A Slice of PIE: Thomas Nelson Opts for Blockbusters ONLY

As announced last Wednesday (Wednesday, April 23, 2008):

FROM WHERE I SIT
the blog of Michael S. Hyatt, President & CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers:

“As you may have read in Publishers Weekly or the Tennessean, yesterday we laid off slightly less than 10% of our workforce. This was not an easy decision. It fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say this was one of the most difficult decisions of my tenure Thomas Nelson.

“Of course, layoffs are not that notable, especially in the current economy. You can’t open the paper without reading about companies laying off thousands and—in some cases—tens of thousands of employees. Sadly, it’s now become routine. Until it happens to you. Or someone you care about.

“But, honestly, our layoffs weren’t the result of the economy. They didn’t happen because we had a bad year. (Our fiscal year ended March 31.) To be sure, it wasn’t a great year. But it was decent. We saw modest growth on the top line (about 4%) and really good growth on the bottom line (about 14%).

“So then, if it wasn’t the economy, why did we feel the need to layoff these good people? Because we have changed our business strategy:

As I have previously announced, we are cutting our new title introductions in half for this year.
This change is designed to align us with a shift in the marketplace toward fewer titles generating more of the sales. It will also enable us to invest most of our resources where we can generate the biggest returns.”

As the publisher of such mega blockbusting Science Fiction, Fantasy, Thriller and Horror authors as Ted Dekker, T. Davis Bunn, Jerry B. Jenkins and Stephen Lawhead, it's sad to note here that it appears, despite the softening language, that Thomas Nelson will ONLY be opting to publish

ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN X-IAN BLOCKBUSTER BOOKS FROM NOW ON...

A sad day for Christ and His followers when business concerns outweigh the leading of the Holy Spirit...oh, I know that have to make a profit, please stockholders and put food on the table. But...but...but...I noticed Mr. Hyatt didn't mention anywhere, "After much prayer and fasting..." or "During prayer time for us and our staff, we feel the Lord leading us to..."

Sad, sad, very, very, sad...

STAR TREK vs STAR WARS: Who Mourns for Democracy?

For all its vaunted egalitarian democracy, no one on the USS Enterprise ever cast a vote in an election -- at least not in any episode I can locate. The Federation Council just seems to have its delegates appear out of nowhere, listen to people talk, stop assassinations and censure captains. Never once are proceedings of merit displayed.

For all we know, the shape-shifting, evil Founders appoint the Federation Council then manipulates it to do their bidding. STAR TREK never once shows us government in action. Rather it shows Star Fleet waging war at every turn with a "fire at will" attitude.

At least STAR WARS shows government happening. In fact, we know from episode one, that the body politic can take out a Chancellor (related to the German government-type chancellor rather than University of La Dee Dah type) with a vote of "no confidence". We also know that on at least one world queens are elected officials rather than ascendant (though in OUR galaxy, queens become monarch either by marriage or birth and are typically rulers for life).

In STAR WARS, for all its mercenary vigilantism and heavy breathing sorcerers, emperors make some attempt to let us know that government works -- however poorly and no matter how prone it is to coup d'etat and corruption.

STAR TREK talks democracy but exhibits a face that is military junta in all but name with members wearing military uniforms as often as not. If not junta, then it's clear from the movies and shows that Star Fleet is the be-all and end-all of Federation civilization. Even Memory Alpha, the STAR TREK trivia site has trouble pinning down the actual location of the Federation Council Chambers -- stating that they're either in Paris or San Francisco (my guess is that there was a transporter accident and the Council resides in both places...)

STAR TREK's vague Federation Council sounds as if it's a situation ripe for abuse. At least in the STAR WARS' Republican Senate, even the bad guys have to cut through the red tape of bureaucracy.

Which one sounds more realistic to you?

WRITING ADVICE: Absolutely Basic Plot

For me to reach the end of my story, my bottom line with plot is the "O" word.

I know, I know, you're an organic writer and you have to write as the spirit moves you or the muse sings to you or when you're in the mood.

But most writers know that the Spirit blows where it will, the muse is fickle and "the mood" is sometimes as elusive as holiday cheer at 3:30 pm Christmas Eve.

WHEN these disasters occur, you need a back up plan. Somewhere, written down, you need your Outline with the basic plot of your story.

Donald Maass in WRITING THE BREAK OUT NOVEL (2001, Writers Digest Books), says that a plot must have five basic elements: a sympathetic character, a complex conflict, constant development, a main event or climax and a satisfactory ending.

