Good Stuff! The Chosen

Nellie and I stumbled onto a new TV series that we are really enjoying. It’s made us laugh, think, and feel. It’s called The Chosen and is based on the life of Jesus Christ, but it’s not like any Jesus series I’ve seen before.

Now I have to admit that when I first saw ads for this, I wasn’t interested. It’s not that I don’t like videos about scriptures. There are some I love. It’s just that the purpose of so many of them is to illustrate a scripture instead of tell a story. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that when I’m looking for a drama, I want to watch a drama.

But this series is different. They have taken a historical fiction approach, which means that while they adhere as closely to the facts as we know them, they don’t limit the story to those facts. And so they imagine people, events, and motives that are plausible, and then tell a story. A great example of this type of storytelling is Gerald N. Lund’s bestselling The Work and The Glory series about a family in the early 1800s who join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or Michael Shaara’s bestselling The Killer Angels about the battle of Gettysburg in the United States Civil War.

The Chosen focuses on stories about characters surrounding Jesus and those who plausibly could have met him. It also imagines Jesus as more than a sober Lord. He laughs, jokes, engages with children. It is a reimagining of the familiar that makes the story fresh again and leaves you wondering and pondering.

It’s created by Dallas Jenkins, an evangelical Christian, and produced and distributed by VidAngel Studios, run by Latter-day Saints. And their love of and delight in the subject show. I can’t wait to see the next episode. You can watch it right now for free. Go to the VidAngel site or to https://studios.vidangel.com/the-chosen/. Or you can watch it on YouTube with ads.

If you like religious fiction, if you like a good drama, if you’re interested in knowing more about the life and times of Jesus Christ, then I think you’ll love this.

Share

Similar Posts

  • Gun Runner wins Dragon Award

    I was very happy to receive news that GUN RUNNER, the novel Larry Correia and I wrote together, just won the 2021 Dragon Award for Best Military Science Fiction or Fantasy Novel.

    The Dragon Awards are a set of literary and media awards presented annually by Dragon Con in Atlanta, Georgia for excellence in various categories of science fiction, fantasy, and horror novels, movies, television, and games.

    And the cool thing is that these awards are voted on by fandom, meaning thousands and thousands of folks voted.

    Past winners have included authors such as Terry Pratchett, Brandon Sanderson, Rick Riordan, and Stephen King.

    As stated in earlier posts, the seed came from Larry’s eleven-year-old son, Joe.

    When Larry and I sat down to develop an idea for a workshop we were holding for Life, the Universe and Everything, a large annual writer’s conference in Provo, a number of years ago, Joe was listening in on the stairs.

    We settled on a genre, and then Correia asked, “Hey Joe, what’s cool?”

    Joe immediately popped up and said, “Giant robots, bandits, and murderers.”

    “We looked at each other and said, ‘Dang, that IS cool.’”

    Forty minutes later we had the key elements we needed for the story we’d use in the workshop. A number of years after that workshop, Baen Books wanted a collaboration from Larry, and that story was one of the first he thought of.

    Larry and I are both frequently asked to present at writers conferences. And one of the tips each of us shares to new authors is to loosen up and have fun. One of the keys to writing an entertaining story is to simply ask, “What’s cool?” And go from there.

    I’m thrilled and honored that those who voted selected Gun Runner for this award.

    Share
  • Good Stuff! Mitty, Non-Stop, and The Winter Soldier

    the-secret-life-of-walter-mitty-poster-bigThe previews for The Secret Life of Walter Mitty didn’t look interesting at all. Furthermore, I’m not the biggest Ben Stiller fan. He’s a fine actor; I just haven’t been in the audience for a lot of his movies. Then someone I know recommended the film, and I decided to give it a go with Nellie.

    We didn’t have high hopes. I mean, look at the movie poster. Does that get you excited? She thought it was going to be dumb. I thought it was going to be dumb. But after five minutes, we found ourselves enjoying the characters and story. We finished it, both of us absolutely delighted. I liked it so much I corralled my two daughters into watching it with me. Then I watched it again. I think I watched it four times total. And I enjoyed it as much, maybe more, each time.

    Walter is a great guy who has had to play it safe and practical his whole life. When his and his co-worker’s jobs are threatened, he takes action and finds himself on a journey that starts in, ta-dum, Greenland. The movie’s got adventure, a slow-burn romance, and a cast of funny and quirky characters. But it isn’t mad-cap humor. It’s not a gushing love story. It’s something else. Something that left me feeling like my life had been leavened with a fine light joy. Give it a shot; I think you’ll be glad you did.

    * * *

    non-stop-movie-posterThe previews for Non-Stop with Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore looked great. I’m happy to report that it was every bit as good as the previews promised.

    Neeson plays a federal air marshal. While on a flight from New York to London, he gets a text telling him that unless 150 million dollars is transferred to an offshore account, someone will die every 20 minutes. But it’s not so easy finding the killer. The deaths are almost inexplicable. And things soon start to spin out of control.

    This movie is filled with surprises and suspense. And it moves. Thrillers normally move quickly, but this one was on turbo. But that doesn’t mean the story was a bunch of light and noise. Quite the contrary. The writers skillfully balance the mystery, action, suspense, and even the character backstories. A lot of folks liked Taken. I liked this better than that film. In fact, it’s one of the better thrillers I’ve seen these last few years.

    * * *

    winter-soldier-poster-no-maskI’m a superhero lover, have been since I was a kid watching the Superfriends cartoon every Saturday morning. But I never know if I’m going to enjoy a superhero movie. I love the genre, but for some reason so many of the films go for effect over story. It drives me nuts. The movie ends, the lights turn on, and I sit in my seat and go “huh.” So I’m happy to report that Captain America: The Winter Soldier actually delivers.

    I cannot say the same for Captain America: The First Avenger, the first in this series. That movie fell apart halfway through the film. The beginning was this wonderful story about a runt trying to do his duty and volunteer. The second half lost all its heart and turned into one big yawn. So for those of you who didn’t like that first film, know that this is a case of the sequel being far better than the original.

    In this one, SHIELD, the organization that directs the Avengers, comes under attack from within. Captain America and Black Widow have to uncover who is behind it and stop them before it’s too late. There are a lot of cool visuals and awesome action scenes. For example, I loved how Captain America “parachutes” into the opening mission. I enjoyed watching him and Black Widow fight in their distinctive ways. But the film didn’t focus on the tech or the super powers. It focused on the characters and the story. The plot includes a number of delicious surprises and reveals. There are funny moments and some poignant ones. And not only did this movie, unlike the first one, develop a single story all the way through, but it also echoes with our current search for national security.

    If you liked Iron Man and Iron Man 3, I think you’ll enjoy Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

    Share
  • |

    The Little Secret that Propels So Many Blockbuster Plots

    I was invited to present a master class at the 2022 StoryMakers conference in Provo, Utah.

    We all want to develop plots that delight readers. Maybe we have ideas for the characters. Maybe we have ideas for the setting. Maybe we even have a couple of scenes.

    But a novel needs 40, 50, 60 or more scenes.

    How do you figure out what happens next, and do it in a way readers love?

    There’s one tool that can help.

    Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and The Da Vinci Code all had it. So did Star Wars, Raider of the Lost Ark (1, 2, and 3), Taken, James Bond, The Wheel of Time, and thousands of other stories, TV episodes, and films.

    It’s what I call the wanted object, sometimes known as the MacGuffin.

    A good MacGuffin will not only make your plotting easier, it can also inject a wow factor into your story that readers love.

    In this session, the writers learned what a MacGuffin really is and how you can use it to propel the plot and keep readers turning the page.

    Here’s a PDF of the presentation.

    2022 john brown – the secret that propels so many blockbuster plots2

    And here’s the PDF of the handout.

    2022 john brown – the secret that propels so many blockbuster plots handout

    Enjoy!

    Share
  • |

    My First Year as an Indie Author

    On November 24th last year, a little over 13 months ago, I released my first indie title—Servant: The Dark God Book 1. That release was the official rise from the sideways swamp crash I had with Tor Books.

    BTW, sideways swamp crashes in publishing, which can be caused by all sorts of reasons, are not uncommon. Most writers will take a hit or three in their career. That’s just part of the writing business. The question is what happens after the swamp crash?

    In my case, I got to work. And, boy, was it a lot of work.

    The results have been positive. It was not a phoenixian rise from ashes to glory; it was more like a damp crew patching the ship in the jungle with whatever they had at hand and then launching with nothing but a few birds making any noise. We are by no means past the many perils and obstacles on the path–right now a solid hit from just about anything could knock us out of the sky.

    But we are airborne.

    We are flying.

    And by that I mean the business is delighting readers and generating income.

