Well, we did it....we're on the way to bankruptcy protection. Chapter Seven, to be exact.
This will actually be a great relief, after what we've been through over the last two years--but in the meantime, it's going to make for a rather bare Christmas.
Unless, of course, there are some angels out there ready to kick in. :-)
I never, ever like asking anyone for anything--but in this case I'll make an exception, so that I can provide at least a giftie or two in a stocking hung by the chimney with care...and buy a tree.
Yanno, little tiny things like that. And I'm waiting for a furnace man as we speak.
Anything anyone feels drawn to give, trust me...we will appreciate it beyond words.
Contribution button to the right!
Thanks,
Janny
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
What Is It About Groups of Three?
...Just an observation.
I've been editing a lot of work recently in which authors have an absolute obsession with series of three. Case in point: ". . . family structure, societal factors, and economic circumstances made us gravitate toward the positive side of an arduous situation." This is just one of many, many, MANY (now they've got me doing it) lists like this. What I don't understand is WHY?
Do authors not realize that endless series of threes like this produce their own rhythm when read? Do they not realize that, after endless paragraphs with endless series, the rhythm they've produced is soporific? Do they not realize that this will, in fact, induce their readers to read and forget the text almost immediately--if they don't fall asleep first?
I suppose I should count my blessings. I just finished editing one book where the author not only indulged in endless lists of three, but also branched out into other varieties of lists with many MORE parts to them, lists that were in themselves repetitive. (Think, "apples, oranges, pineapples, peaches, grapes, figs, and various fruit salad components of other kinds..." etc., itemized EVERY TIME one needs to mention fruit.) After awhile, I started looking around for someone swinging a watch and murmuring, "Look deep into my eyes...you are getting very, very sleepy...."
So what is it with groups and series? Are authors so afraid of Not Including Everyone and Everything that the alternative is writing prose that sounds like a book of grocery lists?
Anyone have a thought on this? (or three? or a series?)
(heh heh)
Janny
I've been editing a lot of work recently in which authors have an absolute obsession with series of three. Case in point: ". . . family structure, societal factors, and economic circumstances made us gravitate toward the positive side of an arduous situation." This is just one of many, many, MANY (now they've got me doing it) lists like this. What I don't understand is WHY?
Do authors not realize that endless series of threes like this produce their own rhythm when read? Do they not realize that, after endless paragraphs with endless series, the rhythm they've produced is soporific? Do they not realize that this will, in fact, induce their readers to read and forget the text almost immediately--if they don't fall asleep first?
I suppose I should count my blessings. I just finished editing one book where the author not only indulged in endless lists of three, but also branched out into other varieties of lists with many MORE parts to them, lists that were in themselves repetitive. (Think, "apples, oranges, pineapples, peaches, grapes, figs, and various fruit salad components of other kinds..." etc., itemized EVERY TIME one needs to mention fruit.) After awhile, I started looking around for someone swinging a watch and murmuring, "Look deep into my eyes...you are getting very, very sleepy...."
So what is it with groups and series? Are authors so afraid of Not Including Everyone and Everything that the alternative is writing prose that sounds like a book of grocery lists?
Anyone have a thought on this? (or three? or a series?)
(heh heh)
Janny
Monday, December 07, 2009
Temporarily Out of Order
For those of you wondering where I've been lately, blame my Dell Latitude 620...the second Dell machine in the past six months that I've had a keyboard go out on. Is there a problem with Dell laptop keyboards?????
So until that thing is fixed, my blogging activities will be severely curtailed, even more than they have been already. Of course, with Christmas baking to attend to, this may be a blessing in disguise...depending on how much you like cookies. :-)
Anyway...in the meantime...GO BEARCATS! (heh heh)
Janny
So until that thing is fixed, my blogging activities will be severely curtailed, even more than they have been already. Of course, with Christmas baking to attend to, this may be a blessing in disguise...depending on how much you like cookies. :-)
Anyway...in the meantime...GO BEARCATS! (heh heh)
Janny
Friday, November 20, 2009
Can YOU Spot the Counterfeit Christian?
Ladies and gentlemen: a moment, please, while we interrupt this normally perky, upbeat blog for some rabble-rousing. (Yeah. Okay. Point taken. :-)
This last weekend, I attended my local ACFW chapter meeting. Lots of great Italian food, lots of good information, but most markedly—lots of love. Hugs, genuine concern—like I’ve seldom felt from “smiley Christians” in other circumstances—and lots of genuine celebration for each other. I will freely say that, out of all the writers’ groups I’ve been affiliated with, this is one of the most loving I’ve ever experienced.
Yet when it was over, in the clear light of day, a little naggy voice returned to the back of my head. A voice that’s been clutching at my proverbial sleeve for a long, long time. A voice that says, “Technically, my dear, you don’t belong in this group…and you’re really in there under false pretenses.”
Let me explain.
Years ago, RWA had a bit of a kerfuffle when they began recognizing “inspirational” fiction as a category for the Golden Hearts and RITAs. A Jewish author, no doubt speaking for a great many people, objected strongly to calling the category “inspirational”—because in essence, the word had been pre-defined to mean “evangelical Protestant Christian religious fiction.” She maintained that a true “inspirational” category would have room for Jewish fiction, Muslim fiction, Wiccan fiction, New Age believers…and the whole spectrum; that by accepting the delineation that “inspirational” would only mean “evangelical Christian faith as an element of the story,” RWA was in effect lying to its membership.
Subsequently, the guidelines for the category were written in such a way that “religious faith” was the wording involved; I don’t know if they’re still that way, as I’m out of RWA loops nowadays. But the reality of the situation was—and maybe still is—that if you sent a Wiccan romance to the inspirational category of the Golden Heart, you might have a hard time getting a judging panel to evaluate it fairly; you might even get some nasty feedback from the contest coordinator herself.
So, in effect, RWA may still be lying to its constituency...in much the same way that “Christian” publishing lies about who it represents. And it’s really starting to bother me that by belonging to ACFW, I’m in effect saying that that’s all right.
It’s a cruel irony that ACFW is such a loving place; that they’re one of the few writers' groups I can belong to where the name of Jesus will not be mocked. That’s a good thing. But what’s not so good is that sometimes, ACFW seems to stand for “Anything-But-Catholic Fiction Writers”...and that’s something that’s started to convict me on a personal level. Because, frankly, what am I doing in an organization that has that attitude?
I can get a lot of “information” from ACFW meetings—but in many cases, it’s information that does me as a writer no good. I can hear about publishers’ guidelines—but I can’t meet those guidelines without writing something I don’t believe in. I can pitch work to “Christian” agents and editors at ACFW conferences—but, with very few exceptions, most of those “Christian” editors and agents won’t want to see my work, or will demand that I change it so their “audience won’t be offended.”
Yet I’m a Christian…and so is their audience. So HOW CAN I OFFEND THEM?
Simple. I may offend their perceived audience by BEING, AND WRITING, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CHRISTIAN THAN THE NARROW BAND THEY HAVE PRE-DEFINED AND DECLARED TO BE “RIGHT.”
Yes, it’s wrong. But it's more than that: it's a lie. The “Christian Booksellers Association” moniker that is the actual meaning of what we refer to as the “Christian market,” in effect, doesn’t represent many Christians AT ALL. It represents only one PORTION of Christianity: the conservative, evangelical, Protestant side of Christianity. Which means it can hardly, by ANY stretch of the imagination, call itself representative of the "Christian market." As for writing Catholic characters in these "Christian" books—even in historical situations where Catholic would be all the Christianity there IS? Good luck trying that one. It’s liable to hit you in the back of the head on the walk home from the post office.
For an illustration of how ridiculous this attitude is, let’s consider a secular hypothesis.
Imagine, if you will, a newspaper publisher marketing its paper as “the definitive American newspaper” when its entire market and contributor base is limited to the population of Naperville, Illinois. Naperville residents are Americans—but are they the DEFINITION of Americans? I think common sense would tell us, “Well, no, not hardly.”
