The Prequels are Not Dumb

   Here is a non-controversial admittance (not a confession): I like Star Wars. I find the Original Trilogy (Episodes IV-VI) a fun, intelligent, poignant collection of sci-fi  films. Here's a controversial admittance: I like the Star Wars prequels. I find the Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I-III) an enjoyable, intelligent, and tragic collection of sci-fi films (and I don't mean tragic in the sense that some might). I understand that the writing has faults, the dialogue delivery is cringe-worthy at times, and the action tends to crowd out the story. However, having recently watched Episode III, I must say that it is a decent, dare I say it, good tragedy. However, I'm not here to defend the acting or any of that, I'm here to propose that the prequels are not mindless and dumb. They make a very important point, specifically one that the Christian Church should keep in mind.

   What do I mean by that? The prequels start with Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi, rescuing a young slave boy from a life of misery. This boy, Anakin Skywalker, having lived his life as a slave in an uncivilized desert planet, suddenly is brought to the center of the universe. He goes from having only a relationship with his mother to having a mentor and a friend in Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan Kenobi. First, Qui-Gon must receive the Jedi Council's permission to receive the boy as his apprentice. The council denies this request, for it would break their rules of only accepting young children as apprentices, and Anakin's age (10-12) was too old. Qui-Gon leaves, upset, and soon dies in a battle with the Sith.

   This introduces the main point of the Star Wars Prequels: when a religion becomes legalism, it dies. The Jedi, after years and years of existing comfortably in the Republic, have changed from being dependent on the force to being dependent on the Republic. The religion of the Jedi is reduced from a 'relationship' with the force to a focus on keeping the rules. And, as things tend to go, as the Jedi focus on the rules, they get bound with the rule makers: the Republic. Thus, the Republic becomes the important thing, and the Jedi promise to keep it running.
   The legalism of the Jedi is best seen in they're continuous admonition to resist relationships. Why? For attachment causes loss, loss leads to fear and fear leads to the dark side. Of course, without relationships people can also become lonely, lost, and depressed. The Jedi are seeking to avoid the negative sides of relationships and, in doing so, lose the positive as well. Emotions are not to be avoided, but being controlled by emotions are to be. However, due to this lack of being able to have relationships with others (and the continual distrust of the Jedi Council), Anakin eventually seeks a friendship with the only person who will listen to him: Palpatine. And that doesn't end so well.  

   Thus this legalism and dependence on the Republic leads, eventually, to the Jedi doing whatever it takes to keep the Republic in power. They never question the orders of the Republic, because they are no longer focused on what is right, but what keeps the peace. From that point on, it is only a slow slide from Republic to Dictatorship, from Democracy to Empire.

   Why is this useful to the Christian Church? Because it embodies how a religion can turn from a focus on God (or the force) to a focus on the a Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with partnering with an Earthly Kingdom to do good deeds, as long as the Church always recognizes that there is a distinction between the Earthly Kingdom and the Heavenly Kingdom. However, if the Church starts to become a part of the state, as the Jedi became the Republic's peacekeepers, then it is the Heavenly Kingdom that ends. In history we can see this happening. When the Church becomes too involved with the State, the Church is the one that suffers or spreads suffering to others.

   So why are the prequels not dumb? They show us how a religion should not behave. It should not turn away from Deity to rules, not turn away from Heavenly Kingdoms to becoming a part of Earthly Kingdoms. Instead, it should keep a separation between Church and State, for if they do not it ends in Empire. And then it will take forty years in the wilderness (or 23) before the Church can get on its feet once again.

   What do you think? Are the Star Wars Prequels a little bit better now? Or are you still disgusted with them? Comment below and tell me what you think!

