Changing the World? Really?

pinterest

When a person finds out you're a writer, and they feel any interest at all in the fact, generally the first question they ask is, "What do you write?"  It's less frequent that you get asked why you write, although it does happen occasionally.

The latter question has in fact cropped up a few times in the interviews people have been submitting for this blog party, and it's not an easy one to answer in just a paragraph or two.  So to give it the attention it deserves, I'm devoting a two-part series to pulling together an answer and presenting something of my own philosophy of life and writing.  Of course it hasn't wholly solidified yet; I'm much too young to have a concrete and immutable philosophy of anything.  But for the moment, this is my outlook on what it is that I do and am - as a writer, and as a Christian.  (A silly turn of phrase, that "as a whatever," but we'll leave it for Dorothy Sayers to debate.)

In the circles I run in, including those in the blogisphere, there is a great deal of pressure being put on believers in general and young believers, I think, in specific.  It doesn't really matter what field or vocation you call your own, because the pressure is the same whether you aspire to be a writer or a musician, a laborer or a manager or a whatever.  The pressure is nothing less than to change the world.  Sometimes it is couched in different terms; always it entails a kind of militancy, a combating of the world, an aggressive sharing of the Gospel to anyone who crosses our path.

In writing, which is obviously what I'm most familiar with, this most often takes the form of incorporating the Good News into every story we produce.  Isn't that we're called to do?  Aren't we supposed to go into all the world and make disciples?  And even if we can't, we can hope our books will - and we want to be sure that anyone who picks up our works will find the Gospel in them.  We want to rest assured that our "Christian fiction" - neatly packaged, all loose ends neatly tied off - stands in contrast and opposition to the mass of worldly stuff hitting the shelves right beside it.  We want our writing to change the world, because we think that's our purpose as writing Christians.

But we don't change the world.

Of course there are probably a few works of Christian fiction that have been used by the Holy Spirit to regenerate hearts; I can't imagine there are very many, but God does work in some pretty mysterious ways.  However, His common - but not common; His chosen method of saving men and women is through "the foolishness of the Word preached" (I Cor. 1:21).  We can't expect that through our novels people will be saved in droves and gaggles.  And yet we still have this idea given to us that somehow our writing, almost by the very nature of its being produced by a Christian, will change our society.

That's a pretty tall order, and a great responsibility if it is indeed true.  Consider for a moment how vast is the culture we live in.  Think of the heaps of books - Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey and all other more or less innocuous works - filling and shaping that culture.  And now picture yourself putting in your two cents, your drop into that ocean.  What difference does it make?  In the scheme of things - and remember here the scheme is that of changing the world - does your contribution matter?  Or does the world sit and laugh (if it even notices you) at your attempt to change it?

"Holy cow," you say now, "aren't you bleak today?  I think I'll just go read Dostoyevsky now to CHEER MYSELF UP."  But my point isn't bleak, once I actually get to it.  I'm pretty cheerful when it comes to my writing.  Because my philosophy of what it means to be a Christian who writes is not one of world alteration.  I don't expect The Soldier's Cross to be out there "winning souls," or even just stemming the tide of bad literature.  That's far too much weight placed on one little 92,000-word novel - far too much weight placed on one little just-barely-five-foot girl.  I can't change the world, and I don't expect to.  I don't think God expects me to.  If we could change the world, I expect He would just leave us here until we had finally converted everyone and the world was a happy place.

What it comes down to in my mind, as far as this part of the matter is concerned, is that God has not placed me as a sole individual with the purpose in His thoughts of me accomplishing all these great things.  He has brought out for Himself a people.  He stuck Israel smack dab in the middle of everything - in the sight of all the nations, in fact.  He has stuck His Church smack dab in the middle of everything, too, so that she should be a city set on a hill.  It is hard to grasp or even to say because of our mindset, but He has not called out for Himself individual persons; He has bought a people (made up of individuals, yes, but greater than the sum of its parts!) to be a witness, to be salt and light and leaven and a mustard seed that grows to fill the whole earth.

We lose sight of this; I lose sight of this.  But I think we must stop thinking about ourselves in such a personal and individualistic manner, stop thinking that we're set out alone with our own candles with the weight of the world - literally - resting on our shoulders.  The language of Scripture is that of a nation, a priesthood, a kingdom, a spiritual house.  The pressure is not, and should not, be on us as individuals to change the world.

Is the pressure on us, then, to change the world as a whole people?  For the Church to rise up and take on the world?  For all believing writers to band together so their books are more like a rock in the ocean of literature than like a drop?  Well, I'll sum up my answer as "no," but the rest will come in a later post.

There's a comic that features Moses holding the tablets of stone and telling the people of Israel, "Please hold your applause until I've read all ten."  Please hold your applause (or rotten tomatoes) until I've finish up the next installment, and then see what you think.  And, while you're waiting, don't forget to enter the novel giveaway.  Because you've only got ten days left, and Christmas is coming...!

And I Answer

pinterest

You ask, I answer!  Here comes Part II of the question-and-answer session - and there is going to be a Part III as well, so if your particular question hasn't shown up yet, fear not.  In some cases several people have asked a similar question, and so I consolidated my answers for ease and space.

becca asked...

1. Do you plot and plan, or do you work off of a basic idea?

In general, I’m a plotter and planner. For The Soldier’s Cross I wrote a massive outline, but I seem to recall scrapping it about two points in. For Wordcrafter, which is my complete-but-never-complete novel, I had general ideas in my head and a list of chapter titles to guide me. The White Sail’s Shaking and The Running Tide were written by the seat of my pants, and it was a very difficult ride; I don’t think I’ll be doing that again any time soon!

I like to have some ideas written down before I begin, even if it’s just a corkboard of individual words to boost my memory. Right now I’m outlining Tempus Regina, and trying not to make it as detailed as the one I had for The Soldier’s Cross; I like a bit of room to maneuver!

2. How do you come up with character names?

Characters tend to present themselves to me with the glimmerings of a personality, most times with a name attached, sometimes without, sometimes with a name that I’m not sure I’ll keep. With the scraps of personality, I can usually determine what kind of letter would suit them; then I run through that letter page of a site like Behind the Name until I find one that just “clicks.” I don’t usually do it based on the meaning of the name, but it’s interesting how often that name ends up having an appropriate meaning for the character or story.

3. Has anyone ever compared your writing to another popular author’s?

Not to my knowledge! I’m sure one of these days someone will; it seems to be a common feature of professional reviews.

4. What time of day do you usually write in?

I don’t have a set time where I open up my work and dig in; in general, it’s whenever I can snatch a moment. However, I do like to start writing immediately after I get up and prepare for the day. It starts the day off productively and encourages me in my other work as well.

5. Is self publishing for mediocre writers?

Ooh, touchy question! I’ll try to answer thoroughly and honestly. I do not believe that self-publishing is only, or has to be, for mediocre writers; sometimes it is for writers who cannot find any other niche. One example of this that spring to mind is Arthur C. Custance, an anthropologist and Christian whose works probably weren’t immediately taken by a publishing company because they were so unorthodox. He self-published, and was eventually taken up by Zondervan. Self-published books can be good, and there are a number of good reasons for going this route.

That said, I do think there is an alarming trend in publishing wherein writers skip the “traditional” process either through laziness, a lack of commitment, or a belief that editors have nothing to offer them. This is a dangerous position. Traditional publication is difficult, and often frustrating; I know that. But it also offers great benefits, not least because it provides a sort of filter for the literature being funneled onto bookshelves. I’m not saying it’s a perfect filter, or that it doesn’t often seem to be broken entirely. Bad books (heaps of them!) get by, and some good books probably don’t. But if you bypass it entirely and have every Tom, Dick, and Harry author (a hairy author? Ew!) releasing their books as soon as they’ve finished typing, we will be even more swamped with poor “literature” than we are now.

Self-publishing is something I believe should be considered long and hard before an author chooses that path. It can be used well, and sometimes bypassing the publishing houses is a good idea. But it can also be, and I think is being, abused.

6. If you found out that something was going to happen, and your writing would no longer be of any importance, would you still write? 

I love this question. It’s so unique! Simple answer: yes, I would still write. I don’t do it now to make an impact, although of course I hope it might. I write because there are stories in my head and I have to express and share them, or I wouldn’t be complete. I do “write for publication” in that the desire to share my work is part and parcel of why I write in the first place. But if somehow the whole industry went bust and everyone stopped reading entirely, I’d still write. Maybe I would only be able to express the stories to my family; and that would be all right by me. Maybe I would have to work at another job during the day; that would be all right, too. The need to create is too strong for me to stop because of a piddling matter of importance.

7. Can you write as well in a notebook as you can on a computer? 

I typically find that my writing is more polished on the computer than in a notebook, probably because of the ability to backspace and rewrite. I do, however, enjoy writing in a notebook; they say you use a different part of your brain when doing so. At any rate, I feel more free when writing by hand, but have a greater sense of accomplishment when typing.

8. With writing, and blogging, and other computer related business (mine is selling photography), do you find half of your life is spent on the computer, and do you ever fear your wasting time writing? 

I do spend a great deal of time on the computer, but schoolwork, reading, and family time give me a wider range of activities. I never really feel myself to be “wasting time” if I am indeed writing or doing other related things. When I start spending time rambling through my blogger feed or Pinterest pictures, then I realize I’m procrastinating and must move on to something productive. But because writing is what I do, and because I’ve always been encouraged in it, it never gives me the sense of time lost.

9. Do you find one page chapters permissible in some cases? 

Most things are permissible in some cases! I have seen one-page chapters in a few books—only The Gammage Cup is springing to mind—and they were quite acceptable. As long as that one page is really set apart and on its own, there’s no reason it can’t be its own chapter. I personally wouldn’t make a habit of it, but one or two in a book isn’t going to end the world.