Tim, I mostly want to read the reviewer's recommendation. I need to know a little bit about the story so I know whether or not it's in the range of those I like. I don't want long synopses, though, because I read to find out and hate having that ruined for me.

Some strengths and weaknesses help sell me. If the review can find no weaknesses, I don't trust his opinion as much because I haven't seen a lot of perfect books. Someone overly enthusiastic also loses some credibility with me unless they can back it up with, This is why I think the book is so good. It's hard to do that without saying something about the particular fiction elements.

I don't want a reviewer pointing out things an editor didn't catch -- grammar, spelling, etc. I don't care about those unless they are so frequent they are annoying.

Hope that helps.

Becky

OK, lost my first attempt. Let's try this again.

I like these categories, Mike, but I might rename a couple. I'm in #3, but I don't believe I'm mature. The way Scripture describes it, I'm weak. I don't participate in certain things because I'd be spiritually worse for it. Recognizing that fact doesn't make me mature; it makes me honest. Still weak, though.

So here's what I'm thinking:
1. Weaker Brother who thinks he is mature (and therefore believes he has the right to "help" others come up to his plain)
2. Susceptible Weaker Brother who may not know he is weak
3. Nonparticipating Weak Brother who knows he is weak
4. Participating Mature Brother

Becky

Yes, Mike. You said what I was thinking as I read the first part of your comment—Racelle does not rep speculative, and she says that loudly and often. It's not like she is The One Agent who is open to SF or fantasy or horror, so we're all hovering around her blog in hopes that we can catch her eye. Just the opposite.

I suspect, therefore, the numbers are a reflection of how many of us there are.

I also think it's interesting that a number include spec fiction even though they name another genre. It's almost like a concession, like they are writing something else though they haven't given up on the speculative.

But no, I haven't expounded on this elsewhere. I wanted to say something at Rachelle's blog when I commented, but someone else already had. And I know I can start to sound like I have one note to play. It does end up turning people off, so I settled for my commercial instead. ;-)

I believe "under-represented." If you don't regularly stop by Rachelle Gardner's blog, I suggest you take a peek at the comments to her post last Friday. She conducted a poll, then invited us to tell about our writing. An AMAZING number identified themselves with speculative fiction. I, who have always believed the readers are there, was shocked at how many.

Mike, I'm a little confused. When you say "the two approaches that dominate contemporary Christianity’s approach to art," are you referring to our approach to art as those who create it? Or as those who interact with the art of others?

I'll assume the latter because of the tenor of the discussion re. Avatar. But even here, I think there is confusion. Are we talking about what we say to non-Christians about said art? To Christians? Our own opinions that we hold in ourselves?

I guess, my first thought is, This topic is NOT one that should be couched in either/or terms.

When I advocated discernment in my series of posts on Avatar, I was talking to the Christians who have a ho-hum attitude toward the movie's spiritual worldview, or to those who don't see the false teaching at all.

Would I say the same to non-Christians? Not at all. Why should I expect them to measure what they view against the Bible? They don't believe the Bible.

As far as my own opinions go, why can't I see it all? The beauty and creativity of the movie making and the imagination of the world; the sweet love story; the panentheistic world view; the biased socio-economic positions; the evidence of spiritual longing; the imperfect incarnation of the protag; the imperfect beauty of the imagined utopia, the weak story line, the inconsistent working out of the spiritual themes. It's all there.

Why can't I love what is lovely and hate what is hateful? Why have we become this all or nothing society, so that if I say on my blog that Christians need to think about what they view, I have "Na'vi" followers coming in to tell me how stupid I am for dissing their wonderful new best friends. LOL OK, I exaggerated a little, but not much.

The point is, I don't think we need to reduce our reaction to a star-rating, or determine if I will engage or separate. I personally think I engage the work and the world if I speak my mind. If the "world" I am engaging is Christian, I may emphasize different points than I would if I am engaging non-Christians. But isn't that as it should be? We're coming from different worldviews. How can we think that the same language is appropriate?

On a side note. Eric said Jesus reserved his abrupt and direct approach for the religious folks. Well, if he believes that, then the appropriate thing would be to approach panentheists abruptly and directly. The "religious folks" of Jesus's day were NOT Christians. They were the people who rejected Him as Messiah. Which was the point. No need to engage them. They had made up their mind. He wasn't God; He was of the devil, they said. Those were the people Jesus threw out of the temple.

Becky

Big topic, Mike. I really appreciate what Jeanne said.

I'm wondering if we aren't supposed to concern ourselves so much about the process of prayer as we are to pray.

There's so much more to prayer than petition, but I think too often we focus on what to do to convince God to give us what we want. We don't do that in our other relationships, do we? Nor do we stop talking about the things that are on our mind. In other words, I think it's fine to talk to God ten times about something that concerns you, not as a way to manipulate Him or force Him to finally answer, but because you still are thinking about it, care for God's input, haven't figured out what to do.

I'm thinking, for example, how many times I've asked a certain writing group for input on my writing. I don't stop just because I got an answer once upon a time. If I still need help, I continue to bring my work before my group for feedback. More so with God, I think.

He says we are to pray; says we are to draw near to Him and He will draw near to us; says we are to seek, ask, knock. Are we working, then, at our relationship with God (rather than depending on His grace)? I don't think so. Faith can only be seen by what we do (see James 1). Jesus says if we love Him, we will obey Him. There is a synergistic relationship between God's work and our faith, lived out. I don't think we can understand it any more than we can understand the Trinity or Jesus the God/Man.

The best book I've read on prayer is The God Who Hears (InterVarsity Press) by W. Bingham Hunter. Dr. Hunter addresses a lot of questions about prayer. In the intro he says this: I passionately disagree with the notion that prayer is a way to get from God what we want. Christian prayer, as explained in Scripture, seems something else entirely: Prayer is a means God uses to give us what he wants.

Then one page over: From a biblical point of view, prayer is related to everthing that we are and everything that God is. God does not respond to our prayers. God responds to us: to our whold life. What we say to him cannot be separated from what we think, feel, will and do. Prayer is communication from whole persons to the Wholeness which is the living God.

Good stuff, that book. I think I need to re-read it again.

Becky