Not What but How

   What we say is important. Having a point behind my words or a point behind my stories is important. That means that I am not just blowing steam, but actually spending my time for a purpose. However, just because I have a good point, does not mean that I should sacrifice storytelling. How I tell a story or how I make a point is sometimes as important as the point itself.
   Take, for example, the Star Wars prequels. I think they have a fabulous point to make about a pitfall of institutional religion (more on that in a different post). The problem is that the way the story was told is not that great. The acting is poor in spots, the dialogue is not that strong, and some characters can be annoying. Also, the point itself can sometimes be lost in frivolous battles.
    Why is it important in how a point is conveyed? How a point is conveyed can say a lot about how people think of the point itself. For example, a teacher can have wonderful grammatical principles to give to his students, but if he cannot give teach them well then the students will not learn them. If the teacher does not properly teach the principles, then what importance will those principles hold in the students' minds?
   Here's another analogy: a Jacksonville Jaguars fan is really excited that their football team had a winning season. This is a legitimate reason to celebrate and to tell to others. However, if the fan tells all her friends that her team is way better than theirs and, ergo, their teams suck, that message will be soured by the means. If, however, the football fan excitedly mentions to her friends that her team has a winning record after however-many-seasons, then she gives her friends a chance to celebrate with her, rather than be defensive about their teams.
   This also applies to giving movie reviews. Last year, I reviewed God's Not Dead and had a few critical things to say about it. I opened with the critical remarks, and then the rest of the review was nitpicked by fans thinking I was criticizing the entire thing. The way I worded my review and how I presented it caused people to make assumptions about my thoughts. It was not just what I said about the film which represented my views, but how I said them.
   I also listened to a podcast recently which reviewed The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies. They opened negatively, waxed on eloquently about the pitfalls of the film, and then squeezed in a few things they liked about it. Of course, most of what they said was with good reason. The film has many shortcomings, I acknowledge that. However, the way the statements were made (stating that this was obviously bad or nobody could keep from laughing at this part) discredits those people, belittles even, those who may have liked the film. Perhaps this is just me being thin-skinned, but I think that even when criticizing, there must be some measure of tact.
   Of course, most of humor nowadays entails belittling and making fun of stuff. Some stuff well deserves it, some doesn't, but it gets funnies made about it all the same. Maybe this is me just being ridiculous, but I think, to some extent, respect should be the first thought. Then, in relationship, loving jokes can be made. I don't know how that really works in an age were media can be thrown up on the internet where anybody can see it, but I'd like to challenge myself to be more respectful, even with things, or people, I dislike.

Reading Highlights from 2014

   I know, I know, I'm a little late in doing this. I've been toying with a reading post for about a month now. I thought it would be interesting to sit down every once in a while and just talk about stuff I've been reading. Yet, whenever I had a chance to sit down, I never really knew what to talk about. Then I figured the end of the year would be the optimal time to test such a post. That came and went. Now I'm a week late, and I'm going to force myself to do it. Therefore, here are some of my reading highlights: books that I either really enjoyed, thought were powerful, or just have something to say about.

   1. Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler
   I got the idea to read this book on a whim. I was looking for another book in the library, and having a bit of difficulty in finding it, when I stumbled upon this. I hadn't read Hitler's magnum opus before, though I had not heard good things (it's Hitler, what do you expect?). I decided, after finding my other book, to give Hitler a chance. This is one of the most disturbing books I've ever read. It is racist, sexist, crazy, and yet thoughtful. Hitler definitely had his philosophy well worked out, as disturbing as it was. This is an important historical work of literature, even though its not very well written and it is full of bad, bad ideas. I'm not sure why this is first on my list, other than that it is the most recent book I've read so it is fresh on my mind.

   2. On Writing by Stephen King
   This is a great book. It's a fun read, it's full of good material, and King is a great writer. He entertains even when talking about grammar, and he makes you think about how to better the writing craft. If you are a writer, you should probably read this book.

   3. A Farewell to Mars by Brian Zahnd
   This is a great book. It's the story of a Pastor's Journey toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace. With that said, this is a non-fiction book, but it is still gripping. Zahnd challenged me to look at my life and look at the way I view the Bible to see if they match up with Jesus. A great book.

   4. Unwritten by Charles Martin
   My mom read this book first, then gave it to me saying I would enjoy it. It's the story of a celebrity who gets so messed up she tries to kill herself, but is rescued by a hermit. The hermit, who used to be something of a celebrity himself, offers to help her disappear of the radar. She accepts. The rest of the book involves the story of how she tries to sort her life out (with the reluctant help of the hermit, of course). This book tells a great story and contains some powerful philosophy. I would advise this one to writers as well.

   5. The Carnivorous Carnival by Lemony Snicket
   I really did not like this book. It is the ninth book in A Series of Unfortunate Events and the rest of the books, as expected, are quite sad. The ending of this one, I felt, was just unnecessarily bleak. However, I know wonder if that was the point. Snicket seems to be pointing at our entertainment and our view of others. We quibble over mindless differences, then turn to entertainment full of violence and messy eating. Disgusting.

   6. The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi
   I read/listened-to a lot of classics through the year, but I think this was one of the best. Its the story of Pinocchio, the little wooden marionette who wants to be a real boy. Interestingly, the story is comprised of short stories, with each chapter forming a story all on its own, more or less. The chapters fit together to tell an overall story as well, making it fascinating experience for the reader. After finishing this story, I think I had stumbled upon a essential-read among the children's literature genre.

There, those are some of my reading highlights from last year. What about yours? What books did you read last year? Any good ones? Any bad ones? Comment below and tell me about it!

An Obsession with Epic

   People don't like to be bored. They just don't. And with the invention of the laptops, iPhones, films, and (of course) the internet, people never have to be.
   At first, people were fine with small movies. Things didn't have to be great and grand, as long as they told a good story. Then movies like Star Wars came along. Everyone realized just how big, how grand films could become. Filmmakers could show entire planets explode and a whole new universe of possibilities entered into their minds. Problem was that people didn't just take this new realm and tell good stories. That's too risky. Instead, it was easier to copy things people already liked. Thus, we ended up with Star Wars ripoffs; a few good, original ideas; and book adaptations. That's how we got the Lord of the Rings movies.
   The first trilogy of movies was good. It took the story of the books and transferred its themes to the screen. There were minor changes, which some hate and some like, but overall the films were well received. Then came the Hobbit trilogy. The problem with the Hobbit (the book) is that it was written before the Lord of the Rings. It's not so much a prequel as a fairy-tale, with little of the darkness and grand scope of the follow books. However, since the Lord of the Rings movies are already out, people expect a similar production from the Hobbit.
   Thus the filmmakers are left with a tough decision. Do they make the Hobbit like the book: a lighter, smaller, more 'fun' story? Or do they make what everyone is expecting: a huge, epic tale of armies and rings and sorcery? The filmmakers chose to do what they thought they could pull off: a Lord of the Rings prequel, rather than a direct Hobbit-to-screen transfer.
   With that preamble, how does that tie me into the movie I am actually reviewing? Well, I feel that the problem with the movie was exactly that: it was too epic. There were too many orcs, too many elves, too many narrow escapes and explosions. Some I liked, but when I backed up and looked around, I was stuck wondering: why aren't they all dead? If this were real life they'd all be dead.
   Of course, I thought the same thing about the Lord of the Rings movies. I wondered how everyone survived even though thousands of others didn't, given that most of the main characters put themselves in the most dangerous parts of battle. Still, when you look at the scale of the attacks (at Helm's Deep, Saruman sent 10,000 orcs), and see Gimli and Legolas fighting over which slew 42 orcs, the odds don't seem so impossible. But when you see the hundreds of orcs each character would have had to slay in the Hobbit movies, it all feels a little too fantastical.
   That's what I didn't like. What did I like? I felt that the portrayal of the dragon-sickness was very good. The acting was pretty good overall, but I felt Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage were especially good. Ken Stott as Balin I also enjoyed, especially in scenes between him and Bilbo. Actually, the film had some good things to say about greed, loyalty, courage, even loving your enemies (as strange as that seems in a movie where lots of people kill each other).
   So, overall, what did I think of the movie? I thought it was okay, but stuck too much to amazing cinematography and fight scenes, while forgetting about telling a good story. A rating out of 10? I would say somewhere around 6.

   What about you? Did you watch The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies? Did you like it, hate it? What about this blog post: do you agree that American movies may have an obsession with epic? Feel free to comment below!

The Hanging Tree of Panem

   Recently, I went to watch Mockingjay Part 1. It was quite a strange experience, actually, because I watched it Saturday afternoon and then preached a sermon the next morning (which can be found here if you're interested).

   The movie was quite good. It was a well portrayed example of what war is. It tells of how an oppressed people can change a corrupted government. It shows how people can band together to get justice even against near impossible odds.

   That's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the song. You know the song, the one Katniss sings which is then scored over one of the propos. The song which has been cycling through my head for the last week. My theory is that this song reflects the point of Mockingjay, Part 1 and part 2. 

(Beware, possible spoilers ahead!)

   The song Katniss sings (The Hanging Tree) is a disturbing song. (Lyrics can be found here.) The first verse talks of a man who was hanged for the supposed murder of three. Then it says that strange things happened at this place, but those strange things are no stranger than what would happen if the listener were to come to meet the singer in the tree. Who is the singer? Perhaps later verses will tell.

   The second verse repeats the question of the first, asking if the listener will come to the hanging tree. This verse is different, it tells that while the 'murderer' was being hanged, he called out for his lover to flee. The third verse reveals something startling: the dead man is the singer. The listener, in the story of the song, is the love of the dead man. The fourth verse wraps it all up. The dead man, in calling his lover to flee to the tree, tells her to hang herself. That is the only way that she can be free.

   How does this reflect the theme of Mockingjay? This song presents a terrible situation. There's a man being hanged for murder, whether or not he did it (the song doesn't say), and he calls out for his lover to run. However, he's not calling for her to just flee, he wants her to avoid the 'government' the only way she can: death.

   Katniss, too, is in a terrible situation. She is a part of the Rebellion, but knows that they don't have much of a chance. She knows that statistically she should be dead already. But when she goes out and sees the destruction that Snow has created, she understands that inaction is not an option. Mere evacuation is not an option. Instead, she flees to the hanging tree. She goes into the very heart of battle and calls everyone else to join her likewise. The noose is around her neck and she is calling for everyone else to line up beside her.

   The funny thing is that the Capitol speaks the exact same message. It calls for its children to strike against the rebellion, and the Rebels call to strike against the Capitol. In this violence and bloodshed, what happens? Both the dead man and the lover will be hanged. They'll find freedom, but only in death. Finnick Odair actually states this outright in the film when he says, "I wish we had all died and no one was in this situation. I wish we were all dead."

   The funny thing is, while the Capitol is calling for their followers to fight and Katniss calls for the oppressed to strike back, Peeta is the lone voice of sanity. He calls for the laying down of arms. The Capitol thinks this is a way to get the rebels to calm down. Peeta knows better. He knows that resistance does not have to be violent to make things change. He seems to know that if one violent government is overthrown another will take its place. Instead, Peeta calls for a different way. He calls for a way of resistance which doesn't end in the elimination of the human race (violence), but ends in reconciliation.

   What did you think of Mockingjay Part 1? Did you enjoy it? Hate it? Comment below!

Football and Writer's Block

   I have found myself in a bout with Writer's Block. I just cannot find the motivation or the ideas to write anything. Instead, I've found myself far too easily distracted by football (American), or television, or podcasts. However, that got me thinking and I came up with an idea I've never seen done before (but it probably has been): Football and Writer's Block.
   See, in football there is something called the line of scrimmage. That is the line where the football starts at every play. At the line of scrimmage there are two lines: the defensive line and the offensive line. The offensive linemen are trying to stop the defensive linemen from tackling the person holding the ball. Thus, in this analogy the line of scrimmage (and the various blockers located there) will form the place of Writer's Block in this analogy. This might be a little confusing for nonfootball fans, so I'll attempt to explain and keep it simple.
   See, sometimes when serving as the offense or defense the blockers just seem to get in the way. No matter how hard I try I just can't seem to get fend them off or get around them (depending which side I'm on). This is exactly how it is sometimes with Writer's block. That's why I've come up with 5 ways to beat it.
   1. Push
   The first way is pretty simple. It is merely to keep pushing. This may or may not get you through. Sometimes, it just takes hard work and perseverance to defeat writer's block. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. That's when it's time to try a different tactic.
   2. Juke
   In football there is a move known as a juke. This means to dart quickly to one side, so as to throw the blocker (or anyone, really) off the trail. For a writer, sometimes this means to look at the story from a different angle. Try throwing in a twist or change perspectives in an attempt to get the story flowing.
   3. Look for the Hole
   When the offense wants to run the ball instead of throw it, the offensive lineman attempt to form holes in the defensive line in order to allow the runner through. However, the runner must still see the holes in order to run through them. This is a useful tactic as writers: look for the place where the story would naturally flow. If the tactic if throwing a twist in or a change of pace doesn't work, then try to look for where the story would naturally go. What is the motivation of the main character? What action would he/she take with that motivation? Thinking of the story with those aspects in mind might be helpful in defeating writer's block.
    4. Look Ahead
   In a passing play, the offensive line will form as blockers, leaving the person throwing with plenty of time to look for the receivers. If done correctly, the passer should be able to keep his eyes on the receivers down-field and not look at the defensive lineman at all. As authors, the idea of looking ahead can sometimes be helpful. In your story, what is the place where you think it will resolve itself? Keep your eyes on that goal, then make sure to set up and keep pushing toward it. Fun stuff can be thrown in along the way, but that resolution should always be the ultimate goal. Keep your eye on the end and it might be helpful in giving you ideas in how to get there.
   5. Punt
   In football, punting is when the offense cannot continue driving forward. The remedy for that is to kick the ball down-field, giving the opposing offense a longer distance to cover before they can score points. For authors this can be one of two things. It can be taking a break from writing in order to clear your head. This can be helpful, as long as the break doesn't become a form of avoiding the writing. The second way punting can be used by authors is to get rid of the story entirely. Some stories just aren't meant to be written. As sad as that is, sometimes writers just need to get rid of the story and start something new. This should only be done as a last resort and not literally destroyed. Sometimes working on something new can take your mind off the strain and you'll actually come up with ideas for the blocked story again! Therefore, not deleting things is a good idea (I know this from experience).

There you go! That's my football and writer's block analogy. What did you think?
Do you have any ideas for defeating writer's block? (Or any favorite football teams)? Comment below and tell me what you think!

Free Books!

   Welcome Ladies and Gentleman to the blog of Jesse Rice. I'm Jesse Rice, author of the Kitten Mysteries series, of which two books are out so far! (I'm doing this introduction since it's been so long since I've blogged.)
   Anyway, some of you might remember last year when I decided to have a rather hobbit-like birthday. I called it that because hobbits give away presents on their birthday rather than accept them. I'm doing the same, but with books! That's right, both of my books are free on Kindle from Saturday October 11th until Monday October 13. That means The Missing Kitten and Trapped are free for three days!
   I hope you get a copy and enjoy.
   If you do get a copy, can I ask just one thing of you? Leaving a review for a book you read is important. It helps other people see the book and gives people a feel for whether they will like the book or not. If you do get a free copy, please leave a review on either Amazon (The Missing Kitten, Trapped) or on Goodreads (The Missing Kitten, Trapped). Please? It's my birthday, after all.

   Anyway, whatever you do, thank you for coming to my blog and thanks for reading! (And feel free to share!)