Getting Chipped

Last Sunday's paper had a front page article about how a year ago "Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs..." These identifiers were glass-encapsulated microchips with antennas about the size of two grains of rice end to end*, that were embedded into their forearms by means of a large-gauge hypodermic needle. Called RFID's -- radio frequency identification -- they were in this case, a high-tech way of restricting access to vaults holding sensitive data, a step beyond key cards and clearance codes, more akin to retina scanners or fingerprinting. To gain access, the chipped employee need only pass his arm before the reader and the door opens.

I have no idea why the paper felt it needed to put this story on the front page, seeing as it's a year old, but I'm glad they did. I have seen the email photos of the chip that looks like a grain of rice*, and contains your identification information, medical records, and even a small GPS. I've also read how in other countries (notably Brazil) the children of wealthy people are being chipped to aid in finding them if kidnapped. Others with certain medical conditions are chipped so that their medical records can be accessed in short order should an emergency arise and the person be away from their usual doctors. (VeriChip is the FDA's approved chip for implantation in humans) Of course they've been chipping pets for years now, also to help find them should they run away.

The gist of the article is that the chipping of the two surveillance equipment company employees set off a firestorm of debate over "the proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their ability to erode privacy in the digital age." That's a valid concern. Though the article said that the technology doesn't yet exist for chips to have global positioning transceivers in them so the government can pinpoint a person's exact location, 24/7, it's clear the chips can be tracked. So perhaps the transceivers can be put into the chips, and the government can locate someone who's missing, it just doesn't have the wherewithal to keep tabs on every citizen, all the time -- yet. For one thing, every citizen would need a chip, and we're still a good way from that happening.

However, it did say that thieves could make their own readers, aim that at people and pluck out their personal information from the chip in their arm.

And what about the fact that with chips embedded in a great deal of merchandise ("unbeknownst to many consumers, on a host of individual items at Wal-Mart and Best Buy") along with credit cards we can just pass before a reader, the technology is here for us to walk through the store, collect our purchases, flash the credit card and walk out the door. Only instead of a credit card, how about just flashing our hand before the reader so it can scan the rice-sized chip embedded under the skin? Or maybe, alternatively, it could be placed, oh, along an eyebrow, which would make it even easier, because then you wouldn't have to fool with the hand-reader, you could just pick up what you needed and walk out of the store, leaving the readers over the exit to handle your transaction. It could scan both purchases and purchaser all at one swipe. Pretty convenient, huh? No more standing in line...

There'd probably be a slight lump though, both on hand and on the brow. One that could be seen if looked for... though with today's fixation with tattooing and piercing, perhaps people wouldn't care. It might even be a status symbol at the start, a sign of the hip and the cool, the bar placed on the forehead right above the bridge of the nose where, as everyone knows, the third eye is supposed to reside. If the glass encapsulating the chip were colored, I wonder if it might even show through the skin. And what if the chip had a small light in it? Would that show up as well...? I will definitely be using this in Black Box!

When in history have we ever, EVER had the technology to do such things as would obviously and thoroughly fulfill such passages as Rev 13:16 - 17?

"And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, and he provides that no one should be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.

We truly live in exciting times!

Grace,
Karen

*Grains of rice is a nice visual, but when I look at the paper's picture of the chip in actual size, it really looks more like a meal worm, or a maggot than grains of rice. And maggots are probably a more appropriate comparison! Unless you're trying to get people to like the idea of having a chip in their arm. LOL

Rainbow After the Storm

Tuesday night we had another big storm. It blew threw around five pm while we were doing Bible Class. About twenty minutes into class, lightning struck close and loud and the power went off. By then the wind was blowing like crazy (60mph gusts, they said) and the rain was pouring down along with marble-sized hail that was battering all the front windows of the house so hard I thought it might break them. We went out into the dining room to discover that the car canopy had within ten minutes been totally shredded!

Wow. I love these storms! They are amazing.

In half an hour it was over, but the power didn't come on for three and a half more hours. I was amused to find how much of a hole no power makes in one's life. Suddenly all the things you were thinking of doing that night... you can't. And furthermore, everything you think of doing now, with the power off, you realize you can't do! (Which is why I had no post for Tuesday.)

At first I went outside where it was still light, and also cool, fresh and still sprinkling. I wrote in my journal for awhile as the rain stopped and that's I saw the rainbow (above) -- it was a full rainbow arcing over our street, so perfectly the street seemed to be heading straight into it. Unfortunately I couldn't get both the street and the rainbow in the camera's viewfinder, so I opted for the rainbow and took two pictures (see above) You can see the light pole on the right side of the left picture and it's light fixture protruding from the left side of the right picture. Pretty cool.

Later, when it got dark, I went inside and listened to Bible class on my Mp3 player, and realized... I can't cook my dinner! The microwave doesn't work. LOL. We are SOOO spoiled! Anyway, I put on a headlamp, ate peanut butter and jelly and started reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which is partly relaxation and partly research.

Speaking of, I've gotten stuck on the second scene in Chapter 7, working my way through it very slowly. Today everything just went blank, so finally I gave up and did other things... Maybe tomorrow I'll move it to the point I can at least leave it. Crichton's book is actually quite timely in its descriptions of a couple of things.

Grace,

Karen

Huge Storm

All the highs and lows and moisture pulls have lined up and our monsoon is now in full swing. We had a huge storm last night (Saturday). The wind was blowing like crazy and the rain was coming down fast. They said our area got 1.23 inches in twenty minutes. "Coming down" is a bit of a misnomer, though, since the rain was blowing horizontally. I'd have taken a picture but all the windows were streaming with water and the visibility wasn't too great even apart from that. The back and front yards became lakes and the street was a river.

My husband was flying in from LA, due to arrive at 8pm with the storm in progress at our place at 7:45 and moving directly for the airport. Our county was under a severe thunderstorm watch, and also an urban and small stream flooding advisory. As it turned out, the plane was diverted to a holding pattern over the Tucson Mountains to the west and didn't land for half an hour. When my husband finally got on the ground and back in the car -- all the power was out. That means there were no stoplights, and not enough police to cover them all.

He had thought to stop at a fast food place to pick up dinner on the way home, but all the places he'd had in mind were dark and powerless. Finally he found an El Paso, northeast of our house and got carry-out. Turns out about 18,000 customers lost power in the storm. Our house seemed to be part of an island where the power had not been knocked out. Most likely because I was in the middle of listening to Bible class when the storm hit. LOL!

Grace,
Karen

PS. The picture is from today, not part of the storm on Saturday.

Seven Lost Wonders

Yesterday I wrote about how no work of man lasts forever save what Jesus did on the cross.

Today I present an example of that reality. Recently an online poll to select the new seven wonders of the world was held and on July 7 the winners were announced. The reason seven new wonders of the world had to be chosen is because of the old seven wonders, only one of them remains.

Now called the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, they are, in chronological order...

The Great Pyramid of Giza in Memphis Egypt, tomb of the Pharoah Khufu (see photo above) This was built around 2650-2500 BC

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon -- built by Nebuchadnezzar on the banks of the Euphrates

The Statue of Zeus at Olympia -- a statue of gold and ivory forty feet tall housed in a temple (amusingly, the sculptor Pheidias, had to contend with critics. They disliked that he'd sculpted Zeus seated with his head so close to the roof because it gave "the impression that if Zeus moved to stand up he would unroof the temple.")

The Temple of Artimis at Ephesus - renowned as the most beautiful structure on earth, built to honor the Greek goddess of hunting, wild nature, and fertility

The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus -- a wonder of architecture and sculpture in Bodrum, Turkey

The Colossus of Rhodes -- a 100 foot tall statue of the Greek God Helios made of iron and bronze (about 3/4's the height of the Statue of Liberty) and once guarding the entrance to the harbor of the Greek island of Rhodes.

The Lighthouse of Alexandria -- A tower on the island of Pharos in Alexandria, Egypt. At 383 - 450 ft "it was among the tallest man-made structures on Earth for many centuries."

Ironically it's the oldest of them, the Great Pyramid of Giza,that still remains. The other six have been destroyed, all but one by earthquakes. The Temple of Artemis was destroyed by a fire.

To see some pictures and learn more about the old wonders, check out this page of paintings by Mario Larrinaga.

Have a great weekend
Karen

P.S. To see what the 7 New Wonders of the World are, click HERE.

