MAY 2012

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the May 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, a web journal about everything! This month: date setters’ fixation on 1994, re-examining Romney’s religion, wondering about worship and the scarcity of great protagonists. Also, we have our final installment of “You Are Mark 17!” which discuss the pervasive “fear factor” that intimidates many believers into silence rather than witness.

Any questions, comments, critiques or commendations? Send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

As always, thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Wearing Wisdom for All to Witness, Proverbs 1:9

Proverbs 1:9 – For they are wreaths of grace for your head and neck pendants for your neck.

The entire book of Proverbs makes amazing contrasts between a wise person and a foolish individual, between the godly and the wicked. This black-and-white contrast is especially helpful today in a world where so many seem content to wander in the grey. Proverbs 1:7 specifically asserts that the wise individual fears the Lord, and positions himself in an attitude of reverence for and subservience to God. She or he therefore embraces the knowledge that ensues from aligning oneself properly in relationship to the Lord. Fools, however, despise such wisdom and instruction, and inherently shun any transcendent wisdom from God, if they acknowledge his existence at all.

Proverbs 1:8 follows with a parental admonition, and this literary device of speaking as a father to a son is used constantly throughout the first ten chapters of Proverbs. The wise person heeds the wisdom of the authority over them, parental or otherwise; they benefit from the experience and wisdom of those who have gone before. The wicked person, in contrast, surmises that he needs no such wisdom, and therefore spirals into his own demise.

In Proverbs 1:9, the author compares parental words of wisdom from v. 8 to jewelry. The opening word in 1:9 is “for” (the Hebrew word ki); it explains why someone should heed those authoritative words and what effect doing so has in the eyes of others. Words of wisdom are like a “wreath.” The word for “wreath” or “garland” is livyah and it is used only twice in the OT. The other instance is in Prov 4:9, where the words of Lady Wisdom are said to be a “garland of grace” for the one who heeds her advice. This “wreath” or “garland” is the external words and actions which reflect the wisdom that is being internalized.

A “necklace” or “neck pendant” (Hebrew: anaq) is also used for adornment both on people (Sol 4:9) and camels (Judg 8:26). In Psalm 73:6 the figure is used negatively; the neck ornament is seen as the external manifestation of someone's vice: “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence.”

Jewelry is an external sign of internal character or tastes. In the same manner, wisdom that is shaping one’s character should be so evident in one’s life that it is seen by others on the outside. People will take note of one’s wise actions and words and make positive evaluations about someone based on what they see. This is the value of following wise advice.

Proverbs 1:7-9 asserts that one’s ability to heed the wise direction of those with superior experience will be evident to all. The external manifestation of internalized wisdom gleaned from godly authorities will be obvious to everyone we encounter. Wisdom should be as evident in our lives as the jewelry and adornments that we wear.

DATE SETTERS: The Frenzy of 1994

1994 – It was the year of the Kremlin Accords, Kurt Cobain’s death, and O. J. Simpson’s infamous flight in his white Ford Bronco. Our hearts were captured by a simple Alabama boy named Forrest Gump and a Lion King named Simba.

Oh . . . and it was also the year of Jesus’ return.

Or so thought several errant pastors and teachers.

The year 1994 seemed to have a mystique that entranced several people who purported to understand end times events. The plethora of predilections of the rapture or of Christ’s return drove many to great frenzy and anxiety during that year.

For instance, on a January 25, 1994 episode of Trinity Broadcasting Network’s show Praise the Lord, John Hinkle declared that he had received a powerful message from God. Specifically, Hinkle was informed that evil will be “ripped out of the world” later that year on Thursday, June 9. He stated that “the most cataclysmic experience that the world has ever known since the resurrection is going to happen” (quoted in Warren L Alford, Jr., Relipocrisy: Religious Hypocrisy, p. 70). TBN president, and fellow false teacher, Paul Crouch endorsed Paul Hinkle as well as some of his other bizarre prophecies (see, for instance, http://www.apostasyalert.org/Oral%20Roberts.htm). However, perhaps anticipating that Hinkle’s prophecies were little more than pure nonsense, Crouch did suggest on a June 2 episode of Praise the Lord that regarding Hinkle’s predicted apocalypse, “Something may happen invisibly,” that is, don’t be too surprised if the day comes and goes and the prophesied cataclysm fails to occur!

