The Master's Artist

Leaving it all to God

Leaving it all to God

On July 29th, Hollywood Act One founder, Barbara Nicolosi, posted on Flannery O'Connor in her blog Church of the Masses. Her post included a Washington Times article by Jen Waters. Here's are a couple of excerpts from the article which have stuck with me since I read it.

Miss O'Connor knew her time was short because of her disease. She shaped her writing for people who would read her work after her death, says Paul Elie, who wrote about Miss O'Connor in his book "The Life You Save May Be Your Own." She didn't waste time on cultural or religious controversies of the era, Mr. Elie says.

"She focused on metaphor and imagery and the central drama of
Christianity, the moment of grace with Christ," he says.
"She stylized her work for posterity. ... Flannery O'Connor once said
she wished books could be written and deposited in a slot for the next
century. ... She said that a serious writer would gladly swap 100 readers
now for 10 readers in 10 years or one reader in 100 years."

snip

"She is better known and more widely read today than when she died," Mr.
Elie says. "She was very well-known around serious writers, but her books
didn't have large sales. They didn't win prizes."
After developing lupus, Miss O'Connor disciplined herself to write every
day from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., including Sundays. During the last year of her
life, she wrote for at least one hour a day.

I'm reading Flannery O'Connor's stories when I take a break from doing still another revision of my first novel. I'm not anywhere near her league, but this article about her has me pondering in my heart. . . .am I really, truly willing to leave the results of my writing to God? What if my work never gets published in my lifetime. What if my fiction never gets published period and this blog and the television continuity and newspaper articles I've written form my body of published work. Would I still write in a disciplined way? Would I still persist?

I keep on putting little deadlines on my fiction writing. "Well, if I don't get some results by such and such a date, I'll just forget about it and get a full time job." Yet, somehow the job's don't come and that fragile motivation to keep on trucking has me still showing up here at the computer keyboard day after day. What if my manuscripts never get read except by the many gracious friends and fellow writers who've critiqued them? Am I willing to relinquish any and all outcomes to God?

I find God often finds several ways to get a message home to me in case I'm not paying careful attention at his first attempt.

So, the day before I read Barbara's blog I came across the following.

Oswald Chambers, in the July 28th devotional from My Utmost for His Highest, writes:

What is my dream of God's purpose? His purpose is that I depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay in the middle of the turmoil calm and unperplexed, that is the end of the purpose of God. God is not working towards a particular finish. His end is the process--that I see Him walking on the waves, no shore in sight, no success, no goal, just the absolute certainty that it is all right because I see Him walking on the sea.

Today, I say yes to my questions. I say yes to depending on God's power now. I relinquish the kinds of finishes I'd like to see--the contract, the bestseller, the platform, the influence, the income--because to see Him walking on the sea is everything. Better one day in His courts....

This morning, I went to my little cathedral through a warm, summer rain that made me think Ottawa had become New Orleans for the humidity and the droplets hanging off the purple Hosta flowers in my garden.

It's gray and green outdoors, lush, wet, sorrowful. Our bishop performed the Eucharist and did the litany for the dying for a parishioner who will soon pass on.
Then, after the service, I went forward with others to kneel at the altar rail for the laying on of hands and anointing of oil for the sick. At breakfast afterwards, I looked around the table at the disparate group of elderly, and not so elderly people, and saw family, a place where everyone is welcome, whether they are cranky, or eccentric, or struggling with alcohol, or physically deformed or mentally imbalanced. I drove home in the misty rain to Glenn Gould playing Bach on the radio. I see Him walking on the waves, and He is enough. He is the Yes! and Amen! of all God's promises. I could almost burst for joy. He is enough.

Deep Thoughts

Deep Thoughts
 
Jack Handey
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Shallow Thoughts
 
HaLife
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

My Thoughts
 
My Thoughts
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Your Thoughts
 
Your Thoughts
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Jules' Thoughts

Me Hates Grammer: Author's Voice Murdered by Over-Editing

Writers love to talk about blunders, especially the grammar faux pas of other writers. This week on a Yahoo group I belong to, one particular grammar-loving panelist opened the floor to the question: What's your grammar pet peeve?

You know you have a popular topic when lurkers come out to play, and oh, did they!

First, I'll admit I didn't participate in the discussion. My response, had I jumped in, would have been, "Take the Redwood from your own eye sockets before  you take the speck out of that other writer's orbs." (That's not a direct quote, because Jesus knew what Redwoods are or would be, but his audience would not have known.)

Second, I didn't bother reading more than three or four responses from the dozens that littered my inbox. This same topic was discussed not that long ago, and I can only roll my eyes so many times before I strain them.

Basically, from previous discussions, I've concluded that after everyone is done bashing stupid editors, writers and the mistakes they make, the argument splits into two camps (well, maybe three):

1. Each of us has a specific duty in the Body of Christ. Some of us are great writers, some of us are wonderful editors. We should excel in the gift we were given and rely on others in areas we're not gifted.

2. We should strive for excellence in everything we do. Translation: writers should also be excellent editors, or at least know grammar; the argument for editors to be excellent writers isn't made as vehemently. Perhaps we're all to assume editors already are excellent writers? (Um, yeah, see me about that one privately.)

3. What is the purpose of this discussion?

I'd like to say the tone took on a "learned from other people's errors," and maybe in some posts that was the case, but overall, it's usually a great time of venting and finger-pointing.

Personally, I'm a writer. I try to have clean copy, and I do know the basic of the basic when it comes to grammar, but I found that when I actually took the time to study grammar, it stifled me. Instead of sitting to write, I was concerned whether the sentence structure was correct. Needless to say, I didn't write too much.

And when it comes to various editing tasks, I'm pretty good at dissecting plot, character, theme, and overall consistency. You want a line edit? I'm not your gal. And people like Barbara Wallraff annoy me.

So what are my big grammar goofs?

*Verb tense: I'll often start a sentence in one tense and end in another. And don't even ask me to name all the tenses.
*Transitive and intransitive verbs. I think transitive verbs take an object. I think. (Is "think" intransitive?)
*That/Which. One is used for restrictive clauses, the other for nonrestrictive clauses. Whatever those are.

Those are the ones I know about. If you've found any others I need to be made aware of, please e-mail me at I_don't_care AT getalife.com.

Please don't get me wrong: Grammar is important. Literary devices are important. Knowing how to use language is important. (Finding a synonym for important is important. But I'll claim repetition to make a point. I know there's a term for that.) But give me a well-written, interesting story over a perfectly-grammatical, neutered one any day.

And while we're at it, prune your own tree. Or, grow your own tree, and hire someone to prune it. (That's symbolism.)

Question: How do you reconcile grammar, or writing "rules" in general, with voice?

Question: What are some writing rules you find yourself breaking all the time. Do you have any tricks for remembering rules?

Deep Thoughts Jack Handey ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Deep Thoughts
 
Jack Handey
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Shallow Thoughts
 
HaLife
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

My Thoughts
 
My Thoughts
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Your Thoughts
 
Your Thoughts
 
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Jules’ Thoughts
 
Me Hates Grammer: Author’s Voice Murdered by Over-Editing

Writers love to talk about blunders, especially the grammar faux pas of other writers. This week on a Yahoo group I belong to, one particular grammar-loving panelist opened the floor to the question: What’s your grammar pet peeve?

You know you have a popular topic when lurkers come out to play, and oh, did they!

First, I’ll admit I didn’t participate in the discussion. My response, had I jumped in, would have been, “Take the Redwood from your own eye sockets before  you take the speck out of that other writer’s orbs.” (That’s not a direct quote, because Jesus knew what Redwoods are or would be, but his audience would not have known.)

Second, I didn’t bother reading more than three or four responses from the dozens that littered my inbox. This same topic was discussed not that long ago, and I can only roll my eyes so many times before I strain them.

Basically, from previous discussions, I’ve concluded that after everyone is done bashing stupid editors, writers and the mistakes they make, the argument splits into two camps (well, maybe three):

1. Each of us has a specific duty in the Body of Christ. Some of us are great writers, some of us are wonderful editors. We should excel in the gift we were given and rely on others in areas we’re not gifted.

2. We should strive for excellence in everything we do. Translation: writers should also be excellent editors, or at least know grammar; the argument for editors to be excellent writers isn’t made as vehemently. Perhaps we’re all to assume editors already are excellent writers? (Um, yeah, see me about that one privately.)

3. What is the purpose of this discussion?

I’d like to say the tone took on a “I learned from other people’s errors,” and maybe in some posts that was the case, but overall, it’s usually a great time of venting and finger-pointing.

Personally, I’m a writer. I try to have clean copy, and I do know the basic of the basic when it comes to grammar, but I found that when I actually took the time to study grammar, it stifled me. Instead of sitting to write, I was concerned whether the sentence structure was correct. Needless to say, I didn’t write too much.

And when it comes to various editing tasks, I’m pretty good at dissecting plot, character, theme, and overall consistency. You want a line edit? I’m not your gal. And people like Barbara Wallraff annoy me.

So what are my big grammar goofs?

*Verb tense: I’ll often start a sentence in one tense and end in another. And don’t even ask me to name all the tenses.
*Transitive and intransitive verbs. I think transitive verbs take an object. I think. (Is “think” intransitive?)
*That/Which. One is used for restrictive clauses, the other for nonrestrictive clauses. Whatever those are.

Those are the ones I know about. If you’ve found any others I need to be made aware of, please e-mail me at I_don't_care AT getalife.com.

Please don’t get me wrong: Grammar is important. Literary devices are important. Knowing how to use language is important. (Finding a synonym for important is important. But I’ll claim repetition to make a point. I know there’s a term for that.) But give me a well-written, interesting story over a perfectly-grammatical, neutered one any day.

And while we’re at it, prune your own tree. Or, grow your own tree, and hire someone to prune it. (That’s symbolism.)

Question: How do you reconcile grammar, or writing “rules” in general, with voice?

Question: What are some writing rules you find yourself breaking all the time. Do you have any tricks for remembering rules?

Pre-Art When does an artist

Pre-Art
 
When does an artist become an artist? When critics acclaim him? When his works are deemed publishable?

Or is he born an artist?

Some of us grow in a nurturing environment where our talents and confidence are encouraged. I gratefully count myself among that number. My childhood was characterized by opportunities for artistic expression. It’s no surprise. My mother’s idea of playing outside as a child meant taking her colorbook and crayons out on the sidewalk. She went on to major in art. By the time my siblings and I could wrap our little fists around a crayon, she surrounded us with stacks of manila paper and a magical waxed rainbow. Our early attempts were praised and displayed, then saved in a file.

Were those preschool scribblings art? My mom showed me a drawing of two people I did when I was two years old. It fit the typical standard: large heads and miniscule bodies. But there was something more. Yes, the heads were oversized, but they were also well-shaped ovals. All the facial features were present. The tiny bodies included the major body parts—all located in appropriate positions. Impressive construction for a two year old. But what amazed me most was the whimsical placement—as though the figures had been frozen mid-dance. The picture embodied imagination. My mom had recognized it and prized it.

When my son was still preschool aged, he filled a page with a mass of multi-colored, snarled lines. I could have scolded him for wasting the magic marker, but instead I asked him what he’d drawn. “Wrestling snakes.” What a difference a title makes! My husband displayed Wrestling Snakes on his university office wall. Years later Luke drew a sequel, only this time he used pencil and shading, fangs and scales. His father displayed the second Wrestling Snakes beside the first in his office art gallery.

When does an artist become an artist?

Those of us who believe in a sovereign Creator-God also believe He designs us with certain gifts. No one is born with fully developed skills, but everyone arrives with pre-packaged potential. And last time I checked, imagination was still free and available in unlimited quantities.

The sad reality is many artists are discouraged by parents and should-be mentors. Some must overcome daunting obstacles to pursue their dreams. I read today that the parents of the famous opera singer Enrico Caruso wanted him to be an engineer. His teacher said he had no voice at all and could not sing. However, they failed to squash his dreams or his imagination. Enrico Caruso was born an opera singer. The seed was there. And the determination.

We can’t go back and undo what was done to us or what we’ve done to others. But we can determine to place a crayon in the chubby fist of any budding artist we meet. And we can see through eyes that appreciate the imagination it takes to face a blank page and fill it with color, words, or musical notes.

When does an artist become an artist? You tell me.

Other Blogs of Interest Author

Other Blogs of Interest
 
Author Intrusion, a blog about anything but fiction by novelist Lisa Samson.

Faith in Fiction, a blog put together by Bethany House editor Dave Long.

Both have had some very interesting posts this week. Check them out.

The Heartbreaker

The Heartbreaker is the most recent novel by Susan Howatch, a British novelist who I see on many must read lists. I think I know why. If her other books are anything like this, she's not afraid to tackle tough subjects, and she's not afraid to wade into the finer points of theology, denominational differences, and political correctness.

This novel is the third in a series concerning "healing in modern London." The first book, The Wonder Worker, introduced Nicholas Darrow, the rector of St. Benet's Church. The church is in the center of The City, the financial district of London. The second book, The High Flyer, introduced Carter Graham, a woman who marries a man plagued with gross sexual perversions. She is drawn to St. Benet's and the help and healing it provides. These characters are major players in The Heartbreaker, but the central figure is Gavin Blake, a male prostitute. The Eeeewwww Factor in the book is high. I can assure you it is not a book that will be nominated for a Christy, or grace the shelves of the What Would Jesus Read Christian Family Book Store. Nevertheless, it seems to be an example of what Master's Artist long to read and write.

Here are the three things I like about The Heartbreaker.

The first is that the book tackles a tough subject. Several tough subjects in fact. You see, Gavin Blake is not just a male prostitute, but a heterosexual man trained to service homosexual clients. As Gavin is "managed" by a woman named Elizabeth, (also a character in The High Flyer), there are references to her other business interests, such as a sadomasochistic cult called GOLD, a little pornographic sideline that culls its materials by filming certain of Gavin's clients, and an interest in a friend's escort service. The only time I ever felt Howatch came close to the line was when Elizabeth, and her evil partner, Asherton, discuss how to stage a SM tableaux that compromises a priest. Otherwise, believe it or not, all these horrific sexual subjects are handled very tastefully.

The second is when we meet Gavin, he is a highly sexual man who believes his life is everything he wants. He sexualizes everyone and everything and the language he uses reflects his life and his understanding of it. As we come to know Gavin more personally, and he is more deeply involved with St. Benet's Church and those who serve her, the language becomes less graphic, more thoughtful, and shows how a person who sees themselves in one dimension uses language that is one dimensional. The language never becomes G-rated, but I never experienced Vulgarity Fatigue. In the past, I have stopped reading authors who I felt were just piling on the graphic language and calling it reality. The Heartbreaker never came close.

My third reason for liking this book is even after Gavin leaves the life, we do not have a meaningful rescue with meaningful and hopeful looks. And we don't have to endure a sweet epilogue when the protagonists gather on the next major holiday, preferably in a warm kitchen, making coffee and discussing how great things are now, how lost they were and how much hope they now have for the future. The last 120 pages of the book deal with Gavin's bulimia, depression, fear of finding work, a nervous breakdown, impotence and anger concerning his parents and what initially drove him into prostitution. There is a Happily Ever After, but it comes after we see Grace truly at work in Gavin's life.

I will give away one of Gavin's After the Life problems that I think Howatch was brave in tackling.

Gavin is working with an elderly priest and when the subject of his taking communion comes up, Gavin declines. He declines several times. He has a great fear of being touched, in any way, by a man. He fears he will lose all control and go crazy. Another reason he doesn't want to take communion is that, in the Church of England, one of the postures to receive communion is kneeling. The idea of kneeling before a man, and being offered something ... you can imagine. This is certainly an issue that most would say is not edifying and needn't be examined. I think there is room for that discussion, but I think it brave of Howatch to give us the rest of the story and not fade to black when all the heavy lifting for the hero really begins.

There are a few things I didn't like. Her language is not as precise as my Evangelical background would like. There are scenes that have a New Age feel, but ultimately lead to others where Christ is identified as God, Creator and King. The issues of female priests, gays in the church and sex outside of marriage are raised, but the story does not delve into them deeply.

I am linking to an interview Howatch gave to Touchstone Magazine. It covers her personal beliefs on religion and on writing as a Christian.

This is a tough read. If you are offended by exceptionally graphic language, exceptionally harsh subject matter, and want a warm and fuzzy ending to the story, avoid The Heartbreaker. If you want to see a skilled writer at work, pull on your hip waders and give it a try.

The Heartbreaker The Heartbreaker is

The Heartbreaker

The Heartbreaker is the most recent novel by Susan Howatch, a British novelist who I see on many must read lists. I think I know why. If her other books are anything like this, she’s not afraid to tackle tough subjects, and she’s not afraid to wade into the finer points of theology, denominational differences, and political correctness.

This novel is the third in a series concerning “healing in modern London.” The first book, The Wonder Worker, introduced Nicholas Darrow, the rector of St. Benet’s Church. The church is in the center of The City, the financial district of London. The second book, The High Flyer, introduced Carter Graham, a woman who marries a man plagued with gross sexual perversions. She is drawn to St. Benet’s and the help and healing it provides. These characters are major players in The Heartbreaker, but the central figure is Gavin Blake, a male prostitute. The Eeeewwww Factor in the book is high. I can assure you it is not a book that will be nominated for a Christy, or grace the shelves of the What Would Jesus Read Christian Family Book Store. Nevertheless, it seems to be an example of what Master’s Artist long to read and write.

Here are the three things I like about The Heartbreaker.

The first is that the book tackles a tough subject. Several tough subjects in fact. You see, Gavin Blake is not just a male prostitute, but a heterosexual man trained to service homosexual clients. As Gavin is “managed” by a woman named Elizabeth, (also a character in The High Flyer), there are references to her other business interests, such as a sadomasochistic cult called GOLD, a little pornographic sideline that culls its materials by filming certain of Gavin’s clients, and an interest in a friend’s escort service. The only time I ever felt Howatch came close to the line was when Elizabeth, and her evil partner, Asherton, discuss how to stage a SM tableaux that compromises a priest. Otherwise, believe it or not, all these horrific sexual subjects are handled very tastefully.

The second is when we meet Gavin, he is a highly sexual man who believes his life is everything he wants. He sexualizes everyone and everything and the language he uses reflects his life and his understanding of it. As we come to know Gavin more personally, and he is more deeply involved with St. Benet’s Church and those who serve her, the language becomes less graphic, more thoughtful, and shows how a person who sees themselves in one dimension uses language that is one dimensional. The language never becomes G-rated, but I never experienced Vulgarity Fatigue. In the past, I have stopped reading authors who I felt were just piling on the graphic language and calling it reality. The Heartbreaker never came close.

My third reason for liking this book is even after Gavin leaves the life, we do not have a meaningful rescue with meaningful and hopeful looks. And we don’t have to endure a sweet epilogue when the protagonists gather on the next major holiday, preferably in a warm kitchen, making coffee and discussing how great things are now, how lost they were and how much hope they now have for the future. The last 120 pages of the book deal with Gavin’s bulimia, depression, fear of finding work, a nervous breakdown, impotence and anger concerning his parents and what initially drove him into prostitution. There is a Happily Ever After, but it comes after we see Grace truly at work in Gavin’s life.

I will give away one of Gavin’s After the Life problems that I think Howatch was brave in tackling.

Gavin is working with an elderly priest and when the subject of his taking communion comes up, Gavin declines. He declines several times. He has a great fear of being touched, in any way, by a man. He fears he will lose all control and go crazy. Another reason he doesn’t want to take communion is that, in the Church of England, one of the postures to receive communion is kneeling. The idea of kneeling before a man, and being offered something… you can imagine. This is certainly an issue that most would say is not edifying and needn’t be examined. I think there is room for that discussion, but I think it brave of Howatch to give us the rest of the story and not fade to black when all the heavy lifting for the hero really begins.

There are a few things I didn’t like. Her language is not as precise as my Evangelical background would like. There are scenes that have a New Age feel, but ultimately lead to others where Christ is identified as God, Creator and King. The issues of female priests, gays in the church and sex outside of marriage are raised, but the story does not delve into them deeply.

I am linking to an interview Howatch gave to Touchstone Magazine. It covers her personal beliefs on religion and on writing as a Christian.

This is a tough read. If you are offended by exceptionally graphic language, exceptionally harsh subject matter, and want a warm and fuzzy ending to the story, avoid The Heartbreaker. If you want to see a skilled writer at work, pull on your hip waders and give it a try.

Accountability and the Christian imagination

Accountability and the Christian imagination

Over at Dave Long's blog, Faith*in*Fiction, we've been having discussions about bearing witness to the Christian imagination in our writing.

I'm not going to reprise the whole discussion, because you can go over to the discussion board to see it.

However, one of the participants, Becky, asked me this question a while back and has been after me for an answer. Here's her question:

"I guess in saying that, Deborah, I was thinking more in terms of how a writer comes to the decisions about realism and the depiction of evil that each must make. In your decision about language, for instance, how did you arrive at what you will or will not write? Does the accountability you spoke of play a part and why or why not? Or "the kind of obedience that God requires"?

Well, let me roll up my proberbial sleeves and see if I can answer the accountability question because I think accountability is key to whether I am developing or cultivating a Christian imagination as opposed to a romantic, or Dionysian, or Jungian, or Gnostic imagination. Becky ended her most recent comment on Dave's blog about how we arrive at standards for the art with the following:

". . . how we arrive at these standards, I think it's vital that we figure that out. Otherwise it's a totally subjective matter, and we each become Lone Rangers."

As I confessed in the course of the discussion, exactly how I relate the accountability I have built into my spiritual life to my writing is still an unfolding mystery to me. But I also agree with Becky that, as Christians, it's important that we not be Lone Rangers, working in isolation, only expounding on our personal, private vision. That's a romantic notion of the artist.

Much of the discussion has revolved around the use of coarse language and another of Becky's statements: "I think, for example, that it is important for Christian writers to grapple with the command to "let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth" and the implication of obedience on our stories."

I'm reading Flannery O'Connor's short stories right now, and in several of them, she has characters taking the Lord's Name in vain. She even has a boy in the woods trying it out, and getting more and more daring in the level of his blasphemies.
In other places, her characters liberally use the word "nigger". I would not leap up to say that the author herself is now guilty of blasphemy or racism because she depicted characters that are. Though I generally try to avoid coarse language, I may decide to include a sprinkling of it here and there sometime down the road. And, if I were asked to work on a television show like "The Sopranos", I wouldn't have a problem writing dialog for Tony, with his liberal use of the obcenities. Of course, if I began to experience a check on my spirit, I would have to examine whether I could continue, but I don't experience a check on my spirit or a dampening of my spiritual fervor upon watching these programs. I enjoy them and think they have more insight in one episode than a shelf-full of some of the so-called Christian fiction I've read.

Now...I imagine that the kinds of standards that Becky might arrive at or I might arrive at might be different. My standards would be more liberal, I imagine. However, I doubt that Becky could possibly be more theologically conservative than I am, because I'm pretty conservative. I doubt she's more serious about her faith, because I'm pretty serious.

Accountability I see first as a front-end process, something we as writers need before we even put a word on the page. If we are not abiding in Christ, then we don't have a hope of writing anything life-imparting, no matter how skillful we are.

Abiding in Christ, of course, requires that we have faith in Him, and that we have a relationship with Him. But how do we make certain that our relationship is with the real Jesus, God the Son, and not with some warm fuzzy that has nothing to do with the Jesus of Scripture?

I fear that far too many artists and writers are rebels. They love Jesus, but they don't much care for His church, they're not closely tucked into the Body of Christ. And I think their witness suffers as a result, and probably so does their art, insofar as it bears witness to a Christian Imagination.

As Christians, and as writers who are Christian, we must be accountable to other Christians, we must be members of a spiritual community, a church, where people know us, know intimately the struggles in our lives, and have permission to speak truthfully to us about what they see. I believe, as well, that we need to be under the benevolent authority of spiritual leaders, whether priests or pastors. We need to be under the authority of Scripture, but not just isolated proof texts, but the whole counsel of God. For me, I believe also in being under the authority of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles as well. We must constantly allow the creeds, Scripture, the teachings of the faith to judge our lives and the contents of our minds and hearts. God has given all these to us so that we can keep our relationship with Him and not be led astray by our feelings, our subjectivity and our carnal nature's hellbent tendencies.

What are the things that any Christian needs to do to abide in Christ? What are some of the ways that one can be certain one is abiding? How does one discern the will of God in one's life? It's not a totally subjective "it's just me and Jesus, baby," thing. Usually God will confirm what He's telling you in your heart by giving a similar message to your spouse, or your spiritual leaders or prayer partners. And if they tell you they don't think what you're hearing is from the Lord, then best to listen to those in your community. We need to search out Scripture and make sure that what we are doing is not violating God's commands.

Then....writing. Because, as I illustrated, our characters can get up to all sorts of things that would violate God's commands. And, if we're going to "get inside" our characters, and feel what they feel even if in an attenuated way, we might experience their greed, or jealousy, or resentment, or lust or whatever it is we're trying to depict. Are we guilty? Where do we end up crossing the line? When does interacting with characters become a way of interacting with archetypes or muses or emanations from the supernatural world that could be harmful?

What is our responsbility to our readers if our depictions excite emotions like lust, or a desire for revenge, or a copycat crime?

I don't think there are easy answers to these questions, and as I said, it's a mystery to me exactly how I navigate these things. But with prayer, help from my friends, a daily dose of Scripture reading, strong church community, and the help of the Holy Spirit, somehow I seem to have peace. Many of the people who hold me accountable are not writers. Thus, finding and developing a community with writers who are Christian, with artists who share some of the same dilemmas and questions and concerns is of deep importance, too. The Master's Artist is an online community for those of us who don't want to separate excellence in our craft from being a disciple of the Master.

As for standards, once the work is done, I'm leery of some kind of check list. Oh, this has twelve uses of the word crap in it, thus this book doesn't pass the test.
Or, this book will offend women because it doesn't use inclusive language. Or there's an explicit sex scene in the book and some people will be plagued with erotic images in their minds. I wouldn't mind perhaps a rating system, the way movies are rated.

I believe a Christian Imagination is not fettered by legalism. And I believe that Christian art can and will be offensive. The Cross is an offence, the stench of death to those who are perishing. It's foolishness to the world. And many Christians who are too comfortable might need a novel or a movie or a painting that will singe their hair and trouble them deeply. And some ideas are complex and interrelated in ways that are not easy to explain. Thus, we must be careful to not allow our knee-jerk prejudices and reactions to carry us away when we contemplate art by Christians.

Sue's Birthday

Today is an All Skate here at Master's Artist. We're unsupervised as Jules is resting and recreating with her girls in Jersey.

Anyway, this is an odd day for me. It's my birthday and I'm usually pretty tight-lipped about that, but this year I've been anticipating it. Nothing much is going to happen. I'll be alone this evening as Bill (my husband) is working and my kids will be out with friends. I'll probably write and piddle around. Birthdays are to be spent how you like, and I like piddling.

Anyway, with age comes a certain amount of wisdom, and a certain amount of liberty to share that wisdom. (Even if it's unsolicited.) For you who are twenty-something and rolling your eyes, just wait, it'll happen to you! Anyway, here are a couple of things that have been bugging me recently.

Spitting in public - DON'T!! This should be a no brainer, but it is not. I saw a man Sunday, in a shirt and tie, van loaded with impressionable minds, spit out of the window of his vehicle at a major intersection. If you are doing things like this, STOP IT!!! If you are a farmer, complete with THE tan, okay. If you are a logger in the woods, okay. If you are a baseball player, okay but only because I hate baseball and don't watch. Otherwise, keep your phlegm to yourself.

If you are a cashier, don't fidget when I write a check. It will only take me a few seconds and then the transaction will be over. Don't hover and act as if you're going to rip it out of my checkbook yourself. That makes me testy, and then I make mistakes, and it takes more time when I start over. Clasp your hands together, center yourself and remember that learning to stand quietly is not a bad thing.

Just last night a friend took me out for coffee. At a nearby table, a fellow was having a business meeting of some kind. There were yellow legal pads, lists of books, talk of tape recording seminars. Standard business/multi-level marketing drill. If you are involved with something like this, keep the high-fives to yourself. In the middle of a Barnes and Noble Starbuck's it looks silly. I don't care that in five-to-ten years you and your cohort will be rich, leaving the rest of us who only swill coffee and have no vision, still swilling coffee. And then, when that group goes, don't look around the room deciding who to cold-contact. GAUCHE.

Lastly, be kind and rewind. Pick up trash that didn't make it to the can. Don't get upset with young workers who are struggling to get your order right. Even if the creep tail-gated you for miles, let him in when he passes. Say thank you all the time. Even to your family members.

Have a great Sue's birthday!

By-the-bye The Bulwer-Lytton Contest has

By-the-bye

The Bulwer-Lytton Contest has chosen its winner. A great site to check out lines you DON'T want to use as hooks!