All posts by Lars Walker

Misplaced outrage

Homeless man holding a blank piece of cardboard

There’s an anecdote about C.S. Lewis that I’ve always enjoyed. One of his friends told of walking down an Oxford street with him one day, when they were accosted by a beggar. Lewis stopped and gave the man some money.

“You know he’s just going to go off and drink it up, don’t you?” the friend asked as they went on their way.

“Yes, well,” said Lewis, “if I’d kept the money I’d have probably gone off and drunk it up myself.”

There’s a wonderful humility and recognition of shared humanity in that story, I think.

Some people take the wrong lessons from such stories, though.

The essential thing is that Lewis was giving away his own money.

Years and years ago, I sat in on a teaching session led by a Lutheran pastor (we’ll call him Pastor Number One). He told a story of his own, one which (he thought) taught a profound lesson. I think it taught a lesson too, but not the one he thought it did.

Pastor Number One had taken a pastoral educational class which called for a “real world experiment.” Each pastor in the program was required to pack away all his clothing and his wallet, put on old, dirty clothes, and go out to spend a few days on the street as a homeless person.

Pastor Number One told, with some indignation, of getting in to see the pastor of a church (let’s call him Pastor Number Two, shall we?). Pastor Number Two had looked at him and said, “You’re strong and healthy. Obviously you’re able to work. Why don’t you get a job?”

“He was lecturing me!” Pastor Number One exclaimed, recalling the outrage. “I was hungry! I needed food! I didn’t need a lecture!”

I’ve often thought about Pastor Number One over the years, and it seems to me his righteous indignation was a little unjust.

Because the fact was, Pastor Number Two had had his number. Pastor Number One was indeed strong and healthy, and perfectly capable of working. He had come into the church under false pretenses, and had lied in Pastor Number Two’s face.

Pastor Number Two (if my experience in a church office where I saw [and helped] a lot of transients is any indication) had probably, over the years, developed a pretty good nose for bovine sewage.

What Pastor Number One saw as cold-heartedness, was in all likelihood just the exercise by Pastor Number Two of his fiduciary duty not to waste the money entrusted to him by his congregation (as well as a determination not to enable unhealthy life choices, or treat grownups like children). If Pastor Number Two was being judgmental, so was Pastor Number One.

And Pastor Number Two had the moral advantage of not being a liar.

The rules are different here (in my head)

Angela Lu of WORLD Magazine contemplates a story from last week.

Atlanta Progressive News (APN) reporter Jonathan Springston was fired last week because “he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News,” according to an e-mail from his editor.

What a fascinating story. And it raises so many interesting questions.

I don’t deny APN’s right to make the termination. They would appear to be an ideological news website (here’s their link), and it’s no more out of line for them to fire someone who denies their ideology than it would be for a Christian web site to fire someone who converted to Wicca.

But I have to wonder, what are the rules for subjective journalism? Is it possible to fact-check a story, when the editor’s reality and the reporter’s are held to be completely unconnected? And why would anyone go to them for news, if they admit from the outset that what they’re reporting may not apply in the reader’s world?

What if a subjective journalist committed plagiarism? Maybe there’s nothing wrong with plagiarism in his reality. Or maybe the original document doesn’t exist for him. Who’s to say?

And indeed, how can the editorial board be sure that their subjectivity rule applies in Jonathan Springston’s universe? Maybe he works for an Atlanta Progressive Journal that embraces objectivity.

These are a few of the dilemmas of postmodernism. And one reason why the whole structure is collapsing.

Supposedly an award

Photobucket
I’ve (we’ve) been tagged for a “Creative Writer” Blogger Award! Which means I get to lie shamelessly to you all and test your truth-detecting skills. The rules are …
• Thank the person who gave this to you. (Thanks [or something] to Loren Eaton of I Saw Lightning Fall.)
• Copy the logo and place it on your blog.
• Link to the person who nominated you.
• Tell up to six outrageous lies about yourself, and at least one outrageous truth – or – switch it around and tell six outrageous truths and one outrageous lie.
• Nominate seven “Creative Writers” who might have fun coming up with outrageous lies.
• Post links to the seven blogs you nominate.
• Leave a comment on each of the blogs letting them know you nominated them.
1. I have the power to drive women wild with desire (but only the desire to kill me).
2. I was born a poor sharecropper’s son.
3. I know how to field-strip a trebuchet.
4. The child I sponsored through Christian Children’s Fund is now the murderous dictator of a small East African country.
5. One of my novels is banned in Chechnya.
6. I have a secret superhero identity, but unfortunately he can’t find a job in that field, and is currently working as a greeter at Wal-Mart.
7. I’m actually perfectly normal, but this crazy act impresses the chicks.
When I was a kid in school, one of the most common criticisms I received from teachers was that I did things my own way, rather than the way I was instructed. I have not changed that policy, so I’ll only tag a few bloggers with this. Loren linked more than his quota, so he can have some of mine.
1. Roy Jacobsen at Writing: Clear and Simple.
2. Patrick O’Hannigan at The Paragraph Farmer.
3. Any of the crew at Threedonia.
4. Will Duquette at The View From the Foothills. (Links removed because blogs no longer exist or are inactive.)

What a wondrous thing is a weekend

It was a fairly active weekend, by my wintertime standards. Having received a windfall check in the mail, I succumbed to my long-suppressed yearning to replace my gaussed 19” TV with an HDTV. I got a pretty good deal on a 26-incher from Sam’s Club, and I’m stunned by the results. I had the Winter Olympics on most of the rest of the weekend, and I’m not even interested in the Olympics. I was just fascinated by the picture, like a baby crossing his eyes at a Big Bird mobile.

We also had our Viking feast, which is supposed to be a sort of Yule celebration, but got pushed back this year for various reasons. Aside from a few regulars being missing, it was a good time. I brought carefully researched, historically accurate Viking chocolate chip cookies. Not so great on the authenticity side, I’ll admit, but they had the advantage that people actually ate them.

And yes, I made them myself. From scratch. I’m very good with chocolate chip cookies, when I bother.

The big news in the literary world today is the death of mystery writer Dick Francis. Larry Thornberry at The American Spectator provides an appreciation here. It’s so good, I might have to try a Francis book now, despite the fact that I have zero interest in horse racing.

In any case, it sounds like Francis was a stand-up guy, the kind they’re fast running out of in England.

Or galloping out of, in this case.

The courage of God

Evangelical Outpost linked today to this article, questioning the traditional understanding of the martyrdom of Lady Jane Grey. Even if all it says is true, for me it doesn’t diminish the pathos of her youthful martyrdom.

Then I read an article about Auschwitz in Smithsonian Magazine.

So I’ve been contemplating human suffering today.

Have you ever thought this thought? I’ve thought it many times: If I had been God, and had known that giving human beings free will would result in all the evil and horror that have in fact been produced, I wouldn’t have given them free will. And if the human project was unsatisfactory without free will, I’d have just skipped the whole business.

I have an answer that satisfies me intellectually. 1 Corinthians 2:9 says, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.”

Apparently, in God’s economy, the good He is creating far outweighs all the innumerable evils perpetrated by man since the fall of Adam. From the viewpoint of eternity, we’ll look back and say, “Yes, it was well worth it.”

Now that answer raises a hundred questions in my mind. Questions for which I have no answer, and for which we have been given no plain answers.

This, I guess, calls for faith.

But it also argues, I think, for courage on God’s part. Granted, He saw the outcome from the beginning. But part of that outcome, I believe, was His own assumption of all that evil on the cross.

I read somewhere that, in the early years of the Superman comic strip, the writers came to a crisis when they’d made their character so powerful that they couldn’t come up with a challenging enough opponent for him anymore. That was when they invented Kryptonite. Something that took all that power away.

God did it in real life.

I can’t find the reference, but G. K. Chesterton wrote somewhere that all those scoffers, who call God evil for creating an evil world, are right in a sense, and that God acknowledged it (in a way) by explicitly accepting the punishment for creating all that evil.

Whatever else you think, I think you’ve got to admit it’s no cowardly strategy.

The Scarecrow, by Michael Connelly

For a few years, mystery novelist Michael Connelly’s books bounced back and forth between two recurring main characters—Los Angeles detective Harry Bosch, and Terry McCaleb, retired FBI profiler. Sometimes both at once. But Connelly killed McCaleb off a few books back, and since then he seems to be casting about for a new regular series, mixing and matching characters in various combinations.

The Scarecrow appears to be an attempt to re-launch the adventures of crime reporter Jack McEvoy and FBI profiler Rachel Walling. They teamed up (as investigators and lovers) in a much earlier novel, The Poet, and Rachel also featured in a recent Harry Bosch book. But Connelly here drops big hints that he’s carving out a future for them as a team.

I applaud this, but wish they could have been re-launched in a slightly better book. Not that The Scarecrow is bad. It moves right along, and builds tension nicely, but I wouldn’t list it among Connelly’s best works. Of course, that’s a pretty high bar. Continue reading The Scarecrow, by Michael Connelly →

The negative way

Loren Eaton, at I Saw Lightning Fall, writes today about the Via Negativa. That’s the technique of telling a moral story through depicting vice, and revealing its destructive effects.



Uncle Tom’s Cabin
, if I understand the concept correctly, was largely (not wholly) a Via Negativa story, in that it denounced slavery by examining slavery (it was also a Via Positiva story, in that it showcased the exemplary life of the main character).

When I was a boy, a teetotal relative gave me a copy of the book, Ten Nights in a Bar-Room. This was an 1854 novel, written by T. S. Arthur, in the form of a series of reminiscences by a man who stayed (at infrequent intervals) at a particular inn where liquor was served. By showing the gradual deterioration of the inn, the family that ran it, and the community it influenced, he argued for the prohibition of alcohol. It was a very influential book in its time, and a pure example of Via Negativa.

I often think of a particular scene my own The Year of the Warrior—if you’ve read it, you’ll probably recall the Great Summer Sacrifice scene. I used it to try to express all the horror which (I firmly believe) lurks behind true heathenism (as opposed to the pasteurized, humanist version generally promoted in the West today). No one has ever complained to me about the scene that I recall, but frankly it bothers me. I think I went a little too far, and if I had it to write over, I’d probably do it slightly differently.

I recall a particular novel published in the Christian market (and no, I won’t tell you which one it was), in which the author tried to do something similar, and I felt he’d crossed a line. Maybe I was wrong (the book certainly sold more copies than any of mine, and to a Christian audience). But I know there’s a danger here.

Loren’s article speaks of one danger of the Via Negativa—that the audience will miss the message, and root for the wrong side. I think there’s further danger—that the author will look into the abyss, and find the abyss looking back into him.

In my estimation (and maybe I misunderstand entirely) I thought novelist Thomas Harris succumbed to this temptation to some extent in dealing with his charismatic villain, Hannibal Lector. When Lector first appeared in Red Dragon, and when he reappeared in The Silence of the Lambs, Harris was able to keep his balance, getting deep into the psyche of the villain, but never taking his side. But in the follow-up novel, Hannibal, it seemed to me he lost his bearings, and began to delight, to some extent, in Lector’s atrocities. I never even looked at Hannibal Rising.

That doesn’t make the Via Negativa too dangerous to try. It just means we need to take care.

And choose wise readers to give us feedback.

Piles of snow, and pyramids of words

Focused Businessman

Last night my neighbor blew the snow out of the driveway, for which I was grateful. Tonight I did it again, because it had to be done again. Consumer report: Tonight’s snow was about the consistency of flour, and pleasantly loose to blow (no jams), although it tended to come back at you when you blew it into the wind.

(On tonight’s menu, sweet rolls baked from Snowblower Flour, with Snowblower Jam filling.)



Today is apparently National Link to Roy Jacobsen Day.
I was amused by the picture Roy posted here, giving a graphic example of what editing is all about. Also what news writing is all about, by the way.

Long ago, the journalism industry settled on an “upside down pyramid” form for news stories, and they use it to this day, because it works extremely well.

The formula is to put the most essential information, and only that, in the first paragraph. The heaviest stuff. The base of the upside-down pyramid. “Who, what, when, where and why?” You may very the order, but Paragraph One will contain all those things.

The next paragraph will include important further information that deepens the reader’s knowledge. (Like “how.”)

The next paragraph will include slightly less important information.

Each paragraph will be less important than the one before.

This accomplishes three things.

1.It starts the story with a bang.

2.It permits the reader who only has time to skim, to get the gist of the story at the top.

3.It permits the mighty editor (and this is far from the least of the reporter’s concerns) to trim the article from the bottom. If he needs to cut two paragraphs, he knows that cutting the last two will remove the two least important parts of the story.

I’m not a journalist, so I feel free to share these trade secrets with the general public.

Now you, too, can start a news blog.

Weekend wrap-up

I had two memorable experiences over the weekend.

First of all, I went to a funeral. It was the funeral of a man I’m not sure I ever actually met, but his son was an old friend. The son asked me to read the scripture lesson for the service, and I was happy to do it. In all honesty, if I hadn’t had that request I probably wouldn’t have gone at all, because I have a hard time believing anybody really wants me anywhere, unless they state precisely what particular job they’re looking for me to do. Jobs I understand. The concept that anyone would just want me around to talk to fails the test of willing suspension of disbelief.

It went well, and I saw some old friends.

On Sunday morning, after I’d come home from early church, I logged on to Facebook. I then got a chat message from a friend who’s doing missionary work in Alaska. It seemed awfully early for him to be up.

The first warning bell went off when he told me he’d been mugged while vacationing in London. Vacations in London aren’t the sort of thing this fellow takes a lot of.

So while he was explaining how he’d been robbed at gunpoint, and hit over the head (huh?), and robbed of cash, credit cards and cell phone, I checked his personal page. There another friend had posted a warning in all caps, saying that he’d gotten a similar chat message, and it was a scam.

I then asked my interlocutor a question only somebody who’d worked together with us at our church body headquarters would know. And he disappeared completely.

I’ve said it before—I hate con men. In the great balance of things, I’d prefer the kind of armed robber who didn’t hold up my friend in London, over a con man. Because con men destroy trust. They turn society into a collection of strangers. They make human beings more frightened of one another, and less likely to give help where it’s really needed. They are scum.

Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen

It would be pointless and overweening for me to “review” Sense and Sensibility, a book many of you probably read long ago, and one which has been well appreciated by far more discerning readers than me. So let’s just call this a reader’s report.

I read Pride and Prejudice quite a few years back, and promised myself I’d return to Jane Austen again. The delay of more than a decade is probably best explained by the fact that Austen is a fair amount of work. To take one example of words that have changed in meaning since the early 1800s, in Austen the word “address” means the way you present yourself when conversing with other people. The notation on the outside of a letter, telling the postman where to deliver it, is called the “direction.” I have a pretty good vocabulary and can work my way through, but I’ll admit I had to go over a few of the sentences more than once, not only because of word choice, but because the diction could get pretty convoluted.

But the book rewarded the work. There were a number of very funny lines, delivered in a charming dry manner, scattered among the verbiage. I’d share one or two, but I returned the book to the library this afternoon when I’d finished it.

What particularly delighted me in Sense and Sensibility was the sweet reason of the whole thing. In utter contradiction to what a guy expects in a love story written by a woman, the most sympathetic character is the most circumspect one; a woman whose feelings are so well concealed that I wasn’t sure until the end which male character to root for her to marry. The author, apparently, approves of this. Marriages should be well thought out, and entered into with a due consideration of prudential matters like social class, education, good taste and income. And love, of course, but don’t get carried away.

I totally approve.