I can’t imagine how “Rev.” John Hinkle felt on the Sunday after June 9 when absolutely nothing happened. Consistent with the kind of delusionalism that accompanies predicting Christ’s return, Hinkle declared that there had indeed been an act of God, but the cataclysm transpired silently and undetectably instead. So what happened was an imperceptible, but yet, cataclysmic event. Hinkle explains: “At first myself and others were very disappointed it did not take place in the way we expected. It did begin, and is continuing to take place, but it happened in the spiritual realm first” (John Hinkle, “Further Message from John J. Hinkle Concerning 6/9/94,” from June 5, 1994). Of course, some delusional individuals still feel like something important really happened on that day (see, for instance, self-proclaimed prophet Gene Redlin's 2009 post about John Hinkle's prophecy).

Other supremely delusional 1994 date-setters include the notorious Harold Camping, a Christian radio mogul in California. Camping’s first shot at the end-of-the-world was May 21, 1988 when, allegedly, the great apocalyptic seven-year tribulation began. After 1988, Camping became obsessed with 1994, even writing a book about the future entitled 1994?; the question mark at the end of the title indicates that, as it turns out, he knew far less about end times events than he purported to. Camping predicted that Christ’s return would occur on September 27, 1994, and when nothing happened, he amended that to September 29 and then to October 4.

This is the same Harold Camping that spearheaded the 2011 apocalyptic frenzies. He revised his prediction of Christ’s return to May 21, 2011. His organization, Family Radio, allegedly spent $100 Million to publicize this event (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/21/local/la-me-rapture-20110521), to the well-deserved ridicule of many atheist and Christian groups alike. When the dramatic May 21, 2011 prophecies didn’t come true, he predicted that Christ did indeed return . . . spiritually and invisibly (are you seeing a pattern here!?). The aftermath was laughable; a few days later Camping asserted, “On May 21, this last weekend, this is where the spiritual aspect of it really comes through. God again brought judgment on the world. We didn't see any difference but God brought Judgment Day to bear upon the whole world. The whole world is under Judgment Day and it will continue right up until Oct 21, 2011 and by that time the whole world will be destroyed,” (quoted from an article in the International Business Times, May 24, 2011). Of course, October 21, 2011 also turned out to be a bust. Most of you will not be surprised to know, by the way, that the idea of “corrective prophecy” or “continuously amended predictions” has no Biblical precedent.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when God brings judgement upon a nation or people group, it is rarely “invisible.” In fact, the outpouring of God's wrath was frequently, unarguably cataclysmic, and those involved usually understood that they were under the judgement or chastisement of God.

Many other less publicized “prophecies” surmised 1994 to be the magical date of Jesus’ return or of the church’s rapture. R. M. Riley wrote a book entitled 1994: The Year of Destiny and asserted without reservation that the rapture would occur in 1994. Charles Taylor also predicted that the rapture would occur in 1994. However, this was his thirteenth revision of his prediction, which originally set the rapture in 1975. Similarly, three Dutch authors, Aad Verbeek, Jan Westein and Pier Westein, predicted in their book Time for His Coming that Christ would return in 1994. There are many more examples that demonstrate this unusual 1994-frenzy, but, alas, this web journal is simply not that long.

So what was it about 1994 that made so many false prophets so twitchy? I suspect that it is because the year 1994 is seven years before the first year of the new millennium, which, technically, began in 2001. Naturally, it was suspected that Christ would return before the change of the millennium. Many imagined that the first year of the millennium would be the consummation of time and, therefore, 1994 would inaugurate the seven-year tribulation period (a number extrapolated from a series of verses including Revelation 11:2 and 13:5, both of which refer to half of that time period with the phrase “forty-two months”).

As we commented in the previous edition of “Date-Setters,” Scripture is clear that, regarding the time of Christ’s return “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matthew 24:36). But all of these date setters, including the frequently mistaken Harold Camping and Charles Taylor, rarely take into account the serious warnings in the Old Testament to the believing community about errant predictions. Deuteronomy 18:20 and 22 present a frighteningly high expectation for anyone who would prognosticate too casually: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. . . . If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Of course, the legal implications, namely, the use of the death penalty for false prophecies, do not transfer to the New Testament believing community. However, the injunction to “not be afraid of him” does apply. This basically means that we should not revere what an errant predictor is saying, we should not ascribe to him any authority, we should not take him seriously, and we should not be concerned about nor swayed by his “prophecies.” What Deuteronomy 18 also asserts is that if someone is in error on a very specific prediction, this demonstrates that they are a false prophet and a messenger of a false god.

Additional Resources:

Hank Hanegraaff, “John Hinkle- D-Day Declarations,” http://www.equip.org/articles/john-hinkle-d-day-declarations/

Joseph B. Lumpkin, The Prophecy of Saint Malachy: The Soon Coming End of Days, 2012.

POLITICS: Reassessing Romney’s Religion

We spent two articles in the October 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper dealing with the issue of whether Mormonism is a cult or an entirely different religion, and what implications that has for the presidential race in 2012. My own assessment was that Mormonism is not merely a heterodox offshoot of Christianity nor a cult, but rather, simply an entirely different religion that reflects definite, but minimal overlap with true Christianity. I have become more convinced of that idea since November.

That is not intended to be a derogatory nor condemnatory assessment, but rather an objective appraisal based on standards that have been upheld throughout church history. The Nicene Creed of 325, the Chalcedon Creed of 451, as well as the cross-denominational Fundamental assertions from the early 1900s set certain truths, specifically regarding Christology, as demarcation lines of Christianity. The Christian community has always asserted that Christ is the unique God-man who died as a sufficient propitiation for the sins of humanity and rose from the dead to verify the veracity of his sacrifice. For all the mistakes and missteps of the Church, holding true to these demarcations is something that we have done for two millennia. These demarcations, such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ, help us determine what movements, teachers and beliefs are consistent with essential Biblical Christianity and which are not. Mormons have the freedom in this country to believe anything that they want, but they have no footing Biblically and historically to refer to themselves as “Christians” because they reject fundamental Christian assertions.

At the time of writing those articles in October 2011, there were a variety of candidates vying for the GOP nomination including two Mormons, a few Catholics, and some who adhere generally to American evangelicalism. The field has since narrowed down to a Mormon; the issue of what we think about having a Mormon as a president is no longer theoretical.

I have not changed my mind at all about Mormonism. By either sociological or theological reckonings, Mormonism falls into the category of an entirely different religion that shares elements with Christianity, but is simply not Christian. It obviously is heavily influenced by Christianity, but Mormonism has gone outside of its essential demarcations. This should not seem unusual, as Islam and Judiasm similarly share in great overlap with Christianity, and yet, for fundamental doctrinal reasons, again, namely revolving around issues of Christology, they must be considered completely different world religions.

But what about Romney? While my opinion about his religion has not changed, I have warmed up to Romney as a candidate. He is probably not as liberal and moderate as the other GOP candidates tried to portray him. And the irony is that now, Democrats are trying to paint him as a right-wing fanatic! He needs to assert a stronger and more specific conservative platform and then I think he will engender greater levels of support from Americans of all faiths.

Of course, we are not voting for a theologian or a pastor. And this time around, we really need to be voting for a financier-in-chief. Both the Tea Party movement as well as many independent voters – and even many democrats – affirm conservative fiscal principles such as lowering federal spending, lowering taxes and paying down the national debt. We need to consider the disaster that will ensue by giving four more years to an individual who had no substantive experience before being elected to the White House.

For all his rhetoric, Obama has not made any progress with issues related to the economic strength and solvency of the United States. Whereas, under Bush, the national debt increased $3.44 trillion in eight years, under Obama the national debt has increased a whopping $6.39 trillion in less than three-and-a-half years! (see http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np). While the national debt is not solely the responsibility of the President, nobody is better positioned than the President to affect Washington’s mentality regarding debt reduction and financial responsibility (many Dems, including Obama, blamed Bush for the debt when he was president!). No matter what Romney’s religion is, our country simply cannot afford four more years of skyrocketing debt and an administration that sanctions out-of-control spending. That said, we don’t want to ignore completely the social issues, as these strike at the values and faith of many Americans. I am glad to be able to align with many of the social stances that Romney takes, and the reason for his views are not as relevant to me as are the stances themselves. That he seems to derive his views generally from Judeo-Christian values is a plus.

I am less concerned about his religion because he has veered away from discussions of Mormonism. He is not out there pushing Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, nor quoting from the Book of Mormon (one wishes that Obama would have been more subtle and tactful regarding his Muslim upbringing). In fact, Romney seems fairly nominal in his faith, and in this case, I think that is also a plus. No public official should be expected to completely divorce his faith from his decisions and actions. However, there is a difference between applying faith to leadership and touting the source from which one is doing so. The more Romney distances himself from his religious affiliations the better he will do in a general election.

You can expect however that the minions of the Obama smear campaign will discover the most bizarre, radical fringes of Mormonism (every institutionalized religion has its bizarre fringe, and, admittedly, the religion to which I adhere has several!). The liberal smear machine will then paint these peculiar elements of Mormonism as normative for all Mormons and then associate Romney with them. I’ll pre-empt that attempt by mentioning a few such peculiar aspects of Mormonism:

Many Mormons chose to avoid coffee, drugs and tobacco (Doctrine and Covenants 89:5-13).
Mormons believe Christ visited Indian tribes in America after his resurrection (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:1-17).
Some assert that God the Father has a physical body (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).
Many Mormon groups denied priesthood for African-American men until 1978.
Many Mormons believe that God the Father was once a human and that he eventually ascended to full god-hood (Gospel Principles, chapter 47, and note the continued propagation of this view into recent times, for example, in “Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female,” Ensign, January 2005).

Some of these views are indeed startling, and, more importantly, they simply do not reflect Biblical orthodoxy. If the liberal media tries to utilize the underhanded tactic of associating some of these startling beliefs with Romney, that may affect a few American voters, but it will not substantively affect the presidential election. Most people are savvy enough to see through this ploy and will not cave to it. Americans are less concerned about some of Joseph Smith’s antiquated and obscure doctrines and more concerned about Barack Obama’s current and deteriorating performance.

Also, we understand that religious groups are generally not defined by its most radical elements. In fact, the liberal media has been pounding this principle into our brains for the last decade suggesting that we should not characterize all Muslims by the radical Islamic terrorist fringe. Could it be that this methodology will backfire when the media tries to normalize the more radical beliefs and bizarre aspects of Mormonism?

Despite my disagreements with Romney’s religion, I can still support him as the Republican nominee for President. His experience in the private sector and as a governor is significant and will be a welcome change-of-pace in Washington. I certainly have my concerns about Romney, as I would about any candidate, but I believe that his experience is what is needed now. More importantly, the current administration, helmed by a naïve and inexperienced ideologue wielding his unsustainable share-the-wealth and punish-the-wealth-makers sentiments, has absolutely got to go.

So what do you think at this point about Romney's religion? Does his Mormonism make you nervous? Is religion even a factor? We would love to hear your thoughts; send your comments to feedback@eclectickasper.com!

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 7, Worship is Order and Spontaneity

Many modern Christians believe that the Holy Spirit only works through spontaneity. Order and planning is antithetical to the Spirit’s working and many believers perceive that liturgy is boring and unmotivating. On the other hand, some assert that the “free church” movement is far too loose with their worship and that the resulting lack of structure often leads to a lack of substance. Somewhere on the continuum between the two there is a balance that reflects the Biblical ideal between the response to God that is planned and worship that is spontaneous.

The Old Testament often portrays worship that contains a tremendous amount of planning and order, and yet, this does not compromise the zeal and spirit of the event. Texts like 1 Chronicles 15, Ezra 3:10-11 and Psalm 24 demonstrate the consecration, instrumentation and preparation that went into significant corporate worship activities of the Old Testament believing community.

Order is important in worship. Ezekiel describes his vision of worship in the future state in Ezekiel 46. Verse nine states, “When the people of the land come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, whoever enters by the north gate to worship is to go out the south gate; and whoever enters by the south gate is to go out the north gate. No one is to return through the gate by which he entered, but each is to go out the opposite gate.” The purpose for this regulated movement was probably a pragmatic one, namely a concern for “crowd control” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25—48 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 674). The number people that Ezekiel is seeing in this vision, “would have been a logistical nightmare, which this ordinance sought to manage” (ibid.). This injunction betrays God’s concern for orderliness in worship and this passage shows that ritual is not always as meaningless, or impractical, as it may seem on the surface. The concern for order and form is echoed in Paul’s words about the worship service: “Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor 14:40). Worship is not to be casual, but is to be accompanied with reverence and awe (Ps 2:10-12; Mal 2:5; Heb 12:28).

Worship can also be spontaneous. This does not mean that it is reckless or disorderly, but merely that it is not as premeditated. Worship can be offered up to God in the passion of the moment in response to situations that portray the deliverance, victory or blessing of God (Ex 15:1; 2 Sam 6:1-15; Ps 20:5; 35:27; Isa 12:1-6; Rev 5:13-14). “Each time God did great things for His people they burst into songs of praise” (Ronald Allen and Gordon Borror, Worship: Recovering the Missing Jewel, 161).

The worship of the early church focused around the Eucharist, with both its consideration of Christ’s works on earth and its anticipation of Christ’s future return. Early worshipers

gathered in catacombs or in houses, and, therefore, “worship was informal and intimate” (Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 97). After the conversion of Constantine (around CE 313), worship that had been private for fear of persecution became public, and eventually politicized. Robert Webber comments: “Considerable pomp and ceremony was [sic] introduced into worship: processions, great choirs, a more dramatic sermon style, fixed liturgies, vestments, signs of the cross, genuflection, and music forms such as the Gregorian chant” (ibid.). Unfortunately, these unnecessary accoutrements sometimes marginalized the meaning of the Christian faith and contributed to commercializing it.

Neither formality nor spontaneity are wrong, but they must be balanced so as to avoid stale ritualism on one side, or inappropriate flippancy and cultural influences on the other.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: You Are Mark 17!; Part 5: The “Fear Factor”

Welcome to the final article in this series on the strange ending of the Gospel of Mark. We have discussed that Mark ended his gospel at 16:8 based on external and internal evidence and we have mentioned the rhetorical impact of this ending, namely the reversal of Jesus’ “Messianic Secret.” That is, throughout his earthly ministry according to Mark’s account, Jesus instructed people not to tell others about his miracles because he wanted to avoid sensationalism, but the crowds boldly proclaimed Jesus’ miracles anyway. However, in Mark 16:7 the angel at tomb tells the women to proclaim the message about Christ’s resurrection and ironically they don’t.

In this last article in this series, we will examine how the women of 16:8 chose to remain silent about the resurrection out of fear (at least initially), and how Mark is implicitly calling on future generations of believers to not be silenced by fear. Rather, those of us after Mark 16 should proclaim Christ’s resurrection boldly, motivated by faith in Christ and by the reality of the empty tomb.

Mark frequently addresses the fear that resides in the crowds or amongst Jesus’ disciples (5:36; 6:50; 9:6; 10:32; 11:32). Sometimes, however, Mark ends an episode with a statement about fear without further discussion about it (4:40-41; 9:32; 11:18; 12:12). The cumulative effect is that the tension between faith and fear grows in Mark’s gospel, and despite the climactic conclusion of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection, the tendency of fear to overcome faith persists among God’s people.

For Jesus, the presence of fear indicates a lack of faith. In Mark 4:40, He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” Conversely, faith is the solution to fear: “Don’t be afraid; just believe” (5:36). Jesus’ presence and power are solutions to fear, as when he says in 6:50: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” Also, a knowledge of the Lord can be a solution to fear. Psalm 27:1 affirms: “The LORD is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life – of whom shall I be afraid?”

In Mark 16:8, fear paralyzed the women and prevented them from carrying out the instructions that the angel gave them. This is of course, not a critique of women in general, who are typically more fearless than men! Rather, the focus here is on how these individual reacted initially, and how Mark is implicitly calling on the reader to act differently.

The path of discipleship is intimidating and difficult. “Mark refuses to gloss over the difficulty of this path, and he repeatedly presents Jesus’ followers as looking for an easier way which would bring an easier life with more immediate rewards. However, the refusal to go the way of the cross leads to failure, so that the disciples desert (14:50) and deny Jesus (14:66-72). Mark presents true followers who fail, but he offers hope because he shows that Jesus does not give up on them” (Joel F. Williams, “Literary Approaches To The End of Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, [March 1999], 35).

Despite the difficulty and fear of discipleship, there is grace and forgiveness available on the other side of failure. It is interesting in Mark 16:7 that the “man” at Jesus’ tomb instructs the women to tell Jesus’ disciples “and [especially!] Peter” about Christ’s resurrection. “The prediction of 16:7 implies a promise that a restoration to discipleship is available in spite of failure, while the disobedience of the women in 16:8 serves as a warning that failure is possible even after the resurrection” (Williams, 21). Thus, watching the reaction of the women in this abrupt ending prompts the reader to decide for herself or himself if, given similar opportunities to proclaim Christ’s resurrection, she or he would walk the road of faith, or cower down the path of fear.

So . . . You are Mark 17! Modern believers have the privilege of finishing the story of Mark’s gospel. Will chapter 17 be tragic tales of fear and flight? Or will our chapter be a saga of bold proclamation of truth, sacrificial expressions of love, and dramatic epics of witness? Mark 16 ended (at verse 8) on a note of fear and silence. Whether or not Mark 17 ends the same way is up to us!

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Seeking a Great Protagonist

This article is somewhat of a spin-off on both our series “The Quest For the Ideal Medieval Fantasy Series” and “American Pantheon”, which focuses on the superhero genre in American culture. The thoughts here apply in both realms, and, in fact, to literature, Biblical studies, and movies in general.

Here’s the conundrum: You can have a huge movie with the best effects, an epic scope and a solid plot, but it turns out to be a box office bust. On the other hand, you can have a relatively low-budget outing that goes on to create an entire franchise and a huge fan following (anybody ever heard of a 1977 flick called Star Wars?). So what’s the difference?

Effects are nice, a good plot is important, but a compelling protagonist is essential. A gripping hero does not merely possess strength of character or resolve, but she or he also has endearing and charming qualities, a like-ability, and just enough quirkiness that we can relate to the character. We like Captain Kirk, or Han Solo, or Frodo, or Captain Mal, or Tony Stark; while these individuals may be very different from us, they are nonetheless compelling and realistic. The intangible combination of exceptional acting, writing, and directing allow us to connect with them, with their complexity, with their pain, with their mission and with their personality. Movies like Clash of the Titans, John Carter, or Terminator: Salvation had stupendous effects and tremendous cinematography, but they failed mainly because they lacked a compelling protagonist. We never really connected rationally or emotionally with the hero and his quest, struggle or cause, and therefore, we had a hard time caring too much about what happened to him. And as I often quip, if by the end of the movie you are actually rooting for the monster to eat the “good guy” (as I was at the end of Clash of the Titans!) that is a sign that there may be awesome visual effects and great scenery, but the main character is simply a complete dud.

Hollywood thinks that a protagonist is a simple concoction of brooding, tragedy, attitude and cause. The producers and script writers then turn a crank, create a hero, and enshroud him or her in special effects. But then they stand back in shock when this caricatured protagonist does not drive up box office sales. I especially noticed this with John Carter; it was a good movie, and I enjoyed watching it. But I just never reached the point where I really cared about what happened to . . . well . . . John Carter. He seemed to me like little more than a spoiled, brooding bully who happened to get caught up into some interesting circumstances.

Additionally, it is not enough to have a hero with a tragic and complicated past. We don’t want gloomy heroes any more than we want to be around gloomy people. Hollywood and high fantasy writers have to produce characters that are brooding, intense and conflicted, but still witty, charming and likable. A great protagonist should be the kind of person that we wouldn’t mind sitting down and having a beer with without having to hear them sulk all about their jaded, painful past.

Similarly, a protagonist who has experienced a death in their life (dead parents, dead uncle, dead wife, etc.) is not enough to make them an interesting or compelling character. Many very boring people have experienced a loved one’s death, but that tragedy doesn’t make them any more interesting. This particular literary device is now becoming cliché and tiresome in film and literature and needs to be replaced with something else.

And, the fact that he or she is a rebellious, antinomian rule-breaker is also becoming a worn-out trope.

It seems that Hollywood’s ability to craft a compelling hero is waning. Someone write us a great protagonist soon, please!

So, agree or disagree? Any other really great or really disappointing protagonists that you have run across lately? We'd love to hear about ’em! Send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com!