JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Bl. Miguel Pro & H. P. Lovecraft

Separated at birth?

Civil Rights Breakthrough!

Aside from blogging, researching, dance calling, low carb cooking, and watching the odd TV show or DVD, I also--very occasionally--write fiction.

And I've just published a short story!

Though I'm better known as a science fiction fan, this particular story--entitled Civil Rights Breakthrough!--happens to be contemporary fantasy (meaning: it's set in the modern world, not a real or mythic past).

This story costs only 99 cents (less than a dollar!), and I've published this story as a Kindle eBook, so you can satisfy your impulse buying impulse and get instant gratification as it downloads to your Kindle or other compatible device.

Speaking of which, you don't have to have a Kindle to read Kindle eBooks! You can also read them via a free app on your iPod/iPad/iPhone or your other smart phone (I know there's apps for Android and Blackberry).

Or you can download the FREE programs Kindle for PC or Kindle for Mac and read it right on your computer!

If you're in the UK, you can get it off Amazon.co.uk for only £0.74, and if you're anywhere else in the world you can get it from Amazon.com for the low, low price of just 99 U.S. cents.

Now, why did I decide to release this short story right now? Because my latest book, The Fathers Know Best is just about to come out on Kindle, too. I'm going to be doing the uploading, so I wanted to test the process, and I had this short story available for publication.

If you would like to try downloading a Kindle eBook to your Kindle, mobile device, or computer, may I suggest that you take this opportunity to practice along with me?

Even if you don't, I'd invite you to check out my new short story, Civil Rights Breakthrough!

If you've ever wondered what kind of story I might write if I turned my hand to fiction, this is one example.

If I say so myself, it's a fast-paced, humorous short story that raises some interesting questions. Hope you enjoy it!

It's a quick and easy read, and it's nearly free!

So . . . 

GET THE STORY!

P.S. If you like it, please consider reviewing it on Amazon (w/o spoilers!). If you don't like it, please consider not reviewing it on Amazon!

Ten Top Books: Fiction Edition

A reader writes:

I searched your site to see if you had a list of suggested books.

I didn't find one though.

So, I was wondering if you would suggest some of your favorite books. I would be really interested in your top 10 fictions books, but also your top 10 books on apologetics/Catholic thought.

Thank you for working on your blog.

God bless

P.s. If you like, I can send you my lists as well.

I'd be happy to provide some book recommendations, only I don't know that I can provide a proper "top 10" list. So instead let me give "ten top" books (i.e., ten books that I like a lot, even if I can't rank them from 1 to 10 and even though there are others I'm not thinking of that I might put on the same level.

Let's do fiction in this post, and I'll follow up with theology/apologetics.

And I invite the correspondent, and other readers, to share ten of their top fiction picks in the combox!

Here we go (alpha by title) . . . 

Diagnosing Gollum . . .

. . . WITH MODERN PSYCHIATRY! 

Then again . . .

MODERN PSYCHIATRY ISN'T AN EXACT SCIENCE.

The One Ring

POSSESSION IS NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW. 

And . . . er . . . what kind of possession are we talking about?

"Harry Potter, wrong model of a hero, Vatican newspaper says"

That's the headline of THIS STORY BY CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY.

I’m no Harry Potter fan, but it appears that Catholic News Agency has severely misled its readers on this story.

By saying that L’Osservatore Romano published a piece criticizing Harry Potter, they convey the impression that this is the official Vatican position.

In actuality, what L’Osservatore Romano published was a debate between pro-Potter and anti-Potter writers, which conveys an entirely different impression about the newspaper’s (and the Vatican’s) position.

Catholic News Agency mentioned only one half of the debate.

Catholic News Service, by contrast, mentions both.

GET THE (OTHER SIDE OF THE) STORY.

Philip Pullman Is A Liar

Or, if you want to quibble about the word "lie," he is a dishonest man.

Here's why:

Pullman is the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is overtly anti-Christian and the first volume of which has been made into a movie titled The Golden Compass. Naturally, the Catholic League and its head Bill Donohue are warning parents against it, and Pullman is quoted as saying the following:

"To regard it as this Donohue man has said - that I'm a militant atheist, and my intention is to convert people - how the hell does he know that?" he said, in an interview with Newsweek magazine.

First, note that what we have here is a vehement non-denial denial. Pullman isn't denying that he's a militant atheist with the intention to convert people (at least in this quote; he may have made an actual denial elsewhere, in which case he's a flat-out liar). He's vehemently questioning how one would know that in order to convey the impression that he is not a militant atheist out to convert people and that he's indignant at the statement that he is one.

Because it's a non-denial denial, one can quibble over whether it constitutes a lie, just like one can quibble over whether various non-denial denials issued by the Nixon White House (or other White Houses) were technically lies, but the clear intent here is to deceive.

But let's answer Pullman's question: How "the hell" does Bill Donohue know that Pullman is a militant atheist out to convert people?

Because Pullman himself has said so!

In an interview published in the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:

“’I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the Devil's work.’”

Similarly, in an interview published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:

“I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak. I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America's Bible Belt—who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.”

And indeed they are. In the end, the heroes of the novels actually kill God.

So Pullman is simply being dishonest when he vehemently questions how anyone could know that he is a militant atheist out to convert people. He himself has made it abundantly clear in press interviews.

This kind of transparent disingenuity really makes Pullman come across as a small and pathetic individual.

For all the protestations atheists typically make about embracing truth rather than a fairy tale, it seems Mr. Pullman leaves something to be desired in the truth department.

And why not?

If, on his view, we're just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn't the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?

The Economics of Magic

I am not a fan of the Harry Potter novels. I know lots of people who are, including people who are serious Catholics, but I'm uncomfortable with them for a variety of reasons.

While they're not going to turn every kid who reads them into a practitioner of Wicca, at least some kids will be influenced by the novels into exploring the occult. That's a risk that is taken whenever magic is explored in fiction. Lord of the Rings did the same thing.

The thing about literature (fiction or non-fiction) is that somebody in the audience is always going to go off in some crazy direction based on what they read.

Want proof?

Let's take a very well-known piece of literature . . . the best-selling book in human history, in fact: The Bible.

Has anybody gone off in a crazy direction after reading that?

Well, let's see . . . Marcion, Sabellius, Montanus, Tertullian, Arius, . . . uh, the list might get a little long, so let's move on.

Authors can't let the fact that somebody in the audience is going to go nuts based on what they write stop them from writing. If they did, we wouldn't have the Bible. But authors can craft their work in a way that tries to minimize potential harmful effects, and I have sympathy for those who think that J.K. Rowling didn't do as good a job of this in writing the Harry Potter series as J.R.R. Tolkien did in the Lord of the Rings.

And the fact is that the vast majority of kids who read Harry Potter are not going to turn into neopagans, so I can't tell people that it's morally impermissible for any child to read them.

There is another reason I'm uncomfortable with them: I just don't like the way they're written.

Now, you know what they say about disputing about tastes, and if Harry Potter is something that you really enjoy and that doesn't challenge your faith then good for you. But I think that Rowling did not do a good job in several respects literarily, and here's why.

I read the first novel back when there was a huge controversy about it and whether it was healthy for children, and from the opening pages I found myself not liking it. The reason is that Rowling is just too ham fisted in how she sets the plot in motion.

Harry Potter--the character, not the book series--is the most important boy in the magical world, yet he doesn't know it.

Until chapter two. (Or whatever.)

Then, as soon as he's introduced into the magical world, he's suddently the center of attention, people are fawning all over him, privilege is lavished upon him, and a glorious new future is handed to him on a silver platter.

Too. Much. Wish. Fulfillment.

This is bad plotting. Harry Potter is catapulted out of ordinary life to the apex of magical society virtually instantaneously. There may be lots of interesting concepts that Rowling uses as tinsel to sparkle up her world--and this is what I think people really find attractive about the books (the tinsel, not the substance)--but you don't slather on the wish fulfillment in this way.

Not unless you're writing fan fic.

If you really want to have somebody be the most important boy in the world, you let this fact emerge piecemeal, a bit at a time, with the character paying his dues as his true identity becomes clear.

If you want to see that plot done right,

CHECK OUT THIS BOOK.

BTW, I recently gave this book to Steve and Janet Ray and they loved it.

Others have also commented on the ham fisted way Rowling writes--in fact the piece I'm about to link even uses the term "ham fisted."

It's a piece by an economics reporter who looks at the bad economics in the book--and she doesn't mean money. She means the magical economy:

If magic is too powerful then the characters will be omnipotent gods, and there won't be a plot. Magic must have rules and limits in order to leave the author enough room to tell a story. In economic terms, there must be scarcity: magical power must be a finite resource.

GET THE STORY.

By Their Lives of Judas You Shall Know Them

CNS is reporting:

Curiosity about the New Testament figure of Judas and a feeling that his reputation as the worst sinner in history "isn't fair, isn't right" led British novelist Jeffrey Archer to attempt a new version of the story.

Archer, presenting "The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot" at a March 20 press conference in Rome, said he is a practicing Anglican who wanted his new book to be backed up by solid biblical scholarship.

So he convinced Father Francis J. Moloney, provincial of the Salesians in Australia and a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, to collaborate.

Now, I don't have a problem with someone writing a book called "The Gospel According to Judas" or writing novels about Judas or about Judas's perceptions of Christ. I don't even have a problem with someone who wants to present Judas as something other than the worst sinner in history--something that the Church doesn't teach that he was. One could hold that Judas had diminished culpability for his sins and that someone else in history had a higher degree of culpability.

But I do have a problem with this:

Archer's main thesis is that Judas tried to prevent Jesus' arrest and execution by enlisting the help of a scribe to get Jesus out of Jerusalem and back to Galilee where the Romans supposedly would ignore him.

In the end, the scribe betrays Judas, which means Judas unwittingly betrays Jesus.

Both Archer and Father Moloney doubt that Judas committed suicide, a story recounted only in the Gospel of St. Matthew.

The Benjamin Iscariot in Archer's title is Judas' fictitious son, who -- years after the death of Jesus -- finds his father living in an ascetic community near the Dead Sea. His father reluctantly gives his version of what happened to Jesus and the son writes it down.

I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable on two grounds. First, it flatly contradicts the biblical accounts of Judas' death. It would be one thing if the author made it clear that he was not writing about our universe and that he was dealing with a parallel Judas and what happened to him, but that's not the case. The author and Fr. Moloney both cast doubt on the inspired text as it applies to our universe. This is an unacceptable misrepresentation of the facts of history. It's not a case of them proposing a novel or unexpected way to harmonize the accounts of Judas's death; it's them flatly rejecting the biblical accounts.

Second, the author has fallen into the perennial trap of trying to exonerate Judas. That's not the same thing as portraying him in a way that nuances his character and motives. It's not the same thing as just saying "He may not have been the worst sinner in history." It's flatly rejecting the betrayal that Judas performed. On this account, Judas didn't betray Jesus; he was himself betrayed.

Sorry, but that's not going to cut it. Not if we're being asked to entertain what might have been the case with the Judas in our universe.

I don't know what it is with authors (and filmmakers) who want to rehabilitate Judas in this fashion.

But I suspect it's this: They themselves have an uneasy conscience.

They themselves feel that they have betrayed Christ (as have we all by our sins), but rather than throw themselves on Christ's mercy and accepting his grace, they want to rationalize or excuse their sins and so--using the character of Judas as a psychological surrogate for themselves--they rationalize and excuse his in fictional form.

The underlying psychological message they're trying to give themselves is: Hey, if Judas didn't really betray Christ--if he was a tragic victim of circumstance--then that's what I am, too. I haven't really betrayed him. I'm just a victim of fate, too, and I'm not really responsible for what I've done.

By their lives of Judas you shall know them.

GET THE STORY.

Atlas Shrugged

A reader writes:

Hey Jimmy, any thoughts on "Atlas Shrugged"? I've yet to read it, but I'm wondering if it makes any good points, and was also curious what the bad ones might be. A friend has forced me to read it, so I thought it'd be best to get your thoughts first. Thanks!

Well, I can't generally offer thoughts on works of fiction like Atlas Shrugged, and most have both good and bad points, but in this case I do happen to know something about the work and its author, Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was a 20th century immigrant to the US who advocated a particular philosophical system that she dubbed "Objectivism," because of its supposedly objective viewpoint.

This viewpoint has significant resonances with the Libertarian political movement, and advocates of Objectivism tend to be Libertarian politically (though not all Libertarians are Objectivists). This means that they tend to be economically liberal (in the historic sense--i.e., in favor of laissez-faire capitalism) while being socially liberal as well (e.g., not opposing abortion or homosexuality).

Objectivism tends to support a form of individualism that leaves open to the individual certain forms of freedom that Catholic theology would hold are immoral (e.g., it sometimes exalts selfishness as a virtue). It also tends to be strongly anti-religious.

While I have not read a great deal of Ayn Rand's works (though I have read some), I can report that she uses her fiction--such as Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged--as vehicles for her philosophical thought.

I can also report that she is not taken seriously as a philosopher by real, academic philosophers.

I suggest looking into the following online articles from Wikipedia for more info:

* AYN RAND

* OBJECTIVISM

* OBJECTIVIST MOVEMENT

* ATLAS SHRUGGED