Category Archives: Blog

Books, Blog

NEW BOOK: ’42: Discovering Faith Through Fandom’

Remember when I said I’d write two blogs in one week to make up for not writing? Yeah, that didn’t happen. In the words of the 10th Doctor, “I’m sorry. I’m so, so sorry.”

But I have a good reason for my unintended hiatus: I’ve been working on two new books! The first of which is now available on Amazon!

Presenting…

Artwork by Ruth Pike.
Artwork by Ruth Pike.

This little book is a devotional for geeks and nerds. It uses the stories, hobbies, and other interests nerds and geeks love to illustrate theological Truth.

Here’s the back cover copy:

Don’t Panic!

Despite what many churchgoers say, God doesn’t think Dungeons & Dragons is “Satan’s game” or that cosplay is childish. In fact, God has imprinted Himself into nerd culture. Yes, all your favorite stories and games point to the LORD Himself. You may doubt, but you know your nerdy hobbies are more than just escapism. They resound with you for a reason. Perhaps you’re not sure why, but they do. Regardless of your spiritual beliefs, there are profound truths to be mined from those tales.

Join us on a 42-day journey of discovery. Why 42? A famous “Guide” would have you believe that’s “the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.” The trouble is you have to know “the Question.” Maybe that question for you is, “How many days will it take me to learn the Truth?” Or maybe you already know the true “Answer” but want to deepen your faith. Either way, this book is for you! We promise it’ll be fun and challenging. You may never look at your favorite stories, characters, and/or hobbies the same again.

Don’t forget your towel!

It was co-authored by myself and my friend Eric Anderson, the founder of Nerd Chapel. We each took turns writing the 500-800 word devotions for each day. We both bring our unique voices and styles to the book. We mine Truth from things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, G.I.Joe, and even a strange scientific discovery about water crystals!

As I said, the book is available on Amazon for $7.99. Get your copy today!

Blog

‘Tomorrowland,’ Dreamers, and Idealism

Does it make me a bad writer (and a bad person) that I haven’t written a blog (or made a video) in nearly a month because of busyness and technology problems? I’d like to say, “No,” and attribute it to “life happens.” Regardless, my projects have slowed down a bit, and I’m writing this on my new laptop. But since I feel I owe it to you, “True Believers” (yes, I’m still stealing Stan Lee’s nickname for Marvel Comic readers until I can find a better name for my own fans), to make up for lost time, I plan to write two blogs this week: one today and one Thursday.

The poster for the film.

Recently, I saw Tomorrowland (which, despite what critics are saying, is a good film). It was a wonderful experience. I saw it at a locally-owned small town theatre with my siblings, Josiah, Jarod, and Sarah. This almost never happens because Josiah is married and recently had his first kid, and Sarah works in Florida for her alma mater, Word of Life Bible Institute. I can’t remember the last time the four of us had an outing like this.

Anyway, there’s much that can be mined from this film, but what struck me most was its idealism. (SPOILER WARNING!) Tomorrowland is a city hidden in another dimension. It is a place where scientists, thinkers, and artists can work without the limitations of governments, bureaucracy, and doubters. But only a select few are admitted to the city. Those chosen for admission are sent a pin that gives them an interactive glimpse of the city and invites them to join.

I want one!

How is someone selected to enter Tomorrowland? He (or she) must be a dreamer. They must look at the world’s problems and ask, “How can we fix it?” They must believe that with imagination, ingenuity, and hard work, anything is possible. In other words, they must be optimistic and idealistic.

Casey, the film’s protagonist, exemplifies these. Several times when apocalyptic predictions are made, she refuses to believe they can’t be prevented, and her hope alters those projections, if only slightly. It’s revealed that a machine meant to show mankind the dangers that are coming—environmental disasters, nuclear war, etc.—instead made them cynical, so they rushed toward that apocalypse. They turned those warnings into pop culture, treating those dystopias and disasters as inevitable futures. Ultimately, it is hope that triumphs, reviving Tomorrowland and avoiding the oncoming apocalypse, and pins are sent out to new candidates for admission.

Watching this, I wondered, Would I be worthy of admission to Tomorrowland? I asked myself that because I’ve often battled cynicism and despair, especially since graduating college. I won’t go into the details, but my life hasn’t gone how I wanted it to. Just the week before seeing the film, I’d staved off a bout of depression. Yet whenever I’ve been like that, I didn’t feel like myself. It was like I was another person; it wasn’t the real Nathan. It reminded me that despite everything, in my heart of hearts, I’m an idealist. I’m also a dreamer. The cynicism and depression stem from not seeing many of those dreams become reality. There’s much I want to do and much I can contribute. Among them is telling stories to a wide audience that both entertain and enlighten. In fact, I want to craft stories that do for others what Tomorrowland did for me.

But hope is a tricky thing. It’s both powerful and fragile. Reality can crush it—and often does for many people—but it can also overcome and alter reality. It’s what spurs people to accomplish great things. They didn’t simply give up.

For centuries, people said man would never fly. The Wright Brothers didn’t listen.

America feared polio for decades. Dr. Jonas Sulk created a vaccine.

The Cold War raged for nearly five decades under the shadow of the Soviet Union. President Ronald Reagan defeated it.

I’m also reminded of Hebrews 11, which is often called “The Hall of Faith.” It lists figures from the Old Testament who accomplished great and often seemingly impossible things because of their faith in God.

These are the kinds of people who get admitted to Tomorrowland.

They’re the kind of people I want to be like.

Blog

Daredevil and Writing Christian Characters

Matt Murdock (aka Daredevil) as seen in the new Netflix series. Played by Charlie Cox.

A few weeks ago, Marvel Comics released the 13-episode series Daredevil on Netflix. My longtime readers won’t be surprised when I say that it was this show–the first of five that Marvel is releasing exclusively to the streaming service–that made me finally sign up for Netflix. I’ve made it no secret that I love superheroes, comic books, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

(If you’d like to read my official review of the series, go to my Examiner page here).

One of the things I find most interesting about Daredevil is he is one of only a few Christian superheroes that I know of (Nightcrawler from X-Men is another). He’s Catholic, to be specific. I was curious to see how his faith would be handled in this series since Hollywood has a track record for presenting Christians as hypocrites, loons, or both. I thought they might gloss over his faith, at best.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that his faith was an integral part of his character. He unabashedly identifies himself as Catholic, even saying that it’s what keeps him going most of the time. But most importantly, his faith isn’t simplified. In fact, it makes him a complicated character. Conversely, he’s not the squeaky-clean, nigh-perfect Christian character usually presented in faith-based movies.

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!)

Matt has endured much tragedy. He was blinded as a boy after shoving a man out the way of a truck, which then accidentally dumped chemicals on him. His father, a mediocre boxer, was murdered by mobsters because he refused to throw a fight. He spent the next several years in a Catholic orphanage dealing with his radar-like super-senses (a “gift” of the chemical bath) until he was trained to fight by a skilled but amoral blind old man, who eventually abandoned him. Is it any wonder he adopted the faith of the orphanage? He needed it to go on. It spurred him to become a lawyer so he could help clean up Hell’s Kitchen.

But Matt quickly learned the limitations of the law. He told the story of hearing a man in the next-door apartment sexually molesting his eight-year-old daughter. Because of his super-senses, he was the only one who knew about it. The mother didn’t believe it, and, as he said, the father was “smart” and managed to convince Child Protective Services he was innocent. So, one night, having gotten sick of it, he put on a mask, tracked the father down, and beat him up, threatening to make the next one worse if he ever touched his daughter again. “I could sleep better after that,” he said.

This was his first night as a vigilante, which by definition is someone who operates outside the law to enforce some form of justice. It goes counter to what Matt normally would stand for as a lawyer. Yet it doesn’t. As Matt states in a courtroom speech, the law concerns itself with facts and not necessarily truth. It can only act based on the evidence that is presented. Plus, as Matt learns while trying to take down his archenemy Wilson Fisk (aka Kingpin), cops and judges can be bought or bullied to offer criminals protection. This brought Matt to a crossroads. The only way to stop Fisk seemed to be killing him, but as he confessed to his priest, such an act would damn his soul. This was only one of the many spiritual struggles he had concerning the morality of the often brutal tactics he used to enforce his vigilante justice.

What was brilliant about it was it all seemed realistic and believable. I’ve heard of many people in real life who’ve wrestled with huge moral issues (though, admittedly, they weren’t costumes vigilantes…so far as I know…). At one point Matt was willing to risk damning his soul if it meant saving his city. Ultimately, he found another way, but it may not be the perfect solution (that’ll be revealed in season 2). This struggle is presented with great respect. The show’s creators remember that religion is a large part of many people’s lives. It shouldn’t be mocked or ignored. (I also admit that putting characters in moral dilemmas is something I enjoy and used to do a lot in my own stories).

