Poetry on the unprinted page, or, the trouble with ebooks

By Caleb | January 9, 2012

Right now, I’m in the thick of an exciting work placement with the Welsh publishing house Seren. Over eight weeks, I’m working as a Digital Assistant, getting them set up in the brave new world of ebook publishing. As both a book and technology geek, it’s a great job for me to tackle.

Seren have loads of great titles: last year, they published The Last Hundred Days by Patrick McGuinness, which was long-listed for the Man Booker prize, and shortlisted for the Costa first novel award. Particularly up my street is their current series New Stories from the Mabinogion, which retells Welsh myths and legends in a modern style and context. They also publish a wide variety of fiction, non-fiction and poetry from Wales. It’s really exciting to have the opportunity to work with them on creating ebooks.

Poetry in ebook form is one of the most interesting tasks facing me. Publishers are used to having complete control over the layout of the printed page. Contemporary poets make use of various typographic tricks to fuse together word, form and meaning. On an ereader, however, all that becomes fluid. Ebooks can be read on devices of all different shapes and sizes, from dedicated e-ink readers such as the Kindle, up to large computer screens, or down to mobile phones. Words reflow to fit these screens – which is great for reading prose, but can play merry havoc with the readability and artistic integrity of poetry.

For example, one of Seren’s upcoming poetry titles involves two long poems, one of which starts normally from the front, the other of which is printed upside down from the back, so you can turn the book over either way to start reading. There’s no exact way of replicating that experience in ebook form.

The formatting options available on ereaders such as Kobo, Nook or Kindle are still pretty primitive. The current EPUB and especially the Kindle file format are very basic. They are much more limited than what can be done on a normal webpage. But new file formats – EPUB3 and Kindle Format 8 – are on the way. These will allow more sophisticated layouts, fonts and image handling. In the meantime, many publishers are developing apps for those times when a basic ebook layout just won’t cut it.

Of course, 90% of poetry is simply a series of lines on a page, perhaps with a bit of indentation, so there’s plenty of poetry that’s relatively straightforward – perhaps a little fiddly to convert correctly, but perfectly doable given time and patience. But the other 10%, those poems which push the boundaries of form and textuality, present both a creative and technical challenge – but one that I’ve started to get to grips with!

Posted in Digital | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Slytherin, Saint Paul and the dangers of ambition?

By Caleb | November 8, 2011

Over the summer, I signed up for early access to Pottermore, the new Harry Potter website, and a few weeks ago I got the email granting me beta access. One of the activities on the site is completing a quiz in order for the Sorting Hat to put you into one of the four houses of Hogwarts, the wizarding school, according to your character.

As you’ll know if you’re a Harry Potter fan like myself, the House of Gryffindor, Harry’s house, is famed for its courage; Ravenclaw, for intelligence; Hufflepuff, for diligence, and Slytherin for ambition. Slytherin is also the house that has produced the majority of Dark wizards, such as the evil Lord Voldemort, and as such has the reputation of being the “evil” house.

Somewhat to my amusement, I was sorted into Slytherin, which seemed to me ironic since I reckon I’m a pretty good natured guy, a far cry from Lord Voldemort or the unpleasant Draco Malfoy and his racial-purity obsessed chums. But on further reflection, I thought that if you take ambition as the defining quality of a Slytherin, rather than “being evil”, it was actually a pretty fair choice. I really would like to change the world, and yes, I’m aware there’s a hint of megalomania in that statement!

As the Harry Potter books suggest, ambition can be dangerous. More importantly, the Bible has some particularly strong warnings about ambition. But is it all bad?

The apostle Paul wrote in Phillipians 2:3-8:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

The apostle James also warned in chapter 3 verse 4 of his epistle:

For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

Does this mean I should squash my ambitions? Are they nothing but trouble? Or does the phrase “selfish ambition” suggest that there might be such a thing as unselfish ambition? Paul also wrote in Romans 15:20:

It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

And he told his young protégé Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:1 that:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.

So it seems that Biblically speaking not all ambition is necessarily wrong. It seems to me that ambition is good or bad depending on what it’s aiming for. Ambition can be good if it is an ambition for the glory of God and the good of others, but it is easily corrupted into something self-seeking and self-centred.

