Because I Don’t Believe in Censorship…

I recently did a review, at the request of the book’s authors, for the Christian fiction website.  Apparently, the authors were not aware that the review would be honest, which means it will not necessarily be positive, if the reading experience itself is not positive.  This particular reading experience was far from positive, and the review reflected that (though I think it did so as gently as possible).  After the review was posted, a series of emails passed hands between the authors and the website administrators.  The admins at that site notified me of the author’s request that the review be removed from the site.   In normal circumstances, the administrators would have stood behind the reviewer’s right/responsibility to be honest in the presentation of the reading experience, for better or worse.  In this case, however, I have some say in what goes on at the site, loosely acting as an editor for the site’s content.  In order to avoid a conflict of interests in this matter (or even the appearance of it), I opted to remove the review from the site.  Had the review been someone else’s, however, I would not have felt compelled to remove it.

All that said, I don’t believe in censorship.  And, perhaps as importantly, I don’t believe in wasting my time reading a substandard work and composing a review that gently points out that the work is not up to scratch.  I am willing to spend the time doing that, however, if the review is to be put to use somewhere.

And so, I’ve decided to repost the review here, for any who are interested in knowing my thoughts on the book.

 

Bene Ha Elohim:  Sons of God by K. T. Hehir and C. J. Hehir
I should begin my review of Bene Ha Elohim: Sons of God with something of a disclaimer.  The novel is based on a reading of the Book of Revelation that I do not share.  My own understanding of that biblical book is very different from that of the authors, and my own understanding of biblical eschatology is likewise very different from theirs.  Moreover, I believe that the interpretation of the Revelation and the eschatology embraced in Bene Ha Elohim have led to some disastrous political maneuvers in our own world’s history.   This divergence in my own beliefs and those espoused in the novel have certainly affected my ability to enjoy the book, since it is wholly built around these ideas that I do not subscribe to.
From a more literary perspective, the book also suffers, in my estimation.  The dialogue is often poorly written, with lengthy passages of doctrine, exposition, or pure opinion inserted into the mouths of characters, and stated in a way that does not seem like natural conversation.  The book overtly states a belief that the purpose of storytelling is (or should be) “its moral or instruction.”  This insistence on storytelling as moralizing is held to tenaciously throughout the novel, to the point that the reading often becomes tedious.  While I am not opposed to a little bit of preachiness in a book, especially one packaged and presented as a Christian novel, I do get turned off when the story seems to be secondary to the preaching.  That is, sadly, often the case with Bene Ha Elohim.  There are, in addition, some awkward points caused by typos and/or grammar errors in the manuscript.  That has gotten some attention on the website dedicated to the book, though, with corrections to some of those errors offered there.  I appreciate the effort compiling this and posting it on the website must have taken.  Having worked on numerous lengthy manuscripts myself, I know how hard it is to eliminate all errors, and it takes that much more effort to update those notes on the website.  It is a task that is as tiresome as it is thankless.  The authors’ efforts in doing this job shows their dedication to the work they’ve produced, and to trying to create the best reading experience they can for their audience.
There are several things I like about the book as well, though, despite those things I’ve noted above.  The story itself has some appeal to it, and would be even more engaging without the continued interruptions of dialogue in which either doctrine or backstory are discussed at length.  With a better handling of the backstory and an editing out of some unnecessary passages, I think the plot could be quite gripping.
I am a reader who likes to imagine the goings-on of the supernatural world, and how those otherworldly beings and happenings might intersect with events in our own physical world.  Bene Ha Elohim is all about this sort of interaction.  In this sense, it is a lot like Frank Perretti’s novels of spiritual warfare, and how the forces of good and evil fight a battle that transcends the (perhaps artificial) boundary between the physical and the spiritual that seems so solid in our minds.
I also enjoyed reading the speculation about where the Nephilim came from, taken as fact in the world of Bene Ha Elohim.  Those creatures get a mention in the Old Testament, but without elaboration.  Those sorts of tidbits are always fun for speculation, and I thought they were woven into the story of Bene Ha Elohim in a way that was both intriguing and plausible.

 

About these ads

21 Comments to “Because I Don’t Believe in Censorship…”

  1. Thank you for your ‘review’ of our novel. Despite your admitted biased views coloured by your faulty eschatological presuppositions, we stand behind our novel as a relevant and valid piece of work in these times described by the Lord Jesus Christ as the times of the (Endtimes) signs. Anyone who is concerned about where the world is headed will recognize that the events on the world stage are converging towards the emergence of the new world order that will be headed by the Son of Perdition, he whom Scripture calls the Antichrist. All of this is narrated in our novel. What you call the “disastrous political maneuvers in our own world’s history” are verifiable fact, as supported by the evidence given in the book itself, as opposed to what you baselessly call “opinion”. The only person doing the political manoeuvring is the Mystery of Iniquity, that is, Satan himself. You, Miss Bryant, are wilfully deceived if you believe those of us in the pre-millennial camp have the omnipotence and omniscience to bring about the political disasters you described.

    In our own defense we have wrested constantly with the dialogue; we have sought to ensure that the dialogue is plausible, given the nature of the very beings that are speaking. Yet you appear to presuppose that you have knowledge of what would flow naturally from the mouths of ANGELS! You have forgotten that our protagonists are angels, and this includes the Halflings. Like it or not, you do not have knowledge of how angels speak and hence you are not qualified to judge what constitutes “natural conversation” that proceeds out of the mouths of angelic beings.

    Besides your prejudiced aversion to our eschatology, you seem to be averse also to story morals, or morals, in general, it would seem. We make no apologies for the so-called preachiness of the novel. In fact, we take that as a compliment since we did purposely set out to use this novel as a platform to teach biblical doctrine, morals and ethics. Why you would object to this is baffling, but very telling. In this age of post-modernism, relativism, spiritual apathy and erosion of sound biblical doctrine being taught at churches owing to the infiltration of people such as yourself, we wanted to do just this: preach the truth, preach the gospel, preach and encourage study of Scripture. That you disagree with it is your problem, not ours.

    We are a ministry dedicated to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ; hence our book is free for downloading from our website. At the very least, we can say we are doing this wholly for the glory of God, and not to make a profit. To date we have not made a cent from this novel nor do we intend to. So what is *your* motivation for tearing it down and causing/persuading more people to stray from the truth of God’s Word? Is it because the novel is *that* bad and is as you imply contributing to all the ills of the world or is your own unprofessional, personal axe-grinding the true motivator here under the pretext of freedom of speech. As we also do not believe in censorship, this will be posted on our blog in case you lack the honesty and consistency of your own bold and largely insubstantial claims, to omit our valid rebuttal to your pseudo-review.

  2. Hello thewhyman,

    I am glad you have chosen to leave your comment here. I think it best that anyone who is looking for an impression of the novel before deciding to read it be given multiple perspectives of the book, and you adding your voice to the discussion enables them to do that. I am pleased to allow your comment to be posted here and let readers determine for themselves whether or not they would like to read the book. That was my only goal in reviewing it in the first place (which I did at your request, as communicated to me from the administrators of the site where it was originally posted).

    Thank you for taking the time to respond.

    Best,
    Shelly

  3. We wish to add the following:
    Miss Bryant: a request for a book review predisposes the reviewer to be objective. You profess to be a professional reviewer, but one who allows presuppositions to blind one’s judgment about doctrine and theology is scarcely deemed objective. Of course there are negative sentiments towards any book since authors cannot please everybody. However, it is industry ‘secret’ that an author requests for a review with the aim that the review will motivate people to read the book on its own merits, not be drawn away from it due to the reviewer’s personal tastes and preferences. EVERYONE (except you, apparently) in publishing knows that a review is a form of marketing and advertising. In the publishing industry, no author sanely requests a review from the ‘enemy’, which is what you have proven yourself to be.

    There must be honour among authors: everyone in publishing knows, surely, that a request for a review must be honoured with positive reviews. Anything negative, particularly when it is not objective, should be omitted from the review. As we were the ones who requested the review, we also have the right to refuse its publication should we so choose and should we deem the review to be biased against our favour, such as your review was. However, you choose to publish it even though we have gently and politely asked for it to be deleted. So be it.

    Let it be said that we did not ask *you* to review our novel. We had asked the administrators of ‘Christian Book Review’. You were assigned the task. Had we been informed of your biases and prejudicial Left-leaning theological slants, we would have rejected you. In our estimation, you are not qualified to do a book review if you allow emotions to get in the way of sticking to the merits and qualities of story telling.

    Judging from the positive reviews we have received from Amazon readers (before we had our novel unpublished from that site owing to its decision to donate its proceeds to the LGBT cause, to which we object) and from the emails we have received from those who, on their own volition, have written to us, we are not making groundless boasts. Our novel is not as hopeless as your review is misleading your readers to believe. But we suppose that your readers have made *you* the standard of what is not a substandard piece of literary endeavour.

    It is not censorship to decline the publication of your review. We made the request and you were chosen to provide the service. It is, then, up to us, as the clients, to gauge whether your service meets our standards (which it has not) and to do with it what we see fit; ergo, we have chosen not to use your service since it does not meet our needs. We have made this decision on the basis that the contents of your review are grossly inaccurate, misleading and untrue.

    And now we shall revert to the third person to refer to Shelly:
    It surprises, and deeply grieves, us that a so-called Christian Book Review, would employ reviewers such as Shelly Bryant with a disdain for, and bias against, those of us in the Pre-millennial camp. It is grievous that Miss Bryant would choose to carpet-bomb a novel that does nothing but honour the Word of God and seek to preach the Gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. There are plenty of heretical books on the market that Miss Bryant should be spending her time and eloquent speech to discredit. However, by her own admission she doesn’t “believe in wasting my time reading a substandard work and composing a review that gently points out that the work is not up to scratch”; just ours, it seems, again because she has an axe to grind. This should be transparent for everyone to see since it has been admitted by her in her second paragraph. Once more, this shows a lack of professionalism in her task as a reviewer.

    Surely there are a lot of positive remarks Miss Bryant could have made about the book, on which many man hours have been expended to make sure it met literary standards (such as the structure, plot tension and emotional tension, to name a few). How about giving some acknowledgement to one-half of the authors, who is an English as a Second Language user? The fact that Miss Bryant focuses solely on her personal disagreements on secondary issues, such as eschatology, tells us a lot about how ‘professional’ she really is.

    The real ‘enemy’, Satan, uses even Christians to discourage the preaching of the Lord’s gospel. This is one such example. We see it for what it is and refuse to allow the enemy to win.

    There’s nothing like negativity to create a buzz for a novel. But it is best if the negativity were based on reality.

  4. Let it be known that Miss Shelly Bryant is not only a self-serving reviewer but a dishonest one at that. An investigation into our email exchanges with Chris, the administrator of Christian Book Review, attests to the truth that we never asked for a review. He removed the review and Miss Bryant took it upon herself to re-post it all int he name of free speech. Here is the documented proof:

    <<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

    Chris
    Sep 2

    I apologize that I did not fully recognize from your original request that you were asking for promotion for your book, not a review. Our web site is dedicated to honest, forthright book reviews. We will remove the review with a note that it has been taken off the site due to the authors’ request.

    Sincerely
    CFS

    From: K &C [mailto:...@gmail.com]
    Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 6:18 AM
    To: Chris
    Subject: Re: Theological/Paranormal Ebook suggestion

    No thank you. We would however like for this review to be removed from your site. Thank you again.

    On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Chris wrote:
    Thank you for your reply. We have taken it under consideration. Do you have other reviews you would like for us to post?

    Thank You
    Chris
    CFS

    K &C [...@gmail.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:59 AM
    To: undisclosed-recipients:
    Subject: Theological/Paranormal Ebook suggestion

    Hello.

    We published a book last year and the revised and expanded version we
    have created for kindle and other e-book formats is now available.

    Our aim is to give the e-book away for free and was wondering if you may
    be able to help us with this by promoting it on your site, if possible.
    (We would have no objections to you making 100% profit by selling it if
    you so chose.)

    Even some constructive feedback on the contents of the novel would be greatly appreciated.

    The website where one can learn more about the novel, read a few
    excerpts and download for free is:
    http://benehaelohimsonsofgod.blogspot.com

    <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

    Let it be said that we had asked for possible constructive feedback and not a review as Chris himself has acknowledged, which is the reason it was deleted. It has nothing to do with censorship, as Miss Bryant has claimed.

    We certainly did not request for a review to be published to what is ostensibly her personal blog in order to promote herself and her ability to tear down anyone she does not agree with.

    Certainly, if we had known that a feedback of our novel was going to be formatted as some childish video game, categorised as a ‘Hit’ or a ‘Miss’ , we would have wanted nothing at all to do with her or the site, Christian Fiction Review.

    We believe that this is QED.

  5. Hello again, thewhyman, and thank you for taking the time to express your views here.

    I’m not sure whether you sought permission from Chris to repost the email exchange between the two of you here, but I have sent him an email to inform him that it is up on this site. It seems to me, from the exchange you’ve posted, that he also (mis)understood the original request to be for the purpose of a review, since that is what the site is for. It is my understanding that it is not there for promoting, but for reviewing, books. I know that I have been asked to review, not promote.

    As regards my role as a reviewer, I have never claimed to be a professional. I do it frequently and have had many reviews of all sorts of books published in various venues, but I am not a professional. I’m not sure where you thought I claimed to be a professional, but I am not. This blog is not one that receives payment in any form. It is my personal site, and I maintain it on my own without an editor or any assistance. The site where the review was originally posted is something different than that.

    As for the purpose of a review, I think we disagree on this, and that is OK with me. My understanding of the purpose of a review is that it is aimed at the reader, not the author or the promotion of his/her book. When I read “advertorials,” I am generally quite turned off by them, and will not seek input from them for what books I will or will not buy. I understand that this is not true for everyone, and that some people will in fact buy things based on what they read in such articles. In that sense, they have their place. I choose not to be involved with them, though, because I find them distasteful. What I look for in a review is an honest impression of one reader’s take on a particular book. It need not be positive or negative, but it does need to be an honest telling of that person’s opinion. And yes, I do see all reviews as opinion. If I know a review is written by someone whose tastes I do not share, I will either not read it, or I will take it with a grain of salt. I should add that I do find it contradictory to claim that a review should 1) be objective, and 2) leave out negative aspects of the work under review.

    As for your relationship with the website where this review was originally posted, I agree that it seems there was some misunderstanding about what you wanted. You wanted promotion, but the site does reviews. It was deleted from that site at your request. What happened after that with the review (it being published here) was completely my decision. As I said, I am solely responsible for the content on this site, aside from comments left by visitors such as yourself, and I do have the power to delete those, but only do so in the case of extremely offensive pieces (such as pornography, violence, etc.) or spam. I don’t delete anything simply because it disagrees with my point of view. In fact, I am open to letting those comments remain, as I prefer to leave it in the reader’s hands what s/he will make of the comments. I don’t intend to delete any, except in those cases I’ve mentioned above. (I suppose I would only add that if another party asks me to delete a post in which you’ve quoted his private communication with you, I will do so.)

    As to whether or not you have the right to request a review to be removed, again I am afraid we disagree on this point. Your characterizing yourself as a “client” of the original site that posted the review seems misplaced to me, as you did not pay for a service, but requested a review (at least, that is what was understood by the admins there). As I understand it (and I have said already that I was a part of the decision), the administrators of the site chose to remove the review as an act of graciousness, not because they were obligated to do so. Any time a work is put out for public consumption, one can expect reviews — i.e., the public to respond with its opinions — of that product. The author of the original work has no say over whether or not someone else may publish a review of his/her work. Each owner of a site (whether online or in print) has the say in whether or not a review may appear at that site. Again, I think it quite gracious that the site that originally published my review asked you if you had other reviews at hand that you would like them to post. I think offering them some of the positive reviews you have received would have been a good way to present a balanced picture of the public’s response to your work. Personally, I would have welcomed those positive reviews and been pleased to see them appear alongside my less favorable review. I think it would have been a healthy way to let readers choose for themselves whether or not they wanted to pursue reading the book. But then, I do have a lot of confidence in readers that they will be able to discern for themselves what they think and what they choose to do with it.

    As for why I posted the review here, it is simply that I did not want the effort that went into it to be wasted. It was not meant to be malicious in any way.

    Again, thank you for posting your comments.

    Best,
    Shelly

  6. So be it, Miss Bryant. Yes, we had thought that yours was a legitimate website until we realized you had re-posted your review on what was, and still is, essentially a *blog*; we have never been to your blog until today, have never heard of you until recently, and know nothing about you.

    You seem to have a narrow application of the word ‘professional’. The word means more than being a paid or salaried worker. It can refer to a “person who has achieved an acclaimed level of proficiency in a calling or trade.”
    [http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/professional.html]

    We have stated that you “lack professionalism”: that is, you have failed to achieve the level of competence expected of your calling as a reviewer (see again reference above).

    You wrote: “I do find it contradictory to claim that a review should 1) be objective, and 2) leave out negative aspects of the work under review.

    Time for you to start being honest for once now. No one who has read these will believe what you claim for a moment; We have NEVER claimed that a review should be objective and leave out negative comments. We have merely stated that a reviewer who is fulfilling a request for a review, for the purpose of promoting a book, should out of courtesy for the person who made the request, omit from the review personal biases and therefore negative comments stemming from the personal biases. Otherwise, if the reviewer is unable to do that, she should kindly decline doing the review. IOW, we were asking for simple courtesy and grace from you.

    As far as being objective, we reiterate that YOUR review is far from objective, since you have NOT supported your negative points with FACTS. You have provided only your weak eisegesis of the passages from Revelation. Eisegesis is your opinion, not fact; it is therefore not objective but subjective since you are adding to Scripture your interpretation of the Revelation references and not providing documentation for your interpretation. You also claim that our scenes are implausible, which is really your opinion: to claim that our characters’ dialogue is unnatural is not objective because it means you know for a fact that angels do not converse in the way that we have constructed their conversations. You do not know for a fact that angels do or do not converse in that way (since you are not an angel, or have had a conversation with one). Being objective is dealing with facts. Your negative comments do not deal with facts.

    But we appreciate your comments. If we were under any obligation to write another book, we would endeavour to pay heed to your criticism and do better. However, we are not writing another book (even though we have had readers ask us if we have written anything else similar), so your review is pointless. You may claim that a review is solely for the benefit of the readers; our question to you is – what is the point of making negative comments unless your higher mission is for the *authors* to improve and grow?

    In any case, our original intention was to seek constructive feedback for our novel in order to improve and grow (since we were at that time editing the novel for a second edition and print. Yes, our first print was that successful, despite all the failings of the novel as pointed out by you). You would not even have known of our novel had it not been for our request to Chris. You would not even now be having the pleasure of trying to destroy our credibility.

    Your review, whereas momentarily and emotionally damaging to us, will not damage our cause for the Lord. It’s liberating for us to know that we do not make a living from writing. it’s a hobby, something the Lord has richly given us the resources to pursue and, in the final analysis, what we are doing through our novel is investing in eternity. If even one person reads the novel and makes the decision to accept the Lord Jesus as his/her personal Saviour, then the victory has been won for that person and for God.

    Come tomorrow, we pray that your review and you, madam, will be forgotten. God is great; as our novel teaches, He will heal us of all our griefs and anguish. Of course you had no malice in writing your review; however, you ARE being completely and WILFULLY malicious in your implacable desire to leave your review in your blog for all and sundry to read out of disrespect for us and disregard for our request. This malice, we submit, is owing to your disdain for fundamental Christians such as us. This malice, we submit, is owing to your desire to elevate yourself, your ego and your esteem, for your own reasons.

    As far as reproducing a small amount of email contents:

    “Copyright holders have many rights, including the right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, display, and perform their work. Reproducing, displaying or distributing copyrighted material without permission infringes on the copyright holder’s rights. However, “fair use” applies in some cases. If a small amount of the work is used in a non-commercial situation and does not economically impact the copyright holder it may be considered fair use. For example, quoting some passages from a book in a report for a class assignment would be considered fair use.”

    Please note that we are copyright holders of our own emails and those sent to us. Indeed we did not pay CFR a fee to promote our novel. Thus we have not deprived CFR of any economic benefit deriving from the reproduction of our email exchanges.

    As far as readers having the right to publish their comments and reviews on things for public consumption; indeed, that is the bane of our existence. If not for the Internet, for the www, this would not occur unless the reader were a professional critic working for a periodical of repute. This is something we will have to live with, thanks to the Internet. In the end, it doesn’t matter. All endeavors not glorifying to God will be burned up by God. Our endeavour is for the glory for God. So, from the big picture perspective, do you think we care what the public thinks or what God thinks? You know the answer.

    It irks us that CFR would have, on its staff, liberals such as you who are entrusted with the important task of reviewing good Christian work. We take the preaching of God’s Word very seriously. You, on the other hand, trivialize our endeavors with your childish categorizing of your reviews on your blog.

    We believe that you adhere to a liberal form of Christianity, judging from your review of ‘Winterflight’, which you have posted on your blog, and which we are reproducing to prove our point. You wrote:

    “One side point that I found rather bemusing in Bayly’s letter was that some Christians had apparently written to him concerning the use of “vulgarisms” by one or two of his characters. He addresses this in a good-spirited manner, though the tone makes me think he was as puzzled by the comment as I am. I have to say I appreciate that, as he points out, he never took God’s name in vain in the novel, which should be of much more importance to Christians than seeing a non-Christian character use mildly offensive language. The misuse of the Lord’s name, which should offend us much more, Bayly believes would have been overlooked by many of the same readers who took offense at the mild cursing of a non-Christian character in distress. In all honesty, I found the Christian characters clear avoidance of cursing to be much more distracting than the mild cursing of the other characters. And, as Bayly expressed, it is a little distressing to think that the same Christians who are so complacent about the move away from Christian values in America are so concerned over the use of a mild expletive. It seems a very clear case of missing the log in ones own eye while inspecting the mote in another’s.”

    Miss Bryant, you have got it backwards and all wrong. Mr. Bayly’s got it quite wrong, too. A Christian work, be that a novel, film, stage play or art, should never contain elements that compromise the commandments of the Lord. This includes offensive language.

    Therefore, it is interesting (and very troubling) to note that you would find “the Christian characters clear avoidance of cursing to be much more distracting”. Again this is very telling of your worldview and theological foundation. We have seen people compromising the Lord’s commandments in order to appear culturally relevant. Before long, such people completely turn away from biblical Christianity. This is symptomatic of the kind of world we live in; this is the kind of ‘Christians’ we have in the home, the church, in education, public office and, of course, so-called Christian sites and publishing houses. It comes as no surprise to us, however – Scripture teaches that in the last days, many will turn away from the Word of God, anti-Christian sentiments will increase and apostasy will be on the rise.

    Our novel warns about all this, too; now that we have had time to analyse your review and your theological basis, we realize that your reading experience of our novel has been “far from positive” because you are offended by the *truth*. Our novel deals with the truth and it offends you. Well, we did warn, in our synopsis, that many would find our novel offensive. Why should you be precluded?

    For this reason, your review of our novel is moot. No true Bible-believing Christian should take it seriously. We won’t.

    Feel free to have the last word. One can tell that you are the type of person that simply must have it, even it is a lie.

  7. We have received further revelation about Shelly Bryant’s review method and process and want to call her on the carpet for it:
    Now at length is her review, and our comments within quotation marks:

    I should begin my review with something of a disclaimer. The novel is based on a reading of the Book of Revelation that I do not share. My own understanding of that biblical book is very different from that of the authors, and my own understanding of biblical eschatology is likewise very different from theirs. Moreover, I believe that the interpretation of the Revelation and the eschatology embraced in (the novel) have led to some disastrous political maneuvers in our own world’s history. This divergence in my own beliefs and those espoused in the novel have certainly affected my ability to enjoy the book, since it is wholly built around these ideas that I do not subscribe to.

    “Therein lies the subjectivity of the process of her review, which is built on her own faulty eschatology and bias towards those that don’t agree with her.”

    From a more literary perspective, the book also suffers, in my estimation. The dialogue is often poorly written, with lengthy passages of doctrine, exposition, or pure opinion inserted into the mouths of characters, and stated in a way that does not seem like natural conversation.

    “Here she professes to know the manner in which angels construct their conversations. She dismisses the fact that we have stated in our novel that the angels are conversing in the angelic vernacular. Had she read to the end of the novel she would not have missed this vital detail and hence would not have made this fatal error of judging the characters’ dialogue as unnatural and poorly written. Her review is therefore equally poorly written and ill-conceived. We suspect that she has NOT read to the end of the novel. Shelly’s credibility at this stage is seriously in question.”

    The book overtly states a belief that the purpose of storytelling is (or should be) “its moral or instruction.” This insistence on storytelling as moralizing is held to tenaciously throughout the novel, to the point that the reading often becomes tedious. While I am not opposed to a little bit of preachiness in a book, especially one packaged and presented as a Christian novel, I do get turned off when the story seems to be secondary to the preaching. That is, sadly, often the case with (the novel).

    “In contrast to Shelly, we’re not sad at all. We’re very glad about the “preachiness” since we had made it clear that one of the main purposes of the book is as an evangelism tool. Shelly and most preachers today lack the boldness and conviction and dare I say the Biblical literacy required to preach the truth of God’s Word. – hell, sin and Jesus as the only way back to God. It is left to the faithful remnant to do the preaching. That precludes her. Shelly is the typical Laodicean that lacks spiritual discernment and a dislike of doctrine. She typifies the New Spirituality adherent that prefers deed to creed. Revelation warns of people like her. So did we. Perhaps that’s worth taking into consideration given her vitriol.

    And are you deliberately being obtuse, Shelly? Our novel is targeted at the non-believer; it’s not written for you or for Christians particularly. Don’t think so highly about yourself and your needs: the deliberate focus on doctrine in our novel is to instruct on doctrine for the benefit of the non-believer. It’s apparent you have no love or sense of burden for the lost. Otherwise you will have an appreciation for the aim of our novel. And don’t pretend to be smart, either, because you come across as silly for hating doctrine.”

    There are, in addition, some awkward points caused by typos and/or grammar errors in the manuscript. That has gotten some attention on the website dedicated to the book, though, with corrections to some of those errors offered there. I appreciate the effort compiling this and posting it on the website must have taken. Having worked on numerous lengthy manuscripts myself, I know how hard it is to eliminate all errors, and it takes that much more effort to update those notes on the website. It is a task that is as tiresome as it is thankless. The authors’ efforts in doing this job shows their dedication to the work they’ve produced, and to trying to create the best reading experience they can for their audience.
    There are several things I like about the book as well, though, despite those things I’ve noted above. The story itself has some appeal to it, and would be even more engaging without the continued interruptions of dialogue in which either doctrine or backstory are discussed at length. With a better handling of the backstory and an editing out of some unnecessary passages, I think the plot could be quite gripping.

    “Don’t be absurd, Shelly. If you were writing in the style you just advised and I were reading your novel in that style, I’d be bored to tears. I detest linear techniques of storytelling; hence our non-linear style of using flashbacks to provide vital background information. One man’s meat … yada, yada; we suspect once more that you have not read to the end of the novel. If you had, you would have made a note to your readers that the backstory only occurs in three chapters of the novel. That is three out of thirty chapters. You have based your review on an infinitesimal amount of material but you are making it appear as if you have read the entire novel and projected it on the entirety. How interesting that our young readers could understand and enjoy our story and were not bothered by the so-called interruptions. What’s the matter: the interruptions caused you to forget what went on just two pages before? Chalk that up to your own poor concentration and reading comprehension skills, then, Shelly.”

    I am a reader who likes to imagine the goings-on of the supernatural world, and how those otherworldly beings and happenings might intersect with events in our own physical world. (The novel ) is all about this sort of interaction. In this sense, it is a lot like Frank Perretti’s novels of spiritual warfare, and how the forces of good and evil fight a battle that transcends the (perhaps artificial) boundary between the physical and the spiritual that seems so solid in our minds.
    I also enjoyed reading the speculation about where the Nephilim came from, taken as fact in the world of (the novel). Those creatures get a mention in the Old Testament, but without elaboration. Those sorts of tidbits are always fun for speculation, and I thought they were woven into the story of the novel in a way that was both intriguing and plausible.

    “That Shelly sees no problem with Peretti’s work is problematic, on many levels. Our own convictions about the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements merely scratch the surface of the problem. Therefore, with all due respect, do not compare our theology with Peretti’s theology. Don’t get it, Shelly? Of course not. Do your own research. I’m not here to spoon-feed or baby sit you.

    And here again, Shelly is being inconsistent, which has become her hallmark. She claims that her reading experience of our novel has been ‘far from positive’. Yet she sinks to a horrific level of inconsistency and appalling condescension by saying she enjoyed some aspects of the novel. What is the truth, Shelly? Is it ‘far’ from positive or closer to ‘near’ positive? Or are you incapable of honesty and telling it as it is?

    We wonder why Shelly has not commented on our narratives of some controversial aspects of the novel that would have made for a more interesting appraisal and food for thought. We refer to our description of the EMP assault on the nations in the northern hemisphere, the proliferation of half-human half-bestial entities that are causing the decimation of a third of earth’s population, the decidedly anti-syncretic content which flies in the face of popular culture today, the brutal assassination of key political figures of renown today, how and whether she agrees that Mishael’s experiences are an allegory of the Christian walk, et. al.? Any appraisal of a number of these narratives would have been helpful for the potential reader.

    Perhaps because she didn’t realize such content existed since she had not read to the end of the novel? Skim reading does not make for a thorough and balanced review. If she had not the ability to read the entire novel due to her claims of its ‘tediousness’, she could have declined to do the review (that was never asked for).

    Instead, we wonder why the focus on elements of the novel that are pedestrian and largely irrelevant to the thrust of the novel? Why has she limited her review to the first one-third of the novel and is mute about what we consider to be the best part of it? Why is her review replete with generalizations and lacking specific illustrations from the novel that would have supported her negative claims and made her sound like she really knew what she was talking about? As it stands, her review demonstrates a lack of knowledge of and application in writing a fair and balanced review. If we had to review her review we would give her a fail.

    It appears that she has set out on a crusade to ensure that no one reads the novel by focusing on straw men and on the trite and cliched; all this because of her disdain for Pre-millennialism.

    In addition, since she mentioned Frank Peretti, why has she not mentioned the obvious differences between Frank Peretti and our novel because ours has a markedly different theology in angelology and demonology from Mr Peretti’s? She wrote: ” … how those otherworldly beings and happenings might intersect with events in our own physical world. Bene Ha Elohim is all about this sort of interaction. In this sense, it is a lot like Frank Perretti’s novels of spiritual warfare, ”

    Not true at all: if she had read to the end of the novel and not just the start, she would not have made this statement and falsehood. Once more, we suspect that she has not read the entire novel.

    We invite Shelly to answer these questions fully in the next 24 hours (so that she won’t start only now to finish the reading). We invite to support all her comments with specific examples from the novel as well. This is the least she can do for daring to destroy our novel. Failing this she will have confirmed our revelation that she has not read our novel in its entirety and therefore has committed fraud (libel) towards us. Failing this she will have no other choice but to retract her review and admit her real aim for not wanting to remove this review from her blog. Freedom of speech is a couch and is not good enough for a shoddy, substandard and ‘not up to scratch’ piece of review and Otherwise our charges of fraud, libel and duplicity will stand.”

  8. I have read the novel in its entirety. The reason I did not examine it in detail as you have suggested is because it would have been cruel to do so. The writing was bad. The novel was not well structured, from beginning to end. In my review, I sought to be gentle rather than stating this in such bald terms.

    I did not respond to your earlier comments because you indicated that my doing so would simply be me wanting to have the last word. I do not need the last word. Further, I am convinced that any response to your goading is not productive. There does not seem to be any common ground for us to engage one another.

    I have said that I will not censor comments simply because they disagree with my point of view. I have left your comments here to speak for themselves. You’ve responded to my review, and I am leaving it for the readers to discern for themselves what has gone on here.

    I do not like your novel. I think it was poorly written. I think your theo-politics misguided. I read the novel from beginning to end, and I have already stated above what I think were the potentially positive points in it. I did not, however, enjoy reading it. Not on any level.

    Now I have stated it as plainly as I know how to. Let me only add that I have no wish to have further dealings with you. It is time to put this to rest.

    You have said (two days ago): “Come tomorrow, we pray that your review and you, madam, will be forgotten.” I think this is a wise path. Forget me. Forget my review. It is my opinion, and nothing more. Nor I have ever claimed it to be more.

    You’ve also said I have to have “the last word.” In fact, I was content to leave this with your comments as the last word, along with the link to what you have characterized in private communication as “payback” posted on your own blog. I have no interest in such a dialogue. While I am sure that this comment will not be the last word in the whole conversation, I can assure you it will be my last word. I have nothing to say to your baiting. I do not want to quarrel with you.

    Please, go in peace. I cannot heal your wounded spirit, but I pray God will.

  9. Furthermore, the review of your review has been posted on other sites including that of the publisher:

    http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/contact_1.html

  10. You have proved our points. Thank you.

    We have actually moved on. But we needed to cause you to ‘out’ yourself for what you truly are and we have done just that. More about that later.

    First, we want to post some of the positive feedback from those who have actually read the novel.

    This person gave the novel five out of five stars.
    Thought-provoking
    July 28, 2012
    By Nance 1201
    Amazon Verified Purchase
    I really enjoyed this book and want to read it again, but slowly. The book provides much food for thought. While it is fiction, there is also a lot of truth in it. I highly recommend this book.

    This person gave the novel five out of five stars.
    Excellent
    July 22, 2012
    By Kelly
    This is a truely eye opening book. I will be reading it many time as there is so much to learn from it. I only had one problem with it, the unnessasary need for so many big words to describe things when the smaller versions would have made the reading so much more enjoyable. I spent a lot of time trying to identifiy the meanings when I would rather have spent it enjoying the book. I do however wish the authors had written more books like this one.

    Danielle, from SA sent us this email:
    My sister downloaded it (Bene ha Elohim, Sons of God) from another source not sure of the name. I only discovered your blog in FridayJ after trying to find out if there were any other books like this. [Parenthesis added.]

    Regarding your new edited book I will download it from your blog once it has been uploaded.

    Thank you for publishing this book. I could hardly put it down.

    Like I said, I have truly enjoyed it. It has become one of my new favourite books.

    Do you know how hard it is to fine another book similar to this. I have been looking for others like this but everything has fallen short of the standard that you have set.

    The info which you have given in the book is so clear and easy to understand. For me it reveals how so many of us have been asleep and have not noticed that while we carry on as if nothing has change Satan has been busy. It is time that the church wakes up and be counted.

    Your book has lifted my Spirit. I look forward to the coming of our Lord with great eagerness.

    To GOD be the Glory, Great things he hath done!!!

    Danielle

    (We have reproduced the feedback as they were originally written.)

    *We are sad that Shelly has chosen to be this cruel here. But her true colours are showing.

    Shelly, you said: “I cannot heal your wounded spirit, but I pray God will.” This is rich coming from you since you’re the one wielding the spear which caused the wound, and which a simple deletion of this review from your blog would have gone a long way to help remedy the situation. Therefore your prayer will not reach God’s ears since you are disingenuous and unwilling to offer restitution for your sin.

    You have deemed this review as more important than love for your brothers and sisters in Christ as commanded in the Lord’s Word. You’ve lost sight of the point of being a Christian book reviewer since you favour destroying people’s lives and spirit.

    Shelly, we do not for a minute believe that you will pray to God. You do not love God or obey Him since you are not obeying His commandments in 1 Tim 5; 1 John 4; Romans 12; Mark 12.

    We have successfully demolished your review since you are unable to answer any of our comments and questions related to your false comments and assertions about our novel. We have had plenty of experience dealing with trolls like you on the Internet; dealing with atheists, cultists and liberals, in general, with sceptics and haters of the Bible and those of genuinely doing the work of reaching the lost for Jesus Christ (which you also avoided addressing and admitting). You are no different from these people since you are using the same old excuses, and malicious and fallacious arguments, to defend your bad review and avoid responsibility for your poor performance. If you want to engage us, we would be happy to, but you would have to be more rational and stick to the facts instead of pulling arguments out of your own imagination. Between us, we have had close to thirty years debating with your likes, so pick your battles carefully.

    We don’t care for your review: a fair review is one that see the positive aspects of a novel. You have closed your eyes to those that are contained in ours. If it were that bad as you profess, we would not be getting positive reviews and feedback from others. We would not be asked to write another novel just like ‘Bene Ha Elohim’. A church pastor (not ours) would not have commented that it was “wonderful” (his exact words).

    And if I were such a horrid author, I would not have won three different awards for my poems and books.

    So it’s bemusing that you would hate the book so much. But it’s all right – we’re thankful you are pretty obscure in the larger scheme of things. From what we know, your books don’t seem to get much feedback at all (but we know this is a cheap shot).

    We don’t care about your review because you are a writer yourself. There will be an element of jealousy and competitiveness in you that you’re not aware of. You will no doubt want to sabotage our book. It happens all the time on Amazon. We have witnessed authors being petty and sabotaging each other’s books. Coupled with the fact that you are a woman and women can be catty (this is coming from a woman herself, so I KNOW women are catty), of course you will want to shipwreck our book.

    Yes, I (one half of the authorship) do regret the payback comment; it was a knee jerk reaction. I retract it and ask your forgiveness.

    And, yes, after successfully compelling you to show to all of us that you are a vindictive person, we will go in peace. We know for certain that you have allowed yourself to be an instrument of Satan to carry out his malicious work and harm our ministry. Many before you have tried but failed. We will be tested again and so will you. You are malicious and proud and filled with a deceptive spirit. You don’t even care to defend yourself against being labelled/outed a liberal. This is annoying, we must admit; but perhaps it’s because you do wear the badge of liberalism with pride.

    What’s more, our comments have been vindicated. Indeed, we baited you. You took our bait and fell into the trap. You failed to point out the fact that among the ‘controversial aspects’ of the book we claimed to have included, some were a troll test to ascertain if you knew whether or not they existed in the novel. Some do, others do not. But you failed to identify which do not, simply maligning all of them as ‘misguided geo-politics’ in the hope of getting away with your deceit.

    As much as you detested our book, we detest your Christian posturing; your actions do not demonstrate that you are filled with the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). As we said, our book was written as a witnessing tool; what’s your motivation for being so vitriolic towards us? We are human beings with feelings but that seems to mean nothing behind the safety of your computer screen.

    Shelly, you have no business being a reviewer if you are unable and unwilling to read a book.

  11. P/S
    Concerning this remark we made yesterday: “Come tomorrow, we pray that your review and you, madam, will be forgotten.”

    We meant this prayer for your meagre number of readers, not for ourselves.

  12. This is the last thing I wrote on my blog:

    My course of action to move on

    Now what am I to do about all this negative experience?

    Well, it’s timely to be reminded that our very novel preaches on forgiveness: and this is my test. Do I just talk the talk? Or am I able to walk the talk as well? Time will tell. I pray that God will heal my deeply wounded heart. It’s pride and vanity to think I am invincible and all that incredible. But I have my weaknesses and Shelly brought these to the fore.

    Of course I must obey the commandment to forgive. It’s not easy, however. It would be simpler had Shelly been an atheist. Because you would expect atheists and non-believers to behave the way Shelly is behaving. It’s harder to forgive and forget when the person hurting you professes to be your sister/brother in Christ, that we believe in the same Jehovah whom I so deeply love and am in love with.

    But God is greater than Shelly and I. He will heal me.

    I am consoled by the fact that we will ALL be required to give an account to God for what we have done in this life, for EVERY one of our actions. This includes Shelly and her actions.

    Then I will finally understand why she must be this hurtful and obstinate about her stance. It’s such a trivial pursuit – her review.

    In the meantime, I will learn forgiveness. As I wrote in the novel, the person who chooses not to forgive but to harbour all the negative emotions in her heart is the one who suffers the most. And unforgiveness can get in the way of a closer walk with God. I will choose not to let this get in the way of a closer walk with the Lord God who suffered on the cross for my sake and chose to forgive me despite my causing all His sufferings.

    I can do the same – forgive Shelly.

    Yes, our novel deals with a lot of beautiful emotional stuff like suffering, pain, forgiveness, choosing life over death. Beautifully written stuff. How can anyone not love our novel? Hard to fathom.

    But blogging this has been cathartic. God is healing me already.

    http://themilitantchipmunk.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/the-dubious-review-process-of-shelly.html

  13. This is to be the last comment on the matter. As the husband, who started all this because I naively believed Christian Fiction Review to be a reputable site, I had asked them to promote our novel and provide feedback on the contents. (Not a public review). This was even admitted by administration of CFR which flatly contradicts how Shelly Bryant has attempted to spin the situation to her advantage.

    I must further explain that my wife, who co-authored the novel, is the one most deeply hurt by the review since her emotions have been largely vested in the novel. The experiences of Mishael, one of the protagonists are a mirror of her personal walk and relationship with God.

    My wife, I must add, used to be an Instructional Specialist and curriculum director with the US-based ELS language centers. She was especially a specialist in the Writing curriculum and she used to teach review writing among others. She is well trained to recognize and even instruct in the writing of fair and balanced reviews on films, books and music, even up to Academic (undergraduate) level.

    Shelly’s comments such as “I do not like your novel”, “it was poorly-structured” do not constitute a fair and balanced review since no examples are actually given to illustrate and substantiate her points. They come across as petty and to be blunt, juvenile.

    I must also defend my wife’s writing style. For someone only trained in the use of English as a Second language, (she is not a native speaker of the language), my wife writes with more coherence, unity and skills with a broader use of vocabulary than most native users of the language. Someone once wrote with praise for her ‘Stylish English”.

    As far as we are concerned, it’s over. The refutation has been supplied and the response was found sorely lacking with transparent attempts to evade the issues directly. Let the readers’ judge for themselves based on the novel itself and not the prejudicial assertions of a reviewer who by her own tacit admission failed to review.

  14. No, silly husband, it’s over when I say it’s over. I am enjoying this debate.

    Still on the matter of our challenge to her:

    “Let me re-post this as a reminder: We wonder why Shelly has not commented on our narratives of some controversial aspects of the novel that would have made for a more interesting appraisal and food for thought. We refer to our description of the EMP assault on the nations in the northern hemisphere, the proliferation of half-human half-bestial entities that are causing the decimation of a third of earth’s population, the decidedly anti-syncretic content which flies in the face of popular culture today, the brutal assassination of key political figures of renown today, and how and whether she agrees that Mishael’s experiences are an allegory of the Christian walk, et. al.? Any appraisal of a number of these narratives would have been helpful.? In addition, since she mentioned Frank Peretti, why has she not mentioned the obvious differences between Frank Peretti and our novel because ours has a markedly different theology in angelology and demonology from Mr Peretti’s? She wrote: ” … how those otherworldly beings and happenings might intersect with events in our own physical world. (This novel) is all about this sort of interaction. In this sense, it is a lot like Frank Perretti’s novels of spiritual warfare …”

    Not true at all: if she had read to the end of the novel and not just the start, she would not have made this statement and falsehood. Once more, we suspect that she has not read the entire novel. We invite Shelly to answer these questions fully in the next 24 hours …”

    ***********************************************************************************************************************************************

    Our reply to her inability to meet our challenge:

    Shelly’s inability to meet this challenge proves her to be a fraud. If Shelly has read the novel in its entirety, she would have known there aren’t 30 chapters (but this is not a watertight case, we know). She would have addressed our charge that she has made a misguided comparison between our novel and those of Frank Peretti’s; and she would have known which were our troll tests. And these are damning evidence against her.

    For all her so-called qualifications she appeared not to be able to see the allegory in the story! We gave her 24 hours to write a decent comment on any one or two of the above contents in our challenge to her. She posted her reply exactly half an hour later, failing to take her time to meet our challenge. She should have taken her time to write something satisfying; after all, she is the intellectual here who thinks our novel is not up to her standards, by which all novels must be measured.

    She owes us that much, after all, considering that she has taken the time to destroy our novel. But she couldn’t meet our challenge.

    We submit that this is because she DID NOT know how to; because she hadn’t read the entire book.

    She was not capable of telling apart our theology from Frank Peretti’s theology on angels and demons because failing to read our novel entirely, she can’t know what our theology is from reading just one-third of the novel;

    she wasn’t able to comment on the EMP assault, because she hasn’t come across this part;

    or on the assassination of the real life political laureates,

    or on the allegorical aspects of the novel,

    or on syncretism.

    For all her pseudo-clever comment on the syncretism of Singapore (in her interview with some Christian paper; we forget which, but it’s on the ‘Net. Do a Google search on Shelly Bryant and you’ll find it), you would think she could have said she liked that aspect of our novel in which we gave a full description of the origins of syncretism. You would think she could at least give a commentary of syncretism, since it should be right up her alley. But NO. She couldn’t even make a comment on this – makes you wonder if she really knows what syncretism entails, what it implies for the world, for the coming one-world church … but we are giving away too much. It’s all in our novel you know. Go read it.

    You would think she would have at least said she liked this part of our novel – on some level – but NO, she hates everything about our novel, which she claims to have read from cover to cover. Yeah, right.

    Instead of admitting she is defeated, she tries to cover her behind and get herself off the hook by lumping them all as our misguided geo-political issues, which she disagrees with, not realizing that some of the issues put to her in our challenge are not geo-political in nature. Some are social, some cultural. Therefore, she comes across as illiterate and uneducated. or at the very least, she is having some issues with reading comprehension.

    The reality is that she is unable to provide a commentary backed up by clear illustrations because that would have required her to have read the entire book, think deeply on the issues and come up with something intelligent. She has proven she hasn’t the ability to do any of this. She has proven to us that she has lied about having read the novel fully. To write a review of a novel requires more than a cursory glance and reading. It requires real reading, something she has failed to do.

    (I should know – I am the Writing Specialist, after all.)

    She doesn’t want anymore dealings with her, she says. Why? She’s a coward? No.

    Because she knows her mouth will be muzzled each time she tries to engage with us.

    (Pardon all the fragments; we realize they should not be here; but so what? And on the subject of syntax, if anyone has issues with our fragments in the novel, let it be said that fragments are permitted in narrative writing. Or didn’t you know this?)

  15. Dear Readers,

    As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over.

    Further comments from thewhyman on this or any other of my blogs will be treated as spam.

    I will not bother about what is posted elsewhere, neither to read it nor to reply to it.

    Go in peace,
    Shelly Bryant

  16. Is there to be another post by us? Perhaps. We have all the time in the world.

    Shelly, you wrote: “The writing was bad. The novel was not well structured, from beginning to end.”

    Next round, we will take Shelly to task for this sweeping statement. You can’t make a damning statement such as this and not expect to give an account.

    Watch this space.

  17. Aww…we’ve only just begun.

  18. But we can still comment on our blogs (readership in the hundreds of thousands.)

  19. We thought you said you didn’t believe in censorship … tsk tsk. Typical of a troll to go back on her word.

  20. As stated early on in this discussion (my second comment):

    “I am solely responsible for the content on this site, aside from comments left by visitors such as yourself, and I do have the power to delete those, but only do so in the case of extremely offensive pieces (such as pornography, violence, etc.) or spam.”

    Spam = the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 486 other followers

%d bloggers like this: