For the second installment on the allegories in the Reality series, I wanted to talk more about the ring. Eventually, I’ll talk about the allegorical nature of the ring itself, once the final book in the series comes out later this fall, and some time has passed. Meanwhile, there is one aspect of the ring that early on received comments.
For those not familiar, the first chapter/short story in the novella, Infinite Realities, tells how Sisko gains the ring, which as the priest says, marries him to God much as Sampson’s hair created a vow between him and God. The ring Sisko gains in the mystical steam house enables him to be his “brother’s keeper” by helping others with his new abilities to heal and perform miracles. And like Sampson’s warning to never cut his hair, Sisko is told to never use the ring for his own benefit or it will become a curse instead of a blessing.
The words inscribed on the ring, which the priest reads, are the words of Christ, “It is more blessed to give, than to receive.” And as the story relates it, these words are inscribed in Hebrew on the ring. That’s why you see the Hebrew infinitive forms “to give” and “to receive” printed on the cover of Infinite Realities.
Early on when fellow writers critiqued that first story, someone mentioned the fact that Christ would have said those words in Aramaic or Greek, not likely Hebrew. And though it is entirely possible He could have said them originally in Hebrew, I agree, He probably used one of those two languages. Most likely Aramaic since that was the common tongue at that time in Israel. And I received that comment more than once from different people.
So, why did I use Hebrew? Did I have a reason? Oh yes! I did.
First, the practical consideration. Yes, it is unlikely Jesus used Hebrew when he said those words, and you won’t find them exactly like that in the Old Testament, so He wasn’t directly quoting Scripture. My response: and your point is…?
Think about the premise of the story here. Jesus isn’t talking, rather God inscribed those words on the ring for a reason. He could have used any language in the world. He might have used German, or Swahili. It could have been anything. Because Jesus originally said them in one particular language wouldn’t restrict God to use that one language, within the context of the story. So what language Jesus used initially has nothing to do with what language can be on that ring. Using a different one doesn’t violate any historical reality. And, need I remind you, this is after all, fiction.
“So, dear author,” I can hear you asking, “why did God use Hebrew to inscribe those words?”
Good question. Thanks for asking. In my mind, God chose Sisko to bear that ring. Hebrew is the language of God’s chosen people. By using Hebrew, it analogically and allegorically signifies that God chose Sisko to bear the ring and fulfill that mission.
Warning, a bit of a spoiler coming up on Transforming Realities, but I’ll be as general as I can to make the point.
Now, let’s take this a bit further. In my novel sequel, Transforming Realities, toward the end of the book one of the results for Sisko’s son being in the steam house is obtaining an ability, but it also causes him to be dependent upon his sister to both activate it and deactivate it. The first draft of that created some interesting reactions among those critiquing the story. Most didn’t like it because they felt it bound the poor lad against his will to the whims of his sister. I think nearly everyone who critiqued it didn’t like it.
I did a few things to lessen the negative affect on the reader, created a positive sense that Nathan liked this ability, and had a choice to accept it, though he couldn’t reject it without some consequences. And while that helped, I think the general consensus was an uneasy feeling that Kaylee had that much control over him.
But in the end, I left it that way, and it relates to the fact that God chose Sisko to wear the ring above. Because Sisko didn’t really have a choice either. God put the ring on him, and he couldn’t pull it off. God didn’t bother to stop and ask him if he wanted this mission. Yet this ring, as the priest said, married him to God’s will in this matter.
No one balked at that situation. Why? I think it’s because in Sisko’s case, he is bound to God. In Nathan’s case, he is bound to a human, his sister. And our reaction to that tends to run deep, especially in our individualistic society. We don’t want to be dependent upon anyone, and rugged individualism is most often seen as a good thing. To have someone be put under the control of another hits our image of independence right where it hurts. We would rather not be forced to deal with that.
Before someone accuses me otherwise, let me say I’m not excusing one’s responsibility to do for themselves what they can, and help out each other as often as we can. But the truth of the matter is that each of us is enslaved to another in one form or fashion, and according to the Bible, we are required to live out our lives by loving one another. And what is love but the total giving of ourselves for another person? Is it not enslaving ourselves to them? Is it not martyrdom of our lives to benefit another?
“But that’s a willing enslavement,” you might say. Hum, you think? Once you say “I do,” it’s supposed to be for life, and yet frequently isn’t. A boss tells you what to do and how to do it. You are forced to do so if you want to make enough money to live. You may not even do that out of love. And yet, all labor is a form of slavery. Some freer to come and go as they please, but you give hours of your life to benefit another so you can feed and put a roof over yourself and maybe a family. Circumstances put us at the mercy of others, whether it is cancer entrusting us to the wisdom of doctors, or an earthquake destroying all we have, and we are forced to seek out help to survive. We are even enslaved to our government, which most of us didn’t ask for, and required to pay taxes.
And do we need to go down through the pages of history and look at all the different forms of slavery? No, we cringe at the idea of another having authority over us. So much so that St. Paul’s words in Ephesians about wives and husbands still ruffles the feathers of many a church goer.
But the bottom line is that Christ said, “In as much as you do it to the least of these, you do it to Me.” And the least of these includes also the greatest of these, whether that is a rich boss, a overworked spouse, a screaming child, a beggar, or a dying friend. In as much as you show your love to these, you are enslaving yourself to Christ. I would even go so far as to say, that unless you are willing to be enslaved by another, you will fail to be a slave for Christ.
“But they might abuse me! Take advantage of me!” Yes, they might. Get out of destructive relationships if at all possible. Loving a person doesn’t mean enabling them to continue with behaviors that are destructive for their souls and those around them. Indeed, your enslavement to them demands you want what is best for them, which may be counter to what they say they want. But we are still called to love, to fulfill whatever the calling, ministry, or investment into each others lives that we are given the means and ability to do. For God has chosen it for us.
That’s why the inscription is written in Hebrew in my story. It’s because God chose Sisko. Sisko didn’t chose to bear the ring or become a miracle man. Just as Nathan didn’t chose to be bound to help his sister. But he did so out of love for her, and the “bond” turned from a “have to” to a “want to.” If we are not bound to another in some form or fashion, we don’t love Christ as we ought. And we would do well not to shy away from the mission God has given us, but embrace it with faith in our Master, even if that calling entails a human “master.”
Tags: allegory, Infinite Realities, ring, Sisko, Transforming Realities
Dean Wesley Smith was kind enough to point out a blog post by Joe Konrath titled, Piracy…Again. I encourage you to read it.
I wanted to state where I think Joe has it right, and well, maybe not so right.
First, where I do disagree is the issue of whether piracy of an ebook, digital music file, etc. is stealing or not. The bottom line is, of course it is. Plain and simple. Copyright means the author has the right to decide who can copy, that is, publish, his or her material. That right is given through a contract with the author granting those rights to a publisher. I’m the only one who can legally give permission for someone to make copies, i.e., publish, my material. Anyone who makes a copy of an ebook and delivers it to a third party for their use is publishing.
It matters not whether they are making money off of it. They are stealing my rights. I don’t think anyone can get past that point with honest integrety.
Now, the argument is that this is no different than if someone goes to the library and reads your book, or sells a used book to someone else. The author isn’t compensated for the exchange. Copyright law doesn’t deal in whether money is made in an exchange, it deals with who has the right to make copies of a work. Looking at a painting in a museum is not making a copy of that painting. Checking out a book in a library is not making a copy of a book. The author has already been compensated for that particular copy anyway (in most cases). Same for selling a used book.
Making a copy of an ebook without my express permission is a violation of the copyright law and is stealing my intellectual property. If a person gives away or sells that ebook and then deletes it off his or her hard drive, that’s akin to selling a used book. But to make a copy of a digital file is the same thing as if I went to the library and checked out someone’s book, scanned it, and then published it through a POD, or printed it on my printer and gave it to my mother to read. Whether I made money off of it or not, I would be stealing the author’s rights and work.
I say all that to say this: let’s drop this charade of trying to pretend this is not stealing. That argument is a dead-end street. It is all too clear that it is, and to claim it isn’t only makes your case weaker, not stronger.
What is all too true, however, is that fighting piracy is also a dead-end street. Let’s put it this way. For the author, what is going to make him more money? Writing and selling another book? Or paying a lawyer and spending the time hunting down and prosecuting ebook thieves? No brainer. The former. So bottom line, why waste your time?
This is highlighted by the fact that ebook piracy has little negative consequence for the author. Yes, that copy of your ebook out there represents someone getting a brand new, published copy of your book for zilch. So it is an illegal copy that you should have been paid for, or at least asked for. But nine times out of ten, that person wouldn’t have bought a copy of your book, ebook or paperback, ever. So what it does is spread your name around, people read your book who wouldn’t have. They find a new author they like, and they go buy your books on Amazon.
Word of mouth advertising is an author’s best friend. This is the best form of it, in that it is your mouth that is doing the talking. Authors like Cory Doctorow have shown that giving away free ebooks generally results in increased sales of paperbacks. So it’s not likely that the person getting an illegal copy of your ebook has lost you any money. Only in the rare case where someone wants your book, is about to buy it on Amazon when they stumble across a free ebook copy and forgo purchasing it. But what is more likely is (if you’ve written a good story), they will read it, enjoy it, and tell their friends about it, and they will go and purchase the book, or even many times that person will then purchase the hard copy so they can have it or buy it for gifts. In most cases, it is more likely that ebook piracy will benefit you financially than hurt you.
Case in point. When I bought a new computer a few years ago, it came with some default songs in the “My Music” folder. Not samples, but full songs. One song particularly made an impression not just on me, but on my whole family. It was “Older” by They Might Be Giants. I’d never heard of the group before that. But I quickly did a search, discovered they had done a ton of work since the 80s and still going strong. I purchased their “Flood” album from Amazon, and loved it. We’ve since purchased several more albums, and I have a slue of their music, most of it I’ve bought, some of it from songs they’ve given away for free. That one free mp3 song has made them a decent return not just on our own purchases, but anyone we’ve told them about and have done the same.
Financially it doesn’t make much sense to pursue prosecuting ebook piracy for the author. After all, think about it. Someone has stolen an ebook valued at $4.99-$9.99 and your going to spend how many dollars in lawyer fees making an example of this fella? And it won’t stop the rest. Why waste the money combating something that in many cases will benefit you financially? It’s like cutting off your foot because you can’t get rid of the wart on your toe.
So I agree with Joe’s basic point and premise. Don’t worry about ebook piracy. It in the long run, it is unlikely to hurt you, and for the author attempting to get his name out there, it is great marketing. Your time is better spent writing that next book so you can create a new revenue stream than spending money attacking your fans, as Cory Doctorow likes to point out.
But I do think it is stealing, and morally wrong. Let’s not attempt to justify it with arguments that avoid the point of copyright–who has the rights to make copies of something, and either sell them or give them away. The author by default has those rights, and can lease them to whoever. Anyone who makes a copy for a third party without the author’s approval is breaking the law, and stealing. Someone who sells a copy they have and they delete it from their hard drive isn’t breaking the law. Someone who checks out a book at a library isn’t breaking the law. Someone who hears it being read by someone who owns a copy isn’t breaking the law. But you do break the law when you copy an ebook, a digital song, or any copyrighted work, and then transfer that to someone else for their use.
That’s the law and you can’t get around it with rationalizations. And as you can see above, the argument about the pointlessness of trying to stop piracy can only be weakened by employing this line of reasoning, not strengthen it. There are enough reasons to warn authors to avoid that pitfall without trying to make an illegal activity “legal.”
What do you think? Am I off the mark?
My novella, Infinite Realities, is known for being allegorical. And yes, intentionally, it is. One reviewer mentioned how the allegory wasn’t all that hidden, was on the surface. And I made some of them that way on purpose. But there are levels here, not all of it is obvious.
The book has been out for nearly two and a half years now, and though I know there are a lot of people who haven’t read it yet, I thought it was time to dive into some of the allegory behind it. And to start off, I wanted to focus on the central building and room, the Steam House in Sisko’s home village–Reol.
This is an interesting one, in that it took on a life of its own. I had two thoughts in the back of my mind that it represented, but one of them really developed into its main theme even though it wasn’t a major thought at the time I created it.
Keep in mind, the idea for this story arose from a challenge at a critique group I frequent. A magazine was running a contest and the short story for it had to deal with the theme “hot” in some fashion. As I began rolling ideas through my brain, one jumped out at me in short order. The Last Judgment. In traditional Christian theology, the concept of hell wasn’t so much a place as a state of existence before God. This is clearly depicted through the Old Testament where God is depicted as fire, or a brilliant glory. You see this predominately in God’s leading the Israelites from Egypt, and especially in Moses experience of God, seeing his backside. For as God tells Moses, no man can see God’s face and live.
You also see this theme presented in the Psalms, one of the more overt is:
Jehovah reigneth; let the earth rejoice; Let the multitude of isles be glad. Clouds and darkness are round about him: Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, And burneth up his adversaries round about. His lightnings lightened the world: The earth saw, and trembled. The mountains melted like wax at the presence of Jehovah, At the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. The heavens declare his righteousness, And all the peoples have seen his glory.
(Psa 97:1-6 ASV)
And
Thou wilt make them as a fiery furnace in the time of thine anger: Jehovah will swallow them up in his wrath, And the fire shall devour them.
(Psa 21:9 ASV)
In Revelations it makes this link clear as well:
He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
(Rev 14:10 ASV)
And that the source of the “Lake of Fire” is before God’s throne:
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God.
(Rev 15:2 ASV)
Well, so much for the mini Bible study. Point being, those who haven’t been saved, haven’t been given the life of God through Jesus Christ, experience His presence as a literal hell, while those who have been, experience it as light and joy. It is that concept that I wanted to depict in this steam house. The allegory is in large part pointed or foreshadowing the Last Judgment, where every man and woman’s deeds will be revealed, where we will be tested “as through the fire” and our real character revealed.
It is in part why through the series, there is no magic or power that can stand up to the steam house’s, because it is analogous to the ultimate power, God Himself. It reveals God’s presence and the user of the steam house is either ready for it or isn’t. It reveals the hidden reality of each person’s life, in this story, characterized by what it changes one into, or for those whose hearts are in the right place, what it enables them to do for God, as in Sisko’s case.
But the steam house isn’t just that, because otherwise we would be talking about the end of the story instead of its beginning. And that is what the steam house really ends up representing. I had a hint of that initially in that I made the building octagonal. If one goes back into their Christian history, especially were it involves the construction of the baptisteries, they were usually created with eight sides. This was a representation of the eighth day.
What is the eighth day? Glad you asked. In Genesis 1, it states that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and He rested on the seventh, otherwise known as the Sabbath. Many have lost this connection because we tend to call Sunday the Sabbath, but in the early Church, it was not so. Saturday was still the Sabbath. When Christ descended into Hades, to free those held captive there by death, it is understood that He rested on the Sabbath as well, only to arise on the next day. This day of His resurrection was considered a new day of creation, the eighth day of creation, when Christ made all things new through His resurrection. He opened up the way into Paradise for those trapped in Hades.
Therefore, baptism was seen as this entry into the eighth day, our route into Paradise, where the person was created new, forgiven their sins, and made alive unto God. So when I created the steam house, I had the Last Judgment foremost in my mind, but I also had this connection with baptism in there. And that theme ended up becoming the dominate analogy of the steam house.
And the cool thing is, that an element of the Last Judgment is still in baptism. For we are dying to the Old Man, dross is burned away primarily because we are exposed to His life–His glory. And because it is through Christ, it saves us instead of destroys us.
So you see, when someone goes into the Steam House, they never come out unaffected. Even a demon. Especially a demon. And those so blessed by it, leave with a mission and the ability to perform that mission while those who aren’t ready to encounter God are forced to deal with who they really are.
What will happen when we encounter God’s unfiltered presence? And are you prepared to see the reality that lies within you when that happens?
Hell is not a place apart from God.
I know that may not be what many have been taught. Some may consider it a new concept that doesn’t match the Bible’s teachings. But if you’ll bear with me for a few paragraphs, I’ll show you how this ancient theological concept actually has abundant Biblical support.
But why am I throwing this out now? Quite simply, my Reality series has as its underlying theological foundation this fact. It is in fact God’s glory, His unfiltered, unhidden face-to-face contact that either puts one into a state of heaven or hell based upon the person’s relationship with Jesus Christ–their union with Him–so that His healing life can attune us to God’s glory and enable us to live in it.
First, we must state the nature of God to understand the rest. Hebrews 12:29 says it most directly: “…for our God is a consuming fire.”
We see evidence of that through the Bible. Deuteronomy 5:24-26:
and ye said, Behold, Jehovah our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of Jehovah our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
The same sentiment is listed in other passages like Deuteronomy 4:33, 18:6, and Psalms 50:3. The Old Testament also backs up what we find in Hebrews: Deuteronomy 4:24, “For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.” Moses experiences God as a fire around a bush that doesn’t consume it (Exodus 3:2). Fire is used to devour the sacrifices, the most dramatic example being Elijah’s duel with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:25).
In the New Testament, not only does Hebrews state this directly, Paul speaks of it when he talks about those who enter the next life in less than perfect shape:
(1 Corinthians 3:11-15) For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.
There are some key concepts in this passage. One, this fire is where the saved will be. This is God’s nature as an “all consuming fire.” It is coming into His presence which results in the dross of our lives being burned away. This is also stated in the Old Testament:
(Zechariah 13:9) And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, Jehovah is my God.
Two, it is taken as a given that those who don’t have Jesus Christ as their foundation will experience this fire, but it will not be unto salvation or refining, rather it will be the second death, Hell itself. To be saved from this devouring fire, the minimum requirement listed is to have Christ as the foundation of our life. Those who are saved are enabled to live in the fire by Christ.
The premier example of that is the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in Daniel 3. They refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, and as a result the king had the fire heated seven times hotter than usual and tossed the threesome into it as a punishment. What did the king see? He saw the three dancing in the fire, unharmed, and a fourth with them like the Son of Man. Theologians generally say this fourth is Jesus Christ with them. I have a scene similar to this in Transforming Realities. Indeed in each of the books of the Reality Series, you will find a place where the one wearing the ring goes through some type of fire and lives. This is a type of being able to live in the “all consuming fire” of God’s presence.
But those who are not ready for it by the union with Jesus Christ will experience a different reality. Psalms 68:2 says, “As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: As wax melteth before the fire, So let the wicked perish at the presence of God.” Again, we see that Hell becomes a reality not away from God’s presence, but by being fully exposed to it.