Our motives are rarely if ever entirely pure. Mixed in with an honest desire to do good is usually a self-centred desire for status, reputation and so on. The worship of our own self-image is one of the subtlest forms of idolatry. It can lead not only to pride, but also to deep discontent and despair as we attempt to maintain a certain image of ourselves.

God’s grace is the liberating antidote to this bitter cycle of pride and worry. Realising that we are accepted and loved by God purely as a free gift of grace in Christ sets us free from having to prove ourselves by our actions, whether that’s to God, others or ourself.

Grace also sets us free from the constant paralysis of analysis that can come from the introspection of always examining our motives to see if they’re pure. Even though our motives are often impure, in Christ, God accepts us and uses us for his purposes anyway. The Holy Spirit is at work in us to help us develop the genuine love for God and others that is the proper motive for our actions. So while we should be self-aware and should seek to put to death our selfish ambitions, that shouldn’t make us do nothing, or prevent us from having any ambition ever.

A good litmus test is whether we’d be happy if someone else achieved the good we are ambitious for. If someone else could do the same thing as well or better, would we be happy in the achievement, or is personal recognition what’s really important to us?

What do you think is a healthy attitude to ambition? How do we get the balance right between wanting to achieve great things, and not being proud and self-centred?

Posted in Faith | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

There’s Probably No Dawkins

By Caleb | October 21, 2011

There's Probably No Dawkins bus campaignAmerican philosopher, debater and Christian apologist William Lane Craig has been getting attention for Richard Dawkins‘ refusal to debate him. Craig’s Oxford debate has been publicised with a bus campaign stating ‘There’s probably no Dawkins‘.

It’s a funny and clever riff on the atheist bus campaign, and good publicity for William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith debate tour. Dawkins is in a bit of a lose-lose situation – Dawkins would be hard-pressed to match Craig in the debate, and such an event would be good publicity for Craig but less so for Dawkins; but by refusing, Dawkins looks weak and Craig still gets lots of publicity.

In response, Dawkins is trying his best to dismiss him as a legitimate intellectual figure, accusing Craig in The Guardian of justifying genocide in the Old Testament. This is a tricky subject, and as such is a good ‘distraction’ for Dawkins to use in diverting attention away from the debate about God’s existence. I think it’s quite telling – the New Atheism is as much an attack on the goodness of God as it is on his existence.

Of course, divinely-sanctioned war in the Old Testament is an important issue in its own right. For an introduction, check out these articles on Bethinking: Old Testament Mass Killings, Is God a Monster?.

But on the basis of an atheistic, naturalistic worldview, so what if the Israelites committed genocide? If we are nothing but molecules in motion, then there’s no more moral import to the movements of some ape-descendants in the Middle East than there is to continental drift or the Northern Lights.

Of course, genocide is always wrong, and we know it’s wrong, but that suggests that there’s more to reality than Dawkins’ atheism allows. Atheists are just as moral as anyone else, but this is inconsistent with their stated beliefs – you can be moral without God, but you cannot justify objective, universal morality from a purely naturalistic philosophy.

Dawkins is also begging the question by accusing Craig of endorsing genocide, because Craig’s argument is to explain why the war described in Judges was not in fact genocide, but was a proportionate, targeted and morally justified war given the full circumstances and context.

As a reason not to debate Craig, it’s a pretty weak one. Dawkins is basically saying he won’t debate with Craig because Craig takes the Bible literally, even the parts that go against modern morals and values. This is an odd reversal: Dawkins devotes most of his attention in The God Delusion on attacking the more extreme versions of religion rather than its more “moderate” forms. But now he’s saying he’ll only debate “moderate” religious figures. A bit inconsistent, surely?

However, I think Craig and those promoting him might need to tone down the rhetoric a bit. There’s a danger of going too far and appearing needy and attention-seeking. Potential debate opponents need to be reassured of a fair fight, rather than being invited to an intellectual ambush. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, an atheist complained about Craig’s “slippery arguments”. On the other hand, this guy seemed to be objecting that Craig uses lines of argument that sound convincing and are hard to refute without a lot of work. It seems that Craig should be ashamed of using such dirty tricks as having strong arguments for believing in God, and use unconvincing arguments that are easily refuted instead!

See the programme for William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith tour to find out where he’s appearing, or check out a recording of his lecture at Imperial College London from earlier this week.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The Joys of Rereading

By Caleb | October 20, 2011

So many books, so little time! I’m enjoying having more time for reading for pleasure now I’ve finished my MA. It’s sometimes possible to feel guilty about going back to reread books, when I’ve got so many unread books waiting for me.

But you never actually read the same book twice. You never have the same experience of a book twice, because you will have changed. At different times in your life, you bring different experiences and knowledge with you to a book – you’ll pick up on different things, other elements will resonate with you, you’ll spot connections you missed before.

In An Experiment in Criticism, C S Lewis proposed judging books by how their readers read and respond to them, rather than judging the taste of readers against some pre-determined “canon” of quality literature. So rather than good and bad books, or “literary” versus “genre” books, “classic” vs “popular”, he distinguished between “literary” and “unliterary” ways of reading.

You can judge a book on the quality of its readers, Lewis suggests, and the way in which they read the book. If a book is “tossed aside like an old newspaper the moment it has been used, unliterary reading can be diagnosed with certainty”. But, “where there is a passionate and constant love of a book and rereading, then however bad we think the book and however immature or uneducated we think the reader, it cannot”.

A good book invites and rewards rereading. It will also have more on offer than just “how will the plot be resolved?” Plot is the skeleton on which the juicy meat of story hangs. In a good book, you can enjoy the characters, situation, descriptions, atmosphere and so on repeatedly even when you know how the story ends. And a good reader is one who delights in not just in books in general, but loves specific books and returns to them to drink again from their riches.

Posted in Books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Life, Death, Steve Jobs and Success: The Richest Man in the Cemetery?

By Caleb | October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs with iPad

By any human measure, Steve Jobs’ life was an incredible success. Co-founder of Apple, former owner of Pixar, a visionary who transformed computing, the music industry, mobile phones and much more.

And then he died, aged only 56.

Jobs was suffering from pancreatic cancer, and his death at such a relatively early age is deeply sad. And yet in Steve Jobs’ Stamford University commencement address in 2005, he was able to say:

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything – all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

“Follow your heart”. Jobs’ success was due in a very large part to his sense of vision. He didn’t want to make “me too” products, to follow existing trends and successes, to be a slave to market research. He said, “For something this complicated, it’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”

But if that’s true of computers or iPods, then what about life? Will “following your heart” really make you happy? Perhaps when it comes to what really matters, we don’t know what we want until we’re shown what we need.

In Luke 12:13-21, Jesus told the story of a rich man:

The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.’

But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich towards God.

Jesus tells us that what really matters is being “rich towards God” rather than storing up things for himself. Unlike the man in the story, Jobs wasn’t concerned simply with making money. He famously said:

Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.

But while we are probably quick to recognise the emptiness of chasing mere money, profit and riches, we perhaps fail to recognise that pursuing achievement and excellence can be just as meaningless.

Trying to “do something wonderful”, leads to frustration, anxiety and worry as much as it does to satisfaction, even if you actually succeed. “You can’t take it with you” doesn’t just apply to your bank balance, but also to your CV, whether you’ve built a business empire, invented great devices or created incredible works of art, or anything else.

Jesus came to show us what we really need. If we simply “follow our hearts”, we risk missing out on what will truly satisfy. He came to tell us that our deepest needs and desires can only be met by being rich towards God. Instead of worrying, even about the basics of life, what we will eat or what we will wear, he tells us to “Instead seek God’s kingdom, and these things will be added to you” (Luke 12:31).

But what does it mean to “be rich towards God” and to “seek God’s kingdom”? How do we do that? It means seeking and treasuring God as Father and King, finding our meaning and purpose in life in following him. God is revealed to us in Jesus. Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”. Jesus died on the Cross for us, showing us God’s self-giving love. It’s only when we see Jesus that we see what we really need, what will really satisfy.

God’s kingdom is all-encompassing, for all of life – because God is a loving and righteous, just and generous, we are called to live in the same way. Luke 12:33-34 tells us,

Sell your possessions and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

When we find our treasure in God, we have a meaning and purpose that demands our whole life, but will outlast death. Jesus isn’t another app for the smartphone of life; he’s a whole new operating system, who transforms our lives infinitely more radically than the smartest new gadget or device.

I’m not criticising or condemning Steve Jobs; I admire his achievements, and wouldn’t presume to know where he stands before God. My prayers are with his family and friends.

But as the world marks the death of a man rich in vision and conviction, we would all do well to consider Jesus’ question, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?”

Posted in Digital | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Throes, and a couple of pages

By Caleb | August 30, 2011

I’m in the last throes of finishing my dissertation, which is due in next week – I might resume somewhat more regular blogging once it’s handed in!

“Throe” is a great word, by the way. The OED defines it as:

1. A violent spasm or pang, such as convulses the body, limbs, or face. Also, a spasm of feeling; a paroxysm; agony of mind; anguish.
b. spec. The pain and struggle of childbirth; pl. labour-pangs.
c. The agony of death; the death-struggle, death-throe (Sc. deid-thraw).
2. transf. and fig. A violent convulsion or struggle preceding or accompanying the ‘bringing forth’ of something.

…which seems to just about sum up what I’m going through at the moment! In the meantime, I’ve added a few general pages, linked to in the sidebar: About Me, My Writing, and My Designs. They’re a bit basic at the moment, but I’ll be adding more information to them gradually.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on my MA

By Caleb | June 14, 2011

Well, it’s been a while since I updated my blog, mainly because I’ve been keeping very busy with my English Literature masters. I handed in my second set of essays a few weeks ago, which were titled “Childhood, colonialism and Christianity in Swiss Family Robinson and The Coral Island“ and “Faërie, art and magic in Sir Orfeo and Tolkien’s fiction”.

At Easter, I heard that my application for PhD funding wasn’t successful, so my plans to research religion in children’s literature, 1950 to the present, are on hold for the moment, and I’m now looking for a job for after I finish the MA. I’d like to return to do a PhD at some point, but it will probably be good for me to get a full-time job and be back in the “normal” working world, and I’m hoping my MA will stand me in good stead in finding something writing or communications based that I’ll find interesting and satisfying.

In May, I gave my first academic paper at the Myth, Legends and Folktale conference held at Cardiff University. It was titled King Arthur and Christendom, focusing on Malory, Tennyson and White’s versions of the King Arthur story. It was based on one of my autumn MA essays, and looked at changing representations of the relationship between Arthur and the Grail, and how that revealed changing conceptions of the relationship between secular and sacred. Yesterday I heard that I’ve had a second paper accepted, this time for the Christian Literary Studies Group conference in Oxford in November – I’ll be discussing Heroism in The Lord of the Rings and The Once and Future King. So I’m very excited – and slightly nervous! – about that.

I’m thoroughly enjoying studying English Literature at a postgraduate level. Managing my own time and staying focused can be hard work, but I enjoy the time researching in the library, reading books, and writing up. The pressure of essay deadlines isn’t much fun, and I’ve got to be very disciplined over the summer to get the 16-20,000 word dissertation written, but it’s good to develop the organisation and motivation to carry out this kind of research.

The second reason I’ve not updated my blog much is because most of my spare time has been going on reviving Impossible Podcasts to record commentaries the new series of Doctor Who, and getting it up and running with general science fiction and fantasy reviews and articles. It’s been fun doing that with Peter, Swithun, James, Olivia and some other friends and guests. I’ll be uploading some Tolkien episodes of the podcast over the next couple of weeks. If you enjoy science fiction or fantasy, check out our website, or find us on Twitter, Facebook or iTunes!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Census 2011: No religion please, we’re British?

By Caleb | April 2, 2011

Originally printed in Gair Rhydd, 28th April 2011.

There are three kinds of lies, the saying goes: lies, damned lies and statistics. One statistic has proved particularly controversial: the 2001 census found that 72% of the population described themselves as “Christian”. With the 2011 census, the fight is on to get it changed.

“If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so”, runs the British Humanist Association’s (BHA) campaign slogan to encourage non-believers to register their disbelief in the current census. As a Christian, I can see no possible objection to having an accurate picture of the nation’s beliefs. It seems pretty likely that religion is in continued decline in Britain. But the real controversy is over how these statistics are used politically.

The BHA argues that the census figures on religious affiliation were used to justify increasing the number of faith schools, special privileges for religious groups in equality law and other legislation, retaining Bishops in the House of Lords and much more. The campaign to get people to tick the non-religious box is also about decreasing religion’s influence in the public sphere.

It’s right to take the question of religion seriously. It makes an everlasting difference if we will face a choice of heaven or hell, or if we will be reborn in a cycle of reincarnation, or if this life is all we get, and so on. It’s in no-one’s interest for someone to think themself a member of a religion without really understanding and being committed to its teachings and practices.

It’s not just eternity, either: religion makes all the difference to everything from education to marriage, from war to abortion. Our beliefs should not be a matter of habit or cultural identity, but of personal, rational conviction. What we believe really matters, so tick what you really believe on the census.

But I think using religious statistics to make political arguments, whether by the non-religious or religious, misses the point. Political issues are usually questions of principle – statistics shouldn’t come into it. Rights and freedoms and responsibilities should apply to everyone equally.

If faith schools are acceptable, then statistics might decide which faiths are taught where, what the distribution should be of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, secular and so on. But statistics can’t tell us whether or not religion ought to be taught at all in schools in the first place. Should education be religion-free, to allow children to make up their own minds? Or would a secular education simply mean secular indoctrination?

Or take the example of Owen and Eunice Johns, the Christian couple barred from fostering because they believe, in accordance with traditional orthodox Christianity, that homosexuality is a sin. Despite promising that they would show love and support to any child they fostered no matter their sexuality, their moral stance was deemed potentially harmful.

Whatever you think of the Johns’s beliefs, the issue can’t be decided simply by majority vote. If people have freedom of belief, then they have it even when it runs contrary to the opinion of the majority. A teenager disagreeing with their parents’ morality would be nothing new. Should an atheist like Richard Dawkins be barred from fostering, in case his belief that religion is immoral harms his child should they adopt a faith? The Johns are victims of an intolerant secularism intent on excluding faith, not on promoting freedom.

It’s also wrong to assume that all people of a particular religion will support a particular policy, and neither does being non-religious necessarily imply support of secularist politics. To treat religious affiliation like a vote for a political party is a logical confusion and an abuse of statistics.

Let’s stop the statistical one-upmanship right now. I don’t want any special privileges or exceptions for religious people, but for everyone, both religious and non-religious, to have the same freedom to live according to their beliefs and principles – even for Jedis!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Vengeance and grace in “True Grit”

By Caleb | February 15, 2011

I went to see the Cohen brothers’ film True Grit earlier. It’s based on a book by Charles Portis, but is apparently a remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne. It tells the story of 14-year-old Mattie’s efforts to gain vengeance against Tom Chaney, who killed her father, by enlisting the services of Rooster Cogburn, played here by Jeff Bridges.

Like Joel and Ethan Cohen’s previous film, the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men, there are no easy answers to be found in Mattie’s search for vengeance. But while I found the arbitrariness and lack of closure in No Country for Old Men to simply be unsatisfying, rather than interesting or profound (There Will Be Blood was robbed of that Oscar), True Grit is much more engaging. This is partly down to the wonderful dialogue: always sharp and funny, often echoing with Biblical resonances. But at a deeper level, the film is not just about vengeance, but also about grace.

At the start of the film, Mattie says:

“You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free with the exception of God’s grace.”

But she shows little grace, pursuing Tom Chaney with single-minded determination. She doesn’t want him to simply die or to face justice, but to do so in the knowledge that it is for killing her father. She has a sharp legal knowledge and clings to the language of law and of contracts in situations where it seems wildly out of place.

I don’t want to give anything away, but while forgiveness is conspicuous by its absence, I think grace ultimately does play a part in Mattie’s story. It’s worth asking of the film, what is its view of grace? How might grace be obtained? Does grace only come from God? As a Christian, I might take a rather different view of the world than the one offered in the film, but True Grit offers an engaging story and an intriguing engagement with these ideas.

I’ve also just seen an article by Stanley Fish in The New York Times on this subject, Narrative and the Grace of God: The New ‘True Grit’, which discusses these themes in more detail (and gives more of the story away, so be warned!)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment