Tip of the Iceberg — Image by © Ralph A. Clevenger/CORBIS

Later this week, I’ll be teaching a class at a writers conference entitled “Writing for the General Market.” This is a Christian writers conference, thus the emphasis on the general market as opposed to the “Christian” market. When I officially began pursuing a career as a writer back in 2003 /04, the Christian market was the default market Christian novelists were aiming at. At that time, Christian fiction was thriving. Combine that with oft-stated objections to “secular content” and a rather narrow interpretation of evangelistic methodology (I’ll get to this in a second), and you had a fairly saturated market.

Over a decade later, things have changed significantly. Part of this is due to changes in the publishing landscape. Another part, at least among Christian authors, is a growing (perhaps “maturing” is a better word) understanding of what art and cultural engagement can look like. Either way, more and more Christian writers are now seeking to branch into the general market.

I recently discovered a good example of this developing perspective in professor Holly Ordway’s new book, “Apologetics and the Christian Imagination.” Early on in the book, Ordway establishes that one component of apologetics involves “creating meaning,” bringing life to foundational concepts intrinsic to salvific belief which may be misunderstood by the hearers (concepts like sin, redemption, faith in God, etc., etc.). However doing this requires we approach apologetics as “a spectrum of engagement.” Some of this involves appealing to Reason, others involves appealing to Imagination.

Reason and Imagination are twin faculties, both part of human nature–and both given to us by God our Creator!–that, together, allow for a further grasp of the truth.

In this sense, effective apologetics must not simply appeal to linear thought but to abstract thought as well. Ordway uses C.S. Lewis (and herself) to describe what she calls “a two-step conversion.” The first step in Lewis’ conversion was “a conversion to Theism, not to Christianity.” He moved from strict atheism to a belief in God. It was an inability to grasp certain doctrinal issues, namely the Atonement, that prevented Lewis from taking the next step and embracing Christianity. This changed when Lewis’ Imagination was engaged. Specifically his love for myth and how Christ was “the true Myth” or “Myth become flesh.” Ordway summarizes,

When Lewis realized that he could connect his imaginative response to the story, to the factual reality of the Christian claim about the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the final barrier to belief fell. He could become a Christian as a whole person, with both his imagination and his reason fully engaged.

This is an important point for Christian novelists. Too often we see our work as not “Christian” enough unless it appeals to Reason and clearly articulates some element of the Gospel. Another way to view this could be in terms of Implicit and Explicit Christian content. Many believers have been conditioned to define a novel’s Christian-ness in terms of explicit content — overt Scripture references, Christian characters, some form of Gospel proclamation, a redemptive movement, etc. However, what we often fail to recognize is this:

Implicit biblical ideas form the foundation of more explicit biblical beliefs.

To tease this out, here’s one of the slides I’ll be using in my class. It’s a quote from Tom Pawlik, a popular Christian author, from an interview I conducted with him. We were discussing what exactly constitutes “Christian content” in a novel.


Pawlik rightly notes how the story of the Good Samaritan, though containing no explicit references to God or the Gospel, “upholds Christian virtues.” So a listener or reader of the Good Samaritan, without having explicit knowledge of the Gospel, can still engage with its implicit biblical concepts. The idea of intrinsic human worth, transcending structures of class and race, and sacrificing ourselves for the good of others are intrinsic to a biblical worldview. Once extrapolated to their fullness, they speak to explicit Christian concepts concerning the nature of human beings, the societal and individual repercussions of sin, and the risks and rewards of redemption.

And this brings us back to Ordway’s idea of a “two-step conversion.” In the same way that Lewis moved incrementally from atheism to theism, people usually move from implicit to explicit Christian beliefs. Before one can embrace a specific doctrinal distinctive — like the Atonement, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. — one must at least be a Theist. But the path from atheism or agnosticism to Theism is often incremental. We simply cannot expect someone to embrace explicit biblical concepts without first embracing foundational implicit concepts. Part of the “spectrum of engagement,” at least from a novelist’s point of view, is to engage a story’s abstract, implicit, and Imaginative components. Using fiction (and giving permission for Christian creatives) to engage the Imagination rather than the Reason is an important step to more powerfully engaging a mainstream audience and seeding the Gospel in culture. While a work of fiction may not explicitly articulate the Gospel, it can still contain implicit elements which engage a person’s imagination and move them forward in their spiritual pilgrimage.

Point being: Writing for the general market and engaging mainstream audiences means being able to see below the “tip of the iceberg” and affirm the much larger body of principles and beliefs which support a biblical worldview.


One of the most recent theatrical trailers for Ridley Scott’s Alien: Covenant includes this ominous tagline: “The path to paradise begins in hell.” In an an article at ScreenRant entitled “Alien: Covenant Tackles Science and Religion,” the author notes:

That Covenant will be exploring themes of religious beliefs and faith has been clear for some time, going back to when the movie was originally titled Alien: Paradise Lost (as a reference to John Milton’s Biblical poem, Paradise Lost).

But the film’s (and the series’) religious parallels and references don’t stop there. In fact, the religious themes are so prolific that the folks at Movie Pilot were led to ask,  Are ‘Alien: Covenant’ & ‘Prometheus’ Religious Propaganda?

The recent Alien prequels have taken the classic sci-fi franchise in a very different direction to the originals, introducing a plethora of new concepts and themes. One of the most recurring and surprising addition to this backstory is the high amount of religious references.

What makes this so surprising is the fact that director and writer Ridley Scott is a staunch atheist. In an interview with Collider, he once said that “one of the biggest problems in the world is the word we call religion. That creates more problems than anything else in the goddamn universe.”

And yet despite his stance on religion, he still includes an inordinate amount of religious metaphors in his films.

It’s interesting that a “staunch atheist” would be so drawn to religious themes. Or is it?

The truth is, while many science fiction writers and readers share Scott’s atheism, or some softer version of agnosticism, the genre appears to keep coming back to religious ideas, images, and questions.

In an older post over at the Tor website, Teresa Jusino explores the same overlap. Her post, Religion and Science Fiction: Asking the Right Questions, notes the proliferation of religious themes in sci-fi. Not only does she not have a problem with it, she thinks it’s quite normal for us to go there.

What all of these stories do well with regard to religion (with the exception of The Phantom Menace, which did nothing well) is capture what I think the discussion should really be about. Most people who debate science vs. religion tend to ask the same boring question. Does God exist? Yawn. However, the question in all of these stories is never “Do these beings really exist?” The question is “What do we call them?” It’s never “Does this force actually exist?” It’s, “What do we call it?” Or “How do we treat it?” Or “How do we interact with it?” One of the many things that fascinates me about these stories is that the thing, whatever it is—a being, a force—always exists. Some choose to acknowledge it via gratitude, giving it a place of honor, organizing their lives around it and allowing it to feed them spiritually. Others simply use it as a thing, a tool, taking from it what they will when they will then calling it a day. But neither reaction negates the existence of the thing.

Good science fiction doesn’t concern itself with “Does God exist?”, but rather “What is God?” How do we define God? Is God one being that created us? Is God a race of sentient alien beings that see all of time and space at once and is helping us evolve in ways we are too small to understand? Is God never-ending energy that is of itself? And why is it so important to human beings to define God at all?  To express gratitude to whatever God is? Why do people have the need to say “thank you” to something they can’t see and will probably never understand? To me, these are the important questions. They’re also the most interesting. (emphasis mine)

I think Ms. Jusino’s angle is a good one. The question is not whether God exists, but what is he/it like. In fact, this appears to be the trajectory of Scott’s Alien series — to address the issue of origins. However, conceding the existence of God or some Super Intelligence (or in the Prometheus world, the Engineers), is precisely what hangs up many hardcore proponents of science fiction.

For example, take the following comment on the aforementioned post (#22):

As to science and religion being complementary, though, I have to say I disagree. Critical thinking and rigorous standards of evidence are at the core of science. Religion seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum–employing the weakest conceivable criteria and standards of evidence.

I think that’s why so many of us who are interested in science come to be nontheist even when, as in my case, they were raised religious. To believe religious claims requires that one set the bar artificially low. As one commenter noted, this didn’t have to be the case. In so many of the science fictional worlds described there is clear evidence for the supernatural forces and being at work in the world.

In the actual world though we have to settle for rather weak philosophical arguments, miracle claims that never seem to be verifiable, claims of prophetic foreknowledge about as dubious as the latest newspaper psychic’s predictions for the new year, and, most of all, “I just feel it in my heart” (and here we hear the bar hit the ground with a resounding thud).

Is it any wonder that so many who are scientifically literate are nonreligious? (bold mine)

So while many accept that a hunger for God (or Something numinous) is fundamental to human nature, hardcore materialists refuse to go there. And as many science fiction fans are devotees of Science (see: scientific materialism), it is only natural that they tolerate the “God question” only insofar as it is answered in accordance with scientific literacy.

Of course, this didn’t stop one reviewer (who happens to call himself a chaos magician) from seeing the films as channeling a “gnostic creation myth“:

Prometheus really is a gnostic creation myth and the deliberate – sometimes clunky – injection of physical AAT [Ancient Astronaut Theory] into a Biblical creation arc designed to make those who have eyes to see really sit up and notice. Scott’s not just sprinkling some churchiness on top of a monster movie.

…This is a nested gnostic tale. It is a Luciferian story nested in the ‘Alien Bible’ universe that Prometheus describes. It also does a bang-up job of exploring the anger in the Lucifer form and has some detailed meditations on the notion of creation and justice that really surprised me after the on-the-nose opening sequence. Whilst it can come close to the fruity, Theosophical Luciferianism of the nineteenth century and the Romantics that preceded them -“but if God bad then me think Lucifer… good?”- Covenant manages to pull back at just the right moment to avoid that fate.

And herein lies sci-fi’s “God problem.”

On one  hand, to concede the premise that God, or something like God, may exist, is to undermine the entire atheistic presupposition of so much science. It’s the same reason why the above commenter suggested that “so many who are scientifically literate are nonreligious.” It’s not because there isn’t evidence for an Engineer, but because by conceding the possibility of an Engineer, scientists get a step closer to conceding the possibility of a Super-Intelligence, a Creator, and ultimately the Judeo-Christian God. And this is the big no-no.

On the other hand, there’s the “gnostic creation myth,” the “Luciferian story nested in the ‘Alien Bible’ universe” theory. How far such an esoteric theory goes in satisfying the “God question” is another story. No doubt, hardcore sci-fi fans will see any connection to Luciferian archetypes as far too “religious” to deem a plausible resolution and not nearly “scientifically literate” enough. However, such a nebulous interpretation at least steers clear of anything remotely biblically sound… which is the ultimate objective of “true” devotees of Science.


I recently dared to suggest on social media that Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale was feminist propaganda. Interestingly enough, I received pushback from two different sides — Those who objected to it being  portrayed as feminist propaganda and those who defended it AS feminist propaganda. The series is being hailed as a dire warning against totalitarianism, especially as foisted by political conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and the Patriarchy. Who else? The series’ application, so they say, is specific to Trump’s America and as a Warning to Conservative Women.

Of course, this is not much of a surprise. Railing against conservative Christians and white men is the perennial cause du jour for progressives. Now with Trump in the White House, they’ve set the Doomsday Clock to midnight and proclaimed themselves the new #Resistance.

What’s mildly surprised me is the degree to which artists are being recruited into this #Resistance. Whereas agenda-driven, preachy stories were once condemned by the gatekeepers, now they appear to be in vogue. Building upon this “revolutionary” momentum set in motion by The Handmaid’s Tale, lists of other works of “feminist fiction” have made the rounds. What strikes me as interesting in many of these lists is the inclusion of Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 film Children of Men. For example, this list from i09 recommends 10 Other Works of Feminist Fiction. Number 2 on their list is Children of Men. Their summary:

…Cuarón’s 2006 film takes place in a dystopia that resembles a grimier, way less pious, way more disorganized parallel universe to The Handmaid’s Tale. They share, of course, the idea that widespread infertility will re-shape society as we know it—and that the (male) leaders of the future will deal with the crisis in different but still deeply shitty ways.

Men acting in “deeply shitty ways” is a requirement of feminist fiction. The question that I’ve had while perusing these lists is, How ‘feminist’ was Children of Men?

When I first saw the film, I blogged about my thoughts in a post entitled Hollywood’s Violent Contradiction. Here’s some of what I wrote:

The sanctity of life is a consistent theme in Hollywood films. How many times has a movie left us with the message that one life matters, that everyone’s special, that we all have a sense of destiny. A film as innocuous as The Revenge of the Sith culminates with the birth of a child (Luke Skywalker, who will save his people from the Empire). The Butterfly Effect reminds us that every action — every choice — is infinitely important. Darren Aronofsky describes the central theme of his new film The Fountain, as “the sanctity of life.” Some have gone as far as to suggest that in Children of Men: Hollywood Goes Pro-Life. The official site for the film opens with a glowing embryo descending onscreen.

Here’s the catch: Hollywood celebrities are decidedly pro-abortion.

Therein lies the “violent contradiction” I spoke about. Hollywood wants to celebrate individual worth and human dignity while supporting the legal termination of almost 1 million unborn children a year. Nevertheless, many have noted the blatant pro-life message of Children of Men. One blogger called it “unabashedly pro-life.” Another wrote about, “the fundamentally pro-life fabric of the film: human dignity should never be compromised, and human life, foreign and domestic, young and old, is a gift that should be protected.” Students for Life included the film in their list of Films with a Pro-Life Message.

But to the degree that Children of Men contains a pro-life message, it deeply undermines its feminist cred.

Of course, this “pro-life message” is but a shadow of the author, P.D. James’, original novel. For example, Terry Mattingly noted that “the team behind the movie ripped out the book’s gripping Christian foundation.” Reflecting on the film a decade later, Warren Henry wrote in Ten Years Later, Critics Still Love—And Misunderstand—’Children of Men’:

…the critical adoration for “Children of Men” is largely misplaced. The movie is technically brilliant, but fails even as the sort of political agitprop its admirers would like it to be.

Beneath its sci-fi veneer, the novel is an essentially Christian nativity tale that strongly suggests that the global infertility (and resulting statism) is the product of a civilization that became so godless and hedonistic that children and family were no longer the future of humanity. The movie avoids identifying an express cause of the infertility, but presents divine judgment as the theory of crazed, masochistic zealots.

Cuarón, the director, told Filmmaker magazine the “book is almost like a look at Christianity, and that wasn’t my interest. I didn’t want to shy away from the spiritual archetypes but I wasn’t interested in dealing with Dogma.”

Another reviewer called the book a “subtle critique of our current culture of sex-obsessed, anti-Christian, child-phobic self-indulgence.”

These are NOT the types of things one would naturally attach to a “feminist film.” Yet despite the director’s disavowal of the author’s faith and her novel’s message (the last act of the novel is the baby’s baptism), the film still cannot shake the novel’s pro-life underpinnings.

Perhaps this says more about the hijacking of art for political and/or religious purposes. I tend to see it as an indictment of Hollywood and contemporary feminism. Recently, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez made it clear that pro-lifers are not welcome within the Democratic party, demanding that unwavering support for abortion is “not negotiable” for “every Democrat.” A similar groupthink is demanded of feminists regarding abortion rights as a central tenet of their creed. Making “pro-life feminism” a virtual oxymoron.

Supporters of The Handmaid’s Tale and its perceived message, though eager to include other pieces of art and fiction in their cause, shouldn’t get too excited about Children of Men’s inclusion. For to the degree that Children of Men contains a pro-life message, it is not “feminist fiction.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Saint Death, second book in my Reagan Moon, paranoir series, has made it to the semi-final round of the Alliance Award voting. The Alliance Award is sponsored by Realm Makers and is a reader’s choice award, which makes the nomination even more special. In order to vote, you must be familiar with 2 of the books on the list. The voting for the Alliance Award is closing THIS WEEKEND! Sunday, April 30, is the last day for readers to vote. For those of you who have read Saint Death and are familiar with one of the other titles, you can vote by going HERE. Your readership and support is much appreciated!

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

In a recent post entitled The Non-Partisan Author,  Dan Balow, President of Gilead Publishing, expressed what is a fairly common sentiment about writers keeping their mouths shut regarding politics.

The political environment has been toxic for author branding since the Internet debuted over 20 years ago, but has gotten significantly worse and more dangerous as social media grows in the last decade. When expressing opinions became as easy as a mouse-click “like,” authors entered a danger-zone.

Unless your author brand includes political commentary, or a focused societal issue, it is probably best to stay away from political expression in your communication. Even a “like” can be a problem to some of your followers who might leave you because they disagree.

The divisive political environment across the entire world makes it tempting to express yourself and take sides, simply because you so easily can.

But again, unless your author brand focuses on political interplay, or a focused societal issue, it would be wise to consider refraining from commenting on them.

Balow’s stance on this issue is uncontroversial. Many writers adopt this position, choosing to simply shut up about politics altogether. Why? Well, mostly to sell books. Which is also Balow’s bottom line:

The question is simply this; do you want to sell books to anyone and everyone, or just to those who agree with you on everything?

While some might quibble with this, labeling the “Non-Partisan Author” as a sellout, I don’t have a huge problem with the approach. I mean, in the public sphere, we are constantly navigating our interactions with others. Whether it’s your workplace or your neighborhood, sometimes it’s simply better to keep your opinions to yourself. Nothing wrong with this. I don’t need to air my thoughts about everything to everyone I meet. Same could apply to the novelist. Besides, I want to write books that entertain, scare, or inspire, not preach and propagandize.

Nevertheless, a couple very important things are worth considering here. One has to do with religion and the other has to do with social / political conservatism and the state of the art industry.

First, does “non-partisanship” apply to one’s religious beliefs, specifically Christian beliefs? Talking religion can be just as volatile as talking politics. So should the Christian novelist keep her mouth shut about her beliefs in order to not offend someone and sell more books? Yes, talking politics will lose you readers. But at some point, talking religion will cost you readers, too! Compounding this are the biblical injunctions for believers to not put their light under a bushel, but to speak up, testify, and proclaim the good news. No, I’m not talking about turning our fiction into a religious tract. However, there’s some things that novelists should not be silent about. Their religion may be one of them.

As a Christian, and a publisher of Christian fiction, Balow is already branded. Which is why I appreciated novelist Jon Del Aroz’s response to Balow’s thoughts in a lively post entitled The Trad Pub Mindset on Christianity.

It’s interesting seeing this [opinion] from a Christian literary agent/author. Already, with the branding of Christian, he has turned off a large segment of the population who doesn’t want any reminder of Christ or God in their lives. That’s already a controversial stand, and unfortunately when it comes to artistry, that brand has come with a scarlet letter of “L” for lame when it comes to the entertainment market. It may not be warranted, but it is what people see from the outside, and if the concern is about turning off a large swath of the market, that would be the first step to avoid. If you’re labeled a Christian Author, and published by a Christian Publisher, you have that brand riding with you, you have that divisiveness built into your career. You’ll be expected to be in a corner with the other lame Christians, not to be out in the world or in public discourse, because you should only be talking in Church about such things. That’s what the world tells us. 

…This mindset comes from the relentless push by secular society that good Christians should “turn the other cheek” by never speaking out. It’s what led to a complete decay morally and culturally of our society over the last few generations, as every few with any sense of artistry have been willing to stand up for Christ, produce good work, and say “hey, we’re on a wrong path.”  Part of it is because of the non-believer or Churchian induced guilt trip that we should be turning the other cheek, the other part of it is a fear of turning off people who don’t agree as Mr. Balow mentioned. 

The fear is what forces people to stay silent.

I’m pretty sure Balow would not suggest that a believer turns the other cheek (meaning “keep their religion to themselves”) in order to sell books. In fact, he admits that some social / political issues require us to speak up. Balow again:

There are some societal problems where any reasonable Christian or moral person should stand united.

Human trafficking is evil and wrong.

Child pornography is evil and wrong.

Killing people for their religion is evil and wrong.

Terrorism is evil and wrong.

We could come up with many more with very little thought.

But this still doesn’t mean you should venture into the political arena.

So some social / political issues ARE worth engaging. In fact, this may be especially true for the Christian novelist. Will taking a stand cause you to lose some readers? Probably. Is it worth it? Depends. Perhaps it simply comes down to what beliefs and causes one values as important enough to possibly lose readers over. I mean, speaking up about the abortion industry might cost me readers. But not speaking at all may, in the long run, cost me more.

Which brings me to my second observation:  The state of the art industry may demand that novelists who are socially / politically conservative actually need to speak up more.

It doesn’t require a close look to see that the arts — film, fiction, music, etc. — are largely driven by liberals and liberal causes. Just recently, I read about an alternative band, The Lumineers, who donated all the profits from their show to Planned Parenthood. Of course, most of the reportage was celebratory. Did they lose fans over this? Maybe. I have one of their albums and frankly, after this, don’t plan on buying another. Either way, I’m guessing that the band’s gesture did nothing significant to damage their fanbase. If anything, they gained some new pro-choice followers. But really, this is fairly typical of the music industry and their love for liberal politicians and liberal causes. Likewise, the predominance of progressive ideology in the publishing industry has been well-documented. (If you read one thing on this subject, read THIS.) A good example is the ongoing controversy about the Hugo Awards. The “battle lines” are largely drawn between those of more liberal and conservative stripe. The controversy arose when conservatives simply started pushing back, challenging the gatekeepers’ cheer-leading for liberal causes, censoring of conservative voices, and actively promoting “message” driven fiction.

