Comics: Deadpool - hero? villain? does he care?

Wolverine, in some of his significant early solo stories, tells us "I'm the best there is at what I do, bub, and what I do isn't very pretty". Cue Deadpool, assassin and anti-hero wreaking havoc on the Marvel universe, telling us in the thick of his latest “job”: "And now I'm better at whatever it is Wolverine does."

And that is just typical of the way Deadpool in his comics makes quips which reference the medium, being amusingly disrespectful of other Marvel creations. (On another occasion, during his absurdly pitched fight with the Hulk, he even starts singing the theme tune to the old Hulk TV show. Another time he cuts someone short with: "Shhh... My common sense is tingling.")

What keeps drawing me back to this zany comic character though is not merely his unique position in relation to the Marvel universe – but also the way the writers at various times have worked hard to show how conflicted Deadpool is.

My favourite period of Deadpool history so far was when the comic was written by the inventive Joe Kelly* in the late 1990s. So let me give you a run-down of interesting moments: Following the explosive events of miniseries Circle Chase** in which we see Deadpool’s sensitivity about his horrifically scarred face, which he won’t let anyone see, Kelly has Deadpool become creepily obsessed with mutant and former X-men team member, the beautiful Siryn. He values the way she doesn’t reject him as an ugly (and cruel) killer, and so, in a vain (unnoticed) effort to please her, he attempts to refrain from killing, choosing mercenary jobs that only require “capturing” perps. Of course, this doesn’t prove to be easy, and an enemy bounty hunter, T-Ray, claims Deadpool has gone soft. And Siryn still (understandably) spurns him in the end, leading him into a damaging (but brief) relationship with a psychotic killer he is paid to free from a high security prison – bad idea, Deadpool.

Writer Kelly keeps issues of identity as the focus though, as it seems Siryn isn’t the only one who hopes Deadpool can change. It isn’t long before a secret hi-tech agency that has been watching the mercenary abducts him and tells him they think he will one day save the world. Deadpool, not having a very high view of himself, laughs and tries to forget this episode (but of course gets embroiled in "saving the world" eventually, but not in the way you'd think).

So we have a character who is at times seems to be looking for some kind of redemption, but who often finds it is snatched away in the end. He feels that fate isn’t allowing him a chance. There’s even a point at which it seems we find out he isn’t Wade Wilson at all (although this has been changed by a later writer, grrr).

Later Deadpool writers have taken him in other directions, still exploiting this idea of making Deadpool’s life as bad/confusing as it can get, and seeing him try to cope, making quips and jokes as he tries to stay on top of everything. Increasingly he seems to have the ability to break the fourth wall, seeing the big joke that he is in a comic book.

I’m now working through Gail Simone’s story, which has Deadpool seriously beaten up and driven insane, totally losing his aim, and making even less sense than normal – but amusingly, he is still able to take on new jobs and come out on top, much to the annoyance of his new bitter, unseen enemy!! In the process he decides to hire a random bum to be his biographer, and even uses some of Antman’s shrinking gas to turn Spiderman’s old enemy the "rampaging" Rhino into a key ring-size beastie he can wear around his belt – you can bet Rhino isn’t pleased to be this small though!

With current plans for a Deadpool film, and 2 new comic series having started in the US, interest for the character is growing – but, so far, I can’t see much topping Joe Kelly’s work making this funny character relatable, even though he is so ruthless with people, being uncomfortable with close relationships because of his deformed body, which his healing power can not alter; a character at times well-intentioned, struggling to do the right thing, but at other times giving up on that, being totally amoral, and having fun with it, or facing foes in a rage of bitterness against the world. Take a look!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


*Kelly is currently working on independent projects, including I Kill Giants, and sharing writing duties on Amazing Spiderman
**The Circle Chase, written by Fabian Nicieza, is basically a race - and battle royale - between lots of mutants to get hold of the will of a guy called Tolliver, who was in X-men comics quite a while back, apparently. It’s good, quite funny and action-packed, and was the first thing that got me interested in Deadpool.

Predictions about Moon

Check this trailer out: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi843186969/.

I love how it looks like it is using an interesting concept to examine character, in a place where there is basically no escape from yourself! I guess you have to have some mental strength to be in space for a long time.

Do you think it could be too predictable though (ie. he goes mad?) Is it just Castaway in space?

How Heat (1995) influenced The Dark Knight (2008)

With director Michael Mann’s new film Public Enemies in cinemas, and because of my interest in Batman, here’s a brief introduction to how the latest (and greatest) Batman film picks up on lots of elements from Heat, Mann’s adult crime drama.

You can see it even from the DVD back cover of Heat, where we see Al Pacino standing with shotgun ready, resembling a moment where Gary Oldman’s character Lieutenant Gordon heroically faces the Joker. Or try the opening sequence, a carefully orchestrated and clearly shot armed robbery of a delivery van* in broad daylight by a team wearing white hockey masks. The difference is that in The Dark Knight the Joker’s bank robbery (which opens the film) goes perfectly, with no loose ends (if you have seen it you know what I mean) – while the member of the gang in Heat who manages to escape the rest of the gang becomes an important seed of the group’s downfall.

Battling with hearts and minds

Moving towards some of the big themes of the films, both give an account of a struggle between two factions, with high stakes for each side – but ultimately, these are struggles based on principles. In Heat Robert De Niro plays professional criminal Neil McCauley, who goes after big “scores” with his crew, but who becomes conflicted. He insists that he will live a life without ties – where everything and everyone can be left behind in 30 seconds if the “heat” is on to them. Yet while this is the life he has built for himself, and accepted, he starts working towards another one, longing to leave behind all bank “jobs” and escape with Eady. He is finally spotted by Pacino’s Lt Hanna while trying to clear up loose ends, the betrayal of his own principle – in fact it is precisely the feelings of loyalty (and anger) that he imagined he could ignore which make him go back, and stop him cutting loose from the city at the crucial moment. His philosophy would have worked, but was apparently unliveable – he could not leave behind the relationships he started: it would be denying the worth he felt they really had – in a way, denying himself. This poses the interesting question to us: when the pressure is on, what or who really matters to us? What are we willing to make a stand for, even when it makes things messy and difficult to deal with?

Similarly Lt Hanna (McCauley’s nemesis) attempts to manage his own relationships in quite a brutal way, putting his job first (his wife confronts him with this idea that this hunt for prey is the “only thing you’re committed to. The rest is the mess you leave as you pass through”) – but the difference between the two is Hanna’s fierce, unwavering loyalty to his city and his police department, and to capturing the gang.

In The Dark Knight the ideological battle is more sinister. It seems that the Joker, fascinated with the appearance of the hero Batman, is trying to prove that people in general, and even those who consider themselves to be “in the right”, are not really good, and can be turned towards evil if their circumstances change, and they feel betrayed, or afraid, or come under some other kind of stress, such as suffering an unjust loss or trauma. Unnervingly he seems to face us with the question: “what will it take for us?” He seems to prove in the film that people are fragile and that chaos is easily achieved, as reinforced by his final words in the film, to Batman: “You see, madness, as you know, is like gravity – all it takes is a little push!”

However the Batman manages to restore order and bring an end to the ongoing terrorism, and it seems that (although he comes close) he does not “break”. He proves to the Joker that it is possible to continue resisting evil (even under great strain) without becoming twisted and evil, like the DA does – although for Batman to do this it comes at great personal cost. It is as if the line that the DA crosses in taking a life makes him irreparable, even irredeemable, whereas Batman can remain heroic because he never succumbs totally and kills.

Defending the city

Heat makes a lot of comparing the lives, quality of relationships and motivations of the LA cops with those of the criminals they are after. Again, heroism comes at a personal cost, which at times must be unbearable for Lt Hanna, whose wife loses patience with him and whose step-daughter suffers too from his absence.

In parts it seems the cops in Heat are trying to defend their city with as much self-sacrifice and obsession as Bruce Wayne shows in the recent Batman films. It’s an all-consuming quest for justice which requires ugly action, tough strategy, careful planning, sleepless days and long nights. In many ways you can understand Heat as a revenge tragedy. The police see it as “You kill our men, you disrespect the law – don’t expect us to hesitate in shooting back and taking you down”. Los Angeles has got to be safe, and dead cops have to be avenged.

As in the comics, Batman is also bound by a code and an absolute commitment to protecting his city. Director Christopher Nolan’s take on the character is that he acts out of a belief in the fact that there are good people in the city, which he can not let be swallowed up and bullied by the criminal element. This was a big theme in Batman Begins** (the first in this revamped series), where a young Bruce had to get to a position in which he could trump the “bullies” by creating his own intimidating presence, thereby using their own weapon against them. He is simultaneously purging the city from the clutches of corruption and ransoming the city for society to be able to function. This is why the Joker’s random destruction is so threatening, totally undermining order and the city’s infrastructure (eg the police, the mayor’s office, high society, the prison system, and memorably, the hospitals).

