Blog

The War of Independence and the Civil War: Parallels

Featured Ariel Paiement
Ariel Paiement

Introduction

The topic of the American Revolution, the Civil War, and rebellion have all become rapidly circulated issues in today’s culture with everything going on. People would like us to believe that the American Revolution and the Civil War are miles apart, that rebellion is a good thing, and that the only reason the Civil War happened was because slavery. But are any these things true? That’s what we’re going to explore today as we dive deep into history and take a look at the facts on both the major wars fought on our soil, the parallels between the two, and the issues surrounding both.

The Matter of Jurisdiction and Rebellion

Before we can get into the parallels between the two wars and the issues pointed out in the introduction, we have to go over the topic of jurisdiction and authority and define rebellion. Too many Americans (and people in general) don’t understand this, but if you don’t understand these issues, then you can’t really understand anything that’s going to follow in this discussion, nor are you fully able to comprehend the intent of the Founding Fathers or our Constitution.

Hence, we see a breakdown of American ideals and society, and we see an increase in the numbers of people who want to liken seizure of city blocks by a mob to the American Revolution. We hear more and more comparisons of riots to our country’s founding or to the Civil War, and while there may be some argument for this on the grounds of the second war in that we haven’t in all the time that has passed managed to improve our attitudes since it occurred, the argument for the first is baseless due to these principles.

So what is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is the realm of authority afforded to each sphere of life. The spheres of life are family, government, and church. (I know many non-Christians would argue me on this point, but I can get into why the Christian viewpoint is the one that we must reason from on matters of morality–which rebellion is–in order to have any validity at some other point. This is not the point or the forum for it.) Within those spheres of life, certain realms of authority have been given by the Creator, who is above all earthly authorities.

For example, the government has no authority to regulate how you teach or raise your children (with the exception of certain scenarios such as clear abuse of a child, which requires a higher authority to step in and help). They overstep these bounds all the time in modern day society, but the Bible is clear that within the home, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach, raise, and train children in the way they should go. They are wards of the parents, not the states.

Likewise, the church has no authority to tell the government to run the country, and the government has no God-given authority to force the church to worship or not worship in a prescribed way. Oh, they can arrest those who choose to worship in a way that goes against state wishes, as they do in China, but they have no authority to tell Christians not to worship God because we answer to a higher authority, that being God, and we are to obey God’s laws rather than man’s if there is a conflict between the two. So while there will be persecution and consequences for doing the right thing, we do it anyway because the highest authority of all, from whom all other authorities derive their power, commands our loyalty.

Why does this matter? Because there are clear dictates to jurisdiction. In many cultures, authority figures have chosen not to bind themselves by their own laws. Western civilization is unique in this regards because there is a contract between us and our rulers that states our rulers must abide by our laws just as much as we must. This gives us recourse when they break their end of the contract. Understanding this is essential if you’re going to understand either the American Revolution or the Civil War. But we’ll get to that in a few.

Western Civilization and the Contract of Authority

As I said earlier, Western civilization is unique because there is a stated contract between our rulers and we the people that they will do A, B, and C in exchange for us doing D, E, and F. That’s the whole basis of our Constitution. It is an agreement by our rulers with us that all of us will abide by the rules, whatever those may be, and that no one is above those laws. When a ruler steps outside of the bounds of authority established in that contract, they are in violation of the agreement and are no longer exercising rightful authority.

In the case of a country without this sort of contract, then whatever the authorities do, with the exception of choosing to try to stamp out God’s church and His worship, is rightful authority as they have given no such promise to their people to abide by any given set of rules. Therefore, though they may do many, many heinous things, any uprising on the part of their people would be, in fact, a rebellion and therefore unacceptable on the part of any Christian who is following the Scripture. This doesn’t mean Christians won’t disobey a law if it requires them to break God’s laws, which are higher than any civil law on Earth, but it does mean they will have no part in fighting a war against the authorities and will accept whatever punishment accompanies their decision to obey God rather than man.

So how are the American Revolution and the Civil War not rebellions? Because of two very important documents and what they said. Let’s start with the document that gave the American Revolution the status of a war of self-defense, not a war of rebellion.

The Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was a document that laid the foundation for the entire system of British law. It was agreed to in June of 1215 and was an agreement between King John of England and the nobles representing the English people, who were at the time revolting, at least in some areas. It established some basic liberties and the agreement that not even the king was above the English law.

This important document along with the individual charters that colonies had with England formed the backbone of the American Revolution. During the years leading up to the American Revolution, the king was ignoring both the Magna Carta and the individual charters established with the colonies. Had the colonists been in England, their rights as English citizens would never have been so blatantly disregarded, and so they wrote letter after letter and sent representatives to plead with the king and Parliament to hold their part of the deal in all cases, not just in the instances where it benefited them.

King George III and Adding Fuel to Fire

Instead of addressing the concerns, which would have kept the peace and kept the colonies as part of Britain, the king and Parliament ignored them. They continued to pick and choose when to follow their own laws, thereby invalidating the contract by which they held authority. Since they wouldn’t honor their own agreement, it became invalid, and the colonies sent the Declaration of Independence. In a nutshell, that declaration was saying, “You won’t follow your own laws, you won’t treat us like citizens, and so we declare that we do not recognize your wrongful authority nor are we going to continue behaving as if we are citizens when you do not view us as such.” Obviously, the language was much prettier when Jefferson wrote it, but the point was the same.

Essentially, as King George III continued to add fuel to the fire, the colonies finally seceded from Britain. We like to think of it as a grand rebellion for freedom, but it wasn’t. We declared our independence with no violence. After doing so, we appointed our own leaders as any new country would and we kicked out the ones who had invalidated their authority. Most of that was still not violent unless soldiers from Britain wouldn’t leave colonists’ homes, in which case the colonists defended themselves. But that was still self-defense, not rebellion, because Britain had invalidated its own authority and jurisdiction.

The war began when Britain decided to treat the colonies as rebels instead of ex-citizens. They attacked the newly formed coalition of colonies, and the forming country defended itself.

The Constitution

This document formed the backbone for the Civil War in more ways than one. The finalized and superior form of law after the Articles of Confederation we first tried failed, this important document regulated what could and could not be done legally in America. We continue to use it today, though more and more lawmakers try to twist it and often get away with doing so. But in the days leading up to the start of the Civil War, this had not yet begun.

Granted, there was major hypocrisy in how we applied the terms of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence’s statement on the matter of liberties for all men. We as a country had the ugly issue of slavery to deal with if we were to address the issue of hypocrisy that had become so ingrained in our nation by the time of the Civil War. Some illogical (and, if the Constitution were fully followed, illegal) compromises were made to deal with the tension between the two segments of the country–North and South–on this issue. But nonetheless, we had the Constitution, and it governed our laws underneath its umbrella.

Secession and the Constitution

How did this come into play during the Civil War? Prior to any shots being physically fired, segments of the South had already chosen to secede if Lincoln were elected. He won the election with not a single Southern state supporting him. While the hot button issue was slavery, it is worth noting that some states had a secessionist attitude over anything they felt stepped on their toes, not just slavery.

North Carolina, in particular, had been an issue for past Presidents even when no violations to the contract (the Constitution) between states. But regardless of the issues they were arguing over, the fact of it is that secession at that point remained an option. The Constitution did not forbid this right to the States, and so, even if their reasons for doing it were to preserve slavery, which they perceived as absolutely necessary to their existence, the South had the right to leave.

This in no way means that they were right for wanting to keep their slaves. That was a dark blot on the promises the Constitution made. It was inexcusable, wicked, and disgusting. It never should’ve happened, and the Founders had planned for it to fade out. When it didn’t, we ended up with a lot of unexpected problems, and sadly, our leaders on both sides didn’t deal with it in a way that was morally correct. Had they done so, they would’ve freed the slaves (indentured servants included in this since most were treated just as badly, sometimes worse, than slaves) and made sure that those individuals went through the process to become citizens like anyone else or were sent back to their countries of origin. Instead, they went to war over it before we even fired a shot in the Civil War, and the South developed a siege mindset long before a true war even erupted.

But, despite the poor decision-making, wrongful behavior on the parts of many individuals, and a sickening practice of enslaving fellow human beings, the States all had the right at that time to leave the Union. Legally, they should have been allowed to go.

Lincoln and Adding Fuel to the Fire

Lincoln’s election, through no fault of his own, added fuel to the fire. If he had stopped at that being the only thing he did to add fuel to the fire, then he would be blameless in this whole affair. Instead, he blatantly stated in his inaugural address that he was treating the newly-seceded states, which were to form the first part of the Confederation, as rebels. They were not, according to our Constitution, rebels. Thus, after Lincoln declared the Union would force them to return to and stay a part of the Union, the seceded states began preparing for war. They organized further militia forces beyond what was normal the individual States to maintain and prepared to be forced to defend their land and their choice to secede. More states joined them and the fledgling country as the months led up to the Civil War and Lincoln continued to throw fuel on the fire.

He refused to meet with any representatives of the new coalition of states, much like King George III had done, because he wouldn’t recognize them as their own country. He utterly refused to acknowledge their right to leave, regardless of the reason, and insisted on treating them as rebels as opposed to a new country trying to work out the issues between themselves and the neighboring country. Then he further added insult to injury by sending supply ships to a Union Fort in the middle of their territory without asking permission to pass through their borders. Had it been any other country or circumstance, this would have been considered unacceptable, and firing on the ship and fort would’ve been acceptable since the ship wasn’t declared or given permission to pass borders. Instead, Lincoln thought it was fine because he viewed them as rebellious states still in the Union, not as another nation. Why shouldn’t he be able to send his ship anywhere he pleased in his country, right?

To be fair, there were miscommunications on both sides in the issue of Fort Sumter, and those misunderstandings led to many of the issues that resulted in the fort being fired on, but Lincoln’s antagonistic, dismissive behaviors led to the boiling point, and the war began.

To be fair, there were miscommunications on both sides in the issue of Fort Sumter, and those misunderstandings led to many of the issues that resulted in the fort being fired on, but Lincoln’s antagonistic, dismissive behaviors led to the boiling point, and the war began.

Similarities between the American Revolution and the Civil War

Some of the similarities should already be readily apparent from our earlier discussion on jurisdiction, authority, and rebellion. But let’s go over them more clearly and state a few additional similarities that I have come across in the research I’ve done on the two wars.

Rebellions?

First off, neither was a rebellion. In fact, I would call both wars of self-defense, even if, in the case of the Civil War, the first shot fired was over a miscommunication. If you look at how both wars were fought, both were fought on the soil of the newly-independent country, predominantly or entirely. Neither of these wars’ defendants were interested in seizing territory from the other side as a policy. They simply wanted to leave quietly and be left alone to govern their own affairs.

Fought on the Defendant’s Soil

Most of the war in the case of the Civil War was fought in border states that had been split in half between North and South or in Southern territory. The Confederate States were utterly destroyed by the war and Lincoln’s determination to overrun them, run roughshod over their choice to leave, and force them to return to the Union. In the end, he succeeded, but he cost both countries enormous losses of life and cost the Confederacy a great deal of the infrastructure they did have. The war only further entrenched the siege mentality the Confederate States had and confirmed their worst fears that they wouldn’t be allowed to leave.

In the case of the American Revolution, it was fought entirely on American soil, and we fought, just as the Southerners did, to defend home and family. While the American Revolution didn’t have the cause of slavery added into the mix to make the war appear “unrighteous” on the part of those who seceded, it and the Civil War are similar in that the war only started when the new countries were threatened or outright attacked by the countries they seceded from.

Given this is the case, the American Revolution would be more accurately termed the American War of Self-Defense, and the Civil War would be more accurately termed the Confederate War of Self-Defense. After all, the American Revolution was not a revolution in the true definition of the word, nor was the Civil War a Civil War because it was between two countries, not one that was split. You can’t have a civil war if the war isn’t between citizens of the same country, and no matter how much Lincoln wanted to ignore the Constitution’s terms, the South had legally left and declared themselves no longer citizens of the Union, so it wasn’t a situation of citizens of the same country fighting.

Struggles Against Wrongful Authority

Since both wars were fought between countries who operated with the Western form of government, which involves contracts that both parties most follow to have authority or to be governed, both the colonies and the Confederate States were fighting against wrongful authority. As mentioned earlier, the colonies were fighting against a government that was not following its own contract and laws. The Confederate States ended up fighting a war against the Union because its leader and government chose not to honor their contract, which allowed the Confederate States to do what they had done and secede. In both cases, the governments that had previously governed them violated their contracts and therefore were exercising wrongful authority when the wars erupted. This directly leads back to the reasons why neither were, in fact, in rebellion.

Conclusion

To round out this history discussion, let’s go back to the beginning. The issues I proposed as questions were that the American Revolution and the Civil War are miles apart, that rebellion is a good thing, and that the Civil War was about slavery alone or predominantly. So looking over what we discussed, here are the facts.

