"Wild at Heart"
I just finished reading a non-fiction book that was given to me as a Christmas present by one of the elders at my church: "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge. It had touched him so deeply he had been recommending it for months at our promise Keepers meetings. So, he finally broke down and gave copies of it to several of us.

Then, it took me more than a month to read it. Not because it was hard reading or something I wasn't interested in, but just because it was the type of book where I had to stop every couple pages and really think about what I had read.

That's a good thing, BTW.

Let me begin by saying I enjoyed "Wild at Heart". Again, because it made me think.

I remember in college when we had to do book reports. Most people turned in the same kinds of book reports they had done in high school and junior high, to wit: a capsulated regurgitation of the contents of the book. I turned in a few of those myself. Then, one day I had a revelation: the professors actually cared what I thought about what I had read. I learned that it wasn't a bad thing to disagree with a book--just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's right--so long as you have a reason for disagreeing and can clearly state it.

That being said, I enjoyed reading "Wild at Heart", was moved by it, and I think I'm a better person for having read it. On the other hand, I can't agree with everything Eldredge says.
For starters, I do not share his pull to the outdoors. I love to push myself. I am constantly working to stretch myself in ways I've never done before as far as preaching, writing and even cartooning. What I write and draw this year will be--I am determined--beyond not only what I did last year, but beyond what I could have done last year. I also like the outdoors. I just have limited interest in the back country and no interest in rock climbing. So while I agree that all men are created by God to push ourselves, I don't agree that such pushing is necessarily found outdoors.

Like Eldredge, I am also a big fan of movies, and have been known to use clips from movies and TV to illustrate points in my sermons or lessons. Some of the movies he quotes from I saw and enjoyed; some I saw and walked out on because I found them offensive. While they had some redeeming thoughts or points (at least to appearances from the examples he cites), for myself the evil outweighed the good. (My view, for instance, on how much pornography is acceptable is: none; whereas Eldredge can apparently look past limited amounts of nudity to see value. I can't.) Let me say that nothing Eldredge quotes from these movies is objectionable. I just object to the movies and question what could easily be construed as an endorsement of them.

Now, for the good. "Wild at Heart" has challenged me to pursue with much more vigor the path God has laid out before me. It has also drawn my attention to the things I say to my sons (and the things we do together) and how responsible I am for building them up in Christ (and not exasperating them, as Paul says). It has reminded me of what should have been obvious: men and women are different. Therefore, I should use my God-given strengths FOR my wife, as well as for God.

Like much Christian help, "Wild at Heart" covers little new ground. That's not necessarily a criticism. Any mature person has reached the conclusion that we all have to be reminded of what we know. It's why we keep coming back to God. It's why we keep reading the Bible even though we've read it before. And sometimes (often?) we have to have what we already know explained to us in a new way so that we'll open up to it. That's what "Wild at Heart" has done (and is doing--it's good enough that I'm working my way through the journal now) for me: returned my focus to God and being His man. If a book can do that, and especially if it does it well, then I call it a "recommended read".

Welcome to Fred (a novel)
If 100 people see an event, probably about 10 of them won't have the faintest idea what they saw. "The building collapsed?!?! I didn't know that." Another 60 or so can relate the story pretty well, but with varying degrees of accuracy tinted by their own perceptions and biases. 20 from the crowd can tell what they saw accurately (though the sharpness of the narrative may fade). Nine people from the crowd will be able to tell the story in an accurate and compelling manner.

Brad Whittington is that 100th person who saw exactly what everyone else saw, but in the retelling is able to bring out the bits of nuance and insight that even the nine missed. I don't know what his narrative about the collapse of a building would be like, but he can tell about living in a one-horse town (where the horse is often sick and always swaybacked) in the 1970s in such a manner that you don't just wish you were there, you are there.

In some ways, I was there. Though a decade or more behind Whittington, I grew up in Texas (though the western side) and can attest that the people he was writing about were not caricatures. They were the people I grew up with. The kid who's too young to drive but practically built his own car and now terrorizes the back roads. The country folks who don't understand the city folks, and vice versa.

Welcome to Fred is the first-person story of Mark Cloud, the son of a Baptist preacher who finds life as an adolescent in the big city full of adventure and promise. But then, his father takes a church in the East Texas town of Fred. Fred is everything Mark didn't want in a town and Mark doesn't think he fits in. Maybe he doesn't, and the reader will start asking whether this is Fred's fault or Mark's.

The writing keeps you reading, which is what I think writing is supposed to do. Neither so simple as to bore you, or so complex as to run you off. The humor, which peeks out from the page in surprising places--rather like the next door neighbor's kid, who you want to be angry with but he's just so likable!-- keeps the book and reader from taking themselves too seriously. The fact that the humor sometimes seemed out of place for a "typical narrative" served to make the story seem that much more real. As if Mark Cloud is a real person (and maybe he is, named Brad Whittington) who can't help but find humor in life.

If I have a complaint about "Welcome to Fred" it's that I wish the book itself--somewhere on the jacket maybe--had told me it was the first book in an ongoing story. Not knowing this led me to get to the end and think, "What? That's it?" I am excited to know another book is forthcoming, and other readers may read it and not feel cut off, but I did.

Tom Bodett, whose success as a pitchman has obscured the fact that he's one of the best writers of our time, once wrote that the highest compliment he could receive for his writings would be for someone to read something he had written and comment, "Yeah, it's just like that."

As I read Whittington, the thought continually comes to the mind of this son of a west Texas preacher, "Yeah, it's just like that."

Note: word from Brad Whittington that his next novel has been sent to the publisher!

Writing
What does it take to be a writer? Is it just putting words to paper (or computer). Well, yes.

We want to argue that, those of us who write. But the truth is, the person writing their grocery list is a writer. Frank Peretti's a writer. So is my friend Matt Franklin, who writes for the sports page in our local paper. Is it all the same? No.

What does it take to be a writer of fiction? An ability to tell a story helps but isn't necessary. It may be necessary toward getting someone else to read what you've written, but a lot of people write only for themselves. Cool! They're writers, just as much as CS Lewis or Tolkien.

I read an article recently by a published author I had never heard of who was saying that to write to sell is the wrong motivation. That one should write what one wants to write--to tell the story one wants to tell. I agree.

But I'm also enough of a capitalist that I think if someone wants to write soup labels because soup labels are selling . . . go for it! Maybe what I think it most wrong with modern writing is that it's based on someone else telling the writer what to write. "Write to sell!" "Write so it won't sell!"

I guess if I were to throw my two cents in (too late, huh?), I would say, "Write what you want. If it sells, milk it for all it's worth! If it doesn't, keep writing. Keep telling the stories you think need to be told, even if you're just telling them to yourself!"

LOTR
Just got through watching "The Two Towers - Extended Edition". Wow! An incredible movie and so much better than the theater version (I know some won't agree with me on that, so don't bother articulating your disagreement in an email).

And now I'm starting to watch the voluminous "making of" features and featurettes. One of the recurring themes, said by several different people, is that Tolkien's book would never be published today. It's not written like a professional writer would write it, it expects too much of the reader for the modern publisher, it's not laid out the way books "are supposed to be arranged".

These statements are, of course, made by fans of the work who trust their audience enough to not say the obvious. Namely: modern publishers are idiots. All this book by a non-professional writer with its unconventional story-telling and trust of its audience has ever accomplished is to be referred to by many as the best novel of the 20th century. (And let's not forget that it's sold a few copies.)

Not that I expect publishers to ever see this blog, or to take it to heart if they do, but wouldn't it be nice if some of them were to watch LOTR and realize there might be some other Tolkiens out there and finally break through their pablum to present us with words worth reading?

I can dream, can't I?

The Art of Writing, Part 1
What is it about the written word that so fascinates some of us? I can read for hours on end, but to hear someone read the same thing to me--even a very good reader or speaker--often leaves me cold. What is it, too, that is so much more appealing about reading something printed out on paper--even the slick paper of a magazine--than to read it on-line?

And what is it that leaves some people--even if they've read this far--shaking their heads in wonder because they just can't imagine finding reading entertaining? Such people are by no means necessarily low-brow or educationally deficient. I have friends who are college grads who are very intelligent, but just don't care for reading.

Back to my first question, though: what is it about reading? And why do some authors capture us while others leave us not just cold but depressed because we "wasted" time trying to read them? For instance, I can read almost anything by CS Lewis and his wordcraft just fascinates me. Same with Mark Twain, Louis L'Amour and several others. But some writers, who I will not insult by mentioning here, I couldn't slog through their report on the Super Bowl even if my favorite team had won it. The words are all spelled right, the grammar is passable, but that special something just isn't there for me.

Why?

I suppose, if I could figure that out and master it, I could probably charge people to read this blog and they'd be willing to pay. At least, the other writers would.

The Art of Writing, Part 1
What is it about the written word that so fascinates some of us? (I've asked this before, but it's still preying on my mind.)

I can read for hours on end, but to hear someone read the same thing to me--even a very good reader or speaker--often leaves me cold. What is it, too, that is so much more appealing about reading something printed out on paper--even the slick paper of a magazine--than to read it on-line?

And what is it that leaves some people--even if they've read this far--shaking their heads in wonder because they just can't imagine finding reading entertaining? Such people are by no means necessarily low-brow or educationally deficient. I have friends who are college grads who are very intelligent, but just don't care for reading.

Back to my first question, though: what is it about reading? And why do some authors capture us while others leave us not just cold but depressed because we "wasted" time trying to read them? For instance, I can read almost anything by CS Lewis and his wordcraft just fascinates me. Same with Mark Twain, Louis L'Amour and several others. But some writers, who I will not insult by mentioning here, I couldn't slog through their report on the Super Bowl even if my favorite team had won it. The words are all spelled right, the grammar is passable, but that special something just isn't there for me.

Why?

I suppose, if I could figure that out and master it, I could probably charge people to read this blog and they'd be willing to pay. At least, the other writers would.

Returning
It's been a while since I've blogged. Up until about a year ago, if I had heard or read that statement, coming from someone else, I probably would have responded with something like, "That's good news! I guess the fiber worked."

But blogging is, of course, something almost entirely different. Or, if it does have to do with gastro-intestinal matters, they are gastro-intestinal matters of the "Reader's Digest" variety.

Anyway, what brought me back is that someone finally wrote to me at the website. His name is Brad Whittington and he's the author of a great new book called "Welcome to Fred". I'm not going to review it right now--that will come later--but I recommend you at least go to www.fredtexas.com and check out the first chapter.

And while I'm recommending that you check out new things . . . "Saving Time", the sequel to last year's excellent "First Time" is due out any day now. Watch the front page of Best Christian Fiction (http://bestfiction.tripod.com) for details, or go straight to the horse's mouth at www.tuttles.net.

We also get word that Robert Calvert, author the wonderful novel "When Vapors Vanish" (also reviewed on BCF) is hard at work on a new novel. Keep watching for more word on that.

Good writing is out there. Sometimes you just have to get off the beaten path to find it.

Reading for Pleasure
Why do I read my Bible? I've read it before. I've read it several times before. So why do I keep reading it?

The answer is simple to those who know and almost impossible to explain to those who don't. I know, for instance, that every time I read my Bible I'll get something out of it. I know it's living and active.

CS Lewis said the person who says the Bible is just ink on paper is right. But there's more there. What is it about those particular words that are so profound? Why have we, over the centuries, broken it down into chapters and verses when it wasn't written that way? The other books I read, from fiction to non-fiction, while I may occasionally highlight a passage here and there I rarely breakdown and study every single sentence individually.

So, again, why do it here?

Readers
What is it about the printed word that so fascinates some of us? And then there are people who find no interest in the printed word and don't like to read. We don't understand each other. I am so surprised when I meet people who don't like to read. And some of them are surprised to meet someone who does. What's bad is when one group looks down on the other.

I get much out of reading--from the Bible at the top of the list to the lesser lights of Peanuts comic strips and and sports reports. I like a good turn of phrase, like the columnist last week who said the only thing Liberia had ever successfully exported was chaos, or when George Will mentioned that one could find the French constitution at the library in the periodicals section. I like being taken to times and places I'll never see in this life.

So I am surprised when I meet someone who doesn't get that same joy from reading. I have come to realize that--as in a lot of things--my affinity for reading in no way makes me superior to someone without the same love. So I read the Bible, even that's only of value if I do something with it.

Re-Arranging Narnia
I love The Chronicles of Narnia. I read them first as a child and now, almost three decades later, I still love reading them. I'm reading them to my youngest son now, having read them to my older son a couple years ago. So both are six at the event of their first (of hopefully, many) trip through Narnia.

Why, though, have the publishers monkeyed with the order of the books? Growing up, the Chronicles were numbered in the order they were published. This meant "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was book 1, and "The Magician's Nephew" was book six.

But now, the publisher insists on putting them out in order of the chronology within the story, making "Nephew" first, "Wardrobe" second and--this is just heinous--"The Horse and His Boy" third. This probably seems like a minor point to some people, but I don't think it is. Rearranging the chronology of the books altars the story.

Take the TRUE second book in the series, "Prince Caspian" as a case in point. The first couple chapters in the book actually take place after some of the later chapters. This is called story-telling. Lewis sets up a situation, has us intrigued, then fills in the background of how his story got there. This is a necessary device sometimes because the "how we got here" part isn't as interesting as "where we are now" but it still must be told. So you tell the interesting part, hook the reader, then backtrack a bit, making the later payoff that much better. The entire series was written the same way.

"The Magician's Nephew" is supposed to come later. After having learned of Narnia in the first five books, we then learn how it came about, where the lamp post came from, and why Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve have such a special place there. To change the order of the stories is to give us the "why" before we care. Not that "Nephew" is an uninteresting book, but it is MOST interesting if read where it's supposed to be!