On the other hand, Matt would probably be criticized by many Christians (and perhaps fellow Catholics) because he isn’t perfect. Besides his questions of morality, he has (small?) vices like swearing and possibly pre-marital sex (it’s never shown and details aren’t offered, so the audience is left to decide). Yet at no point did I question the authenticity of his faith. It reminded me that things like cussing don’t always mean a religious person has a weak or superficial faith. Legalism never helps anyone.

What do you think? Did you see the series? How should Christian characters be written in fiction?

Blog

‘Marvel vs. DC’ movie coming in 2020!

Author’s Note: I originally posted this today on Examiner.com, but they put the kibosh on it and took it down inside of five minutes. I guess they have no appreciation for April Fool’s Day jokes. Regardless, here it is.

In an unprecedented move, Disney and Warner Bros. have struck a deal to adapt the epic crossover comic book miniseries DC vs. Marvel for the big screen. Published in 1996 and written by Ron Marz and Peter David, with art by Dan Jurgens and Claudio Castellini, the four-part story saw characters from both publishers clash to save the multiverse. Kevin Feige and Christopher Nolan are executive producers with David S. Goyer slated to write the script and Bryan Singer directing. This announcement was made with a trailer created by super-fan Alex Luthor.

“Despite being competitors, DC and Marvel have had some classic crossovers,” said Feige. “Since both companies are building cinematic universes, it only seemed logical to have them crossover.”

Bryan Singer jumped at the chance to direct this massive film. “Since I’ve directed both Superman and the X-Men, I think I’m the only guy in Hollywood qualified to handle characters from both companies,” he said.

The comic book featured over a dozen bouts like Superman vs. Hulk and Captain America vs. Batman. Half were determined by the creators while others were decided by fan votes, which is something that will also be done for this film.

“This is for the fans, so we want them to be involved,” said Nolan. “When the movie’s website is launched, it will feature a page where they can cast their votes on the more high-profile matches. We freely admit that they might know better than us.”

Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, and the rest of cast of Avengers will be joining Henry Cavil, Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot in this epic war of worlds.

“I could so take Bat-fleck,” Downey said. “He looks all mopey and sad. Plus, I’ve got better toys.”

Ben Affleck was unavailable for a retort.

Adding to the scope of the film, Marvel is in talks with 20th Century Fox to allow the X-Men and Fantastic Four to be part of the massive crossover.

“Since both of those franchises have tampered or will tamper with the fabric of reality, it made sense story-wise to include them,” said Feige. “This would allow us to sort of include them in the MCU without having them in the MCU. Negotiations have been tough, but I expect we’ll have a deal hammered out soon.”

DC is also considering adding the likes of Grant Gustin (“The Flash”) and Stephen Amell (“Arrow”) to the mix because of their respective shows’ immense popularity. Given the nature of the story, it’s definitely possible.

While all the main players are set, the studios have yet to cast Axel Asher, aka Access, the character who will serve as the bridge between these worlds.

“He was just a regular teenager until a bum told him he was next in line to inherit special interdimensional powers,” said Goyer. “I love that about him. It’s as much his story as it is about the huge fandom-fueled brawls.”

Several actors have apparently auditioned for the coveted role, including Josh Hutcherson (“The Hunger Games”), Taylor Lautner (“Twilight”), Channing Tatum (“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”) and, interestingly, Liam Hemsworth (“The Hunger Games”).

“I’d love to be in a movie with my little brother!” said Chris Hemsworth, who plays Thor. “We always competed with each other growing up.”

Don’t expect to see this crossover clash in theatres for a while, though, since most of these actors are contracted for other films.

“These actors all have a lot on their plates, so we’ll have to wait for everything to align,” said Nolan. “But it will be worth the wait.”

The question on everyone’s mind, though, is will Stan Lee have a cameo?

“The man will be almost a hundred years old by then!” said Singer. “But I think he’d be honored to be part of the film, even if he’s carted in on a wheelchair.”

“Marvel vs. DC” is slated to be released April 1, 2020.

Blog

Religious Freedom, Discrimination, and Gen-Con

“As a Christian, a Hoosier, and a nerd, I am offended by this.”

That’s what I wrote on my Facebook page when I shared an article that said Gen-Con—among others—was threatening to relocate because Indiana Governor Mike Pence was going to sign the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It ignited a flame war on my page and most especially in a Gen-Con Facebook group. It was a rare instance where my politics and nerdiness (and to a lesser extent, my writing) clashed. To make matters worse, I seemed to be in the minority in my support of this bill, even among my fellow Christians. It was one of those times when, as I posted on my page, “I feel like I’m the only one who gets it.”

After much thought, I’ve decided to write this blog as my succinct, focused view on this legislation. It will be the last time I talk about it, at least publicly.

I will not explain my views on homosexuality. I hate that the bill’s protesters have tried to make it about something it isn’t.

Here’s the official summary of the bill:

“Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.”

In other words, it allows judges to look at a case and determine if someone violates someone else’s civil rights with the exercising of his religious rights, or vice versa. These have come up in the last few years because of cases like Hobby Lobby’s refusal to fund certain forms of birth control and the Iowa baker who didn’t want to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. Both resulted in high-profile lawsuits. This bill would protect business owners from such things.

However, protesters argue that this bill will legalize discrimination. The most common example I heard was a Christian restaurant owner could see two men walk in, assume they are homosexual, and refuse to serve them. In other words, this bill will turn Indiana into the pre-Civil Rights Movement south.

Ironically, some—including George Takei—seem or forget (or ignore) that a federal version of this law has been on the books for over 20 years. It was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives and with a 97-3 vote in the Senate and then signed by President Bill Clinton (you know, a right wing nutcase :P). But the Supreme Court said the law didn’t apply to the states, so since then 19 other states besides Indiana have passed laws that reinforced this federal law and added it to their respective state constitutions. In other words, this law isn’t new.

It does not invalidate the civil rights homosexuals—or any other minority—already has in this country. Those are guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Why? Because they’re human beings and American citizens. A business owner can’t use this law to justify his prejudicial refusal to serve someone.

But it doesn’t just apply to Christians in conflict with homosexuals. It applies to Jews who want to run a kosher deli and not be sued because they refused to serve pork. It applies to Catholic organizations that object to certain forms of birth control. It applies to doctors who refuse to perform abortions because of their religious convictions. In other words, people shouldn’t be forced to do anything that violates their consciences. Businesses have the right to refuse service so long as it doesn’t violate someone’s civil rights.

I explained it like this. If a homosexual came to me and asked to buy a copy of one of my books (which has happened)—or better yet, offer me a book deal—I’d have no objections to it. We’re relating to each other as peers. But if he wanted to commission me to write the vows for his gay wedding, I’d say, “No.” Why? Because at that point I’d be endorsing a lifestyle I have religious objections to. I used examples like this on my Facebook page, and several commenters figured that debunking my so-called “extreme” examples and analogies would debunk my arguments. I’m sorry, but the principle still stands even if the illustration is faulty. Read C.S. Lewis. Even he says, “No doubt there is one point in which my analogy…breaks down” (The Weight of Glory).

There have been no instances where this law has been used to justify discrimination in those other 19 states. None. Zero. Nada. If somehow it does lead to such things here in Indiana, I will be one of the first people to support efforts to curtail it. I may have religious objections to homosexuality (not homosexuals—there’s a difference), but I don’t think anyone should be mistreated or discriminated against. If I have to be part of a minority of voices that supports this, so be it. I’m sick of hearing people berate me as a bigot because I support this bill. Eventually, all their voices collect into a cacophony that blares, “Conform!” I refuse.

Don’t think for a second that I don’t know what it’s like to be discriminated against. In fact, it happened to me at Gen-Con last year. A fella walked by my table and grimaced when he saw that I had business cards for Fans For Christ next to my books. I asked if he saw anything he liked, and he replied, “Let me put it politely: I don’t believe what you believe.” Then he walked away without looking at my books. He discriminated against me because I was a Christian. I didn’t berate him or threaten to sue him. I simply moved on to the next potential reader. If someone is refused service by a business because it would violate the owners’ religious beliefs, that person can go to a similar business that will cater to him. That’s what a free market does.

Why are people loudly objecting to it? I believe they’re either misguided or seizing an opportunity to make a political statement. I’ve heard Christians argue that this violates Jesus’ teachings about loving all people. Their hearts are in the right place, but they’re misunderstanding the situation. Most protesters—particularly the extremists in the LGBT community (FYI: I don’t think all members of that community are like this)—see what’s happening and are using it rile people up so they can advance their political agenda. They have no interest in helping anyone but themselves. I’ve seen it happen multiple times in multiple minority groups. They spout nothing but propaganda. It’s sickening, honestly. It doesn’t help anyone and only perpetuates the cycle of hatred. It must be broken.

I believe Adrian Swartout, the CEO of Gen-Con, is motivated by the former. He doesn’t want his event to be associated with a state that he believes is discriminatory toward certain groups. I can understand that. If he wants to move his event elsewhere, that’s his prerogative and he has every right to do so. However, I have every right to disagree with his reasons and be upset that Gen-Con could leave. I love that convention. It means more to me because I’m not just a con-goer. I made new friends there. I enlarged my writers network there. I expanded my audience there. I love their Writers Symposium. I cut my teeth as a self-promoter there. Now that might be taken from me. Heck, I wonder if Christians like me who attend this year will be persecuted because we’ll be labeled “the bigots who made Gen-Con leave.” I’d like to believe that convention will continue to be a place of acceptance.

There you go. I hope I’ve made myself clear. I believe in religious rights and civil rights. I think both should be protected. I support this bill because I think it does that. Feel free to discuss this with me in the comments, but be civil.

Finally, this video succinctly summarizes what this bill is about and what’s in it.

Blog

Well-Rounded or One-Dimensional?

As a teen and young adult, I used to regularly read Focus on the Family’s Plugged In magazine. Recently I checked out their review on the film Fury, which I’d recently seen. It can be summarized with these paragraphs:

Some will see that unflinching glimpse at perpetual bloodshed and gray-smoking destruction as something of an antiwar declaration. They’ll see a cautionary tale of men hollowed out and broken by the unspeakable horrors they’ve witnessed.

Others will see this pic as a one-dimensional splatter-fest dressed up in khaki Army fatigues, with limbs innumerable being severed by large-caliber machine gun fire and mortar rounds in a story of brutal, hard-fisted soldiers battling a Nazi evil even more wicked than themselves.

“Did you watch the same movie I did?” I asked.

In case you don’t know, Fury is a WWII film released last fall that stars Brad Pitt and Shia LeBeouf. It’s about a greenhorn Army clerk who ends up on the frontlines with a battle-hardened tank crew and sees firsthand the horrors of war, which makes him more willing to kill the enemy. I read Plugged In’s review because I wanted to see what they thought of Shia LeBeouf’s character, who is a Christian. (LeBeouf reportedly became a Christian during filming). Unsurprisingly, they complained about him, saying, “We see him praying over a wounded soldier and quoting Scripture several times before battle. That said, his faith doesn’t keep Bible from being every bit as foulmouthed, boozy and death-dealing as the rest of his crew.”

“What would you have preferred?” I asked. “That he fit the equally one-dimensional perfect or nigh-perfect stereotypes that populate ‘Christian’ films?” Besides, he swears much less than his compatriots and I only saw him drink alcohol once (and he didn’t get drunk, which is what the Bible condemns, not the consumption of alcohol). When his buddies make crude comments about German women, he rebuffs them. When they harass a German woman, he doesn’t participate. He’s not perfect. No Christian is. But he’s also not the typical religious loon usually seen in Hollywood films.

They also presented Pitt’s character “Wardaddy” as a one-dimensional, jingoistic jarhead you typically see in bad action movies. That more than anything baffled me. I saw a character who in many writers’ hand would’ve been exactly that, but both the script and Pitt’s performance add layers of nuance to him. He’s a man who will shoot an unarmed POW in the back and a few scenes later protect two young German women from his horny subordinates. When he walked into the women’s apartment, I fully expected him to do something terrible to them. But he didn’t. He does encourage the new recruit to sleep with the younger woman (which isn’t shown, so it’s debatable if they did anything). When they walk out he tells the young guy “nothing needs to be said.” But his defining characteristic is his desire to keep his men alive. Yes, he’s a borderline psychopath and possibly mad, but he’ll do whatever it takes to save his men. They respect him for that. He’s a complicated character. I was enthralled by this.

Not only was I bothered by this magazine’s overly biased review, it reminded me of the challenge writers have creating characters. What’s the difference between a well-rounded character and an inconsistent character? The line between them seems fuzzy. A common trait of bad writing is having a character act, well, out of character. For example, it’d be out of character for a patriotic superhero like Captain America to suddenly become a communist. On the other hand, people are full of contradictions. Hardened criminals in prison will abuse child rapists because despite their depravity, they have enough moral fiber to know not to do unspeakable things to children.

Dinobot from Beast Wars.

This is why my favorite character from Beast Wars (a childhood favorite cartoon) is Dinobot. He’s easily the best-written character in the show because of how complicated he is. He’s too honorable to be a bad guy but too rough to be a good guy. He’ll pull an opponent from cliff edge if said opponent slipped, but he has no qualms with throwing him off the cliff during combat. He defected from the bad guys but considered betraying the good guys later. Yet all of this fit his character.

Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet.

A more literary (and nebulous) example is Hamlet. Talk about complicated! I haven’t the time or space to adequately examine him. All I will say is he is a man who has a strong sense of justice and strong moral convictions. He believes his uncle is a murderer who should die, but he hesitates to kill him because of that same moral compunction against murder. (I don’t subscribe to the theory that Hamlet was insane). That’s one of many reasons why Shakespeare’s Hamlet is considered to be one of the greatest pieces of literature in the history of the world: the titular character is nuanced, complex, and seemingly contradictory.

Writing characters like this is hard. This is why many writers prefer static, two-dimensional characters. That isn’t to say such characters are inherently bad. There are plenty of great examples out there. But even they must act in ways consistent with their character.

What do you think is/are the difference(s) between well-rounded and inconsistent characters?

Blog

I’d Rather be a Trendsetter (or “Do I Have a Fanbase?”)

I wish I had numbers this good.

Sometimes looking at the numbers is discouraging.

Since my last few YouTube videos have been somewhat controversial troll magnets, I decided to check their statistics. While one has close to 3,000 views (it’s since slowed down because it’s designated as “unlisted”), the average amount of time the 12-minute video was viewed was two minutes. (In fact, that was the average for almost all of my videos). In other words, it’s been viewed many times but not often finished (and yet garnered such hate—I guess that’s an accomplishment). 😛 On the other hand, most of my other videos have only a few hundred views, at best.

I could look at this two ways: 1) I’m not as good as making videos as I thought, or 2) people on YouTube have super-short attention spans and get bored more easily than most. The former puts the blame on me and the latter puts the blame on the audience. Honestly, I’m not sure which is true.

Writers aren’t much without readers. They need a fanbase in order to make a living. The problem is building one. Fans are notoriously fickle, particularly in the speculative fiction realm. Striking a balance between giving them what they think they want and what they (or the stories) need is a tightrope act that’d scare most acrobats. I’ve been told by a few publishers and agents that the stories I submitted to them were “well-written” and that I had talent, but what I wrote wasn’t “trendy.” This annoys me. I’ve rarely, if ever, been one to follow trends. I’d rather be a trendsetter. I have far more respect for authors who dream up fresh ideas as opposed to trying to become the next J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, or Stephanie Meyer (God help us if any writers try to become the next E.L. James…). My English professor, Dr. Dennis E. Hensley, always told his students to be themselves as writers instead of watered down versions of other writers.

People sometimes ask me how many copies of my books have sold. I honestly don’t know. I once asked my publisher a few years ago how many copies of Pandora’s Box had sold, but I was disappointed with the numbers so I haven’t asked since. I’m not expecting it to be a New York Times bestseller, but I do hope some people are buying it and enjoying it. While I know number of copies sold and video view counts aren’t necessarily indications of quality, they can be indications of how well the creator is reaching his audience.

Regardless, when I hear people describe themselves as a “fan” of me, I’m surprised. Hopefully someday that won’t be such a shock anymore.

Fellow creators, what do you do to build your fanbase?

Blog

Representation in Stories is Overrated

Marvel Comics recently announced it was launching a new title with an all-female Avengers team called A-Force. It seems like it will feature many of the House of Ideas’ most famous superheroines—like She-Hulk, Black Widow, and Phoenix—many of whom have been members of the main Avengers team.

I’m not opposed to this idea in concept. If Marvel thinks they can generate good stories with a team like this, I’m all for it. The problem, I think, is that doesn’t seem to be their motivation. This reeks of political correctness. It’s an attempt at “diversifying” their titles because they think it’ll appeal to a wider audience. (Ironic considering this team technically isn’t diverse because it has no men on it).

The comic book industry has been dominated by men since its inception. Generally speaking, male authors write male protagonists because they’re drawing upon their own experiences as a male. Now, that doesn’t mean they haven’t written any female characters well. I’d argue there are plenty out there. Unfortunately, comics have a reputation for presenting those characters as sexual objects. Some of it is deserved, but I’d say some of it isn’t. It depends on the individual creators, companies, and/or eras. Regardless, my point remains that it’s understandable that superheroines are a minority in comics because most creators are male (and that’s not a bad thing).

This comic, whether it’s good or not, seems like it’s based on the notion that particular demographics won’t enjoy a story unless the protagonists share their gender, ethnicity, religion, and/or whatnot. In this case, they could be assuming that women won’t read the regular Avengers titles because there are only a few women on the team at any given time (in the first movie, there was only one). This extends to other demographics (i.e. only black people will enjoy stories featuring black characters).

I reject this idea. I’m sure it’s true for some people, but I don’t think most audiences care. What I look for is a good story with characters I like and/or identify with. This goes way beyond skin color or reproductive organs. A truly great story is one that focuses on human experiences, which transcend those outward superficial differences. I read/watch The Hunger Games because it has a good story; the protagonist’s gender had little or no effect on my enjoyment. Everyone has dealt with stuff like trauma, pain, joy, love, and rejection. Those things aren’t a respecter of persons, whether they be fictional or real.

One of my favorite characters in the Star Trek franchise is Benjamin Sisko from Deep Space Nine. Obviously, he’s a black man. But guess what? I never notice. What do I notice? His soft-spoken demeanor, his furious temper, his love for his son, and the pain of losing his wife in battle. All universally human experiences. Read this excerpt from the show’s bible that describes the character. Nowhere does it mention his ethnicity. It was only brought up in the show when it was necessary. That’s how it should always be handled. A character’s ethnicity, gender, and/or religious beliefs can be used to create drama (or comedy), but it shouldn’t define them. It’s only a small part of who they are. Trying to base the character around those traits will, in fact, alienate audiences.

Adding arbitrary diversity also hampers stories. Case in point: Tauriel in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit films. She’s not from the book or any of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings canon. She was created by Jackson and his wife, Fran, because they wanted to add a woman to the almost all-male cast in the hopes of attracting a female audience. She’s completely extraneous to the story. What little purpose she has is to serve as one point in an unnecessary love triangle between her, Kili, and Legolas (who also wasn’t in the book, but I’m willing to accept him here because it’s arguable he was one of the Elves in the story). In other words, Jackson seems to think women want to see cliché “love stories” that go nowhere. Tauriel might be an okay character in concept, but ultimately she’s just part of what amounts a big-budget fanfiction. Instead, Jackson should’ve focused on Bilbo’s growth, which anyone can identify with. Stories don’t need to have romance to be appealing to women.

Pandora-155w-100dpi-C8In the very early stages of writing my first novel, Pandora’s Box, I thought the protagonist would be male. But as the story progressed, I realized it’d be better if the “hero” was actually a heroine. By doing that, I believe I made the story much stronger and more interesting. I didn’t do it to broaden (or narrow) it’s appeal or make some sort of statement—I did it because it was what the story needed. That’s why one of my author mantras is, “Story is king.” Whatever my tale needs, I give it. If it’s a female protagonist, then a female protagonist. If it’s a German scientist, then a German scientist. If it’s a trope-tastic ninja, then a trope-tastic ninja. 😛

So, if you’re concerned with having diversity in your story, don’t bother unless it’ll serve it well. Focus instead on telling as good of a story as you can. That will get you an audience from all races, colors, and creeds.

Blog

Attacking the Idol

I’ve seen many internet trolls in my time. Often I’ve defended someone from internet trolls. Admittedly on rare occasions I’ve been a troll. However, this week I’ve become a troll magnet, especially on YouTube.

Since my YouTube show is titled, “But I Digress…,” any video I post that is either unrelated or only tangentially-related to the usual things I cover on the show (writing, creativity, reviews), I call them “Digressions” (admittedly, the titles were inspired by the podcast “Derailed Trains of Thought” hosted by my friends Nick Hayden and Timothy Deal who have tangential episodes called “Side Tracks.”) Since it was Valentine’s Day, I decided to post two videos: one where I go on an exaggerated angry rant about why I hate Fifty Shades of Grey and the other my annual (bad) karaoke of a love song.

The former was intended to be satirical. I meant everything I said in the video—that I objected to Fifty Shades as a writer and (Christian) moralist—but the rage was exaggerated; it was acting. I was channeling internet personalities like Angry Joe and the Angry Video Game Nerd. Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say I was trying to be Mark Levin. Now, I’m willing to admit that I may have not executed the video well and/or that the joke was lost on people. It was the first time I’ve tried something like this. Most people on YouTube don’t know who I am, so as far as they might know I’m always crazy like that. But the majority of the comments I got were from trolls. If I had to summarize everything they said, it’d be thus (except with lots of spelling errors and some profanity): “You’re an angry Aspie faggot virgin idiot with an imaginary girlfriend who won’t put out.” I’ve rarely run into such a potent concentration of human cruelty. As of the date of this blog, I’ve de-listed the video. I may re-list it later, but even then the comments will be disabled so the trolls can’t have any more “fun.”

I made a response video, and while I thought it was clever, most articles I’ve since read on dealing with trolls have said doing such things is usually a bad idea. It will be the one and only time I “feed” trolls.

“Don’t feed the trolls,” however, isn’t the biggest lesson I learned this past week.

First, satire, like sarcasm, has difficulty surviving on the internet. It’s not the most ideal environment for it since much of the nuance and context that make it work is lost. Although, satire by definition is “a genre in…which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement” (Wikipedia). It’s the one form of humor that simultaneously dulls its barbs and sharpens them. It both entertains and holds a mirror up to the audience so they can examine their ideas and perceptions. Some will get the joke; some won’t. Some will get it and lash out (as happened in the tragic Charlie Hebdo shooting last month).

Which brings me to the second, more important lesson: when one takes an unpopular moral stand, backlash should be expected. To paraphrase my pastor when I talked with him about this, “You attacked their idol, and they will defend it at all costs.” Fifty Shades of Grey has sold over 100 million copies (typing that almost makes me want to vomit), and the movie grossed a record-breaking $85 million domestically (though it has since plummeted). 😉 This means I’m challenging a huge fanbase who, for whatever reason, love this crap. I find most erotica like this to be literary pornography, which is addictive. Criticizing it is like taking cocaine from a junkie: expect a fight. I’m sure many of the trolls were fans of this trash (or simply porn addicts). Like religious zealots, they attack anyone who seeks to destroy their idols—in this case pornography—with an incredible fervor. They had to strike back because I said something that was threatening to them. But many of them cared nothing for E.L. James’ books. These trolls simply smelled blood in the water and swarmed me in a feeding frenzy. They’re opportunists who scour the internet looking for someone to take pot shots at because they find sadistic enjoyment in it. They’re the most dangerous kind of trolls. There’s no defeating them.

But I’d argue that these consequences are worth it. As a Christian, I expect persecution (heck, sometimes it comes from fellow Christians). It stems from being different and/or having a dissenting opinion. I would rather be the target of trolls because I took a moral stand than because I—gasp!—enjoy Michael Bay’s Transformers movies (though I do have my issues with them). That, I think, is key. While bullying is wrong regardless of its motivation, there is honor in suffering for a good reason.

Blog

Proxy Characters and Wish Fulfillment

(My apologies for the risque art).
Robert E. Howard.

I once read that Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Barbarian, considered his most famous creation to be the idealized version of himself. In other words, Conan was who Howard wished he was, which could mean a lot of things, both good and bad. Conan is strong, determined, and powerful, but he’s also a violent, womanizing brute at times.

Regardless, Howard isn’t the first or last author to live vicariously through his stories. Whether unintentionally or not, many authors have created proxy characters for themselves or written about activities they’ve wanted to do or places they wanted to visit.

In the case of proxy characters, some are like Mr. Howard and write a character they see as the ideal they want to be or wish they were. This makes me a bit sad. There’s a tinge of hopelessness in this. Instead of realizing that dream, they settle for a fantasy. Now, it’s a fantasy that makes them money, but it’s a fantasy nonetheless. I have long said that story and art are powerful things that can teach writers and readers alike things about themselves, and while a little escapism is good for the soul, it shouldn’t become a surrogate reality. That’s why many people get addicted to television, video games, and the like. On the other hand, some authors write characters that are (often) thinly veiled copies of themselves. Now, this could be a case of unhealthy wish fulfillment, or it could be a literary device they use to make a point. As Gene Roddenberry showed with the original Star Trek, one can make controversial statements so long as it’s couched in story. I’ve seen authors—including one I know—either put their own words in their characters’ mouths or model the character after themselves. Heck, the best example I can think of is Natasha Hayden’s story in The Day After, which is pretty much her life except she’s not a spy (so far as I know).

If I’m honest with myself, I’ve done the same thing. While I wouldn’t say I modeled him after myself (at least not consciously), I must admit that sometimes I envy Jaysynn, a character I created for the Children of the Wells serial. I sometimes wish I was an athletic parkour martial artist. Well, I wish I at least matched part of that description. I’m sure with the proper effort, time, and money, I can learn martial arts. I’ve wanted to for a long time. But as for parkour…I don’t think I have enough athletic ability to do that well. I could be wrong. Perhaps with the proper training….

See what I mean by wish fulfillment? My priorities dictate that I spend more time writing than I do to be a star athlete, though I may sometimes want to be said athlete. So, as it stands, these quasi-secret aspirations are kept in the “writer’s well” in my crazy brain, from which I draw to craft my stories.

It is fun to pretend.

Speaking of Children of the Wells…time for shameless self-promotion!