(I did not forget the irrelevance of intentional fallacy because I was not arguing that the critic did not get my intent, but that the example he used did not support his points.)

This post was brought to my attention by a friend. I don’t have time to Google myself.

Pat Labrutto was my editor. He’s a general market editor who regularly works with Stephen King, Kevin J. Anderson, etc. Of course, with hindsight, I wish I’d trimmed the book down by about ten percent. I admit it could have been tighter.

I didn’t mean to come off as argumentative or defensive. As I said, I don’t mind people disliking my books. What got under my skin was that the complaints mirror my own feelings about “Christian fiction,” and I felt my novel should not be lumped into that category, let alone be used as an example of the genre’s problems.

Gentlemen, I appreciate your engaging in a healthy debate. It’s always a pleasure to encounter active intellects.

Now I’m reading Neil Gaiman. No criticisms so far…

Yet the very fact that he feels compelled to defend his book suggests a significant degree of creative failure. His elaborate argument for the book’s “success” is at best redundant and even ludicrous. It simply doesn’t matter what Liparulo says about his work; it’s what his work says about his work that matters.

I give Liparulo an “A” for audacity, and an “F” for forgetting the irrelevance of the intentional fallacy.

I give the “Blurb” reviewer a “B-” for softening his critical position in his reply to the protesting author.

For the record, I have no intention of reading his book now.

Most of my thoughts were very general, directed to a very broad genre of fiction. I don’t have any beefs with fiction itself; I do obviously have issues with Christians specifically writing fiction for Christians, as I think it often tends to promote both mediocrity and the ghetto mentality. I do not think that Horseman is guilty of either.

I did pick up on some of the Christian “flavor” as I read it, which made me go back and see who the publisher was. I do have a few criticisms of the book, but not many. Especially as a first work, it’s quite good – in my opinion as good as anything I’ve read of Dekker (I’ve only read a couple of his books), and I’d recommend it far above Dan Brown.

By the way, I hadn’t quite finished the book when I wrote the post yesterday- I was quite impressed with the twists at the end. I thought that in the final confrontation scene, you really finished developing your characters well, and I found that I understood them better than I had up to that point.

Again, thank you for your comments. I do appreciate them and really can’t disagree with what you’ve said. There are a few Christian-published novels that I’ve read and thought, “I with they’d had them published elsewhere,” not only to escape the Christian ghetto, but also for the sake of the success of the author. I felt that way about Horseman. I am glad to see that it seems to have crossed over, and that it seems to be doing well.

A.S.

That you identified the publisher as Christian and felt upset by that is the problem. It’s an unfair judgment of what’s inside. As Christians, we should write the best stories we can, and the company that publishes us should not matter (in fact, several general market houses–at the very top of the publishing world–have come calling since the publication of “Comes a Horseman.” They have all said they would have gladly published the book as it is, proving it could have come from any publisher).

Since I’ve already stated that I was not writing for a Christian audience, I shouldn’t address your list of complaints about such authors. But because you use “Comes a Horseman” to launch into these complaints, let me just say that I cannot see where “Horseman” supports the problems you list:

1. I do understand the “non-ghetto world,” and I do not believe my non-Christian characters are flat or cartoony. I have a file of general market reviews that point out the depth of my characters and how refreshing it is to find such intriguing characters in a thriller. Several have pointed out how rich and satisfying even the villains are.

2. It is true that my protagonist, Brady, is somewhat uncomfortable being a Christian. I believe I explain this as the result of his wife’s death. This part of Brady was modeled on a Christian friend who went through a similar tragedy and behaved this way. I don’t have a problem with Christians being either bold about their faith or shy about it–I know both types. Both types are real, and I think that was your point. My only stipulation is that the character fits and serves the story.

3. There are several elements in “Horseman” that can be identified as Christian, but when the story deals with someone who believes he is the antichrist, that is inevitable. In “Horseman’s” case, it fits the story and was not shoehorned in. (I should mention, also, that the eschatology you mention is primarily conveyed through Luco Scaramuzzi, who is deceived in many ways and may in fact be insane. I was not trying to communicate doctrine. It’s only something Luco believed because that particular version of eschatology supported his claims.)

You mentioned a complaint specific to “Horseman,” that the FBI agents seemed too wimpy to be investigating a serial killing. I had established that these two agents were not normal investigators, but had gone to an earlier crime scene to field test a crime scene device when the killer struck again nearby, and they seized the opportunity. I’ve received several letters from FBI agents (and other government law enforcement agents) saying that the personnel and methods outlined in the book were more accurate than most books of its kind. One said it was the best he’d ever read.

Of course, this last point is minor, and what’s more important is your perception. I must not have conveyed that information clearly enough.

I agree with you that a lot of fiction that is labeled “Christian” has deep flaws. Here’s where I take issue: I wrote a story that was reviewed and received well in both the general and Christian markets, and yet you attacked it based on the company that published it (and I think your knowledge of that company hued your take on the story as you read). If that’s all it takes for readers to dismiss novels written by Christians, regardless of content, then Christians have no hope of breaking free of the ghetto you describe.

Can anybody actually say that they own more than 2 “Christian” produced movies (and veggie tales doesn’t count)? Point made.