    I’ll probably hit close to 23,000 paid sales since that launch. The large majority of them were for Bad Penny. To give you some perspective, a single title will make the official Publishers Weekly bestsellers lists (of traditionally published authors) hardback and paperback categories when the title has sold around 100,000 copies in the year. The top dogs report sales of a few million.

    It’s clear the John D. Brown crew has got a ways to go.

    But we don’t have to reach that lofty level to be viable. It would be awesome. At the same time, it’s helpful to be realistic. There are somewhere between 300-400 titles on the adult hardback and paperback list combined. The same on the children’s lists. So I estimate there are around 700 traditionally published books, fiction and non-fiction, that sell at those bestseller levels. That’s out of the millions of trade titles available on Amazon.

    The good news is that the majority of writers making a living don’t appear there. The fact is that you don’t have to sell 100,000+ copies of a single title in a year to make a living. In the indie world, you can do just fine with what Russell Blake calls base hits and doubles.

    So are we making a living?

    Those sales have generated enough net profit to purchase us a nice used vehicle and a few other things. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick (as my neighbor Mike Carr used to say), but making $10-20k can’t replace the day job. Not even close. Still, it’s a beginning.

    Will our crew make it?

    Can they survive the ferocious flying monkeys?

    Stay tuned.

    In the meantime, I want to summarize a few things I’ve learned about indie publishing and give a few shout-outs.

    First, I want to thank all the readers who decided to give one of my books a shot. From the reviews and sales, it appears the majority found just what they were looking for (and there was much rejoicing).

    Second, a big thanks goes to Larry Correia. Not only is he generous and enthusiastic, but his audience is as well. The Monster Hunter Nation made a definite difference for me this year.

    I want to thank LL Muir and Diane Darcy, two romance writers who have been incredibly generous in sharing their indie insights and support.

    Devon Dorrity and Dixon Leavitt spent hours, HOURS, of their time helping me with covers. I can’t thank them enough.

    I also need to thank the Codex Writers. There’s a small group of us indies there, and they’ve all be very helpful in sharing insights about what’s worked for them and what hasn’t.

    I’ve found other resources helpful as well. The Passive Voice kept me current on the industry. Russell Blake’s blogs gave me a clear-eyed opinion of what it takes to succeed. The Calibre ebook editor has saved me many times. And Anne-Marie Concepcion’s online course on using InDesign to publish ebooks was a very good introduction, as were Dean Wesley Smith’s online courses on interior and cover formatting.  I list other resources I found useful in my Resources for Indie Writers post.

    Okay, so what have I learned?

    1. Nothing happens without visibility

    This is retail. If your product is not somewhere that people can see it, they won’t buy it.

    I was in Wal-Mart the other day. My sister calls it the Evil Empire, but she’s a Tarzjay snob. I myself am a value shopper. I want what I want, and I want to pay as little for it as possible. At the same time, I’m not going to go out of my way to get it because searching around costs time and money. So if I’m looking for something in Wal-Mart and I don’t see it on the shelves, guess what? I buy something similar that will do the job.

    Wal-Mart used to stock Marzetti’s Ranch Dip. The best vegetable dip EVAR. But then sometime this year, they stopped stocking it.

    Why?! Why do they stop stocking stuff the moment I find it?!

    (Hey, maybe that’s why they’re the Evil Empire . . .)

    I mourned for a few seconds. And then I purchased the Lighthouse dip. It’s good. If they put Marzetti’s back on the shelves, I’ll switch back immediately. But the point is that if it’s not in front of my eyeballs when I go shopping, I ain’t gonna buy it.

    And I’m finding retail is the same with ebooks as it is with everything else. You can have the best product in the world, but you aren’t going anywhere with it until you are visible to your buyers.

    2. There are a couple of ways that I was able to make my stuff visible

    The way to make my stuff visible was not by publishing on Amazon, Nook, and the rest.

    Publishing means nothing.

    Think about it. There are, right now, 3,079,561 books in the Kindle bookstore.

    Yes, three million!

    If those were physical books, and we lined them up spine-out like we do on a bookshelf, and we assumed the spines average about an inch in width, they would make a line 48.6 miles long.

    For us Utahans, that’s a line of books that stretches from the Mormon temple in downtown Salt Lake City, past Provo, and ends in Springville! (Look up your own local distances to get an idea.)

    That’s the kind of visibility you get by publishing your book, which is nada.

    So if getting it in the store that’s 50 miles long didn’t help, what did?

    Getting on a bestseller list.

    I sold thousands of copies of Bad Penny on Nook when I was on the Nook’s top 100 list. I rose to #3, in the entire Nook store, then hung out around #50 for about a month. And when that burst of sales that made me #3 fell out of the algorithm (30 days later), I fell off the list. My sales dropped like a stone. Not to nothing. But they were a fraction of what they had been.

    How did I get that #3 slot to begin with? The same way I rose to #30 for a few hours in the Kindle store, then slowly dropped to the 1,200s for a few days. I got it by placing an ad with the king of book advertising services, aka BookBub.

    How did I get onto BookBub? Here’s their requirements and tips. Please note that the reviews of Bad Penny were part of what made the book appealing to BookBub.

    How did I get reviews? By using other ad services to make my book visible and getting mentions on blogs like Larry Correia’s and a few others. And by following recommendations in the book Let’s Get Visible and Your First 1,000 Copies and the suggestions of others who are selling well. And that’s a key thing too–looking to see what folks who are selling well are doing, not those who aren’t.

    Of course, readers also liked the books enough create word of mouth. And I can track some of my sales spikes to specific posts or people. The ultimate goal is to have so much word of mouth that everyone’s talking about you. But until that time, I ain’t going to rely on word of mouth alone.

    Why not?

    Because I’d like to increase my odds of success. I’d like to accelerate them. And thinking that word of mouth alone is going to do that flies in the face of everything I’ve learned about retail. Read what I had to say about books and lemonade and tending your garden for more. Consistent efforts with methods that actually have some track record of success seem to have helped a great deal.

    BTW, Bad Penny is currently in the top 10 of three of Amazon’s thriller lists. I guaran-dang-tee you that being on those lists is a big factor in me selling somewhere around 60 copies a day. I saw that with Nook. Being visible starts a virtuous cycle–more people give you a try; if they like the book, they spread the word, which leads to more sales, which keeps you visible, which prompts more new readers to give you a try. Yeah, you’ve got to be good. But you’ve got to be visible first.

    3. In most cases, books in a specific genre are substitutes

    When readers purchase a book, they are looking for a certain type of experience. And my book’s experience isn’t so singular that readers can’t get something roughly similar from another book.

    I love Lee Child. But Robert Crais provides an experience that’s basically inside the same ballpark. So does Nelson Demille and a whole host of others, including me.

    If Lee Child stops writing or slows down his production to one book every four years, I’m not going to stop reading thrillers. There are plenty of other authors that give me the general adrenaline, surprise, action experience I’m looking for. I’ll be sad, but there are a lot of good authors out there. And I’m sure a few will become my new Lee Child.

    Of course, we aren’t all exactly the same. I provide a noticeably different tale than Lee Child does even though we’re in the same Lone-Ranger-vigilante-justice action genre. And so, if I produce the best tale I can, I will find some readers will come to prefer me to Child because I line up more with their tastes than he does.

    In addition to continue to work on visibility and craft, this means I’ve got to up my production. I’m going to try for 2.5 brand new books in 2015. That’s nothing for some folks. But that’s a good stretch goal for me.

    4. There is no one sure-fire way to success

    Even though visibility and studying your craft helps, nobody I know who is doing well has a replicable step-by-step program that guarantees success. There are some activities that seem to make the odds better, but there is no guarantee.

    For example, from what I wrote above about BookBub, you’d think that’s the brass ring. Nope. I know other authors who have run promos with them and didn’t have near the success Bad Penny did.

    Russell Blake’s advice on this seems to square best with my experience. See the links to his blogs here to see what I’m talking about.

    5. Figuring out how to make a living with this has a lot in common with Lean Startup principles

    The basic concept behind lean startup is that when you’re in a market without a lot of info on what works, the company that wins is the one that learns what works the fastest. And you do that by conducting experiments.

    You experiment to see if you’re offering any value to the intended audience. You experiment to see if you’re promo methods are actually feeding your engine of growth. You experiment to see if your audience really is big enough.

    The experimental approach taught in the lean startup stuff has freed me from a lot of anxiety. Success or failure is not about me personally. It’s about my techniques. It’s about my craft and business skills. It’s about me learning how to learn quicker.

    I’m approaching my thriller and epic fantasy properties as experiments. I’m approaching various visibility methods as experiments. My current state of craft is an experiment. If what I’m doing with my current properties doesn’t work, I can pivot and experiment with something new.

    The question is whether I can learn what works–to find an opportunity to add value and provide that value–before I run out of runway.

    If you’re interested in these ideas, let me recommend The Lean Startup by Eric Ries, which explains the general principles, and Running Lean: Iterate From Plan A to a Plan That Works by Ash Mayura, which shows you how to start to implement them. These two books have changed how I approach the writing business.

    Bottom Line

    The bottom line is that I love developing stories and sharing them with readers.

    I knew this already, of course. But having the ship up and flying again made it hit home in a big way. I enjoy the process of developing a story. I love the research, the story generation, the surprises that come along the way. And I love the emails I get and the discussions I have with readers who have read my books and enjoyed the heck out of them.

    So that’s the big summary.

    Year two stands before us. Let’s hope John D. Brown and company can learn and produce at higher levels than we ever have before.

    Have a wonderful 2015!

    Edit 1/14/2015: Here’s John Ellsworth, another indie author, with a similar tale. Although I’m jealous of his seven books in a year. I need to get cracking!

    Share
  • YA Books Ratings and Publisher Arrogance (shh, it’s about the $$)

    I’m a bit irked.

    I wish I could talk to a publisher about this. I should talk to a Barnes & Noble corporate book buyer. But since I don’t have one handy, I’ll discuss it with you folks. Maybe I’m up in the night? You tell me.

    Here’s the deal. My wife is 7th and 8th grade language arts teacher. My wife is also a mom who loves books and wants her girls to read until their eyes bong out of their heads.

    So we go to find books for her students and for our girls and, jeez, wouldn’t you know it, but this YA book features masturbation and that one features lots of fine words like F*** and S*** and this one is about giving the guys a blow job (tee, hee, hee).

    Yeah, I know about YA saves. This isn’t about banning this or that content.

    It’s about the fact that I’m a parent. And, geez, I have a certain way I want to raise my kids. My wife is a teacher who needs to provide books to her students that aren’t going to piss some parent off. Why? Because she’s providing a service to that parent. Because she wants to keep her job. And because it’s her job to help parents improve their kid’s reading ability not tell them how to raise a family.

    So why in the Sam Hill can’t publishers rate their books?

    There are millions of their customers who would find this useful.

    Well, here’s one answer I was given by a writer friend I respect.

    Everyone in the industry is really pushing back against the idea of a rating system. Let me see if I can explain why.

    A friend of mine, ZZ [name removed], is the nicest person in the world. Volunteered for years at a prison to help people learn to express themselves by writing. Her older brother was a closeted homosexual for years, contracted AIDS, died too young. She wrote a book recently called [title removed], about a family in the restaurant business (as hers was) who have a “late” baby and the problems it causes for the older teens, one of whom is coming out as gay. It’s a soft, quite, sad, moving book. And it would be part of the “rating” system and banned from a bunch of schools. ZZ also wrote a book a few years ago about teenage pregnancy. Also beautifully written, kind, compassionate. But it would get tagged by schools as “inappropriate.” ZZ feels strongly that there are kids out there who need books, kids in your wife’s school system who need to be told they are not alone.

    I don’t see any way to have a system that distinguishes between books that I see as anchors to kids who need help and those books which I see as genuinely offensive and encouraging bad teen behavior by glorifying it. The only system I know is me recommending the best books I see. And I’d much rather see librarians and school teachers go through books on a case by case basis, deciding whether they personally think it fits the values in their community than to have someone else not attached to the community do the same thing.

    Uh huh.

    If this is accurate, it shows the industry’s stunning lack of creativity AND arrogance. Because if publishers really were listening to parents, they could come up with a solution.

    No, really. They could.

    Why, there’s already one out there. They don’t even have to expend even one creative molecule to find it.  

    Look at the Kids-in-Mind rating system: http://www.kidsinmind.com/. It rates movies 1-10 on sex, violence, and profanity (SVP).

    There’s no age stipulation in their ratings.

    Unlike other rating systems, there’s no “children under 13 not admitted.” No “appropriate for teens.” No recommended range for this or that group or this book is good and that one’s bad.

    It just rates the content and gives it a number. You, as the user, determine what level you’re comfortable with and then find the movies that fit.

    I’m a 4-10-4 on sex, violence, and profanity. You might be a 5-2-9. That’s not good or bad. It’s just what it is. More importantly, the rating allows me as a consumer to EASILY FIND AND PURCHASE THE PRODUCT I WANT.

    I know some folks have never heard of it, but consumer choice is a really cool thing.

    And if I hear about a movie that’s amazingly good, but I see it doesn’t match my normal levels, then I can make an informed choice to watch or not watch. The King’s Speech, for example, is a bit above my normal profanity setting. But this didn’t prevent me from watching the film (it was a fabulous movie, btw). SVP just gave me a couple of pieces of simple data I find useful as I make my choices. Data I’m already looking for.

    If publishers were to use a similar rating system, every librarian could peg the levels they wanted in their school and be done with it. As well as consider special cases. Teachers could peg the level for their classroom. Parents could search and find and buy. And they could guide their kids in their purchases as well.  

    Make it easy for them to go case-by-case. And don’t imagine librarians and teachers and parents are going to read every YA book published to find those that fit with their values. They don’t, can’t, do that now. They won’t in some utopian future. If you give them SVP ratings, it will help them spend their time, case-by-case, on books that they’re likely to buy. Which probably means they’ll buy more.

    Write about homosexuality, rape, whatever. But make it easy on the consumer to see if it’s the kind of product they want to buy.

    Some might say, but themes of homosexuality and rape and child abuse etc. etc. are important and would be automatically excluded!

    No, they won’t.

    You can write a story about those themes that scores low on SVP. You can write about those themes and score high. Themes are outside the SVP scale.

    Some parents, librarians, and teachers may want to avoid some themes. Others would seek them out.

    So, good golly, here’s an idea only a rocket scientist could come up with. OR someone who took the issue a tiny bit seriously and wanted to serve their customer. How about a little box under the SVP rating that contained “sensitive” themes.

    They don’t have to do what Scholastic does with its school catalogs and label them “mature” themes, which might suggest “mature audiences only.” They’re not “mature” themes. They’re not “bad” themes. They’re not “good” themes. They’re just sensitive themes.

    SVP and Sensitive Themes: four little pieces of data consumers would find oh so incredibly helpful.

    But no. The industry can’t be bothered with that. And, consequently, reveals its arrogance and total lack of respect for a HUGE portion of their customers.

    I guess they think librarians are mindless idiots. Never in a million years, if a librarian is tuned into the needs of her community and thinks a book on homosexuality would be important, would she search on that sensitive theme and her SVP ratings. And parents would never do that for sure (do you know how many gun-clinging troglodyte parents there are out there!?)

    I guess the industry thinks because it sits in an office in NY City that it knows everything about raising kids. It knows so much it must dictate to parents how to do it right.

    Yeah.

    Or maybe what this really shows is that the publishers have got a book they want to sell. They want to make a buck. And, dang it, this might hurt sales. Because then people wouldn’t buy things they didn’t want.

    They really don’t seem to care about what many of their customers want. Because if they did, and they realio trulio cared about these sensitive topics and saving the world, then they’d publish books high on the SVP because they’re just sooooo goooood, but they’d also publish books on those topics that are equally as goooood with SVP ratings that the majority of parents and school districts would be comfortable with.

    And they’d let the customer choose what they wanted to purchase.

    Customer choice. Customer service.

    Wow, what revolutionary concepts.

    They even might find that if you delight the customer, they’ll come back for more.

    I know, I know. I’m living in fantasy land; delighted customers coming back for more . . . as if.

    Question is: will the publishers listen?

    We’ll see. I truly hope I’m wrong about their arrogance and disregard towards huge swaths of their customer base. In the meantime, you might want to think about talking to the manager of your favorite book store about this. Strangely enough, books stores have a lot of pull with publishers.

    You also might want to look at Kids-in-Mind. It seems to make a lot in advertising. Looks like there’s money to be made in a review site like that for YA books. I know a lot of people who have said they wished they could just read books for a living. Anyone feeling entrepreneurial? Anyone?

    EDIT

    Two more points.

    First, what’s sensitive for one person may not be for another. But that’s the beauty of this. This only identifies subjects that would be sensitive for reasonable sections of the market. For someone with your reading tastes, you’d say, eh, homosexuality, big deal. That’s not a sensitive subject. For others, they’d say, hum, have to think about it.

    It’s just giving data. A respect and recognition of different tastes. Not a prescription of what someone’s taste should be. Or what people should or shouldn’t feel is sensitive subject matter.

    For this reason, I don’t think publishers would want to use the word “controversial” because that implies controversy. Just sensitive (or some other similar label). Or even “Potentially Sensitive Themes.” This is just giving data about content areas SOME parents might want to know about.

    Second, the SVP is not going to be 100% perfect. But something is much better than nothing. And having some clear standard for rating, whatever it is, pegs things so you can figure out where you are. As long as the raters are fairly consistent, then you can tell if something is close to the type of product you’re interested in. There will be goofs. No doubt about it. Huge goofs would be probably very infrequent because a ten-point scale allows you to make gradual distinctions. But I’ll take some goofs now and again over nothing at all.

    Furthermore, because it’s NOT age-based like the MPAA and prescriptive in the target audience, it’s not telling parents what to do. There is no “good for your kids” and “bad for your kids” rating. Just the level you’re comfortable with.

    Finally, some people object to ratings because “how can you boil a book down to a few numbers?” I don’t think this boils a book down. It’s only a couple of pieces of data about a book. Data parents are already looking for. The cover, recommendations, word-of-mouth, flap, description, buzz–these are all pieces of data as well.

    In fact, you and I exclude many books based on genre labels alone. And yet we don’t worry about a genre labels much. They’re useful pieces of information. Are they always perfect? No. But they’re by-and-large very useful. I don’t see that this is much different. Just another piece of data to help consumers find what they want.

    Share
  • The Surprising Truth About Militias and the Second Amendment

    When the founding fathers spoke of “militias,” they were not referring to a bunch of yahoos running around in the woods with paint on their faces outside of state control.

    They were referring to a citizen army under state control.

    So is “militia” just the old-time word for what our army is today?

    No.

    A standing or “regular” army is one made up of professional, full-time soldiers like the US Army, the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force. And it’s permanent, meaning you don’t disband the army when the fighting is done.

    A militia back in those days was something completely different.

    The problem of a standing army

    The founding fathers knew they needed to provide for the common defense, but they saw standing armies controlled by a central government as an immediate threat to the liberty the new union sought to preserve.

    Why would they think that?

    Easy. History was littered with case after case where standing armies had become a law unto themselves and oppressed the populace. One glaring example is what happened to the Roman empire. It suffered centuries where this faction and then that faction of the army was in control, and it brought nothing but a continual procession of civil wars and bloodshed.

    History also showed that even if the military didn’t take over, kings and queens were happy to wield standing armies to impose their will and oppress the people. Remember: the world then was ruled by monarchies. The founders had never seen a standing army wielded by any other type of power.

    So the founders didn’t want to give a president or any other central authority that power. They feared doing so would only pave the way to the ruin of the new nation they sought to form.

    So if you don’t have a standing army, how do you defend your country?

    The fyrd

    The founding fathers thought they saw a solution in a tradition of duty that went back hundreds of years in England. In the days when the Saxons ruled England, the kings and dukes would muster and deploy the fyrd to help them fight their wars.

    The fyrd was made up of all able-bodied free males between certain ages, regardless of their vocation. It was their duty to provide their own arms and defend the land when called by their leaders. So this was an army made up of farmers, tanners, smiths, tailors, etc.

    But the fyrd wasn’t a standing army. Nor was it populated with full-time soldiers. This citizen army was to be called out when needed, and when the crisis was over, it was disbanded, and the men went back to their vocations.

    The militia scheme

    The founders took this idea and tweaked it. Back in the Saxon days, the king controlled the fyrd. In this new scheme, the United States would rely on a fyrd (which they called a militia), but the powers to control it would be split between the president, Congress, and the States.

    First, Congress, not the president, was the only authority that could declare war and summon the state militias. So the president would be the commander in chief when the militia was active. But the minute Congress decided to end a war and disband the militia, that army dissolved, leaving the president as commander in chief of only the tiny number of troops that had been authorized as the regular army (less than 1,000 at the time).

    Second, while the Federal government would provide the weapons the militia would use when it mustered them for war, the state governments would be the ones to appoint the officers and train the soldiers. You can’t run an army without officers. So this would prevent the Federal government from taking control by stacking the army leadership with those loyal to a despot president or Congress.

    So the militia was supposed to be the main force that fought our wars, and it was supposed to be temporary. It’s true that Congress did authorize a standing army, but it was tiny. And with this setup, the founders figured we’d have the army we’d need, but we’d avoid the problems standing armies had posed in the past.

    So militias, as thought of by the founders in the 1700s, were not groups outside the government’s control. They were temporary citizen armies. And power over them was broken up between the president, Congress, and the States so no one group or person could wield them tyrannically.

    1791 and The Bill of Rights

    Accordingly, the founders wrote the articles and sections of the Constitution in 1787 to set all of this up. However, many anti-federalists were concerned that the Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of the Federal government. In fact, many of the founders were so concerned about the issue that they refused to ratify the Constitution as it was.

    The only way they’d sign on is with the promise of the Bill of Rights. When they knew that bill was forthcoming, delegates from nine of the original thirteen states ratified the Constitution. The delegates of two other states waited until the document was produced. The final two (North Carolina and Rhode Island) waited until 1791 when the Bill of Rights, which includes the second amendment, was passed.

    So let’s look at the language of the Second Amendment in light of what we know about the fear the founders had of standing armies.

    “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    Why did they include this? It was not because they wanted the citizens to be able to hunt or protect themselves with guns. They figured that was a given. They included this amendment because they concluded that an armed citizenry would make it impossible for tyranny to arise.

    Noah Webster, a Federalist, stated the idea this way when trying to persuade Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution:

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

    So the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because enough of the founders feared that the Constitution could be read in a way that would allow the Federal government to disarm the populace. Disarming the populace would open the way to a standing army under Federal control. And that would open the way to tyranny.

    When all was said and done, the founders separated the power of the military in this way:

    • Only Congress could declare war and muster the militia
    • Only Congress could finance it
    • There would be no standing army to speak of
    • Only the states could appoint officers to the militia
    • The government was forbidden to infringe on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms

    So what happened?

    Militias didn’t work

    The problem is the militia didn’t work well enough to actually provide for the common defense.

    It didn’t work during the Revolutionary War. The republic had to create the Continental Army. That army was supported by the militias, but the colonists found they couldn’t rely on the militias alone. They had to have the regular army to fight the British.

    After the war, the Continental Army was disbanded, but the militias simply weren’t good enough to face the threats the new nation faced, and George Washington himself openly lamented it. The troops took a licking in 1791 at the battle of St. Claire’s and then time and again during the War of 1812.

    Heck, militias didn’t even work in the days of the fyrd. In those days, the Saxon and Norman kings relied on their house warriors (their standing army) and mercenaries for most of the work. They only supplemented with the fyrd.

    1792

    After the defeat in 1791, the early leaders concluded they needed a regular army with the training and skill it possessed. So in 1792 Congress authorized the creation of the First Legion of the United States, a standing army of 5,190 men. The legion was renamed “The United States Army” in 1796.

    In 1792 Congress also passed the Militia Acts. The acts were written to expire in two years. But Congress wrote another in 1795 to replace them. These laws authorized the president to called out the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion” and “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act.”

    So a mere five years after the Constitution was first ratified, and a year after the Bill of Rights, Congress dramatically increased the size of the nation’s standing army and gave the President the authority to call out the militia! It’s clear that right from the beginning the militia scheme started showing some cracks.

    Today

    The First Legion was small. But it grew again in 1808, and then again during the war of 1812. And it continued to grow slowly, then ballooned in the 1900s until we now have more than a million troops in the armed forces of the US.

    The National Guard is what the militias of the 1800s transformed into in the early 1900s, but, wouldn’t you know it, the National Guard is now mostly under the control of the Federal government too.

    What does this mean?

    It means we now have the most powerful standing army the world has ever known and almost no militia. It means our military is a complete 180 of what the founders envisioned.

    I’m not saying it’s bad. I love our military.

    I’m merely pointing out that militias back then meant a certain thing and the founders wanted them for a certain reason. And that we have completely replaced that arrangement with the exact opposite.

    As for tyranny, we still have armed citizens. Maybe this is enough to deter tyranny as Webster claimed. Although the disparity between what the citizens can arm themselves with now and what the regular army has is nothing like it was in the 1700s. So maybe there are other laws and aspects of our culture that have prevented it. Maybe it’s both.

    Either way, it’s important to understand what the original militias were, why the founders wanted them, and what the second amendment was all about.

    More

    Helpful articles

    US Constitution – Provisions for the military

    Here are all of the parts of the original seven articles of the Constitution that deal with the military.

    Article 1 – The Congress
    Section 8

    This section gives Congress seventeen powers. Six of these have to with the common defense. Those military powers granted are:

    • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    • To provide and maintain a Navy;
    • To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [notice there are only three cases that warrant the calling forth of the militia]
    • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Section 10

    This section prevents the States from doing thirteen things. Three of these have to do with the military.

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    Article 2 – The President
    Section 2

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    Article 4 – The States
    Section 4

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

    Share