Field of Blood

[dizzyjam]

Anybody reading this one yet? It's book one of the Jerusalem's Undead trilogy by Eric Wilson one of the people Jeff has interviewed. I'm a little over halfway done with it as I type this. I like the combination of Biblical supernatural combined with Dracula lore. This just came out this week. So any more out there reading this? If not, you should be.

[mongoose]

What audience is it directed at? Sue Dent's first book read more like a young adult novel than I was looking for. Also, is it preachy about the assumptions made about the world in which it is set, or does it just state or show those assumptions and move on? Do you have to figure out what's true of these undead, or does a dumb puppet or someone tell you? Finally, what's the primary reason for reading it? Great premis? Plot? Character Development? Prose?

TIA!

[dizzyjam]

Those are some good questions, mongoose.

First of all, since I've never read Sue Dent before I have no idea how her's sounded to compare this one, but from your description of her first book I'd say this does not read like what I would consider in the Christian book dept. as a young adult novel.

Define preachy. For some people, if any shade of supernatural outside the generic is introduced into the story then some feel a book is preachy. Obviously stopping the book for a sermon would be preachy and this story hasn't done that yet in my reading of it.

I'm getting used to Eric's "voice" as I go along, so I won't comment on the prose at this time since he's a new author to me and I don't know your tastes enough to say one way or another. What I will say is that I think he has some strong characters that have an established background and you can tell this story is going somewhere. Hopefully when it gets there I'll be as pleased as I've been so far in reading this first book.

We're looking at a story that you can find all the description you need on Eric's website: www.jerusalemsundead.com That's what I started with to motivate me to buy the book; I thought it was a great idea. Hopefully what you see on there coupled with what I say will help you decide.

Hope that helps. :-)

[mongoose]

Thank you. I realize that people have a variety of tastes in literature and entertainment in general, so I don't usually ask people if they think _I_ would like a story. Rather, I like to find out why THEY like the story, or what the story's strengths and weaknesses are as compared to what is expected of the genera, and as compared to what the authors and/or promoters claim that the story is. I look for critical review before I shell out money on things, most of the time.

So a little something on how I choose what to read and watch. This is not, in any way, a response to either of the posts by dizzyjam. It is, instead, a deer trail I'm running down mentally.
We took a class about that in high school. literary analysis or some such. We were taught to look at word choice and length, sentence structure and length, and various things about the paragraphs, and then explain how the author used those devices to make his/her point. So you might say that because Mongoose believes his audience to be of a high intellectual caliber, thinkers who are familiar with the use of the written English language, and because he hopes to show them that he has something worthwhile to contribute and thinks they can handle it, he uses long sentences and a variety of vocabulary. As a result, he's able to make his point with a minimum of ambiguity, defining whatever terms need it, as he goes along.

Or you might have a very different analysis, and wind up saying that my writing technique is in-effective considering my stated objectives.

So, when I consider what to read and watch, I'm thinking about these things. Not so much whether or not the story or the story telling will match my preferences. I'm not a big fan of the style used in the Kill Bill movies, for instance, but they did a good job of what they claimed they were doing, and they used whatever filming or story telling techniques to do it. So I would read a review that specified those techniques used in the Kill Bill movies, with the reviewer stating that he thought those techniques were used effectively, or not, and then I would make an informed decision about whether or not to watch them. As it was, I wound up watching the movies because reviews said they were effective in what they tried to do. I didn't really appreciate them, due to the clash with my preferences, but I knew what to expect, and thus, was not surprised or dissapointed.

Something that annoys me, though, is when reviewers show in their reviews how a story fails to measure up to what the reviewer thought it ought to be. The story is what it is, and is not what it is not. Tell me how it compares to what it is supposed to be. So when people looked at "The Village" and said that it failed as a horror movie, I was glad. I don't like horror. My wife enjoys work by that director, so I watched it with her. I enjoyed the movie immensely, not as a failed horror movie, but as a great suspense story. It ought to have been reviewed as a suspense story, and I'm sure the reviews would have been far more positive.

Another example is small SUVs. They aren't built for off road driving, but then they're rated on their off road performance. They are commuter vehicles, designed to serve hockey moms, business men, and those driving to and from the grocery store or MAYBE the park or trail head. Tell me then, in the review, how they perform on the streets in town, and maybe the highway and mountain road on the way to the trail head. Then I can choose which small SUV I want to consider purchasing to use for those purposes.

In the end, whether or not I like a story or a car will depend largely on my preferences, of course. But I'm not going to look at all small SUVs or all "Christian" vampire or horror or suspense stories. I'll only look at those that receive positive reviews that tell me what to expect, and how they compare to what they claim to be, and how they compare to others in their genera/type. Sometimes I'll still be disappointed, but far less often than if I don't get to read those reviews.

But, as far as what my preferences are, and for some examples of what I look for in reviews (someone might be considering reading some of these authors):
Anything by Ted Dekker rawks because they are fast paced, gritty and realistic, without being gratuitous in their portrayals of sin
Anything by Anne Rice is high quality because of the beauty of the prose and the character development, but as a result of their strength in these areas, they are weak in plot development and action. They're slow reads, and if you don't read them in order, the soap opera is ruined. You already know Marius got burnt and lived through it, because he taught Lestat a few things years later. Now you want to know the details from his own retelling, but he takes 3/4ths of "Blood and Gold" (a very long novel) to lead up to that incident. And the fact that they're told in the first person, though giving great insight into what Anne Rice thinks was happening in various points in history, removes some of the suspense.
Anything by Tom Clancy is great in character and plot development, and in its extensive and accurate descriptions of any weapons used by the characters. Again, as with Rice, these descriptions can detract and distract from the story, and I, as a reader, just want him to get on with the next element of the plot. What happens, already? Rice spends too much time on setting, Clancy spends too much time on character and technology. But both are excellent story tellers and authors, and I keep reading their stuff.
Robert Ludlum rawked what he did, while he did it. Then he died, and his work died with him, though ghost authors tried to continue it. Many people have seen the Jason Bourne movies, which, though they were good movies, did not do the novels any kind of justice. Ludlum's novels followed a template that proved very effective, but they followed it so closely as to make it difficult to distinguish one story or character from another. Never the less, he did a great job of riveting the reader to the fast paced and large action. The stories read on the page like the "Die Hard" movies played on the screen. Add a lot more spectacular martial arts, sniping, espionage, and a cute warrior/intellectual chick, and take it all over the world with the good guy trying to track down the bad guys who are trying to kill him, and you've got a Ludlum novel. The sexuality and the cookie cutter plots were detriments to all of his stories, but the detailed showing of the action, and the realistic descriptions of the trade-craft were hard to beat.
Karen Hancock- Good world building, character and plot development and prose, but not the most extra-ordinary I've read in any of these departments. Good in all, but best at none, IMHO
Stephen Lawhead- Awesome character development. Edgy in their philosophy, maybe a little too much sexuality, plenty of showing of blood shed, and what might be witchcraft practiced by the heroes, which he claims are Christian. But excellent stories with excellent characters who I can believe in and sympathize with. Realistic and well researched portrayals of various ancient and far flung cultures, especially the Celts.

Again, dizzyjam's review is helpful, and I will definitly look at the site and read any reviews I can find of the stories. I am, after all, looking for stories about uber powerful characters, in combat or other high stress situations, by Christian authors and artists who are trying to show non-Christian and Christian adult audiences alike, the power of the love and grace of God at work in His people. Oh. I just described any given Ted Dekker Novel. Good thing the next one just arrived at Barnes and Noble! *grins* But thanks for telling us about this author. I'll check him out.

[mongoose]

Here's some more information about the book in question, off of an Amazon.com review. So far it looks like it might be worth the money and a read. I'm tempted. I'll continue looking for more, but I think this is enough for our purposes here:

Any author attempting to create what is in essence a Christian vampire novel faces insurmountable odds. Eric has found a perfect balance of speculative fiction suspense with just enough realism thrown in to make us believe it COULD be true. His descriptions of the scenery are vivid and make you feel like you are truly standing in the area (mainly because he actually got to visit many of these spots). He gives us evil villains, but never allows it to overshadow the true power in the story. There IS hope found throughout.

And from another review on the same site:

This is an excellent book for a multitude of reasons. First off, it's different. It offers a glimpse of what Christian fiction without pious constraints can be. . . The vampires are a tool used to paint a much larger picture. There is no glorification of these undead nor is there any twisting of their intent. Who and what they represent is clear and that line is never blurred. Simply put, they're a very powerful weapon used to illuminate the conflict between good and evil. . . Not lost is the use of many Biblical passages. From Abraham's conversation with God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah to Jesus' death and resurrection, we are given a wonderful reminder of some of the Bible's powerful stories and an awesome demonstration of God's unfailing love. While many books get so tied up in teaching the Bible and specific lessons, they isolate people, Field of Blood takes a more subtle approach and draws the reader to the story, letting God open their heart to His word. . . There is nothing unbiblical about Field of Blood. From the prologue to the last page, there is a depth to this book that goes well beyond the fictional story being told. There is truth to be seen and there are lessons to be learned. Field of Blood is Christian, but it's not a 400 page sermon. It's realistic and accurate where it should be and pure entertainment where it should be.

[dizzyjam]

That was quite a reply Mongoose. Fortunately I was up to the task to read it and comprehend what you were expounding on.

One thing I didn't like and had to skip over when I realized what you were doing is that you revealed plot points in Anne Rice's novels without giving a spoiler warning for those interested in reading these on their own. I haven't picked her up in a while, but I've only read her first two books and nothing else. Some might not care if they aren't going to read her, but you never can tell who might need that spoiler warning.

Otherwise, you made some good points on how you go about deciding what to read.

My review of this first book in Eric Wilson's trilogy would have been more complete if I had finished it (which I still haven't), but I will add here that I just love his storytelling device to change the character perspective from section to section. It definitely keeps things interesting. Not sure how this will turn out by the end of the third book, but I'll just have to get there to find out I suppose.

Okay, done here for this post.

[dizzyjam]

I've just finished reading "Field of Blood". And I've got to get some sleep. I'll write a review tomorrow. Meantime, go out and pick this up, it's awesome!! Now I've got to get started tomorrow on "Summa Elvetica" put out by Jeff's Marcher Lord Press. Good night!

[dizzyjam]

This is my book review of "Field of Blood". Okay, you will get details in this post, so beware for this IS a spoiler alert!

Judas hung himself over a tomb and wound up cutting himself and blood oozed down through the cracks. Meantime around that site hovered the Legion of demon spirits that had been cast out of the man into a herd of pigs. They waited for almost two thousand years to get into the tomb and see if a theory would work out or not. The theory was that with the blood of a human that had been bad (if I remember correctly) fallen onto a dead body would allow a demon to enter into that body and reanimate it as a living person, yet not living, more like just undead.

The demons are called Collectors in this story. They want to kill a member of the Nistarim - marked humans that are immortal and if one dies another has to be born to replace them or the end of the world happens, but not for good. If they kill one they can take over the planet.

An accident (that actually happened in history) opened the tomb in 1989 for them to do this and they succeeded. By this time a lot of them had gone elsewhere, so less than 20 found corpse hosts.

Meantime, a girl in Romania has a mother constantly cutting her to get rid of sin. Mystery surrounds this and the girl is quite important. Her name is Gina short for Regina. A man named Cal enters in and helps them escape before the undead can get her.

On the way there the undead cause the HIV spread among orphans in Romania (another historical fact)

Time passes and we find Gina in Chattanooga with her mother going around doing self help speaking tours. Gina is rebellious and has a tattoo and a live in boyfriend.

Cal reappears to tell her she's immortal. He warns her of the Collectors and says he'll watch over her baby.

One of the female vampires comes to Atlanta as a trophy wife to a rich man. She tracks down Gina and finds that she's pregnant. She kills the baby shortly after birth and this causes Gina and her now husband to split.

Gina goes back to Romania and helps an orphanage out. She encounters a boy named Dov that had been through it with the Collectors already and had the mark of the Nistarim on his forehead.

On a bus trip for the orphanage Cal is disguised as the driver and the bus has to stop because of being tracked by Collectors. A fight ensues. At the end you know what becomes of Gina, but not Cal or Dov.

Okay, that lets you know what happens if you wanted to know. An excellent story divided into four parts. Each part begins with a quote from Bram Stoker's Dracula and a verse from the epistle of Jude. Each part is called "Drop" instead of "Part". So you had "First Drop", "Second Drop", etc. because each drop was a drop on a map. A drop of blood that is. We never see the map, but each part begins with a page from a diary where we see that the author of the diary is to lick the next drop of blood to get more of the story. Each drop comes from a different character in the book.

If you don't read this one, you're missing out. Trust me. Too many details I can't even begin to mention here.

There you go. That's my review. Take care

David

[Caprice]

Oct 18, 2008 19:00:09 GMT -5 dizzyjam said:

Meantime, a girl in Romania has a mother constantly cutting her to get rid of sin.

Gina is rebellious and has a tattoo and a live in boyfriend.

One of the female vampires comes to Atlanta as a trophy wife to a rich man. She tracks down Gina and finds that she's pregnant. She kills the baby shortly after birth...

Can anyone explain how these kinds of plot points got past Thomas Nelson? Is it special dispensation for Wilson, or is it a genuine opening up? Did TN leave the ECPA and I didn't hear about it?

Jeff, I'd be especially interested in your opinion of this as an insider to the publishing biz.

[dizzyjam]

Don't forget Dekker and Peretti's "House" came from them too as I recall. So if any "dispensation" is happening, it's not just for Wilson. But I too would be interested in hearing Jeff's response to this.

[Caprice]

I assume Dekker and Perretti DO have dispensation, even separately. They can get away with a LOT more than any no-name novelist, for sure. But before Field of Blood, I had never heard of Eric Wilson, so I guess my question is: Did Eric earn his way into the elite class (as Peretti and Dekker did with their sales figures) where he's allowed to do what the vast majority aren't or is Thomas Nelson relaxing the "standards" across the board, so that even unknown authors could include these kind of plot points and still have a chance getting published there?

[dizzyjam]

I don't know how Eric got to that point with them, but he's not exactly unknown. He's written a number of other novels and has been interviewed by Jeff on the main site as one of the authors. Obviously there are some people that have been aware of him. He also wrote the novelizations for that church that's been putting out the movies: Flywheel, Facing the Giants, and Fireproof. Maybe those got Thomas Nelson's attention along with his other novels. I don't know. Either way, this is the only book by him I've read so far and I've enjoyed it greatly. I hope other people do too, and I hope his other books are even half as good.

[wilsonwriter]

Yeah, okay, read me the riot act. I should've jumped on here long ago, but I've been finishing up the sequel to Field of Blood, titled Haunt of Jackals (due out Summer '09).

I am writing this series as a mix of The Historian and The Screwtape Letters. I wanted to explore biblical history, spiritual realms, all under the guise of atmospheric and sometimes hair-raising storytelling. This is not swashbuckling vampires and kick-butt martial arts; this is real world terror rooted in old world secrets.

My vampires are evil. This is not an exploration of vampire's souls, so much as an exploration of the conflict in the human heart--and veins.

Check out JerusalemsUndead.com for more info, or read some of the reviews on Amazon. I promise, I didn't pay a one of them. (A few, I would've paid not to review the dang thing!)

[Jeff Gerke]

Welcome, Eric!

Caprice, as far as the plot points getting past Nelson's editors, I don't think it's a case of anyone sneaking anything by.

In Christian publishing there is a constant tension. There are elements in virtually every CBA house that want to "push the envelope" and publish more cutting-edge books with elements that will come to readers--especially non-Christians--where they are and feel familiar to them. There are also in every CBA house elements that want to keep each of their books squeaky clean and unoffensive to the main demographic they reach--which is not non-Christians.

As a result of this tension, coupled with the relative strengths of personalities involved and a hundred other variables, sometimes you see books "get through" that have content that might not get approved at other houses or even at the same house at other times. Sometimes you see books with only barely questionable content that get "purified" or even cancelled. I've seen both at the houses where I've worked.

In a way, it's a no-win situation. If a house cuts the edgy content, they may be criticized for not living in the real world and for doing nothing but preaching to the choir. If a house allows edgy content, they may be criticized for including abrasive or titillating content that is offensive to the sanctified reader.

In my opinion CBA will continue to lean toward squeaky clean, at least for the foreseeable future. It is an industry that primarily serves the Church, not the lost, no matter what we think about that. Christian publishing houses sell products mainly to Christian ladies (see Tips 16-18 for more on these good folks), and these ladies don't want edgy. They want something entertaining that pleases while supporting their worldview. We all want that, really.

So until those ladies change or the primary buyer demographic CBA goes for changes, we're going to get from CBA houses products that best appeal to that market.

Jeff

[wilsonwriter]

Oct 21, 2008 1:53:55 GMT -5 Caprice said:

Oct 18, 2008 19:00:09 GMT -5 dizzyjam said:

Meantime, a girl in Romania has a mother constantly cutting her to get rid of sin.

Gina is rebellious and has a tattoo and a live in boyfriend.

One of the female vampires comes to Atlanta as a trophy wife to a rich man. She tracks down Gina and finds that she's pregnant. She kills the baby shortly after birth...

Can anyone explain how these kinds of plot points got past Thomas Nelson? Is it special dispensation for Wilson, or is it a genuine opening up? Did TN leave the ECPA and I didn't hear about it?

Jeff, I'd be especially interested in your opinion of this as an insider to the publishing biz.