While I'm sure some people skillfully allow plot to grow with naturally from one event to another, I'm not gifted in that way. I need an outline spread out in front of me to keep an eye on so that I'll safely reach my final destination: The End.

WRITING ADVICE: WISDOM vs POPULARITY

Couple of things before I launch into my Flashicle:

1) Nobody knows what a "Flashicle" is, so it never gets googled. I'm changing the lead to WRITING ADVICE FLASHICLE...just so I'll get googled by people looking for writing advice.

2) Bruce Bethke, a friend of mine both on and off the Web, said on his blog on Wednesday, April 9, 2008: "So blogging takes the back burner. Yet blogging can't take the back burner, can it? I mean, ya gotta keep those clicks coming! My readership drops off exponentially every day I don't post a new and substantial article, but only rebuilds linearly when I resume posting meaty, beefy, daily chunks. No wonder bloggers are committing karoshi at the keyboard..." (http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/) I will be blogging more regularly with a few new features.

And now, back to our irregularly scheduled blog...

My first thought about people not commenting on my flashicles was that it was because I wasn't popular (wah, wah, wah). My second thoughts a few nights ago were that it was because I wasn't blogging often enough (see above).

All this thought about a new PIE led to wondering what a reader might SEE when they click on my webpage. Originally, they would have seen something about me, something about my archives (not very impressive) and something about my links. I changed all of those around and added a few of my writing credentials.

As well, I noticed that my PIEs got more comments when I took on icons like Star Wars, Star Trek and religion. While I've always tried to tie religion and SF together, my ICONS haven't been big enough, so in the future look for me to pound on DUNE, MILES VORKOSIGAN, PETER HAMILTON and JOHN VARLEY. And look for the titles on their works to be displayed a bit more prominently.

Last of all, I'd just like to say that the writing hints I throw out have been an attempt at distilling the wisdom of what I've read from the REALLY famous people. Not necessarily new stuff, and certainly not my original ideas. Rather my intent has always been to MAKE IT INTO BITE-SIZED PIECES. Now that I've done some redesign, we'll see what happens.

For now, I'm going to stay with the simple formatting -- it's clear, it's clean and it doesn't do much to detract from what I have to say. Besides, two people I respect immensely -- author Bruce Bethke and agent Nathan Bransford ( http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/ ) use the same one I picked. So, there, *thbttthbtt* (comic book alliteration for that sound you make with your tongue when you're sticking it out at someone.) That's all for now. Nothing particularly irritating here except when I got a little whiney there...

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT = SPIRITUAL ADVANCEMENT?

"If they're more advanced than us, they should be nearer the Creator for that reason," said Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins as he pondered the Martian invasion in the 1953 classic, WAR OF THE WORLDS. When I first heard this line years ago, I was thrilled. As an evangelical Christian with a bent toward SF and (admittedly small doses of) F, I felt deeply connected to this sentiment.

I knew that H. G. Wells was probably spinning in his grave at this misrepresentation of his work. I thought that the belief in God exhibited (in the 1953 version) by Uncle Matthew, the two hymns ("Now Thank We All Our God" and "Abide With Me") as well as "...God in his wisdom..." gave secular credence to my beliefs. I also happen to believe that these sentiments were the reason Speilberg, Friedman and Koepp destroyed a church in intimate and loving detail as the "martians" emerged from the ground in their 2005 remake.

But lately, I'm less sure that Pastor Dr. Collins' observations had as fine an implication as I first thought. Were Haskin and Lyndon actually trying to say that as technology moves Humanity forward, we will BECOME more like gods? If so, then my rejoicing has turned to bitter ashes and sackcloth of mourning because I was seduced by this fraudulent "man of God" -- who was actually a Man of the god Science. Science as Religion isn't a new idea. Asimov uses it in FOUNDATION, the original "first" of the 10 book Foundation Series. While the span of time is unrelated, the culture that spawned the movie (1953) and the books (1951) is the same: an Age of Wonder in which Science could do no wrong.

Is the message of WOTW (1953) that technological advancement equals spiritual advancement because our understanding of the universe leads inevitably to a deeper faith in God? Or is it that technological advancement equal spiritual advancement as Man works to BECOME God?

It no longer matters what Haskin and Lyndon meant -- for good or ill, the latter is where our culture is now. We seek to use every means at our disposal to create ourselves as undisputed rulers of the universe -- and much of our SF/F supports and reflects that effort. Pastor Dr. Collins' words might then be recreated as well: "If we've become so advanced, we should nearly be the Creator for that reason."