Grace and Peace

Recently I mentioned our Pastor has been speaking on God's laws for prosperity and keeping Him first. Well, last Sunday our lesson was taught by a man who has recently come to the realization that he has the gift of pastor teacher and will be going up for ordination next year. He continued on the theme of God's Laws for Prosperity, and one thing that stuck in my mind is that His laws are unlike the way we've always done things. We fixate, for example, on the need for money, for supporting our family, for working hard because it's "right," for success, for material things, all at the expense of time with the Lord or fulfilling His calling on our lives.

Yet the Bible says we have to put Him first. He has promised to provide for the family. Food, shelter and clothing are guaranteed to the believer who is living and advancing in God's plan for his life. If we are to live in that truth, we have to change the way we do things. We have to do things, handle our finances and our lives in ways we've never done it before.

So as I was reflecting on writing and also on my new hobby of making hand-stamped greeting cards, it occurred to me that as a Royal Ambassador, part of my calling is to bring beauty and blessing into other's lives. That's what art does. And yet for a long time I've believed that to do something like that for pleasure -- others' pleasure and my own -- is not enough.

I think this is definitely something that is put forth by the world's system of thinking, and one that many hold, or at least behave as if they hold, whether they claim it as a belief or not. You can't just make a card and send it to someone and through it give them only a moment's worth of pleasure. You can't just write a book and have someone enjoy several days worth of pleasure from it. No. That's not enough. The world system (at least part of it) says that you must acquire money or fame or approbation. You have to 'impact' lots of people. Not just twenty or ten or one. It has to be in the hundreds of thousands or you are viewed as a failure, by others and perhaps by yourself as well. Your books have to stay around for decades. Centuries even, not go out of print in five years.

This is a viewpoint I have held to for a long time. One the Lord has slowly been clearing out, a piece at a time. I think that's why I like the cards.

Before when I painted watercolors, I felt they had to be saved. They had to be matted, framed, displayed in a gallery and sold. They should be exhibited in shows. But cards, why...you just make them, as pieces of art, and you send them to someone, and the someone enjoys them and if they think no more of it than that, if they throw it away, it will have done its work. I like that. There's a great freedom in it. And I especially like it because it reminds me that everything we do in this life on earth is temporary. No work will ever last save that which was done on the cross.

I actually felt guilty for awhile over the time I was spending on something so ephemeral. It tended to translate over to the book as well, where I've always struggled with doubts as to the worth of what I'm doing (something I think a lot of writers struggle with). But it was in stopping to examine that guilt that I realized why I was feeling it, and that it was wrong. Card-making is something artistic, fun and wordless that I can do to rest from writing. It's something that is for others, even if on a very small scale. But as I said yesterday, little things are important. Life is made up of small things.

And happiness is not to be found in achievement nor acquisition of riches and materialism, but in knowing God, as a Father and as an intimate friend. Keep Him first and He gives to His beloved even in his (her) sleep. (Ps 127:2) Keep Him first and goodness and mercy will follow you all the days of your life. Blessed -- happy -- is the one who keeps Him -- his commands... His word -- first.

Grace and peace,
Karen

Small Things

I finished chapter 6 of Black Box today! Hooray! And since I added a scene to the material I already had, I took half of the second scene in the chapter and put it into chapter 7. Which I'll start tomorrow. So once again I've experienced the phenomenon of the doors opening after a period of emptiness and frustration, and suddenly I have a chapter.

Yes, I did go over and over 6a, where first it was scattered and disjointed and full of questions, then slowly I moved different pieces around, and kept going through it, word by word it seemed. Then today when I did one more pass, I found myself rather pleased with how it was turning out. There are still many questions, both about it and about ch 5, details of the setting and the setup still need to be decided, but those, too are solidifying. Little by little.

So much of life, it seems, comes in small steps. Tiny changes that are nearly imperceptible. The growth of a book. The growth of a child. Spiritual growth is like that, too. We take in the word every day from our pastor and slowly the changes are wrought in our souls. Old ideas are challenged, often repeatedly until they are shaken free. New ideas take shape and are also repeated. Each time you hear it, the concept acquires more weight and substance, begins to link to other concepts...filling holes vacated by the old wrong notiong. And then there is the matter of application.

Another incremental process. I remember my problems with temper. First I would blow up and only afterward, maybe half an hour later, realize I was sinning and out of fellowship. Even then it might take me awhile to get to the point where I could really confess it -- rebound, we like to call it -- and leave it alone without taking up the anger again. Gradually I began to catch myself sooner and sooner after the blowup.

One day I realized in the middle of the argument that I was totally out of line, and just shut up. I was still angry, but at least I didn't have to add angry words to my already out of whack mental attitude. From there I moved to the point of becoming aware of the fact that I was reacting to something, and to cut it off right then, removing myself from the conversation before it could devolve into an argument.

The most startling event however, was the day when something was said and I just thought, "That's foolish talk. I don't even care about arguing over it." And then I thought, "WHERE did that come from?!" Because it sure wasn't me.

No, it was the mind of Christ very slowly taking shape in me. In that area, at least.

Those little things, we are not supposed to take lightly. The minutes of our days, the days of our lives. All numbered. All precious. Filled with small things, yes, but life is much more about the small things than it is the large ones.

Do not despise the day of small things ... He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Zec 4:10; Lk 16:10)

Karen

Wordless Recreation

Well, after being so tired last night, I didn't expect to have a lot of energy or get much done on the book today, and I was right. I woke up still tired and when it came to thinking about Black Box, my brain had reverted to its turnip state. I've been wondering for awhile why Mondays keep being down days, and I think at least one reason may be that usually on the weekends I have a lot of social contact and do a lot of talking.

I think I’ve posted before about the writer’s supposed need for solitude and long periods of idleness or leisure, mentioned by Dorothea Brande in her classic book Becoming a Writer. I’ve never been totally sure I believed that, though more and more it does seem to be true. At least for me. She also mentions a need to spend recreational time not engaged in activities that involve words.

When I think about it, I realize that much of what I does involve words, particularly the generating of them -- either in writing my work in progress (WIP), or doing the blog or the newsletter or in answering emails. I tend to think of the blog and emails as "recreation," things I do when I'm done writing for the day, but more and more I find it difficult to that. They all pull words out of me. So does conversation. I’d read from other writers about the dangers of talking about your work in progress to others – how it tends to suck away the impetus to write it down. I just end up feeling like I am empty. That all the words have been spilled out, like water from a desert well and must somehow be replaced before I can continue.

Ms Brande addresses this in her book:

"If you want to stimulate yourself into writing, amuse yourself in wordless ways. Instead of going to a theater, hear a symphony orchestra or go by yourself to a museum; go alone for long walks or ride by yourself on a bus. If you will conscientiously refuse to talk or read, you will find yourself compensating for it to your great advantage."

I'm not sure what I think about the reading part. In the past reading has not been a problem and often stimulates me back into writing. But it's definitely true about the talking and if I do too much writing of any kind I seem to require times of not writing.

Today almost all I did was wordless -- housework, making a birthday card, shopping... I didn't try to force anything, just did what I felt like doing. It seemed to work. Even though it's late, I feel less tired now than I did when I woke up.

I'm hoping tomorrow to see more progress on the WIP.

Grace,
Karen

Too Tired for a Sunday Night...

Well, it's late Sunday night, and I'm too tired to think of anything to write. Too tired to decide if any of the half-written "ideas" I've got in my blog file might actually work. Too tired to make them work even if I did decide if they might work...

Tiredness is a weird thing for me. I don't always recognize it as tiredness because, unlike other folks, I don't tend to want to nap. Usually I read when I'm tired. That's what I'm starting to notice -- I'm very passive when I'm tired. I can read email, but not answer it. I can read books, but not write them. And if the book requires too much thinking, I can't even read. Tonight, though, I've been even more tired to the point where I'm staring out the windows at the storm, reading meaningless articles in the Parade and generally doing nothing constructive. Though I could go unload the dishwasher... that just seems way too hard.

And I find it fascinating how difficult it is to decide to do anything when I'm like this.

All of which seems strange since Sunday is supposed to be my day of rest and somehow I have drained out my energy rather than replenished it. I shall have to think about why this might be.

Grace,
Karen

A Sequel, Time and Word Count

Q: "I need more answers than you gave! Will there be a sequel to provide them?"

I would like to do a second series from the viewpoints of the children as they near adulthood. There are a number of things I didn't get to do in the final book that I'd originally wanted to, but that I see now are far more complicated than would have been right for Legends of the Guardian King. Whether that is something the Lord will ever open the doors for me to write remains to be seen.

