In Nightmares with the Bible I use an idea penned by Edgar Allan Poe as one of the threads holding the book together.One early reader complained that Poe didn’t write about demons, so the use of the great man was inappropriate.That reader misunderstood me.Today is Poe’s birthday.As I think about the influence a writer can have on a young mind, I come back to this reader’s comments.I can’t think of my book without Poe.No, Poe did not write about demons, but he set the stage for what I’m trying to do in my book.I’ve read analysts who claim Poe wasn’t a horror writer.Certainly in the modern sense that’s probably true.Still, he, like many others, was brave enough to suggest the tenebrous side of life was worth exploring, even if you only had a candle.
Poe’s monsters were often interior.They were psychologically probing, and although Sigmund Freud had not yet been born, it’s not inappropriate to say that Poe explored psychology.Writers, I suspect, often deal with things they can’t name.This is the way knowledge moves forward, even with fiction.Especially with fiction.As I’m reading books by academics who’ve done well for themselves, I often reflect how their legacy will remain within their field only.It’s the rare nonfiction writer who manages to reach a cultural status that will find readers from other disciplines.Most of us, however, will admit to reading a novel or two now and again.Fiction writers, such as Poe, can claim things without backing them up with footnotes and citations.That doesn’t mean they were any less astute at observing the world than academic writers are.Often they’re more so.
I didn’t put Poe into Nightmares to show off.His work has long been in the public domain.I don’t cite him to claim that he would have agreed with my use of his insights.No, I cite him because even if he wasn’t a horror writer my early encounter with him started me on a path of exploration.Poe had trouble getting along in a literary world where rejection was endemic (it still is, I know from personal experience) and making a living as a literary person was unheard of.He nevertheless knew that fiction was more honest than the alternatives, at least for some of us.If we wish to face the world with integrity, we should admit that our heroes may have been made so in our own minds.That doesn’t make them any less authentic, just because we’ve appropriated them for our own purposes. We borrow what we find meaningful.
Some books take you to strange places.Not all of them are fiction.I began Nightmares with the Bible as a way of understanding the many, disparate ideas of demons I encounter in popular culture.(I can’t tell you too much about my conclusions, otherwise you wouldn’t be tempted to buy the book!)One of those nagging questions is: what does “based on a true story” mean?I’ve known of Walter Wink’s powers trilogy for many years.Because of my research I’ve now settled down to read Unmasking the Powers (number two, for those keeping count).This book will take you into strange places.Wink was very much a Christian in his outlook and orientation.At the same time, he raises questions I’ve had other Christians put to me—were the “gods” of other nations, as in the Bible, real?That word real is slippery, and Wink tries to hold onto it.
Unmasking the Powers is a kind of systematic exploration of the various “spirits” found in the universe we inhabit.One of these is the Devil, and although Wink doesn’t see him as necessarily a “being,” neither does he find the Bible making him entirely evil.Indeed, one of the great conundrums of monotheistic belief is theodicy; how is it possible to justify the goodness of a single, all-powerful deity in a world with so much suffering?Wink approaches this question from an angle we might not anticipate.He then deals with demons.Since this is my subject in Nightmares, I found his discussion apt.And yet again, strange.Powers emanate from the institutions we create (you might have correctly guessed this was the book I wrote about on Tuesday).Wink is willing to challenge materialism and take such powers seriously.
Finding a new perspective when we’ve been reared in a materialistic one, can be difficult.For those of us raised religious, there was an inherent schizophrenia involved.Our teachers told us of a mechanistic universe, but had Bibles on their desks.(Yes, this was public school, but let’s not kid ourselves.)While physics taught us everything could be quantified, church taught us that spirit couldn’t.At least not by any empirical means.Wink will unblinkingly take you there.He offers both scientific and spiritual points of view on these entities, although he tries to refrain from calling them such.Still, he records many people who have seen angels.And although quantum entanglement wasn’t really known when he wrote this book, if it had been, Wink would’ve been nodding his head.
New Year’s resolutions have never been my thing.Having had a good Calvinistic upbringing, I’m a natural self-corrector.If I’m aware I’m doing something wrong, I attempt to change my behavior right away.This makes annual reviews at work exceptionally uncomfortable for me.I’d much rather have my boss point out foibles as they happen so that I can stop doing them right away.I realize my mindset here may be weird to those who were raised in more normal ways, and employers love process.So I sit here in Ithaca on New Year’s day, preparing to drive home to face all kinds of unfinished business from 2019.I’m still doing research for Nightmares with the Bible, thus it’s not ready to go back to the publisher or series editors yet.I’ve started a new round of queries to agents about one of my novels, but I haven’t sent them yet.And don’t even mention projects that need to be done to the house.
Life is busy.I’ve taken on some new duties at the church I attend, exemplifying that old saw “If you want something done, ask a busy person.”As the pressures from that obligation mount, I start to think that most people don’t have any idea just how all-consuming writing a book can be.I work long days and although I don’t commute much any more, most of the rest of each day is taken up with writing and reading so as to write some more.I hesitate to call myself a writer since I make laughably little lucre from it.I can’t stop myself from doing it, though.And although it’s the season for resolutions, I don’t plan to stop.I know from work that graphomaniacs can be a problem.Anything can be overdone.On days when I don’t have to work I have to be pried away from my computer.Otherwise I’ll write all day long.It’s an issue, I know.
Perhaps because life on the national scale is so depressing, writing about things like horror movies is a great release.I’ve been so busy lately that I haven’t had the chance to write pieces for venues like the excellent Horror Homeroom.I used to contribute to Religion Dispatches.That time has been sucked into getting my books that nobody will read finished.Having written that self-disparaging remark I have to remind myself that one of my alumni magazines published a notice about Holy Horror without me having to send said notice personally.That self-disparaging thing requires some fixing, I guess.And were I not too busy already in 2020, I’d start on it right now.
Goodreads is always a little eager to put the tally on a year’s worth of reading.This year, however, since I’ve been engaged in some larger books, they may be on target.According to their count I’ve read 71 books this year.(I re-read two, so my personal count is 73.)New Year’s Eve, for me, is a time to reflect about what I’ve learned in the past year.Much of that involves books I’ve read.A good deal of my reading has been for Nightmares with the Bible.To write a book you need to read books.Frequently it means taking them on regardless of your mood—and I tend to be a mood-driven reader.So what books stand out from 2019? (They all have individual posts on this blog, in case you missed them.)
My first nonfiction book of the year was Christopher Skaife’s The Ravenmaster.Animal intelligence always makes for good reading and this was reprised in Jennifer Ackerman’s The Genius of Birds.I’ve fallen behind in my Frans de Waal reading, though.Of the many research books on the Devil and demons, Jeffrey Burton Russell’s Mephistopheles stands out.Russell’s clear thinking and wide view make him a pleasure to read even on unpleasant subjects.Other books in that category didn’t quite rise to his level.Monster books, on the other hand, rocked.I loved James Neibaur’s Monster Movies of Universal Studios, Mallory O’Meara’s Lady from the Black Lagoon, and Kröger and Anderson’s Monster, She Wrote.These were all excellent.Tipping toward the unusual, Guy Playfair’s This House Is Haunted and Jeffrey Kripal’s The Flip gave me pause for thought.
Perhaps because I was reading longer books, this year didn’t have fiction in the numbers I usually strive for.Most of it was quite good, though. David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas was memorable and Italo Calvino’s If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller (strangely similar to Mitchell) became an instant favorite.My young adult fix came through Christy Lenzi’s Stonefield and Lois Lowry’s The Giver.Victor Gischler scored with Vampire a Go-Go and Cherie Priest made a fine impression with The Toll.I mentioned Neal Stephenson’s Fall yesterday, but it will stay with me into 2020.
A couple of memories/biographies also made deep marks on my mind.Anne Serling’s As I Knew Him brought me close to Rod Serling and Barbara Taylor Brown’s Learning to Walk in the Dark found me where I live.America’s Dark Theologian by Douglas E. Cowan isn’t really biography, but it was thought-provoking (as his books always are) and increased my resolve to read some more Stephen King.The books I read make me more myself.At the end of each year I think back over it all. And this year I pondered what got me through a difficult 2019.I have ended the year more myself than ever, I suspect, and I looking forward to a reading through the new decade.
So I was sitting at a table with two writers I’d just met.It was at the Easton Book Festival and since I’m new to the area I was very aware that I didn’t know anybody.I was also aware that my book, Holy Horror, wasn’t on anybody’s radar screen, despite it being mid-October.As we were talking my two interlocutors mentioned the advances they’d received for their books, one of whom was able to buy a house with said advance.As I listened I kept my mouth shut, because that’s polite, even though my jaw was slack.The other person hadn’t been able to buy a house, but after writing on a topic so obscure I can’t remember it, had been able to do something noteworthy with the advance.My royalties from Holy Horror wouldn’t have covered the cost of this dinner.
In the weeks following the festival—always busy with AAR/SBL looming, then Thanksgiving, then December—I began some soul-searching.What was I doing wrong?I also did some web-searching.One of the articles that came up, written by a business writer, suggested pulling up your socks and getting to it, demanding money for your writing.I don’t see anywhere to put a coin slot on this blog, which is more of a labor of love than anything anyway.Then the kicker came.This business writer cited Hosea 4.6, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge,” as the basis of why people would pay for content.Now pardon me for taking things a little literally, but I doubt Hosea was in the business of giving business advice.The knowledge people lack, in context, is knowledge of Yahweh.
Now here I was back on familiar territory.I’ve taught classes on Hosea, and this intriguing prophet was commenting on Israel’s lack of knowledge of God’s ways.There were some folks akin to prosperity gospelers back in the pre-Gospel days, suggesting that if you kept God happy rewards would roll your way, but history had other plans.Israel fell to the Assyrians shortly after Hosea’s time, his writing advice apparently unheeded.As I revise Nightmares with the Bible for publication—the reviewer felt it was too tradey—I have to wonder about my conversation back in October.Neither book of my conversation partners was one of broad appeal.In fact, the second was rather technical.They had, however, been paid for their work.Academic publishing is built on the paradigm that the writer already has a university job and doesn’t need the money.Hosea also said, if I recall, something about what happens if you sow the wind.
I might excuse writing a post on Satan on Christmas Eve by positing that I misread the title of this book as Santa.After all, as Ryan Stokes explains, the Greek form of the title is ho satanas, which clearly contains the first of the canonical tripartite “Ho, ho, ho.”The reality, however, is that work on Nightmares with the Bible continues despite the holidays, and there’s so much reading to do that not all of it can be seasonal.I’ve known about Stokes’ book for some time, even as I’ve known his name through his various articles about the Satan.This book, while not exhaustive, is certainly comprehensive for the time period covered and lays considerable groundwork for future discussions of the Devil.What becomes obvious working through it, however, is that many different ideas about the Satan are represented in the Bible and related literature.
Long ago, as far back as my dissertation, I realized that it’s a problem for modern readers to systematize what ancients viewed disparately.The Bible has no single idea of the Devil.We’re quite accustomed to saying that “Satan” (which Stokes shows may not be a name in the Bible) and “the Devil” and Lucifer are all synonyms.That’s not really the case.Ancient peoples had many names for beings that caused problems, but not all of these entities were evil.Belial, Mastema, Melchiresha, Beelzebub (and the list could go on) were designations used by different groups at different times.These entities are sometimes agents of Yahweh, doing God’s will.At other times they seem to be enemies of God, adversaries.“Executioners,” is Stokes’ emphasis in these roles.In early (and more recent) attempts at systematization, readers have tried to roll these various images into one.With but limited success.
Ancient peoples didn’t feel the necessity that more modern ones do to make everything fit “scientifically.”After all William of Ockham hadn’t shown up yet to suggest complicated ways of explaining things should be simplified.We get the sense from reading ancient texts, including the Bible, that lots of ideas were floating around as to who these nasty beings might’ve been.And their nastiness was really the result of human perceptions of who they were because often they were in league with the Almighty.Theirs was not a simple, binary world of black and white.It was more like a photo that we would still designate by that term but which is really grayscale.Grayscale shades from white to black with the chiaroscuro preventing simple explanations.Although it’s not about Santa, this book is very informative and will raise any number of questions at any time of year.
I’m about in the middle of Neal Stephenson’s Fall: Or Dodge in Hell.I’ve also just about finished Walter Wink’s Naming the Powers.At the same time I’m revising the draft of Nightmares with the Bible, which will become my fourth published book.While doing all of this at the same time (and working about nine hours a day), it occurred to me that to really “get” an author you should theoretically read her or his oeuvre from start to finish.Ideally, to trace the arc of thought, you shouldn’t leave anything out.The reason that this is as important as it is futile is one of the nagging problems that came to me while working on my doctorate: how do you know what a source you’re citing is really saying?
Pardon my nihilism, but this is an important matter when it comes to academic practice.Academics cite many sources, and often miscite them.I’ve seen it regarding my own work.One scholar argued the exact opposite of what I published in an article and even made the point that he was building on what I’d stated.Clearly he was digging where I’d been building or vice versa.We were going in opposite directions and what I’d written was to undermine what he was arguing.The thought came to me now because both Stephenson and Wink are the writers of many volumes.I need to cite my sources, but it’s clear that the books are merely slices of lifetimes of thought.Academia wants you to show your work, but its dated even before you press the “send” button.
I’m not knocking scholarly process.It’s the best system we’ve come up with for getting near to the truth.Since no one person has the entire truth, however, we get closer still if we follow a writer from start to finish.Those of use who use pseudonyms in order to keep our day jobs only complicate things.Our works (which we hope will outlast us) are only fragments of a larger world of thought that goes on behind the writing of books.And what about weblogs, or “blogs”?The million-plus words on this one are a stream of consciousness that weave within, behind, and outside of the books, articles, and stories I write.Some writers make bold as to attempt biographies of other writers.Some try to read everything said writers wrote.Even so they’re only getting part of the picture.To understand where a writer’s coming from requires more commitment than we’re likely willing to spare.Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some books to finish.