L.B. Graham — author of the series "The Binding Of The Blade"

Well, I'd hoped to finish the new chapter I started last week on Saturday, but I didn't quite get there. I did finish today, though, so I was almost on target.

The main reason I didn't get there on Saturday was that I discovered as I edited one of the key scenes in the chapter a logical blunder that couldn't be fixed without deleting a chunk of the scene and starting over. It was frustrating and annoying, but this kind of thing sometimes happens. Of course, it is better to catch and address these things early on, at the draft stage, then to have an editor point them out later - or worse, a reader, should such things slip past everyone and make it into the book!

It's not necessary for every reader to believe or 'buy' the rationale for every character's choices and actions, but it is best if those rationales are at least defensible. That 'this person might well act this way even if I wouldn't' is something you hope every reader can agree with on some level. I think the scene I was working on, as rewritten, now carries at least plausibility, which I think it lacked before.

I now have a prologue and 21 chapters of my draft. According to my outline, I have about 20 more chapters to go. You can see from the 'progress bar' on the top right of this page that I've passed the midway point in terms of the number of words/pages I expect to write, so the second half is officially underway. A pace of a chapter a week can have me finished by June. We'll see how that goes...

I promised I'd be more faithful at blogging this year, so here's an update on my post from last week.

I haven't written anything.

But wait, that doesn't mean it's been a useless week. Quite the contrary, I'd say it has been a very good week. While I didn't start a new chapter (and thus, the second half of the book), I did work on a chapter by chapter outline of the rest of the story, and I came up with a few twists that I like and addressed a few structural questions that had been lingering in my mind. So, all in all, I feel pretty good about the week.

Now I know this has been discussed on my site and elsewhere - for those who followed the '08 Fantasy Fiction Tour, you might know it was the subject of some debate - but I'm a fan of structure. With BOTB, I had a chapter by chapter outline to guide me from the outset, even though it changed over the course of the series. For the book I'm working on now, I didn't make a chapter by chapter outline before I began. I launched out with a strong grasp of the central premise and a basic overview of the story as a whole.

I'd say it worked OK, though I might have moved faster in the actual writing if I'd had a clearer idea of where exactly I was going. As I look to finish the book though, I wanted to lay out the rest so I could think through pacing issues and know just where I was going. I feel pretty good about it, and I look forward to getting down to it in February.

First of all, my apologies to the handful of folks who still faithfully check my blog. I was pretty negligent about updating it during '09, and while I didn't exactly make a New Year's resolution to be better at it in 2010, I will try to be.

Secondly, I wanted to update my writing status. After posting just over two years ago in this blog that I'd started a new fantasy book, I wrote about a quarter that novel in fits and starts before putting it away for various reasons. This past September or so, I went back to work on it. By December I was halfway through, and so this January I decided to work back through it from the beginning, mostly editing for continuity since different sections had been written so far apart.

I finished that today, so this week I plan to begin the second half. I'm excited about the prospect, and I hope to be finished by June. "By June" might come to be "sometime in June," but I definitely want to have a finished draft of the whole novel by July 1.

I'm posting this tidbit here, because I want those faithful few who still drop by to keep me honest. I've set up the little 'bar graph' thingy on the side of this page to record my relative progress, and I want to post every week or so about how things are going. If you don't see movement on the bar or new posts, pester me until I either post a new update or feel guilty about having nothing to post and get back to work.

Thanks again to those who've read BOTB and have waited patiently to see more from me. Let's all hope I'll have a finished book and a new contract by the close of 2010.

Speaking of C.S. Lewis (see previous post), for the next two and a half weeks, fans of BOTB will have a chance to vote for All My Holy Mountain to win the Clive Staples Award, which is a new award that some folks are trying to launch to support Christian Speculative Fiction. If you're interesting in voting - even if you won't vote for AMHM - then follow the link here. Voting will close on November 30th, so go now if you're interested.

Let me take this chance to again thank my many fans for supporting BOTB, and to encourage you that work on a new fantasy novel is proceeding, even if not always as quickly as I'd like. I'm a little over 61,000 words in, which is probably almost halfway, so if things go quickly, we could be ready to shop the book in late spring or summer 2010.

"God likes matter. He invented it."

C.S. Lewis

I think Jack was right. God does like matter. So should we. The beauty of creation is testimony to the loving care God took to shape & form it.

However, I don't think God likes how we obsess over it. How we grovel and fawn over it, and generally act as though the entirety of our being were to obtain and increase our share of it.

That's a problem. We should consider stopping that part.

Well, I've finally bowed the knee to modernity and reactivated my short-lived Facebook account that I first opened a few years back. I eventually deactivated it because I didn't really use it very much and at the time, didn't think I ever would.

So why bring it back? The main reason is that after a brief hiatus, I'm back at work at a new fantasy novel, (introduced briefly in my "A New Start" post), and since the working plan right now is to complete the book before looking to sell it, I realize that it could be a while before I have contract news to announce & even longer before I have a new book for my fans to enjoy.

That's where Facebook comes in. I'm hoping that those of you who have loyally and graciously supported and encouraged me over the years with The Binding of the Blade will stay with me, waiting patiently for a new series to sink your teeth into. I know that I may not use Facebook much, but you do, so I'd like be available in that world for those of you who want to stay in touch.

So, if you're a BOTB fan, look me up on Facebook and follow me there as well as here...

I said in my 8/20 post that I'd come back to my discussion of Christians and the way they deal with the subject of evolution. My point here is in one sense, very simple - whenever we debate with anyone, a crucial step in the process is always to define your terms. As Mark Twain said, the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. Using words and terms carelessly in debates, not only make us look ignorant on that particular topic, but it can damage our credibility in other things as well.

Here's the kind of thing I hear Christians say, a lot, about evolution. "Evolution is a lie. There's no evidence for it." (I could give more examples, but let's keep it simple.)

Well, I've laid my cards (or in this case, card) on the table, that terms need defining, and since the only term that seems at all like it might be challenging to define here is 'evolution,' you've rightly guessed that this is where we're headed. What's tricky here, is the ambiguity of the word 'evolution," even if you didn't think it was ambiguous.

Evolution gets thrown around in both informal and formal debate in at least three different ways. On the one hand, the term evolution is often used to describe the process we might more precisely call 'microevolution,' the notion that a species can adapt in small ways to its environment, so that a new species or subspecies or whichever word you prefer, is the end result. When we talk about microevolution, we're talking about Darwin's famous finch beaks.

In short, microevolution is illustrated by the idea that a finch's beak could adapt to the lack of rain in its environment by getting bigger or stronger or harder or whatever - within limits - and that over time a new kind of finch might emerge with a different kind of beak.

Evolution is also used, secondly, to describe what we might more precisely call macroevolution, which suggests that given sufficient smaller changes over a long enough period of time, like that described above, the finch might do more than merely adapt to environmental changes, it might transform into a different kind of animal altogether.

Finally, many use the word evolution, not to describe either of these processes, but as a synonym for the philosophy of naturalism, which argues that nature is all there is, that God does not exist, and that the world as we know it is the product of chance & natural processes + time.

So here's my point. When Christians say, "Evolution is a lie, There's no evidence for it," I would say that depends on what you mean by "evolution." After all, I believe there is evidence for microevolution, that animals can adapt in small ways to changes in their environment, and frankly, I have no wish to deny it. I think Christians look ignorant when they do, and I can see no gain for my faith in trying to hold that line.

On the other hand, the philosophy of naturalism is one I plainly disagree with, and I would assert that naturalism is a faith position, every bit as much as Christianity is. If by evolution someone is referring to this philosophical concept, then they need to make it clear that it isn't really the theory itself but the philosophy that informs many of the theory's adherents that they're talking about.

As for macroevolution, well, that gets a little trickier. There are believers out there who do think that macroevlution is possible, but I will admit that I'm not one of them. Nancy Pearcey, in her book, Total Truth, does a good job summarizing some arguments against macroevolution, but to keep this short, I'll just take one of her lines. Microevolution seems to explain the adaptations animals make to survive and remain what they already are - ie, the changes in a finch's beak when the rains go away seem to happen in order that the finch might be able to survive and remain a finch. It doesn't appear to be part of a master plan to become some new kind of creature entirely.

Whether or not you agree with that, isn't really the point here. The point is that I want to be clear what it is that I'm actually saying when I say it. I would encourage you when you weigh in on debates like this, to do the same. Of course, there's more that could be said here - like the fact that to do this we need to know a bit about what we're talking about, and that the manner in which we speak is also important, not just what we're saying - but for now, hopefully this is enough to chew on.

Authors Wayne Batson and Christopher Hopper - two of the other seven authors that I had the privilege of touring the West Coast with last October - have a great contest going on to promote their new book, Curse of the Spider King. Follow this link and check it out!

http://enterthedoorwithin.blogspot.com/2009/09/biggest-contest-in-history-of-men-and.html

This is just a quick post to direct those who are interested to my interview at "Where the Map Ends." You can follow the link that is in my sidebar to the site and then click on the "Interviews" heading, or you can just click here. Enjoy!

This past summer, I spent a morning at the St. Louis Zoo with my daughter. We were having a lovely morning, walking up toward the area of the Zoo set aside for the "Big Cats," when we came across a peacock in full strut mode, his beautiful plumage on display for all to see. A little later we came across him again, still showing off, wandering down a narrow path where his impressive spread made getting past him a little difficult. It was beautiful to see.

Since that morning, I've been thinking a lot about that peacock and Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. I want to share some of those thoughts here, but I figure I should show my hand up front - while I'm definitely in the intelligent design camp, I get frustrated with how a lot of Christians discuss the theory of evolution. Consequently, I'm going to spend some time in a future post explaining my basic thoughts on the matter. For now, though, I want to express in a less systematic way my musings on what a peacock might tell us about the nature of the universe.

OK, so we all know that natural selection is the idea that adaptations which increase the survival value of a species are more likely to be passed along, as the animals that have them are more likely to survive & reproduce, thus tending over time to change the nature of a specific animal species' population. At face value, that concept is at least logical, whether or not one believes it to be true.

When we think of adaptations that increase survival value, we normally think of changes that might make certain animals stronger or faster or better able to avoid their natural predators and the like. Consequently, when we think of a peacock, it may be hard to imagine in what conceivable situation such an excessively ornate plumage would be helpful.

The answer - I think - from the perspective of a proponent of the notion of natural selection, would be that the plumage has survival value in that it increases the attractiveness of the peacock, thus making those with larger and presumably more appealing displays of color and beauty more likely to find a peacock mate and procreate.

Again, at face value, the idea has some merit & makes a certain amount of sense. To me though, this exposes one of my frustrations with the theory. When something like an excessively ornate plumage is explained as "useful" to the bird in that it makes it more attractive, no one seems to stop and consider how decidedly unhelpful such a thing would be in other situations, or how much of a disadvantage it might be for the bird's survival when it's life is at stake.

Here's what I mean, and I'm going to overstate my case to make sure that my point is clear.

I think I'm supposed to believe that peacocks were once a much more drab and dreary creature, like some kind of pheasant, maybe. Then, when some lucky little guy was born with a pretty feather or two, the ladies flocked to him and eventually there were lots of little guys out there with some pretty feathers. Over more time, peacocks with several feathers outnumbered those with only a few, and so on and so forth, until we reached our current situation where peacocks come equipped with truly magnificent spreads.

But, when I stop and think about this, it really doesn't make sense. First, the more ornate the birds got, the more attention they'd attract. It is hard to conceive how these increasingly large displays of color don't also alert predators to the birds presence, thus making them bigger targets. Second, the more weight these guys are carrying, the slower they'd move - presumably, making them less likely to escape the predators they've now attracted.

In short, it seems strange that we would consider the development of these feathers and the complications that came with them as an advance for the birds. Not only do they make the peacock more vulnerable, they are actually a form of reproductive regression. The birds used to be able to procreate without fancy plumage, apparently, but now they need all this extra stuff to attract another bird's interest. That seems like a step back. All those "plainer" animals out there who happily reproduce with other "plain" animals seem to have a leg up on the peacocks who need such a fancy 'get-up' to successfully mate.

So here's the thing. I don't really buy it. It strikes me that Darwin's own theory doesn't really support peacocks developing in this way. The lesser advantage of "beauty" should have taken a back seat to the greater advantage of "speed" or "ability to blend in" so that peacocks were increasingly more durable or better equipped or whatever, rather than less. But it doesn't seemed to have gone that way.

It seems to me that this and many other examples of variety and striking beauty in nature that doesn't seem at all to be functionally advantageous is a problem for strict application of the law of natural selection, nor do I see how revised versions of the idea like punctuated equilibrium help. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Next time, I'll spend some time on what bugs me about the manner in which too many Christians attack evolutionary theory and concepts, but this is enough for now.