This is why in Revelation 6:15-16 it says, “And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.” They fear His presence even as Adam and Eve did the day they sinned, for they lost the clothing of God’s glory about them and could no longer bear God’s presence due to their nakedness. It is for this reason that no man can see the face of God and live, as God told Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 33:20).
But on the last day, the Day of Judgment, that will change. Then His glory will be fully revealed and it will result in dividing the sheep from the goats, that is, those who have Christ as their foundation (Matthew 25:31-32). The result of that event is those who have not been healed by union with Christ will be forced to see God face-to-face in all His glory, and it will result in their second death.
“Wait! Hold on,” I hear you saying. “Doesn’t it say in that parable that Christ tells the wicked to depart from him into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels?” Yes it does, Matthew 25:41. Keep in mind two things here. This is Christ talking to them, so he does have a resurrected bodily presence. So there is a sense in which they will depart from Him. However, that doesn’t mean they can depart from his fiery presence, for it is no longer hidden as it is now and fills creation. You see, when Adam and Eve fell, God allowed creation to fall with them so that they would not be immediately destroyed. Fallen creation acted as a buffer hiding the full presence of God from them. This is what it means that they were cast out of Paradise. But at the last day, creation will be redeemed and there will no longer be this life to hide from God presence. There will be no where for those without Christ to hide from His glory. Remember? There is no sun there because Christ’s glory will be so bright there is no need for one. They will depart from his bodily presence, but not from his “all consuming fire.”
In Revelation we see elements of this as well. John in describing what he saw around the throne says in Revelation 15:2, “And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God.” This is known as the “river of fire” proceeding from the throne of God. This is representative of the fire that divides the sheep from the goats, refining and sending the former into heaven and the later into Hell.
But someone may still say, “But what about Lazarus and the Rich Man story Jesus told? It made it sound like the rich man was in a separate place apart from Lazarus and Abraham.” And in this instance, yes they were in separate places. There’s obviously a gulf separating them, but apparently of a different nature than distance since they could still talk with each other and the rich man seemed to think it would be possible for Lazarus to bring him some water.
However, the rich man is not in Hell as in the eternal lake of fire we’ve been talking about. Yes, some translations like the KJV use the word “hell” to say where he is, but the Greek word used here (per Strongs) is,
hades, hah’-dace
Properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.
When the Scriptures mean the literal lake of fire and not Hades, it uses the word,
geenna, gheh’-en-nah
valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.
This is why you will find some translations that use “hell” in relation to where the rich man is, but also Hades for that is the literal rendering of the word used, not the lake of fire. And there is a sense that the saved, like Lazarus, go to Paradise to await the final Day of Judgment, while Hades is the holding place of those who face death. That Hades and Hell are two separate realities is clear from Revelation 20:14, “And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.” Hades itself is destroyed by Hell. In the Reality Series, especially the last book, this reality plays a key part in what happens.
But it is because some reading that book where this division is made more clearer, they will have questions about both Hades and Hell not being the same thing, and what Hell really is, that I wanted to post this now. When people have those questions, they will have this reference to the theological reality being presented in the books. I pray this adequately clarifies and helps explain some of what happens in all the books, and how it plays into the final ending of the series and the ring’s journey.
I’ve not done a lot of movie reviews, so take this for what it’s worth. But being a long time Star Trek fan, though not in as deep as some others, it brought some thoughts to my mind as I watched it tonight and thought about it afterwards. So, here it goes without revealing any major plot spoilers.
First, I’ll say for sheer fun, the movie delivers on several levels. My wife is not a big action movie fan, and the wrong kind of tension can make her not like a movie. For instance, she hated the Mr. Bean Movie because of the tension of what he would destroy next. She’s not into “gross” stuff, like the one instance where the bug is dropped into a Star Fleet officer to get info out of him, pointing back to the “Wrath of Khan” movie opening. But despite that one scene she didn’t care for, her rating of this movie is “excellent.” Anyone who isn’t a big Star Trek fan will enjoy this movie. It has the story, the character interaction, and even some genuinely funny moments without being stupid (well, okay, maybe one was a little on the stupid side, but it was played so well you really didn’t notice).
But what about ST fans? That was the biggest issue for fans of the old series. There are so many pot holes this movie could have fallen into taking on iconic figures like Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Could these actors really pull off making you believe they were these characters?
I’ll have to say a resounding yes. The main characters, while not dead duplicates of the originals, one really could believe they were the younger versions of the original cast. They even studied it appears, because you saw many characteristic traits of the original actors that really sold the suspension of disbelief. Even something as simple as the way Kirk leans over shouted, “Captain Kirk” at me. Not all was the same, for sure. And if there was one aspect that bothered me at all, it was Zachary Quinto’s Spock. He did a wonderful job of bringing the young Spock to life. But, and this isn’t a big thing, but it did hit me, the way his mouth is shaped makes it appear he’s about to break out into a smile at any moment. Just the slight upturned corners of his mouth, even in dead serious moments, that worked against him and deviated from the Spock character.
Luckily, his acting sold me despite that one issue. And I could probably point out a few other things, but overall they did an excellent job taking traits from the original cast and integrating them into these characters in such a way that you felt they really were younger versions of the originals, without simply copying them, and be able to generate that chemistry the original had. To me, that was probably the most difficult aspect of this movie they had to sell and do well if it was to get it right. And my score on them getting that right is 9 out of 10. Thank goodness.
The other aspect for Star Trek fans is simply whether it “fits” into the spirit of the original series and with what has gone before. They are able to do a prequel without doing a prequel. And without revealing too much spoiler, I’ll just say they’ve set this up where the future for more such movies or even another TV series with this crew won’t conflict with the older series.
But, keeping the spirit is still important even if you find a way to give yourself more plot freedom. One of my fears is that this would be another modern retooling of the Star Trek world into something more darker, dreerer, and depressing. While the trend nowdays appears to be for the gritter, darker, almost soap opera style shows, those don’t fit the Star Trek universe. Yes, you have an evil villian, the prospects look bleak, and Kirk manages to nearly escape death…even as a kid, several times. Yet, running through that is Kirk’s “never give up” attitude, his refusal to avoid a no-win situation even in the face of certain defeat. And somehow, he does come out on top. Who’da thunk it?
They succeed at creating the feel of the original series even while modernizing the movie experience itself. Even the humor fits to keep the movie from getting too heavy. You get a sense of the energy and unexpectedness of Kirk especially as you did in the original series. Maybe even more so. Simply put, it felt like the spark of the original series was there, it felt like a swashbuckling adventure. They get a 10 out of 10 on that score. Thank goodness.
One other aspect they have managed to maintain from not only the original series, but the francise as a whole, and that is plot holes. I do have to say, in some aspects, they make a more realistic film. Like, how a ship would go into warp from an objective observer is more realistic than how it is done in STNG. Space noises not being heard, for the most part, is another. But there were questions in my mind on some points (none of this gives away anything critical).
For instance, this drill the enemy uses to drill to the planet’s core…dangled from the ship in space? One, why would they want to dangle it down like that, just shoot it from the ship. Then your critical drilling platform isn’t exposed to anyone with a handy ray gun or armed ship.
And then, why didn’t Star Fleet send up ships to just shoot thing thing out of the sky, as exposed as it was? That would have been a simpler solution.
And then there is the black hole thing. Getting caught in one, and the stress of running the engines against the gravitational pull of one causes cracks to form in the ceiling, and yet…an explosion strong enough to break them from its pull causes nar a dent! Hum.
And why is Star Fleet so blind to the obvious? If ejecting the ship’s core can create such a huge explosion, why don’t they equip their photon torpedoes with those things instead? One direct hit would destroy the Borg and this enemy to. Boom! Game over. Yet in my memory, they’ve never decided to equip their weapons with warp-core explosives. Hum.
So, yes, it keeps the spirit of the series! And in a good way. What you have is fun for Trek fans and non-Trek fans alike. Strangely enough, this is like your daddy’s Star Trek, and yet, it’s so much more as well. For what it’s worth, it’s a must see movie for not only space opera fans, but anyone who likes engaging characters, a keep-you-on-your-toes plot, and great special effects. The new Star Trek movie delivers.
Travis Perry read my last post on is Sorcery and Magic Evil and had a valid comment which I wanted to expand upon. Here’s what he said:
I disagree with one basic point you make. A Biblical prophet is not really characterized as someone who prays for a miracle and gets it. Of course, this sort of thing DID happen for the prophets, sometimes. But far more often, a prophet is described as having “the word of the Lord” come upon him. Far more often, the prophet is called to preach to the people, make an announcement, or perform a symbolic act.
Prophets aren’t really about the miraculous, actually. A number of Bible prophets have zero miracles ascribed to them. All heard the word of the Lord (unless this itself is seen as a miracle).
Now if in Christian Fantasy we were to portray wizards in this way, as masters of the “Deep Magic” in that they are at it’s command, rather than the other way around, if we wrote wizards in alternate worlds who must do acts of good at certain times or make announcements at certain times, COMPELLED to do so by the power of obviously-symbolic- for-God’s- power-magic, then we’d have fictional wizards for all practical purposes the same as a Biblical prophet. (And I think such wizards would be interesting to read about.)
Thanks for posting, Travis. You do have a point there which I agree with. In that it isn’t a one-to-one correlation. At least, as you note, how wizards tend to be depicted. The main point I was making is that the source of the ability comes from the same place, whether we are talking about a wizard or a prophet. It just tends to be more overtly stated as such with the prophet for the reason you mention.
I think there are two levels here that are valid concerning a wizard who recognizes that their power comes from God, as opposed to the “evil” wizard who sees his power wrongly coming from another entity including possibly himself (or herself if we throw witches into it).
First, there is “magic” that would be no different than any other “talent” or energy that we might have and can control ourselves. Electricity would be one such example. It can be used for good or bad, and the one using it is either in God’s control which means they would tend to use it according to His will, whatever that might be. Otherwise they use it for themselves, their power, and use it for evil. It tends to be the kind most often portrayed in fantasy stories, like Harry Potter, but simply doesn’t exist in real life.
This is for those out there who think Harry Potter or others have some relation to the real-life occult: there is no such thing as a person born with the innate ability to harness a magical energy existing in the world. In the real world, there is no such magical energy like there is electricity by which someone born with the right genes (who doesn’t exist) could use it to create “magic.”
Such magic is a fantasy, and that’s why those stories are labeled as fantasy. Unless someone plays a trick, you will not find Harry Potter’s stories in the non-fiction-occult section of your bookstore or library. It’s in the fantasy section for a very good reason. Such wizards as are depicted in a story like Harry Potter simply cannot exist in the real world. One shouldn’t have to say that, but so many act like real-life occult is being communicated in those stories, and it is impossible.
The other kind of supernatural energy that could be depicted is more real world. That is, there is a spiritual world created by God as well that most of us never see. In it, evil spirits have some level of power and ability. So do angels. In either case, that all comes from God. But the corruption of God’s energy by demons and evil spirits is sometimes given to humans, and they can appear to do magic and miracles.
It is this corrupted power of God being used for evil purposes which is condemned in the Bible. It is this same power, but uncorrupted, that the prophets are given by God. And I agree, a wizard with this type of power, as opposed to or along side of the above traditional fantasy wizard/witch power, would be interesting.
Which is why I created the character Josh in my stories, Sisko’s friend who becomes a wizard. He has the standard fantasy type power mentioned first, but he also has another power that makes him the “most powerful wizard of all,” and that is God’s power working through him. And he can only use that power to bring people to repentance (or attempt to do so), not to destroy them.
You get a little taste of that in Transitional Realities that just came out. In the next book, already written and I’m currently editing, you get more of his history and how he became so all powerful and the “calling,” if you will, he receives as a result. Something to look forward to.
But yes, traditionally wizards are not often directly controlled by God as a prophet would be. My only point of comparison is where the power comes from is exactly the same in the end. But glad you pointed that out, Travis, and allowed me the chance to further delineate that.
There are those Christians out there in the vast Christian world who have it in for any Christian who write science fiction or fantasy, especially fantasy. One such example is the following:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/fantasy.htm.
The primary argument from folk like these is that since fantasy is describing events and beings that we know either don’t exist, or we’ve never met any, that such authors are lying and thus sin from the Bible’s point of view. As a matter of fact, if you look at the above site’s several arguments, they are all based upon this presupposition that fantasy is a lie.
But there is a problem. He says that “Since fantasy is not true, then it is a lie.” That’s a logical fallacy; the converse of a statement isn’t necessarily true. If I say all chickens have wings, the converse is not true: that all animals with wings are chickens. Same thing here.
Why? Well, think about it. What is the definition of a lie? If used as a noun, it is “A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.” If used as a verb, it is “Tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive.” Not all untruths are lies.
How can you pervert the truth when what you are writing about doesn’t exist? And inherent in the definition of telling a lie, is the intent to deceive. How can a fiction author be “lying,” that is, intending to deceive their audience by pretending that what they are writing about is real, when the label “fiction” clearly tells the reader what they are about to read is not reality?
If I come up to you and say, “I’m about to tell you something that isn’t true. Clouds are really cotton candy that escaped from someone’s hands.” Have I lied? No. I didn’t pretend that it was true, I told you straight up that it wouldn’t be. So you are not deceived.
The prohibition in Scripture to lying is specifically with the intent to deceive someone. When you pick up a book of fiction, especially fantasy, you would be greatly disappointed if what you found there wasn’t other-worldly and unreal. Because, that’s what the word “fantasy” means. People don’t read it–unless they have a really low IQ–thinking that this stuff really happened, or could.
So, to say that fantasy authors are lying, is…well, a lie. We warn you ahead of time that this is not real by putting the labels “fiction” and “fantasy” on them. There is no intent to deceive and doesn’t fall into the Biblical injunction of lying.
The other big argument is that it may draw people into accepting things like magic, Wiccan, black arts, and other sorts of evil. This is an argument used often against J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.
Here’s a question for you. How many people do you know that have converted to Wiccan or fallen away from Christ by reading her books? I bet few can point to specific individuals who actually did so (not just those kid quotes about wanting to become a witch—all taken from a site satirizing such things and thus wasn’t true—so if using it, you are promoting lies). I mean a person or group of people you can point to and say, “Mary there was a Christian until she read Harry Potter, and now she’s a Wiccan because of it.” I dare say we could count such individuals on one hand if we could find them.
Truth is, the Wiccan’s hated that series because they feel it is a distortion of everything they are about and promoting stereotypes they have sought to avoid. J. K. Rowling has done more to damage than help them.
Now, if you are a convert from Wiccan or something similar, I can understand not wanting to read something that could cause you to stumble if you are weak in that area–if you feel that just reading about a wizard, even a good one doing what is right, would cause you to dump Christianity and head back the Wiccans (which if that is the case, a fantasy novel is the least of your worries right now), then I suggest to stay away from fantasy! If you’re an alcoholic, don’t order that beer or stay away from bars.
But the vast majority of people know this is fantasy, know it isn’t real, and will not be influenced to dump their faith simply because they read a good story they liked.
I liked reading Lord of the Rings, but I never had the desire to go and search for Middle Earth or seek out Gandolf to learn how to cast spells. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that either. And I was still a Christian after reading it.
Guilt by association doesn’t work here either. Anyone that can do real magic, like the magicians in Pharaoh’s court that Moses ended up having a “magic” duel with, are “evil” in how they use God’s power, not the power itself to do supernatural things. Otherwise, you shouldn’t drive an automobile, because it is the reason why thousands of people each month are killed. It must then be evil and no one should associate with it!
Evil magic is evil because of how a person uses God’s creation and the attributing of it to something other than God in order to use it for selfish purposes. Otherwise, we would have to declare that all the miracles in the Bible are evil as well. What distinguishes them from evil “magic” isn’t the supernaturalness of the event, but in how that power is used.
For these reasons, the argument that “Christian” and “fantasy” can’t go together, is an “oxymoron,” is silly. The fallacy of such arguments as it being a lie and the idea of guilty by association shows clearly the faulty logic these arguments stand on.
Read fantasy responsibly.
Christmas–a word that draws various reactions. From one, the thought of presents under the tree. From another, a day off from work. For someone else, food, and lots of it! Still another, a day to enjoy family in a way that one doesn’t often get to do.
But there is a couple other reactions one can find as well. Some see the term as devisive, or too attached to Christ to really “represent” those who celebrate it as non-Christians. And to a degree, I can understand that. However, popular usage in the past hundred years or so has made the term more generic in meaning despite Christ’s name being attached to it. There are so many traditions, even some developed in the last hundred years, that neither originated with the Christian Church nor does it have any spiritual meaing other than that Christians have decided to attach to them.
You see that in popular Christmas songs, like I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas. Purely a secular song, nothing to do with Christ. Or the various Christmas shows that I watched as a kid and are still shown today, like Rudolf the Red Nosed Raindeer. Even the whole idea of some guy flying around the world in a red suit, squeesing down chimneys to deliver gifts has only vague connections to the real St. Nicholas of Myria.
I think it has primarily been in the last twenty to thirty years or so, that Christians have made the attempt to let everyone know that Christmas is Christmas because of Christ that the term has begun to stick in the craw of some folk enough to demand that “Happy Holidays” or some other more generic term be used, and no reference to Christmas is allowed. I’m certainly not against people using “Happy Holidays” if they wish, but I’m not too keen on institutions infrining on people’s first amendment rights to say “Merry Christmas” if they so wish as well. Religious tolerance demands that no government institution, including schools, should prohibit the free excercise of one’s religion. (Wording of the 1st Amendment.)
While certainly no such institution should force people to say “Merry Christmas” if it violates their religious sensitiblities to do so, neither should that prevent another from saying it if it validates theirs.
But as I contemplate the Nativity of Christ and prepare my heart and mind for its celebration, and the twelve days of Christmas that follow, I do turn to a more contemplative mood. For while there are many traditions that have arisen over the years around Christmas that have nothing to do with Christianity or the Church–and those are not all bad neither–it is true that the foundation of what Christmas is about is the gift God gave man on that day many years ago.
God did an amazing thing. He became man and began the journey to obtaining our salvation from death, hell, and the grave. Whether any particular person believes that or not, it is still the ultimate gift given to them by a loving God, interested in not just making pronouncments and judgments from afar, but being with us and one of us, so that he could redeem us.
He gave us the ultimate gift and it sits under the tree of every household in the world. Even if you don’t have a tree or celebrate Christmas, it is there. The real question is, will you take a day off from your work, relax a bit, and pull that present from under tree and open it?
Believe or not, it is there and He waits. If you open it, you will have one outstanding Christmas.
Celebrate His Nativity!
0