For now, I have my hands more than full with Black Box! Which continues to crawl along, as I research janitors, maintenance men, laboratory procedure, routine and layout... Today I finally got chapter 5 to a point I can leave it and started in on chapter 6.

And now for one last question, one that came in recently through the email...

***Spoilers***

***

***

***

Q: "Why didn't you have the professor at the monastery at the end recognize that Abramm was in fact king, and why didn't you mention Rolland reuniting with his wife...at long last?"

Those two omissions can definitely be ascribed to word count, time and energy limits. Mostly word count and no more time, though. As it turned out Return of the Guardian King ended up being about 180,000 words (as a measuring standard, most Christian fiction runs about 100,000 to 120,000 words). In fact, I was told that after the typesetters had put in the corrections I'd made to the galleys, the book ran four pages too long. They had to squeeze up the formatting to make it fit in the 464 pages they'd allotted for it.

Also, to gracefully slide either of those matters (Laud acknowledging who Abramm really was, Rolland reunited with his wife) into the already complicated scenes at the book's end was more of a challenge than I was up to given the time I had to do it in. I didn't deliberately decide to exclude them -- time and word count pretty much did it for me.

Have a great weekend!
Karen

From the Corner of His Eye

Yesterday I wrote about why I dealt with Gillard the way that I did in Return of the Guardian King, how I ...

*** more spoilers ***

***

***

***

... more or less phased him out of the narrative, both in terms of words addressed to him and in terms of his importance to the plot. When I was done, and encountered the objections of some readers who wanted to see more of him, I was reminded of a similar phenomenon in one of Dean Koontz's books.

A few years ago I read Koontz's From the Corner of His Eye, one of the two autographed hardbound books he sent me in response to a letter I'd written to him (the only letter I've ever written to an author!). I enjoyed it, of course, because I enjoy all of his books. I like his characters, I love his use of language, and I'm intrigued by some of the things that he does as a writer -- the names he gives his characters, the different allegorical elements in his stories, the plots, etc. In this book one of the themes was that evil is really empty and ultimately ineffectual. I'm not sure he intended this, but it's a beautiful truth relative to Satan and the Kingdom of Darkness. Satan's a lion and a hunter, but in the end, he has no teeth. Jesus has already defeated him. We just have to believe that and act accordingly.

Which, since we are fallen people living in the midst of a world of deception, isn't always so easy.

Anyway, in From the Corner of His Eye, Koontz introduces a perfectly awful villain in Enoch "Junior" Cain (and the name, of course, is no accident). [As an example of interesting things Koontz does with names, the hero, Bartholomew, starts out as a baby born to Agnes and Joseph, whose uncles are Jacob and Edom (where Esau lived) Isaacson... The co-hero, an ex-priest turned cop is Thomas Vanadium, vanadium being one of the elements on the periodic table, often used as a catalyst or in alloys. The "Thomas" harkens back to Doubting Thomas, as does the character.]

Anyway, back to Junior Cain. In the first few pages Koontz takes you from the beauty and wonder of a hike in the lush Oregon woods ("The primeval forests of the Oregon coast raised a great green cathedral across the hills, and the land was as hushed as any place of worship...") to the complete arrogance and self-delusion of this psychopath. He kills his wife, whom he tells himself he loves deeply and thoroughly, by shoving her off a lookout tower, for reasons I can no longer recall -- money, I believe. He derives a great feeling of power and life from doing it. And also remorse...

The self-delusion is fascinating and the journey is one where gradually you -- and Junior -- realize that he's hollow. He has nothing inside himself, no real capacity to enjoy anything, even though he has everything -- money, good looks, charming personality, the ability to commit a heinous crime and get away with it (which gives him great pleasure for a time). Eventually, as he sinks deeper into delusion and depravity, imagining himself to be greater than any other man, his disgusting insides begin to manifest on the outside. At the end, he is no longer handsome, but bald, pocked and burned, his life unraveling around him as his deeds come back to bite him.

And in the end, when you are expecting a big confrontation between him and Thomas...


**Spoilers here, too ***


*** Also some bad words***


*** Beware!***


...when you are expecting a big confrontation between him and Thomas, you don't get it. Cain is dispatched in a suprising and almost casual way that is completely anticlimactic. At first I was mildly put off, even a bit puzzled and disappointed. But then I thought about it and realized it was exactly right. Remember the point that Koontz kept making through the narrative? One of the walk-on characters encapsulates it well midway through the book:

"The problem with movies and books is they make evil look glamorous, exciting, when it's no such thing. It's boring and it's depressing and it's stupid. Criminals are after cheap thrills and easy money, and when they get them, all they want is more of the same, over and over. They're shallow, empty, boring people who couldn't give you five minutes of interesting conversation if you had the piss-poor luck to be at a party full of them. Maybe some can be monkey-clever some of the time, but they aren't hardly ever smart. God must surely want us to laugh at these fools, because if we don't laugh at 'em, then one way or another, we give 'em respect. If you don't mock a bastard like Cain, if you fear him too much or even if you just look at him in an all-solemn sort of way, then you're paying him more respect than I ever intend to."

I kinda think that's a good way to regard Satan, too.

Anyway, I saw it as perfectly right to have Cain eliminated by the weakest characters (physically, anyway) in the book, in an almost comical way to boot. If you go to the Amazon reviews, though, many readers were extremely distressed by the ending. Those who were didn't seem to understand at all what Koontz was doing. They were looking for something that wasn't there. They wanted Watchers or Intensity, and it wasn't that.

All of which I find interesting. Our frame of reference as well as our willingness to see what is actually being presented (rather than what we want to be presented) affects how we perceive things. If you don't see all the things he's putting in, don't make the connections between what's happening to Junior and statements like the above, then when you get to the end, you won't get what you're expecting and disappointment is in store.

Hmmm. I think this concept relates to our relationship with God, too. If we don't really know what His plan is about, then when we get to the end, we're going to expect something that isn't part of it, something entirely different than what He has in store.

Tomorrow, the last two questions...

Grace,
Karen

What about Gillard and Simon, Sr?

Q: What about Gillard and Simon, Sr?

More spoilers....


***

***

***

Originally, I had planned to do subplots following Simon, Sr and Gillard in Kiriath, their plotlines woven together as the realm fell apart and rumors of Abramm's alleged reappearance (spawned by all the false Abramms that preceded the real one) spread among the people. But when I ended the first draft at 211,000 words, already over my prescribed word count by 40,000 words, with maybe half the book needing a lot more development, my editor suggested I eliminate those still-sketchy subplots.

Though I'd already written a couple of scenes detailing Gillard's descent into madness that were kinda fun, I saw the need to cut. Since I also knew by then that this story was to be primarily about Abramm, that seemed a good section to cut. In retrospect, I think the decision was a good one. To do all I'd originally intended would have swollen the book to at least 200,000 words, which might have been fun, and might have worked and readers might even have liked it... but that wasn't what Bethany House wanted or could handle. Plus I don't think it's what the Lord intended.

Q:And why wasn't there a big showdown between Gillard and Abramm?

Because, as I said above, the story was about Abramm and Eidon, and Abramm's spiritual journey, which involved being prepared to face his true enemy.

One of my intents in writing this four-book story arc was to show the growing Believer's gradual realization of who his true enemies are. In the first book it seemed that all Abramm's enemies were human -- Raynen, Gillard, Belthre'gar. In the second book, he -- and the reader -- become increasingly aware of another, hidden level of enemies -- the rhu'ema, though Gillard is still a large obstacle he must overcome.

At the end of The Shadow Within, when Abramm defeated his brother decisively on the steps of the ruined dragon temple, and then saved him from being consumed by the morwhol, Gillard ceased being a credible enemy.

In Shadow Over Kiriath, the true enemies emerged even more clearly, given a voice through the rhu'ema warhast, Hazmul, who plots Abramm's downfall in secret: Our battle is not against blood and flesh but against the rulers, against the powers, against the orld forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places. (Eph 6:12) Gillard is nothing more than a tool in their hands, deluded with regard to his own power and importance, and ultimately surrendering himself into their posession.

Meanwhile Abramm goes on in Return of the Guardian-King to meet the ultimate enemy, the one behind all those rulers and spiritual forces: the Prince of the power of the air. The showdown, then, had to be between Abramm and Tiris, not in a physical battle, but in a battle over who Abramm was going to rely upon -- himself and the world, or Eidon.

