The Good, the Bad, and the Faux Deep

The Big News in publishing today is that they've refined the Google Book Settlement. (If you're unaware, Google is going to digitize nearly every out-of-print book and make it available for sale -- that's huge news to anyone involved in the publishing industry.) They still plan on setting up a Book Rights Registry to make sure some of the money goes to the rights holder of those oop books, but they couldn't get all those pesky foreign governments to work with them (the nerve!). So now the settlement will basically be limited to books published in English -- that is, books from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. So the pool of books, while still huge, has been limited considerably. The other big changes include: an oversight board to look out for orphaned books (where it's not clear who the owner is), a reworking of the financials, and a clause that allows someone other than Google to control the whole mess. Is this done yet? Not sure... but it certainly looks like we're moving toward some sort of digital book registry, so that every book ever published in the English language will be available to you in a digital format. And yes, I still think this is a good thing, if you consider the big picture.

Over in the world of Christian publishing, novelist Ted Dekker made a big splash, showing incredibly poor judgment in deciding to slam the biggest segment of publishing, apparently because it doesn't make him happy. He took aim at Christian romance publishers in general, and Harlequin's Love Inspired in particular, poking fun at their rules and offering a big list of words they can't use. (You can read the whole diatribe at http://www.teddekker.com/2009/11/07/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/ ). He then turned it into a crusade, suggesting all right-thinking religious writers "call out" the terrible issue of...um, not being able to use the word "hooters" in fiction, I guess. 

Um... Ted. These are novels. The readers buying these books want clean, safe, romantic titles. They won't be buying YOUR books, which are none of the above. Instead, they'll look for a good story, with no bad words or obvious sexual sidelines. What's wrong with that? When did we decide banning certain books was a good idea? And there are a LOT of these readers -- something we can safely state, since in a terrible publishing year, Harlequin actually GREW. In fact, they posted the biggest gains of any publisher over the past twelve months. So maybe they're on to something. If that list of words they don't want you to use (which, taken out of context, is admittedly pretty funny) gets you all hot and bothered, don't buy them. Buy something else -- a Stephen King novel, maybe. Or something racier, if that's what gets your motor running. But your argument suggests that there are good Christian novels (the ones you like) and bad Christian novels (the ones romance readers like), and that we apparently need to stand up and demand... what? That they stop doing the books you don't like?

This is a straw man argument. It's easy for speculative readers to attack romance novels, just as it's easy for academic writers to attack the writers of popular reference. You start shouting, claim the other side is stupid, and give evidence of a couple dopey things they've done. In Ted's case, he wrapped it all up in a veneer of spirituality, asking the "What Would Jesus Do" question. It's what is called a "deep vs shallow" argument, and it goes like this: "What I write is deep... what you write is shallow."

My response: Bull. (And yes, I'd have used a stronger word, but I don't want to lose all those romance readers.) Ted's novels aren't deep -- they're chases and thrillers that tell a good story and, occasionally, offer a spiritual thread. But they're very dark (and, frankly, getting darker all the time). None of them cause you to think deeply about your faith, nor do I know anyone who has come to a deeper walk with God because of reading them. (I suppose it could have happened, but I don't know of anyone who would make that claim.) Different readers want different types of stories. If some people are offended by certain words or situations, isn't it legitimate to write a book for them? In my view, a writer can create a "real" book without using words that might offend a select audience. In fact, we do it ALL THE TIME. Ted's books don't have the F word -- why? Because it would turn off his readership, to say nothing of the retailers. So this is just an argument of degree. I guess, if you read Ted's post, this means I'm voting "A" -- that I call him out for a biased, shallow argument, and tell him the only thing I'm appalled at is his arrogance. 

On a happier note, check out  http://www.ajc.com/news/blogger-raises-30k-in-193483.html . 

Jon Acuff, the genius behind the popular Stuff Christians Like website, told his readers he'd like to help the Samaritan's Purse organization raise $30,000 to build an orphanage in Vietnam. (This came about because Jon's six-year-old daughter read a story about starving children in that country and she wanted to help.) So Jon challenged his readers to make a donation -- and something that would have taken the organization months to accomplish was done in 18 hours. That's right -- he raised $30,000 in 18 hours, just by asking his friends on his website. In fact, the money came in so fast that Jon decided to try and double it -- and raised $60,000 so Samaritan's Purse could build TWO orphanages. Shows you something about the power of the internet to build a community of like-minded people, doesn't it? Amazing stuff. Check out Jon's website at www.stuffchristianslike.net .

 And, by the way, Jon's book, Stuff Christians Like, comes out with Zondervan next March. 

Comments

[Betsy St. Amant]

Thank you, Chip. As a Love Inspired author, I appreciate your defense.

[Mae Nunn]

Thank you so much, Chip! You've eloquently and professionally expressed the feelings of the Love Inspired authors and readers who found Ted's hissy fit offensive.

[Hillary Lodge]

Incredible arrogance. But he also has a wife and two young daughters. In all likelihood, his home will become increasingly full of romance novels in the years to come...

[AimeeLS]

I read Dekker's rant. I wonder exactly what kind of 'truth' he is pitching for - and what kind of truth he believes Christ offered.

There's a huge difference between loving the 'unclean' people and loving their activities.

That said, I write (and read) material that doesn't fit those guidelines.

I was challenged about this very issue by my aunt. She read an early pass at my ms which included a couple of words on that list. Her comments were disappointed and the question she posed was "Is it necessary?".

When I read the stuff, the answer was no. It added impact. But in TRUTH that impact could be gained in other ways by more effective writing.

I agree with Dekker that there is room in Christ's freedom for writing that is less conservative than this. I don't believe those works are (necessarily) sinful - though perhaps the line is thinner than we'd like to think.

But there's a risk in comparing Jesus' reactions and words to our own. He had insight we didn't. He understood the 'vipers' around Him in ways we can't. He also wasn't given to the sinful flaws and desires we are.

And I suspect he never used the word "Hooters" either...

[Cecelia Dowdy]

Thanks so much for "putting Ted in his place, Chip." Although I do respect Ted as an author, and have enjoyed a few of his novels, he did annoy me with his post, although he did attempt to explain himself when he saw the uproar he'd caused!

[Ellen Gee]

Um let me see, how many classic novels adhere to many of those guidelines?

My problem with the Ted Dekker theory is authors, film makers, and musicians who feel the need to put 'realism' in everything they produce. Just because I use the toilet every day doesn't mean I want to see it in a film or read about it in a book. Too often 'realism' is introduced, not to enhance content, but to make the author appear edgy. If an author can write a great story inside those guidelines, then they truly are a gifted writer.

[Barbara Phinney]

Thank you, Chip. I appreciate you speaking out to Ted on this matter. You make far more sense than he did.
Barbara Phinney
Love Inspired Author

[Shirlee]

I've been on the wrong side of the shallow vs. deep argument one too many times to be bothered by Ted Dekker's rant. I enjoy writing what I write. Plenty of people enjoy reading what I write. What's the sense in getting defensive about it?

It is, however, very nice to read a blog that doesn't take a condescending tone toward romance writers.

Thanks, Chip.

[Hillary Lodge]

I had another thought on the subject. The guidelines are for Steeple Hill, which is an imprint of Harlequin.

So, Harlequin in an of itself has a reputation for being (not undeservedly so, see http://tiny.cc/megc) smutty romance fiction.

I remember when they first released the imprint that they were having a hard time finding a footing because of the Harlequin link - hence courting popular CBA writers.

My thought is that BECAUSE of the Harlequin link, the Steeple Hill books are that much more conservative, so no one has the opportunity to say, "That's wrong, that's inappropriate, that's offensive, and it's because they're put out by Harlequin."

Mainstream CBA houses, though, are not as conservative in their fiction lines, and don't need to be because they've got a proven track record with conservative readers.

So Steeple Hill avoiding mentions of unmentionables is not unlike an alcoholic avoiding a wine tasting. They have their own reasons, and that's okay.

[Ruth Logan Herne]

Chip, thanks for the post. Nice spin.

And because years back I was guilty of talking out of my hat like a certain full-of-himself young author, I can see both sides.

I was wrong then.

He's wrong now.

And now... With no irony and just a wonderful twist of perfect timing...

I'm a thrice-contracted Steeple Hill/Love Inspired author and can't wait to release my debut novel with them.

We're never too old to learn to think first, talk later.

Ruthy

[Laura Droege]

Interesting post, interesting comments. I have to admit that I giggled when I read the list of "forbidden" words, but I can see why some readers would object to them. If particular content/words bother certain readers, then there ought to be publishers who publish books aimed for those people. If it goes against someone's conscience to read certain words or novels with objectionable content, then I think we need to respect that; I would not want to be held responsible by God for unnecessarily causing my brother or sister in Christ to go against their personal convictions (even if I don't hold to those same convictions).

My writing isn't "clean", and I'm realistic enough to know that a Christian publisher won't touch my novel in spite of the explicitly Christian themes and worldview. But honestly, I cannot adhere to most CBA guidelines regarding sexual content (at least as I understand the guidelines and parameters). Some of the content is explicit--a rape scene (graphic but not gratuitous), and some frank discussion about sexual disfunction between a husband and wife--and it is a vital part of the work. (The novel involves a young bipolar woman who engages in risky sexual behavior during manic episodes.)

I have to be realistic, not to be edgy or provocative, but because removing the more graphic material simply wouldn't work in this particular situation. It would be very strange to be in this character's head (while she's psychotic) and then, suddenly, remove the reader from the scene during the rape, then drop the reader back into story during the immediate aftermath of the rape. I really don't think that would be good storytelling.

I've tried to be responsible in how explicit I am in these situations. Readers in my online critique group think I've managed this; no one has walked away thinking I'm condoning sex outside of marriage. Readers have also commented on the strong Christian message and the element of hope even in the midst of tragedy.

My writing isn't for everyone, obviously. Some people should actively avoid it. (Hillary's comment regarding the alcoholic avoiding a wine tasting is excellent.) I'm not offended. In fact, I'm thankful that there are writers and publishers who aim for people who need ultra-clean work. I can't fault them for that.

I'm also thankful for the people who jumped in to give money to Samaritan's Purse, and for Jon for using his platform/blog to raise the money. That is awesome.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599142333]

Thanks, Chip, for your intelligent response to an arrogant diatribe posted elsewhere on the Internet about the Christian fiction published by Steeple Hill. Bless you!

I'm no expert on the matter, but I'd guess SH is doing so well because they've tried hard to reach readers who love suspense, adventure, romance, while trying to avoid offending the sensibilities of those from a wide variety of faith backgrounds. And what is wrong with reaching the widest possible audience with a clean read and an uplifting message? If working to find a different word means that readers will read my books and come back for more, it's sure worth it to me! Though frankly, I've never seen a list of forbidden words and I'm now working on my eighth SH novel.

Just my two cents!

[Linda Hall]

Thank you so much, Chip, for writing this! I really appreciate your words. I am a Love Inspired author and was really hurt by his words of ridicule.

[Mary Connealy]

I find more freedom in the rules and regs of Christian Publishing than I do in secular publishing because in secular publishing they come very close to REQUIRING a certain amount of graphic sex and profane language.

Yes, if you're a big shot you can skip that. Debbie Macomber comes to mind. She writes terrific books that would offend no one for a secular publisher. But try breaking IN at an ABA publisher, especially in romance, without sexual content. Forget it.

So to find CBA was the answer to my prayers. And finally I was given the freedom to get a book published without the profanity and sleaze that I refused to write.

ABA is the one with foolish restrictions.

Bottom line, Ted's got a book coming out and he's trying to crank up the PR machine.

[Thom]

I'm no Ted Dekker fan but I'm shocked to find you defending the indefensible. As a Christian author I expect more from an agent. I've been reading your blog a long time but this post is such a compromise of your integrity that it calls everything you say and do professionally into question. I'm actually removing your site from my bookmarks. I'm deeply disappointed.

[LNwrite2@aol.com]

Thank you, Chip!

Lenora Worth :)

[Brian T. Carroll]

I don't mind realism, but I just finished an MFA at a secular university and there were required books I had to fling across the room because individual sentences with six or eight instances of vocabulary SH couldn't even soil their list with. Some of this vocabulary may have impact when it is appropriately used, but the race to be edgier forces such over-use that it looses all impact (see the current lineup of TV programs). I've decided my very Christian WIP isn't likely to land in CBA, partly for some occasional vocabulary, but if Ted has identified a problem in today's Christianity, it probably ranks 10,001th in the top 10,000.

[Carol L Daubenmire]

Thom, please define " the indefensible." Also, could you explain what Chip said specifically to "compromise" his integrity? I am confused.

[Mike Dellosso]

Chip, I'm not a Love Inspired reader or writer but I thank you for your post. I read Ted's post a few days ago and was very bothered by it. But . . . I fear all this attention it's gotten is exactly what Ted wants and doesn't need--more publicity.

Thanks anyway for your defense of Love Inspired!

[Gina Holmes]

I think Ted's heart is in the right place though his reaction perhaps a little knee-jerkish and judgmental.

I Corinthians 8 comes to mind.

Within the CBA, there seems to be two very different groups. The edgy folks, and the ultra-conservative folks and both are needed I think, iron sharpening iron, to keep a healthy balance, and to write to the audience whose language only they speak.

It would have been different if Love Inspired or their authors were calling out Thomas Nelson and other publishers for NOT adhering to their list.

[Tamara]

Obviously, Ted Dekker has never read a Christian romance. It takes far greater skill to write by guidelines. And "real" issues? You'll find them in Christian romance. It's not so much about "ugliness" if that is how he defines "real". It's about what we want infiltrating our little brains.

[Bonnie Grove]

This is on Ted's Facebook page this morning:

"My heart is broken for all the Steeple Hill writers I saddened--my words may have undermined them along with the guidelines I was writing about. Yikes! No! Their stories have touched millions and those puritanical guidelines are not their doing. Now I want to give them all a hug and beg their forgiveness! It takes a lot of courage to write a novel. The guidelines we can question; the writers we will all love, yes?"

He also Twittered it.

Sharing thoughts online is always difficult - and even in blog posts no one can express the fullness of their thoughts, intentions, and meaning.

I sometimes wish we could all have coffee together and chat about stuff like this. I bet we'd all have a great time and would end up appreciating each other in a deeper way. And we'd have fun!

[Chip responds]

Thanks for that update, Bonnie. Patti and I were taking a day off (to go watch my Ducks beat Arizona State!), and I didn't see Ted's update. That's a very nice gesture on his part.

As for Thom, I have no idea what you're talking about. What "indefensible" thing am I defending -- freedom of speech?

[PatriciaW]

The truth is all of the Christian publishers have some sort of similar guidelines, more or less. SH is just more specific--and public--about theirs.

I'm so tired of Christian fiction authors judging other Christian fiction authors. Whatever happened to the body having many members, and needing all of them to function to the glory of God?

[AimeeLS]

Amen to that! (Patricia)