Sackcloth and ashes, anyone?

WRITING ADVICE: Non-Serious Serious Non-fiction

March 11, 2008 New York Times Top 5 at a Glance

1. LOSING IT, by Valerie Bertinelli ("Funny and candid...")
2. BEAUTIFUL BOY, by David Sheff ("...honest, hopeful...")
3. STORI TELLING, by Tori Spelling with Hilary Liftin ("...frankness and humor...")
4. IN DEFENSE OF FOOD, by Michael Pollan ("Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.")
5. LIBERAL FASCISM, by Jonah Goldberg ("...shocking and hilarious.")

And there you have it -- if you're going to write serious non-fiction, you have to be funny.

Most of my own published non-fiction uses humor to make a point -- in fact, two of my three major sales to Stan Schmidt at ANALOG SCIENCE FICTION AND FACT are fictionalized, funny takes on serious problems: Americans ignoring "minor" laws like speed limits and the increasing number of "consumer warnings". My book, SIMPLE SCIENCE SERMONS FOR BIG AND LITTLE KIDS has been available now for a decade and uses wry commentary melded with scientific facts to bring Christian ideas into clearer light.

How do you do funny? There's a number of ways, but the most common is to say something connected to your subject -- but on an unexpected tangent. Most jokes follow this pattern. Another way is to "do" something visually unexpected. Carol Burnette, Seinfeld, Reba and the entire Saturday Night Live crew are all masters at this; Lucille Ball was undisputed Empress for the ridiculous images she set up -- you can do that in print as well, but nothing is quite as funny as a pie-in-the-face or a someone slipping on a banana peel.

So: if you want to write serious, be funny!

STAR WARS vs STAR TREK: Fomenting Jihad in the Republic

Far, far away from promoting Zen Buddhist ideals of peace and tolerance, the world of Star Wars foments fundamentalist jihad.

From the all-powerful dominance of the Jedi Knights of the Old Republic (and their looming cathedral and sanctimonius pronouncements) to Grand Moff Tarkin’s proclamation that “The last vestiges of the old Republic have been swept away”, George Lucas sets the stage for a sort of “Force-powered” religious jihad or struggle. There is no tolerance in either the republic or the Empire. There is even less difference between the atrocities committed by the fictional crusaders of Lucas’ universe (the destruction of Alderaan and the attempted extermination of the Endorians) and the atrocities leveled at historical crusaders in the real world. This world of Star Wars is set up to perpetuate the idea that whatever religion has the most light sabers, wins.

This religious fundamentalism may in fact go hand-in-hand with Lucas’ worldview regarding government: “But there's probably no better form of government than a good despot."-- George Lucas (New York Times interview, March 1999) http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html

Contrast this to the religions of Roddenberry’s United Federation of Planets in Star Trek. Humans have no overt religion and despite the series creator’s atheism, the sense that comes across is that Human religions have learned to get along with each other. Other aliens have religions as well: Bajor’s Prophets; the Klingon’s remarkably “Catholic” faith; Vulcan mysticism; American capitalism taken only to a bit more of an extreme on Ferenginar; even Cardassia’s family-worship – yet none of these appear to have sects within themselves and there is no one “force” or Council enforcing the observance of particular forms. While there may still be some religious strife, it appears to be minor. No one on Star Trek has attempted to strangle anyone else using the dark side of anything.

So why is Star Wars still more popular than Star Trek? Why do people still go out at Halloween dressed as Wookies and Obi Wan Kenobi rather than as Trill or Admiral Cartwright? Is it a failing that Lucas tapped into – that we prefer despots to democracy? Or is it a result of the Star Wars meme (As defined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976): "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation." "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. ...” http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/chain-letter/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNEwcjwYR623FklHq8pPcVxn-aS30Q ) that has infected the US as a result of millions of men, women and children watching the movies over and over and over…

WRITING ADVICE: *UGH!* to Prescriptive Writing Books

Ugh!

That's my response to writing books that prescribe exact formulas and imply that This Time, You'll Make It. THIS is the way to Do It!

"It" of course is To Get Really Well Published.