Gillard, the one who had held such a huge and threatening place in Abramm's life at the beginning of the story, no longer mattered at the end. He was a has-been, a man broken by madness and pain and arrogance, a shell to be pitied, forgiven and resisted so far as he was used as a pawn, but nothing more than that.

Grace,
Karen

Why all the action in Chesedh?

Q: Why did you focus so much on Chesedh in Return of the Guardian King and so little on Kiriath? I would think there'd be much more to write about in Kiriath.

Warning: Spoilers ahead...

****

****

****

When I began writing Return of the Guardian King, I thought I was going to do much more with Kiriath. Then the story went off in ways I didn't anticipate. Now that it's done and I can sit back and consider, I see that it's because the story is not about Abramm's relationship with Kiriath (which had rejected him, remember) or with Chesedh, but with Eidon. It's part of the testing that comes to mature believers, such as Job, who lost all he had and then gained back double. So Abramm lost all he had, as well, including his kingdom, then gained back two kingdoms...

Also much of what happened to Leyton and to Ronesca and to Gillard and the Kiriathans, had to do with 1) the fact that both Leyton and Ronesca really had rejected Eidon and His ways and were being disciplined for that, 2) Gillard was even more hard-hearted in regards to his rejection of Eidon and 3) the principle expressed in Is 41:11,12 "Behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonored; Those who contend with you will be as nothing and will perish. You will seek those who quarrel with you, but will not find them. Those who war with you will be as nothing, and non-existent."

The Kiriathans had rejected their king and his Terstan beliefs and accepted the false religion of the Mataio instead. As a result, they came under discipline. The neighboring country, Chesedh, had not accepted the Mataio and so was still protecting truth. Eventually they even accepted Maddie as queen, and finally Abramm.

An interesting (to me, at least) side story to all this is that I came up with the name for Chesedh when I started The Light of Eidon, years ago. It's a Hebrew word which I chose deliberately at the time. But then I forgot the meaning and, as years passed, came to mistakeningly believe that it meant wisdom (which is actually chokmah). So I wrote the book and only at the end did I find out that Chesedh actually means grace. I love that, because it is so right that Abramm's story should have ended in "Grace."

Karen

The Boot is Gone

I'm free of the Boot! Last Tuesday I went to see the Orthopedic surgeon and he said that I can stop wearing my boot (which as served as a removable cast) unless I'm going to walk a long distance or over uneven ground. Which means I've pretty much ditched it. There's almost no pain now in the ankle, just twinges now and then if I move wrong, catch my foot on something and pull it wrong, sit with it down too long or stand too long.
Since I can drive now, too, I feel pretty much back to normal. The only thing left now is to regain full range of motion and work my way back up to my three mile walks. Hooray!

Meanwhile I continue to crawl through chapter 5 and 6 of Black Box. I spent Saturday looking through floor plans of various genetics and biology laboratories because suddenly I needed to make up a floor plan in order to choreograph the current scene. Then I spent a couple of hours coming up with the external shape of my "Ziggurat" shaped Institute.

And I'm continuing to read The Human Experiment by Jane Poynter, ("Two years and Twenty Minutes Inside Biosphere 2) -- a behind the scenes account 0f life in Biosphere 2, and all that led up to it, as well. It's fascinating and giving me much grist for the mill. Since I'd followed the whole Biosphere 2 story as it was unfolding at the time, and have since been to the place a few years ago, it's been especially intriguing.

My plan for the blog this week is to address several questions about Return of the Guardian King that have come in from readers. I'll try to leave spoiler space (I'm thinking about making the words invisible unless you click and drag to highlight them...) for any who haven't read the book yet. The questions include one that relates to my focus on Chesedh vs Kiriath. What about Gillard and Simon Sr? Why did I choose to resolve the conflict between Abramm and Gillard as I did? Will there be a sequel?

If you have other questions related to RotGK you'd like to see answered in the blog, remember you can always email me through the profile on the right.

Grace,
Karen

Is God First?

Tonight's Bible Class was a continuation of teaching begun last week on God's laws for prosperity. The first law is, "Always keep God First." You should test yourself to see if that is the case, because many times we can tell ourselves He is, but the reality of our lives might say something entirely different.

How can we know if God is first in our lives? Well, Pastor Bob listed several questions we can use to "examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith":

1. Do I start each day by first spending some time with Him -- talking to Him, thanking Him for all He's provided, asking for guidance throughout the day?

2. Do I set definite goals of studying God's word on a daily basis, preferably from my right pastor teacher live or same day, but also through personal study?

3. Do I actually place God ahead of each member of my family?

4. Is God always more important to me than my friends? Or do I let them take me way from my time with Him and my study of His word?

5. Do I spend more time seeking God each day than watching TV or pursuing hobbies -- reading, surfing the Internet, playing games, etc?

6. Is God more important to me than any possession that I have? Or possessions that I'd like to have? Am I willing to spend time driving around shopping at night, but too tired to do Bible Class?

7. Is seeking God through his Word on a day to day basis more important to me than seeking financial prosperity? Am I too busy working at the the world's way of gathering prosperity to spend time on my relationship with God?

Good questions to put somewhere handy to remind ourselves of who should be first. Because there is an entire system out there determined that anything should come first for us but God.

Have a great weekend,
Karen

Fourth of July, 2007

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Here follows a list of twenty seven grievances, among which are:

...He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

...protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

...cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

...imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

...depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

...transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people...

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States,

that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

John Hancock

For the entire text and all the signators, see The Declaration of Independence.

Let Freedom Ring!

Happy Fourth,
Karen

Live Free or Die Hard

Last Friday we saw Live Free or Die Hard, first time to see a movie in the theater on opening weekend in a long time.

There were nine of us from our church, all Die Hard/Bruce Willis fans. We met first for dinner at a nearby eatery, then some hurried over to save seats as the rest of us trooped more slowly after. I was wearing my boot, and the day before had briefly entertained all kinds of worries about the logistics and decisions and how things would ever fall together. I envisioned the possibly very long line, and what it would be like to stand in it, worried about the prospect of getting seats, and having to sit too close to the screen and other negative things. Then I put it all in the Lord's hands and refused to worry about it further. He would put it altogether...

Well, it was a very organic process, that putting together: Calls back and forth, decisions made incrementally, the plan gathering momentum the closer we got to the time we had to act. Finally we were all at the restaurant where we enjoyed a couple of hours of food, conversation and fellowship before heading off to the theater.

Because I had my boot on, I rode the elevator with one of our friends who's in a wheelchair and his wife. On the second floor where we would normally get off, she suggested we go up to the third floor just to see if our theater might be one of those you could access from the top instead of the bottom. Turned out it was, and the next thing you know we're entering the theater itself -- no lines, no ticket taker, just walk in and there's the handicapped spot to sit, second from the top row, and an entire empty row beside it. Most of the other people were down in the lower rows where the regular entrance was. The seat savers from our party apparently had arrived not too long before us and were still in the process of staking out a place, so we waved them up and soon we were all in our places, perfect location to see the screen, just like it was all laid out and waiting for us.

And we all really enjoyed the movie. Some critics call it preposterous and it's true that Bruce Willis is a graduate in good standing of the Chuck Norris School of Dodging Bullets. In fact he has taken the supplemental courses of dodging cars, trucks, falling debris, freeways and other hazards. But, hey, it's Bruce Willis. He's Unbreakable, right. Even when he dies he comes back, though only those with a Sixth Sense can see him!

I thought Live Free or Die Hard was great fun. You can check out reviews at Rotten Tomatoes for more on the story itself, and yes, the stunts are definitely a bit beyond the line of believable. But fun, nonetheless.

What I especially enjoyed was the way they paired hard-nosed, down and dirty, get the job done no matter what, middle aged John McClane (Willis) with young, asthmatic, computer nerd Matthew Faller (Justin Long of Mac Guy fame). They worked exceedingly well off each other, adding a pleasing contrast (Old vs young, high tech vs low tech, physical vs intellectual) and a good bit of humor to the flick, as well. Both had their areas of expertise, so it wasn't like McClane was hauling around a bag of potatoes. Young Faller was integral to solving the problem. And, I suppose in the end, I just plain liked 'em both.

