Storming the Moral High Ground – L. Jagi Lamplighter

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Storming the Moral High Ground – L. Jagi Lamplighter

 

“Why can’t we have more stories that don’t involve poop?

 

“You know, good stories? No anti-heroes. No dour nihilism. No descriptions of gross stuff for no particular reason except to produce a mood we didn’t want to read anyway. Just…action, adventure, heroism, even perhaps a few…I realize this is going way out on a limb and no one else wants to read this but me but…good Christians, or something really outrageous like that.

 

“But not pious stories mind you. I’ve never found those entertaining. No stories where good guys are squeaky clean, and only very, very obviously evil people who cackle and have warts are allowed to use magic.

 

“Why can’t we have good stories and good messages. The dreary, depressed literary crowd have held the moral high ground for far too long, I think some people have forgotten that good stories can get there, too.”

 

“So you want good stories? Heroism? Christian values? What we need is a literary movement.”

 

There was a pause in the moving car.

 

“Why don’t we start one. Let’s storm the moral high ground!”

 

This conversation happened a bit over a year ago. Well, all right, it didn’t really happen quite like this, but this is the spirit of what occurred.

 

John and I were driving home from Balticon 2013. We had just had a great time at the convention and were fired up with new ideas for stories. And we talked for a long time about the state of stories today. What we liked. What we missed.
Both of us were impressed with a story a friend had invented that was clearly heroic and Christian but had not even the slightest whiff of Sunday Morning piousness about it.

We wanted to write stuff like that.

 

“If we are going to have a literary movement,” John stated. “It needs a name. All the best ones have names. We could call it the Space Princess Movement…but that already exists and had to do with Space Princesses.”

 

“Nah, that won’t work,” I said.

 

So we discussed names for some time.

 

“What about the Superversive Movement?” asked John.

 

“You mean like Superversive on LiveJournal? That gentleman who writes those excellent essays?” I asked. “What does it mean?”

 

“You know how subversive means to change something by undermining from below? Superversive is change by inspiration from above.”

 

“Perfect! When we get home, let’s invite Dan Lawlis*. We know he’ll be onboard.”

 

*Dan Lawlis—my cover artist and the author of a Christian allegorical comic called Orange Peel 3.

 

And so, the Superversive Literary Movement was born.

 

It took over a year, but as of next week, the Superversive Literary Movement will have its own web post. Once a week, on my website and Glipho account.

 

Our opening post will be, God willing, an essay by Tom Simon, Mr. Superversive (from LJ) himself, on the nature of what Superversive means.

 

After that, the sky’s the limit.

Come on by and see what we’re up to!

 

(And let me know if you’d like to participate!)
We’ll be the ones storming the castle.

 

 

 

135 thoughts on “Storming the Moral High Ground – L. Jagi Lamplighter”

  1. We can have SUPERversive but we have to learn to market our books as well as a dystopian or romance novelist. We may not like all the books they write, but the authors in those genres do know how to spin.

    I think this is a great idea!

    1. I think you’re uninformed of what the book market has been? Up till indie started getting some strides, we couldn’t even get anything non-approved out there. And now they still have the advantage of putting it on every shelf, sending people to talk shows, etc. It’s not the AUTHOR marketing it.
      Now… things are changing and we’re finding ways.

          1. Well, you know, as it says on the hammer: … If he she be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.

            No reason a Corgi couldn’t be worthy, is there?

            Apparently the new story line involves the original Thor reaching for his hammer and being unable to get it up:

            Marvel Writer Jason Aaron on Why He Made Thor a Woman
            [SNIP]
            Set the scene for our readers: How did Thor, the male superhero, lose his worthiness to wield the hammer Mjolnir?

            I’ve been writing Thor for about two years now in the pages of a book called “Thor: God of Thunder.” One of the themes of that book was always worthiness. I always liked the idea that Thor was the god who’d wake up every day and look at that hammer and not know whether he was going to pick it up. Only the worthy can lift the hammer of Thor, and I love the idea of a god who was always questioning his own worthiness. This summer in a book I did called “Original Sin,” Nick Fury was empowered by all the insights of The Watcher, who’s an old school, Stan Lee-Jack Kirby character who’s the cosmic observer of the Marvel universe.

            In the midst of the fight, Nick Fury whispered something to Thor, and suddenly Thor dropped his hammer and couldn’t pick it up. It was really just a whisper that made Thor unworthy. It wasn’t just something he did that we know, it was really just that whisper. It’s still a mystery as to exactly what Fury said to him, and that’s a mystery we tease a little bit more in Thor #1, and will continue to be a part of that version of the character’s story. I’ve always been building to this moment, towards Thor getting to the point where he can’t confirm his worthiness with his magic weapon. His mother tries to tell him in that first issue that worthiness should not be left to the whim of magic hammers, that he’s hero whether or not he can pick it up, so he continues on even without the hammer. With him not being able to pick it up, it opens the door for someone else to come along who can lift it.

  5. Two thoughts occur.
    #1. This is now the new counter-culture. And one worth developing better writing chops to participate in and contribute to.

    #2. I am now kicking myself for missing last year’s Balticon. (dagnabit.)

  6. Pingback: SUPERVERSIVE: Storming the Moral High Ground | John C. Wright's Journal

  7. Being a writer of planetary romances (book 1 out now, books 2 and 3 coming between now and Christmas), I am totally on board with this movement. Do we get a cool logo and t-shirts?

    1. Planetary romances? You mean, like Venus & Mars settle their battle of the sexes and have a bunch of little planetoids? That bee-aitch Gaea can suck it!

      1. Exactly like that, indeed. Where do you think Pluto came from? It’s not that it isn’t a planet, it’s just that Pluto is an immature planet. To help them understand each other, my next book will be titled _Mars is From Mars and Venus is From Venus_. You’d think this sort of thing should be obvious to them, but Mars comes off as cold and Venus is too much of a hothead.

        1. Probably impolite to mention it, but I heard that Mars had an infestation of creepy crawlies, Best guess is he caught them from Terra. But don’t tell Venus, she’s already steamed as it is.

  9. You have my total heartfelt agreement with that first sentence. I have avoided the “Dead Snow” movies, even though I have been a zombie movie fanatic since I first saw NotLD around ’70, because the internet warned me about the director’s obsession with onscreen pooping.

  10. I like this. Just be aware that if superversive starts making any inroads on the status quo, they will be on the attack, not to mention trying to subvert the movement from within. Be watchful and be strong and courageous.

    1. Perhaps Human Wave is the larger term, and superversive a more specific sub-group? Human Wave being all pro-people literature (fiction, non-fiction, all sorts of genres) and Superversive a more literary and overtly pro-Christianity branch? *shrug*

      1. Is there Inhuman Wave as well? Perhaps stories about endless hordes of marauding aliens? Although I suppose if the humans struggle heroically and are portrayed right, that could still be Human Wave.

          1. Perhaps he even covered it thrice, between the Posleen universe, the Troy Rising universe, and the zombie stuff. Maybe four times, if you include his Prince Roger collaboration with Weber, because they spend three books marching around fighting aliens, dwindling in numbers as they go.

  13. The problem with ‘Christian’, especially here in the US, is that the Hodgites are trying to monopolize the word, and their brand of Christianity tends to produce the parody of ostentatious piety complained about above.

    The broader definition of Christian, for example as expressed by CS Lewis, is of course quite capable of heroism.

        1. I did, albeit indirectly. Googling “Hodges” led to http://atruejew.blogspot.com/2006_12_05_archive.html, in which I found the following quote: “The following is a paper I wrote in order to clarify one of my reasons for changing my mind about an important aspect of the particular brand of evangelical theology which I had adhered to for more than 20 years (since childhood). The paper assumes a fairly high level of background knowledge about the teachings of “Free Grace” theology, which is promoted by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and is largely based upon the writings of Zane Hodges (hence, “Hodgism”).”

          If you google “Zane Hodges”, you will find his Wikipedia page, which describes his theology. (As near as I can tell – which may not be very near, given that I am an Agnostic – he held that Salvation, once achieved, could not be lost; a kind of “Get Out Of Hell Free” card with unlimited expiration, as it were. He also believed that certain passages in the New Testament referred not to eternal Salvation, but to the opportunity of Christians to earn it.)

          Whether or not my interpretation is accurate, I agree about C. S. Lewis, and would extend that observation to G. K. Chesterton.

  14. ya know ever since I read “the mystery of the burning cliff’s” (3 investigators FTW) I’ve been into the post-apocalypse/major disaster genera. However for so long it’s all been so bleak and nilistic and every body dies/race to the bottom/who can resort to cannibalism first and off course humanity is the REAL monsters (the zombie gener is just rife with that last one). Where’s the coming together of people (family frind’s/nabores…. or just coworkers and strangers), the people that rise to the occasion…..in sort why can’t there be a little more “Swiss family Robison” and a little less the “Road”.

    1. The less nihilistic stuff doesn’t get awards. You know that saying “You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish”? Works that way in the publishing business, too. If something about depressive carp is published and ends up getting an award, that lure of the award spawns a bunch of imitators. (And all you’ve got to do is look at the Sad Puppies Awards fiasco… Larry Correia pretty well proved it was all about connections and knowing the ‘right’ people.)

      But with award-induced purchasing on the part of the publishers, soon enough you get a whole load of carp taking over the entire ecosystem. Stuff that leaves you feeling good (even if emotionally wrung out) aren’t able to get past the gatekeepers who are looking for something that’ll get the next Hugo or Nebula..

      I may be cynical on this, but at a certain level it seems like awards are much more important than the actual sales figures.

      1. I think a lot of the problem is caused by publishers not realizing _why_ the first breakout, best selling book of a “new type” worked. They start buying manuscripts “that are just like it” except they may or may not have the crucial element that got the first one noticed.

        Three generations of derivative fiction in the same sub-sub-genre later it’s all gloom, doom and message. And declining sales.

        1. It could be the ‘new type’ worked because people were tired of the old type. I can understand a fear of trying something because it might bomb, but I’m not really seeing much difference between something that’s ‘just like’ (fill in the blank) bombing and something entirely new bombing.

          Either way, the publisher’s out the money.

          1. There are two types of bestsellers. They ones they hype and push and get the big buyers to put in big orders for. And the ones that are put out as midlist that take fire.

            If the publisher doesn’t understand why a book is popular–as in, say, fantastic characters, tough fighting, supporting each other in a lost cause and finally winning–they may think the book was popular because it was full of werewolves and vampires, with lots of sexual content. So they buy a book with plenty of werewolves and vampires and sex, oblivious to the main character being a bitter backstabbing ass that the readers are disappointed to see survive the last battle. But by then they’ve bought eight more “just like the surprise bestseller.” And they still don’t understand why they aren’t as big as the first one.

            The publishers lose money because they do so little market research.

            2. “ … oblivious to the main character being a bitter backstabbing ass …”

              Why would they be likely to notice how closely the main character resembles them and their colleagues? Publishers have blind spots too, you know.

    2. S.M. Sterling does a lot of death and destruction, but it’s pretty much an excuse for Swiss Family Robinson. (Albeit accompanied by “of course we’ll have major cultural changes,” instead of the more common real-life reaction, “of course we’ll dig in and do more of the old ways.” He gave reasons for it, but he wanted to have fun with weird change so that’s what he did.)

    3. This is solely my opinion, but the ‘sink to the bottom… then climb out’ way that World War Z (not the movie) was written was why I liked it. You had lots of tales of heroism and hope and utter refusal to surrender in there, along with heartbreaking tales of self sacrifice, along with the selfish/greedy/attempts to make others suffer.

      1. Hear hear – as opposed to the walking dead which I put aside after 20 minutes of skimming the collected graphic novel, WWZ is the first time (admittedly still somewhat supernatural) we actually win out over the zombies.

        I managed to like it despite some cheap potshots.

  15. The only problem with taking the moral high ground is that everyone can see and shoot at you. [Shamelessly stolen from one of Han Solo’s comments in one of the Thawn novels]

    1. I hope so, because half the good guys in one of my forthcoming novels are Jewish (Interplanetary Reformed Conservative, for anyone keeping score).

      2. Cool, I’m Egalitarian Interstellar Conservadox (Scottish Rite) myself. BTW, re the need for artillery in a comment above – we have tanks!

    3. Yes! I meant to put in there that one could write Jewish Superversive or even Buddhist Superversive. It doesn’t have to be Christian. Also, if it is pious and cloying, it’s not Superverise. So think Narnia.

      Or, for a Jewish equivalent, my favorite movie of all time, the Winter’s Tale made from Mark Halprin’s book. That was, basically, Jewish Superversive. (I know it did horribly in the theaters, but it is still the best movie ever!)

  17. I don’t know. I’m not Christian but I like a good story. I like a broken hero. One who has been hurt by people or by circumstance. One who battle the inner demons while facing outer villains. A hero that’s too squeaky clean creates chaos around him in any realistic setting (see Mos Eisley cantina).

      1. Didn’t say it was.
        I was more referring to the Mal Reynolds type as opposed to the Luke Skywalker type.

        1. There are places for both. Neither character is as effective completely surrounded by their own type. And the Luke type can lure the Han type into living up to all that potential.

          1. Westerns of the Louis L’Amour type make play with a lot of different kinds of heroes, some more straightforward than others. WWII history is good for this too.

            Surprisingly, a lot of people who are squeaky clean are also good at being sneaky clean. A lot of people who’ve Done Bad Stuff are very straightforward when they try to do good. People do all sorts of things, because they’re people.

          2. Luke was too whiny. One thing about your typical Han Solo type is they may be a little bad but they DON’T WHINE!

            After watching the Star Wars prequels, it’s obvious that Luke got his whininess from his father. I kept expecting Anakin to talk about having to go into Toshi Station to get some power converters.

                1. Yeah, his being a slightly whiny thing at the first movie made sense. After all, he just got ripped away from everything he knew and tossed into a problem he had no relation to from his point of view.

                  Eragon was this arrogant, mouthy, jerkass of a brat who wanted to do things HIS WAY because ‘chosen one’ … and I wanted to actually see him lose.

                  1. That’s the kind of hero that you run through the meat grinder and force feed humble pie to make them into something worthwhile… (and the getting into the worthwhile form is usually a big part of the plot. They can’t succeed until they have gotten over themselves because they’re in their own way.)

        3. The smuggler from the Star Wars: The Old Republic MMORPG?

          (Or on the forums, one of the tips for people trying to make decisions on various quests is “What would Malcolm Reynolds do?”) 😀

            1. Sorry, I was unclear. I brought up the smuggler since people seem to keep comparing him/her to Malcolm Reynolds as they go through the story on SWTOR.

              (Especially a very funny duel on Alderaan. One dialogue option: [Shoot Him])

      1. Absolutely! Much more fun than storming peasant huts. Castles have the cool stuff inside, and beautiful princesses to rescue, and the good booze.

  19. The books/movies/games I’ve enjoyed avoided both P.C. and traditional stereotypes. It’s like there is a sweet spot.

    Maybe the trick is that when creating a world of your own to make sure the eternal truths still apply.

  20. There seems to be a different concept of Christianity in the article from the comments. The article stated that Christianity would be allowed to join the literary arts, not that it would force others, Jews or Atheists out. It’s the SJWs that have the PC and anti-religion or human bias, you know. John Ringo gets it- The wand books have a Christian and a Sex Worshiper working together. Real diversity. We aren’t a bunch of puritans you know.

    2. Didn’t you know? Christians are evil and must be prevented from creating a theocracy! [Sarcasm]

      Don’t mind me, I just saw a news article where atheist groups are raising heck about a sculpture with Bible verses on the grounds of a Georgia High School. [Frown]

      1. Which verses? Many are entirely unobjectionable based on content, and even appropriate to a secular, academic milieu.

          1. Thanks. I’d put those particular verses in a gray area. They’re obviously chosen for their can-do attitude and intent to tell the students that they can accomplish whatever they set their minds to. At the same time, they’re explicitly pro-theist, so I can understand the objections of the dissenters.

            Personally I wouldn’t make a stink over it. Most Americans are Christians, so Christian iconography will be used.

            1. By “making a stink over it”, IMO they make it appear that they’d prefer a Christianless US.

            2. The atheist’s anti-Christians’ goal seems to be to drive Christianity from the Public Square, making Christian arguments persona non grata whether or not they relate to theology. It is only by quick and complete suppression that they can prevent folks from realizing how dominant and unoffensive Christian beliefs actually are.

              Look at English Protestant suppression of Catholicism for historic example.

            3. They do not tell students “they can accomplish whatever they set their minds to”, they tell students that with/through GOD they can can accomplish things.

              The problem with it is manifold:
              * It means that those who win *must* have God on their side, from which follows that those who lose *do not*. This isn’t exactly a message you want in todays
              * It implies that if you *aren’t* a believer you can’t accomplish things.
              * There will be some on the losing side who are certain (or will be asserting, eitherway) that *they* are Godly and Pure Of Heart, and therefore someone else on the team must not be.
              * Who the f*k thinks God picks sides in football games/athletic events? That sort of person should NOT be allowed within 150 feet of a child.
              * Can you imagine being the only kid who isn’t a southern baptist on one of those teams? Especially if they’re having a losing season.

              This is far from an academic exercise. My oldest follows my faith (more or less), which put her in deep opposition to much of the insanity in her school, and in the church her grandmother to–the sort that disallows Halloween because it’s a Celebration of Satan’s Birthday. Yeah, I’d like scriptural backup on that one.

              It’s rough being the nail that stands out, it’s even rougher when the adults around you fully approve of you getting hammered back flush.

              As to “Most Americans are Christians”, the furthest I’ll go are “Most Americans claim to be Christian”.

              I’m *generally* not one to shit on religion, especially in general ways. I have no problems with a moment of silence, or even a polite[1] more-or-less non-denominational prayer before an event, but those quotes–at least in relation to a sporting/athletic building are just plain dumb.

              And I don’t like dumb, especially in places associated with learning. I wouldn’t say anything about it because I’m sure there’s LOTS more dumb around to fight first, but I suspect the Dumb would find would be differnet from those atheist shit-disturbers would want.

              [1] There are some people out there who don’t get “non-denominational” or try to inject ideas that, while they might be appropriate in a house of worship setting, are wrong for larger mixed crowds).

              1. What’s “Dumb” is doing things that seriously annoy people of the majority Religion in this country. But then certain people seem to believe that Christians will continue to take this garbage. Perhaps they should move to country where the government “keeps Christians in their place” like China or Cuba.

              2. I’m having a hard time deciding if your objection is to the verses being in that location or if it’s to the content of the verses themselves, given the tone of your response.

                But as it is, I think your reading of those verses doesn’t support the assertions you’re claiming they make. At least they don’t have to.

                They do not tell students “they can accomplish whatever they set their minds to”, they tell students that with/through GOD they can can accomplish things.

                The problem with it is manifold:
                * It means that those who win *must* have God on their side, from which follows that those who lose *do not*. This isn’t exactly a message you want in todays

                Well, yeah, but I don’t think that’s the viewpoint that has to be asserted here. Nor do I think that’s what was meant. That viewpoint you’re asserting doesn’t allow for the possibility that G-d Does Not Take Sides In A Football Game, something you point out below. The scripture doesn’t have to be read that “G-d’s on our side in this particular endeavor”, so much as it’s an admonition that we need to make sure we’re living in such a way as to invite His support and blessings. Or, to put it another way, not to make sure He’s on Our side, but that We are on His.

                * It implies that if you *aren’t* a believer you can’t accomplish things.

                Well, no, again. Having assistance from Deity doesn’t mean that those who don’t won’t accomplish anything, and for that, we have rich examples of people who are morally objectionable but who accomplish great things. Genghis Khan comes to mind. There may be some who would posit that God was on Genghis Khan’s side. I look forward to seeing that argument articulated, if any would care to take it up.

                * There will be some on the losing side who are certain (or will be asserting, eitherway) that *they* are Godly and Pure Of Heart, and therefore someone else on the team must not be.

                See my response above to your first point. Again, Genghis Khan. And the stupidity of some high school kid is not dependent upon scripture. Stupid high school kids are stupid high school kids (Tautology!). The scripture is an excuse, not a reason. Remove the excuse? Another will come along and suffice just as well.

                * Who the f*k thinks God picks sides in football games/athletic events? That sort of person should NOT be allowed within 150 feet of a child.

                Again, see my responses above. Believe me, as much as we Mormons would like to believe that G-d loves BYU Football, evidence has sadly shown that He’s Just Not Taking Sides In A College Football Match.
                For that, I would direct your attention specifically to the 1990 Holiday Bowl, which I attended (playing the bass drum in the BYU Cougar Marching Band – The Power of the Wasatch), in which our Heisman Trophy Winning QB, one Ty Detmer, led our team to a CRUSHING and HUMILIATING defeat at the hands of the Texas A&M Aggies, 14 to 65.
                Unless you think that the scripture means that G-d loves the Aggies, or at least He did that year, and maybe that’s the case. But if so, He’s kind of fickle on who He picks to win or lose any given week.
                That also eliminates the possibility that you may lose because you needed a little humble pie. (May have been the case for that Holiday Bowl.)

                * Can you imagine being the only kid who isn’t a southern baptist on one of those teams? Especially if they’re having a losing season.

                After being one of the few conservative religious folks at one of the most liberal law schools in the country? Where our local chapter of the Federalist Society my last year there basically said “We’re just going to keep our heads down this year and not make waves?” I may have a tiny bit of empathy for that poor kid’s position.

                At any rate, that’s a lot of verbage to say that these verses could be totally appropriate to the venue and inoffensive from a certain point of view.

                1. So, what you’re saying is that if BYU wins it must be Divine Intervention? I can get behind that. Although if God wanted to give us undeniable proof of his existence, He’d make the Cubs win the World Series.

                  1. Alas, the Cubs winning the World Series would be incontrovertible evidence of G-d’s existence, and would thus eliminate the need for faith, so it can never happen.
                    In fact, like the Babel Fish, the Cubs winning the World Series may be a reverse proof against the existence of G-d.
                    Meanwhile, the Cougars are having a decent year, having thumped the local team a few weeks ago 41-7. (Everyone else in the house are Longhorns fans. I mostly just stayed out of the room while that game was on.) I look forward to our inevitable defeat at the hands of… Oh, probably Utah State this week.

                  2. Nah, God is seriously annoyed at Chicago. He’s not going to allow the Cubs to win the World Series. [Evil Grin]

                    Oh, don’t believe people who talk about the “Curse of the Goat”. That has nothing to do with why the Cubs won’t win the World Series. [Big Evil Grin]

                    4. Getting “serious”, Jim Butcher has an interesting take on the Billy Goat Curse. Harry Dresden was hired to do something about the Curse in a short story titled “Curses” and it’s in the collection _Naked City_ edited by Ellen Datlow.

                      It’s seems that one of the Fair Folk is a baseball fan and was the “goat” kicked out of Wrigley. He was somewhat annoyed but that’s not the full story of the curse on Wrigley Field. [Grin]

                  3. Pfagh! He let the Red Sox win, multiple times in the last decade. Letting the Cubs win would just be showing off.

                    1. I’m pretty sure the Sox made an infernal pact. Its the only explanation as every Southron knows God hates yankees.

                2. Well, no, again. Having assistance from Deity doesn’t mean that those who don’t won’t accomplish anything, and for that, we have rich examples of people who are morally objectionable but who accomplish great things. Genghis Khan comes to mind. There may be some who would posit that God was on Genghis Khan’s side. I look forward to seeing that argument articulated, if any would care to take it up.

                  Well, if God is on the side with the bigger artillery, as I’ve heard posited, then presumably that would include the biggest, most well-disciplined military as well. So yeah, God would’ve been on Khan’s side.

                    1. As I recall it, He is not a big fan of kings, sorta considers them a different variety of plague.

                      So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

              4. “Who the f*k thinks God picks sides in football games/athletic events?”

                When I lived in Texas (junior high and high school), I used to say “football is the national religion of Texas and Tom Landry [Dallas Cowboys coach] is pope.”

                The idea that the Almighty does NOT take sides in football games would be sacrilege…

      2. When you get that, deplore that Martin Luther King Jr. was able to impose his religious views on the United States.

          1. On another venue I pointed out that someone needs to inform Kerry that his boss already said we were no longer a Christian nation, therefore I failed to see why we should have any scriptural obligation to protect people that want to murder us from anything.

            (Note, I believe we’re not a Christian nation about as much as I hate science fiction.)

    3. The Superversive Literary Movement is primarily Christian because the authors who have started it are Christians who would like to include inspiring Christian themes. If any Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist authors join the movement, I assume they will write Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist Superversive Lit. 😉

  21. Many are already fleeing the dark. Sales are down for stories that are empty of hope, and meaning, filled only with whiny angst and pointless struggle.
    It is not enough to merely flee the darkness.
    It is time to shine forth light. Once more to show truth, beauty, honor, heroism and wonder. The readers of the world will stare in wonder, blinking eyes grown used to the darkness, seeing something that had once seemed a distant memory or only a dream.

    By the way, I love the term “superversive! It is fitting that the assassins of darkness should move underground, and hide lest their deeds be revealed by the light of the sun. It is fitting that the champions of the light work in the open, revealing their deeds and intent to all.

      1. Heh – I remember sitting in an Ivy League seminary classroom in 2003 being lectured by a bouncing, blond, bright-eyed young professor about how our calling in youth ministry was to subvert the teaching of the world, by which she meant parents.

        Couldn’t help thinking of lights and bushels and how backwards the whole thing seemed. Wish I’d thought of “superversive” then.

  22. I meant to put in there that the Superversive Lit Movement is open to Superversives from other religions. Those of us who are Christian would like a chance to put some of the ideas that inspire us into stories. But that does not close the door to other kinds of Superversive.

    My favorite movie of all time is Jewish Superversive. (Winter’s Tale)

      1. I am reminded of the Jewish legend of the Lamed Vav Nistarim, the 36 Righteous Ones in each generation, for whose sake God does not destroy the world. You can’t get much more superversive than that.

    2. I’d think that Torgerson’s The Chaplain’s War would fit as well. I haven’t written a review yet, but I highly recommend it.

  24. Fortunately, we live in a country where one side publicly boos God at their National Convention. So the lines are clearly drawn.

    Unfortunately, we live in a country where one side publicly boos God at their National Convention. So the lines clearly have to be held.

Comments are closed.