A Rebuttal of Chip MacGregor’s Opinion

Edited April, 2008. This post and its follow-up continue to get hits nearly two years after the fact. I’ve been tempted to delete the post but decided instead to write an addendum. About six months ago, Chip MacGregor (who is once again an agent, not an editor) wrote a semi-public apology for his use of humor at the expense of others. I say “semi-public” because his fairly long confession was posted to a writers’ email loop, one with guidelines restricting us from passing along posts without permission.

I thought perhaps Chip would post the essence of his apology on his own blog, but he has chosen not to. I respect that. I only mention this here now because I don’t want the portion of this old post about his manner of writing, and especially the comments that follow, to damage anyone’s opinion of him. He has proved to be a normal Christian—one who makes mistakes, repents, and changes. He’s also a knowledgeable professional. As to his view of Scripture, I have no further insights.

– – –

I can only hope I am not committing professional suicide with this post. I mean, writers know how editors talk: Oh, she‘s the one who said an editor was wrong. Publicly, no less. Now when Chip MacGregor was an agent, he was more or less fair game, but as an editor? I know I should be lining up with others to tell him how honest he was in his Novel Journey Interview (July 17, 2006). Honest and truthful.

The fact is, I found Chip’s comments to be opinionated, not honest—unless of course most authors, editors, and agents are in the habit of saying what they do not believe. If that were true, then Chip saying what he actually believes might come across as honest.

I am not in a position to speak for most authors or editors, and I am not now, nor have I been, an agent, so I can only postulate why others found him to be honest.

First, Chip is a master propagandist, couching his opinions in either-or statements. Either you agree with his line of thinking or with the stupid people who don’t know what end is up. That’s enough to give me pause.

Then, too, he says things that are humorous, though sometimes mean and offensive, not something heard often in Christian circles unless a flame war is going, so in a nice interview on a writer’s blog, these statements produce the shock value he undoubtedly hopes to generate.

I will say also, as so often is the case, much of Chip’s opinion seems true. Therefore, I think his statements that are wrong may slid through our cerebral cracks.

Which statements? I’ll focus on the one I found to be egregious:

A couple years ago I was invited to become a Visiting Member of the Senior Commons Room of Regents Park College at Oxford University, where I hung out with VERY smart people. Even though I was raised Presbyterian, my theology tends toward grace, so I get to do things like use the words “damn” and “hell” and drink a fair bit of Guinness without feeling terribly guilty about it all. My ministries have included teaching English to new immigrants, serving as an executive pastor at a couple churches, volunteering at an AIDS hospice and a soup kitchen, and teaching church history to pastors in former communist countries. I think most evangelicals are more concerned with doctrinal correctness than life in the Spirit, worship Scripture more than they do God, and are more concerned with appearances than matters of the heart, so they’ve become exclusive and rigid. If Christ came back, He’d be hanging out with gays and homeless people, not with the blue-denim-jumper-with-hair-in-a-bun set. But what do I know?]

I could comment on his inference that VERY smart people say words like “damn” and “hell” and drink Guinness, or that this only made him feel somewhat guilty, not terribly guilty. I could comment on the offense I feel for the most godly woman I know who happens to wear her hair in a bun, but those things are connected to Chip’s opinion, and wouldn’t technically qualify as “wrong.” Neither are they egregious.

The wrong part is the implication that belief in the Bible (what he calls “worship”) can somehow supercede worship of Jesus. Any evangelical Christian who is Bible-believing, who holds to the propositions, the teaching, the historical examples written in the pages of Scripture, knows that NOTHING and NO ONE can take first place except the triune God. At the same time, it is Scripture that reveals Him to us.

Therefore, the Bible must be clung to as a lifeline, for that is precisely what it is. From Romans 10:

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? … So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

From the context of Chip’s use of “grace,” I surmise he is contrasting his views with a legalistic approach that believes the letter of the law.

Setting aside the fact that Jesus believed in the letter of the law (Matthew 5:18—”For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”), I wonder that Chip has not learned there is another option—not a disregard for Biblical standards nor legalistic obedience because of duty or to avoid guilty feelings.

This would be obedience because of love. Love for God that makes a person want to please Him above all else, even above thirst for another Guinness.

Published in: on July 31, 2006 at 10:50 am  Comments (17)  

Review—Daughter of Prophecy

I am not a reviewer really, but there are some books I believe in and want to tell others about. One such novel is Daughter of Prophecy by Miles Owens (Realms, 2005).