  1. The American Revolution and the Civil War were in fact vastly similar. Both were wars of defense against wrongful authority, and both were fought in a mainly defensive manner, supporting their claims that they just wanted to leave in peace.
  2. Rebellion is never acceptable from a Christian worldview. Those who promote it are wrong to do so, and a Christian espousing a rebellion is doing so in direct violation of myriad commands to respect authority.
  3. The Civil War itself was not about slavery. The South seceded over slavery, but the war happened because the North broke away from the Constitution and treated them as rebels for leaving. Their cause for leaving? Entirely unjust, but legally allowable. Their cause for fighting the war? Entirely justified because the North had no right to disregard the usual courtesies expected for passage between nations and the parleys that would occur between both. So while there were certainly problems and hypocrisies in that time of our nation, the war itself was neither a civil war nor was it acceptable for Lincoln to decide to get us into a war because he wanted to force them to stay. That was the move of a dictator, just as King George III’s behavior was, not that of a ruler abiding by the laws he and the rest of his government agreed to be bound by through a contract with those around them. Had he treated them as an opposing country and tried to conquer them like Germany did to France or other countries through history have, he might’ve been given some leeway, but he didn’t, and so, while he might not have been a bad man personally, he was nonetheless a dictator who chose to ignore the rules he was required to operate under by law.

I know many people would argue with these conclusions, but facts are facts. While no situation is every fully black and white, particularly with wars, the facts that lead to us being able to declare something a rebellion or a war of self-defense are not. Those distinctions lie solely in facts and definitions, whether we like it or not. Though we shouldn’t disregard or marginalize the uglier sides of history or try to pretend they were justified, let us also avoid declaring those on the losing side entirely unjust in their defense of themselves or in declaring the winners justified simply because they have won. This is what we have done when it comes to our country’s history, and while it is commonly understood that the winners write the history books, we cannot be a people who disregards truth or fact in favor of emotion and perception simply because the latter is more favorable. To do so is to destroy our very foundations and ourselves, and this is exactly what we have chosen to do in modern society.

We have not improved or moved away from the very same attitudes that inspired the Civil War in modern society. There is still a desire on various sides of the issue to ignore history, ignore our country’s founding principles in favor of whichever flavor of hypocrisy we prefer, and to demonize the other side simply to support our own. If we wish to have another war where we split into two countries, this is the path to follow. But if we want to learn from history, avoid its same mistakes in present day, and finally move past what was done in the past, then we’re going to have to be honest about the facts. I hope today’s exploration into the background on these two wars has been informative and beneficial.

Author’s Interview: Alicia Scarborough

Featured Ariel Paiement

Introduction

Today, I have Alicia Scarborough, author of the short story “Misted Love” in our anthology Glimpses of Time and Magic. She’s going to share a little bit about herself, her work, and writing with us today. Thanks for being here, Ally!

Her story’s cover and the anthology cover are below for your enjoyment.

Without further ado, let’s jump into the interview!

Tell us a little bit about yourself.

Uhhh, I guess you could call me a whirlwind of crazy ideas that manifest themselves either as stories or paintings. For you see, I’m an author and artist that must follow the whims of my muse and create the songs that it wishes to sing for those to hear and see.

What kind of fantasy do you write, and what got you into it?

Right now, I’m writing Urban Fantasy. Both Youth (Middle Grade) and Adult. If you’re curious as to which stories is appropriate for a younger readership then pick up the books that have ‘Alicia Scarborough’… the other books that use my initials ‘A.L.’ are for a more mature audience.

As for other genres, I write poems, horror (stories from my nightmares) and some humor. I’m currently working on two more stories. One is about a little girl that likes to turn her playmates into dolls; that story is not due to release until April 2022. The other story is still under wraps, but I can say that it does involve T-Rexes and will be releasing this December 2020.

What got me into writing fantasy? I’ve always loved it. When I was younger I would write stories that mimicked some of the fairytales that I heard as a child and I would add a slight twist or make up what happened after the ‘Happily Ever After’

What genres do you read, and do you write the same ones?

I read mostly Urban Fantasy, but I do branch out into other genres. Especially if I need to research the other genre for writing purposes. Yes, this is my excuse to be able to buy more books. LOL.

What are some of the things you like to do to relax?

I play ARK, read, paint pretty pictures in Photoshop, watch tutorials, watch anime, play with my green cheek conures or groom my beloved Pomeranians’ fur (I have two)

Can you tell us about your current work-in-progress?

Well, I kind of already spilled the beans on the doll one. But yeah if you like Goosebumps then you’re going to love the story “Play with Me” for it’ll give you that chill factor and make you want to turn a cautious eye towards all dolls. Yet, it won’t be released until April 2020.

The t-rex one… I can’t say much except keep your peepers peeled on my FB page for updates or news. You’ll see stuff for that secret story soon enough because it will be released this year.

If you’ve published (self-published or traditionally published), can you tell us a little about the experience?

Planning. It makes the difference between a successful release or a tragic release. I like to know what I’m getting into before I take the plunge. I’m self-published because I want that extra control and the ability to make that key point decision if necessary.

Self-publishing is a ton of work but it’s a trade off if you want to have control on things that matter like your book cover, blurb, price and marketing. From what I’ve heard from my fellow traditionally published authors they have to work within the confines of the publisher.

That’s not for me. I need the freedom to do what needs to be done and without delay.

What were your inspirations for writing?

Dreams. I always have vivid dreams that I sometimes wonder if I’m having a glimpse into another reality and into that person’s life. Because some of those scenes feel so real.

Who got you into writing when you first started?

4th Grade teacher, Mr. Cox. He always encouraged us to do freewriting just before we started our Language Arts (English) lessons. Sure, at that time we were still dealing with the fundamentals of writing, but it was good practice. Since then I’ve kept up with it even if it was poems or just writing down my thoughts.

Was there anyone who came alongside you at any point when you were struggling in your writing journey and made a real difference? If so, who and why?

No, not really. I would have to say that I have an awesome gang of author friends now as opposed to when I first started self-publishing.

What advice would you give to aspiring authors and writers just starting on the writing journey?

Don’t do it for the money. I’m serious. You’ll get heart broken if you start this journey focused on the thousands of dollars. Writing is tough and it’s going to get tougher before you’ll even get a reward.

Instead, focus on your ‘Why’ – why do you really want to write? What’s the burning reason that will keep you trudging through the dark trenches of despair and push you towards victory?

What is one thing you wish someone had told you before you started writing?

Stop listening to everyone else and do your own thing. Everyone’s journey is different and there is no secret formula to success. It’s a matter of rolling up your sleeves and getting dirt under your nails to get that hard work done. There’s no shortcut. Period.

What’s your favorite book, and who’s your favorite literary character? Why?

Mercy Thompson Series by Patricia Briggs. Mercy Thompson is my favorite character because of the trouble that she gets thrown into and must figure a way out of it. She’s tough, smart and she never gives up. Even when her body is mostly a pile of mush she keeps on fighting because she has people she wants to save. She’s one tough cookie and I like her.

Conclusion

Well, thanks for being here with us today! I’m sure we all learned quite a bit about your work and you as an author, and I enjoyed having you on the blog. Best of luck with your future endeavors. Readers, if you want to find Alicia’s books, you can do that on Amazon. As she mentioned, she uses two different authors’ names depending on which age group the books are appropriate for. You can find her profile on Amazon here.

Sunday Stories: First to Stop Applauding

Featured Ariel Paiement
New Blog Schedule

Introduction

The scene is a political rally for Stalin in the Soviet Union. A tribute to Stalin is called, and a standing ovation is given for a man who isn’t even present. Three minutes turns into five, and on it goes. No one dares to stop applauding even if they do not agree with the regime and even if they’re so exhausted they want to drop. Enthusiasm wanes as the applause goes on, stretching out to eight minutes. Everyone knows the police are watching, and even if they drop dead, they won’t stop clapping.

At eleven minutes in, a paper factory directory on the platform does what not even the leaders have dared do. He stops clapping and sits down. The false enthusiasm in the rest of the crowd disappears, and to a man, they too stop and sit. Russian Author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who saw much of this first hand, describes this very scene and concludes it on this note:

The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel. That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was how they went about eliminating them. That same night, the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him: 

“Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.”

The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn

An Applause Mentality and Leftist Culture

So why start off with that quote from Solzhenitsyn and the story he told? Because our culture is much like the men watching for who would stop applauding first to find the independent ones and shut them down. How, you ask?

Well, we don’t arrest independent thinkers, yet, in this country. But what we have seen in the liberal/progressivist mentality is a shift from simply requesting that dissenting voices be silent to demanding that dissenters applaud even the most abhorrent acts known to man. I point out the liberals and their agenda (on a government scale, certainly, but also on a personal scale at times) because they are usually the ones who scream the loudest in this country. They’ve got a peculiar mob mentality and seem to think that if they shout louder than anyone else, they’ll be right.

It’s a very odd phenomenon that I’ve observed in person as well as secondhand, and I rarely see that in conservatives. Sure, conservatives have their issues, but shutting down free speech, mob mentality toward the opposition, and demanding that the opposition applaud what they’re doing aren’t usually among them. On average, conservatives tend to be the types who do what they believe is best and right and don’t care if it’s going to cause them trouble. (Note that this isn’t true of government officials, typically, even in the right wing/conservative group, but when it comes to behaviors seen in the voting demographic, this tends to be how things work.)

Now, it used to be that it was enough if we simply didn’t speak up loudly in opposition to liberal agendas on hot button issues such as education, abortion, racial issues, or LGBTQ+. No longer is tolerance enough. Today’s culture (or at least the loudest ones in it) demand that we also approve. We can’t stay quiet and just avoid voicing dissent to get by and avoid persecution anymore.

Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in those individuals who say such things as “All whites are racist devils from birth” or “It’s great that you whites supported us, but that doesn’t get you out of paying for what your ancestors did” or “You support pro-life? Then you’re anti-women, sexist, and straight up backwards-minded”. These are things I’ve actually seen and heard people say!

If we need any further evidence that ours is an applause culture, we need look no further than these examples or the current chaos going on over black rights, defunding the police, and silencing anyone who disagrees. Even blacks are not exempt from the wrath of people in the BLM movement, for example, if they choose to speak up and dissent. One black veteran, who spoke out against the mentality and culture in black communities that has led to the violence we’re seeing now, was injured in a hit and run shortly after by protesters who didn’t like what he’d said. Another black man who dissented and spoke out against them for their behavior was shot in the head and died for daring to speak out. That doesn’t even begin to include the number of black cops who have died trying to defend innocents from angry mobs who only showed up to kill, loot, and destroy.

Other Examples

In case what I gave earlier wasn’t enough, let’s look at some other examples.

Anyone who’s not willing to applaud BLM and the rioting going on right now? Well, we’ve already seen what happened to individuals from the black community itself who disagreed. But if you’re white? How can you be so racist? That’s the outcry. You aren’t supporting us? Your silence on it doesn’t exonerate you. It means you support our oppression and hate us like the racist bigots you are. At one time, silence on the issue wouldn’t be an indicator of wanting oppression to continue. It would’ve meant the person didn’t agree with some subset of what was being said or simply had no opinion on the issue.

Christian artists who run their own businesses? It used to be enough for you to just be quiet about your beliefs regarding the LGBTQ+ community. You weren’t targeted by the hateful segment of the community (and to be clear, not everyone in the community is hateful. I’ve known some really awesome people who were a part of the community. I didn’t approve of their lifestyle, but they remain some of the kindest, nicest people I’ve ever known.), and you weren’t forced to create works of art celebrating a lifestyle you had a religious and conscionable objection to. But not anymore. Show your support and celebrate their lifestyle or end up in court and lose your own lifestyle because you wouldn’t applaud like everyone else.

What about pro-lifers? You aren’t willing to openly show your support for those who want to help women murder their own babies in the womb? You dare to tell those women, however gently or kindly, that there’s another option? You want to take away the choice to murder a baby and leave them with only three options (contraception, abstinence, or pregnancy)? Then you’re against women and want to force them to carry a baby against their will. Being quietly pro-life will no longer protect you from the social suicide of having an opinion that isn’t socially accepted.

What about those who want to raise their own children and teach them without government interference? According to an article published in Harvard’s journal and written by a Harvard lawyer/professor, you’re a nutcase and your children will be white supremacists (never mind the fact that there’s a sizable community of black and Hispanic homeschoolers too). If they don’t show immediate signs of white supremacy, then they’re just ticking time bombs. Worse still, they’re probably going to end up being religious (because that’s such a bad thing in a country that has historically prized freedom of religion).