Bruce dedicates himself to cleaning up the city, carrying on the proud tradition of his parents (like a knight archetype who reveres and continues the work of past martyred saints – it is not too far-fetched to make this the equivalent of a holy cause for him); and in The Dark Knight, he enlists other “knights of the realm” to stand guard alongside him, deepening his partnership with Gordon and the police force, utilising big business, even the city hall.

While The Dark Knight seems to cover a lot of intellectual and mythological angles on this battle against corruption, Heat is a more personal tale, tugging at our emotions as we see the way circumstances, words and actions bring tension between families, and hurt partners. The gang gamble on making some big scores, to support their chosen lives, but the promises they make and break are significant beats of the story – and the horrific final shootout has reverberations on all those close to McCauley’s crew, and beyond. I salute the writers and directors for making such fascinating worlds to lose ourselves in, and whose strong characters create gripping ideological (and physical) struggles in each film.

(NB: Heat clocks in at 164 mins, so it feels like quite a long watch. If you like it, Al Pacino is also interesting to watch in crime drama Carlito’s Way (1993), a film which is slow-burning, leading to a thrilling 20-25 minutes finale section, as Carlito makes his run for freedom from his past gangster life, similar to De Niro’s final run in Heat. I won’t recommend the film wholeheartedly though due to gratuitous sex and nudity, just to let you know.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~


*The Dark Knight also has an armoured delivery van which is attacked as the focus of one of the Joker’s crimes, and so the similarities continue! British director Christopher Nolan acknowledges that Heat influenced him, and it probably was the reason he went for the kind of freeway landscapes he did for the big chase scene, to show a similar kind of world: a heavily built-up, industrial city.

Other similarities between the two films: Incredibly strong casts, and both films have brilliant sound, building tension through it using some strikingly similar long drone sounds.

**In Batman Begins there is a scene which reminds us how utterly irrational and evil extremist terrorist groups can be. While razing Wayne Manor to the ground, villain Ra’s reveals his motivation – a plot to burn the city down, as was done in the days of ancient conquest – all in order to produce a “better” world afterwards. I love how the language sounds kind of earnest and rational, but when you think about what they are saying it is utterly evil and mad! This reminds us that all evil is ultimately irrational, coming out of a faulty, broken understanding of the world and ourselves, and we can’t ultimately explain it away, or excuse it: it just is wrong.

Currently reading: The Way We Write

I’m glad I picked up this book. It is basically a collection of interviews with some successful, award-winning authors about the way they started writing and how they write, their methods, and writing habits, what inspires them and what direction they are seeking to go in with their writing. And how they feel about it all.

The latter is revealing, with a few being really anxious about the quality of their work, seeing how lucky they have been with being noticed by (or connected to) publishers, with others quite straight-forwardly pointing out their strengths, showing their own excellence in capitalising on and developing their skills in forming plot or dialogue or verse.

They speak from a world of success, and some fulfilment, where they are doing what they want to do, despite mentioning difficulties and frustrations and loneliness. You can see how for some of them their sense of purpose and identity is wrapped up in doing what they do, and in feeling they have contributed to the lives of others, touching people in far-off countries, as one writer puts it “adding towards some worldview that is in constant flux and change” (p.72). In a busy market these are the guys reaping the reward that others long for.

It is instructive to see how novelists, poets, children’s writers and playwrights have at times sweated over their work, determined to forge a work with the right kind of words, with the right kind of connotations, the “right” interactions between characters, the “right” sense of place and the perfect harmony between a tactile world, an atmosphere or feeling they want to evoke and the symbolic themes they want to explore. Often the ideas and the expression of them take a while to come together, it seems. The computer can also be a trap too, as you’re in danger of losing your original work and the flow of a whole piece, because editing is so easy.

As my first time writing about a book actually all about writing, what ultimate effect is it having on me? I think it is encouraging me to keep working on my writing, to be more critical about the choices I make, more ready to research and rework, and to find the right times and ways I work best – even my own way of writing poetry (for instance, what do I want people to have to work at understanding in my poetry?) The book too inspires us to make the most of that idea that comes to you in the night, or the scraps hastily written on the back of the envelope or bill that was lying around!

Authors interviewed include Terry Chevalier, author of Girl With a Pearl Earring, poet Al Alvarez, the Oscar-winning script-writer of Gosford Park and the creators of The Snowman and The Gruffalo.

Challenging, engrossing, surprising, deep - Vertigo comics. But are they any good?

The publisher Vertigo has brought comics some great adult fiction, including the noir crime thriller 100 Bullets, an apocalyptic drama about the last man left when all the other males die on earth (Y: The Last Man), the topical political thriller DMZ, the wonderful Fables universe, and of course, Alan Moore’s work including the freakish Swamp Thing, which explores humanity’s relationship with the earth, and comes to some strange conclusions about what makes a human.

Here’s a few I’ve looked at in the past few months.

The Sandman (1989-1996) – This is must-read fiction, fascinating and strange. I have only read the first two volumes so far, so expect me to post more on the series another time, but how can I sum it up? Basically it is a tragic epic which explores how Morpheus, the lord of dreams (pictured), is imprisoned for 70 years, and then has to regain his power to rule the land of the Dreaming and all its errant dream-creatures, and all its effects on the human world (the Waking). So there are heavy elements of horror, especially in the chapters I have read, and fantasy, too, as Morpheus, still weak from his ordeal, relies on his wits to face a demon in hell, making an enemy of Lucifer in the process. I love the way Morpheus’ quest interacts with the life of a fairly normal teenager, Rose Walker, in volume 2, and the oddball characters thrown together into the story are really engrossing to read about, especially when we know there is a bigger picture than many of them do. An exceptional, and highly literate, comic series from author Neil Gaiman.

Crossing Midnight volume 1: Cut Here (2007) – This short book by Mike Carey introduces us to Japanese siblings Kai and Toshi, and to problems far bigger than they can deal with alone, as they try to protect their family from a cold-blooded spirit who the family owes a formidable debt to. The art is impressive at times in its summery, watercolour-like inks, but other times a little too plain. But what’s most interesting is the way the story blends surprising and unusual Japanese supernatural archetypes with the idea of the all-important struggle to protect the family unit – a theme which really matters to children the age of our two young protagonists. We begin to feel for them as their separate personal quests seem to spiral out of control. One or two breath-taking moments and surreal twists stand out, however it starts to feel a little jumbled towards the abrupt ending, and I almost feel that, with a one or two less explicit images (there’s not many anyway), it could have been better aimed at a younger crowd, as a more serious book to read compared to another “Goblins vs Bat above a high school with the world in the balance” kind of comic book!

The Other Side (2006-07) – Now I don’t usually like war movies that much, finding them too relentless and disturbing. But this self-contained comic miniseries is the best kind of war fiction, and works really well, showing us at every level the differences in the two armies in the Vietnam war, how they were recruited, how they coped mentally, whether they were disillusioned with their command or not (in both cases, the answer is yes, to different extents), and what their values and attitudes to war and human life were. The latter point is quite scary – especially in the way the US army encourages its members to dehumanise their enemies, to live with their weapon, and not seek anything higher than killing the opposition.

The writer, Jason Aaron, is one of comic’s new talents, and he really cares about the subject, and I think he shows well how both sides are brainwashed in different ways. He has clearly researched well, and the feverish illustrations by Cameron Stewart clearly show the horror in Private Everette’s face, the gory zombies he imagines coming after him, or the determination and comradeship on the side of the People’s Army of Vietnam, as they head to meet the besieged US troops. It’s interesting to see the mixture of noble ambition and bizarre superstition on the side of the Vietnamese, compared to the moral collapse and bitterness depicted amongst the cynical US troops. What a way to treat a generation of young men.

The Invisibles, volume 1: Say you want a revolution? (1994-95) – Another series by off-beat comics writer Grant Morrison, it seems to be all about defying authority; subject matter that is ripe for teens and 20-somethings, one might cynically think! It actually starts with a teenager from Liverpool, who is considered “invisible” or worthless by his mother and his society partly because he and his two friends are full of anger and vulgarity, deciding to burn down a school just for the thrilling feeling of freedom (I think). So far, so A Clockwork Orange. Before long though young Dane is recruited by an anarchist group under “King Mob” who seem to fight supernatural powers and groups that try to control the world’s population. This is where it gets strange. He is then tutored by another “invisible”, a crazy homeless old man, who seems to make no sense at first but gradually helps Dane see past the current reality using what I think is a drug, and other “techniques”, so that he sees the magic in the world, and is more open to the experiences available to him. And I didn’t understand the part about John Lennon.

The second story arc concerns an Invisibles mission back in time to the French Revolution, which gets really unpleasant in places, but I quite liked the discussion between Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley showing their longing to reach for (or work towards) a better world. What do we make of all this? Well, I guess this rambling and bizarre collection is not one I really would recommend overall, although similarities to The Matrix and conspiracy culture means it does capture the spirit of some people’s anger and how they seek freedom from restriction. Also, bear in mind, Wikipedia says Morrison claims to have had a magical experience writing the comic, and based it on what some aliens told him when he was abducted. No wonder it makes little sense!

If machines ran the earth, there wouldn't be Sony branding on the technology

My dad didn't want to see Star Trek, and John Woo's epic Red Cliff was on too late, so last night we went to see the new Terminator movie, which was an entertaining way to spend two hours. Lots of action in a similar vein as the last 3 movies, but involving a bigger variety of machines, and some engaging new characters.

I think the build-up, when Marcus, Star and Kyle are on the road, is probably better than the climax, for which by the very nature of the plot there is no long tension-building chase between the combatants. A number of minor things bugged me in the movie, but it had a few nice touches, such as the line "Do you think humans deserve a second chance?" - which is deeply ironic, when you understand the context.

The film also left me wondering if the series has ever told us what the machines are actually planning to do with the earth once humanity has been exterminated - why have they left it such a wreck? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have these machines been programmed to do again - wasn't it something about make the world a better place?

Did anyone else think as well that there is a strange ambivalence in the movie about what makes someone human? For instance in the ending and this idea that having a human heart makes someone pretty human, and yet also the idea that human bodies are mere resources to be used in the fight for survival?

I guess I'm going too far into it, the main aim is clearly to set up fights in a war and leave us thinking Connor has reached a significant victory. And it does this in an exciting way, leaving things wide open for sequel number five!

Introspection

How thick is the wall
I am up against,
And what will it mean to me?
Will it provide
A spine-straightening brace?
A fatal blow to the side?
An embrace of rooted, underbelly rest?
What angle does it claim
Of its subject: me.

Just discovered this short thought I wrote and saved in July 2007 on my laptop and forgot about. Doesn't it capture the challenges of engaging well with a problem, and having the right perspective on it? And it warns us how thoughts like this can easily make everything about little old "me" rather than the big picture which should inform my thinking and what I put my energy into...

Emotions in manga look like this

This is a good guide for anyone like me who didn't know, for example, what the lines meant which show a character is "crestfallen" in Japanese manga or anime :)

Speaking for Jesus

Sometimes in non-Christian circles I say something about my beliefs or even something fairly ordinary about my church that gets me noticed. It can even be that occasionally I am conspicuously not taking part in a certain type of conversation because I am a Christian, and suddenly this gets me noticed – and often on these occasions, because I am not (yet!) naturally the type of person to springboard off that and lead a conversation about faith, something rather bizarre happens: Someone makes a comment which shows me they have just judged me and my faith.

“So you are like this then: [insert some unhelpful stereotype].” “So you were brought up in it then - your parents were quite strict, were they?” (the demeaning idea that I have swallowed everything I've heard uncritically, or blindly followed my family/church teaching and being shackled my whole life by a restrictive rule-book/perspective). Or “My cousin is a Jehovah’s Witness and they don’t let her…” or “My life philosophy is …” or “You believe this (X) too, don’t you?” “Does that mean you can’t do Y? Don’t you ever want to? What’s wrong with it? Do you think we are all scum then? Are we all going to hell then? [laughter]” and so on!

Why does this part, where non-Christians start to make their own huge, uninformed judgements about you, happen at all?

OK, so it’s partly lack of knowledge; they strike out at similar things and get it wrong. Also, in my experience, it can happen because of sincere disagreement with Christianity, but more often it is done out of a desire to voice an opinion about life/relationships with others/God which is supposed to prove me wrong in some way and make the speaker look good and his/her lifestyle seem OK. It’s about fun and self and control. They have rarely even got to the point of considering the facts at this stage. Quite often it also becomes a chance to make jokes at what seems rather bizarre to them to start with and which they are uncomfortable talking about.

Now I can’t believe I’m the only one who has been in one of these uncomfortable situations – finding I miss the chance to speak about my faith and then having someone else speak about theirs (or against mine) in my stead?

So this post, which is already getting quite long, is about taking control in conversations – something I need to encourage myself, and other believers, to do!

First of all, two caveats:

• Listening to what other people think is a way of valuing them and loving them, and questioning them will also give you an idea of where they are coming from. So there is a place for working hard in conversation to find out what is important to those people whom God loves who we are speaking to, as we present to them why we live for Jesus, and what that means. Of course, this doesn’t mean being a wet blanket. We must stand firm in our convictions at this stage and not just blindly agree to everything, but show that, while we are engaging with what they are saying, we think Jesus is real and must follow his way.
• Our sinful natures mean we can want to take control for many wrong reasons. For instance I may want to speak up (or write, like on a blog!) simply out of impatience and to make things better for myself. I might say something, not so spiritually dead people see who Jesus is and what he has done and begin to love him, but so that they see I am right and get on my side in the debate. I might in short want others to agree with me to make things more convenient, and so I can get people off my back. Peter didn’t see it this way when he wrote 1 Peter 3:14-18. We need to know that it is better to be gentle and to love others, and suffer for it like Jesus, than bully others to be “right” and have an easier life. Taking control of conversations must be done for the right reasons.

Having said all this, part of loving people is persuading, explaining, pleading with them and showing them why we believe in the gospel. And the only way others will see why Jesus is worthy of their full attention, their time, their lives, is if we jump in and take the opportunity.

Can I suggest quickly pointing to Jesus? “He is the reason I am a Christian today. I wouldn’t keep living following Him, apart from the fact that I think that when he lived as a man on earth 2000 years ago he showed that he was God /the only way to know God.” Or something along those lines. And with confidence in your voice!

Don’t let them get away with saying the message of the Bible has been changed over the years – they haven’t looked into it if they say this, and you can just firmly inform them that the records we have are accurate and were checked and re-checked when copied out to the next manuscript, and that the oldest ones are used today to give us our modern Bibles. More importantly, point to the fact that the first churches started because people were utterly serious about Jesus rising from the dead and that is our hope today too. If we lived roughly 1970 years ago, we could have seen Jesus die and then be alive after death, we could have touched Him and heard Him, and got to know Him. So, somehow like this, we can feel our way back to the point of talking about Jesus!

The aim of pointing to Jesus is to get our friends to look again, as adults, at what Jesus really did, and to think about why He did it and what this shows about Him, and about God. God really wanted to have us as His children. He sent His Son to die for us.

Another approach is to look at humanity and what we are doing with our lives, the world, and our relationships. The Bible would say we are designed to know God personally, and it is our rebellion from Him that is the root of evil. It’s pretty evident in the world. We can talk about the evil in the news, and our own idolatry, making our wants King and hurting those we love. We can talk about the possibility of being restored in God’s sight, forgiven and set free from the power of addicting sin. We can speak of personal battles won by God’s power*, such as battles of faith in prayer and battles against sin, as God has over time helped us become more like our Lord Jesus. We can speak of our connection to our Maker, our privilege of knowing Him.

Also, when friends try to justify their own anti-God lifestyle in what they are saying, you could try being really blunt and asking what this lifestyle is really getting them. Do they have good relationships? Is there something that has become obsessively important in their lives? Do they know where they are heading in the future, or what their purpose is in the world? Is their lifestyle going to win them any points with God? Do they know what he really thinks about it? What about death? Let them know about heaven and hell, so they are prepared.

I’ve already said I’m not a natural at this. And I know one or two people who I really, really struggle to respond well to. But it is important enough to write about and spend time thinking about, and perhaps this could be a starting point for discussion. Any ideas?

*I heard an example from this excellent talk about a man on death row in the USA who became a Christian and stopped pleading insanity, although it was advised by his lawyers, because he knew it was a lie, and he didn’t want to lie any more! People really do change when God works in them.

Poem: On the parable of the sower

Fresh blood, fresh ground.
Fresh ears and different hearts
Where words, buried, move without a sound.
Elsewhere they lie flat, dying,
On the shut-off surface,
Or beaten over, replaced by a lifelike thing
Or a gasping pursuit,
Watched over with sadness.

Call: “Down, deep,
Push out your thirsty feet
Find soil that’s not dust
Spread an inch, take a hold.
Take no prisoners, use all as fuel
As you climb into the glorious air
To the glorious sun.”

Take passenger mineral and jetty the rest
Where does it move? Your shape fills out - how?
And where will it grow next season?
Up, push up, and stretch an arm out
- captivated by the open way above.
Grow pleasing in service, seeing fruit bud and scatter out,
Walking in sower-like love.

I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with this poem, yet (eg. last stanza) but try reading it out loud to get a feel for the sense of excitement I wanted to create about the growth of the "word" from the Matthew 13/Mark 4 parable.