My point: If conservatives and Christians DON’T speak up and push back, culture, politics, and the arts industry will continue their slide into the proverbial gutter. Remaining “non-partisan” may be good in the short term; it may enable you to attract more fans and sell more books. But in the long term, what is our “silence” doing for culture, religious freedom, the Gospel, etc.? The fact is, that the silence of conservative Christian artists is hurting the industry, the culture, and the Church. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we use our art as a megaphone for our beliefs, but that we not live in constant fear that our careers are toast if we let on about our convictions. Doing that just empowers the System.

You see, the suggestion that novelists remain silent on politics or religion is mostly aimed at conservatives. Liberals don’t really fear speaking up… because liberalism is the predominant ideological climate. Speaking in favor of gay marriage, abortion rights, open borders, gender fluidity, and free health care is not controversial in creative circles. Speaking against them often is. And this is exactly what conservatives have NOT done enough of.

All this to say, building a readership and marketing yourself is obviously a tenuous thing. Like many walks of public life, the broader the audience, the more we must temper what we say. To what degree we temper our opinions is another story. Either way, people come to fiction, film and music for what it does for them, not the political, ideological views of the artists. Of course, some of those views may or may not expand their audience. Still, a good story, well told, trumps ones political affiliation. As such, my stories are not political or religious tracts. I want to entertain, surprise, scare, and inspire readers. I don’t want to preach or propagandize through my stories. Yes, my worldview will come out. But at this stage in the game, I agree with Del Arroz that silence — whether it concerns politics or religion — may be costing us far more than just a drop in readership.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

“Christian Science Fiction”

1 comment

That’s the name of the new project I’m working on. (The pic on the right is just a placeholder until a more professional cover is designed.) Aside from the fact that I’m fascinated by the intersection of pop culture, the speculative fiction genre, and religion, it’s the reception of my previous non-fiction work, “Christian Horror,” […]

Read the full article →

The Politics of #ResistanceFiction

1 comment

Apparently Donald Trump is making Doomsday Preppers out of those who once scoffed at the apocalypse. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you must admit that the election of Trump has been revelatory. Although the U.S. economy and optimism indexes are responding favorably, other industries are lagging in said optimism. One such industry still trying […]

Read the full article →

Is Sci-Fi Anti-Religion? Not Unless a Religion is Portrayed as “True”


Is there an anti-religious bias in publishing and the art and film industries? The answer often depends upon what side of the question you fall on. According to this breakdown of Democrat vs. Republican Occupations, under the category of Book Publisher, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats 100 to 0. For those of us who happen to […]

Read the full article →

“Sensitivity Readers” — Love Your Neighbor 101 or Intersectional Nonsense?


Last week, the Chicago Tribune published a piece about how Publishers are hiring “sensitivity readers” to flag potentially offensive content. Here’s how they framed the problem: Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate – fueled in part by social media – in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized […]

Read the full article →

My 10 Favorite Soundtracks to Write By


In his adaptation of the works of Edgar Allen Poe, Tales of Mystery and Imagination, prog-rock artist Alan Parsons employs Orson Wells to read some of Poe’s works. It’s a wonderful synthesis of lyric and melody. Against a dark orchestral background, the album opens with “A Dream Within a Dream,” which includes a reading from an […]

Read the full article →

Misc. Writing Updates — Feb. 2017

1 comment

The end of 2016 left me rather exhausted, but I’m finally getting back into the writing groove. The project I’m most excited about is the third book in my Reagan Moon series. It’s tentatively entitled “The Third Golem.” Here’s a brief synop: With the help of Ki, the Wayward Guardian, the Summu Nura seek to empower […]

Read the full article →

The God Above Gods? Limits of Polytheism in Fiction


In response to a piece I wrote several weeks ago, Can All Myths Be Redeemed?, novelist H.G. Ferguson agrees that “myths can and should be redeemed, but there is a danger here.” Part of that danger, according to Ferguson, is “reproduction, not redemption.” More specifically, reproducing a polytheistic worldview instead of replacing it with a biblical, […]

Read the full article →