Jesse Koepke

Hello! Yes, it has been far, far too long. I’ve been meaning to post something for the last few weeks (as part of my writing schedule. I’ll explain later), but haven’t quite gotten to it yet. I’m one who likes to do things ceremoniously, which means a random post like this kind of bothers me. However, I just read an article on Wired.com called “The Future of Reading“, by Jonah Lehrer, and it got me thinking.

In the article, Lehrer talks about the rise of e-readers in the last decade. In his opinion, “the future of books is digital.” The problem he has with is the way in which digital words change the way we read.

“My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content. This is why your TV is so high-def, and your computer monitor is so bright and clear. For the most part, this technological progress is all to the good… Nevertheless, I worry that this same impulse – making content easier and easier to see – could actually backfire with books. We will trade away understanding for perception. The words will shimmer on the screen, but the sentences will be quickly forgotten.”

Lehrer goes on to talk about a recent study that tested the way our brains work while reading. To put it as simply as I can, our brains have two distinct pathways for reading: the first, called the ventral route, involved recognizing letters, then words, and finally meaning in rapid succession; the second, called the dorsal stream, is used when we have to slow down and actually decipher the words, “perhaps because of an obscure word, or an awkward subclause, or bad handwriting.” We use the ventral route most times, but occasionally we have to use the dorsal stream when readings things such as James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake or Ulysses. Instead of glancing at the words and grabbing the meaning as we clip along, we have to stop and decipher and think about the words.

Lehrer’s point is that the whole goal of e-readers is to make the reading process easier, thus removing any need for the dorsal stream. “I worry that, before long, we’ll become so used to the mindless clarity of e-ink – to these screens that keep on getting better – that the technology will feedback onto the content, making us less willing to endure harder texts. We’ll forget what it’s like to flex those dorsal muscles, to consciously decipher a literate clause. And that would be a shame, because not every sentence should be easy to read.”

It’s a very interesting point, especially in our digital age. The common way to absorb information these days is through video. When we are skimming through a newspaper site, we are (or at least I am) more inclined to watch the video which summarizes the content than we are to read the article itself. If I were to post an entertaining video instead of this blog, people would be more inclined to give time to it. When it comes to reading books, then, we don’t want to take the time to think about the subject. We just want the information so we can get on with things. Think about: how many of you watched the movie version of Oliver Twist in high school instead of reading it?

The big question is, are we actually reading more? The Wall Street Journal published an article just last month about “The ABCs of E-Reading” and stated that a study of 1,200 e-reader owners found that 40% of them read more now that they have an e-reader. But does reading a digital copy of a book actually make the process that much easier? True, you don’t have to carry around the physical bulk of a paperback, but other than that, what’s the difference? In regards to the quantity of books we have on hand (the latest Kindle holds up to 3,500 books), do we read more than one, maybe two or three, books at a time?

How does reading on a Kindle change the experience compared to a hard copy? It doesn’t, really. It’s sleek, popular, and trendy, but for the average person (i.e., not a person who rides the subway and has to fit everything into an impossibly thin sidebag) the gains aren’t actually that much.

Yet Lehrer asserts:

“The future of books is digital… I imagine the physical version of books will soon assume a cultural place analogous to that of FM radio. Although the radio is always there (and isn’t that nice?), I really only use it when I’m stuck in a rental car and forgot my auxilliary input cord. The rest of the time I’m relying on shuffle and podcasts.”

The group Lehrer forgets is Children. This is my main thought about digital books. Who generally does the most reading? Children do, because they have the least amount of responsibilities. As adults get older, we have to fight for and make time for reading. When I used to come home after school as a kid, I’d plop down on my bed and read until supper time. Now I come home from work at supper time, and then after supper there’s dishes to do and bills to balance and other projects around the house, and maybe, if I push something off, I can spare twenty minutes to read. Adults still read, but it’s children that read the most.

For digital books to replace hard copies at large, they must reach the children. But this isn’t practical. It costs too much to buy an e-reader for a whole third grade class, let alone a whole nation of third-graders. In order for digital books to replace hard copies, they must become so inexpensive and ubiquitous that even the inner city below-poverty child can have access to one. I doubt this will ever happen.

If e-readers become the dominate form of publication, it will be at the expense of children. Of course adults with e-readers will read more; most adults don’t have time to go to the library and find new books to read. Having a device in hand to help them search while being out-and-about will certainly increase their amount of reading. And for that purpose, e-readers are a great tool. But if we take the rise in percentage to mean hard copies can become a thing of the past, children across the country will lose their chances to read.

And if children do not read, where will the world be?

(If you’re still reading this post, congratulations. Here’s to the written word, in whatever form.)

P.S. A further complication to this issue is sustainability. Let’s suppose that e-readers were distributed to all young children in school. What are the requirements for them to read books on an e-reader? First and foremost, they must be literate. Second, they must have access to electricity in order to charge their e-readers. Third, they must also have access to WiFi or some other computer (which would likewise need a connection to the internet) in order to download books onto their e-readers. In the U.S. these things are almost a given; you’d be hard pressed to find anyone without access to an outlet, computer, or form of internet connection. But these things are not so common as to be completely taken for granted, not in the U.S. and certainly not in the rest of the world.

In contrast, what requirements are there for printed books? Again, first is literacy. Second, a printed copy of the book. That is all. Literacy and the book. While electricity is often readily available, it is not always, and internet connectivity, particularly in places outside of the developed world, is even less available.

Therefore I say that regardless of the popularity and pervasiveness of e-readers, there will always be those who need printed books. To say “The future of books is digital” is to speak a death sentence for reading in any place besides modern, metropolitan areas. E-readers should not overtake the literary market, but should instead be set in their proper place alongside the many other tools of information consumption.

At the end of the age, the armies of men gathered together, their forces arrayed in the west, seeking to save their man-made Eden. They gloated and boasted of their strength, proclaimed their mighty deeds to one another, and the clammer of their spears and shields was loud.

But then… a rumble in the east. A glow against the horizon. A tremor went through the ranks, and all voices fell still….

The sky burned red and suddenly a great and mighty Shout, deep and clear, shook the earth. The armies of men fell back and clung to their weapons with weak hands.

Then over the ridge burst a mighty white horse, and astride it was a Man. He is called Faithful and True, and forth from his mouth came a sharp and two-edged sword. He came with the thunder of hooves, and behind him rushed the hosts of heaven, clad in white, their voices lifted high with praise for the King over all kings.

And He came! He came on the wings of a shout, a shout like the roar of many waters! The ground trembled and the armies of men quailed. They turned to run, but before the sword of the Bridegroom there was no retreat. With a shout that split the heavens and clove the Olive Mount in two He came on, a torrent unstoppable, a majesty undeniable, a mastery unquestionable, a might incontestable, a reign undefiable, a glory inescapable.

“Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”

(1 Thess. 4:16, Rev. 19:11)

Stephen Venable’s message on the glory of God is really messing me up – in a good way, of course. It’s so simple, that all things are for the glory of God, but it’s so easy to forget! And I’ve forgotten it, that simple purpose for my life, and now as I’ve reconsidered it over the last few weeks, the profundity of it blows me away.

This seems like a subject that should be on a theological blog somewhere and not on one about writing. But the centrality of the glory of God is, in fact, vital to the discussion of writing. If I don’t have this one primary thing down, if I don’t have the right target in view as I aim my arrow, if I don’t have the right foundation for why I do what I do and for Whom I’m doing it, everything will be off. I’ll miss the mark.

I feel like my foundation is being brought back to where it should be. A more appropriate name now for the blog might be Repouring the Foundations.

A good friend, Mrs. Carole Davenport (http://lovegiftsministries.com), recently sent out a newsletter that talked about the intentionality of God as He works in our lives. “What a privilege to serve God knowing that we are in His divine plan! To acknowledge that God thought this through … we were not randomly placed! None of us were mistakes. Every detail of our lives is as carefully designed and laid out as the wonders of the human body. Rest in Him. Trust in Him. Yield to Him. It’s the best place to be!”

To add to this, I recently asked God why He was leading my life in a particular direction, and why He chose to do it in the way in which He did it. Why this way, of all the ways from which to chooose? Why not some other way, some way that I’ve seen before? Why this way? And he simply, quietly replied, “I’m doing it in the way that will bring me the most glory.”

Everything Daddy does in our lives is done in the way that will bring Him the most glory, that will cause the most people to turn to Him and say, “God! You are incredible!”

It’s these things, the fundamentals about God, about who He is, about who I am, about how I should relate to Him, and about how I should communicate that to others – it’s these fundamental things that I’m being reminded of, and it’s blowing me away. And it feels oh so good : )

(To download Stephen Venable’s message, click here: http://media.ihop.org.s3.amazonaws.com/74d6315b-408e-4e8c-a59c-df886531d899.mp3)

I’ve been thinking lately about the role of writing, and of course continuing the dialogue with myself on the role of Story and how to use it rightly. To that discussion, I add this post: The Intended Goal of Art.

Is the highest goal of any art form to glorify God? Not that it be pleasing to Him, as in no violence or sex or swearing, but does it point the viewer to Him? If I glorified a band, I would be praising them and talking about them constantly, and those who heard me would find their attention being pointed not toward me, but rather toward the object of my praise. It is in that sense that I say the highest goal of any art form is to glorify God. I read an article today from Relevant about Christian films being cheesy (http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/blog/21545-cheesiness-is-a-sin), and points were made that films are meant to entertain and tell good stories.

Wrong! To say that film is all about entertainment and simply good, compelling stories is to make the art form of film all about self-gratification! All art – all things created by mankind as an external expression of internal thought – is meant not to gratify personal pleasures, but to point to God and glorify Him. This is not a rule imposed upon creative works, but rather the highest level to which they reach. Art is not meant to better society, or bring awareness to issues, or give the audience a good time. These things will surely happen, but only as a secondary result. The first and foremost purpose of all Art is to point the viewer toward God. To glorify Him and honor Him. To praise Him simply because He’s worthy.

Why is it so hard for us to believe that this is film’s ultimate purpose? We readily accept that the musician writes a song, and sings it and plays it to glorify God, and the filmmaker simply does the same thing. He writes and makes a movie to glorify God. Again, it is not a rule imposed upon the expression, but instead something that is fundamentally the original purpose out of which art should spring and toward which it should aim.

How is this purpose worked out practically? The definition of the verb “to glorify” is, “to reveal or make clearer the glory of God by one’s actions.” Jesus glorified the Father through telling parables. Musicians glorify God through great songs that cause me to rise up and praise God for who He is, that adjust my focus and get it off of my problems and onto the Problem-Solver.

Why can’t film be used in the same way?

The tendecy is to see this as a rule, a checkpoint through which my films must past. But it is not so! It is the ultimate purpose of Art. When Art functions this way, it finds its perfect and intended expression. Using a vacuum to mow the grass may kind of work, but when a vacuum is used on a dirty carpet, see how it shines! Watch how it thrives in the right environment, when used for its intended purpose!

So to with Art. When used for their correct purposes, for the intended purposes, all art forms will shine with a brilliant and inextinguishable light and strike more hearts and change more lives than even a well-told story – and certainly more than an artwork merely intended for entertainment – ever would. The ability to create was given to Man by God as a way to externally express his internal thoughts (being made in the image of the Creator, we too can create – though not from nothing). It is what separates Man from animals; we can create and express our internal thoughts in such a way as to share them widely with other people. It is a priceless gift from God to Man, and intended to be used for that which God created all beings: to glorify Him. Paul said it well in 1 Corinthians 10:31, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (emphasis added). This the end purpose of all things, for “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised” (Ps. 145:3).

When Art is used for its intended purpose, it will reveal and make clearer the glory of God, and in that alone will we the audience find our greatest satisfaction, because we were made to be satisfied only by Him. “Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well” (Mt. 6:33).

To entertain the audience is not the ultimate purpose of film. It is only secondary; though it will happen, it is not the primary purpose. The primary purpose intended for film is to give Man another way of revealing and making clearer the magnificence, the great beauty, the renown, the honor, the awe – in a word, the Glory – of God.

Seek that first, and all else will spring from it. I can only imagine what it will be like when all Art, all spheres of society, all of Mankind is repositioned toward their intended goal: to glorify God, to reveal and make clearer His glory and majesty.

“Come quickly, Lord Jesus!”

Fairy tales often get a bad rap. They are passed off as childish and far too optimistic. But there is a reason why they still endure, and why every child loves a good fairy tale. Fairy tales stay with us because they mirror in a deep, intricate way who we are and with the Story of which we are a part.

Let’s consider the classic fairytale. There are four main characters: 1) the prince in shining armor, 2) the damsel/princess in distress, 3) the good King who is father of the damsel, and 4) the evil villain. The story usually goes that the princess is tricked into captivity by the Villain. The King offers his entire kingdom as a reward for her save return, but though many daring men try, none can rescue the Lady from the Villain’s grasp. But then the night prince in shining armor rides in, valiant and daring, charming and loving. He throws himself into the battle with great fervor, and saves the princess and receives the kingdom.

Does any of that ring a bell yet?

In the garden of Eden, God’s children, the bride of his Son, were tricked by an evil villain and were held captive by sin. God would give his kingdom to anyone who could save her, but no one was found worthy. But then Jesus came, dazzling in splendor, more fair than ten thousand. He would succeed where laws and the blood of goats and lambs and man’s good works could not. He took up arms against the great serpent (is it any wonder the villains in fairy tales often turn into dragons, or that it’s always a dragon who has captured a fair maiden?) and at the end of the age will defeat Satan and cast him into the lake of fire. Then Jesus will receive his Father’s kingdom and sit on the throne for ever and ever, and we will live happily ever after.

Crazy, huh?

The equally crazy part is this: the princess is the hinge on which the receiving of the kingdom swings. Because the prince rescues the princess, he receives the kingdom. How valuable does that make the princess?

In Revelation 5, Jesus steps up to take the scroll from the hand of the Father, the scroll which will usher in the end of the age and the entrance of the kingdom of Heaven on earth. Listen to what those in heaven sing: “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation”.

Because Jesus ransomed us, he is worthy to take the scroll. Because he saved us from captivity, he is able to receive the kingdom. We are the hinge. We are the qualifier, what makes Jesus worthy.

How valuable does that make us? Priceless.

“But Lord, I’m not worth that much. I can’t live the Christian life well, I doubt all of the time, I have trouble following you and hearing your voice, I don’t know where to go in life or how I’m going to do this. But I’m so weak and wretched!”

BUT NOTHING. Because of YOU, Jesus is worthy to receive his kingdom.

“Your truth wrecks me, Daddy. I feel so dark, and yet you say I’m lovely. I deserve so much punishment for turning from you, and yet you invite me into your chambers. I am undone. I am overwhelmed by your mercy and grace. In your sight I am chosen and precious… and it blows me away.”