No great spiritual concepts, no heavy moral ideas (though the notion of computer/technology terrorism was intriguingly played out in this movie) just some good summer fun with friends. And okay, a lot of bad guys died and much property was damaged. But I was on the edge of my seat almost the entire time. And we were in an air conditioned theater which, since it's been around 107 degrees around here lately, was very welcome. I could definitely see this movie again.

Grace,
Karen

Give to Give

Yesterday I talked about how the Lord is showing me more and more that it's important to do my work for the right reasons -- that I should be giving to give, not to get.

The following link about a woman who paints to honor our fallen in Iraq exemplifies this concept in a moving way. She's a bit rough around the edges so if that sort of thing bothers you, be ready or don't click the link. You may have already received this in your email inbox, but because her last name is Hancock and she is a painter, I wanted to post it here:

http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/hancock/

Have a great weekend
Karen

Casting Your Bread on the Waters

Lately the Lord's been dealing with me on the subject of casting your bread upon the waters. I first heard that phrase from Ecclesiastes 11 related to writing years ago at Mt Hermon where a presenter used it to encourage marketing endeavors. "When you do something to make your book known," she said, "it's like casting your bread upon the waters and one day it will return to you...in great sales, readers, etc."

Recently my pastor gave a somewhat different take on it. "Casting your bread on the waters," he said, "is to release yourself. To give freely of your time, your talent, your treasure, and your spiritual gift, not expecting anything back."

Here's a passage from my journal, which includes excerpts from my class notes:

I'm to have the same mind as my Lord. I do the work as unto Him, not for the praise of people, because if it really is significant work, they'll probably be unable to give it anyway. I do it, not expecting (craving?) response or approval, but knowing it's something I give to them freely because I choose to and want to. You give freely, lavishly and you don't expect anything back. Not praise, not good reviews, not even remuneration. Because that's how God works: He reaches out to the world and keeps reaching out whether the world responds or not. In fact, mostly the world doesn't respond.

In the parable of the sower, the seed was sown, in most cases, without positive results. But the Lord doesn't say, 'Only sow your seed among those that you think will respond and don't waste time on those you think won't.' Seventy-five percent of his hearers did not respond to the parable of the sower. That's not the issue. The issue is to be obedient. So what if they laugh at you or mock or reject you? Leave the results to God and keep on sowing.

Learn to look at the things you've done in terms of the influence you've had on people's lives. You're giving yourself, your talent, your gift. Don't do it for money or acclaim. Don't wait for letters of thank you. You shouldn't expect to benefit for every good thing you do in people's lives. We must give to give, not to get.

We must give to give. Not to get.

That's the mind of Christ.

Grace,
Karen

Asking How, What and Why

Today was the first day I've had to work solely on the book since last Friday. Hooray!

Yesterday, in the bit of time I did have to work, I went off on a tangent of looking into research institutes because I realized I had no idea what it would be like to work in one. Today, overwhelmed with the amount of research I would need to do to "get it right," I balked at diving in. Everything I seemed to try just led to me needing more information, and then finding more sources of information than I could possibly digest before this book has to be turned in -- let alone written. Maybe I'm writing about the wrong thing. What do I know about research institutes? Obviously far too little...

But then I stopped and realized that while my story is set in a research institute, it's not my intent to write about life in one. I really only need a few salient details. But how do I find in the array of sources facing me just the bits I really need without having to go through them all? I can't possibly know the answer to that question, but God does. Not only that, He knows all about research institutes and what they're like and He can guide me in forming the story now, so that it takes the right shape to mesh with information He will bring me later...

So I might as well relax.

Beyond that, I also realized today that I’d let my focus slip into the wrong place. Once again, I'd gotten all caught up in my need to have pages completed, and scenes formed and set down in a timely manner, when I should be focused on all that I've been given so far. The questions that have arisen over the last few days about the Institute’s layout, its organizational structure, the weaknesses of the original scene in chapter 5, the questions as to what I should replace it with, and what direction I really want to take here... These are good things and remind me of something I read in Orson Scott Card's Character's and Viewpoint:

"... such possibilities only emerge when we demand more from the idea, when we ask more why and what result questions. If you stop with the first acceptable answer, the first 'good enough' version of the story, you lose the chance to move from shallowness to depth, from simplicity to complexity, from a merely fun story to a fun but powerful one."

He was talking specifically of the generation of a short story in a workshop format he calls "A Thousand Ideas in an Hour." I'm a long way from developing the entire story, but I think the same idea applies to the things I am developing. As I ask the questions, or note the things that are emerging as inconsistencies and start to address them, even though it's uncomfortable and unpleasant to see that the work is not as done as I'd believed it was, this process will make it better in the end. Which is exactly what I want.

Peace,
Karen

Progress Report

New sign in my office, courtesy of Bible Class:

"Never confuse activity with productivity."

The corrolary is that you can be productive without seeing a lot of action. I think I believe that especially when it comes to writing, and I am living by both the command and the corrolary. Oh and also "There's always time to do the Will of God."

The worst thing about breaking my ankle is not being able to drive. I don't really drive all that much, but what I've lost is the freedom to just go take care of something when I need to. Instead I have to arrange for people to take me. Today I had to go to the doctor's office, and my mother graciously agreed to drive me over and then we went to lunch. It was nice because it gave us some time together, but still. There is a loss of freedom.

Which, even though I said it was the worst thing, is probably not. I need to stay home and focus, stare out the window, blunder around, do nontops, etc., and the lack of ability to drive forces that. So even though I've just had several very busy days where I've been driven around doing things, before that I also had a lot of time to think. Which is what the books needs most, now, I think.

I have reached chapter 5 and realized I have to get my research institute settled. No longer can I put it off. The answers to the questions I must ask will determine too many things. The questions? What kinds of departments are there? How is it organized? What is Lacey's job profile? Who does she work for? These are the considerations that get skipped when you just sit down and start pounding out a story as it occurs to you.

Oh, and there's another, worse question, because it seriously affects my entire first scene, the start of the book, the plot, everything: why the heck does Cam have a lab on the animal quarters floor? Of course, it might not be a lab, it might be an office. But why would he have one of those there? And if he has neither, then why was he there on the night of that scene? Wait... I think I might have just thought of an answer...

My ankle isn't giving me a lot of pain. I'm not even wearing the boot much around the house. I can walk on it without the boot and without much pain -- though it'll start to throb if I get carried away. I do have to keep it elevated and that's a problem sitting at the computer. So I've been doing a lot of work in the bedroom... Researching Ziggurats, the Biosphere 2 operation back in the 90s and Greek Mythology.

And doing a lot of thinking, especially about how blessed I am.

Grace,
Karen

Re: Sin to Trust too Much?

I have mentioned before that if readers of this blog wish to comment on a post they can always email me through the profile and I might even put some of them up if I feel so moved. Well, Darleen has been commenting regularly through the email, and this last week her response to my post "Is it Sin to Trust too Much?" really struck me.

Not only did I appreciate her pointing out the problem of Christians seeing themselves as the saviors of others, and trying to operate in our human strengths to do so, but I thought she had a great summary of the four books in the Guardian King series, one I had never really contemplated. Since she's graciously given permission for me to share, here is an exerpt:

"I saw a very battle I face, a false compassion that leads me to think I am the rescue for another, or hold the answer for them in my actions. There is but one Savior, and it aint me!

"I believe if I could hold out just one distraction that takes out most Christians, it is the ability of self. To me, Abramm stood not in his own ability, but in the power of a God he had come to know. I found that most profound when he stood there seeing those he loved in danger. Have we not all been there a time or two? He knew he had the ability within himself to rescue them, but he was brought to a place he had to face: does he trust Eidon to hold the hearts of all men in his hand, can he trust those he loves to His care regardless of the outcome, and walk on with him in confidence? Powerful stuff if we are honest with ourselves!

"Just yesterday I spoke with a friend just now reading the Return, and she said, 'It is a little harder this one, why is that?' I said, 'In the first one we saw the Warrior, the victor, one who overcome evil and was empowered in the victory. In two we saw the King, mighty and worthy to rule. In three we saw the gentle and kind Lover of our soul, and now we are faced with the Servant! We love the many aspects of Christ, but we all chafe a bit at the servant.'"

Warrior, King, Lover, Servant. Very cool and I hadn't seen it like that at all. Though, of course, the series being a depiction of one man's spiritual growth, in the end he is naturally going to reflect different aspects of our Lord because that's what growth is all about: our minds being transformed, so that we think like Him. And when we think like Him we are going to act like Him...

Grace and peace,
Karen,

Is it sin to trust too much?

A few of the April SFF Blog Tour participants claimed that the way I portrayed Abramm in Return of the Guardian King as continually trusting Eidon in the face of great danger was, indeed, sinful. The objection, I believe, was that Abramm used his trust to justify a reckless charge into danger and that this was not honoring to God. This claim was based on the fact that when Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Mt 4) and told to prove He was the son of God by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the Temple Mount -- a drop of some 450 feet -- and let the angels catch him, Jesus refused. "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," He said.

I have encountered various interpretations of this passage over the years but the one that makes the most sense to me is not that this is a caution against abandoning common sense to do pointlessly risky and dangerous things for no reason other than to do them. Rather, in all three of the temptations mentioned in Mt 4, Jesus was being tempted to stop relying solely on the power system God had provided Him in his humanity and to instead switch over to using His deity, which would have right then rendered His trip to the cross null and void. Maybe He still would have made it, but as He would have sinned -- chosen His own will and His own power over the one the Father had provided for Him as a man -- He couldn't have served as the holy and righteous sacrifice needed to pay for our sins.

None of us will ever be tempted to turn stones into bread to appease our hunger, but we are routinely tempted to use our own human power rather than rely upon God to solve our problems. We turn to the world, to "Egypt" with its powerful armies, chariots and horses. We turn to other people, hoping they can bring us comfort, promote us, hold us up, make us feel better, bring us happiness. We try to rely upon ourselves, our own good works, or good sense or determination and self-control to achieve our goals and find happiness. The ways we are tempted in this area are myriad. And like Jesus we must refuse such sources of "help" and rely upon God to supply our needs.

Which was pretty much what Abramm was doing. In fact, in most cases he wasn't even trying to fulfill his own needs but those of others. To see someone else's need and know that you have some ability, or at least the opportunity to try to fulfill it and that such action would be consistent with scripture, and further to believe that God has led you to that very moment of choice, then to decide to go forward with it would hardly be a sin. If the action appears to have no hope of succeeding by sight, or human conjecture, if the world says to forget it, it will never work, you'll all die, etc... well, how is that any different than what the Jews faced at the Red Sea? Or David with Goliath? Or Gideon and his 300 men facing 135,000 Midianites?

To go forward not by confidence in self, but confidence that 1) God is able to make His will known to you and 2) that He is able and will keep His promises to provide, protect and do the work He's called you to do, and see that in His timing you'll have everything you need to carry it out... I don't see that as sin. I see that as living the Christian life.

Too Much Trusting?

Another criticism of Return of the Guardian-King that came up in the April Blog tour was that some felt there was too much trusting of Eidon in it. In fact one person phrased it as "Come on and jump off this cliff, dearie, and Jesus will save you." That phrasing almost knocked me over, for reasons I'll explain in a bit. Another person claimed that too much trusting is unbiblical.

Now, I will be the first to admit that it's very possible the issue was visited a bit too many times in the course of the book and that if I did a subsequent edit, now that time has distanced me from it, I might agree the references needed a bit of a trim.

On the other hand... I'm not sure trusting God can ever be visited or mentioned too much. At least in life. And if I did so in the book, it's likely because every single day, sometimes every hour, I was having to trust God to get me through the writing of that novel. It seemed that I never knew what I was going to do next, that the days were passing faster than the words were accumulating and I was having to fly through it by the seat of my pants. Scenes would appear and be written down without any sense on my part of what they were doing there, or how they fit in the overall scheme of things. Weekly, sometimes daily I had to let go of my compulsiveness and really not think about schedules or guilt and just relax and trust the Lord to see it through. And when I was faced with doing that, sometimes it literally felt as if I were jumping off a cliff.

Which is why that phrase so startled me. I had not realized until I was working my way through RotGK how much I had always used guilt as a motivator. How I would set up a series of goals to accomplish -- like "finish the scene today," or "complete the chapter in accordance with my schedule," or "work on the book for four hours and get ten pages written" -- and then when I failed, flail myself for that failure.

But guilt is a sin, and I knew that. It is not the way God wants us to live our lives. When I came to the point of realizing what I was doing, and that I had to stop making myself feel bad for not having accomplished my plan, I remember thinking in a sort of horror that if I didn't have that guilt and the subsequent "Bad Girl! BAAAD!!!" to regulate myself, I might not get any work done at all.

That was the moment when I realized what I was really using to motivate myself. And not only that, but that I'd done it almost automatically for all of my life. To let go of that, to let go of schedules, to totally stop thinking about how I was going to accomplish the writing and leave it all to God -- that's when I stood at the top of the cliff and realized He wanted me to jump. About like standing on Plateau Point in the Grand Canyon and looking down at the green ribbon that is the Colorado River (see photo, above). And jumping. It was not an easy thing to do...

So, is there too much reference to trusting in Return of the Guardian-King? Possibly. Is that really a bad thing? I don't think so. Too much trusting is better than not enough. Is it unbiblical? Perhaps it can be, but I don't believe it was for me in my life, nor for Abramm in his... But I'll leave elaboration on that for tomorrow.

Grace,
Karen

Reader Responses to the Faith Elements

Yesterday I expressed a few of my thoughts about objections that the faith elements were too evident in the Guardian King books, particularly Return of the Guardian King. I knew from the outset that some readers would not like the tack I took, but from the responses I've been receiving from readers, I am satisfied with the direction I took. Below are a few such responses:

"I find it Godincidental that this very week I needed a powerful illustration about God’s timing, and of course I finish the book at that very time. You wove that message, that His way is always better than our own, into the plot very movingly. I saw it in bks 1-3, of course, but it was even more effective here. I know references to ROTGK will appear in my journal throughout the year as I face this issue. It’s awesome how God uses stories to convey spiritual truths to us." ~ Sara M

"I wanted to tell you how much I've enjoyed reading your books, particularly the Guardian King series. Each time a new one comes out, I begin reading and immediately get caught up into the characters' lives and world.

"But I also (happily) find that once I start reading, I'm even more caught up in the spiritual aspects of the books, Return of the Guardian King especially. In fact, many of the principles in RotGK have lined up with the last few weeks of Church and Bible Study lessons. But having these principles put into story form has given me an even greater understanding of the things He is wanting to teach me. So thank you so much for writing what you do. Your stories have ministered and continue to minister to me and help me see in a clearer light some of the ways God is working in my life." ~ Ashley

"What hit me the most was that I saw a lot of Job in Abramm in this story. Sometimes I look at a person in the Bible and I've heard there stories over and over, that I tend to glance over something. A story like Abramm, in which I didn't know where it was going, pulled Job into more of a real person to me. I was hoping for a happy ending, but book three told me that I had no idea what to expect in this one." ~Corey

"Your writing has touched my life in a way few writers ever have; the descriptions of the struggles all the characters, especially Abramm, have to endure and overcome synchronize with emotions and obstacles within my own life. Your gift at writing fiction and fantasy in an enjoyable form whose themes are still applicable to everyday life is amazing to me. Your books have helped me hang on to my faith, even as I have questioned it and tested it through the past two years." ~ Sara S

"I cried, I laughed, I feared for the characters. Your writings elicit all the things an excellent writer should be able to do. I am most appreciative of how you are able to take real life struggles in the christian life - such as the battle within oneself to follow the truth revealed to us by God; the self -doubt; self incrimination; the wrestling back from God a burden we just gave up to Him 5 minutes ago." ~Mark

"I've loved fantasy all my life and have read tons of fantasy and science fiction books. You've done something very special with your wonderful books. Every fantasy book I've read has some form of spiritualism - I've often wondered, 'Why not the REAL thing?' You did it!! The God of the Universe in honored. I have been challenged to see the Lord as ever present more than ever, as in control, truly the Lord. That's as it should be, and is a growing reality for me." ~ Grandma

"Before I came upon your books I often wondered how good it would be if someone were to write a series of fantasy novels that had to do with the sin principle in man and dying to self and finding rest in Christ. Your books excel in that area and beyond that…its just a fantastic story with wonderful characters." ~ Tim

Appreciatively,
Karen

Spiritual Elements too Intrusive?

I said awhile back that I was going to do some blog posts that spun off some of the things that were said in the blog tour done for Return of the Guardian King back in April. Today I'm finally getting around to doing that.

The first one has to do with the objection that the spiritual or faith elements are too obvious in the book. Some have felt that the book's quality would be improved had these been moved to the background, been more veiled and less up front.

I used to think this way, but I've changed my mind. Or at least I've changed my mind about it for these books. I write what I know, what I live and what I believe. Those three are so bound together it's impossible to separate them. I know this sounds weird, and maybe incomprehensible, but what I really wanted to write about wasn't "fantasy" but the spiritual life. I just happened to use the fantasy genre to do that. So if my intent is to write about the spiritual life, which is mostly about thinking certain kinds of thoughts, it would have been hard to convey those things in a more veiled manner. Perhaps impossible.

Of course the set of beliefs each individual has is different, with the variations between individuals ranging from not very different at all to near diametric opposition. If you are very up front and specific about such things -- where you are clearly delineating belief systems in the characters' speech and thinking, it's guaranteed a certain percentage of your readers are going to take exception to it. For some it's because the doctrines themselves challenge them -- they don't agree, or they wouldn't apply them that way, or they don't think about them in the ways the author has presented them. Or maybe they don't think about them as much and it irritates or distracts them when such things keep coming up in the prose.

Or it may be they don’t think that’s how a story should be written. They might prefer a story to be more like a puzzle that they have to work at to figure out. That’s fine. That's even fun in some cases. But I don't think that has to be done in every book.

In some cases, the reader has oversimplified what he thinks you're doing and objects on that basis. I've had readers criticize Arena because they thought the allegory is too obvious -- "The manual is obviously the Bible and one of the characters is obviously Christ. Puh-leeze... How simple-minded can you be?!" And they are disappointed.

The only problem is, that wasn't the entire allegory. Those two elements were only part of what was going on. Parts that, like gold nuggets, are lying right there in plain view. The other parts have been hidden, layered in so the reader must work to understand them. Parts that, perhaps, require a particular frame of reference to understand, or maybe a greater grasp of certain spiritual truths that the objecting reader not only doesn't grasp, but has no idea even exist.

The Bible says that if, indeed, you have managed to communicate God's truth in your writing, the naturally-minded person will not understand it and will even regard it as foolishness. That's because it must be spiritually discerned -- that is, understood by means of the filling of the Holy Spirit and by the foundation of understanding one has of God's word.(I Co 1,2) If it was of the world -- ie, conveying worldly principles and viewpoint -- the world would love it; because it is not of the world the world hates it, or "loves it less." John 15:18,19

That means when you start out to write about spiritual truths that actually relate specifically to the Christian way of life even should you succeed perfectly, you know by default that a certain percentage of readers aren't to like what you're doing, and while another percentage might like it, they will only grasp a small portion of what you're trying to do. The only way to get past that is to keep the spiritual aspects confined to the most basic principles, those that the broadest readership will be most likely to understand -- ie, salvation, sin, morality, establishment principles and perhaps some usage of faith. Go beyond that and you're going to start losing people.

That's a bad thing for sales, but I don't think it's a bad thing overall. You have to write what you're led to write, but you also have to accept that you might have fewer readers than you might have otherwise if you choose to do so.

Tomorrow... reader reaction to the faith elements...

Karen

Ghost Rider

We watched Ghost Rider with Nicolas Cage last Friday. I like Nicolas Cage, but this movie... I spent waay too much time muttering, "What?!" "Oh that's ridiculous!" "How idiotic!" "Don't they know anything about the angelic conflict?"

In defense I suppose some would say, "It's just a comic book, for crying out loud. No one takes those seriously. Everyone expects them to be ridiculous. After all look at the Ghostrider guy -- he walks around in jeans and boots and a leather jacket and gloves but his head is a burning skull. Not only that, when he drives his motorcycle down the street, he generates such heat and power that he leaves a trail of ash and burning wreckage and for some reason the wind of his passage overturns cars. Yet his clothes don't burn. So you can't expect anything in it to be serious, realistic or to make sense."

Well, certainly those expectations were met!

Still, it bugs me for that very reason that the devil is so often the subject of comic book type stories. Do we assume from that that the devil is not to be taken seriously? An adversary fit only for ridiculously unrealistic comic book material? There aren't people who can spin webs with their hands, after all, nor men of steel who can fly, nor women who can turn themselves invisible. So... the logical conclusion is that there's no devil, either.

The thing is, in all the superhero flicks, the people are often acting more or less like people, struggling with issues that can be considered serious -- crime, tyranny, assault, murder, general nastiness, the desire to destroy. True, the villains are all exaggerations of reality (though I think perhaps Saddam Hussein could give a typical comic book villain a run for his money) but the motivations that drive them find their roots in human greed, cruelty, power lust and sin. And always they are opposed by a hero, a man of integrity and power who can stand up to the villain, defeat him and save the world. Cliche those may be, but they are important truths of life. Because we all desire a savior and if we believe in Jesus we can be liberated. Not only from sin, but from the darkness of the devil's world system.

I guess my problem is, if you're going to put the devil in, and call him that, the character should have some remote connection to the real thing. If you're going to create someone who is really nothing like the devil, you should call him something else. Of course in the way the Ghost Rider story is set up, that'd be a bit difficult.

Still, some people will learn all they know about the devil from movies and comic books. This one says that he's a wimpy, smarmy, wildly inconsistent guy in a priest coat with red eyes who lives in hell and can "steal" souls by, apparently, getting unsuspecting good people to sign a contract with him. Now they are his, and totally at his mercy. He gives them great powers so they can go out and round up evil people and bring them to him for... well, I don't know why. Power? Punishment? It wasn't clear. Maybe it didn't matter. Maybe the only thing that mattered was watching Nicolas Cage get a flaming head and ride his motorcycle... Which admittedly was entertaining. I liked his chain whip as well...

The worst of it, though, is that God really has no place in the movie. There is some lip service, but in the end it's the people who are strong and good of heart. They are the ones who will fight and defeat the devil. In their own strength or even, far worse, in the strength of the powers they've acquired from the devil. I think that's probably what bothered me about it the most. That I'm supposed to admire that and find it a clever turn around when I only found it nauseating.

So. I don't recommend the movie, though as I said, Nicolas Cage was entertaining, and there were some funny bits in it. And of course when the old cowboy type ghostrider appears on his horse, that was very cool. But the theology? Straight from the mind of the devil himself who, as his first line of defense, would like everyone to believe that he doesn't exist except in comic books. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Grace,
Karen

Why I Turned off the Comments

In a phrase, because God told me to. In rather stern and shocking terms. I know that sounds whacky, but... guess I'll just have to sound whacky.

It has little to do with the quality/nature of the comments themselves and everything to do with my motivations and the fact that I am too easily led into the wrong ones. When I started this blog it was something I was doing as unto the Lord, something I believed He was moving me to do for His purposes and not my own. But then came the comments and my own predilection toward fretting about them. Writing something, posting it, then wondering if anyone said anything. Worrying about what people might think of certain topics, and then sometimes hesitating to write what I was feeling led to write. And then, regardless of what I wrote, checking a bunch of times to see if anyone had left something -- when I was supposed to be writing. If no one commented, then I might feel dismayed, and that in turn disrupted my mood and confidence for writing, and pretty much annihilated whatever concentration I had before I broke down and checked.

In short, it became a distraction. To make matters worse, the absense of comments would often lead me to start surfing, reading blogs, even checking Amazon, heaven forbid. And if none of that yielded anything, then I would fall into unending repetitions of the entire process. The upshot was... I wasted a lot of time with it all, last year and now. The Lord pulled me through it last year -- got the book done in spite of me -- but now that I see it happening again, I am convicted of the need to make a change. And I have to say that so far I'm pleased with the peace and the ability to focus that has been restored to me because of this.

I'll admit that at first I was afraid of offending people because, after all, the accepted, generally publicized reason for a blog is to get out there and start conversations, generate all this cross linkage, interact with readers, draw a lot of attention. Turning off the comments would stop all that and possibly chase readers off. Ultimately though I had to bow to what the Lord was telling me to do and not worry about that. If that's what happened/happens, so be it. It's not my intent to offend, and if you wish to comment on a blog post you can always email me through the address in the profile in the side bar. You might even generate a new blog post with your emailed comment!

(But not this time, Darleen! LOL. I already had this one written and in my queue before I even opened my email... which is another story, but I'll save that for another day.)

Have a great weekend
Karen

Names and Faces

People ask me sometimes where I come up with the names for my characters and how I choose them. It's a mysterious process. Sometimes I have a pre-existing favorite name (Cameron is one that I'm using in Black Box), and sometimes the name just presents itself. Sometimes it takes a lot of fiddling around to get the name to not only sound right but also look right.

Gillard, for example, I have always heard with a soft g. But "Jillard" looks too feminine for the character. Alas, many readers give the name I chose a hard G when they pronounce it, illustrating the frustrations of trying to properly convey the sounds of a name with which readers are unfamiliar.

Sometimes I've tried to rename my characters for one reason or another. Simon, Abramm's uncle, began as Klemnend -- Klemn for short. Klemn? What was I thinking? The shift to Simon was easy in that case.

At another point I decided for some reason (I think it was the similarity to Abram of the Bible) that I needed to change Abramm's name to Alaric. I wrote a number of chapters with Alaric as the viewpoint name, but it never seemed right and finally I went back to Abramm. Then found a way to use Alaric anyway -- as his alias -- so that was fun.

Trap came whole cloth. A strange name but somehow the right one, though some readers have said that it sounds sinister. It never sounded sinister to me, just strong and straightforward.

Anyway, I've often thought this sense of a name "sounding" right seemed to be very mysterious, esoteric and maybe a little silly. But turns out it's not as silly as I thought.

My friend Ed Willett recently did a piece on his blog called The Face is Familiar, But That Can't be Your Name... in which he reported on a recent research project designed to find out if Americans "hold common notions of what kinds of faces should go with certain names." Turns out they do, and furthermore, that it is much easier to remember someone's name if their face matches your concept of what the name implies (they don't always). Which I suppose explains why you can merely give a character a name and a reader can make up a face to go with it. One that often doesn't look anything like the faces that are put on the book's cover.

These conclusions were followed by the reflection on why that might be. Ed's article said that since Bob is a round-sounding name, it makes sense that it would go with a roundish face, and that Tim, being a thin, angular-sounding name describes an angular face. That might be. I think an even more compelling rationale is the fact that "Bob" is a round-looking name, while "Tim" looks tall, thin. To me, that makes more of a connection with how Bob and Tim will look than how the words sound. But I'm more visually oriented than sound oriented. Then again... why not both: round-sounding and round-looking?

By this measure what are Abramm and Trap? Abramm seems tall, commanding and substantial. Trap is trim, strong, deep. And Cameron... hmmm. Softer, but still strong, kind of mysterious, but with substance as well. Or maybe I'm just biased, since I know the characters I've given those names to. (But what's with all the a's and m's? I detect a pattern here. What does it mean? I haven't the foggiest, but you can read the entire article here.)

Grace,
Karen

Seeing the Doctor

(At left is a picture of the main room of our deluxe suite at the ranch.)

Today I went to see the orthopedic surgeon. He pressed on my swollen foot, looked at the x-rays, asked me a few questions and confirmed, yes it is a distal fibular fracture, stable, closed, and, from what I can tell, the most benign of these sorts of things. I don't have to have a cast, but can continue to use the boot as a cast, can walk on it as I can tolerate it, and can even take it off when I'm just sitting around.

It's more a nuisance than anything else because there's all this folderol with the huge boot that makes it look like something really bad, and it's not. Okay, yes, I did break my ankle, but there's no real pain, for the most part, unless I walk wrong -- and I'm getting good at not walking wrong. I don't have to lie in bed for weeks waiting for it to heal enough to put weight on it, and don't even really have to use the crutches. In fact, I can actually walk on it without the boot if I'm careful, though this is not recommended.

On the other hand, the reason I can walk on it is because the fibula is not a weight-bearing bone, which means it's going to take longer to heal than the tibia would -- six to eight weeks, he said. Six to eight weeks of wearing this boot...

What I can't figure out yet, is that he said I should be able to drive. But how I could manage to work the pedals with an inflexible foot the size of an elephant's? Maybe I'll have to go out and practice.

Anyway, I seem to have had one new, big distraction every month now since I've started Black Box and the broken ankle appears to be the distraction for June. Despite that, I did do a bit of editing on chapter 4. In fact, as I said before, this might actually be a good thing for the writing in the long run...

(At right is another picture of our room at the ranch, this one taken from where the door is in the first picture, but looking back toward the window and our view. )

Grace,
Karen

Tanque Verde Ranch - The Accident

Continuing our weekend anniversary celebration at the Tanque Verde Ranch, we got up bright and early Saturday morning and arrived down at the corral at 7:15 for our hour-long scenic walking ride. It wasn't hot yet and the trail wound through saguaros and then a mesquite forest. It was fun, easy and a beautiful desert morning with lots of birds. We returned in time to eat breakfast at the dining room (they have a continental buffet plus you can order eggs, bacon, french toast, etc off the menu). Then it was back out for our lope lesson.

I thought this would be half an hour of loping and trotting around the ring -- enough for me to find my riding seat after ten plus years of not having done it. Instead the wrangler got the six of us who reported for testing mounted, then took us out to an arena and told us we had to, one at a time, take our horse from a standing stop to a lope and keep it loping once around the arena. During that time she would evaluate us for position, technique, comfort, etc. (Your butt is never supposed to leave the saddle, your legs are not supposed to cling to the side of the horse, you aren't supposed to grab the saddle horn and your hands and arms should be quiet and in control, not flapping all over the place.)

When we were done she passed five of us (including me) and the other fellow she worked with a couple more times before finally telling him he'd have to take the Intermediate lesson.

On the way back they told us we could go on the lope ride, which was to leave immediately, even though we hadn't signed up, so we did. It was the best loping ride I've ever been on. There were four of us plus our wrangler guide and it lasted an hour and a half. The loping parts were fantastic and for satisfyingly long stretches. When the first one just went on and on, I was amazed. I used to guide at a stables in high school and on our trail there was only one loping section. It was about a quarter of the first one we went on at the ranch. Yes, the first one. There were about five or six others in all, each just as long. Mostly I did okay, but it wasn't until the last one that I really, finally found my seat...

On our third or fourth time to lope, we were heading down a wide wash, and I saw a rabbit and then a quail dart across the trail ahead of the guide who was running about three horse lengths ahead of me. Shortly after that my horse spooked, pulling up hard and dodging suddenly to the right. I went off on the left and hit the washbottom -- soft sand, so I was thankful for that. Of course that was terribly embarrassing. I got up. Felt a bit knocked about but basically okay. Nothing really wrong... I got back on and off we went.

Soon we were loping again and all was well. Except that as we would slow from the lope into a trot my right ankle began to hurt intensely. I couldn't recall doing anything to my ankle in the fall, so I thought maybe I'd hit it on a rock and bruised it. Loping and walking were no problem, and as I said on the last long lope I finally found my seat.

We came back, dismounted, I had to fill out some paperwork because I fell off (cringe) and then we started to walk up the hill to our room. My ankle was hurting, but I could walk on it if I stepped right. Then I started getting woozy and kept having to stop and sit down. That was weird. Nothing hurt badly enough for that. Maybe I was dehydrated...

Well, to make a long story short, after lunch we went into town to get my ankle x-rayed and turns out I have a distal fibular fracture. I was in complete disbelief. The doctor said that in the torquing that obviously sprained my ankle the tendon actually pulled the end of my fibula off, breaking the bone (the fibula is the second, slender bone of the lower leg). Fortunately the fracture had closed and the piece was back in line, so they gave me a huge black boot/brace and crutches and a referral to an orthopedic specialist.

I wasn't about to let that ruin our celebration, however. That night we went to the Western Barbeque down in the cottonwood grove (without boot and crutches -- I didn't feel like I needed them that much and I didn't want to get them dirty). The next day after breakfast, I sat on our back porch, wrote in my journal and sketched the desert while a mama ground squirrel and her baby wandered nearby.

The whole spooking incident and then the bizarre break are so weird, it's obviously part of God's plan. There was nothing anyone did wrong or could have done to prevent it. It's just how it is with horses. They spook sometimes and people fall off. It's actually the third time I've been injured from a fall off a horse (though certainly not the third time I've fallen), and not nearly as bad as the last time, when I sprained my right shoulder and left hand. To have that injury now would really shut me down as far as writing goes. For it to be my leg actually helps the writing, I think, because I'm going to be pretty much a captive in my office! I suspect that's going to motivate me finally to start making some serious progress on this next book.

And it sure wouldn't stop me from coming out to the Tanque Verde Ranch again. In fact, I'd like to try that loping ride a second time. Accident and all, I had a great time.

Grace,
Karen