Daughter of Prophecy

In Tim Frankovich’s review at Christian Fiction Review, he gave a clear, succinct summary of the story—a much better one than I could write, to be sure.

Rather than offering a poor duplication of what others have already given, I’ll focus instead on what I perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of the book.

Strengths. There are many. First, I found Owens’s writing to be engaging from the beginning. Who wouldn’t be pulled into a story with a Chapter One opening line that reads “Her home was a ruin.” Owens goes on to describe the scene with strong verbs and tight prose.

Description is probably the strongest of the strong when it comes to Daughter of Prophecy. People and places are clear and unique because the description encompasses all the senses. Consequently, the opening scene of Chapter One doesn’t just give the visual of a ruined home, it includes this mood-setting depiction: “Rising above the acrid smell of wet soot was the odor of death.”

Because Owens is a master of description, each of his characters is unique and interesting. I never felt like I was reading about two people who were alike. The protagonist’s father is tall with pale skin and graying black hair while the loreteller has a round face with heavy jowls and short, bandy legs. An important nobleman is barrel-chested with iron-gray hair. The accompanying warrior has dark hair and even darker eyes and chiseled features.

You get the idea—upon introduction each character is one of a kind. This individuation continues through the characters’ speech and action. No cardboard cutouts in this book!

Because I cared about the characters, I rooted for the protagonist during the expected plot complications. I wouldn’t say the suspense put me on the edge of my seat, but it certainly kept me engaged.

Weaknesses. I’d love to say “none,” but I think that would be misleading. While I believe Owens is a talented writer who will only improve and while I loved the book and recommend it without reservation, I thought one thing would have improved it: better pacing. There were times, occasionally in the middle of intense scenes, that the action slowed for the sake of the description.

This is one of those flip-side-of-the-coin issues. Owens gives such clarity in his description, but at times his description detracts from the story. In my opinion, when he learns to meld his particularized depictions with the action, his stories will be better.

One other thing I found interesting—not a strength or weakness, just something unique to this book. Owens created an interesting combination of traditional fantasy (similar to Lawhead) and spiritual warfare (slightly Peretti-esque). Although I am a fantasy purist, I thought he made the combination work and certainly put his own unique stamp on the genre.

In conclusion, I’d have to say, Miles Owens is an author fans of speculative fiction should look for. Daughter of Prophecy is an interesting, entertaining book—one I highly recommend.

Published in: on July 28, 2006 at 11:10 am  Comments (9)  

Some Added Thoughts on Fantasy

I know I’ve “done” fantasy already, and of course, every month during the CSFF tour, fantasy comes up again. But the truth is, I love it.

And I miss the tour. It is fun to click around the blogsphere and see what everyone else is saying, to leave comments and go back later to see what others said, too. It’s very fun.

But I also feel passionate about the genre because I believe whole-heartedly that there is this hungry audience waiting for the next great fantasy that will drag them in on the first page and not let them go.

Yesterday I talked about the continuum I see in the SFF genre, with hardcore secular science fiction readers on the far right. The picture I have in mind is a line divided in the middle, with secular writers on the right of the divide and the hardcore writers on the furtherest extention of the line. Very niche.

On the left side of the line are the Christian writers, and those that are hardcore hug the dividing line (these are the people who most often talk about feeling caught between two worlds). Also very niche, probably more so than secular writers.

My belief is that a Christian writer can create a story for all those readers who do not fall into the SFF niche—in fact, for all readers, not SFF readers exclusively.

I think of it as the Harry Potter syndrom. As Gene Edward Veith pointed out in his article “Good Fantasy & Bad Fantasy,” first published in the Christian Research Journal:

Many of them [Harry Potter readers], reportedly, are enjoying a book for the first time in their lives. Parents and teachers are saying that the Harry Potter series is turning on thousands and thousands of young people to the pleasures of reading. Boys, in particular, who have usually been more resistant to books than girls, are turning off the TV and the video games to spend time with a “good” book. Young people, said to have been conditioned by the TV attention span, are settling down with a 700-page book.

What drives this? I believe Veith’s conclusion is right on:

Children, especially bright children, can identify with Harry Potter, who at first is trapped in the “muggle” world (the drab ordinary material realm of those who cannot see the supernatural), while alienated in his school and feeling despised even in his stepfamily. It turns out he is really a wizard all along, and at Hogwarts this nerdy kid with glasses even becomes popular! Young Harry Potter fans are not so much fantasizing about witches as they are fantasizing about being popular and successful. [Emphasis added]

Adults are imprisoned, too. The stresses on the job, the nightly news. Worry about terrorists, aging parents, the latest medical tests, eating too many carbs, using the right sun screen, the high cost of energy, paying the credit card bill … the list is endless. But worse, it all seems to take us away from who we are—people made in the image of God for the purpose of friendship with Him.

Enter a Christian fantasy that offers a view of the world that incorporates the supernatural instead of denying it and that shows how the very part we know has been missing from our lives or, at best, has been sublimated to second tier, is the source of power to bring victory over the barage of problems.

Who wouldn’t want to read such a story?

Published in: on July 27, 2006 at 11:51 am  Comments (8)  

CSFF Blog Tour—Christian Fandom, Day 3

Once again our focus is on Christian Fandom, the web site created to bring together fans of genre fiction.

Yesterday I voiced my disappointment over the fantasy section of the site, stating my opinion that Fandom was primarily for sci fi readers. Turns out, I wasn’t so far off. According to Fandom guru Greg Slade in his interview with Kameron Franklin:

Actually, I’m not really a fantasy fan. I’m much more into science fiction. The list of fantasy authors whom I actually enjoy is quite short, beginning with C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and not extending much farther.

Slade then mentions, as he did in Part 1 of the interview, that he is actively looking for help—specifically someone to take over the fantasy section of the site.

Thinking about Fandom and the different interests couched under the SFF umbrella brings me to a significant point—speculative fiction is on a continuum, and the extreme ends are practically incompatible. On one side, the far right, let’s say, lies true horror, the secular kind that Rebecca Grabill and Shannon McNear were referencing in their comments to yesterday’s post. It is this kind of speculative fiction, I believe, that turns Christians against all SFF.

If that kind of writing encompassed the entire genre, I’d be opposed to it, too. A portion of the stuff is nothing but glorification of evil and the twisting of mores from godly to ungodly. It is exactly what the Bible says will take place—men calling evil, “good.”

This kind of writing should not be a surprise. If left to his own sinful imagination, why wouldn’t Man justify his rebellion and glorify himself or forces opposed to God?

The problem is not the imagination, however. It is sinful, unregenerate man. As Gene Edward Veith said in “Good Fantasy & Bad Fantasy,” an article first published in the Christian Research Journal:

The problem is not with fantasy, which is simply an exercise of the imagination. A work of fantasy can shape the imagination of its audience in either harmful or helpful ways. The challenge is to discern the difference between good fantasy and bad fantasy

When imagination is placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, a different kind of story emerges. So on the far left side of the continuum are stories like Pilgrim’s Progress, written with the purpose of edifying Christians and glorifying God.

There’s one other factor. Some people have a bent toward the speculative. Often these are the folks that attend Star Trek conventions or write fan fic. They love the speculative world and love hanging with others who also love it. They are the hardcore SFF fans.

I’d have to say this group is a minority, maybe even a small minority, and when it comes to publishing, a small minority is referred to as a niche market.

Here’s my point. I think Christian Fandom leans toward the hardcore SFF but is on the left side of the continuum. Consequently their web site seems more suited to that niche market.

My contention is that READERS enjoy using their imagination, and fantasy that is not “hardcore” is loved by people in large numbers.

Veith once again:

There is good reason why so many children are enamored with [the Harry Potter books], and why they are making so many children excited about reading for the first time. This is a clear symptom of imagination-deprivation … To use Tolkien’s metaphor, children’s imaginations are imprisoned, and they are right to want to escape.

I not only think children want to escape—and this is escape from the prison of wrong thinking, not escape from responsibility—I think adults want to escape.

We have strayed from beauty and truth for too long. It is time we Christians engaged our imaginations in a way that shows us what we cannot see by looking at this sin-ravaged world.

So much that I’ve left unsaid, but for time’s sake—yours and mine—I’ll stop there.

Please reserve some part of your day to check out what these other fine bloggers have to say on this last day of the July tour:

  • Carol Collett
  • Valerie Comer
  • Kameron Franklin
  • Beth Goddard
  • Rebecca Grabill
  • Leathel Grody
  • Karen Hancock
  • Elliot Hanowski
  • Katie Hart
  • Sherrie Hibbs
  • Sharon Hinck
  • Pamela James
  • Tina Kulesa
  • Rachel Marks
  • Shannon McNear
  • Mirtika Schultz
  • Stuart Stockton
  • Steve Trower
  • Speculative Faith
  • And though he accused me of going on a rampage in yesterday’s posts, I’m still adding Matt Mikalatos since he so kindly commented about the tour on his Tuesday July 25 post. 😉

    Published in: on July 26, 2006 at 11:01 am  Comments (12)  

    CSFF Blog Tour—Christian Fandom, Day 2

    The CSFF Blog Tour Group continues with the July focus on Christian Fandom.


    There are some great posts about this site, which focuses predominantly on science fiction, from other tour participants, notably Kameron Franklin and his interview with Greg Slade. Others you may wish to check out include

    Carol Collett
    Valerie Comer
    Kameron Franklin
    Beth Goddard
    Rebecca Grabill
    Leathel Grody
    Karen Hancock
    Elliot Hanowski
    Katie Hart
    Sherrie Hibbs
    Sharon Hinck
    Pamela James
    Tina Kulesa
    Rachel Marks
    Shannon McNear
    Mirtika Schultz
    Stuart Stockton
    Speculative Faith

    I feel a little shaky regarding what I am about to say, primarily because I want to support all things related to CSFF. The problem is, not all things merit an A+ or a highly recommended rating.

    In perusing Christian Fandom, I ran into a couple things that gave me pause.

    First, I was troubled by the presentation of fantasy. Having read more of how Fandom came into being (the organization forming as a direct result of Star Trek conventions), I understand WHY the fantasy work is weak, but I still don’t like it.

    Weak? Yes. First, the list of fantasy titles is approximately half the number of Sci Fi titles. Secondly, the list is … somewhat outdated. Finally, although the inclusion of some secular fantasy is commendable, I don’t think the site does justice to Christian fantasy, especially not the work that’s been done in the last two years (which may be a reflection of the second point).

    For example, none of the four books in Bryan Davis’s Dragons in Our Midst, though listed, has a review, despite the promise of one. Granted, not all four books came out in 2004 as posted, but the last one was released in the fall of 2005, allowing for enough time to post the advertised review.

    Then there are the books that have not been mentioned—Jonathan Rogers’s The Wilderking Chronicles, R. K. Mortenson’s Landon Snow Series, L. B. Graham’s Binding of the Blade Series, Kathleen Morgan’s Giver of the Roses, Donita Paul’s DragonKeeper Chronicles (see the June CSFF Blog Tour posts), Linda Wichman’s Christy Award finalist Legend of the Emerald Rose. I’m sure my list is not exhaustive, but I think these omissions are disappointing at best in a site the magnitude of Christian Fandom.

    I don’t like the message that this kind of shoddy treatment of current fantasy sends out. If only I had thought to interview Greg Slade, then I could have asked him about this issue and given him a chance to defend what Fandom is doing regarding fantasy. I can only hope he’ll drop by A Christian Worldview of Fiction and offer some defense, if one is to be made.

    Unfortunately I have other issues, though, which I’ll touch on next time.

    Published in: on July 25, 2006 at 11:54 am  Comments (15)  

    CSFF Blog Tour—Christian Fandom, Day 1

    It’s here. IT’S HERE. I’m referring to the July leg of the Christian Sci Fi and Fantisy Blog Tour. We’re focusing on the fiction site, Christian Fandom.

      Fandom Fish

    In preparation for my post over at Speculative Faith, I learned that Fandom has been around since 1982 and was developed for the sake of genre readers.

    I can’t help but be impressed with the organization and scope of the web site. To have separate sections for science fiction and for fantasy seems revolutionary, but those of us who write appreciate the recognition of the uniquenesses of the two genres.

    One look at Fandom reveals the inclusion of a section for Horror, so I might as well address the issue.

    Recently I did a little research on the subject which brought me to the Wikipedia definition:

    Horror fiction is, broadly, fiction in any medium intended to scare, unsettle or horrify the reader. Historically, the cause of the “horror” experience has often been the intrusion of an evil, or occasionally misunderstood, supernatural element into everyday human experience. Since the 1960s, any work of fiction with a morbid, gruesome, surreal, exceptionally suspenseful or frightening theme has come to be called “horror.” Horror fiction often overlaps with science fiction and/or fantasy, all of which have sometimes been placed under the umbrella category speculative fiction.

    So how does “Christian” fit with that definition of horror? Fandom explores this topic, with a number of essays, stories, and reviews. I reserve further comment until I’ve read more on the subject.

    Obviously, I’ve done more thinking about fantasy (see the 25 part series Fantasy and a Christian Worldview beginning with the introduction May 12), so, for the most part, I will concentrate my observations and comments on that section of Fandom.

    For today, I highly recommend for your reading the interview with Karen Hancock.

    Also, check out what the other participants of this month’s CSFF Blog Tour have to say about Fandom. This great group includes:

    Carol Collett
    Valerie Comer
    Kameron Franklin
    Beth Goddard
    Rebecca Grabill
    Leathel Grody
    Karen Hancock
    Elliot Hanowski
    Katie Hart
    Sherrie Hibbs
    Sharon Hinck
    Pamela James
    Tina Kulesa
    Shannon McNear
    Mirtika Schultz
    Stuart Stockton
    Steve Trower

    Tomorrow, what I wish Fandom included.

    Published in: on July 24, 2006 at 10:45 am  Comments (6)  

    Symbolism—Day 12

    Housekeeping. Next week we start the July edition of the Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy (CSFF) Blog Tour. This stop is headed up by Shannon McNear and will feature Christian Fandom. As usual, I’ll be posting a list of participants, but just can’t resist mentioning that four-time Christy Award winner Karen Hancock will be one of those on the list. I just think it’s cool that a well-recognized, successful, busy author is willing to join in our efforts.

    Symbolism Wrap. I guess one of the things that has been a stickler for me in talking about symbols is the idea that readers might miss them. I found some applicable thoughts on the subject in Oakley Hall’s The Art & Craft of Novel Writing. First his quote of Flannery O’Conner (Mysteries and Manners):

    The fact that these meanings are there makes the book significant. The reader may not see them but they have their effect upon him nonetheless.

    And this quote of John Steinbeck (East of Eden):

    About the nature of the Trasks and about their symbol meanings I leave you to find out for yourself. There is a key and there are many leads. I think you will discover the story rather quickly for all its innocent sound on these pages. Now the innocent sound and the slight concealment are not done as tricks but simply so that a man can take from this book as much as he can bring to it … Your literate and understanding man will take joy of finding the secrets hidden in this book almost as though he searched for treasure, but we must never tell anyone they are there. Let them be found by accident. [emphasis added]

    And I thought I was being so original in comparing symbols to treasure! 🙂

    The quote from O’Conner and the Steinbeck line I emphasized take care of my “what if they miss it” concern. Too often if I let that worry drive my writing, then I produce transparent, correlative symbols. It’s like saying I’m hiding some thing, then setting it out in plain sight. Someone expecting a challenge will be disappointed.

    If I write a good story and embed it with symbols, no one will be disappointed. The reader who wants a good story will have it, and the one who wants a challenge will have that too.

    In conclusion, I’d have to say, symbols only work if the story itself is strong enough to stand as if the symbols did not exist.

    Published in: on July 21, 2006 at 10:55 am  Comments (8)  

    Symbolism—Day 11

    The “closing comments” I intended as wrap up for this series went from my head, replaced by new insights.

    First, I think symbol could be considered as the bedrock of Sharon Hinck’s book The Secret Life of Becky Miller (see an introduction to this book posted here at A Christian Worldview of Fiction on June 1).

    Each chapter opens with a dramatic scene—a fantasy or daydream the protagonist has. This imaginative action ends up symbolizing the “real” events the protagonist experiences.

    For example, the first chapter opens with a fantasy of Becky fighting off ninja warriors trying to steal the family treasure which she has been assigned to guard. The chapter closes with this paragraph:

    One day the master would come and ask what I did with my meager talent. I didn’t bury it. I waved it in a hundred directions like lightning-fast parries with a sword. Yet somehow none of the strokes seemed to land on my target. Or the target kept moving. And so far, the ninjas always got past and stole the treasure.

    My assessment is that Hinck “tips her hand” with this paragraph, letting the reader know that the fantasies at the beginning are more than window dressing.

    In any case, these scenes are excellent examples of action used as symbol.

    Second, I ran across another writing book that addressed the subject: The Art & Craft of Novel Writing by Oakley Hall. The opening paragraph in the section dealing with symbols was helpful, I thought:

    We are told by his biographer, Leon Howard, that it was Herman Melville’s practice to let his mind play with concrete details until they became “luminous with suggestive implications.” Until they turned into symbols, in fact, which then formed a conduit between the concrete and the abstract, the particular and the generalization.

    That made sense to me. A writer includes an object in the narrative because the story demands it, but a connection to an abstract suggests itself. The author ponders the connection, explores enhancing the object, and a symbol is born.

    I’d conclude, then, that, unlike theme, a symbol appropriately arises from within the story, but, of course, the author must be looking for opportunities to capitalize on their presence.

    Published in: on July 20, 2006 at 11:25 am  Comments (5)  

    Symbolism—Day 10

    Special thanks for the comments regarding symbolism in “The Other Open Door.” Sometimes it seems easier to discuss an example than to stay in the realm of the hypothetical.

    Stuart Stockton pointed out that in writing the story, I tipped my hand about the presence of symbols with the “open door” extended metaphor introduced in the title and repeated off and on throughout. I agree.

    I think “metaphor” is probably the better term for that particular element. According to Rebecca McClanahan in Word Painting, symbols are first the actual, physical thing that fulfills a need in the story. As I recall (I haven’t reread the story recently), there isn’t an actual open door.

    The concept of an open door suggesting an opportunity is not uniquely the property of Christianity. I liked the image because Jesus does call Himself the door (John 10:7), so that made it sort of a double-use image.

    I did NOT like it because I thought it might almost be cliché. I’ve heard the repeated saying, “When God closes a door, He always opens a window” or something similar, and thought it just might be overused.

    As to the handwashing, that was a real symbol, something that arose from the story, not something I planned. I thought it worked well as foreshadowing and as a visual image of the spiritual event.

    The other two were somewhat intentional, but again not planned before I started the actual writing. First a short history.

    Some time ago, Dave Long, editor at Bethany, offered one of his novels for analysis at Faith in Fiction. In that discussion, there was a conversation about symbols and the need to make them particular to the individual character. From Mark Bertrand:

    Symbolism arrives at the universal through the particular, and the challenge with using symbols that are not your own but belong to a community (and in this case are God’s) is that you have to do justice to them while at the same time making them your own.

    So, in my short story, I made an effort to include particular symbols that belonged to the characters.

    One had to do with how the brother treats the people in his life. The symbol is the banana peel:

    He stripped the peel from the banana, then started in on her argument.

    The other, also designed to reinforce the relationship between the siblings, is the wagon. This one is more obscure. Unless you’ve been the young one sitting in a wagon and had an older sibling pull you along, you could easily miss it:

    Beth crossed the room to the sink, shifting her gaze out the window to the red wagon under the drooping pepper tree in her back yard. Darnel did know her. She was the one who had given him his first drink, who provided him with a fake ID when he was sixteen, and set him up with the first girl he slept with. She’d lived fast and loose and pulled her little brother right along behind …

    Beth leaned against the counter and crossed her arms. What Darnel didn’t say was that he had no intention of letting his sister lead him away from the very things he hated her for dragging him into.

    I’ll add a few closing comments next time.

    Published in: on July 19, 2006 at 10:48 am  Comments Off on Symbolism—Day 10  

    Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy News

    After a whirlwind trip to my family reunion, I am back at work, but have not had time to think more about symbolism.

    Instead, I have some news I’m happy to pass along.

    First, some members of the informal Christian Science Fiction and Fantasy group have begun a team blog focused on the topic. Please stop by Speculative Faith and read Mirtika’s introduction and Stuart’s initial post.

    Be sure to leave a comment, either there or here regarding the kinds of topics you’d like to see explored. I’m supposed to “specialize” on some aspect of spec fic and haven’t decided on a point of emphasis yet. I’d love to get some input.

    The second announcement is about the upcoming Christian SFF blog tour’s third leg. Next Monday through Wednesday, July 24-26, we will focus on a web site, Christian Fandom. This will be a tour of discovery! 😉

    Back to symbolism tomorrow.

    Published in: on July 18, 2006 at 12:34 pm  Comments (10)  
    %d bloggers like this: