Archive for March, 2011

So You Want To Be A Writer

Review of “So You Want To be a Writer?”

A talk by Chua Hong Koon @ Crest Christian Bookstore Corner

Tuesday, 25 January 2011, 7:15–9:15pm

By Tienny Teh, with inputs from Wang Chu Qiao and Annabelle Ang-Bok

Chua Hong Koon, Publishing Director of Armour Publishing, has been in the publishing industry for over 30 years. However, it was just three and a half years ago that he started publishing Christian books. He began and ended his talk with prayer, and at the end of it I had a much better understanding of what writing is about, how a writing career is possible even without outstanding talent, and my own desires to write. I really found the workshop portion of the evening very helpful. This article summarises the talk and the things I found most helpful about it.

Chua began with a question: “What is the best job in the world?” He directed the question to his ten-year-old son, who replied that he thought it would be to be a doctor or lawyer because they earn a lot of money. To which Chua responded, “The best job is when you do something one time, and get paid many times. …you may be having a holiday, enjoying playing golf, be visiting another country or doing missionary work somewhere, and you are still being paid. Somebody is working for you while you are doing some other things. …do it one time, do it well.”

The best example, Chua explained, is God Himself. God allowed the Bible to be written once. Till today, it is still among the top best-sellers of all time, in its various languages and versions. It is a similar story with the Classics and Shakespeare. If God (or those other writers) took a 10 percent royalty on each sale, that would amount to a staggering amount of money! And the best way to learn how to write a good book, Chua said, is to write one.

But how does one know if one is a writer? According to Chua, if you are called to write, you will be able to do it. The Apostle John was called to write, as mentioned in Revelation 1:17-19. So were Moses (Exodus 34:27) and Jeremiah (36:2). Consider that we wouldn’t expect a fisherman like Peter to be able to write, much less write as well as he did. Alternatively, you might have enjoyed writing since childhood and have turned out to be good at it.

What happens if you enjoy writing, but are not a good writer? You can be a writer, Chua believes. You can work with a publisher and the publisher will help you.

Chua then pointed out that pastors, teachers and lecturers are potential writers. When they teach in person, they can only benefit a certain number of listeners at a time. But if they write, they can reach a much wider audience. Chua wants us all to rise up and write more god books. No matter what kind of writing style you have, you are sure to have potential readers somewhere. The world is so diverse. It is filled with so many types of people. You can not please all of them. Some will find your material good, and some will criticise. You just have to accept it, he said.

So, what about topics? If you are passionate about a certain topic, leadership for example, you can write about leadership. If someone is very passionate about collecting stamps and travels to many places to collect stamps, his or her knowledge might turn into books after a number of years. You need to write about something you are passionate about, Chua said.

Chua also went on to talk about personal stories. Each person has a story to tell, something he or she has gone through that is unique. A book will share experiences and lessons that others can learn from.

And if you are considering types of books, Chua shared, there are all types of (Christian) books that you can write: non-fiction and fiction, topics that are useful to the general public, collections of articles written over some time, collections of essays or articles written by various writers, collections of journals or diaries, etc.

Writing a good book, Chua said, is like running a marathon. Discipline and determination are needed to finish a book. Many people want to run marathons, but few complete the course. Chua referred to Robert M, Solomon’s The Race to drive his point that we need to have the right focus to write, but that many are sidetracked from it due to family, work, and other hobbies. Normally a runner preparing for a marathon has a coach with him. Similarly, a writer needs someone to go along with her. So find a publisher and an editor to help you to commit to writing the book and meeting the deadline. Chua then recommended another book: Why Procrastinate? by Teo Aik Cher.

If you are not a good writer, Chua said, you can employ a writer to help you put in writing what you want to say. You can share your royalties with the writer or just pay him or her a salary. Work out a framework from your idea and use that framework as you work, but if you’re not too sure about where you’re going, just keep writing.

Chua used the workshop segment of the evening to share guidance on how to write a good book. He talked about publishing choices and their advantages and disadvantages. He also talked about how to approach and work with a publisher, and he even taught the basics of how to write a publishing proposal and prove your credibility. Chua also talked about copyright issues regarding book titles. Finally, he reminded all of us who are interested in writing to focus on writing a very good book. We should not be afraid to spend the time needed to write a good script and find the right publisher.

I found Chua’s talk very interesting. It was very helpful because he gave a lot of real life examples. I like that he would refer a writer to another publisher if the writer had written about something not related to his publishing scope. As I’m currently working as a freelance illustrator for children’s books, and concurrently working on an illustrated children’s book of my own, it is essential for me to have the right focus and to be able to meet my deadlines. I feel excited after this talk even though I’m definitely more of an illustrator than a writer. Even though my imagination works better with pictures than with words and my passion is more for comic books, this talk was very practical and gave me an understanding of the industry, and will help me in working towards my goals.

 

Black Swan- A Review

Movie | Director: Darren Aronofsky |Starring: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis

By Annabelle Ang-Bok


A possible definition of art is that which, in the hands of a master, steps from the commonplace into the transcendent, and Black Swan, however clichéd or predictable its plot, proves itself a work of art. Darren Aronofsky’s demented fantasy of physical and mental sadomasochism is not just a psychological drama about an immature girl’s self-destructive pursuit of ballet perfection; it’s a not-quite-invitation to descend with her into the darkness of obsession.

But perhaps I give Aronofsky too much credit. Even if the opening scenes of Natalie Portman’s straightlaced, desperate-for-a-breakthrough Nina Sayers don’t clue you in to the inevitable end, you’ll probably get it when Vincent Cassel’s Thomas Leroy announces (very early in the film) his new (and probably impossible, in real life) version of Swan Lake. Also, there is a slight B-grade movie feel to some parts of the film. Aronofsky also borrows blatantly from many different sources in a pretty obvious manner, and his portrayal of the ballet world is decidedly one-sided.

Still, Portman’s blindingly intense and painfully convincing performance draws up memories of my own perfectionist tendencies. Watching Nina claw her way from desperate desire through neurosis, paranoia and hallucinatory psychosis, I cannot help but think also of myself and the many people I know who have struggled with perfectionist tendencies in at least one area in their lives. While our cases are far from the extreme example that is Nina’s, the sense of terror and horror is very real—and very tricky to circumvent. And then, of course, there is also the troublesome issue of the relationships we inevitably have and do not fully understand or trust.

Black Swan ends tragically, exactly as expected—but the one thought that held as I left the theatre, in spite of the lingering echoes of Nina’s worst hallucinations running through my mind’s eye, was a powerful sense of relieved gratefulness. Exaggerated tale it might be, but Nina’s twisted pursuit of “excellence” is for many of us a case of “there but for the grace of God go I”. It certainly is the case for me—and I am reminded oh-so-sweetly once again of why we need never fall so deeply into such obsessions, need never burn so viciously with a need to prove ourselves, need never fear our potentials (no matter how dark these may be)… because of the One who has paid the price in blood to save us from ourselves.

 

In The Likeness Of God

by Ronald Wong

image courtesy of Christopher Tan


Introduction

One of the most fundamental questions asked since time immemorial is: what does it mean to be human?[1] (Let us call this question ‘the fundamental question’.) Surely if we are to call ourselves ‘human beings’, we ought to have some good reason for it[2].

The Judeo-Christian worldview’s answer to it is found in the concept of imago dei, i.e., in the image of God.[3] Yet, that concept does not immediately answer the question, for it merely begs the question of what imago dei essentially and effectively means. (This shall be my first issue.)

David Wilkinson succinctly tells us that the answer is in God’s decision to have humankind be in a relationship with Him.[4] This is troubling to all non-Christians — are we suggesting then that they are all non-humans?

One would also be hard pressed to find a definition in the Bible. The phrase recurs in the Bible only for a limited number of times.[5] And principles of hermeneutics suggest that the meaning of a concept is largely defined by its first usage within the Bible. So we are back to Genesis.

Purportedly, humankind is the pinnacle of God’s creation. And that which sets humanity apart from all other creation must be the ‘imago dei’ characteristic. Hence, intuitively speaking, empirically distinguishing humankind from animal kind may reveal some answers.

Traditionally, it has been thought that humans differ from animals in that humans have intellect, emotions and agency, and are thus able to abstract and ‘invent morality’.[6]

Honestly, when I started writing this essay, I had assumed that what set humans apart from everything else was the whole gamut of faculties mentioned in the preceding sentence; and I was intending to wax lyrical about how humans can be artistic and creative, whereas everything else in the world cannot. (This was intended to be my second issue.)

Unfortunately, as will be seen below, we would be proven quite wrong if we naively cling on to that. I was proven wrong.

 

What About Animals?

Animals have intellect, emotions & morality

Animals are more intelligent than we commonly think they are[7]: dolphins and sealions can rationally respond to human symbols (not as mere reflexive responses). There are talking parrots, one of which, when left at a vet’s clinic overnight and seeing its trainer leaving, said, “Come here. I love you. I’m sorry. Wanna go back”.

There is also a bonobo (a type of chimpanzee) which can structure grammatical sentences up to the level of a 2 ½ year old human. The same bonobo made knifelike chips out of flints it picked up in order to cut the cord to a key which would obtain for it a favourite treat — is that creating not creativity?

The chimpanzees over at Ivory Coast created a nut-cracking tool out of granite, and are passing the tradition down to their young. Finally, we have ‘Machiavellian’ chimpanzees who play politics to stay in power; these guys would probably do well in Survivor. Of course, the atheistic evolution theorists would tell us that humans can play Survivor only because the chimps do so, not the converse.

And if one could accept that morality is but a set of principles which guide ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behaviour, then we must be alerted to modern studies, e.g., by Professor Marc Bekoff, which reveal that animals do have some sense of morality[8].

Animals can ‘do art’

Elephants under The Asian Elephant Art & Conservation Project[9] have also been taught to paint. Their paintings have gone on exhibition at an Edinburgh gallery[10]. And if one is sceptical, one can even see a video of an elephant doing a self-portrait on YouTube[11]. Of course, it must be emphasized that these elephants are trained specifically to replicate certain sketches, rather than to freely create out of their imagination. Yet, we must be reminded that even artists had to first learn how to replicate before they could abstractly create original art.

Animals can dream

It has also been established that animals, such as rats, do dream complex dreams[12]. This means that animals are capable of relatively long-term memory, as well as the ability to review that memory. While dreaming is not synonymous with imagining, I would think it is but a short step away.

Animals have ‘spirituality’?

Apparently, animals even have some form of ‘spirituality’: it has been observed that some chimpanzees perform a trance-like dance after staring at waterfalls. This has been suggested to be the consequence of feelings of awe which arose in the chimpanzee; emotions of awe — do we not ascribe that to some sense of the ethereal, the supernatural, the spiritual[13]?

Degrees of Consciousness?

It has been suggested that ‘consciousness’ is the capacity to respond differently and suitably under novel conditions; that there are in fact different types of consciousness which connect the sense perception to the processing of the information perceived, and that it all boils down to the development and complexity of the brain[14].

Thus, a comparison has been made between autistic humans and complex animals since it has been found that both process information in visual symbols rather than abstract language.

Questions

The above survey seems to pose more questions than answers. Is the distinction between humans and animals merely a matter of degree? Are children or mentally less abled people humans or animals? Should we even be focusing on the distinction between humans and animals?

Unfortunately, I shall not attempt to answer these questions. Yet, I would suggest that the focus on animal-human distinction is still a significant signpost to our quest for the answer.

 

Purposive Agents

The response from one of the scientists at the World Science Festival is notable[15]. Jim Gates says: “We are conscious of more than our selves… We are getting glimmers of how we are related to space and time. We can ask, what am I? What is this place? And how am I related to it?”

We do not yet know if animals also ask these questions about themselves; but as Ravi Zacharias said, “dogs don’t get together to discuss dogginess”, so let us assume that humans are unique in this. It is interesting that these questions are tied to the fundamental question of what it means to be human. Nice try — being human is to ask ourselves what being human means; self-referring and circular.

But before we dismiss that proposition, let us consider its usefulness. I would suggest that the fundamental question could be restated in another way: what is the purpose of a human?

If indeed it is taken as true that humanity’s uniqueness is in its consciousness about itself and its purpose, then I would suggest that that very empirical fact provides strong probative evidence for the proposition that humanity is uniquely a purposive agent, i.e., created with a specific purpose.[16]

This begs a further question: whose purpose?

The libertarians hold a Kantian belief that humans, being autonomous moral agents, have the innate right to live their lives in any way they choose, subject to that very right of others, i.e., everyone could pursue their own purpose.

Most, if not all, non-religious philosophies and worldviews would not dictate any purpose, but that there is either no single objective purpose, or no need for a purpose at all.

The ancient Greeks had a whole gamut of purposes: knowledge of the good, well-being, virtue, pleasures, harmony.

The religious worldviews hold otherwise. Mainstream Buddhism postulates that the purpose of life is to end suffering. Hinduism postulates that there are four main aims: destiny and righteousness (dharma), wealth (artha), desire (kama), and enlightenment (moksha).

Several other religions suggest a transcendental personality, i.e., gods or a God, and that life’s purpose is to know him or abide by his laws.

The Christian Purpose

The Christian worldview (which is possibly shared with the Judaism one) is slightly more nuanced. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states simply: “man’s chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever”[17].

Indeed, in Genesis, we can mark out several things which God did uniquely with humanity. Firstly, God gave humanity a commission to populate and rule (Gen 1:26). Secondly, God gave Adam the task of naming all his subjects (Gen 2:19)[18]. Thirdly, it could be implied that God had desired to relate to Adam and Eve when God walked into the Garden of Eden and called to Adam, “Where are you?” (Gen 3:9); the last point reflective of what David Wilkinson suggested that being human means being in a relationship with God[19].

It is also helpful to understand the purpose that God gave humanity by looking at the end. In Revelation 21, we sense finality when it is declared in verse 3: “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.”

What’s so significant about purposive agency?

For the sake of discussion, let us not subscribe to any particular purpose. But it must then be wondered, why does it matter if humans are purposive agents?

The answer to the question posed can be found by reverting to the distinction between humankind and animal kind. The distinction is truly found in the degree of our faculties. As suggested, we have more complex consciousness. We can develop complex languages, reason in abstractions, and imagine and create. That is a lot of power when humans gather in collectives.

That is probably why God dispersed humankind after they attempted to build the Tower of Babel, for God said “[i]f as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them” (Gen 11:6). Notice that such power came about because of technology — Genesis 11 suggests that humans had discovered how to build bricks.[20]

Human history reminds us of the horror of such powers. The 20th century “was the bloodiest in human existence”[21]: 109 million deaths from war alone; King Leopold II of Belgium presided over a holocaust in Congo (1880–1920) — its population decreased by 10 million people from slave labour alone.[22] Ottoman Turks, Muslims, (1915–1923) genocide against Armenian Christian minority[23]. Stalin killed 42 million people (1929–1953); Mao: 37 million (1923–1976); Hitler: 20 million (1933–1953) — including 10 million Slavs, 5.5 million Jews, 220,000 homosexuals, 10,000 handicapped Germans[24]. Recall also the more recent genocides: Cambodia (1975–1979), Bosnia (1992–1995), Rwanda (1994).

The often-quoted proverb tells us, “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18, KJV). It does not really tell us much when read in isolation. In fact, it has probably been co-opted for many purposes, good and bad. For is not Nazism, or Darwinism a ‘vision’? Indeed, atheistic Darwinism forms a significant foundation for Marx’s thought, Nietzsche’s superman theory; indeed, ‘neo-Darwinism’ was used by the Nazis to buttress racial theories and discriminatory ‘policies’ — more atrocities than policies[25]. Is that not a vision too? But before I am accused of the same rhetoric, I must of course add the caveat that not all atheistic Darwinists think in the same way, or as some would put it, atheists can be moral too.

But if morality is relativistic and non-objective, based on some form of consensus amongst a collective, it is nevertheless an empty container. Again, we are reminded that a majority of an entire nation of Germans, home to some of the brightest minds humanity had ever known, subscribed to a particular set of morality which is utterly repugnant to most, if not all, of us today. We are reminded of this every time someone asserts and cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or talks about the United Nations — both were born out of the womb of horror.

For all that, I am minded to quote a more useful translation of that proverb: “Where there is no revelation, people cast off restraint”; and I must add the latter part: “but blessed is the one who heeds wisdom’s instruction” (NIV © 2010). Of course the implied meaning of ‘revelation’ and ‘wisdom’ is in the ‘Christian sense’, whatever that means. Against the stark reality of human history mentioned above, one would indeed be blessed to heed godly wisdom.

The Christian Distinctive

Apart from having a clear purpose revealed to us from God, Christians are, or should be, bestowed with a very significant thing which distinguishes them from the rest of the world — the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, whom “the world cannot accept… because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:17). The Spirit will “remind you of everything I [Jesus] have said to you” (John 14:26). The Spirit will produce “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (Gal 5:22, 23).

 

The Consequence of Christian Purposive Agency

In summary, our above discussion produces several key thoughts: (1) humans are uniquely capable of doing much; (2) humans are purposive agents; (3) Christians have a clear purpose of glorifying and enjoying God, and the distinctive of the Holy Spirit, who (a) guides, and (b) gives.

Having said that, I shall now attempt to do two issued that I had intended to address: (1) humanity’s capability to be creative and artistic; and (2) attempt to understand imago dei.

Starting with imago dei, it should be noted that many theologians have attempted to explain this. I did not even try. But my intuitive sense is this: if it be true that humankind’s uniqueness is in humans being purposive agents, then this might just be the image inherited from God, i.e., that God is a purposive agent, albeit on a larger, unlimited scale. What is God’s purpose? The answer is reflected in humanity’s bestowed purpose: Himself.

As for waxing lyrical about creativity, unfortunately, I think that there should be very little lyrical waxing made for this, lest we be misguided. All that can be said is that we, human beings qua purposive agents, ought to fulfil our purpose: to glorify and enjoy God — and as John Piper says, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him”. Do this in partnership with the Holy Spirit. If we should exercise any of our human faculties during our being, i.e., intellect, emotions, imagination or creativity, do so with that purpose, and with that partnership, lest we, or others, perish.

Then we shall truly be blessed.

[1] This question has been central to much discussion, especially of late: see e.g., Ravi Zacharias’ talk on this issue: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fb_H7jbu4w>; “What Does It Mean To Be Human?”, Wired Science (1 June 2008): <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/what-does-it-me/>; as Ravi Zacharias points out, how can we talk about humanities or humanism when we are still struggling to find out what being human means?

[2] Indeed, we do not call ourselves ‘human things’, or ‘human doings’, or ‘human thinkings’, or ‘human believings’, etc.

[3] Genesis 1:26-27: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

[4] David Wilkinson, “What does it mean to be human?”, BBC (1 November 2004): <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3971045.stm>.

[5] E.g. the Genesis account for the creation of mankind Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:1,3 (the transmission of the image from Adam to his posterity); 9:6 (the doctrine of the image  in relation to homicide); 1 Corinthians 11:7 (discussion of headship in the family); Colossians 3:10 (exhortations to the believer to put  on the new man); and James 3:9 (treatment of the proper use of the tongue).

[6] One Dr. Caspar Hewett tells us that (i) only the qualities associated with adulthood should be considered; (ii) the distinctive qualities are ‘agency’, ‘rationality’ and the ability to ‘abstract’ and invent ‘science and morality’: <http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/ChimpCH1.pdf >; surely several responses are necessary: (i) this suggests that children are not humans; (ii) it is questionable what ‘adulthood’ truly means — whether all adults indeed have significant faculties of ‘rationality’ and ‘agency’; (iii) it is also questionable whether all humans have those faculties; (iv) as would be seen, it seems that even animals have such faculties, albeit in a lesser degree.

[7] Eugene Linden, “Can Animals Think?” Time (22 March 1993): <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978023-2,00.html>.

[8] Richard Gray, “Animals can tell right from wrong”, Telegraph (23 May 2009):  <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html>.

[9] URL: <http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/>.

[10] “Elephant ‘self-portrait’ on show”, BBC (21 July 2006), available online: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5203120.stm>.

[11] URL: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk>.

[12] “Animals have complex dreams, MIT researcher proves”, MIT News (24 January 2001), online: <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/dreaming.html>.

[13] Jane Goodall, “Primate Spirituality” in Bron Taylor ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature (London & New York: Continuum, 2005) 1303.

[14] Temple Grandin, “Do Animals and People with Autism Have True Consciousness?” Evolution and Cognition, 2002, Vol. 8, pp. 241-248, online: <http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.people.autism.true.consciousness.html>.

[15] Wired.com, see supra note 1; the reason why I think the rest are less significant is because they are based on assumptions about humans uniquely having the abilities of language, creativity, intellect, emotion, and/or morality, all of which have shown to be evident to some degree in animals.

[16] I would surely concede that this assumption is key to my views on this issue. If indeed animals can be proven to be purposive agents, then since humans would not be unique in this aspect, it cannot be said that ‘imago dei’ is or is associated with purposive agency. But we are limited by our epistemological limitations. So we must settle for less and be satisfied on a standard below absolute certainty. For now we can be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that humans are uniquely purposive agents.

[17] <http://www.creeds.net/reformed/Westminster/shorter_catechism.html>.

[18] This may be basis for an inference that God had intended humanity to exercise reason in fulfilling its purpose.

[19] See supra note 4.

[20] Whether or not one were to interpret this verse, or even the entire Book of Genesis, literally as historical fact or as merely allegorical/metaphor in some sense.

[21] Kim A. McDonald, Anthropologists Debate Whether, and How War Can Be Wiped Out, Chron. Higher Educ., Dec. 3, 1999.

[22] Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa 233 (1998).

[23] Peter Balakian, The burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response (2003).

[24] 1 Encyclopedia of Genocide 61 – 105 (Israel W. Charny ed., 1999).

[25] See John Ankerberg, John Weldon, “Marx and Darwin”, excerpted from Darwin’s Leap of Faith (Harvest House, 1998).

 

Parable

By Zhang Ruihe

image courtesy of Xi and Tan Wai Jia

The nightingale wanted to sing. She was made for singing, this she knew. All her friends and elders told her the same thing. And every time a song welled up in her throat and burst forth in joyous melodies upon her tongue, she became surer that this was what she was meant to do — for all of life, till death took her at last to that paradise where all is song and celebration, and darkness is no more.

But in this world, there was life apart from singing. And even if this life seemed less than abundant, it was pressing and real and near at hand — the daily routines of looking for early worms (or late ones — depending on what time she rose in the mornings), of feathering her nest so that its thorns and bristles would not scratch and scar. Then there were the other nightingales to look after — the ones who had been entrusted to her: brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, relatives without number, friends and even the young fledglings who came, sent by their parents who were themselves too busy to teach their darlings to sing. So much to do, so much love to give. How could her own love of song seem like anything other than the very least of all these various and important loves?

Soon, the nightingale found that it was all she could do to speak about singing to the fledglings who came seeking her counsel. They came from near and far, in the early dewfall of morning and in the soft leaf-fall of night, on a wing and a prayer, and they almost always went away inspired by her words, sure in their hearts, just as she was, that they were made for singing.

In the meantime, the nightingale dreamt about the songs that would soar unimpeded from the depths of her being, the songs that her soul was being prepared to sing by the loves and duties of her everyday life. She spoke to the fledglings of the songs they could bring to the world — good songs to cheer and encourage, challenge and convict; songs that would feed the deepest hungers of a wandering world and tell that world of love.

She talked about singing all the time, but found not the time to sing. By and by, she lost the exquisite mastery over her voice that had once been the envy of her fellow nightingales, and it slowly became old and hoarse. And in time, she lost her memory of all but her favourite songs, so that when she opened her mouth to sing, what came out of it seemed so far removed from what she remembered that she stopped altogether. Far easier to talk about the songs of old, and dream about the songs of the future — and after all, the urgencies of the now made all thoughts of song seem frivolous and unimportant.

And so it went.

Where is that nightingale now? Perhaps, if you open your window in the early evening and listen to the chatter of birdsong outside — perhaps somewhere in those myriad voices, you might hear the ecstatic carollings of those fledglings the nightingale had taken under her wing, their voices now grown strong and clear and true, ringing in the night. And if you listen even more carefully, you might even catch the whisper of an older, more subdued voice, speaking in quieter tones of the songs that could have been, and the songs that will soon never be again.

 

Voicing Out: An interview with Emily Lim

By Wang Chu Qiao

Calling: When you first left the corporate world, how do you arrive at the decision of writing children’s books next, instead of say, dance therapy? Can you share how you discern your calling in this, so as to speak?

Initially, I had no idea what I was going to do. I then came across an advertisement in the newspapers, a few months after, about an overseas writing course. As I’ve generally been inclined towards writing (both in school and at work), I decided to sign up for the course. Writing children’s books came about a year later when I became a winner at the MDA/Book Council First Time Writers Publishing Initiative, which is for children’s books. Through that, I experienced newfound passion in the writing and publishing of my debut book Prince Bear & Pauper Bear. But it was only when I was at the stage of deciding if I should publish my second book, The Tale of Rusty Horse, that it became clearer that I had calling to write. The confirmation came through scripture and confirming circumstances — from my pastor’s sermon in church to my bible dean’s morning devotion verse as well as the encouragement of readers.

Crunch-time: You mentioned that your faith has helped you on the journey of your struggle with your voice condition. What do you feel you now know about God and yourself that you wouldn’t have realised without this journey?

My whole journey of seeking God started with my voice condition — it began with the realisation that I could not control something as basic as speaking, and also with my desire to recover my voice. As medical solutions from Man proved futile, I started seeking God for recovery and answers. And slowly, God’s Word started to make sense like never before. The first revelation was that I cannot save myself from sin and it is only by grace that I am saved through Christ. The second was the revelation that God loves me, cares for me and wants me to live my life to the full. I also realised that we are made differently and have different gifts. Before this, I assumed that being a Christian meant I should lead a mediocre life and be contented being the ‘half-person’ that I was because of my voice deficiency. After I lost control of my voice, I found God and myself.

Curve-balls: What was the steepest learning curve and what were the unexpected challenges you had to negotiate when you first stepped into the career of writing children’s books?

Well, it was a humbling process hanging up the corporate suit and becoming a nobody, so to speak. With a corporate business card, you can always fall back on your company’s name to open doors for meetings and the like. As an aspiring writer with no track record, you have nothing to rely on except the goodwill of others to meet you and work with you. It wasn’t easy to plough on with the writing and publishing of my first book on my own and to discern what worked best for me as everyone I spoke to had a different opinion of how things should work. But it was during these times that I again realised how little control I had over the process and I learnt to rely on prayer and saw God’s favour each step of the way.

Condense: A lot of (aspiring) writers struggle with saying too little with too many words. What’s your thought process like when you’re condensing your ideas into so few words?

During the manuscript writing stage, I put on the hat of an author and write what I feel. When I get to a reasonably satisfactory draft, I take a few steps back and put on the hat of an editor. I put my manuscript through many rounds of self-editing — cutting the text down and substituting for fewer words which can say as much. It does take some discipline and willingness to be corrected to be able to critique your own work. I sought comments from friends and made it a point not to take things personally. I then put on the publisher’s hat and brought in a freelance editor at the end of the writing process of all my children’s book manuscripts for that final critical eye to language and grammar. I was quite deliberate in keeping to these steps.

Creative Process: How do you and your illustrator approach the tension between word and image? Share with us your creative working processes from the seed of an idea to the published work?

Actually, I found the creative process to be most enjoyable and I welcomed the differing viewpoints from my illustrator as our creative tension brought out the best work in both of us. I would provide him my manuscript along with a simple character design brief and sample artwork styles. He would revert with several options and we would work through those till we reached character designs which worked for us both. I kept my initial storyboard briefs brief as I wanted to see his interpretation first. Following his initial thumbnail storyboards, I would then provide my detailed input on those which I felt really needed revision. But we were generally on the same page so we would be quite agreed on 70% or so of his interpretation of my text. From there, I would also revisit everything to see if I could cut back on text if I felt the illustrations said enough.

Characters: How do you find inspirations for the stories and characters that you conjure up? Any particular reason to focus on animals as protagonists?

I used animals and toys as I wanted universal characters which children can relate to. That also allowed greater creative liberty since talking toys and animals are not limited in what they can say and do, as opposed to using children as main characters which would require some conformance to real life. For example, whilst it seemed perfectly acceptable for Pauper Bear to be a teddy without a mouth, it would be somewhat more limiting to express that for a child character.

Last, Caution: Having written, published and won awards for your works, what advice would you give aspiring writers looking to pursue that same path?

Write what you are passionate about and it will bear fruit in its own way. I did not set out to win awards although receiving them has been a blessing and encouragement in my writing. I wrote what I felt for in spite of some negative comments telling me otherwise. It ultimately paid off when readers shared how they could relate to it.

Commissision: We love it that you publicly share about how your faith and how it’s one of your sources of inspiration. Do you think you’d ever write an obviously Christian-themed story? Why or why not?

No. When I wrote my first children’s book, it was with the aspiration of writing a meaningful story which could hopefully touch readers. It was only after I completed my manuscript that I realised I had written my own personal story. It showed me how sub-conscious writing is and I came to see how the inspiration of the Holy Spirit guided me through all my 4 children’s books as each book told an aspect of my personal journey. Prince Bear & Pauper Bear was my “coming out” story and God’s restoration of my voice just as Pauper Bear was repaired and given a voice. The Tale of Rusty Horse is about letting go of the past and being true to self over bowing to crowd opinion. Just Teddy is about the realisation of being “fearfully and wonderfully made”. Bunny Finds The Right Stuff is about the realisation that it is what is on the inside that fills you, not the outward stuff.

And of course, by the time I wrote my memoir Finding My Voice, I knew that I was really writing two stories — God’s story in my life and my life in God’s story.