So, considering that as a reasonable assumption, suppose that someone born and raised in the city of Chicago decides they’d like to write for “the definitive American newspaper.” They certainly qualify as an American. They probably qualify as an American with a much broader range of experience than a person who only knew, lived in, ate, slept, drank, and was educated solely in his hometown of Naperville. Since the city of Chicago’s settlement predates most of Naperville, you might even say they could consider themselves to be “more authentic” Americans than even the Napervillians were. But when this writer submits his story (which by the way, is not insulting in any way to Naperville!), it’s not only summarily rejected, but the “definitive American newspaper” tells this author in no uncertain terms that “you don’t represent Americans with this. Naperville is America, and if you don’t write about it, you’re not writing about Americans at all.”
How would we feel about this? What would we say? Would we take it lying down? Would we give that “definitive American newspaper” a moment’s credibility?
So then why, in heaven’s name, do we continue to allow CBA (and “Christian” arms of secular) publishers to get away with calling their products CHRISTIAN fiction, when they have editorial guidelines that force at least part of us to compromise, to water down OUR faith, in order to fit in? And why does ACFW, in its close relationships with said publishers, allow this exclusion of so much of Christianity to go unchallenged?
It’s time more of us step up to the plate and call on CBA (or any other alleged "Christian") publishers to quit the absolute hypocrisy of not allowing Catholic characters and plots and writers to be portrayed positively, or even accurately, in their lines of allegedly "Christian" fiction. Either that, or we need to respectfully insist that they change their name to Evangelical Conservative Protestant Booksellers of America, and demand equally that “Christian” publishers do likewise with their “Christian” lines. Choosing to ignore—and to refuse to publish characters who belong to—the only Christian Church in town for 1,500 years of recorded history, yet still defining themselves as representative of quality “Christian”writing, is almost as laughable as RWA’s claim to be "author advocates." Neither is true, and it's time to stop pretending and lying about it.
We’ve talked about this before, as individuals. We’ve lamented it. We’ve complained about it. We’ve tried to change it. And we’re getting NOWHERE by doing so. It’s clear, therefore, that individual authors railing against the pubs or bewailing the plight will do nothing. But maybe, there could be strength in numbers. If ACFW accepts Catholic members, and it does, could it not object to their faith not being a legitimate part of the Christian fiction printed page?
It’s not just Catholics who suffer in this climate, of course. As the "Christian" publishing world stands now, it doesn’t even represent Protestant Christian belief in all its varieties and possibilities. (There's a reason that Jan Karon didn't pitch her Episcopal rector to a Christian fiction house first.) But Catholicism is certainly the largest and most objectionable trigger for most of these houses—for no discernible reason except fear. Yes, some people may have issues with the Catholic Church; but so what? The Amish have a largely works-based religion—surely something abhorrent to most evangelicals. Yet Amish fiction has been embraced as “Christian,” when many aspects and behaviors of that faith are more “off the wall” than Catholicism has ever been or will ever be. So who, or what, has decided that seemingly anything ELSE goes BUT Catholicism in “Christian” fiction?
I, as a Catholic, am increasingly being nagged by that still, small voice inside. The one that says I’m not being true to my faith by pretending it’s OK that so much of my professional life is tied to an organization that at times, in effect dismisses me as not being Christian at all. I’m sailing under false colors, pretending it doesn’t matter. It DOES matter. It DOES hurt.
The question is, what do I do about it.
Janny
This last weekend, I attended my local ACFW chapter meeting. Lots of great Italian food, lots of good information, but most markedly—lots of love. Hugs, genuine concern—like I’ve seldom felt from “smiley Christians” in other circumstances—and lots of genuine celebration for each other. I will freely say that, out of all the writers’ groups I’ve been affiliated with, this is one of the most loving I’ve ever experienced.
Yet when it was over, in the clear light of day, a little naggy voice returned to the back of my head. A voice that’s been clutching at my proverbial sleeve for a long, long time. A voice that says, “Technically, my dear, you don’t belong in this group…and you’re really in there under false pretenses.”
Let me explain.
Years ago, RWA had a bit of a kerfuffle when they began recognizing “inspirational” fiction as a category for the Golden Hearts and RITAs. A Jewish author, no doubt speaking for a great many people, objected strongly to calling the category “inspirational”—because in essence, the word had been pre-defined to mean “evangelical Protestant Christian religious fiction.” She maintained that a true “inspirational” category would have room for Jewish fiction, Muslim fiction, Wiccan fiction, New Age believers…and the whole spectrum; that by accepting the delineation that “inspirational” would only mean “evangelical Christian faith as an element of the story,” RWA was in effect lying to its membership.
Subsequently, the guidelines for the category were written in such a way that “religious faith” was the wording involved; I don’t know if they’re still that way, as I’m out of RWA loops nowadays. But the reality of the situation was—and maybe still is—that if you sent a Wiccan romance to the inspirational category of the Golden Heart, you might have a hard time getting a judging panel to evaluate it fairly; you might even get some nasty feedback from the contest coordinator herself.
So, in effect, RWA may still be lying to its constituency...in much the same way that “Christian” publishing lies about who it represents. And it’s really starting to bother me that by belonging to ACFW, I’m in effect saying that that’s all right.
It’s a cruel irony that ACFW is such a loving place; that they’re one of the few writers' groups I can belong to where the name of Jesus will not be mocked. That’s a good thing. But what’s not so good is that sometimes, ACFW seems to stand for “Anything-But-Catholic Fiction Writers”...and that’s something that’s started to convict me on a personal level. Because, frankly, what am I doing in an organization that has that attitude?
I can get a lot of “information” from ACFW meetings—but in many cases, it’s information that does me as a writer no good. I can hear about publishers’ guidelines—but I can’t meet those guidelines without writing something I don’t believe in. I can pitch work to “Christian” agents and editors at ACFW conferences—but, with very few exceptions, most of those “Christian” editors and agents won’t want to see my work, or will demand that I change it so their “audience won’t be offended.”
Yet I’m a Christian…and so is their audience. So HOW CAN I OFFEND THEM?
Simple. I may offend their perceived audience by BEING, AND WRITING, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CHRISTIAN THAN THE NARROW BAND THEY HAVE PRE-DEFINED AND DECLARED TO BE “RIGHT.”
Yes, it’s wrong. But it's more than that: it's a lie. The “Christian Booksellers Association” moniker that is the actual meaning of what we refer to as the “Christian market,” in effect, doesn’t represent many Christians AT ALL. It represents only one PORTION of Christianity: the conservative, evangelical, Protestant side of Christianity. Which means it can hardly, by ANY stretch of the imagination, call itself representative of the "Christian market." As for writing Catholic characters in these "Christian" books—even in historical situations where Catholic would be all the Christianity there IS? Good luck trying that one. It’s liable to hit you in the back of the head on the walk home from the post office.
For an illustration of how ridiculous this attitude is, let’s consider a secular hypothesis.
Imagine, if you will, a newspaper publisher marketing its paper as “the definitive American newspaper” when its entire market and contributor base is limited to the population of Naperville, Illinois. Naperville residents are Americans—but are they the DEFINITION of Americans? I think common sense would tell us, “Well, no, not hardly.”
So, considering that as a reasonable assumption, suppose that someone born and raised in the city of Chicago decides they’d like to write for “the definitive American newspaper.” They certainly qualify as an American. They probably qualify as an American with a much broader range of experience than a person who only knew, lived in, ate, slept, drank, and was educated solely in his hometown of Naperville. Since the city of Chicago’s settlement predates most of Naperville, you might even say they could consider themselves to be “more authentic” Americans than even the Napervillians were. But when this writer submits his story (which by the way, is not insulting in any way to Naperville!), it’s not only summarily rejected, but the “definitive American newspaper” tells this author in no uncertain terms that “you don’t represent Americans with this. Naperville is America, and if you don’t write about it, you’re not writing about Americans at all.”
How would we feel about this? What would we say? Would we take it lying down? Would we give that “definitive American newspaper” a moment’s credibility?
So then why, in heaven’s name, do we continue to allow CBA (and “Christian” arms of secular) publishers to get away with calling their products CHRISTIAN fiction, when they have editorial guidelines that force at least part of us to compromise, to water down OUR faith, in order to fit in? And why does ACFW, in its close relationships with said publishers, allow this exclusion of so much of Christianity to go unchallenged?
It’s time more of us step up to the plate and call on CBA (or any other alleged "Christian") publishers to quit the absolute hypocrisy of not allowing Catholic characters and plots and writers to be portrayed positively, or even accurately, in their lines of allegedly "Christian" fiction. Either that, or we need to respectfully insist that they change their name to Evangelical Conservative Protestant Booksellers of America, and demand equally that “Christian” publishers do likewise with their “Christian” lines. Choosing to ignore—and to refuse to publish characters who belong to—the only Christian Church in town for 1,500 years of recorded history, yet still defining themselves as representative of quality “Christian”writing, is almost as laughable as RWA’s claim to be "author advocates." Neither is true, and it's time to stop pretending and lying about it.
We’ve talked about this before, as individuals. We’ve lamented it. We’ve complained about it. We’ve tried to change it. And we’re getting NOWHERE by doing so. It’s clear, therefore, that individual authors railing against the pubs or bewailing the plight will do nothing. But maybe, there could be strength in numbers. If ACFW accepts Catholic members, and it does, could it not object to their faith not being a legitimate part of the Christian fiction printed page?
It’s not just Catholics who suffer in this climate, of course. As the "Christian" publishing world stands now, it doesn’t even represent Protestant Christian belief in all its varieties and possibilities. (There's a reason that Jan Karon didn't pitch her Episcopal rector to a Christian fiction house first.
I, as a Catholic, am increasingly being nagged by that still, small voice inside. The one that says I’m not being true to my faith by pretending it’s OK that so much of my professional life is tied to an organization that at times, in effect dismisses me as not being Christian at all. I’m sailing under false colors, pretending it doesn’t matter. It DOES matter. It DOES hurt.
The question is, what do I do about it.
Janny
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Why I Love College Basketball...
...because things like this can happen.
As someone put it this morning, "It's a shame that the story will be 'What's wrong with Syracuse basketball?'" Because, in the end, THAT's not the story at all. There's just something tremendously right about those Cinderella times when a Division II school wins hearts and headlines.
Congratulations, Dolphins!
Janny
As someone put it this morning, "It's a shame that the story will be 'What's wrong with Syracuse basketball?'" Because, in the end, THAT's not the story at all. There's just something tremendously right about those Cinderella times when a Division II school wins hearts and headlines.
Congratulations, Dolphins!
Janny
Monday, October 26, 2009
Catholic Wild Horses...and Others
I’ve been mulling a blog entry for a long time about some downright nasty sites that are out there, put up by some of my fellow Catholics seemingly for no other purpose than to snipe at some of my other fellow Catholics...and how sick I am of that whole mess.
Mind you, I’m not talking about calling fake “Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden on the carpet: the more of that we can do, the better our Church will be for it. And no, my Church’s primary reason to be on this earth isn’t to be “inclusive.” It’s to be the Body of Christ on earth. If you don’t LIKE what the Body of Christ on earth prescribes for you—i.e., if you can’t find it in your (misguided) conscience to just obey the Magisterium—then, fine, go somewhere else. You’re already not Catholic to begin with; we won’t miss you.
But, just as the Pharisees and Sadducees and many other sects of Judaism started arguing about who was the better Jew—when they were all basically obedient—there has developed, and continued to develop, a chasm between ordinary obedient Catholics and people who’ve taken a stance that being a “real Catholic” entails a LOT of things it, in fact, doesn’t mean.
Examples?
Denying the legitimacy of a) the present pope or b) various other popes (on bases that can run anywhere from “mistranslation” of the English Mass all the way to some pretty wacky conspiracy theories about Paul VI “wanting to turn us all Protestant”);
Declaring that the Novus Ordo Mass isn’t “really” Mass at all (see Paul VI reference above);
Harping on the “fact” that any liturgical music that’s not Gregorian chant is a waste of church time (most ESPECIALLY if it’s ANYTHING by Marty Haugen, David Haas, or a host of others of like ilk);
…and even...
Opining that a woman who wears anything other than skirts/dresses (below the knee, thank you very much) or doesn’t keep her head covered in church isn’t truly obedient and submissive to God. (I kid you not.)
Make no mistake—I’m not saying that some of the people who do, believe, and practice such things are not trying to be the best Catholics they can be. If I go and say that, I’m as guilty of error as they are.
But the plain fact of the matter is…
Jesus instituted His Church on earth and He continues to keep it in His hand.
That INCLUDES our present popes.
That INCLUDES a well-prayed, reverent Novus Ordo—and yes, for the smartasses out there, THERE IS SUCH A THING. (Just because YOU don’t encounter it—maybe because you don’t look for it?—doesn’t mean it doesn’t EXIST.)
And yes, the Body of Christ on earth can even include women who wear blue jeans, the occasional sleeveless top or bathing suit (heavens!) and who don’t worry about whether they’re going to Hell simply because they don’t have the mantilla on at Mass.
(Note: I’m not saying I think blue jeans or such are appropriate for Mass. I don’t much care for them. Nor are shorts, nor is anything else that’s “playclothes”—but that’s another issue, for another time. These folks who insist on the skirts below the knees, the elbow-length or longer sleeves, and no slacks for women are talking about it outside church.)
In short…I’ve had it with bloggers, magazine editors, book authors, and various others who hold forth in various media with personal opinions presented as Gospel truth and slam anyone who dares to think otherwise. I don’t mind a good chiding for those who deserve it; but these posts and blogs and editorials and published pieces don’t fall under the category of good chiding for those who need it. They are little more than personal religious tantrums, thrown under the guise of “shaking things up,” but really are nothing more than attempts to grab a little (in) fame by being “rad trad” or some similar coloring. And God help you if you take issue with one of these jerks…you may as well paint a target on your back.
This does not strike me as edification. Sarcasm, yes. A narcissistic conviction that “I” have the Truth and “you” don’t (neener, neener, neener), yes. But I don’t see anywhere in my Bible where it says to correct a brother or sister with sarcasm or public humiliation…do you?
Or is that just because I read an inferior BIBLE to yours, too?
Some very big names in the Catholic apologetics/blogging/writing biz are guilty of this. Some otherwise pretty darned good magazines and publications are allowing themselves to be totally ruined by this smartass mentality…and driving away honest, earnest Catholics whom they could be educating, edifying, and blessing instead of berating, browbeating, and ridiculing.
Does the Church need this?
Do ANY of us need this?
There’s an old story about the difference between wild horses and wild jackasses that you probably know, but it’s very remiscent of this situation. Supposedly, when wild horses sense a threat, they put their heads together—literally—in a large circle, back hooves facing outward, and they kick the blazes out of the potential predator. But when wild jackasses sense a threat, they do the opposite—they gather in a circle, all right, but facing outward, braying like fools, while their back hooves are kicking the blazes OUT OF EACH OTHER.
Which are you?
A fellow blogger echoes these sentiments quite well, and I nearly let her say it for me. (Amen, and Amen.) But then again, when more than one of us sees a threat…it’s probably better if more of us put our heads together, and more than one of us kicks the crap out of it.
I hope more of us who are sick of this nonsense will start kicking back. And soon. The Church needs excellent catechesis, reform, and obedience—and a good housecleaning. But she won’t get it through sarcasm, paranoia, superiority complexes, and backbiting. Not now, not ever. And those of us who continue to engage in this nonsense, I believe, do so at our own peril.
Thoughts?
Janny
Friday, September 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)