So -- what's the difference between the book I checked out from the library this week on the subject of weekend novel writing and say:

FONDLING YOUR MUSE (by John Warner which is inspirationally hysterical),

BEGINNINGS, MIDDLES AND ENDS (by Nancy Kress which is gently instructive),

STEPHEN KING ON WRITING (which is bizarre and entertaining),

HOW TO WRITE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY (by Orson Scott Card which is fundamentally meant to be underlined and dog-eared),

COMEDY WRITING SECRETS (by Melvin Herlitzer which is a sober study of why stuff is funny),

THE FIRST FIVE PAGES (by Noah Lukeman which was a startlingly sensible revelation),

WRITING THE BREAK OUT NOVEL (by Donald Maass which made me stop breathing once or twice in awe),

and ALIENS AND SOCIETIES (by Stanley Schmidt which is a permanent reference)?

I can put my finger right on it!

It's attitude.

The attitude of a writer is conveyed by the tone of the book. The tone is an outgrowth of the writer's personality (which might be a public persona or the Real McCoy). Personality determines if the writer heaves themselves up in front of a room of hopefuls who Need To Be Taught The Right Way To Write. Personality determines whether the writer slips up alongside you and points out the places you need to grow.

For me, attitude is the difference between a televangelist preaching to an electronic audience (anyone else see the irony here?) and a street missionary who, after you've done a neighborhood cleanup on Earth Day together, invites you out for a cuppa or a soda and asks why YOU came to clean up other people's trash and when you ask (knowing full well what's about to happen, but not minding 'cause they seem nice, if deluded), they tell you why they came.

The televangelist and the Right Way To Do It bug the heck out of me!

The street missionary and the hysterical, instructive, bizarre, dog-eared, sober, sensible, awe-inspiring and permanent I'm glad to listen to. Even though they are total strangers -- they seem like they CARE.

GALILEO WAS A CHRISTIAN AND MAYBE ALIENS ARE, TOO!

In this five part series, we’ve looked at what I’ve started to call…

The Four Gospels of Science Fiction

The First: Humanity can connect with a universal, non-personified force
The Second: Humanity is ultimately perfectible
The Third: Humanity can transcend its Humanity
The Fourth: Humanity will leave earth, its religion and philosophies behind

I think these gospels are both dangerous and actively promoted by the SF/scifi community.
The basis for this critical observation is Psalm 73:8-9: “They mock and speak wickedly of oppression. They speak from on high. They have set their mouths above the heavens and their tongues parade through all the earth.” I believe that many SF/scifi writers have set themselves up as the promoters of an “updated” form of religion that people find easier to swallow than Christianity. They do this through stories and movies. It’s easy to slip philosophy into SF/scifi. C. S. Lewis, himself a science fiction and fantasy writer said, “…any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people’s minds under the cover of romance [SF was known at first as “scientific romance”] without their knowing it.” (LETTERS OF C. S. LEWIS)

There is, however, one other possibility. Any mathematician has to grant that there is some probability – however infinitesimal – that Jesus will not only survive the trip off Earth, but that there might be other life Out There that believes that God’s Incarnate Son came to Earth so redeem sinful Humanity. Even so, before we reach those aliens, we’ll colonize near space, the Moon, Mars and the other planets, moons and perhaps even the atmosphere of Jupiter or Saturn. We will obviously have to answer some tough questions about the promulgation of our faith in the colonies and on the worlds of the Solar System. We will have to defend our requests and choices to commanders, administrators, councils, kings or presidents when they ask, “It costs money and materiel to make the crosses, provide air, give space and provide time for you to do something that gives no physical benefit to the colony. Why should I grant you a permit to start a Christian Church here? It provides no physical advantage to the colony and probably even promotes division among the people!” However, I think that those questions were already answered when Humans spread across Earth. The Church followed – and at times led – the exploration of the frontiers on this planet. Despite the intense secular focus on slavery, smallpox and slaughter – occasionally the Church did it RIGHT and brought transcriptions of unwritten languages, medical care, education and a vision of a broader world. We know what Humans did with their faith on Earth. What will we do with it in space?

So – what if we meet intelligences in the skies of Jupiter – aliens in our own star system? Seeing that they’re local, did Jesus die for them? An intriguing possibility might be posed by Ezra 9:6, which says, "O my God, I am too ashamed and disgraced to lift up my face to you, my God, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens.” Does this mean that the sins of Humanity fell on ALL of creation – the heavens (stars, planets, galaxies, the universe), causing it all to Fall? If that were true, would the redemption of Jesus Christ have spread “to the heavens” from Earth? I think it’s at least a possibility…

Hang with me for a moment and suspend whatever disbelief you have and agree that God created other aliens. Join C.S. Lewis and me and agree that there is a possibility that there are unfallen aliens Out There. These aliens faced their Obedience Test. They passed and have remained in perfect communion with God. “The doctrine of the Incarnation would conflict with what we know of this vast universe only if we knew also that there were other rational species in it who had, like us, fallen and who needed redemption…and had not been vouchsafed it…It may be full of life that needs no redemption. It may be full of life that has been redeemed. It may be full of things quite other than life which satisfy the Divine Wisdom in fashions one cannot conceive.” (“Dogma and the Universe”, GOD IN THE DOCK) Lewis explores this in PERELANDRA. I will be exploring it more in my own fiction.

Finally, when we DO open a Discover Church (http://www.discoverchurchnetwork.org/ ) in the International Space Station or on the Moon or on Mars or in the clouds of Jupiter – and if we meet aliens, then Psalm 57:10 perhaps speaks most hopefully: “For great is your love, reaching to the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the skies.”

The question I ask the brethren – and the sistern ;-) is: Do you think we’ll do better reaching aliens than we did reaching Muslims and Jews during the Crusades or reaching out to science fiction readers today?

{Post Script: An ancillary Gospel to the 4GoSF might be summarized as: Smear The Church And Chance You Get! In testament to this, I offer the following: “DAVA SOBEL (Author, Galileo's Daughter): Galileo was honest when he said that the Bible was the true word of God. He just didn't think it was a good astronomy textbook.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2912_galileo.html) SO! The great Galileo believed in God! Not ONLY did he believe in God but apparently that the Bible is God’s word. All I’ve ever heard from the science media is that the Church was stupid, hateful, small-minded and hated Galileo. It may have been all that, but by extension, the scientific establishment has allowed us to believe that Galileo hated the Church in return. And that appears to NOT be true, either. Hmmmm….how many other hatreds are both sides willing to propagate?}

JESUS LOST IN SPACE

The Third Gospel of SF is that Jesus was the founder of an Earth-based religion that will disappear when we leave the planet. Two of the best-known proponents of this viewpoint are Isaac Asimov and Anne McCaffrey.

Asimov is generally acknowledged to be one of the three most influential SF writers in the world (Clarke and Heinlein are the other two). He is an avowed atheist: “I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.” (http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/Isaac_Asimov.html)
As an atheist, the worlds he created: The Foundation books, the Robot books and dozens of others, (along with 1600 science fact articles) left Jesus behind on Earth as “human religion”. As an apostle of the Fourth Gospel of SF, his influence is far-reaching even today, sixteen years after his death.

In a 1994 letter, I asked SF writer and creator of the multivolume, incredibly popular DRAGONRIDERS OF PERN® series (over 21,000,000 copies of her books on the shelves of the English-speaking world), “Pern has a noticeable absence of the religious traditions of present-day Earth. Does this absence reflect a belief that Humans will outgrow such trappings?” She replied, “The absence of religion on Pern was deliberate…The need to blame a superior being for the vicissitudes of life might help the ignorant and untutored but I do not wish to be counted in that number. Nor will I impose my value judgments on others…therefore I leave religion off Pern!”

Theology – or lack of theology – bashing isn’t my forte, so I’ll leave that to someone who knows theology better. My biggest qualm is and always has been the size of the platform from which the Four Gospels of SF are proclaimed. Psalm 71 says it best: “They have set their mouth above the heavens and their tongue parades through all the earth.” At any rate, for the sake of my beliefs and for the high probability that several in the SF community will find them irritating, I’d just like to point out that it’s impossible to leave Jesus behind on Earth – no matter how much we want to.

2 Peter 3:8 says, “But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.” Based on this and other verses, I believe that God is outside of time and does not experience it in a linear way as we do. Because Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), Jesus is the same way – outside of time.

Because He is outside of time, He is most likely outside of space as well because, according to contemporary physics: “In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the space-time continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime)

Now, let’s see if I can explain my belief clearly:

a) Jesus stepped into linear time and lived for 33 years on Earth in a linear fashion

b) Jesus performed miracles on Earth, taught, was crucified, died and was buried on Earth

c) He went to hell, returned to heaven and then rose from the grave on Earth, defeating sin and reclaiming Humans as His children

d) While doing all of this, He remained both fully human and fully God and as God, He was outside of time

e) Given what I believe, Jesus was God, outside of time and space

f) Outside of time and space, He exists, so that when we go into space, we will find it impossible to “leave Jesus behind” -- because he's already there.

…and as much as I love to hear my own voice, that’s all I can think of to say on the topic!