Mark, thanks for the link and the blurb (and I made it to the top of the list *snicker*). Ooops, did I open a whole new can of worms? *laughing evilly*-(is that 1 "L" or 2???)
I really was impressed with Rebecca G.'s blog too (I wonder how she did that....)
I have to say, though, the title for this post really caught me off guard, lol.
Julia
· 2 years ago
I'm still working out the words "Christian fantasy novel" and how that could possibly mean quality fiction. I'm buried in old bias. But now that I see a good recommendation I will keep my eyes open.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
Eve, laughing evilly (2 Ls just like our friend Barkat) and causing trouble, as usual. : )
Rebecca, if you are out there let us know how you did your blog! It's really neat.
About the title. I'm not above a little bit of innocent shock value. (I mean, I meant it to be innocent. If someone was offended, I guess it backfired.)
Marcus
· 2 years ago
Julia, I adore science fiction and fantasy--and I'm right there with you.
Here's a big confession. I'm hesitant to pick up any Christian fiction at all. It's a kind of damaged brand in my mind--shooting for a target audience of middle-aged mothers who have very different reading interests than I do.
But I am hoping the days of Christian harlequin are ending. Certainly there are a lot of people who want to see those days end!
Eve Nielsen
· 2 years ago
Ahhh! So glad I have an editor as a friend :)
I wasn't offended-it just wasn't your typical post title *grin*
L.L. Barkat
· 2 years ago
Was thinking of you yesterday when I picked up a non-fantasy young adult fiction book (Hattie Big Sky... I picked it up because I couldn't believe I was seeing artwork I'd just seen on my cousin-in-law's web portfolio!)
Anyway, it's quite redemptive (so far) and even mentions praying to God, but it's not with a Christian publisher. The writing is excellent, especially the dialog (I think it reminded me of your novel in this way, which is why I started thinking of you!)
Anyhow, a very non-related, off-topic comment, just 'cause I wanted to say it.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
L.L., Hattie Big Sky, huh? Looks like a book for me to read to my daughter! We are finishing up one of the American Girl book series right now, but she loves historical fiction.
According to JacketFlap.com, it's the #16 seller in its imprint.
And what's this? It reminded you of my novel!? Sigh. I shelved it for awhile. Long, sad story.
Craver-VII
· 2 years ago
I'm curious. Do you check traffic on this blog? I wonder whether the title of this post impacted the number of casusal visitors.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
Craver, that's a good reminder. I need to start doing that. I'm started logging the traffic a few months ago, but I haven't done any data analysis yet.
I need to!
So... what's your guess? Should we place bets or something--non-binding, non-gambling kinds of gentlemen's wagers are what I mean, naturally.
Craver-VII
· 2 years ago
Hmmm... a wager where the topic has something to do with feminine endowments? Something tells me I better pass on this one. Nevertheless, I am convinced (sadly so) that the title temporarily boosted your traffic for the wrong reason.
I wish we men were not so sick and wrong.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
So am I sick and wrong for being playfully off-color with my title ... and the wager?
I know that's not what you are saying, but what I'm really asking is this: To what degree in marketing our blogs (and books and what have you) can we tap into the, um, visceral and instinctive impulses that are common to all people? Or in this case, all men?
Craver-VII
· 2 years ago
Good question. I’ll bet that you could get a variety of volleying between proponents of visceral and virtuous views (Oops, did I just make a wager?)
And a thought. The adversary of our souls has been fishing for thousands of years. While this cunning one has been perfecting his technique, I doubt that he needs to carry many different lures in his tackle box.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
Good analogy. The adversary fishes for our souls. And Christians fish for souls too.
Does that mean the bait he uses is off limits?
Obviously, he will twist a lot of the bait until it is perverse. Perversion is off limits for sure. But can we as Christians appeal to the same felt needs of our audience without resorting to perversion?
Eve Nielsen
· 2 years ago
IThess. 5:22 does admonish us, though, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."
The question then is, does this fall under that category?
I'd be a little leary to use the enemies tactics to lure people to the good. I wouldn't want to go near anything he's touched.
Not saying that any anatomy is wrong-but how it's used could be and often is.
This whole topic reminds me of seeker-friendly churches. The whole thrust here is similar-to make the church as comfortable and inviting for sinners as possible, in order that many would enter the church doors.
The problem (s) with this is that we are not called to do this, but to GO and preach the gospel (itself an uncomfortable message to most). Go Evangelism has a bit more on this topic.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
Eve, I'm not sure I was being very clear.
The enemy's tactic is perversion. He persuades people by tapping into needs that all people feel--the desire for intimacy being the need under discussion. Then he perverts these needs.
All humans have a God-given and healthy need for intimacy.
Pornography is an evil perversion of intimacy. However, it is the human need for intimacy that makes pornography attractive, not its perversion.
I'm not comfortable saying I won't go near anything the enemy touches, though. It is the enemy's touch that I don't want to go near. When he touches intimacy, it becomes pornography. But that doesn't mean I can't touch intimacy. I need it.
All people do.
So why did I use "breast" in the title? Partly because I still have this middle school boy outlook sometimes. I figured listing "breasts" alongside "theology" was kind of funny. And the fact that I put theology first would prevent people from expecting perversion. (Unless they pervert everything in their mind anyway.)
Breasts themselves are not perverted. Talking about breasts is not perversion. Talking about intimacy and human sexuality is not perversion. I would even say that sensual writing (not erotica, not pornography) in Christian fiction is not necessarily perversion.
Eve Nielsen
· 2 years ago
True. The enemy takes all that he can get his hands on and tries to pervert it. The things in themselves are not wrong. He wants to destroy God's good creations.
I'm just wondering what kind of thing we can actually take back.
Marcus
· 2 years ago
I don't think it's a matter of taking something back. Instead, we just remind ourselves and those around us what we've been given.
For example, we can say that God provides intimacy in certain ways. Here is what healthy, godly intimacy looks like.
All Comments
I really was impressed with Rebecca G.'s blog too (I wonder how she did that....)
I have to say, though, the title for this post really caught me off guard, lol.
Rebecca, if you are out there let us know how you did your blog! It's really neat.
About the title. I'm not above a little bit of innocent shock value. (I mean, I meant it to be innocent. If someone was offended, I guess it backfired.)
Here's a big confession. I'm hesitant to pick up any Christian fiction at all. It's a kind of damaged brand in my mind--shooting for a target audience of middle-aged mothers who have very different reading interests than I do.
But I am hoping the days of Christian harlequin are ending. Certainly there are a lot of people who want to see those days end!
I wasn't offended-it just wasn't your typical post title *grin*
Anyway, it's quite redemptive (so far) and even mentions praying to God, but it's not with a Christian publisher. The writing is excellent, especially the dialog (I think it reminded me of your novel in this way, which is why I started thinking of you!)
Anyhow, a very non-related, off-topic comment, just 'cause I wanted to say it.
According to JacketFlap.com, it's the #16 seller in its imprint.
And what's this? It reminded you of my novel!? Sigh. I shelved it for awhile. Long, sad story.
I need to!
So... what's your guess? Should we place bets or something--non-binding, non-gambling kinds of gentlemen's wagers are what I mean, naturally.
I wish we men were not so sick and wrong.
I know that's not what you are saying, but what I'm really asking is this: To what degree in marketing our blogs (and books and what have you) can we tap into the, um, visceral and instinctive impulses that are common to all people? Or in this case, all men?
And a thought. The adversary of our souls has been fishing for thousands of years. While this cunning one has been perfecting his technique, I doubt that he needs to carry many different lures in his tackle box.
Does that mean the bait he uses is off limits?
Obviously, he will twist a lot of the bait until it is perverse. Perversion is off limits for sure. But can we as Christians appeal to the same felt needs of our audience without resorting to perversion?
The question then is, does this fall under that category?
I'd be a little leary to use the enemies tactics to lure people to the good. I wouldn't want to go near anything he's touched.
Not saying that any anatomy is wrong-but how it's used could be and often is.
This whole topic reminds me of seeker-friendly churches. The whole thrust here is similar-to make the church as comfortable and inviting for sinners as possible, in order that many would enter the church doors.
The problem (s) with this is that we are not called to do this, but to GO and preach the gospel (itself an uncomfortable message to most). Go Evangelism has a bit more on this topic.
The enemy's tactic is perversion. He persuades people by tapping into needs that all people feel--the desire for intimacy being the need under discussion. Then he perverts these needs.
All humans have a God-given and healthy need for intimacy.
Pornography is an evil perversion of intimacy. However, it is the human need for intimacy that makes pornography attractive, not its perversion.
I'm not comfortable saying I won't go near anything the enemy touches, though. It is the enemy's touch that I don't want to go near. When he touches intimacy, it becomes pornography. But that doesn't mean I can't touch intimacy. I need it.
All people do.
So why did I use "breast" in the title? Partly because I still have this middle school boy outlook sometimes. I figured listing "breasts" alongside "theology" was kind of funny. And the fact that I put theology first would prevent people from expecting perversion. (Unless they pervert everything in their mind anyway.)
Breasts themselves are not perverted. Talking about breasts is not perversion. Talking about intimacy and human sexuality is not perversion. I would even say that sensual writing (not erotica, not pornography) in Christian fiction is not necessarily perversion.
I'm just wondering what kind of thing we can actually take back.
For example, we can say that God provides intimacy in certain ways. Here is what healthy, godly intimacy looks like.