Word of Promise New Testament Audio Bible for Adults won the 2008 Christian Book of the Year Award.

The product I'm reviewing today, however, is the next version of the Word of Promise project, the Next Generation New Testament. As its name implies, this audio Bible targets teens with its youthful cast members from popular shows and films ("High School Musical," "Hannah Montana," "Lord of the Rings," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," etc.)

I'm not the target audience for this dramatized radio theater-style Bible, and neither are you, most likely. But your children may be. Overall, I think the project succeeds brilliantly in its aim, which is to present the entire New Testament in a way that makes it appealing to teens.

I listened to the Mp3 version, which comes with a Behind the Scenes DVD. I found the DVD quite interesting: it includes commentary from producer, director, cast, a description of the purpose of the project from various cast members, and an explanation of how they did sound effects and music. The director, John Kirby, is the same man who worked with Jim Caviezel on the adult version. I appreciated his perspective on working with the cast. He and 2nd Unit Director Jeff Lupetin were grateful for the chance to share the Bible with a significant number of people who had never heard the stories they were acting out.

The cast is absolutely huge. I counted approximately 90 supporting actors listed in the credits, in addition to the fifteen “headliners” like Jordin Sparks, Corbin Bleu, and Emily Osment. Casting so many actors was an excellent decision, as their unique voices make the recording very easy to follow.

Some of the actors are Christians, including Cody Linley, who plays Jesus. I found his presentation of Jesus to be appropriate for teenagers, though not for an adult audience. There’s something to be said for a young actor who delivers the words of Jesus in the way that a teenager might imagine them being said, rather than with the more mature delivery of someone like Jim Caviezel. Cody Linley is very, very sincere and idealistic, wth less humor and dryness than I imagine in the real Jesus. But I can imagine that his interpretation might go over well with young people, who probably empathize most with Jesus’ passion and with his revolutionary desire to change and to heal people. It's us old folks who like his more ordinary moments and his simple humanity.

The best vocal performer on the project was not a surprise to me. Sean Astin amply proved his acting ability in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He's an excellent narrator, his voice varied and mellow, easy to understand without becoming soporific.

A subtle musical soundtrack underscores the vocal tracks, making the listening experience more pleasant and adding atmosphere. The music also builds tension when the Passion begins, with simple percussion and eastern-sounding low pipes. Sound effects like walking and door noises enhance realism for the listener.

This project is so admirably suited to its goals that I think my next task is to convince Thomas Nelson to let me review the adult version with Jim Caviezel. :-) That's the one I'd like to add to my collection!

Live, or Memorex?

Over the Christmas break, I visited a church and observed something that disturbed me. The church was telecasting the image of their preacher live from one auditorium to another. I was worshipping in the auditorium in which he was a high-definition video image rather than a flesh-and-blood creature. It was especially shocking because the video image had been engineered to create the illusion that the preacher was actually present. The three-dimensional, life-size image was so convincing that it took me a minute to even realize what I was witnessing. My husband sat in another part of the auditorium and actually never realized that he was watching a digital image until I told him afterwards. The other thing I noticed was that the worship was very flat--there was not a great deal of participation, and people looked unengaged. The music was so loud and "performed" and the live telecast so impersonal that the presence of the congregation made absolutely no difference in the form of the worship service. The congregation was irrelevant to the public acts that were taking place in that space.

I spoke to some church members about this practice to find out why they had decided to worship in this way. They told me that good preachers were getting harder and harder to find. They wanted to open another church campus, and it would be too expensive and difficult to hire another great preacher, so they decided to have him go back and forth between the campuses and supplement his live visits with telecasts.

I spent my undergrad years studying the difference between live, flesh-and-blood performance and non-live media like film. Worship, like live theater, is a communal act. When a living, breathing preacher takes the stage amidst a group of unique human beings, the chemistry between those people is unique. The "audience" matters. They affect the delivery of the message. They are conscious of one another and their mutual, voluntary membership in this very special listening-and-responding fellowship.

Worship is incarnational. It brings our physical bodies into close proximity with other bodies. It asks us to worship God together, not as passive spectators but as praying and singing people. For me, the sound of my sisters and brothers singing is heavenly, whether they sing well or not. Part of the worship experience is the buzz of their conversation and the sound of their laughter when someone onstage makes a joke. We are a brother-and-sisterhood. We understand that we are there to love one another and to spend time together as a family, whether we happen to be having a spat with someone at the moment or not. Sometimes we all weep together for one of our people. I've seen it happen on several occasions, both joyful and sad. Literally the entire five-hundred person church has been in tears, though some are more surreptitious than others. :-)

I would rather hear a boring sermon from a member of our fellowship than a video transmission of the best preacher in America.

I'm not making a judgment on the church I visited, because I don't know them well enough to ascertain what was truly happening on that day. Instead, I'm meditating on the general topic of virtual, passive worship. Isn't it antithetical to what the ministry of Christ was all about? Wasn't he always proving to people that he was here in the flesh? Wasn't he always eating and drinking in fellowship with all people, in full awareness that what happens to our physical bodies has a sacramental effect on our spirits?

It's tempting to think that it's OK to use all the tools of contemporary technology to do whatever we want with our worship. The people at that church told me that "the younger generation is used to it." But I'm not sure they really know what they're talking about. We're not talking about a choice of worship style, or debating hymns versus praise music. The difference between live presence and virtual image doesn't vanish because our teenagers spend a lot of time on computers. That difference--the incarnational difference--is a fact of our human existence. It's a fact of our faith.

"Is He in Heaven, Or Is He in Hell?"

If you've ever read The Scarlet Pimpernel, you can finish my title quotation with eighteenth-century aplomb.

I can't believe I have watched movies for two nights in a row! It has been a long, long while since I took that much recreational time in front of the TV.

I have another two-thumbs-up movie recommendation for those who like period pieces. The 1999 Scarlet Pimpernel with Richard E. Grant is excellent. I love the fact that they actually cast a guy who can be convincingly wimpy.

I also love the plot about marital dissension and reconciliation. And I really love seeing that Marguerite Blakeney adores her husband not because he's a hero, but because he's half-hero and half-fop. It's just like Lois Lane not being able to decide between Clark Kent or Superman.

Anyone else seen any good movies over the holidays?

Nim's Island: Characters Who Inspire Their Authors

We watched Nim's Island last night.

It reminded me of a Disney movie from my childhood. It's quite entertaining, but it includes a number of magical realist moments that aren't common in putatively-realistic children's movies today. For example, Nim, the young heroine, forms strong bonds with a number of wild animals on her deserted island. They do her bidding, performing tasks that require high intelligence. I enjoyed this aspect of the movie, and it really captured my daughter's attention as well. (She stayed up until 11:00pm watching the film, which is impressive for a child whose bedtime is usually 8:30pm.)

Nim is a strong role model for girls. She's homeschooled and independent; she draws on her knowledge of ancient history to build catapults. She can climb and rappel, and she makes her own food, including meal worms. :-)

I found the movie's plot compelling for another reason. Jodie Foster's character is an author who writes adventure novels. Though the hero of her novels is a fearless world-traveler, the author herself is agoraphobic and borderline obsessive-compulsive. She hardly leaves her apartment.

As the story unfolds, the author must face her fears. She carries on a running dialogue with the imaginary hero of her novel, who challenges her to be bold and to acquire the personal qualities she writes about.

I've found similar inspiration from my own characeters.

Once upon a time, I had to take a stand for something. It wasn't easy. I knew there would be a price to pay; there always is. If it weren't so difficult, more people would do it.

One thought helped me get through the insomnia and the stress-induced physical illness. I asked myself: "What business do I have writing about courage in my novels if I don't even have the courage to take these consequences?"

The characters in my first novel risk a great deal to do what's right. They're willing to suffer to help others. They present me with a constant example of what it means to live out one's convictions.

The inspiration of inspirational fiction isn't just for readers.