Christian fantasy literature, and commentary on assorted subjects
From January 13, 2016
Let’s say you’re writing an epic novel of the events leading up to Noah’s Flood, thousands of years ago.
Can you envision any circumstances which would induce you to employ the phrase, “strike zone”?
Well, yeah, if you want to remind the reader that he’s not really visiting the ancient world, but just reading a stupid book about it.
My friend “Abner,” in his amazingly successful novelizations of Biblical events, resorts to every anachronism he can think of. Here are a few that light up the second book in his series.
“It depends on what ‘is’ is.”
“Hope and change”
“Fundamental transformation of society”
God accused of “colonialism, imperialism, sexism, speciesism” and also described as “macho”
“I feel your pain”
“You didn’t build that”
“The 99 percent”
“We”–the speaker is an archangel–“saved your rear ends”
All right, let’s be fair: he has stopped short of equipping Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, with cell phones. Well, who would they call? And a cell phone might be a nuisance if pockets haven’t been invented yet.
Strike zone? Macho?
Please, whoever is out there thinking about writing a novel–if you’re writing fantasy or historical fiction, please do not riddle it with stupid and inane anachronisms that won’t make a lick of sense to a reader ten years from now but which surely will, for the time being, remind the current reader that all he’s doing is reading a mutton-headed comic book without pictures.
I must point out that I am paid to read these books. Otherwise I could not endure it.
From February 12, 2018
One of the things I love about my work for the Chalcedon Foundation is that I’m always learning while I’m working. Not always learning entirely new things. More often, being shown something I really should have noticed before.
Today, editing an article by Martin Selbrede, I was reminded of the difference between “ye” and “thou,” especially in the King James Version of the Bible. “Ye” is plural–“all of you”–and “thou” is singular–“you, to whom I’m speaking.”
Which brings up Jesus’ warning to “the angel of the church in Laodicea” in Revelation Chapter 3. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth…” (verses 15-16).
How many times have I read that passage without realizing that Our Lord was not speaking to the whole congregation of that church, but only to a specific person–the “angel” of that church? And I think we can take “angel” not literally, but as a term for a human being who was that church’s guiding spirit–a pastor, a bishop, maybe even an apostle.
Indeed, all the warnings to all seven of the churches addressed in Chapters 2 and 3 are given to the angels of those churches. That would seem to imply a serious problem with the church leadership throughout Asia Minor–not at all surprising, in the light of the various Epistles by Paul, Peter, James, and John.
Now I have to re-order my thinking about those two chapters in Revelation. Maybe because I live in an age in which so much church leadership is for the birds–if even the birds would have it–Christ’s warning suddenly becomes more relevant. More timely. To whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48) applies to everyone of high position.
Some of the angels of today’s churches are going to have to do an awful lot of fast talking, come Judgment Day.
Today was a quiet and easy day.
I had a brief talk with my sister in law and quite a long talk with my brother in law. He lives in a wooded area in Pennsylvania and is a retired geologist. He does really beautiful nature photography. It was nice to catch up. I will have to post some of his pictures on the blog.
It rained heavily here today, but it didn’t matter as I had planned a non-active day. That can do one good once in a while.
Tomorrow will be very busy–this whole week will.
Once again, have a happy and blessed Easter.
God bless everybody.
Patty
From June 9, 2012
Let me just get this off my chest…
The recently-concluded world championship chess match between Vishy Anand (India) and Boris Gelfand (Israel)–in which Anand successfully defended his title–was mind-crushingly dull. And if they keep it up like this, top-level chess will go extinct.
First they played twelve regular games of chess–ten of which were draws! Each won a single game, leading to a series of “rapid chess” (in which less time is allowed) to break the tie. Anand won one of those and Gelfand didn’t, sparing the world a tie-breaking series of “blitz” (real, real fast chess). And if that had wound up tied, too? Flip a coin? Perhaps a game of battleship?
Don’t even ask what the purse was for this stultifying exhibition of futility. It would only depress you if you knew.
These were boring games! But in championship-quality chess, everybody trains with chess computers using the same software, everybody endlessly studies everybody else’s games, and the world’s top masters wind up playing the same tedious moves all the time, each hoping the other guy falls into a cataleptic trance or something… And with so much money at stake, no one dares try anything original.
Imagine any other sport in which 10 out of 12 games end in a tie. Maybe if they knocked $50,000 off the purse for each draw, the players would change their ways. Or had these big impatient guys on hand to beat the masters up every time they played to a draw… I dunno, but they’ve got to do something. And just about anything would be an improvement.