Louis L'Amour's Legacy
My favorite author of secular fiction was (and is--he's still my favorite) the late, great Louis L'Amour. L'Amour wrote primarily of the old west it is said, but really, he wrote about people. Indomitable people. People who didn't know when they were licked. People who would fight for right and what they believed in no matter what. People who had and lived by a strict code of conduct and honor straight out of Sir Walter Scott. Most of his characters just happened to live in the old west--a device used because he knew the west and appreciated the stark backgrounds it would afford--but could have lived anywhere.

Because something is popular does not mean it is validated, but when something is popular it behooves us to ask why. Sometimes we don't like the answer, but sometimes we do. Why is this former adventurer with the odd name (his early works were written under the name "Tex Mayo" because some publisher told him nobody would buy a western from a guy named Louis L'Amour!) still such a best seller? And not to make too much of what might be a minor point, L'Amour is read by Everyday Joes. Look at the book racks at the Wal-Mart and the convenience stores and try find another author with as many titles available. What makes the reading public return again and again to this same well?

L'Amour was, by his own admission, a story-teller first. He wrote to be read out loud, to be told around a campfire. He wrote stories that--with all their conflict--brought the reader to the other side of the story with a sense of triumph. That good guys would win, but not necessarily without cost. The innocent would be defended, even if sometimes is was posthumously. The evil would be punished, sometimes by his fellow man and sometimes by the desert, the mountains or some other element (the hand of providence?).

What does this have to do with this blog and it's parent web site? One of the books reviewed (at http://bestfiction.tripod.com) is by Samuel White, who readily admits to being a L'Amour fan. While his only published novel to date is set in the present (mostly) one can see L'Amour's influence in his work. Not just in the fact that he uses a quote from L'Amour in the introduction, but in the general tenor of his writing style. The cadence, the descriptive narratives, even the general tone of the "man against all odds" plot are evocative of L'Amour.

L'Amour claimed his inspiration from many sources, but some of the primary ones--at least judging by his repeated admiration for them--were Shakespeare and Scott. How many authors out there now owe the same amount of credit to L'Amour for the inspiration he has given them?

An Unflinching Dedication to Mediocrity
If you've ever tried to have something published, you know how frustrating it can be. Getting someone to look at your work is just part of the frustration. Beyond that, another big factor is that you can look around at the bookstore and find work after work that is inferior (in many cases, vastly inferior) to your work.

It seems as if the major publishing houses these days are interested in the bottom line. I can't necessarily blame them for that, but it lends itself to a literature of pablum designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The publishing industry can be summed up with the old adage of "If it's not broke, don't fix it."

Poorly written books about the end times are selling well? Let's shove as many other poorly written books about the end times as we can out onto the market! Or, as we saw a few years ago, Peretti wrote some very good books about spiritual warfare, so the publishers tripped over themselves releasing other books about spiritual warfare, most of very little value and less skill.

But the good writing is out there. Authors are out there who desire to tell a good story, who write well, and aren't afraid to ruffle feathers when necessary. They're harder to find because--especially in Christian publishing--a misguided attempt to be loving has eliminated critical thought and confrontational writing; the kind of story that makes you sit up and--agree or disagree--respond to what you've read.

If CS Lewis were alive today no one would publish him because he asks too much of his audience.

That's the kind of writing I'm trying to find and promote now.

Best Christian Fiction Webmaster

"The Word of God in English" by Leland Ryken
Reading an interesting book on Bible translation: "The Word of God in English" by Lelan Ryken (Crossway). Basically, it's a treatise-come-diatribe against "dynamic equivalence" in favor of "essentially literal" translations. While he makes some very good points, he comes across (to me) as being someone who focuses more on "does it sound right?" (this coming from his admitted standing as a literary critic) as the primary criteria for a Bible translation. Thus, the KJV and RV are wonderful because they are masterworks of literature and the NIV and TEV are disasters because they are not. Having established this as his basic premise, he then goes back and uses "facts" to back up his preconceived notions.

Much of his feelings on the matter can be summed up in these few sentences (pg 63): "Many of these [modern] readers carry Bibles that lack dignity and that have been reduced to the level of colloquial discourse. The general tendency has been to demote literary beauty and eloquence. We are not in a golden era of English Bible translation." This is, of course, a subjective view. As a literary critic he views certain Bibles as containing literary beauty but--and I fully acknowledge this as a reviewer myself--what I find beautiful in any art form may not be found as such by someone else, or anyone else.

He speaks much against the idea of translations that are geared towards the audience rather than the author. I can understand that complaint a little bit, but I can't get past the idea that the best thing I can do with a Bible is a] read it and know it myself and b] share the Good News with others. So if I come across someone reading one of the weakest translations (i.e. The Living Bible) am I better off working with what God has provided, or trying to force them to go to something better? Aren't I better off to follow Jesus's command and engage in discipleship? Sharing the word in a way that can be understood and, perhaps, lifting them up to a "better" translation but mostly lifting them up towards God?

And while I'm on my soap box . . . there seems to me to be a trend in Christianity--and I say this as someone who loves and reveres the Bible--to put the Bible above the God who gave it. As if orthodoxy to a certain translation--or method of translation--is more important than the God who provided it. Within this idea is the idea that we cannot share the Gospel with someone without a Bible. I believe the Bible is our most reliable source of God's word, and that no word can be from God if it contradicts his written word, the but the greatest evangelistic tool we have is love, which may or may not even require words. After all, wasn't the gospel shared before (and while) the Bible was written?

Ryken does make some good points, but for every one of those he makes there will be at least one (and usually more) points that I can't agree with. I just read a part where, in his argument for the authority of scripture (which I agree with!) he uses 1 Thessalonians 2:13 as validation for the printed word being authoritative. I read the verse, though, and it sounds to me like it is talking about the word of God Paul and company preached orally and
to apply it to the written word of God is a stretch. This is one of the areas where the writer frustrates me because even in the midst of a good point, he backs it up badly. Like his earlier argument in favor of the KJV because of all the commentaries that have been written about it. I like the KJV, but the fact that there are commentaries about it is a poor argument. Besides the fact that it was virtually the only version to comment on for a long time, all of Shakespeare's works are heavily commentated. Does that make them scriptural?

He also argues heavily in favor of theological terms like "propitiation". OK, if the greek word used originally is best translated "propitiation", I have another question: would the original audience have understood the word used better than we understand propitiation? If it were confusing to them, then it's all right to use a confusing word to us (maybe the verse was intended to get us digging deeper to figure out what that word meant). But, if the greek word was something commonly understood by the readers of the day, is the correct translation an exact but misunderstood word or an understood but inexact word? I don't know that I have a hard and fast answer to that question for all instances, but I know I lean toward the understood word. If I write a letter to someone in a foreign country and use the term baseball--which they have no frame of reference for--would I rather the translator render the word accurately or explain it to the reader as a "horsehide-covered sphere used in a popular American game"? Maybe this is where the ideal Bible is a study Bible. Word for word in the text, but heavily noted in the margins or at the bottom as to the meanings of confusing words.

To quote my friend Mike, "We need to communicate as clearly as possible to the intended audience and for the intended purpose. Which, by the way, can change over time and should change for different situations. Anyhow, I vote for a need for different translations for different purposes. If the purpose is advanced scholarship, then a word-for-word translation with appropriate comments, and the original text available for more detailed study, then so be it! I wouldn't agree that the same translation is the best for a junior high kid trying to get to know God better."

And to say this is just a part of the dumbing down of modern culture is to ignore reality. Words often change meaning (it's why we are translating from Greek to English to begin with: New Testament Greek died out and--at least on this continent--English sprung up). Because the word was best translated "propitiation" in the 18th century it does not automatically follow that that word should still be translated that way in the 21st century. For instance, in the seventeenth century if I were to say something was "awful" that would be a compliment.

More later!
Best Christian Fiction Webmaster

Welcome to Bext Christian Fiction
Why "Best Christian Fiction"?

There's a lot of Christian fiction and pseudo-Christian fiction out there these days. Some of it is very well written and some of it is not. I wanted a place where I could comment on and recommend some of the best that's out there.

While it's very tempting to also do reviews of some of the worst of Christian fiction (in my view, anyway), my snide nature in such things would make it difficult for me to review bad works without becoming needlessly insulting. Let's face it: some Christian fiction (as with much secular fiction) is deserving of critical--and even downright harsh--reviews from a literary or storytelling perspective. Still, such negative reviews too easily begin to impugn the integrity or intelligence of the authors and readers of such works and that, to me, seems unChristian.

I may use the opportunity of this blog to address some of these thoughts--and books. Or, maybe I'll just ramble.

Best Christian Fiction WebMaster