Jevlir Logo

The Jevlir Caravansary

Author: jevlir

  • The God-Talk Club – Tornadoes!

    [This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters and real people or the places and real places is strictly accidental. What’s more, this is practice fiction, wherein I practice writing dialogue, so any resemblance to real fiction is accidental as well. This is the second of the series. I introduced the God-Talk Club here, and provide some additional information on the current characters here. Comments, including criticism, are welcome.]

    Mark settled into his normal seat at the Roadside Cafe a little later than usual. “His” seat was still not taken, but he noticed that none of the others were there. Before he had even thought about ordering, he saw Ellen, who had been here every time he had, bringing his normal large Coke.

    “What would you do if I told you I didn’t want a large Coke,” he asked, smiling.

    Ellen’s face fell for just a moment, then she realized he was joking. She paused for a second as she put the drink down and gave Mark his straw. “I’d probably get fired,” she said.

    It was Mark’s turn to be speechless. “Surely the wouldn’t fire you for a thing like that!”

    “No, not really.” Ellen giggled. “But it was good to see the look on your face.”

    Mark laughed. “OK. Got me!”

    “What do you guys do here anyhow?”

    “We plot the downfall of civilization,” said someone from behind Ellen. It was Mac.

    Mark looked up at her. McKenzie “Mac” Strong was celebrating warmer weather with a halter top. He suspected she mostly wanted to offend Jerry Simonson, who had commented on female modesty during their discussion the previous Friday night. He thought the comment had been directed at Mandy Kelly, a stay-at-home Mom in her 40s with four children, but Mac had taken it to heart. She enjoyed teasing the conservative elder and Sunday School teacher.

    (more…)

  • Book: Pilate’s Wife

    This book is well out of the norm for my reading, but the topic caught my attention, as well as the dearth of information with which the author had to work. It is hard to write a good novel about a historical character when almost nothing is known about that character. It doesn’t really matter what you write, somebody is not going to like it.

    The first thing to note about this book is the subtitle: A Novel of the Roman Empire. Those who are expected a Biblical novel, one primarily oriented toward Biblical characters, themes, and goals will be sorely disappointed. The setting is primarily Rome and Roman social life in the provinces; Palestine only plays a small role when Pilate is sent there. In a Christian novel, Biblically based, one might expect a great deal said about Jesus and other Biblical characters. That is not the case here.

    Second, one should be aware this is written about a woman by a woman, and it focuses on the woman’s perspective. In historical novels of this period that is not all that usual, because it is hard to keep things interesting when men are running the show and all the chief characters are women. I got the annoying feeling that the lead characters spend their time largely being pushed around by other people, with only brief moments when they can be themselves. Of course, that feeling is probably an accurate reflection of what it was like to be a woman at that time.

    For historical connections, the author uses a couple of less probable reconstructions about Jesus, but those elements are not impossible, merely not proven, so that can be forgiven. It does make for some added interest in the story.

    I have to rate this book at 3, because I found it interesting but not exceptionally so. I must note, however, that this is not due to any weakness of the book, but rather to my limited interest in the subject matter. Within its necessary constraints it is a good book.

  • The New Judge

    [Note: This is one of my attempts to tell either a different part of a Bible story, to tell the story from a different perspective, or to get a similar point across in a different way. I will quote the related scripture passage at the end. Besides the general fun of setting myself the assignment and trying to write it, I hope these stories will help someone think about the scriptural passage in new and creative ways. This is a work of fiction. All places, characters, and things are products of my imagination and any resemblance to anyone or anything real is purely accidental.]

    Carl, now Sir Carl, made a bit of a stir when he arrived in the tiny village of Felidol. He rode his horse right across the small bridge across the creek (or river, as the locals would have it) and through the gate in the wooden palisade that surrounded the town. Farmers in their fields looked up and then continued to stare as he went by on his white horse. He did indeed cut quite a figure with shining armor, a quite long sword at his side, and fine cloak over it all, and expensive boots on his feet.

    The villagers stared, but they were less impressed by his fine figure and equipment than they were frightened to see anyone like that here. The citizens of Felidol and the surrounding countryside didn’t like important people all that much. Important people wanted to get things done, and it always seemed that what they needed in order to get things done was the farmer’s money, food, and sometimes even their property.

    Carl was completely oblivious to all this. He waved at the villagers in a friendly way as he rode past. He didn’t want to seem aloof or unsociable. He didn’t seem to realize that with the way he was dressed and equipped, the villagers had a hard time seeing him as anything but aloof. They hoped he would be aloof, and thus wouldn’t get them involved in anything.

    On the other hand, he knew something they didn’t. In spite of his young age, and his knightly appearance, he was actually the new circuit judge, to be based in their village. Carl knew very well that he had gotten the appointment only because his father was one of the richest merchants in the city. He was fairly sure that his father had bought him this appointment for his 20th birthday, along with a knighthood. But that was alright with him, because he knew enough about the law to do the job, and he intended to do right by these people.

    ###

    Carl’s first day in the courthouse was a disappointment. There were a couple of weddings to formalize, something that went without ceremonies in these parts. The feasting and celebration would take place elsewhere. There were some documents to formalize, ones that required the seal of a king’s officer. Carl was the only king’s officer in many, many miles. But nobody came to petition him for anything. He couldn’t imagine that none of the small farmers in this area had any complaints against the more important landowners. He imagined that the townsfolk had complaints against farmers, and farmers against townsfolk. That was how he had heard things always were.

    (more…)

  • Book: Previewing Genesis by Paul Chafe

    Way back when I wrote a note on Destiny’s Forge by [tag]Paul Chafe[/tag], which I called (and still call) a great book. It has pretty much all the characteristics I like in a book. More recently, I posted a notice about Paul Chafe’s forthcoming book Genesis which will be released November 6th (according to Amazon.com). I said I looked forward to November with pleasure.

    Well, I didn’t have to wait that long. I received a pre-release copy and permission to write about it, and so I have now read the new book. I still want a copy to sit on my shelves, but it’s nice to get the story ahead of time.

    Unlike Destiny’s Forge, this book labors against some of my prejudices. I have found that I like relatively few books about the near future. I’m a bit wary of books or series that cover large periods of time, and I often avoid a new series until it’s either complete or well under way. None of these are absolutes, and this book had one major thing going for it–it’s written by Paul Chafe. It’s simple truth and not flattery to say that up to now I have loved everything he has written, and I think now I have read it all.

    Now that I have read Genesis it goes back up near the top of my list. Truth be told, I had more fun in Destiny’s Forge simply because there are the battle scenes, more strategy, and an alien culture to develop. In Genesis we have humans, other humans, and yet more humans.

    The scope is breathtaking, and the characters, whether you love or hate them, are inspiring. From a person involved in religion on a professional basis, as I am, the handling of a mass religious movement is excellent. As a student of history as well as somewhat of theology I’m well aware of how the pieces can be put together in odd ways, and the damage an unthinking, mass movement can cause.

    Chafe uses that movement in interesting ways. I don’t want to hint at them, because I think the story reads better without anticipating some of the interesting corners that are turned as it develops.

    I understand this will be a trilogy, and I’ll certainly be here for the whole ride. I have to say that I wonder how a trilogy can actually tell a story of the scope that is laid out by the first volume.

    The style is excellent and very readable. It doesn’t have my favorite alien cultures or battle scenes, but still, I’m giving this a numerical rating of five. Y’all be sure and go out and buy one, or even pre-order on Amazon.com right now!

  • So Are There Actually Standards in Literature?

    Yesterday I wrote about my preferences in literature, being careful to note how these were my preferences and not some sort of objective standard for what is good and what is bad literature.

    Amongst other things I said this:

    That means that there’s no objective “good book” and “bad book” for the most part. There are books that will entertain nobody, inform nobody, and challenge nobody. But there are also books that don’t entertain me, but are just the thing for somebody else. . . .

    So this morning I’m reading a couple of my favorite blogs, evangelical outpost and Locusts and Honey, and between them I find a set of articles that are trying to argue against my point. They want to say that there are some very objective and important standards.

    Now if I were paranoid or megalomaniacal I might think that these posts came as a result of my off the cuff remarks, but being mentally balanced, I’m aware that my remarks had nothing to do with it. I’m used to an occasional exchange from my Threads blog, but never expected to do one from this “fun” blog where I let down my hair. But here goes . . .

    Joe Carter in his nifty weekly 33 things post links to this post which claims that changing good creatures into bad fosters bad morals. Here’s the quote:

    It’s as if the authors of such fiction want to numb their readers to the idea that real evil exists and is consistently recognizable. If you’re convinced a dragon, or vampire, can only be deemed bad after you’ve gotten to know him, you’re more likely to give all the dragons and vampires a chance to prove their character before making a judgment. Sadly, the time that passes between meeting a new and as yet unjudged dragon/vampire and deciding whether he’s of the good sort, or bad, is a time of extreme vulnerability.

    Apparently the author expects people to respond with “lighten up, it’s just a story.” But that isn’t my response. I actually find a good deal of moral good in making the moral character of a creature separate from its form. Having good dragons and bad dragons makes them much like people–form doesn’t determine moral quality. Just because a symbol has been used for something evil doesn’t mean that is the only way it can be used.

    Frankly I think that stories that make the assumption that traditional good and evil roles always fit with the expected people teach a very bad lesson. They teach that one can use stereotypes to make moral decisions. Now I don’t mind a few stereotyped stories; just don’t overdo it. But don’t get over the top if I put a nice dragon in a story either.

    The other article that related was this one (Locusts and Honey comment here) which I actually could use as exhibit A for elitist views of literature and music.

    The key quote comes here:

    My relativist undergraduates feel empowered by a leveling theory that puts their favorite rock band on equal footing with Bach and Mozart; but watch how quickly a qualitative hierarchy races back when, in the interests of consistency, you suggest that their favorite band must be no better than the Backstreet Boys (or that their favorite bohemian film is no better than, only different from, Police Academy 5). . . .

    And I could simply ask on just what basis you do say that one is objectively better than the other. Philosophers regularly argue that their thoughts are better than those of common people, and of course than those of certain other philosophers. But the question is just how one tells which is which? A popular presentation will have a much greater impact on the public in general. Which is better, an obscure philosophical article that is read by 20 or 30 people or a popular article read, and perhaps understood by millions? Either may be right or wrong. Either may be dangerous or of positive value to society.

    My point is that while there are some objective characteristics both of literature and of thought, there are also abundant subjective factors. Elitists like to list boring and obscure literature and call it great. But what made it great, other than that people who write obscure prose happen to agree that it is? In the meantime, millions who just enjoy literature, or film, or other forms of entertainment simply go out and, well, enjoy it.

    I’m often in the minority. In this case I’m with the millions.

    And if you ask me why my favorite literature is better than your choice, my answer is this: “Because I like it!”

  • Defining Good Literature (Or Not)

    Note: This is a long post with me bloviating on what I regard as good literature and how I come up with my ratings in book notes. This is fair warning for those who expect shorter, lighter material on this blog.

    I have been a reader for as long as I can remember. As soon as I discovered what reading could do for me, I fell in love with books. My parents knew what they could get me for a birthday or Christmas present—a book would always be well received.

    My parents were opposed to fiction. Not just certain types of fiction—all fiction. I got my first introduction to fiction in 9th grade English by correspondence. I was permitted to read the fiction in the course because it was required, but I was not to read anything that was not assigned. I ate it up. Then I left home, and went a long ways. My parents were still in South America and I was in the states to go on to school. At my brother-in-law’s house I was introduced to science fiction starting with Robert Heinlein. I read Stranger in a Strange Land, Methuselah’s Children, and Starship Troopers. I’m not at all certain which was first. I couldn’t stop. Heinlein didn’t remain my favorite science fiction writer, though he remained on my list of favorites.

    After that I pursued popular fiction, but I’ve always had a special place in my reading for science fiction. Frequently over the years I’ve been informed that my tastes in literature are not very refined or sophisticated. I have to admit that I found reading Dostoevsky of no interest whatsoever, and even Les Miserables only came out a little above medium interest. (I read it initially in French.)

    This experience has reinforced my initial tendency to ignore the literary tastes of those around me. Personally I find “lists of books that every educated person must have read” to be exercises in intellectual snobbery. If someone likes a book they can explain to me why I would find it interesting or worthwhile to read.

    All of that verbiage leads me to my actual subject. What is the purpose of my book notes on this blog, and just how to I rate the books that I read? Let me tell you that my motivation is not money. I do get some referral fees from Amazon.com, but I have never been able to identify purchases that came from the notes here. Generally, it’s my recommendations in Bible translations or books on Biblical studies, which are areas in which I work professionally that generate links.

    My primary motivation is simply the discipline of thinking a bit about a book, why I liked it or didn’t, and recording the fact that I read it and how I felt. I believe that a good book is one you either enjoy or that helps you accomplish whatever you intended by reading it. A good story entertains and/or challenges me. A good non-fiction book informs me in a particular area or challenges my thinking about a subject. A bad book fails to do any of those things.

    That means that there’s no objective “good book” and “bad book” for the most part. There are books that will entertain nobody, inform nobody, and challenge nobody. But there are also books that don’t entertain me, but are just the thing for somebody else. What I mean here by a great book is one that manages to make a great combination of entertaining and challenging me. Contrary to the title of this post, I don’t believe there is an objective definition of good literature.

    For those few folks who read my book notes on this blog, I want to note what I like and don’t like in literature.

    • Integrity – I like my literature to be what it is and to be consistent with its own assumptions. I see this violated mostly in popular literature that contrives special rules to move the plot along. If a story is set in the real world, it should live with real world laws of physics and so forth. An adventure story that pretends the impossible can happen needs to have a reason that should be so. There are categories of adventure stories that are based on massive improbabilities or technically improbable stuff, but that’s just part of the story.

      It’s really hard for me to define a line here. Generally I will like it if it’s obvious that the author or producer intends the audience to be in on the joke, it works for me. If it appears that he or she is trying to slip one over, I won’t.

    • Characters that are logical within the story background. I like characters that are multi-dimensional. I really like writers who can characterize someone with a few lines and nonetheless make them substantial and interesting. I particularly like to be able to predict a character’s attitude based on earlier portions of the book, but it’s even better if I can’t predict the action, but on thinking about it, I realize that it was a logical move for that character.
    • Stories that take place within a substantial and interesting world/universe. This includes contemporary fiction, in which I like a substantial sphere in which the story takes place. In science fiction and fantasy I like the universe to be well enough defined so that one can guess what can and cannot happen. New rules need to be introduced for a logical reason (bigger wizard, more advanced aliens) and shouldn’t be the main way the story is carried forward.
    • I don’t really like stories of unrelieved darkness and nastiness. I should make it especially clear that this is a preference. I don’t think such stories are “bad.” They just don’t do anything for me.
    • I don’t like time travel, except in a few cases where it’s handled with considerable skill (usually in short stories playing with the difficulty) or the rest of the story is good. For example, in Anne McCaffrey’s Pern series, I don’t like the time travel, and don’t think it is well handled, but the story telling is so wonderful, the characters so exceptionally interesting, and the world so much fun, that I hardly notice the time travel problem.
    • I like stories that vary from extremely light to very heavy and serious. I read them at different times. Most of the time I read before I go to sleep, and I usually choose lighter reading, because I want to be able to put it down and go to sleep. Series like Lillian Jackson Braun’s “Cat Who” books are great evening reading. They’re interesting enough to keep me reading, but they don’t force a great deal of thinking.
    • I like a balance of action and explanation. I will generally not like a book that is all intense action without any exploration of the thinking of the major characters or description of the background, but such explanations need to be scattered around.
    • I don’t like grammatical eccentricities, but I usually put up with them. William C. Dietz has a habit of using incomplete sentences. Like this one. It gets on my nerves, but Dietz is such an exceptionally good storyteller otherwise, that I’ll live with it.
    • Religion should have a role only as it has a role in the characters’ lives. If I detect that a story is being told for the purpose of presenting me with a moral rather than to entertain, I’ll drop it in a hurry. Christian fiction that in which I can identify the folks who will get converted (or are major targets) within the first couple of pages just annoy me. On the other hand, if one has Christian characters, one of the things they do is witness, and as it fits the story, that’s fine.
    • I like there to be right and wrong in the story, though they don’t have to agree with what I would regard as right and wrong. In fact, I find it more interesting if characters have moral standards, but those standards disagree with mine. I also like to see subtlety and shades of moral gray. Some books get by with a serious binary good-evil battle, such as Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, but in general I don’t see that as a plus.

      • Those are the major things I notice in books. I hope this will help one or two readers with understanding my notes.

  • Thanking him for Faithfulness

    (Scripture: Luke 17:11-19; 2 Timothy 2:8-15)

    This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance of any of the people, places, or events to anyone real is purely coincidental.

    Janiva Jeffreys slipped through the doors of the church and found a seat near the back. It was a small church, with the yard poorly kept and the building itself in some disrepair. It fit well in the neighborhood, run down, deteriorating, a three dimensional display of how little people cared.

    I could live in a place like this, she thought. I used to live in a place like this.

    She didn’t recognize the man at the podium. He radiated authority and certainty. But the man behind him, sitting to his right, him she recognized. It was his picture, included with a newspaper story, that had brought her here. He would be thirty years older than she remembered, and he showed every year of it, but he was definitely the same man. It was a moment in her life that she would never forget. She had moved on from that moment and become a different woman. At that moment she had been a whore—she used the word in her own mind—pursued by her pimp from one direction and by the police from another. She had had no hope, no future. But for thirty years she had not seen him or heard of him.

    I never really thanked him, she thought. I never knew his name, nor he mine. I just pointed to where I wanted to get out and then I ran and hid.

    The man at the podium was speaking. “As the Bishop responsible for this area,” he said, “it is my responsibility to take action on this church. With only five members left, and less than a tenth of the budget necessary, we have no choice. This final meeting is just to explain what is going to happen and when.”

    “The only thing that would save this congregation now would be around $50,000 that we do not have, and also some idea that the church can accomplish something in this community. We have explored every avenue that we know, we have exhausted all options. We don’t want to close the church, but there is no other option.”

    (more…)

  • Free Burma!

  • The God-Talk Club is Born

    Note: This is the start of a new series, without the end of any others. I will expand on this in the series page. Briefly, I want to practice writing dialog, try various ways of presenting it, and also try presenting different views on various theological topics in a sympathetic way. Basically I’m practicing here, so read at your own risk. Of course, that’s not much different from anything else on this blog!

    Also, all characters, places, events, and churches in this story are fictional. It is a work of fiction.

    * * * * *

    Mark wasn’t too sure why he pulled into the roadside cafe. He rarely ate out. As a seminary student on a partial scholarship but without church support he had to be careful with his money. But tonight he needed to get working on a three page paper, and he couldn’t think how he was going to do it.

    It was Saturday night, the paper was due Monday morning. He felt silly as he thought about that. He was a veteran of countless all nighters in which he had produced 10, 15, or 20 pages in a night with no problem, complete with footnotes, formatted according to the professor’s requirements. Yet he had this feeling of dread.

    “You will write three pages on what it means to you personally to be a Christian. No references, no quotations, not even Bible verses. Just three pages from you.”

    There was a short time of silence in the class. For many of them, half or more of a paper could be made up of summing up other people’s views and providing references for them.

    “But Dr. Youngman,” said one, “References to the great teachers of the past are important! I can’t imagine talking about Christianity without referencing some of the great thinkers in Christian history.”

    “Well, you’re going to learn to imagine it. Just three pages.”

    “Exactly?” asked another student.

    “Make it between 2.9 and 3.1 pages. Edit it until you get it to the right length.”

    “What if I’m not a Christian,” asked another student.

    “Good question,” said the professor. “One assumes that most students at a seminary are Christians, but one may be wrong. If you are not a Christian, then write about what it means to you to say someone else is a Christian.”

    “And if we’re not sure, not committed?”

    “Write about why you’re not sure then, 3 pages, all your words.”

    “I don’t think I can express myself in three pages. You’ve given us a broad subject.”

    “Narrow it down.”

    “But how? What is the most important thing for me to talk about?”

    “That’s what you should be asking yourself.”

    “What if I can’t think of three full pages?”

    “Consider the impact of a zero for this assignment on your grade, and feel the motivation flowing over you.”

    (more…)

  • Book: Alpha

    This book was a pleasant surprise. I’m normally annoyed by the huge possibilities that are ignored in stories about future AI or machine sentience. It seems to me to be the area in which near future science fiction does the worst job of projection.

    In this case, however, [tag]Catherine Asaro[/tag] does a wonderful job of looking forward but still providing a comprehensible, easy to read, and entertaining tail. One can feel the possibility of a future like this. I hardly had to suspend disbelief at all.

    Of course the actual possibilities are so varied that one can hardly predict anything, I think, but in this case, at least the story seems possible.

    As for characters, I found them a little bit light, but nonetheless interesting. There was more attention paid to the future technology than to the future people. The story did have some less predictable twists. I’ll certainly pick up books by this author again.

    I give it a numerical rating of 4 out of 5.