Furthermore, you’re abusing your child because you might not be educated enough to provide them quality education. (Statistics actually show that homeschoolers generally outperform public and private schoolers on standardized tests, which are the generally accepted method of testing how well-educated and intelligent a given student is compared to the rest of the student population from any given demographic.) Society looks down on homeschooled kids. While they can generally get into colleges with their standardized achievement test scores, some colleges have more rigorous and difficult enrollment requirements for homeschoolers specifically. We have to jump through more hoops simply because our parents dared to educate us at home even if we’ve proven we’re just as well-educated and smart as any of our peers in a government run school.

What if you dare to stop applauding?

No matter how polite you are in daring to sit down, society will decry you. They can’t handle any voices that don’t fit the narrative that liberal government and media have established. There’s no room in our system for voices that disagree. We’re too advanced and intelligent for that, and anyone who doesn’t agree with the generally accepted beliefs that the majority (or the loudest voices) promotes is backwards and, possibly, a danger to society.

If you’re a public figure, you’ll find your character will be demeaned and your goals, however honorable, decried simply because you were the one who dared have them. Heaven help you if you’re a conservative Christian who refuses to comply. You’re going to be socially crucified.

The Leftist mentality can tolerate no independent thinkers if the conclusion is one that doesn’t fit with their narrative and their goals. While not every individual who is a Democrat or liberal is like this (I’ve known my fair share of those who are more polite than some conservatives and Republicans I know), the overall mindset promoted and pushed by the Leftist, liberal agenda is one of intolerance toward anyone who doesn’t conform and applaud for their ways and their agendas.

As I said earlier, I’ve been on the receiving end of their intolerant, hateful attitude toward anyone who disagrees more than once. As an author who is Christian and also unafraid to speak my mind, I’ve personally experienced the backlash from a mob of Leftist liberals who didn’t like the fact that I didn’t support everything they thought I should. I’ve been called a racist, labeled as un-Christian because I wouldn’t approve of the things God has clearly denounced as sinful and wicked, called unintelligent and told I’m living in a fantasy world when I presented stats and facts that contradicted what was being claimed, mocked because of being a homeschooler, accused of being bigoted because I didn’t agree with murder in the name of “justice”, and looked down on as naive just because I was Christian. People make judgments about me all the time because of my background without even knowing me and, often, without actually listening to anything I’ve said. The list goes on.

If I’ve learned anything about society during my childhood and teen years, it’s that no matter how hard someone tries to fit in and do what they’re told to, think what they’re told to, and say what they’re told to, it will never be enough. More will always be demanded, especially in a society rushing headlong into insanity and depravity. I learned early on not to bother trying to fit in. I learned that doing the right thing was always more important than the socially acceptable thing. I learned that while there is a kind way to tell someone they’re believing a load of lies, it isn’t kind or loving to allow someone to believe lies to their own detriment. I experienced the hatred society had for people like me firsthand growing up.

My first exposure to the ugliness of racism was on the playground when I asked a few black kids to play, thinking they might want to be included because most kids do, and I was told “White kids don’t play with black kids.” They said that with as much disdain and harshness as little kids can muster. But they learned it from somewhere. I ran into that attitude frequently from blacks around me, just as much as I ran into blacks who were some of the sweetest, kindest people I knew. And I learned from that. I learned that ugliness exists in humanity regardless of color or “race”. I learned that two people who look very similar can be totally opposite in their behaviors, thought patterns, and treatment of others around them. Selfish, rude, bigoted behavior can exist on any level in any person regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion because people are people no matter what shape or color they may come in. 

Is my viewpoint popular? No. Do I know exactly what it’s like to live in the culture that blacks live in where kids often get picked on for wanting to learn because it’s more cool to skip class instead (something I’ve heard a few blacks say lately)? No, I don’t. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know what discrimination and disdain for someone else on the basis of something they can’t change looks like. I do know that first hand, and it makes me sad that anyone would have to experience that today. Equally, it makes me very, very angry when I see anyone treating someone as if they’re a lesser human being for any reason, regardless of what that reason is, because I know what it’s like to be the one frowned upon, disapproved of, and shunned just because I didn’t fit the system’s narrative.

Why Christians Need to Stop Applauding Today’s Culture and Society

The most obvious reason to stop applauding is that we’re being asked to applaud out-and-out wickedness. I’ll be the first in line to applaud things like putting a corrupt cop in jail for unnecessary force that led to anyone’s death, arresting those who allow hatred of another to cloud their vision to the point that they commit murder, or giving the death sentence to a serial rapist. I’d also be the first in line, however, to demand that abortions stop because they are taking the lives of babies, and we are not given the permission to take the life of anyone except in very specific instances, none of which include killing infants who haven’t done anything wrong. I’ll be the first in line to applaud dealing with clear cases of injustice in our world that lead to the mistreatment of those around me even if I disagree with those people’s lifestyles or moral choices because injustice is injustice and that person has an inalienable right to the same freedoms I enjoy regardless of what I think of them personally.

But I will never  applaud for those who want anarchy, for those who hate another just because they’re a different color (and to clarify, that means both black and white groups because both do this and have done it in the past), for those blaming an entire skin color group for their problems as if every individual in that group is to blame by virtue of the skin tone they were born with, for those who ignore the facts and the truth in favor of emotion and pure evil, for those who want to kill defenseless babies, for those who want to subvert or outright destroy the concept that marriage is between one man and one woman as God ordained it, or for those who advocate murdering those who did nothing wrong. That’s a group that stands for sin and injustice, not for good and justice, and for those people I refuse to applaud.

And make no mistake about this. No Christian who is going to stand by Scripture and God would or should support those things. Beyond that, a Christian living in the light of God’s Word will not applaud anything that Word says is evil or sinful. As such, though we are called to love those who do sinful things, we must be the first to stop clapping for what they’re doing, even if the system demands our applause. If refusing to applaud gains us persecution in any form, so be it. We obey God first and our authorities in so far as they do not demand we do something directly against God’s commands. 

We are called to be salt and light to a dying world. Light should hold no darkness or untruth in it, nor should it applaud those things. We are called to love those around us. But love does not stand aside and stay silent as those it is directed toward run to their ultimate demise. It stands in the way, earnestly pleads with the erring one, and speaks truth even at its own expense.

Doing what we’ve been called to do means facing suffering and persecution. We need to do it anyway.

So I’m sitting down. I will be the first to stop clapping for the evils our society is promoting, even if I choose not to clap and no one follows suit. If that means arrest, social suicide, or actual death in order to stand by my God and what is true, right, and pure, so be it. To go against God and conscience to stand for evil and sin is neither safe nor wise.

Conclusion

To my brothers and sisters in Christ… Please stop applauding what is going on in today’s society. The looting, burning, rioting, killing of innocents, abortion of our own children, and destruction of the Biblical principles our country stood on for more than a century after its founding are sickening to God. He makes it clear that murder, hatred, destruction of others, theft, and insubordination to authority (except in the case where demanded to go against God Himself, who is the ultimate authority) are unacceptable. They are sin. 

We must be the light to a dying world, or we must bear a guilt and shame far greater than anything that could be laid at our feet by the world for not having the “politically correct” actions and words. Our shame should be rooted in our applause for the world’s insanity in the first place. Our ancestors may have applauded slavery in their time, and that was to their shame. We now applaud further evils in the name of reversing the evil that our ancestors (in some of our cases, anyway) created by applauding the evils of their day. If we should need to apologize for anything to the world around us, it should be for living in a way that told them God was a joke and His Word a lie. It should be for not loving them enough to sit down and stop applauding for their wickedness. It should be for not caring enough to stand up for the truth and to plead with them earnestly to repent before it’s too late. Those are the things we need to apologize for if we claim to believe in God and His Word but then applaud the world because in doing that, we have defied our Lord’s commands and made Him a liar to a lost and dying world.

So Christians, let’s be the first to stop clapping for everything that should make us weep for the atrocities being committed. That is our moral duty and our God-given responsibility if we’re going to be salt and light as we’ve been called to be. It’s time we took it seriously.

Thursday Technicalities: Internal Conflict

Featured Ariel Paiement1 Comment
internal conflict

Introduction

With our discussions regarding publishing concluded for now, we’ll turn now to discussing some of the key elements of crafting fiction that you can use to improve your writing, both with a completed manuscript and with one you’re still writing. I’ve recently been working through Donald Maas’s Writing the Breakout Novel, and I’ve found that these areas are ones that can prove challenging but are going to really take your work to the next level.

So, I’m going to go through some of the sections I found to be most useful and important with my own take on them based on things I’ve seen work out well in fiction. Today’s topic is going to deal with conflict within the character, otherwise known as internal conflict. This is an important part of fiction and really brings characters to life, so it’s not something we can overlook as writers. Let’s get started!

What Is Internal Conflict?

Internal conflict is when the character is conflicted within themselves regarding any given situation or decision. This differs from the major conflict that drives your plot (at least in many cases) in that the conflict driving the plot is usually some sort of external conflict that puts pressure on the character and may even exacerbate their internal conflict. In some cases, the internal conflict may be the driving conflict in the story and may create the external conflict due to a character’s actions in response to the conflict internally.

On a more basic level, internal conflict is when a character wants two opposing things at the same time. This simpler definition usually makes it a little easier for us to think about what our characters’ internal conflicts might be. Regardless of what the internal conflict is and whether or not it is the result of external pressures or the leading cause of those external issues, this is a tool in writing that cannot be ignored if you want a character that feels real and alive.

Keys for Internal Conflict

First and foremost, an internal conflict for a character must include two fundamentally opposed desires. This sounds really straightforward, but here’s the thing… You have to figure out how and why your characters could or would want those opposing things. We as people have issues with this in our own lives all the time. For example, consider someone who wants to eventually have a family but also doesn’t want their freedom to hop from partner to partner taken away. Those are two opposing desires. They can’t have both, and they’re eventually going to have to decide which one matters more. We all run into these kinds of ultimatums, and we all eventually go with one or the other when it becomes apparent we can’t have both.

The second key is to make the two options mutually exclusive. We all feel conflicted about things from time to time, but if we can find a way to make both work, then we often do. Furthermore, the options facing a character need to be ones they strongly care about. For example, in my book Bane of Ashkarith, the male lead has a strong desire to uncover the truth and to share that truth–whatever it may be–with the world. But he also has a strong desire to stay alive, and the truth is likely to get him killed if he goes ahead with telling it. He can’t have it both ways. He either tells the truth or he doesn’t. And he has strong reasons and motivations to choose either option, so it isn’t a situation where he can simply decide one choice doesn’t matter that much and just go with the other. No, he has to fight through the internal conflict to make a decision on what to do.

What if my character is too black and white to really struggle in the obvious ways?

You want to ensure that you set your characters up with a similarly stark set of options that lead to internal conflict. Sometimes, however, you find a character that is simply too morally upright and black and white to struggle with some of the more common issues. I’ve run into this recently with my male lead in a novel I’m working on. S is a trainer for an intergalactic organization whose sole goal is to sow dissent, chaos, and evil throughout the galaxy. They are directly opposed to God and anything that could be considered good, though they don’t really care what form evil and darkness takes so long as it does in fact drown out what is good and right. S doesn’t agree with them or their standards, but his situation is such that he must play along.

At first glance, it doesn’t seem like S necessarily is conflicted between two choices. At the beginning of the novel, he’s offered a way out. In order to get out, he has to play the long game and be patient, but there’s no question in his mind or that of the individual who offered him an out that he’s going to take it. He isn’t conflicted about it, and he isn’t conflicted about waiting it out so he can get himself and the girl who offered her help out safely.

So at this point, I’m faced with an issue. S is the protector, the dominant/alpha male who makes sure everyone under his care is safe even if it costs him everything to achieve that. He doesn’t dither over whether he’s willing to make the sacrifice to protect Gwen or others directly under his care. He already knows he will. He also doesn’t question the choice to leave because he refuses to be a part of the organization’s wickedness any longer than absolutely necessary.

“Growing” the internal conflict

In this case, S is a character that starts out with no internal conflict in his mind and must end up “growing” one. The way I chose to handle this? As Gwen begins to change his outlook on the situation and his approach to those around him, he begins to feel responsible for helping and protecting not just Gwen, who is directly under his protection, but also the other trainees whose trainers hurt or even kill them. He comes to a point where he is no longer certain that he can in good conscience abandon it all to run and never look back. Instead, he has a turning point that leads to his internal conflict: leave or find a way to fight back for the freedom of those who, like him, never had the chance to speak up and walk away from the horrors inflicted on them.

Gwen herself is put into a similar position, but she comes to it much sooner and sees it far quicker than S does. Her nature is not the protector so much as it is the outspoken voice for what’s right. That gets her and S into plenty of trouble in a culture that despises the truth and anyone who stands for it, but she stands firm anyway. Her internal conflict then, takes on a slightly different flavor than S’s, but the nature of the two is still similar in that the conflict is not in-built but must instead develop as their viewpoints and goals gradually begin to shift.

What if I just can’t think of anything?

Sometimes, characters make it very difficult to figure out what their internal conflict is or to determine how to push them into one. This might happen because the character doesn’t know what they want or is generally a somewhat weak type of person. I ran into this with Sebastian, a character from an allegorical sci-fi novella I’m working on revising. He falls into the category of “I don’t really know what I want or what I believe”. His problem was that he didn’t believe the popular narrative and was suspicious of the government’s claims, but he didn’t know what he believed if not that. He develops through the book, but I still have the issue that he doesn’t seem to really have much of an internal conflict at the start.

The solution to this? Start thinking about what they really want. If push came to shove, what is it that they’d fight for? Maybe the push might have to be really extreme, but what is the one thing that they couldn’t bear to lose, not accomplish, or fail at? Now take that thing and figure out what the opposite of it is.

For example, with Sebastian, the one thing he really can’t stand to lose is Vivian, the female lead. The opposite of that, to my mind, would be to lose her or let go of her. That gives me an internal conflict right there if I can find a way to set it up through the story such that he wants (or at least has to seriously consider) both paths.

Something else that I also found for Sebastian is that he is fiercely loyal to those he cares about. He can’t stand to lose the people he cares about or to walk away from them. So another conflict I can give him is having to decide between fighting for the people he cares about or walking away. With this character, however, there is no question in his mind, at least in the first novella, on which one he will choose for either of these. So in order to create any kind of internal conflict with him, I have to force him into situations where he can’t choose what he wants to choose. I have to make it so that he does have to walk away from his loved ones or so that he has to give up Vivian.

Sometimes, characters are like this. There should be conflict, but it might not always be clearly caused by the character wanting two different things. Sometimes it might be caused by a character wanting one thing but knowing the opposite is best and choosing the one thing they don’t want to do. This is a trickier one to pull off, and I would recommend you make sure you have at least one main character whose conflict is driven by two opposing options that they want to pursue.

Conclusion

That’s it for this discussion, everyone! I hope this was helpful for you. Next week, we’ll be talking about points of decision. We’ll go over why you need them, how to build up to them, and how they play into your character’s arc as well as the story itself. Until next time, happy writing!

Sunday Stories: The Attributes of God

Featured Ariel Paiement
Ariel Paiement

Introduction

This week’s focus is on the attributes of God. Attributes are concrete details about who He is; it differs from essence in that essence is what makes Him God while an attribute is part of how He works out what makes Him God. For example, if I were describing attributes of my own, I might say I have hazel eyes. It’s a part of who I am concretely, but it doesn’t tell anyone what I’m like in terms of behavior or personality. It does not tell you who I am, only some aspect of what I appear as physically. In the case of God being a spirit, we can understand attributes to be a description of how His essence impacts us and our world. He has no physical attributes to describe, but He does have some very important attributes that link to His essence.

These attributes fall into two categories: those not linked to morality and those that are. We’ll start with the non-moral attributes, and then when we reach the moral ones, we’ll start off with a discussion of why morality must be linked to God and why these attributes matter so much.

Non-Moral Attributes

Omnipresence (Acts 17:27-28; Hebrews 4:13)

This attribute links directly to God’s immensity, which we discussed last time in the discussion on God’s essence. What is omnipresence? It is a logical conclusion or extension of His immensity that states God is present everywhere and at all times, not in pieces of Himself spread out to reach everyone but in His entirety due to how immense He is. If you haven’t yet read the post I wrote on God’s essence, please start there. This post isn’t going to make much sense without it because you can’t understand the end conclusion properly if you haven’t seen where it began.

Omniscience (Proverbs 15:3; Psalm 147:5; Matthew 10:30; Micah 5:2)

When it comes to omniscience, this is God’s ability to know all things, and it stems from both His immensity and His eternity/infinity. Because of these essences of God, He knows everything down to things so minute we don’t even think of or care about them. This links directly to the concept that His knowledge is infinite in both breadth and depth, but also in time. Nothing can, has, or ever will surprise God, and He will never need to learn anything new. He already knows it all.

Omnipotence (Genesis 17:11; Job 42:2; Jeremiah 32:17; Matthew 19:26)

This is the attribute of God that is all-powerful, all-mighty, and undaunted by even the greatest or most impossible feats. This one, however, will usually lead to a question from skeptics and even some believers. If God is all these things, particularly if He is all powerful, why allow sin? And why not save everyone?

This leads to an essential point in our discussion that must be made before we go further. If you miss this, then falling into doctrinal errors and heresies surrounding God’s nature become very, very easy.

How He Exercises His Attributes

The key point here is to look at what God says about and reveals about Himself, both in Scripture and in the world around us. He is a God of order. Furthermore, He Himself does not change, and He is unable to deny His nature because to do so would be to change. Therefore, when it comes to His attributes, He must therefore exercise them in a way that is not only consistent with His nature but also in a way that will not violate any other attribute. If He exercised His attributes in a way that violated another attribute, that would be to violate part of His nature, and as we made clear here and in the previous article on His essence, that is not something God will do.

But if He’s all powerful, why can’t He will that He exercise love and ignore His justice, holiness, and other attributes, for example, to just allow everyone into heaven? Because He only does what He wills, and He is clear that He doesn’t want sin, inconsistency in His nature, or violation of His attributes.

This is why those who focus on just His love or just His judgment then must force His use of one attribute to violate another. Most people who say things like “God wouldn’t do that because He’s all loving” or “There are some sins that are greater than others/will send you to hell if you’re living in them” don’t realize that what they are doing is saying “God will exercise this attribute I like more over the others, even if it requires Him to violate or invalidate the other in doing so”. But that is in fact what they are saying when they pick one attribute to focus on and ignore or sideline another. They are essentially saying that God is, at best, inconsistent or, at worst, that He has changed in His nature.

So in conclusion on this particular attribute, He is able to do anything, but He will not do everything because He has control over His power, and He knows how to exercise it according to His will and in accordance with His nature. (Habakkuk 1:13; II Timothy 2:13; James 1:13)

Immutability (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6; Romans 11:29)

Immutability is the attribute that has do with His unchanging aspect. He cannot mutate or change either Himself or His will and the plan that He established before the foundation of the world. They will never alter due to any outside force or influence either. Furthermore, He doesn’t change His mind on His promises or His dictates. (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 110:4)

But then, you will ask, what about when it says God repented of what He was going to do in various Bible passages? A valid question until you actually dig into the word repent, but let’s start out with giving a few examples people often bring up. In Exodus 32:14, we have Moses interceding for the people, and God “repenting of the evil He had thought to do”. Then, in II Samuel 24:16, there was a plague God had sent on the nation of Israel in punishment for their king’s disobedience in numbering the people, which was an act of pride and desire to compete on the level of nations around the nation of Israel as well as in direct disobedience to God’s clear dictate not to do so. The plague was so bad that it would have wiped out the nation of Israel had it continued, but God stays His hand in this verse and says it is enough.

Sure looks like God is changing His mind and His will in these passages, doesn’t it? People have a real issue with this idea that God could start out in one direction and then change to another without having changed His will. Furthermore, this leads to a difficulty with God altering the way He handles people through time and the idea of dispensationalism (the concept that God dealt with different people with different approaches at different points in history). For example, He only allowed approach to Him through Israel in the Old Testament. But the law didn’t save; it was a way to show trust and obedience to God before Christ. So now that Christ has come, God changed the approach and has said we must come to Him through Christ alone, not through the Law and our own merit, which can never truly restore fellowship. The Law was no longer necessary, then, because Christ’s death allowed Him to write the Law on our hearts.

But people struggle with this because they assume that a change in approach means a change in nature. This is a fallacious understanding. Why? To understand, we have to look at the word “repent” used in the KJV version of the passages in Exodus and II Samuel, and we also have to take a look at whose perspective that “repenting” is being viewed from.

Repent and the Perspective It is Given To Us From In God’s Word

Repent means to change direction in its simplest form. It means to stop doing what you are and to go another way. This in and of itself doesn’t really help people to understand why a change in approach doesn’t equal a change in nature though, nor does it clear up the confusion as to how God can change approach and not change His will. To understand that, we have to combine this definition with an understanding of whose perspective this word is seen from.

The important thing most people miss is that repent is seen from the viewpoint of humanity, not God’s. How do we know that? First of all, if God could change His mind in a way that changes His actual will, He wouldn’t be eternal, omniscient, or immense. This would, in the end, make Him no longer God as His eternal and immense essences are a part of what makes Him God. Without them, He would not be Himself.

At the end of the day, then, we will all go the way God planned, and God’s plan won’t change. But why say repent then? Because God did, in a sense, “change His mind” from our perspective. We do not have the eternal perspective, so to Moses pleading with God not to destroy Israel or to David praying for God not to wipe out the nation of Israel (something God had promised wouldn’t happen), it would look very much like God changed His mind or His desires in response to their prayers of faith. But what really happened?

The reality is that if God were to go through with what He was doing all the way to the end, doing so would force Him to violate His promises or His nature, neither of which being things He can do. The end goal therefore was not what we assumed it was, but often He allows something to start or sends us down a path for a time to teach, correct, or prepare us with that end goal in mind. He knows what He’s doing. And even though we look at the path and wonder why God would “change His mind” or send us to do something He “didn’t want us to do”, the reality is that the direction you were headed in was a part of the plan but wasn’t going to be the only direction He needed to take us to get to the end. So, while we could see the change in direction as His changing His mind, the reality that is in keeping with His nature is that His plan always had the change in direction there.

This is in keeping with the fact that He knows everything. He already knew we or others around us needed to go in one direction for a while before heading off in another in order for His plan both on a personal level and on a much larger scale to come to fruition. If we understand then both the meaning of the word repent and the perspective in which the Bible presents it to help us understand a God who is so far from human that without human words we couldn’t understand, then this is no longer a problem like so many feel it is.

Moral Attributes

Now we get to the second section of this topic: morality and moral attributes.

To begin with, we must understand why it is important that God has attributes linked to morality. This is because morality only exists if there is an outside standard above anything we can understand. Why do I say this? Well, let’s take an example from today’s world. Some people object to God and any worldview that contains Him because if God exists He allowed Hitler, and Hitler was evil. But if God doesn’t exist, why was Hitler wrong? Why was Hitler wrong but euthanasia, abortion, and other crimes against humanity are all okay? We as individuals all put value on lives. It’s normal to do so. We recognize an intrinsic worth to them. But if God is removed from the equation, then those who have removed Him still put value on lives, but they must define it their own way. Therefore, those who object to Hitler object not on the grounds of true morality, but on the grounds that he did not determine value in a way they agreed with. They determine value in their own minds and use that value on life or those moral guidelines to determine whether others are right or wrong.

But here’s the problem. If it comes from us, it can’t be morality. If there is no absolute standard, no yardstick to measure by that is unchanging, then we cannot judge anyone for anything they do. Murdering people en mass is okay. Killing babies is okay. Rape, incest, molestation? All okay. Maybe certain individuals don’t want to do those things, but they do not have any standard by which they can say “you are wrong because you do those things” since all they have is their own opinion, which, without a being outside of us to validate it, is as valid as the opinion of the serial killer raping and killing women.

People don’t like this. But truth is truth regardless of one’s feelings. Anyone who believes there is a God or that the Bible is infallible must, by their own belief system, therefore believe in right or wrong, and they must use God’s yardstick, not their own, to measure by.

But those who do not believe there is a God or that the Bible is infallible must also, by their own belief system, believe there is no absolute truth, no real right or wrong, and must therefore allow all things even if they themselves do not wish to participate in a given action. Equally so, anyone who says that we cannot know God or that we cannot trust what He has said in Scripture because it is not God’s revelation but is man’s ideas, must also say the same. If you don’t know the measuring stick and haven’t been given it, you are left in the same moral quagmire as those who have declared there is no God but fickle humanity, which changes its ideas of right and wrong on a whim.

With that established, what attributes of God are linked to morality, and what kind of measuring stick do they give us for determining right and wrong in our world?

Holiness (Leviticus 19:2; Isaiah 40:23; Exodus 26:33; 1 Peter 1:15-16; John 17:11; Psalm 47:8; Psalm 89:14; and Isaiah 6:1-3)

The word holy or holiness means completely apart from. In God’s case, the Bible uses the word to indicate that He is completely apart from and exalted above all creation as our Creator. But in the case of humans who have been redeemed, it means we are set apart from the world (but not exalted above it as we are still human and are not God).

When it comes to God, this attribute encompasses the ideas that He is separate from His creation, sin, unrighteousness, and moral evil. This is the unchanging yardstick by which we then measure ourselves against when it comes to morality, or at least, a part of it. When compared to a spotless, blameless God who has never once done anything evil, we who have shed innocent blood and sacrificed our children on the altars of false gods or the altar of our own selfishness suddenly seem a lot more wicked. Even those who might say, well, I’ve never murdered anyone or done child sacrifice, are stained black by their own sins when faced with something as pure as a holy God.

Look at it this way. If you dumped red wine onto a white dress, would the stain be any less red and obvious just because you only dumped a little onto it and not an entire glass? No. The red stain would still stick out like a sore thumb because the dress is such a pure, bright white that any spot or blemish must show. God’s holiness is like that dress, pure and radiant, and we are, when compared to it, all the red stain.

Did God’s Holiness Disappear In The New Testament?

There are some who would say that God got rid of His unwavering holiness in favor of His love when the New Testament rolled around. Those who say this believe that He loves everyone and will therefore excuse the sin that stains us despite the fact that His holiness keeps Him from having fellowship with evil, unrighteousness, and sin. This is not accurate.

His holiness cannot disappear in the New Testament because it is the basis for all other moral attributes, including His love. It is the first one we’ve discussed for that very reason. If you remove His holiness, He is no different from Zeus or other pagan gods who were just like us (or worse), slept with anything that moved in many cases, and did all manner of reprehensible things. Emphasize anything above His holiness, and you reduce Him to that level.

Furthermore, God’s holiness is the basis for needing salvation and the basis for Christ’s death on the cross in the first place. If God had ceased to be holy, not only would He cease to be God, but He never would have needed to send Christ to die for us in order to restore the fellowship broken when Adam and Eve sinned. His holiness demanded that the stain of sin be removed before fellowship could be restored. But as the one offended by our affront and our sin in Adam and Eve’s fall, He had to be the one to reach out and bridge the gap created by broken fellowship. The offended must reach out to the offender to restore, not the other way around. The offender can plead for forgiveness, restoration, and mercy, but if the offended chooses not to give it, then nothing can fix the rift the offender created. As such, God had to initiate, and man had nothing to do with that choice to initiate. They played no role in it and, in fact, as we often see, wanted nothing to do with restoration anyway.

So then, God’s holiness must be the first moral attribute we understand and behold, and it must also not cease simply because a Savior was sent or His approach to us changed in accordance with His Son’s death on the cross. For if it did, then He would cease to be God and Christ’s death on the cross would be meaningless for one man with a sin nature cannot die to redeem another with the same ailment.

Righteousness and Judgment/Justice (Psalm 89:14; Isaiah 61:8; II Chronicles 6:15; Exodus 34:7)

This moral attribute is a natural extension of His holiness. Because He is the holy creator and is above His creation, He has the right to pass judgment on His creation. God is also a God who loves the concept of right versus wrong. If he didn’t, we wouldn’t even have a right and wrong, nor would we have a conscience, which stems directly from His concern with us knowing what He views as right versus wrong. This attribute states that God’s justice rewards right and punishes wrong, even if He is longsuffering (patient) and does not immediately heap condemnation on the heads of those who have done wrong.

God’s Goodness (Mark 10:18; I John 4:8,10; I John 4:16; Job 14:5; Psalm 145:9; Matthew 5:45)

This moral attribute of God has four sub sections. We’ll start with His love.

God’s Love (Mark 10:18; 1 John 4:8,10,16)

God is love. Does that statement strike some of you as a little strange? If you’ve grown up in certain sectors of the Church, then you hear about His judgment all the time, but you don’t hear much about God being love. That’s what the Bible says though. He doesn’t just have love; He is love. Furthermore, only God is truly, completely good and therefore capable of fully loving in the sense the Bible presents (though through His grace and power, His children can show this love as well).

What kind of love is God? It isn’t an emotional love or one that ebbs and flows. It is agape love, which in the Bible is a love that leads to action characterized by sacrifice. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the death of Christ on the cross for our salvation.

God’s Benevolence (Job 14:5; Psalm 145:9; Matthew 5:45)

This second category of His goodness is the way in which He takes care of His creation regardless of whether they serve Him, acknowledge Him, and so on. He often goes above and beyond what we need and allows us to prosper, even if we turn our backs on Him and choose not to serve Him.

Why is this? Well, as one wise person said, for a Christian, this world is the only Hell we’ll ever know. For the unsaved, however, this world is the only heaven they will ever know. So while God is benevolent to all on this earth and in this life, those who reject Him in spite of His love and His benevolence have an eternity of suffering ahead, according to the Bible. So why should we be concerned about whether the wicked temporarily prosper when we know their end? Instead of being jealous, an understanding of God’s benevolence leads us to pity them and pray earnestly for their salvation.

God’s Mercy (Ephesians 2:4; Romans 11:30-31; Isaiah 55:7)

God’s mercy is the way in which His goodness is shown to those in distress. It is not exercised all the time toward everyone. This is important because it leads to the point that He can exercise His attributes differently in different situations. Going back to what we focused on earlier, God won’t exercise one attribute in a way that violates another. So if He exercises His mercy in a way that overlooks justice, then it would violate His holiness and righteousness, and He will not do so. But if He can exercise it in a way that doesn’t violate the other attributes, He is free to do so.

This means that because of His nature, He cannot do unfair or unjust things just to be nice. Think about that. How often do we hear people say things like God would never send so and so to Hell because they never heard the Gospel and that would be cruel, or God would never do ABC because He’s loving? I bet we’ve all heard those statements. Maybe we’ve even said them. The problem with this is that if we say those things, what we’re really saying is that God will do unfair, unjust things in order to be nice to those people. They are saying His love takes precedence over and violates His other attributes.

This is another attribute that relates to salvation, as well. God needed a way to save that satisfied holiness by not ignoring our sin and leaving us unchanged in that sin. But He also needed to satisfy His goodness. So, He sent Christ, God incarnate, to take our sin because He alone had none of His own sins to pay for and had an infinite ability to exchange His life for ours through substitutionary atonement.

God’s Grace

This aspect of God’s goodness is the way He manifests it to those who have actively gone out of their way to be undeserving. This is shown to man in general in His forebearance with us. One sin, one time is enough to make Him just in simply killing us as that is the penalty for sin, but instead, His grace constrains Him, and He chooses not to immediately mete out punishment. But it is also shown more specifically to individuals in our salvation, which the Bible is very clear is through grace in Jesus Christ.

Truth (Job 38:1-2; Job 27:1-6)

This is the last moral attribute of God, and it simply is that God, in what He knows, what He declares, and what He says about Himself and creation, is utterly true and unbiased. Only God is fully capable of being utterly true and unbiased. Humanity has perceptions and perspectives, and we see reality through those perceptions. Some of us are closer to the truth than others, but we are not infallibly true like God is in our understanding.

This is an important point because unless God sees reality with no bias or perception, the Bible cannot be infallibly true. Unless He is truth and is outside of creation, so utterly holy that we cannot fully comprehend Him, the Bible isn’t trustworthy because His perceptions and ideas about the universe, creation, and even Himself, might not be totally accurate or infallible. So we see that if this point or any of the other attributes He holds are removed, He must cease to be truly God and we can therefore know nothing for certain about a Creator or the Divine because there is no source but our own imagination to turn to.

Conclusion

I hope that this discussion has been both instructive and grounding for my fellow believers as well as thought-provoking for those who do not believe. Our perception and idea of God (who He is, His character, and His very existence even) is the single most important thing we think because on it must rest everything else about our worldview. Our belief in God or our lack of it determines how we live our lives, what we do, and why we think what we do, even if we don’t recognize it.

Christians, if we have a wrong view of God, we end up on tenuous ground, unable to fully support our own arguments to either a world going to Hell or to other Christians who challenge us. In I Peter, God tells us through Peter that we should be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us. But if we do not know the God we serve, we are in danger of being unable to give that answer to a world that needs to see it. I know that this study has definitely helped to ground me personally and to solidify why I believe what I do about God, and my hope and prayer is that it has done the same for you. We have the answers for a critical, lost world right in front of us, so let us not be ignorant of them and therefore represent to the world a God who is not the God of the Bible.

Author’s Interview with Sara Zagorski

Featured Ariel Paiement

This week, I had the opportunity to interview Sara Zagorski, one of the authors in our new anthology Glimpses of Time and Magic and author of the short story The Heart of the Coast. I won’t take up any further time from the interview, so let’s dive into the questions and answers.

Tell us a little bit about yourself.

Hi, world! I’m Sara, a 15-year-old sophomore from Chicago. I may be young, but I’ve
been writing ever since I knew how to read, and most of my daily life is filled with reading
and writing. On the side, I play softball, play the flute in marching band, and draw. I have
a cat named Sydney, a dog named Molly, and a very tight group of friends who continue
to inspire and support me every day!

What kind of fantasy do you write, and what got you into it?

I tend to write high fantasy set in my ongoing magical universe that exists outside of our earth, though I’ll also dabble in other types of fantasy whenever I get inspired. I can’t remember exactly what got me into this type of fantasy, but I could probably trace it all the way back to second grade when I first started liking Peter Pan. Ever since I first saw that movie, I’ve been obsessed with the idea of other worlds existing outside of our own that have their own laws, history, and magic, and whenever I get inspiration for another one of these worlds, I enjoy creating stories about them.

What genres do you read, and do you write the same ones?

I read almost exclusively fantasy and science fiction, and that translates pretty directly to
my writing. I find real-life really boring and scary sometimes, and writing stories set in
alternate worlds is a really easy way for me to escape stressful situations and envelop
myself in a different universe.

What are some of the things you like to do to relax?

Reading and writing are pretty high on that list, though I also like to put on my music and
take a walk around my neighbourhood if I’m feeling particularly stressed. It also helps to
watch movies or shows that have really good memories associated with them to help
remind me of good times.

Can you tell us about your current work-in-progress?

The Heart of The Coast is the first story I’m getting published, but I never actually
anticipated having the opportunity to put my work out there until I was a lot older. As of
now, I don’t have any other books in the making that I’m looking to publish, but I’m
working on a couple of stories for fun in the meantime. My main project right now is
called Kye Rising. It’s another story set in my alternate universe in which the main
character, Kye, is sent to my fantasy world where he has to adapt and prepare for war
before the antagonist, a dark elf known as the Dark One, takes over the last standing
kingdom that opposes his reign. I haven’t gotten far with this story yet, but I’m loving the
characters so far, so it’s going to be a fun ride!

If you’ve published (self-published or traditionally published), can you tell us a little about the experience?

Like I said before, this is my first time getting published. I don’t have much valuable
insight into the experience, but I think this opportunity is a really good starting point for
getting published in the future. Working with a group of experienced authors has helped
me understand the process a little better, and I have a good idea of what I’ll need to do
to publish my own work on my own!

What were your inspirations for writing?

Most of my inspirations for writing come from books, movies, or shows that I’ve been
obsessed with at some point. As I read and watch things, I usually take notes on the
distinctive traits of my favourite characters, plot points I love the most, and any other
unique characteristics that make me enjoy the books and movies as much as I do. Some
of my biggest inspirations were the Game of Thrones series, works by J. R. R. Tolkien,
and The Untamed.

Who got you into writing when you first started?

I can’t actually remember who first got me into writing. I’ve written books ever since I
learned how to read, and some of my oldest stories date all the way back to
kindergarten. Because I’ve been writing for so long, there’s no one person in particular
who inspired me to start writing, but there have been a lot of authors along the way who
helped give me ideas for stories.

Was there anyone who came alongside you at any point when you were struggling in your writing journey and made a real difference? If so, who and why?

There was actually one person who really helped me with my writing, and her name is
Joanna White. She’s the author who first introduced me to this project, though I’ve
known her for a long time before this. She’s been a really great mentor for my writing
ever since I started doing her Author’s Games back in fifth or sixth grade, and because
of her helpful comments and critiques on my writing, I’ve improved drastically ever since.
Her Author’s Games also gave me an excuse to write new stories every week, and I got
to put my creativity to good use for the period that I competed. I’m genuinely really
thankful for all the help she’s given me over the years!

What advice would you give to aspiring authors and writers just starting on the writing journey?

My best advice is to not force yourself to write if you don’t want to. Waiting until the
perfect inspiration hits you makes your stories that much better and more enjoyable to
write. Also, basing your stories off of things you enjoy in your everyday life can make
your stories really personal, and you can connect really deeply to the characters and the
settings. The best part of writing for me is making that connection to the characters and
finding yourself in your work.

What is one thing you wish someone had told you before you started writing?

I wish someone had told me not to force myself to write if I don’t want to. There were
times where I burned myself out and couldn’t write anything because I’d tried to make
myself write too much, and those periods were always really miserable.

What’s your favorite book, and who’s your favorite literary character? Why?

It’s almost impossible for me to pin down my favourite all-time book, so I’m going to say
that my current favourite is An Ember in the Ashes by Sabaa Tahir. The book has lots of
incredible character development, and it also includes one of my favourite plot points in
which the villain ends up becoming the hero (or the other way around). As such, my
favourite current literary character would have to be Elias. He’s got really good morals,
he’s an awesome fighter, and he overcomes many challenges that end up building him
up as a person. He’s the perfect example of my favourite type of character.

Discussing Racism and Division in Light of American History

Featured Ariel Paiement

Introduction

First, let me say up front that this is from an American perspective on America. It isn’t written with other countries in mind because their history is different, and I’m not as familiar with the global history of racism and division as I am with the history of it in the States. Second, let me also state this: my opinion probably won’t be popular, but it is based on all of the reading I’ve done on the topics, research into what those who were involved in the events I’m going to highlight had to say, and the trends I see that have started back toward our country’s beginning and have continued to come to light.

Having an Opinion on the Matter

If you listen to some people today (including both colored and white people), non-colored people are not allowed to have an opinion or pass judgment on anything that half of our country is doing simply because of skin color. This contains a fundamental flaw in my opinion.

What is that flaw? The idea that somehow skin color makes us different. Oh, I know people say we’re all the same even if we have different skin coloring, but all evidence stands to the contrary in so many cases. Our country as a whole says one thing and does another. But what they’re saying is in fact the truth! Both white and colored are human beings, and we are all affected by what the other group does because we live in the same country, the same neighborhoods at times, and face varying difficulties based on how the other group responds to us. If we believed this in practice, not just in what we said, then we wouldn’t have the issues we do, or at least, not in the same way as we do.

Historically, black, Hispanic, and Asian communities have faced unjust and in some cases illegal persecution. The white community has affected them in this way, and it is without a doubt wrong. However, with all of the rioting going on, which has not only been aimed toward the police and a corrupt system but also toward stores, business owners, and individuals who had nothing to do with the issue people are supposedly protesting, white communities also live with fear and despair now. Further complicating the issue is that the rioters are only a small piece of the black community or, in the worst cases, aren’t POCs at all but are trying to give them a bad name. This has resulted in an enormous amount of fear incorrectly leveled at an entire group of people who often have done nothing wrong, don’t agree with the violence, and only want their voices heard.

Some would argue that it’s a sort of poetic justice that whites now have to live in fear because of what some small segment of the black community (or those looking to make the black community look bad) is doing in response to years of oppression and mistreatment. I would argue it only compounds the problem because it only breeds more hurt, fear, and resentment, and it solves nothing. But more on that and why I’m saying that later.

Why I Believe Everyone Should Have An Opinion

In the end, I believe every one should have an opinion on this matter, no matter what color they are. We’re all part of the human race, and we should get very angry when another part of the human race is unduly punished or persecuted simply because of color. To say that half of our country shouldn’t be allowed a voice (whether white or black) simply because they are not the other color is inherently flawed because we’re all going to affect one another in how we act. Only a self-centric view of yourself and those around you would lead you to believe that someone who is a different color than you cannot have an opinion on your actions simply because they are a different color. Let’s not do that to anyone.

Friends who are of color? You guys have every right to be angry and devastated over what has been happening to you. It’s wrong, and I’m so sorry you have had to live with the injustice, persecution, and fear that has been inflicted on you. But white friends? You guys can have an opinion too. If you’re sitting there saying that everything that’s happening is fine and you don’t understand why anyone would need to protest, even peacefully… Well… That’s your opinion. It’s one that’s, politely, very head-in-the-sand and very inaccurate, but it is your opinion. For those of you who, like me, agree change needs to happen but denounce the violent rioting going on, you are also entitled to an opinion.

But let’s make sure that while we have our opinions, we’re doing our best to support those who need our support right now. Everyone is going to suffer if the violence continues, most of all our black communities because the violence is only going to lead to further fear and brutality in response from our police departments. If we’re not all working together to bring change, to speak out against what’s going on where we’re able, and to shape the next generation to think differently than our own has, then we are part of the problem no matter what color our skin is.

Let’s Talk History – The Revolutionary War

To start off with, we need a brief discussion of the Revolutionary War. Why is this relevant? Because so few people actually know anything about our history, if discussions going around on social media are anything to judge by. People have been comparing the riots and protests to the Revolutionary War. While I do see some parallels, they’re flipped from what people are claiming, which is that the riots on the part of the black community (not the protests, per se, but riots specifically) are just like the colonies fighting for independence from Britain.

This is a misconception on several levels. First, the Revolutionary War was a war of self-defense, not independence. Yup. You heard me right. The war didn’t start until they’d already declared their freedom and had gone so far as to kick out the British governors in favor of appointing their own. The Declaration of Independence was a notice to England/Britain that we as the colonies were opting out of citizenship and as such did not recognize their authority to govern us. It was a peaceful declaration, and war wasn’t implied or suggested by the colonies.

English Law and the Magna Carta

Now, what was the basis for this declaration of independence? The colonies were, up to that point, considered citizens of Britain, but they had specific restrictions as well as liberties given to them because of the charters they had with previous kings prior to King George III. Furthermore, they and every citizen of Britain had specific rights and duties under the agreement made between the nobles (House of Lords), the king, and the people and first signed on June 15th, 1215. This agreement was the Magna Carta, and it was a huge part of English law. Why was it so important? Because it stated that no one, not even the king himself, was above the law. Therefore, King George III was required to treat the colonies as English citizens properly by following the laws and the charters they had.

But King George wasn’t doing this. He decided to do his own thing, and though many appeals were made to point out that what he was doing was in fact a violation of English law and wouldn’t be tolerated if the people of the colonies were living in England itself, he continued to grow worse and worse. The colonies were treated as citizens only when it benefited England but were denied their rights under English law when it didn’t.

So the colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence to, in a nutshell, say “You won’t treat us like citizens unless it suits you, so we’re declaring we aren’t citizens as you’ve ignored every legal appeal made to this point.” And at that point, Britain’s leadership should have said one of two things. Either, they should’ve said, “You’re right. We’re going to fix this,” or “You’re right. We’ll let you go.” They did neither. At this point, they declared a war and decided to treat them like rebellious citizens, though by then the colonies were not in fact citizens anymore. They had made the decision Britain wouldn’t between citizenship and non-citizenship, and Britain forced them to it.

So What?

Why is this important to what’s going on today or to the rest of this article? Because we’re going to talk about the Civil War, where something very similar happened but ended up splitting a nation in two. But it’s also important because people are paralleling the rioting with this event incorrectly. The American Revolution wasn’t started by the colonists protesting. Even events like the Boston Tea Party were not violent. This isn’t to say that they never did anything the wrong way. They were human just as we are, and certainly once the war actually started, individuals made poor choices. But in general, it was peaceful up until Britain decided to attack us. Then it became a war of self-defense (maybe now the comment I made about that at the beginning makes more sense?).

The riots, on the other hand, are not at all peaceful, nor have they been even close to discriminatory in who they drag into the mess. Business owners, cops who did nothing wrong, civilians who happened to be in the path of the violence. Businesses are burned, fires started on playgrounds that were for children of all ages, colors, and abilities, buildings defaced, rocks thrown at fire fighters’ equipment when the men and women manning them are putting their lives on the line to stop fires rioters started.

The parallel I would draw between the American Revolution and the riots is not that the rioters are the colonies rising up against injustice but that they are Britain making a moment of injustice worse. They aren’t defending themselves from a point in time when police brutality is occurring to them or their families. The police haven’t come into their homes or businesses and first attacked them, nor have they done so on the streets.

That has happened, yes, and those who defend themselves from it are right to do so. Those who step in to help to defend others from a current instance of that sort of brutality are also right to do so. When injustice is happening and people speak up against it to say, this is wrong, unjust, and in some cases, illegal, they are acting in true American spirit like our founders did. But when they choose to do so violently, they are no longer the protesters but the aggressors, and we saw with the American Revolution, this exploded into violence, more lives lost than necessary, and a war that never needed to happen.

The Civil War

I know this is getting long, but we’ve got one more important stop to make here, and this one has everything to do with where we’ve ended up as a country today. Now, we’ve all been taught that the Civil War was about slavery and how the blacks were being treated. This is the accepted view, at least in the North. In the South, if you go visit many of their monuments and Civil War national parks, you will see an entirely different picture of what happened, and that’s what we’re going to talk about here.

As a Northerner, I’ve been told many times Lincoln is the best president we’ve ever had and that he was amazing because he freed the slaves. I’m sorry to say to those of you that hold this view that history does not support such a viewpoint or high regard for Lincoln, as I hope will become clear as we begin to examine what really happened in the Civil War. While the South and the North both made mistakes, no doubt, the South was in the right for what they chose to do, though not on the issue that most believe was the reason for the war and their secession.

What was the Civil War About?

The Civil War, while it did in part have to do with slavery issues, was not predominantly about that. Lincoln’s primary motivation was focused on something entirely different, in fact. Now, before you get mad and accuse me of trying to somehow warp history or marginalize the issue of slavery, I’m not saying it wasn’t an issue on the table. But what I am about to share with you is the reason we still have such a strong divide both between North and South and between black and white. Lincoln and the Civil War are the reason. (Yes, I know… He’s one of our best presidents. How can I say such a thing? Well, hear me out.)

Before the Civil War started, the North and the South had been going back and forth on a lot of issues. It wasn’t just slaves. On the issue of slavery, the South objected because their entire infrastructure was based on agriculture, and if they just did away with slaves entirely right away as the North wanted them to, they would collapse. The entire economy would be ruined. Lives would be ruined. And it wasn’t just that the plantation owners stood to lose. Everyone did.

Part of the issue in question was what to do with all of the slaves once they were freed. Should they be shipped back to Africa to an environment where warring tribes very often sold those they’d captured from a rival tribe to the slavers? Or should they stay in America? If they stayed in America, what would be done to take care of them? They didn’t have any trades, they weren’t educated, and the system couldn’t handle the strain of trying to support all of them. In fact, the situation was such that many freed slaves with masters who treated them well chose to remain on the plantation to work as they had in exchange for food and board because their entire life was on that plantation. Is it right that the system was such? No, of course not! But the situation was complex and multi-layered, and the North tried to act as if it was not in many cases.

Where was the North coming from? Well… You know how we say whites who have an opinion against violent protests on black rights are coming from a place of white privilege? The North was coming from a place of privilege in this case. While they were right to say that the slaves should be freed, they stood to lose nothing at all if the slaves were freed. In fact, in some ways they stood to gain. The North was mostly industrial with little to no agriculture. They didn’t rely on slaves to keep their plantations going, and they were more than happy to hire freed blacks to work in their industrial sites for cheap wages. So if all slaves were freed all at once, the South could go down and the North wouldn’t suffer.

Bigger than just one issue?

But the issues that led to the Civil War were greater than just one issue, however awful that one issue might have been. The North had begun to completely cut the South out of the equation. The abolitionist movement was gaining sway in the North, and they were trying to enforce their laws and regulations on the South slowly but surely. Every new state that joined the Union was a battle between not just slave and free but industrial vs agricultural. The South was justifiably worried that if the North won most of the States and also allowed the blacks to vote, they would lose any and all say in what was going on. The fear ran deeper than just the surface matter of slaves to what would happen if the North gained enough force to push whatever issues they pleased.

Then the North wanted them to start paying every slave they owned to work? They couldn’t afford to pay their slaves in addition to housing, feeding, and clothing them too, something most already were doing to one degree or another (some better than others, sadly). The anger just burned hotter and hotter as their every concern was dismissed or they were accused of trying to encroach on Northern state rights in the process of protesting the slow walk toward the death of their own.

The South was angry. They tried many times to appeal what was being done. Granted, the majority of the surface fighting was about whether or not the North would return slaves to their owners, something the two sides both agreed was required by the Constitution. But it ran so much deeper than that. It was predominantly a fight between class: rich, upper class against middle class against slave. And it wasn’t just the South dealing with this. It was the North too.

The loudest voices in the South were those of rich plantation owners, all of whom stood to lose a great deal. The smaller plantation owners who grew most of the food supplies often didn’t own slaves, but they still chose to side with the South on the issue, though not all did. A huge mess was brewing on all sides, and it would erupt into a civil war when the people had had enough. The South was afraid that the rising distaste for slavery, something their society really wasn’t able to function well without, would result in an extreme disadvantage for them all the way around. If slavery were to be removed, it would have to be gradual to avoid a full infrastructure collapse, which is what both sides had initially agreed would be the case. The North, however, changed its mind as its landscape and its own issues began to change the situation.

But Congress and the leadership wouldn’t listen to the South. Compromise was a thing of the past, but it would not be a part of the future it seemed. They favored the North, who had more people, more voices, and more pull. And the South got fed up with it. (Sound familiar… Kind of sounds like the colonists who weren’t being given their rights by England.) Essentially, the North was bullying the South and only acknowledging them when it was convenient. They were taking advantage of their own countrymen, and the South eventually snapped when Abe Lincoln showed up on the scene.

Why Was Lincoln the Gas to the Fire?

Lincoln was a staunch Whig and definitely was not in favor of the South. When he was elected, the South saw the death of their hopes. They felt that, with Lincoln as president, they would lose any semblance of a voice they still had. And they were right.

December 20th, 1860, seven of the Southern states seceded in the Lower South. Sick of the tyranny and hostility of the North toward them, afraid of losing everything (not just their slaves) if it continued, and looking for independence, they declared themselves to be the Confederate States of America and set up their own government in Montgomery, Alabama. This wasn’t a war over state rights, just as many have said, but it also wasn’t a war against state rights. It was one group of people fed up with the attitude and treatment displayed toward them walking away, which was at the time an option the Constitution neither affirmed nor denied. At this point, there hadn’t been a war and had been no overt violence, just as had been the case with the American Revolution.

Lincoln had the same choice that George III had: let them go, make amends and treat them appropriately, or start a war. Once again, our country faced a situation where a war of self-defense would be fought. The Southern states had declared their independence, which was, according to the Constitution we had, their right to do. They hadn’t done anything illegal in doing so. They should have been allowed to go.

Instead, the North began a war. Between December 20, 1860 and June 8th of the next year, more Southern states would join the Confederacy until a total of eleven states had joined. On April 12th, 1861 the Civil War began with the Confederate bombardment of a Union fort (Fort Sumter) that was in Confederate territory. This was the result of Lincoln’s decision to send supplies to the fort soldiers, who were running low. His move, to the Confederates, appeared to be one of war. The US President was stocking up the fort and fortifying it, and since it was in their territory, they viewed it as an act of aggression.

Why Would the South See It As An Act of Aggression?

Previous to this point, Lincoln, who had been elected without the vote or approval of a single Southern state, had in his inaugural address made it very clear how he felt about their secession and their “rebellion”. Lincoln himself admits that “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered,” in his address. His statement to those who wanted to leave? “If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it–break it, so to speak–but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?” In other words? The North refuses to let you go.

At the time, to Lincoln’s own admission, there was nothing in the Constitution that said they couldn’t depart. But he stated that it was implied that the Union was to continue into perpetuity simply because no other government established at that time operated with any other intent (until, of course, there was a Revolution and people set up a new government, but Lincoln conveniently ignored that). He argued that the intent behind the Articles of Confederation in 1788 (which predated the Constitution) and the Declaration of Independence was perpetuity and that, if the goal of the Constitution was “in order to form a more perfect Union” as it had been stated, then perpetuity must be the legal expectation of all involved parties as it wouldn’t be better than the Articles of Confederation or the Declaration of Independence if not.

The Flaws in Lincoln’s Argument

The flaw with this of course is how one defines “more perfect”. If by more perfect you mean that you give no legal recourse for abused parties to declare their independence, just as England had tried to do to the colonies, then yes, Lincoln’s assumption would have been correct. Unfortunately, our Founding Fathers and those who drafted the Constitution fully understood that abuse of power by a central government was all too common and easy. They had seen it first hand, and they did all they could to avoid it. Each draft of the Articles and later the Constitution were revised to do everything possible to keep a strong central government from abusing some or all of its people.

That was the goal, not an afterthought, and so Lincoln’s argument went against what the Founding Fathers themselves had done and their goals in drafting our Constitution. They would have supported the South in declaring non-citizenship in the Union as the South wasn’t being treated like a full citizen by the time of the secession. The South followed in the footsteps of the colonies, who declared non-citizenship in response to England’s repeated ill-treatment of them.

So when Lincoln sent the ship to stock Fort Sumter without asking permission to travel into the territory of what had become another country, that country’s citizens, who had already been sent a clear message that Lincoln would use whatever force necessary to keep them in the Union against their will, retaliated against what was to them a clear sign of aggression. After firing on the ship and chasing it off, they chose to also fire on the Fort and so began the Civil War. But without Lincoln’s inflammatory remarks, clear disregard of the South’s decision to leave a Union which had mistreated it time and again, and choice to ignore the diplomacy that would be required to supply a military station in a hostile country this event that began one of the most horrific wars this country has faced might never have occurred.

Was the South Right to Fight the War?

From all that I have learned about both sides, I would say that neither side was fully in the right. On the one hand, the obviously right thing to do would’ve been to free the slaves, just as the North was saying. But on the other hand, the North had no right to force the South to stay and under the Constitution, they had no right to abolish slavery in the South against the will of the South.

What makes the Civil War such a nasty event is that it really brought out all of the issues facing our nation, and I don’t mean just the racism that was going on. The South, as I said earlier, was divided between four groups, roughly. Rich plantation owners who only grew what would make money and ran roughshod over regular, middle class farmers, middle class farmers who sided with the Union, middle class farmers who sided with the Confederates, and slaves who were being used by both sides as a tool (more on that in a minute). Many families were split because some of their men chose to defend their families and their homes as the Union overran the South, which was fighting a primarily defensive war strategy wise, while others of their men chose to join the Union. This was scene most predominantly in border states where father turned on son and brother on brother when the war really got under way.

But the North was equally full of issues. They were less apparent in their racism, and when the war was made about slavery in the last half, they appeared to be the righteous party. They were not. Their divides were between upper class businessmen, blue-collar and union workers, minorities, free blacks who were afraid of violence from the whites, and whites who were afraid they’d go hungry and jobless because of the influx of freed or runaway slaves taking up jobs faster than they became available. To top it all off, the North was already flooded with immigrants before all of this happened, so adding the new people taxed their economy further since they couldn’t send them back to the South to work on plantations.

Food became scarce as the crops in the South were destroyed, and people on both sides who didn’t have money went hungry. The fears that the South had of what would happen if all the slaves were freed and how they would find work, be cared for, and paid? The concerns that had been raised surrounding how the economy could survive an abrupt freeing of the slaves were all coming to fruition in the North, but they still wanted to push the South into a similar situation and even force the issue when the South seceded.

How the War Added to Our Racial Tensions

Prior to the war, there was a definite argument over the way slaves were treated, whether they should be freed or not, and how the matter should be handled in the first place. Both sides were fired up about it, but there was one group that was relatively left out on the matter if they were included at all: the blacks themselves, both free and slave. Some were writing books (such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which highlighted the moral wrong of slavery but also showed slavery in all forms) that spoke out against it. Some were speaking up. But their voices were mostly unheard.

Most slaves and freed slaves working on plantations didn’t have an education. They weren’t included in what was going on. And yet those around them held a view of them that was a mix of fear and prejudice in so many cases, both in the North and the South. The situation wasn’t good, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as it was when the war started and then afterwards. Why is that?

Well, when the Civil War started, both sides used the black community and the slaves of it as chips in the dispute. On the Southern side, there were rules about the draft that allowed wealthy slave owners to avoid the draft if they owned a certain number of slaves. On the Northern side, they were not enslaving blacks, but they also didn’t give blacks citizenship in many cases and viewed them with suspicion and mistrust.

Then, when the North was losing the war and many Northerners wanted to just let the South go, Lincoln was seriously concerned he was going to lose the next election. So he came along with his Emancipation Proclamation which did nothing to help any of the official slaves because all of them were in the South, and until the North won the war, there was no way to enforce such a proclamation. Nonetheless, his proclamation changed the tenor of the entire war. It was no longer about the Union and preserving it, as Lincoln himself said it was in the beginning. It became about freeing the slaves. And when the North’s general, Ulysses S Grant, won several major victories for the North, they were revitalized in their holy fervor that the war should be fought to end slavery now. As the victors write the history books, the North was immortalized in their version of events as the ones who freed the slaves.

Where did it really lead?

The Civil War ended with the South devastated. Much like World War I would later leave Germany devastated and lead to the rise of Hitler, the Civil War and the way the North treated the South afterwards led to intense hatred between North and South and, worse still, led the outraged, hurting white communities who had been mistreated by the elites and the rich plantation owners in both the North and the South, turning their anger on the newly-freed slaves who would now compete with them for jobs in a failed economy. The North made it still worse by essentially leaving the South to fix its own problems. But when it became clear the South was going to implode with the hostilities between blacks, whites, rich, and poor, the North came in and forced everything to straighten out.

Only they didn’t actually make anything better. In both the North and the South, racial tensions continued to rise. Black communities were mistreated (at best) and slaughtered and oppressed in most cases. The fear, hatred, and blame left in the wake of a war that is widely known as America’s deadliest war compounded into rioting, looting, straight up murder of blacks because the South couldn’t punish the ones they blamed most of all, and tensions that still exist today between both North and South and black and white.

Why Does any of this Matter?

This matters because if we don’t understand and know our own history and that of the world around us, we are bound to repeat it! And that is what we are doing. Only this time, instead of rioting from oppressed laboring classes and poor farmers during the Civil War, we have segments of the black community rioting. Unfortunately, the way things are going, we have the brewing of round two of the Civil War happening. It will be no less deadly than the first, and lives of all colors will be lost. They already are being lost. Good people on both sides will die. We can’t stop it by rioting any more than those who rioted during the Civil War and after it fixed racial and class tensions or stopped brother from fighting brother.

If we want to stop it, the solution is solidarity. It was the one thing that those involved in the Civil War did not have. At every turn, there was only dispute, dissent, and fury. Had both sides come together and found a solution that prized both what was right and what was best for all parties involved, the war could have been averted. Instead, Lincoln further polarized the issues between the two sides, the people on all sides fought between themselves, and no one truly presented a united front.

In the end, while the solution will require all of us to work together as the people to send a clear message to our leaders and those in power that we will no longer tolerate this, violence does not send that message. It did not during the Civil War era, and it will not now when we are dealing with many of the same issues our ancestors did. Just as the violence and war created a stronger problem with racism, suspicion of immigrants and freed slaves, and class segregation, another war now will do the same. Perhaps it might reverse the roles. Who knows? But whether it reverses roles or not, our country will be worse for it, not better.

If we want to avoid repeating history, we all need to do our part, however small it might seem, to put an end to injustice in ways that are legal, non-violent (unless it’s a clear issue of self-defense, in which case, it’s clearly okay to fight back), and we need to promote the understanding that at the end of the day, we are all human. It doesn’t matter what color our skin is, and if people are trying to segregate and separate based on that, we should correct that behavior, but we should do it in love. If we correct the opposing side’s wrong views of other people in an insensitive, unkind, and unloving manner, we’re only going to further entrench them in their wrong views. Instead, we must confront them with a reality that is consistently different than what they think it is. Love, kindness, and consistency go much further than rioting, looting, and killing, which only serve to confirm opinions on the black community that are harsh, unfair to most people in the community, and extremely prejudiced.

Further Resources

These are some of the sites and sources I used to look into the Civil War and the issues behind it. I quoted directly from Abraham Lincoln’s Inaugural Address, which you can find here.

History.com

Battlefields.org

Essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com (Discusses the class conflicts and racial divisions. While I don’t agree with all of the things they’ve said about the Civil War being predominantly about slaves or it being a war against State Rights on the part of the South, I do believe they’ve done an excellent job explaining the tensions in both sides before the war even got started. Those tensions only further deepened and exploded during and after the war.)

Thursday Technicalities: Dealing With Rejection

Featured Ariel Paiement
Publishing Journey

Introduction

I said I was done with my publishing series here, but what discussion on publishing would be complete without a discussion of rejections? While it isn’t on my publishing checklist because it isn’t something you actively need to do, it is something we need to cover. So while it isn’t technically part of the publishing series I finished up last week, it still is in that it deals with publishers, agents, and your work.

Personal Experience Dealing with Rejection

Hi Ariel, I am put in the horrible position of having to write you a rejection for the bootcamp program. You were a strong contender for me, but ultimately there were people more suitable for where I wanted to go. Your work is strong, and I think you know that. You’ve got some great social media presence, and amazon sales and everything, so you are definitely on the path to make a great career out of it. Where I think I might be able to inject some constructive criticism is in the vibrancy and excitement of your writing. There’s something about it that’s a little slow, and for something like a Watty, you need to really blast forward with your stuff; slim down overly descriptive passages and really lean on dialogue to fire the story. If ultimately I had chosen you on the program, that would have been my initial drive; to get you to speed things up – grab your reader and don’t let them go. I read the first few chapters of your book, and could really see a lot of great stuff in it, but it just didn’t grab me. I was able to put it down and look at something else, and, as an author, you never want that to be the case. Honestly, I think you’re going to do well as an author and I think self-publishing on Amazon could well lead you to relative riches, but I don’t think this book in its current state is going to win a Watty. Fantasy is REALLY hard to convince people to pick up for awards like this, and epic fantasy even more so. You need to find something that hooks in the reader and just doesn’t let go, and what you have is a descriptive book that is very good and nice but works better in paper form, where the reader is more invested and has the time to sit in their chair and dedicate an hour or more to it.

I’d love to speak more with you generally. I think your work is promising and genuinely believe you are going to go far. You have the drive and passion (and the words) for success and I can see myself in the future saying to someone ‘oh yeah, I passed her up once for a mentorship program’ and them going ‘what?!?’! 🙂 Good luck with it all!

Crispin O’Toole-Bateman, Author of A Very English Necromancer and 2020 Wattys Bootcamp Mentor

Hi! I just wanted to drop by and say that I really enjoyed Pathway of the Moon, and I’m sorry I wasn’t able to take you on as a mentee. I’m honored you chose to submit to me though. Your first chapter started off great. I was swooning over Leo from the get go. I hope to be able to send you feedback on the chapter that you sent me. If this is something you are interested in, please let me know.

Mikaela Bender, Author of Expiration Date and 2020 Wattys Bootcamp Mentor

I received these from two out of three of the mentors I applied to be mentored by for a writing bootcamp on Wattpad. For those who don’t use Wattpad, it’s a writing platform I frequently use to interact with writers and readers, and I have some of my stuff up for free. I am looking to enter the major contest that Wattpad HQ–the people actually running the organization and website–do, called the Wattys. It’s a big deal on Wattpad and can lead to publishing deals or other connections for winners. These two have already succeeded as Wattpad Stars and/or former Wattys winners, so they’re strong writers and know a thing or two about what it takes to succeed in those areas. These two were really helpful and kind in their rejection letters, and the point of including them is to show you that rejections aren’t really all that scary even if they’re disappointing to us as recipients.

The writing/mentoring bootcamp is separate from the contest and is run by former winners or individuals who are part of paid Wattpad programs, which requires some serious talent and skill to achieve. The quotes above? My rejection “letters” sent via PM from two of the three mentors I applied to. Ultimately, I wasn’t accepted into the program, so I’ll be revising without the help of a mentor.

But this is a good lead in for what we’re talking about. How did I handle this? How should we all as authors deal with rejection, and what’s the best method for dealing with this tough area? People deal with it in lots of ways, some better than others, and that’s why we’re going to discuss it.

Dealing With Rejection is Tough

Let’s just be honest. None of us enjoy being rejected! Whether we get that dreaded rejection letter from the agent we were hoping would take our work on or just waited and waited but never heard back from a publisher, rejection leaves us feeling a bit dejected and very disappointed. I mean, sometimes it stings so bad we want to sit there and cry or down a tub of ice cream.

Now, both rejection letters I got from the mentors I applied to were very kindly worded. Neither said my work was complete trash or even hinted as much. And for the most part, you’re not going to run into that when dealing with rejection. I’ve heard a few stories about things publishers or agents have told authors, but on the whole, usually it’s a very polite no if you get any response at all. However, both of mine were special because they took the time to actually offer feedback! This was my first experience with rejection letters since I’ve done mostly self-publishing or worked with groups I was already established with, but having read a lot from various authors, agents, and others in publishing, this doesn’t happen all that often. You may get a polite letter telling you they aren’t able to take on your work or aren’t interested in it at this time, but feedback is rare and extremely valuable. While the two mentors who responded back with friendly rejections via private messaging aren’t publishers, they’re busy too, and they didn’t have to take the time to offer any constructive feedback. I very much appreciate their doing so.

While I’m obviously disappointed that I didn’t get into the program because I know it would’ve been an awesome learning experience for me and would’ve been very good for the book, I got some direction on where I might want to focus my editing efforts, and I know how to fix the problems pointed out because I’ve got the practical knowledge to do so and have fixed this very problem for other authors. (Funny how we can fix things for other people and be blind to the same issues in our own work!)

What If I Don’t Know How To Fix It?

If you’re not an experienced author dealing with rejection letters, you’re very likely to run into this issue. Either you were given feedback and don’t know what to do with it or you have no feedback and still don’t know why it was rejected. Even experienced authors may run into this as they may not see the problems others do. There are a few ways to deal with this. First of all, quitting is not one of those ways, okay? Quitting means you actually failed. So keep writing, but really put your focus and attention on learning how to improve. One book I very highly recommend that I’ve used to improve my current WIP is Donald Maas’s Writing the Breakout Novel Workbook (there’s a companion book too that I haven’t started, but if it’s anything like the workbook, it’s going to be gold).

How is this work book going to help?

Why do I recommend this? Because Donald Maas was a literary agent for a very long time before he moved to independently publishing his own writing guides. He’s seen thousands of manuscripts in his years as a literary agent, and he knows exactly what the common issues are that result in the rejection of a manuscript. Wouldn’t it be awesome if you could fix those issues before an agent or publisher ever sees your book?

Now, I promise what he offers will help. But it’s also a ton of work! Anyone can do and understand the exercises, but they’re hard. Some of them really force you to think, and many of the exercises have not only changed my perspective on my manuscript and my own characters but have also changed the story’s arc. Expect to make a lot of revisions, add a lot, and maybe remove just as much. But expect that if you do the work, you’ll have a book you can be proud of putting into readers’ hands.

Other Appropriate Responses

Second way of dealing with it? Take it to an avid reader friend. If you don’t have one, try asking some other writers who are more experienced than you. You should already have a connection with whoever you choose to ask, just to clarify, but ask. They might not have time, but you never know! They’ll probably see things you didn’t and might be able to pinpoint the reasons your manuscript is getting rejected.

Final recommendation for dealing with rejection is this… Get an editor if you haven’t already. Seriously. This might sound like a plug for myself and other editors since I’m a freelance editor myself, but we’re not recommending this because we get paid for it. We’re recommending it because it’s indispensable. Authors who have their own personal editors are often first in line to corroborate this. It’s important, so don’t ignore it. If you don’t have the money for it, see if you can at least get a critique partner who’s got strong skills in areas of writing where you know you struggle.

What if I’m Still Rejected After All That?

But Ariel, you might say, I’ve done the work and even had an editor take a look, but the book’s still being rejected. Well, there are of course any number of reasons this might happen, but if you’ve got a really strong, well-crafted story, chances are high you’re just not a good fit for that individual or that publisher. It’s still tough to take the rejection, but don’t give up. Someone out there will want the story, and if they don’t, self-publishing is always an option. Plenty of big name authors started out that way and ended up with publishing deals later, so don’t lose heart. Accept the situation with grace and keep working at it.

Conclusion

My hope here is that you’ve realized that rejection isn’t as scary as it seems. Yes, it’s disappointing and sometimes hurts a bit. But it only means you have more work to do or that your piece wasn’t a good fit for that individual or publisher. We’re not all well-matched with every person we meet, and we shouldn’t expect our stories to be any different. What one publisher thinks is trash and rejects could end up being a best seller with another publisher.

Keep a positive attitude, use the feedback you get if you’re lucky enough to receive that from whoever you submitted work to, and keep working at it. No one promised this would be easy or that you wouldn’t fail. No one promised your work would be ready for publication as soon as you thought it was ready to go and mailed it out. No one promised everyone would want it. But I can promise you this. If you respond to it properly and with a good attitude, your work and you yourself will be better for it.

So when you get those rejection letters, put a smile on your face, keep that letter to remind you of where you’ve been, and turn your face to the future where you will be better than you were the day you got that letter. That makes the difference between a successful learning experience and a failure, not whether or not the publisher or agent accepted you.

Thursday Technicalities: Traditional Publishing

Featured Ariel Paiement1 Comment

Introduction

This will be the final section in the publishing series I’ve been doing. Next week, we’ll be moving on to another topic. Last week was on indie publishing, and this week, we’re going to discuss traditional publishing. This will be a slightly shorter post since the application process and package is often not all that different from indie publishing packages. But the rules for submitting that same material are a little different, usually. So let’s get into it!

Rules for Submitting Manuscripts

For most traditional publishers, they won’t accept unsolicited manuscripts. This just means that, unless they’re running a special period for you to send in your manuscript directly, you’ll need an agent. Some indie presses may also want you to go through an agent, but they’re not as particular about this all the time, which makes it important to read through their website and find out if they actually accept manuscripts unsolicited.

But with a traditional publisher, expect to need an agent unless there’s a note that they’ll accept unsolicited manuscripts. If you don’t do this, your manuscript will be consigned to the trash pile. They’ve got too many manuscripts as it is without spending time on people who won’t follow guidelines. If their website doesn’t say either way and you really, really want to take a shot with them, your best bet is to look to see if there’s a way to contact them and ask what they expect for submissions. Politely inquire if there is a way you can submit your manuscript or if you need an agent to do so. Some of the smaller publishing companies might be open to it. Bigger ones like Tor or Random House? Probably not. But those bigger companies are usually clearer on what they expect.

Don’t Be Cute or Fancy

Rule two? Don’t try to be cute or fancy. This is like applying for a job in some respects. Sending your cover letter or other documents on hand-designed stationary or any of the other weird things people have done with cover letters or other application papers is a no. Just don’t do it. It does not make you look good, it will make them laugh (but not in a nice way), and you will most likely be rejected. Tasteful and professional is the way to go. Let your manuscript speak for itself and don’t give them a bad impression before they even read the piece.

Reasons to Choose Traditional Publishing

There’s no doubt about it that traditional publishing, if you can establish yourself, goes a long way. You get editors, cover designers, and marketing plus royalties (or an advance, depending on how they pay). Plus, even though indie and self-publishing are perfectly valid ways of publishing, people still give traditionally published authors more weight. That last reason to choose this route has gradually been shifting with the success authors have had going it alone with self-publishing, but there’s still a bit of a stigma among those who don’t know much or anything about publishing or the writing industry, so there’s a chance the readers you want to reach are more likely to pick a book up if it’s in Barnes and Noble, not just Amazon. While there are ways to achieve that if you’re a self-published or indie author, being traditionally published is definitely easier.

Reasons Traditional Publishing Might Not Be Your Best Option

One trend in traditional publishing that tends to be a bit of an issue at times is the lack of proper editing. The quality of editors has gone drastically downhill, partially because the demand for them has been higher than the number of editors who learned from other seasoned editors. When it comes to editing, you learn by doing and by working with editors who know the craft well, whether through self-paced classes or books from those editors or by actually working side-by-side with them. Unfortunately, when you don’t have enough editors who do that, then you have an issue with quality of edits performed on books.

The other problem that I’ve heard traditionally published authors complain about is that editors don’t really give their book the attention it needs for one reason or another. Many end up getting a freelance editor to go through it before they even submit to a publisher because they want it to be ready for print before the publisher even works on it.

Why? Because while some authors get really great editors, a trend that has become an issue in traditional publishing is looking to see if the manuscript can be published as is. If it can, they put it to print with minimal editing or with sub-par edits. If it can’t, it often gets tossed unless the author is already established. This isn’t true of every publisher that’s traditional, but it’s a disturbing trend, and more disturbing when you start reading that even some established authors are finding this happening in their work.

Issues with Control and Involvement in the Process

So be aware of that issue. The other reason it might not be for you is that you have very little control over the process with a publisher. With indie and small publishers, you may find you have some control over things or that they’re more open to your suggestions. Not so much with big publishers and traditional publishing in general. You’ll get paid royalties or an advance, but until you’re well established, you won’t get paid big sums of money for the book, typically, because the publisher won’t invest if they’re not sure it can sell. This may also mean that marketing for your book isn’t as strong as it could be.

Conclusion

As with anything, traditional publishing has its pros and cons. Nothing is ever completely perfect, so you have to evaluate which options available will work best for you. Once you find that option, go for it! Expect to be rejected a lot with traditional publishing, but don’t give up on it. If they give you any feedback in their rejection letter, then use it to improve. Otherwise, keep your chin up and keep trying. In the meantime, don’t stop writing while you wait! Writing is one of those skills where you can only improve by doing, so keep learning and practicing no matter how many rejection letters you get.

If you really want to make a career out of it, it is possible, but you’re going to have to really work to stand out head and shoulders above every other hopeful, author wanabee. While the odds aren’t as low as people sometimes act like they are, they still aren’t high for you making it. So never stop learning and improving and honing your craft. That’s your best shot at making this work.

Book Spotlight: KM Jenkins’ Tales of Ferrês

Featured Ariel Paiement

This is the book spotlight for Tales of Ferrês, a fantasy book by K.M. Jenkins. I’ll just include the book information and the beautiful cover here. If you want to find out more about K.M. Jenkins, you can see the interview here.

Blurb:

Since the beginning of time, one kingdom in the world of Tarzinëa has remained a mystery. Very few have entered its depths and survived. Walk alongside our heroes and watch their tales unfold as they enter the Forest of Ferrês. Discover everything from wolves so large they look like full grown ponies, to devil creatures that lurk in the night. Expect the unexpected as you venture into the magical land of Ferrês where not everything is as it seems.

Cover: