Apollos or Paul?


Realizing I’m setting myself to take shots from both sides, I nevertheless have to say, I think the Calvinist/Arminian argument is silly, maybe even harmful. It corresponds to the first century argument Paul quashed in I Corinthians 3. I am of Apollos, some said. I’m of Paul, came the reply. Who cares? Paul cried. He shot down the divisive cliquishness, stating clearly that God causes growth, no matter who plants and who waters.

So I look at today’s “Protestant debates” in much the same light. Who cares if Calvin is strong on predestination. The key is, What does the Bible have to say about predestination? Who cares if Arminius was strong on God’s foreknowledge of man’s choices. The key is, What does the Bible have to say about God’s foreknowledge and man’s choices?

Since it is God who is over all, how much more important is it for us to look at the whole counsel of Scripture and accept what He says, even when some statements seem in contradiction.

Jesus, who is the Great Shepherd and the Spotless Lamb, who is the Door and the Way, the Suffering Servant and the Reigning King seems to have no trouble with contradictions. Why then, must we?

Both Calvinists and Arminians can quote appropriate proof texts from the Bible. Many of them. Why, then, doesn’t it seem plausible God intended it that way? That He not only foreknew man’s choices but predestined the outcome, that salvation is through faith a person must confess and by election—the exercise of God’s will?

There are a few places where the two sides of the coin show themselves together. One is John 3:18.

He who believes [man’s choice] in Him is not judged; he who does not believe [man’s choice] has heen judged already, [predestination] because he has not believed [man’s choice] in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Here’s another one from John 6:44.

No one can come to Me [man’s choice] unless the Father who sent Me draws him [God’s election]

Or this from I Peter 2:8.

“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word [man’s choice] and to this doom they were also appointed [God’s appointment].

How about this from Matthew 22.

For many are called [with the implication they must answer the call or reject it—see the preceding parable] but few are chosen [God’s sovereign decision]. (v. 14)

Then there’s Romans 8:29-30.

For whom he foreknew, he also predestined … and these whom He predestined, He also called…

I could list out many more, and some better, if I had the time to search through my notes. Of course there are clear verses that seem to support one position, such as Luke 13:33 (for free will):

How often I [Jesus] wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it.

And Romans 9:11-13 (for predestination):

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, … “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Mind you, I know neither side will be convinced by anything I say. Calvin’s system has a way to explain all the verses the Araminians use, and the Araminians have answers to all the verses the Calvinists use. Undoubtedly they both have a way of interpreting the verses that contain both parts of the “free will”/predestination arguments.

But I stand with Paul:

For when one says, “I am of [Calvin]”; and another, “I am of [Arminius],” are you not mere men? What then is [Arminius]? And what is [Calvin]? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one … So then neither … is anything, but God who causes the growth …

The “S” Word


We don’t talk about sin anymore, or at least not much and rarely outside the doors of a church. The concept rankles our society—steeped as it is in the belief that Mankind is basically good.

Christians, while giving intellectual ascent to the problem of sin, live very much like everyone else. We say things like “an innocent child” and “he didn’t deserve to die,” as if sin didn’t somehow pollute babies and death wasn’t the end result of sin as God said it would be.

Occasionally I catch one of those “reality” TV programs called “Super Nanny.” The premise is, a family with out-of-control kids contacts the show asking for help. In essence, they need a crash course in child rearing. And truly, the families they show are in crisis. In the worst cases, the children are in charge completely. The thing is, these little ones are often of pre-school age. How does this happen unless children have innate pride and selfishness and greed and deception and rebellion?

This morning I heard an Alistair Begg radio sermon from the book of Proverbs about child rearing. Interestingly, he said the chief problem for today’s parents is their theology. They don’t realize that the oh-so-cute little bundle they brought home from the hospital is a monster. He’s right. How we discipline someone who is good would be vastly different from how we would discipline someone who is inherently sinful.

Truthfully, our belief in sin is as fundamental as our belief in God because it is sin that separates us from Him. If we have no sin problem, then God seems irrational or mean or non-existent. I just finished reading Philip Yancy’s Disappointment with God, which I’ve mentioned here a time or two. The stories he tells of people disappointed with God, who think He is hidden or silent, now make sense to me.

The fact is, God remains inaccessible to us because of sin. It mars us, soiling us to the point that we cannot have fellowship with Him. Sin creates an breach between us and Him. A breach no one can cross except the Sinless One.

Again, in contrast to popular thought, Christ did not come to show us the way to also live sinless lives. He came because we cannot live sinless lives. He came to give us new life, to create clean hearts, to eradicate our sin problem.

So no wonder the world doesn’t get Jesus. If there is no sinful man, only good people led astray by society or damaged at an early age, then why would anyone need Jesus? And how could he expect to know God?

Published in: on May 29, 2008 at 9:34 am  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Computer Problems


So why does Firefox work and Safari doesn’t?

I have to admit, as dependent on the computer and the internet as I am, I don’t understand them at all. Today, for some unknown reason, I can’t get in to my dashboard here at A Christian Worldview of Fiction. That is, if I’m using Safari, my default program. But lo and behold, when I tried the same with Firefox, no problem. Mind you, I have not experienced a problem with Safari before. In fact, I have no problem opening any of the other pages I wanted to open, even the WordPress dashboard and help pages. But let me open my dashboard or my post page and, yes, it opens, then shuts down. The whole program. So is it a WordPress problem, a Safari problem, or my computer (an iMac) problem? And how do I find out? I’ve emptied caches, reset Safari, reloaded WordPress. Nothing has worked.

I’m tempted just to change default programs and ignore it, but I suspect there is some cause I should pursue. But, I gotta tell you, this is not how I envisioned spending my time. Not when I’m desperately trying to get back to revising Battle for the Throne. That’s book three of the Lore of Efrathah trilogy.

So there, that’s my computer problems rant for the day.

Published in: on May 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , ,

Making Characters Memorable


So I’m trying to decide if I should spend $200 dollars and go the one day BookExpo America, held by Writer’s Digest Books in Los Angeles. Tomorrow. The biggest draw for me is Donald Maass, agent extraordinaire, and author of Writing the Breakout Novel. What I’d really like is to attend one of his ripping Breakout Novel Intensive Seminars, but there’s not one remotely close this year.

So instead, I could pay $200 to hear him speak/teach for one hour on “Fire in Fiction.” Of course, James Scott Bell is also teaching and could make the time worthwhile, but I’m getting off track.

One reason I would like to hear from Donald Maass and to have him rip apart my writing is because I think he’s identified the keys to creating memorable characters. And it isn’t through research. He doesn’t say this, to be sure, and I suspect he would actually advocate a writer becoming a student of human nature.

However, I suspect he would frown on pulling a list of characteristics from the Myers-Briggs personality test results and plugging them into a character. Rather this method would seem to be the antithesis of his idea that “larger-than-life” characters are, in part, quirky, willing to say or do what average people are afraid to.

Interestingly, Maass does not include “fatal flaw” or even “harmful flaw” as one of the needed elements to create the next Scarlet O’Hara or Bilbo Baggins. You don’t hear that in many Christian writing conferences … at least not the ones I’ve attended. What Maass does say is the character must have an inner conflict.

Which brings to mind a recent discussion on a writers’ email loop about the new breed of hero, the Jack Bauer and Batman types. The interesting thing to me is that Jack Bauer (of the television program 24) is always experiencing inner conflict. His choices are moral in the sense that he adheres to his over arching purpose—to preserve democracy and make the world safe. He struggles, though, against evil leaders, threats to his family, friends who lose sight of that central goal, and against the need to violate another person’s freedoms in order to preserve the lives and freedom of the greater population

In other words, he is god. He becomes the final authority to judge who is an agent of good and how good. But his decisions cost him, which is why he struggles internally.

And thus he becomes larger than life, a hero we remember and cheer, even as we lament his moral choices.

How much better to create that kind of character (memorable) than to take a list of traits from some personality model and formulate a character (type-cast). I’m not saying there isn’t truth in these professional observations of human nature. But I think writers need to do better, to see people as unique and capable of breaking the mold. Because a test identifies them as a “guardian” or “introverted” or “analytic” doesn’t need to mean the character must therefore behave in a patterned way according to the trait list presented.

In essence, this is where art must overrule science—at least if the characters are to be memorable. And memorable is one thing I’ve decided I what from my characters. Which is why I would like Donald Maass to rip apart my manuscript.

Character Research


Mystery writer Elizabeth George, author of the best-selling Thomas Lynley series, is in Southern California promoting her new release, Careless in Red. Consequently, our local paper carried an interview with her. One of the questions had to do with her research, but this one was a bit of a surprise.

Did you do any research into grief?

Apparently, from what I gathered in the rest of the interview, one of the main characters died in a previous book. (I only know the Thomas Lynley series through the PBS adaptations aired on Mystery, but I’m leaning toward making a visit to my local library SOON! 😉 ) So, the question wasn’t out of place.

It actually brought to mind what I believe is a sort of trendy approach to creating characters that a number of authors are talking about. I’m referring to the use of psychological charts and personality tests to properly depict a character.

Here’s George’s response to the grief-research question:

No. One of the reasons that they call it creative writing is that the writer should be able to project herself into the lives and experiences of characters totally unlike herself, and that’s what I’ve tried to do all along. When I create characters and a situation, what I’m looking for are basic truths of what they’re experiencing. I ask at the end, “Is it honest? Is it true? Is it real?” If is is those things to me, I’n satisfied. I didn’t do any research into grief at all. I would have probably been constrained by that.
– Elizabeth George, Whittier Daily News, May 25, 2008
emphasis added

As I was reading her answer, I couldn’t help wondering about “research.” I mean, isn’t one form of research for the writer to observe people? But is observation of others of greater merit than reading, studying what others have observed?

And by “projecting herself into the lives and experiences of characters totally unlike herself,” is George attributing to them her own reactions, not their own? Or is she identifying the threads of commonality, the reactions that make her and them alike?

When I got to the “constraining line,” something jumped inside me. Oh, yeah. Constraining and formulaic. Boxed. As if every person will “do grief” exactly the same way.

And yet there are commonalities. Truths.

Is this because humans have been made in the image of God? Our flaws are our own; our Humanity is from God.

The key component, I think, is that we are all shaken and stirred in different ways, which gives us each an individual flavor.

So, I’m not a big fan of charts and tests that pigeon-hole people. But I also don’t want every character I write to react like I do. So research? I think it’s necessary, but I prefer the first hand kind, the stuff that sends me to the primary source—people. It’s an area I need to sharpen.

Published in: on May 26, 2008 at 11:45 am  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , , ,

Fantasy Friday – The Defense Continued


As part of the assault against fantasy, the writer I mentioned yesterday used some verses of Scripture as a way to prove the genre is ungodly. One such verse is 2 Timothy 4:4. Her translation says And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.

Context, context, context. But here’s what this writer is missing. Fantasy is all about the struggle between good and evil. Not a struggle in the physical realm alone. The beings she so hates, and the ones she doesn’t know about because she hasn’t read Christian fantasy, are often symbols.

Consequently, wizards in Donita Paul’s DragonKeeper Chronicles, for instance, are not literally the male version of the Biblically forbidden witches, women tapping into satanic power to conjure and control the physical world. In fact, the wizards in that series have power that seems intrinsic, not derived. And they can align themselves with whomever they wish.

In truth, they are more closely symbolic of angels than anything else. But they aren’t allegorical figures. Consequently, one of the characters, a young girl at the beginning of the series, must learn to develop her wizarding skills.

She studies, practices, receives instruction from older wizards. Hmm, now it sounds more like a young Christian filled with the Holy Spirit, being discipled by older saints. Nowhere in the books are these good wizards deriving their power from some satanic-like force.

Yes, I said “good wizards,” because there are also evil wizards. These are powerful beings out to achieve their own ends, looking for more power for their own purposes, with a desire to defeat anyone aligned with Wulder, “the creator and one true, living God of Amara.”

So evil, defined by the books themselves would be those opposed to God. Sounds like truth to me, not fable.

In Fantasy’s Defense


I mentioned last Friday that I’d followed a link to an anti-fantasy article, especially railing against C.S. Lewis. In truth, I’ve heard others talk about encountering such people, but I haven’t come up against them much and certainly not in a full-blown article reasoning against the genre at such a thoughtful level.

By saying “thoughtful,” I don’t mean to convey any agreement. I think it is not unusual for people to think something over, to reason it out, and to come to the wrong conclusion. Fantasy, however, doesn’t generally seem to be one of those topics. Instead, people seem to react emotionally. In reality, they are reacting to code words such as witch, magic, dragon, wizard, and such.

Not more that a day or so passed, and an author in an email group pointed to a discussion about theology and fiction in which another anti-fantasy writer condemned the genre as evil. YIKES! 😮 They DO exist. The do still exist! And are growing more vocal, it would seem, possibly because Christian fantasy is finally taking hold.

Ironically, this writer taking the anti-fantasy stand described the evils of “‘Christian’ fantasy” with apparently no knowledge of the genre. She repeatedly condemned it for using “evil”:

I will reiterate again – if life’s experiences lead you to share a story about how God has impacted your life, cool. But to make up stories using characters and images that have already been used for evil and then try to twist them into something godly – is to taint and corrupt any perceived “good”. You are giving satan the glory, not God.

I immediately ran over the books of Christian fantasy I’ve most recently read: George Bryan Polivka‘s – no, no witches, goblins; Sharon Hinck – none in her books either; Jeffrey Overstreet – don’t remember any; Andrew Peterson – no. Karen Hancock – not those either. Sure, each of these books have creatures representing evil, but they don’t fall into the category of “images that have already been used for evil.”

Granted, both Donita Paul and Bryan Davis have books about dragons and they make those dragons good. Davis actually gives a story explanation that gives God credit for the transformation. Paul seems to take a more traditional approach, letting the reader conclude on his own that wizards in the DragonKeeper Chronicles can be good or bad, that dragons are good but can be captured and/or corrupted.

Which brings up the issue. If some other writer uses a dragon as a symbol of evil, are all writers thereafter obligated to make the dragon a symbol of evil? I would loudly proclaim, NO! To take such a stand is to deny God’s power of redemption.

Ah, one might say, Satan is beyond redemption, and the Dragon is a symbol of Satan in Scripture. One writer in the discussion pointed out that we should not confuse the Dragon with dragons. The latter, of course, don’t actually exist! They once might have. Some people think possibly dragons were dinosaurs. Nevertheless, in literature today, they can take on the value the writer gives them.

To think otherwise is a kind of prejudice, akin to saying Germans were evil in the 1930’s and 40’s and therefore they must be considered evil in all writing from then on. Odd to think that people can be prejudiced against creatures that don’t actually exist, but there it is.

As you might suppose, I have much more to say on this subject, but will save it for Fantasy Friday. 😀

CSFF Tour-Mindflights, 3


CSSF Blog Tour

Banners, banners, and more banners, not to mention buttons. In case members or friends of CSFF have missed it, we have banners and buttons available. In fact, one of our members, Robert Treskillard created a number of additional ones of various sizes and looks. Quite sharp. These are free for the taking, and we welcome you displaying buttons or banners on your own site.

As I’m sure regular readers have notice, I’ve moved beyond simply listing the blog tour participants and have given a method for visitors to know which other sites they may wish to tour. I’ve also decided to give a Top Tour Participant Award to the blogger who has written the best content over the three days of the tour. This is significant to me because the CSFF tours are as much about my visitors learning about other CSFF’ers as it is about promoting our genre and our feature.

And speaking of our feature, the spotlight this month is on MindFlights. I suspect most writers who stopped by the web site were quick to check out the submission guidelines. I suppose it’s what we do. 😀 One point caught my attention right away. While the editorial staff (I assume that is the “we” mentioned) believes “ultimate truth resides in the person of Jesus Christ, who as Savior embraces us with eternal life, and as Lord asks that we give ourselves over to service, to love, to purity, and to a greater purpose,” their writers are not required to believe the same.

From the MindFlights guidelines:

We are not isolationists. We don’t bar the door to the skeptic, or the seeker who hasn’t found, or the one who has an allegiance to a different set of doctrines. Our faith says the door should be open for all who want to befriend us. Hospitality is an early and enduring virtue in Christendom. Therefore, we want to offer broader visions of truth. While contributors need not be Christian, familiarity with compatible values will increase the likelihood that your submission will fit.

So here’s kind of the reverse approach from that of the general book publishers—starting out with a Christian worldview and willing to include anyone not opposed to it (in contrast to starting out with a non-Christian worldview and willing to include anyone not too overt in their differing view). I find the idea intriguing. After all, I would characterize most of my writing as aimed at Both, Christian and non-Christian alike.

The realities of marketing in today’s society, however, seem to dictate the need to “target” a particular group. My decision was to earmark Christians and leave it in their hands to pass my writing along to the non-Christians in their world. That strategy may or may not work.

But what about MindFlights? In their decision to be inclusive—hospitable, I believe was their term—are they gaining or losing an audience? And is there any way to know? I mean, unlike Christian bookstores or the shelves of Christian fiction in a general market store, there is no way of knowing who visits MindFlights, barring a poll of some kind.

Of course, there was no Big Announcement of a change of policy, so perhaps there has been no change in readership, other than would be expected from the merge of two established webzines.

Seems to me a webzine, and a book store, for that matter, should be very different from a church. After all, Christians are to be in the world but not of it. So “in” seems to mean non-Christians can hang around with us and enter into discussion with us about our plots, our characters, our themes, our faith, our hope, our Savior.

OK, before posting the list of other May CSFF Blog Tour participants, I want to make the first Top Tour Blogger Award. For his three posts on MindFlights, the award goes to Steve Rice, who, by the way, takes a different view from mine about MindFlights’ change of direction.

And the others:

*Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
**Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
*Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Pamela Morrisson
*John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
**Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
*Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Bold type indicates a site I know has posted.
An * indicates “must read” content.
** “Must read” content, an intriguing discussion you might want to join

Published in: on May 21, 2008 at 11:41 am  Comments (5)  
Tags: , ,

CSFF Blog Tour – MindFlights, Day 2


We’re continuing the CSFF Tour for MindFlights, but I want to make an announcement first. This month we’ve been taking nominations for the Clive Staples Award. Although I’m sure there are other fans of speculative fiction who aren’t yet aware of the award and would like to include a nomination, I think we’ll have to set a deadline so we can get on with the judging. So, last day for nominations will be June 15.

And now, back to MindFlights.

Today I read one of the short stories offered and thought I’d give a review of it. Because I’m a fantasy fan, I chose “The Other’s Mission” by Matthew Wuertz.

Summary. The story mirrors a missionary story, with a person from another place coming to tell a people group the Truth. Even though it is recognizable, I didn’t find it predictable. Wuertz hooked me from the opening by creating a likable point of view character and a likable protagonist.

Strengths. I already mentioned the strong opening that pulled me into the story and the appealing characters that made me care. Wuertz also created a world I could easily imagine. Without stopping the action he provided vivid descriptions. He also created a strong central conflict that drove the story, and he added increasing tension and suspense. So even though I knew the direction the story was going, I wanted to see how it played out.

The theme was clear and strong but Wuertz avoided the dread “preachiness” of authorial instruction or explanation to his readers.

Finally, the writing was strong. Nothing jarred my inner ear or pulled me from the story. His similes were appropriate for the culture and character he created.

Weakness. I liked this story so much, it’s hard for me to think of something to point to here. One way Wuertz could strengthen the story would be to include description appealing to all the senses. Mind you, I felt like I knew this world, these people, but I am a visual person, so it was easy for me to “see” them as Wuertz described them. But looking back, I noticed places where an appeal to other senses would have sharpened the scene. For example, the smell of the ogres or a word about how the POV character felt, especially when he fell.

Recommendation. If “The Other’s Mission” is representative of the stories in MindFlights, then this publication is going for high quality. Highly recommend you take time to read this story and others you’ll find in the genre of your choice.

Don’t forget to stop by other blogs discussing MindFlights:

*Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
*Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Pamela Morrisson
*John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
**Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
*Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Bold type indicates a site I know has posted.
An * indicates “must read” content.
** “Must read” content, an intriguing discussion you might want to join

CSFF Blog Tour – MindFlights, Day 1


Yea! 😀 Blog Tour time! 😀 We have another good one, too. This month our feature is the online publication, MindFlights.

One of the reasons I’m happy we highlight online sites is because EVERYONE can take a look at what’s offered. It doesn’t cost a dime. Much of what MindFlights publishes is short fiction, so those who have been curious about fantasy or science fiction but haven’t wanted to invest in books they’re unsure about, actually have some examples to read. For free.

But there’s more than short fiction. MindFlights also publishes a serialized novel, poetry, articles, and artwork. In addition, they provide discussion forums. It’s a great concept. Readers can give writers direct feedback. What did you like about a story? What don’t you get? It’s the kind of dialogue a reader rarely gets with a novelist. The thing is, I think it is also helpful and possibly encouraging for a writer, too.

What I want to do, however, at least today, is to introduce you to one of the people behind the scenes, Selena Thomason. For some time, Selena headed up the editorial team at Dragons, Knights, and Angels. When that publication merged with the Sword Review, she became the managing editor of MindFlights.

Selena is also a writer, as I suspect are all the volunteer editors. Although she’s working on several science fiction novels, her publishing credits include quite an array of short shories:

  • Mood Meds
    published in The Courier
    (April 2008 )
  • The Word
    published in Anathema
    (April 2008 )
  • Designed Development
    published in Chaos Theory: Tales Askew
    (November 2007)
  • Gifted
    published in Residential Aliens
    (November 2007)
  • Anonymous
    published in Every Day Fiction
    (September 2007)
  • Robbie’s Repair
    published in 365 tomorrows
    (March 2007)
  • Ian Gets Involved
    published in 365 tomorrows
    (March 2007)
  • Flowers for My Beloved
    published in The Literary Bone
    (Spring 2007)

This Floridian writer has been involved in the NaNo Writing Month for the past three years. Excerpts of her work are available at her NaNo site. You can read more from Selena about her life and writing on her blog.

Selena has quite an interesting array of recommended books listed on her Web site. Her fiction selections (and her comments about the books) include the following:

The Curse of Chalion
by Lois McMaster Bujold
Wow! Set in the same world as Paladin of Souls it’s got the same fascinating religion. Plus an intricate plot and compelling characters. For a more detailed review see DKA or my blog. This book is highly recommended.

Changing Planes
by Ursula K. LeGuin
A fun book full of imaginative short stories.

The Time Traveler’s Wife
by Audrey Niffenegger
Quite possibly the most unique romance of all time! This book is beyond wonderful. It’s got a truly great concept and the stellar writing to back it up. Highly recommended.

Paladin of Souls
by Lois McMaster Bujold
This fantasy book is one of my favorites. It’s got a rich world and a truly fascinating religion. Highly recommended. See blog entries 10/28/05, 10/22/05, and 10/12/05.

Oryx and Crake
by Margaret Atwood
see related blog posts 5/9/05 and 4/20/05.
A truly great book! Margaret Atwood is brilliant and one of my favorite writers.

The Dress Lodger
by Sheri Holman
I don’t normally like historical novels, but this one got me. (Actually maybe I just don’t think of myself as someone who likes historical novels because I notice a couple on this list. Maybe it’s because I don’t generally like history or books on history. That’s terrible, I know.) Heartbreaking poverty. Cholera before the science of infectious diseases was understood.

Want to learn more about MindFlights, the stories, the people who make it happen? Check out what others on the tour are saying.

Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir’s Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Bold type indicates a site I know has posted.

Published in: on May 19, 2008 at 11:16 am  Comments (6)  
Tags: , ,
%d bloggers like this: