Article (1)–Catholic

In this summary, of an article I wrote for Challenge Weekly in 2005, New Zealand Marist Brother Richard Dunleavy who had been in Rome for 13 years, explained how Pope Benedict XVI would fulfil his role as Pope. “I believe he is really ‘conservationist’ in regard to the truths of the Church as updated and described at Vatican II. His bases are natural law, scripture and authentic tradition,” said Brother Richard. Pope’s Benedict’s “depth of understanding of post-modern culture means that he will always be seeking to communicate with the secular world, especially in Europe, but never at the expense of the truths as he sees them.” Pope Benedict has since moved on as Pope, making way for the current Pope, Pope Francis.

Darkest Hour (2017)

Had the opportunity to watch Darkest Hour (2017) again–a five star gem, so why not? It’s a larger than life portrayal of English responses–mostly political, but also militaristic, personal and public–to the German invasion of Europe during World War II in the month of May preceding the Dunkirk evacuation. Winston Churchill’s reply, as the Prime Minister of England, is riveting. This well-mounted film, with its finely tuned and brightly tempered aesthetics, combined with, as Churchill, Gary Oldman’s flashy, headstrong and transformative performance makes for something quite a bit more than life, which makes it palatable to watch, of what was a real depressing time in Britain. But which touches on the gravity of the moment–their ‘darkest hour’–in some sobering scenes. This one riveted me to the seat.

You didn't tell me

Yes, you were right that time, correcting that quietly, so I wouldn’t notice the error, was quite noble on your behalf. You didn’t want to tell me. Because you didn’t want to pay attention to the flaw, which would reflect badly on me, if you had ever told me. Yes, an editor’s work is thoughtful. But I found out, and here is the finished product! You told me, “good job”. Thank you.

Is it okay for a writer to change style?

I’ve asked myself this question and answered a resounding no. A writer should have a consistent style. But, if I compare my review of 28 Days Later, written in 2003, to my review of 28 Weeks Later, written four years later, I am resigned to the fact that they have different styles. This is really disconcerting to me, as it shows a flaw. All I can think of, is that a writer may use different styles of writing for a while, then settle on one style. This style becomes natural. In the end, a writer or some, if not many, writers must go through this phase. It’s a natural part of the writing life. One must write to know how one wants to write–and sometimes if not many times this plays out in the publishing world.

Takes a little time

I would have posted another in my church series today (Church series here), but I came across the taped interview of one of the articles I have already published on that blog. I thought I need to publish the whole interview. This would take time to transcribe. So, when that’s done, I’ll be posting that as my next post, which shouldn’t be too far away.

The way of the Write

This week has been seeing several devotions sent off to the same publisher, which is a record of a sort, but seeing one I did a month ago rejected by the same publisher. However, two weeks ago, one was accepted for publication–by the same publisher. That is the way of things. The way of the Write. At least this time. And two of the ones I sent were recovered from the rubbish bin, which was pleasing to see they didn’t come to waste.