MarvelEvent Talks Black Panther and Inhumans

Help, I can't keep up anymore.



Over at The American Journal, I did an entire article about the Marvel movie release schedule.



Some preliminary thoughts: One, I'm very happy that they've started releasing more than two films a year. They needed to up their game. And I think they just bitch-smacked DC into next Tuesday.



2) It's not that they thought this through enough to include the Inhumans and Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) as they both tie the larger Marvel Cosmic universe to the Earthbound Marvel universe. And since Avengers 3 is going to have Thanos (see previous posts) tying them together will help.



However ... Would it have killed them to have a black Widow Movie? I know I'm not the only one who wants it.



3) It seems that, yes, despite what I said the other day, there will be a Civil War element to Captain America 3. However, the only real similarity to the premise is the title, and that there will be legislation about superheroes. It will be a global law, however, not just American. So, guess what, we're going to have Civil War without, well, a civil war. Since the "World Council" in Avengers and Cap 2 seem to be at odds with superheroes, I can't imagine that their successors will be too happy with them.



Does anyone realize that this will put Captain America at odds with the United Nations? Muahaha.



4) Black Panther has been announced. I like the character, and it should be interesting. Supposedly, he might be added to the team in Age of Ultron, but we'll see.



5) To no one's surprise, Avengers 3 is title The Infinity War. And it will be awesome.



 And I have this suspicion that it will include everyone.



6) Despite previous reports, Benedict Cumberbatch has not been confirmed as Dr. Strange.  I just want him on screen so he and Robert Downey Jr. can be on the same screen at the same time.



7) Again, according to the schedule, 2018 will have Avengers: Infinity War Part 1, THEN Captain Marvel, THEN Inhumans, and in 2019, the end of the Infinity War.  Does anyone else think the 2018 movies may all happen at the same time? Or perhaps conclude at the same time?  Just a thought.



For the schedule proper, again, check it out at American Journal.

Month in Review, December, 2011

Well, that was a fun year, huh?  In fact, 2011 was so fun, let's just do it over again, and skip 2012, so we can wake up and election season will be over.



Oh well, can't have everything.



December was a bit of a mixed bag, and the year wasn't all bad. With luck, 2012 will be better. Apparently, after my rampage through Stumbleupon.com, making my November blog traffic spike through the roof, I retained nearly a thousand new visitors, who knew?



Then again, I had some aid in this from a strange and unexpected source -- actually, about three or four different times.



To start with, my tale Coyote Christmas, a Story by Twitter, was a strange success, viewed by over a hundred readers in the first month, and that's without having to post it all over the internet.  Even Coyote Christmas: the full story, written in standard prose, took in a goodly number of readers.  Who knows, I might have stolen someone's title without knowing it -- that would explain why I had a lot of readers looking for "the author of Coyote Christmas" in search terms.



And, did I mention that Rebekah Hendershot has been published?  Muahaha.



I suspect the success of these blogs had to do with Rebekah's novel, and my ties to it ... but I could be wrong.  But then again, you can never underestimate the power of a good death trap.



I had some nice music blogs, mostly because of a recent discovery on my part: Lindsey Stirling, and her epic violin. Seriously, this woman was awesome.  Not to mention that her Celtic Christmas was beautiful. And her rendition of Silent Night, it worked ... so, yes, I was probably saved by Christmas, and tripping over Madam Stirling.



Though there was one good thing in 2011 I wouldn't change at all, my new Self Defense column (which you can see reviewed for all of 2011 right here). And my Catholic column -- which is even newer.



And this year, well, I have a few tricks up my sleeve. Not many, but I'm working on it.

Catholic review. The war on Christmas, Kim Jong-il, Sherlock Holmes, and the WBC

I've had an interesting little month. Because I have a new job....

On Examiner.com, I'm now their Catholic columnist.

Yes, I write on self defense and on Catholicism. I'm a strange, strange man.

However, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise. After all, many of my articles on this blog acted as articles for the Examiner column.

In fact, my first column was one of my first articles from this past Lent.  Catholic cannibals: Explaining the eucharist. Yes, Catholics are cannibals. Live with it. :)

If you are a long term reader, you might remember that I was allowed an interview with Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.  It is now a four part article on Examiner.com -- mainly because Examiner doesn't like long columns. In fact, you can start the Interview right here.  Parts two, three and four are attached.  As is my Review of Murder in the Vatican.

There was also an Interview with "Infinite Space Infinite God II" editor Karina Fabian.  That was only a II part article.  The Review of "Infinite Space Infinite God II," one part only

And there were a few other articles that readers of this blog might know.

Mr. Phelps, David Koresh called, he wants to chat;... 

Fred Phelps, you are disavowed. 

“You're going to Hell.... Not.” I'm Catholic, not Dante 

Japan, and the Christian vlogger - 2011 Catholic... 

Then there was some new material. I wanted to explain December 8th, feast of the immaculate conception, to "normal" people.  Also, I wanted to explain why they were Rewriting the Catholic mass -- yes, they are, and they did.

Last week, there was an odd thing of North Korea versus Christmas. -- and then Kim Jong-il died. Huh.

And then, The war on Christmas came to New Jersey. I can't make this stuff up

Fulton Sheen, New York saint? Yes, New York might have a saint buried in the city limits. Who knew?

I'll see you all again tomorrow. We're not done yet

The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"

This is going to look like a strange post.  But I like things to be organized.  I try not to buy history books unless I go to the index and see if they have certain topics.



For example, there is a recent biography of a Protestant minister involved in the Valkyrie plot to assassinate Hitler .... you may have seen the movie ... I went and looked in the index for Pope Pius XII.  And I found him!  I flipped to the page....



And the minister "met with an aide to Pope Pius XII for a meeting."  That's it?  That's all you had to say?  You don't know anything else?  Thanks, I'm not buying you, you stupid book....



Yes, I think of books in terms of anthropomorphized entities.  If you didn't know I was weird before, You do now.



But, our guest blogs have been some of our most popular thus far.  The only series to outdo them have been the Snarky Theology series, and the blogs beating up on the Phelps Family.



So, my mild OCD has kicked in, and I'm going to do a little sorting.

Our first official guest blog was from Ann Margaret Lewis, of Murder in the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes.  THe premise isn't hard to deduce -- these are "missing" cases of Sherlock Holmes, cases that Arthur Conan Doyle aluded to, but never fleshed out.



Madam Lewis discussed what ie was like using historical figures as characters in a novel.  If you weren't here for it, I'd recommend it.



She was also gracious enough to let me interview her on the novel.  I got to ask her about how she wrote through the book in two different voices, that of Pope Leo XIII and Dr. John Watson.  We also touched on a few other topics along the way ... it was a fun interview.



And, last, and possibly least, I reviewed her book, breaking it down by story.  And by writing elements.  And a few other things here and there.



The three articles were a lot of fun to go through.  It was an absolute joy, and a pleasure to have Madam Lewis on the site.



Why did I host a Sherlock Holmes pastische on my blog?



A Pius Man is about a mystery surrounding the Vatican.  This had two murder mysteries IN the Vatican....  That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Next came the virtual book tour for Infinite Space Infinite God II, an anthology of Catholic science fiction.



Yes, Catholics have science fiction.



First, we had the editor, Karina Fabian, discussing religion in science fiction. 



Then I pumped her for information on the book.  We wandered into Doctor Who territory, Star Trek, science fiction in general, and how religious folk always seem to be the bad guys, hmm....



And I wrap up the week of ISIG2 with my own review of the book.  Considering that I hate anthologies to start with, this came out relatively unscathed. 



And how can I justify science fiction on the blog?  One of the other popular posts on the blog is about my time at DragonCon in 2010.  In this case, demand creates supply.



There is one last thing that I should point out:  I was lucky enough to host both of these fine authors through my tenuous connection to the Catholic Writers Guild.  I'm not actually a member, since I'm too cheap to pay dues ... and I haven't actually published anything.  So, I have no bias towards them one way or another.  I think my review of ISIG2 showed that best -- it had some good stories, some stories I skipped, and some absolutely great tales.



In any event, I would like to extend my thanks to both of these fine authors once more, for allowing me to host them here at A Pius Man.



Have a good day.

Review: Murder in the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Homes.

After a guest blog from author Ann Margaret Lewis, and the interview with her, it's now time for my review of her book. 



I wanted to hold off on this for the end, to make certain that there would be no influence on her one way or another.  The same ground rules will apply next week for Infinite Space, Infinite God II editor Karina Fabian, who will also submit a guest blog, and be subjected to an interview.

Now, on with the review....

When I was thirteen, I started reading through the collected stories of Sherlock Holmes. I made it about halfway through. I had been stopped dead by "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott"—the one and only time Holmes was the narrator.  I wasn't the only one who had a problem with that story. Another author of the day, G.K. Chesterton, said that the Gloria Scott showed why Watson was relevant: because Holmes was an awful storyteller.

Since then, I have been critical of anything about Sherlock Holmes written after the death of Arthur Conan Doyle. Some stories went wildly off track. Others were riddled with so many anachronisms it was painful. Of the vast quantity of Holmes-related material published, my family of readers owns only a fraction.



When Robert Downey Jr. starred in Sherlock Holmes, I crossed my fingers and hoped it didn't suck … instead, I got a checklist of what they did right.

When Doctor Who scribe and show runner Steven Moffat created a show called Sherlock, I also crossed my fingers. It was surprisingly awesome.



Then I heard about Murder in the Vatican. The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes on the newsletter for the Catholic Writers Organization. It had an interesting premise: author Ann Margaret Lewis takes Watson's offhand references of Holmes working on cases for the Pope, or involving religious figures, and turns them into entire stories.



I experienced the same feeling of dread. How off would the narration be? Would someone try converting Holmes? How lost would a detective from Victorian, Anglican England be in Catholic Rome? How many different ways were there to screw this up?



I stopped worrying when I read the first sentence.  And, oh my God, this book is awesome!  I loved this book....



Lewis caught the voice of Dr. John Watson as though she had taken it, trapped in a bottle, and used it to refill her pen into as she wrote. I liked the voice. I liked Watson, the doctor, trying to diagnose an ailing Leo XIII (85 at the time of the events of the first story). I like the brief sketch of the political situation between the Vatican and Italy. I even enjoy Watson's discomfort at the Pope slipping into “The Royal We” when he speaks of himself as The Pope.  Even the artwork was as though it had been lifted from issues of The Strand magazine.



Someone had fun here, and it shows.



Thankfully, there is no overt attempt to convert Holmes, evangelize or proselytize him. There is only enough theology in the entire novel that explains to the casual reader exactly what the heck the Pope is doing. The closest the book comes to exposing Holmes to theology is a page-long sequence that ends with Leo saying, “Perhaps you should spend some of your inactive time pondering that conundrum [of Jesus] instead of indulging in whatever narcotic it is with which you choose to entertain yourself.”  That is the best zinger I've ever seen a character use on Holmes regarding his drug use.  Even the most secular person I know can appreciate a page of theology for one of the better one-liners I've ever seen.



Also, the little things were entertaining for a nerd like me. For example, the casual mention of John Cardinal Newman, referred to as “a recent convert.” The political situation at the time is given just enough of a sketch to explain what's going on, but nothing obtrusive; history nerds like me can be satisfied, but you don't have to have a degree in it to comprehend what's going on.



There are truly parts where the novel seems to merge all the best qualities of Sherlock Holmes with those of G.K. Chesterton's Fr. Brown short stories ...



At this point, I must make a small confession. I write these reviews as I read the book. There is plenty of backtracking, to fill the blanks, and rewrite it as the book goes. I wrote the above line when I finished the first tale. In fact, the interview questions I sent to Ann Margaret Lewis were written before I even received a review copy of the book.  I then read “The Vatican Cameos,” and discover a Deacon, named Brown …



I swear I didn't see that coming.



The first story in this collection is "The Death of Cardinal Tosca."

In this memorable year '95 a curious and incongruous succession of cases had engaged his attention, ranging from his famous investigation of the sudden death of Cardinal Tosca -- an inquiry which was carried out by him at the express desire of His Holiness the Pope  . . . .



—Dr. John H. Watson, “The Adventure of Black Peter”

Imagine Sherlock Holmes on vacation … if you see that vacation turning out like an episode of Murder, She Wrote, with a body hitting the floor at some point, you pretty much have the setup. It has a poison pen letter, with real poison, some Masons, references to two different cases in the space of two paragraphs, and a Papal commando raid with a real pontiff. This story is so delightfully odd and over-the-top, but still preserves as much reality as any other Holmes tale. I enjoyed every moment of it. And I can't argue with any story where the pope gets most of the amusing one-liners.



Heck, even the murderer gets in a good line.  When confronted, our first killer sneers.  “Let me guess. You're going to explain, to the amazement of your friends, how I did the deed?”  Holmes replies, “I've already told them that. It would be old news. They already know you blundered badly.”



I think the story concludes on a nice, solid note.  As Holmes tells Watson, “[Leo XIII] is genuinely pious. He is also imperious, but in a most endearing way.”



Watson merely replies, “Yes, well. I'm used to that.”

 "I was exceedingly preoccupied by that little affair of the Vatican cameos, and in my anxiety to oblige the Pope I lost touch with several interesting English cases."

—Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles

The second tale, "The Vatican Cameos," is a bit of a flashback episode to when Holmes first met the Pope. Leo XIII has sent a collection of cameos to Queen Victoria. The cameos are secured tightly in the box they're delivered in, but upon their arrival in London, the box is empty. The Queen has a simple solution: send Sherlock Holmes. Watson is busy with a medical emergency, so he wasn't around.



When Watson asks Sherlock about the incident, Holmes says, quite clearly “Watson, I am incapable of spinning a tale in the way you do. The narrative would read like a scientific treatise.”



Madam Lewis certainly read "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott."



So, there is only one person left who can narrate this tale … the Pope himself. This was the story that truly showed that the author did her research, assembling little details of Leo XIII's interests and hobbies and putting them together into a rich, vibrant character. He is shown here as witty, humorous, and bright.



The byplay between Leo XIII and Holmes in this story was marvelously entertaining. The Pope is shown to be about as smart as Watson … maybe a little smarter. When Holmes first meets the Pontiff, and rattles off conclusions in his usual rapid-fire manner, the Pope takes a minute, and deduces how Holmes came to most of them. Not all, but most. This is a wonderful inversion of what is so typical of early Sherlock Holmes films—in the Basil Rathbone movies, whenever Holmes walked onto the screen, the IQ of everyone in the room dropped about ten points. Making Leo this smart only serves to make Holmes as impressive as he should be—yes, everyone else may be smart, but Holmes is smarter.



Also, having Leo XIII using Thomas Aquinas to talk with Holmes of reason and science … it works for me.



And the scene with Holmes, the Pope, and the gunman was fun, too.

"You know that I am preoccupied with this case of the two Coptic Patriarchs, which should come to a head to-day."



Sherlock Holmes, “The Retired Colourman”

"The Second Coptic Patriarch": The third and final tale is from yet another throwaway line of Arthur Conan Doyle's.



In this case, a former criminal comes to Holmes to solicit his services; the priest who converted him away from his life of crime is in jail for murder. A bookstore owner has been murdered with a book (“The Rule of Oliver Cromwell--weighty subject, no doubt,” Holmes quips), and the priest will only say that the victim was dead when he arrived.  It's almost Sherlock Holmes meets Alfred Hitchcock ... I didn't know someone could do I Confess like this. It's a fun little read, and possibly the most traditional of the Holmes stories -- it's a good tale.  From the perspective of the overall book, it's a perfect cap to the character arc.



Now, after reading Murder in the Vatican, I think I'm going to go back and finish the Sherlock Holmes series -- and keep Murder in the Vatican handy, so I can read them all in chronological order.



Ann Lewis said that the book was "meant to be fun and lift your heart for a short time. I had a blast writing it, and I hope you have a blast reading it."



Mission accomplished.



At the time I read this book, I had been reading another recent work of Sherlock Holmes-related fiction called The Sherlockian.  It was written by a Graham Moore, and it was about a Sherlock Holmes nerd who was sucked into a murder mystery.



Between the two of them, read Murder in the Vatican.



I want to thank Madam Lewis for her time and energy with the guest blog and the interview, and I want to thank her for this marvelous book.  It has been a pleasure to have her on board.

And, now, a surprise .... a sneak peek of the novel.



Enjoy.

An Excerpt

From “The Case of Cardinal Tosca”

“Good Lord.” Harden’s face grew pale. “Rosalinda—!”



Pope Leo blanched as well. Tapping his right fist in his opposite hand, he turned to look out the window behind him. The rain clouds had now blotted the sun, making it seem as dusk in the early afternoon sky.



The pope turned back to us, his dark eyes flashing with decision. “Giocomo!” He commanded suddenly. “Come here.”



Father Dionisio came quickly to his master’s side.



“Remove your cassock.”



“Holiness?”



“Subito!” As Leo spoke, he lifted the pectoral cross over his head and set it on the table. He then unwrapped the sash from around his waist and tossed it on his chair. “Presto! Presto! We have no time to waste.”



Hurriedly, the young man unbuttoned his cassock even as Leo unbuttoned his own. Holmes came around the table and knelt to help Leo with the lower buttons.



“What on earth —?” I asked.



“You’ll see,” said Holmes.



Dionisio removed his cassock and stood in simple black shirt, clerical collar and black trousers. Holmes helped Leo slip out of his white cassock and into the black gown provided by Dionisio. The black was almost the right size, though fuller through the midsection due to Dionisio’s thicker frame.



“You’re not serious, Holiness,” said Harden. “You’re not actually leaving the Vatican. Someone may recognise you—”



“‘If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship,’” Leo replied, quoting what I later learned was Aquinas. “‘He would keep it in port forever.’” He buttoned the top of the cassock while Dionisio crouched to fasten the bottom. “We must go. An innocent child is in danger for my sake.”



“Signore Harden is right, Holiness,” said Dionisio from floor. “This is madness.”



“Basta.” Leo pulled the young man from the ground by the elbow. He gestured emphatically with an open hand to the top of his head. “Portami un cappello. Presto!” Dionisio dashed into the next room. “And black stockings and shoes—ah, never mind I’ll find something.” The pontiff marched with remarkable energy into a side room that I guessed to be his sleeping area and returned promptly with black calf-length boots. His gentleman servant now trailed him protesting in rapid Italian as His Holiness moved. While the pontiff sat on a small bench to kick off his red slippers and pull on the boots, the agitated servant knelt beside him rambling so quickly that neither Harden nor I could decipher any meaning from him.



Apparently the meaning didn’t register to Leo either. “Basta, basta, BASTA!” He barked, stomping his boot-covered foot. He pointed a thumb to his chest. “Ego sum Petros!” He made sweeping gesture to drive the man from in front of him. “Vai!” Struck with terror, the butler dodged from the old man’s path as Leo charged to a baroque style cherry wood cabinet. From it he removed a worn, black leather case that he tucked under his arm. He finished buttoning his cuffs and Dionisio returned with a small, wide-brimmed black hat, which Leo snatched from him. He then plucked off his white zucchetto and slapped it into the bewildered priest’s hands.



“Allora, Signori,” Leo said to us, dropping the black hat on his head. “Andiamo.”



“You’ve forgotten one detail, Padre,” said Holmes, in reference to the pope’s new attire.



“Che?”



“L’anello.” Holmes held up his right hand and pointed to his fourth finger.



“Ah.” Leo pulled the fisherman’s ring from his finger and dropped it into the left pocket of the black cassock. The young priest then handed him a tall black umbrella, and Leo set its end to the floor with authoritative thud.



It is amazing how clothes can change the appearance of a man. Where once stood the proverbial Vicar of Christ on Earth, now stood a simple, venerable Italian priest. Strangely, he resembled the aged Italian cleric persona Holmes once adopted to avoid the notice of Professor Moriarty.



I glanced at Holmes and saw him giving me a knowing grin. “Very well then,” he said. “As the man says—let’s go.”

Interview with "Murder in the Vatican" author Ann Margaret Lewis.

After yesterday's guest blog by the very generous author of Murder in the Vatican, Ann Margaret Lewis, you didn't think things could get better, did you? 



Well, they did. 



Today, Ann Margaret Lewis has willingly submitted to questions from the A Pius Man blog.



You will notice that some of the questions are numbered differently.  These are questions that came with the press packet that I believed readers of this blog might be interested in. 



The questions I came up with are plainly numbered, with no additional lettering ... you'll see what I mean.



So, if you just want to skip to those quesitons I asked, you can ....



Here we go.



1. The Description for Murder in the Vatican says that each story is taken from the works of Arthur Conan Doyle. Care to elaborate?



Ann: Holmes biographer and friend, Dr. Watson, will often throw out the titles of cases Holmes has solved in the past, but he never tells you those stories. In the world of Sherlockian scholarship, these are called “the untold tales.” I took three of these little untold case references and told the stories for them. In the book, I introduce each story with the story quote from which each title originated.



2. Your previous works include Star Wars: the New Essential Guide to Aliens Species, for Random House. How did you decide to go from Star Wars to Sherlock Holmes?



Ann: I have loved Holmes since high school, and when I was in college I wanted to write a Holmes story. Of course, I didn’t have the real ability to write like Doyle at the time. So I put the idea aside…for about twenty years. When my husband and I were moving from New York, I found my old notes and thought—I can do this now! Just goes to show, never throw away your ideas. You never know when you may want them.



So – the decision to change from one genre to another came to me and was always with me, I suppose. He is the “classic” fandom.



3. What was it like working with characters created by another author? Was there any pressure to get everything pitch perfect?



Ann: Absolutely. I have worked in licensed properties (you mentioned Star Wars above) and when ever you work with someone else’s characters it is one’s job to be true to them. In Star Wars case, if you get it wrong, Lucasfilm’s licensing department comes after you. With Holmes, who is now largely public domain in the US, his loyal fans come after you. And they are far more scholarly and wise than most fans you can image. If Watson’s voice didn’t ring true, I was going to hear it and the book would fall flat on its face. So imitating Doyle and being true to the characters he create—i.e. being “orthodox” as it were—was of vital importance.



4. Since you have a degree in English Literature, should we ask how many times you read the original Sherlock Holmes stories?



Ann: I’ve read them so much I cannot even say. Before I’d write, I’d call up a random Holmes story online and just read it so I could get the voice going in my head. I read no other pastiches while I wrote. Only Doyle, because his voice is the only voice that mattered.



5. This blog is about a novel, A Pius Man, that focuses on Pope Pius XII during World War II. Since you are using the real life figure of Pope Leo XIII in your novel, how much historical research did you have to do before writing him as a character?



I love Pius XII. What a wonderful, saintly man – and so unjustly maligned.



Pope Leo gets the short end of the stick, too, I think in that he hasn’t been given recognition he deserves. I believe he should be on his way to canonization as well.



But to answer your question - with Leo, I did a lot of reading and research, both online and off. I did my best to read primary source material – his own writing, as well as writing of his contemporaries on him. I found the authorized biography – which was fantastic, and an article by the first journalist to interview a sitting pope (Leo, of course). The more I read, the more I loved this man. Leo was such a man of his time, and yet he had great vision of where the Church and world were going. Prophetic in so many ways, and prayerful. And very regal—he was the first pope not to rule the Papal States, and yet, he had been trained to do that. He was so fascinating I hungered to read more about him.



5a. Not only is Leo a character, he is also a narrator in Murder in the Vatican. What did you do to create a “voice” for someone who really existed?



A: You mean Holmes isn’t real? {Big cheesy grin} Seriously, though, Pope Leo was a writer himself, in fact one of the most prolific popes in history. So I read his writing—encyclicals mainly. He wrote about 85 of them. And I discovered that in the topics he covered, and how he addressed those topics, he was a man who was regal (he was nobility), extremely devoted to his faith (one would hope), and definitely loving and fatherly. This was confirmed when I discovered primary source material about him. I came across a great article by a contemporary journalist named James Creelman who personally met and interviewed Pope Leo—the first journalist to interview a pope. Creelman was an Agnostic/Protestant, but he was impressed by Leo’s brilliance as well his as soft-spoken, kindly nature. I also read a period biography that covered him quite well. Using works from that time helped me get a good picture of the type of man he was, and gave me good insight into his voice.



5b. How did you feel about fictionalizing Pope Leo XIII?



A: Popes are tricky guys to cover. Some people love them; some hate them simply because of who they are. I just wanted do him justice. He was a controversial figure in his own way, but a decent man who reigned at a transitional time for the Church. He was an important figure historically, and yet he is nearly forgotten. It mattered so much to me to get him right. And being Catholic I even asked him to pray for me. I made him, perhaps, a little more active than he really was. He was, after all, pretty old at the time the stories take place. But we’re not talking a Kung Fu action sequence or anything, so it’s all good.



5c. You write that Leo XIII had a reported “vision” of St. Michael battling Satan. Is that a true story?



A: It is something that was documented by those who knew him and who were present when it happened. It is, apparently, the origin for the Prayer of St. Michael that was, prior to Vatican II, said after every daily (low) Mass. This prayer is still said quite a bit, and I remember being told this very story when I was a child. I looked up references to it to make sure it wasn’t urban legend, but something documented. I was amazed to find that it was.

6. The last time that I noticed Sherlock Holmes coming anywhere near religion was in a novel called Night Watch, which had Holmes crossing paths with GK Chesterton's Father Brown. Since you have Sherlock at the Vatican itself, how do you have him deal with religion?



Ann: Holmes is respectful of religion, if doubtful. He isn’t an atheist— more of an agnostic, non-practicing Anglican. He questions a lot. But he is very respectful of religious belief, and does not mock it, or those who hold to religious practice. He sees it more, I think, as a gift he does not have. And yet – he recognizes holiness when he sees it. While he and Watson questioning on occasion, both are models of genuine tolerance.



6a. So you’d say being Catholic helped you with writing this book?



A: Absolutely. It gave me a starting point—a perspective and a body of knowledge other people may not have. I still had to do research on the church of the time, of course. I began attending a diocesan-approved Mass in the Extraordinary Form (i.e. the Traditional Latin Mass) so I could learn about the Mass as Leo said it. I was eager to share the church as it truly was and is, as opposed to Dan Brown’s version of it.



6b. What other books do you have in the works?



A: I have written one more Holmes piece called The Watson Chronicles that is more about Watson’s life near the end of his partnership with Holmes. I’m editing that now. Then I hope to jump into a historical novel that tells the true story of a priest in 1840s southern Indiana who was falsely accused of assaulting a woman in a confessional. Hopefully I can tell you more about that another time. :)



7. What else is on your reading list, besides the complete Sherlock Holmes? Do you think it affects your writing in any way?



Ann: I have a “to read” stack a mile high. Other mysteries (of other periods), Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth, too many books to count. And all of these simply enrich my body of knowledge to make me a better writer. With the mysteries, it keeps me focused in the genre, as I hope to write other types of mysteries other than Holmes.



8. Some writers outline. Some writers make stories up as they go along. Some even get bored when they figure out who the killer is. How does your writing process work?



Ann: Mine is a little of both. I write out a very basic outline, knowing where I want to go, with some clues for the sleuth. Then as I write my characters fill in the gaps. I don’t get bored with my killers, I try to do my best to make them leave a trail for the sleuths to find and that can be fun.



8a. Who else has tried this sort of story before?



A: “Pastiche” writing, or writing Holmes stories in imitation of Conan Doyle’s style, has been done by many authors. Nicholas Meyer, Isaac Asimov and even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s own son Adrian have given it a try. There are literally thousands of these kinds of stories published. (Curious folks and find an exhaustive database of Holmes-related fiction here: http://www.michael-procter.com/holmes/_index.html.) Many of these are takes on “untold tales” and all three of these very church mysteries have been tackled by other authors independently. But no one has written all three of the church mysteries mentioned in the original stories and collected them together in one volume.



8b. What is most difficult in writing a period piece like this?



A: Avoiding anachronism is definitely a biggie, but I think the hardest part for this project was imitating Conan Doyle’s voice. While I am familiar Doyle’s language, so is everyone else who has ever read Sherlock Holmes. I knew I’d have fans scrutinizing the text for mistakes. With Leo, I was imitating his voice as translated into English, so there was bound to be some leeway. In the Doyle’s case, you have his music or you don’t, and the pastiche will sink or swim depending on how well you sell it. It was an intimidating prospect.



8c. And this book has illustrations?



It sure does! That was one of the neat thing we managed to do to give it the flavor of the original stories. When the Holmes tales were first published, they were all illustrated by wonderful artists, Sydney Paget in particular. And it is one thing I think most pastiches are missing. Rikki Niehaus did a fabulous job with her drawings. She even used the right pen and ink technique. Her version of Holmes is just as I imagine him and her Pope Leo is spot on. She’s very talented and I can’t wait to see more work from her.



9. What, if anything, surprised you while working on Murder at the Vatican?



Ann: That one’s characters can take over and lead the story. Holmes started finding clues that I didn’t intend. He even found a dead body I hadn’t anticipated! Seriously, people think I’m schizophrenic when I describe how my characters can lead a story line and bring things to my attention that I hadn’t considered. But I have to say: if my characters aren’t real to me, they won’t be real to the readers. And with writing this book, Holmes and Leo both felt really quite real to me (Leo especially because he was and is a real person).



10. Do you have any advice to blog readers who are thinking about writing their own novels?



Ann: Whatever it is—finish it. You’ll get so much from just putting that last word on paper that’ll keep you going for more and more stories. That feeling of accomplishment is worth all of the hard work. And then…when it is done…you can actually try to sell it. So, get it done!



11. Your bio on the novel's webpage says that you are a trained soprano ... should we expect a tenor to at least be a suspect in the novel?



Ann: Nope—just a bunch of Italians—and none of them are Puccini.



12. Last chance: What do you think is the one thing we should remember about Murder at the Vatican?



Ann: That it is meant to be fun and lift your heart for a short time. I had a blast writing it, and I hope you have a blast reading it. That was my primary goal in creating it.



Thanks for having me on your blog! It’s been great meeting you.

We here at the A Pius Man blog would like to thank Madam Lewis for her time.  Murder in the Vatican can purchased through the publisher, wessexpress.com. It is also carried on ignatius.com and Amazon.  If readers have more questions, Ann can be reached by email via her web site: http://www.holmeschurchmysteries.com/.

Guest Blog: Murder in the Vatican Author Ann Margaret Lewis.

Welcome to the blog for my novel A Pius Man.



The Good News: No Snarky Theology this week.  After Communion, Lent, Sex, and Evolution, I'm taking a break.



The Even Better News: Today, we have a guest blog from Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.



Since Murder in the Vatican deals with tales from the Sherlock Holmes canon that involve Holmes working with Leo XIII, I asked if she could blog about history in fiction, religious historical character in fiction, or "something like that".   As you can see, I was very helpful about picking out a topic for her.



The below was the result.



For the record, I have not doctored or altered her text in any way.  In fact, the only "edit" I made was that she insert some hyperlink footnotes to some of her statements.



And, here we go.

With Religious Characters, Honesty is the Best Policy

Ann Margaret Lewis

You can’t help but notice: people of religious faith make popular villains—especially with secular publishers and film studios. From The Three Musketeers and Hunchback of Notre Dame, to DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. From the Godfather series, to even Charles Dickens’ Pickwick Papers. From Voltaire’s Tartuffe, to TV shows like Showtime’s Borgias and films, comic books and animated films like Happy Feet. The list goes on and on.



So it’s safe to say that making a villain a person of religious conviction isn’t an unusual convention. A great source of conflict and interest is a character who goes against their own supposed principles, or warps them to their own ends. And in any case, to many in the secular world, someone who believes something to the exclusion of all else, someone who isn’t a relativist, has to be close-minded bigot, right?



On the contrary, having principles and sticking by them does not always mean that. Real people are not so cut and dried. What one needs to be, when creating characters and even creating their villains, is honest. Otherwise, the whole convention just gets to be….well…cliché.



When I wrote Murder in the Vatican, I did my best to portray Pope Leo XIII in a way that was, I hope, honest. I would be just as honest in writing about a shameful pope like Alexander VI. But I wasn’t interested in a crummy pope. I’ll leave that for Showtime to cover (yawn). Our secular culture is so hungry to see religious figures as corrupt, they rewrite history to try to turn those who were fine people into villains—as is this case of the pope of this blog, Venerable Pius XII. And not just he, but Benedict XVI as well—if he isn’t a Nazi (here Benedict’s the story in his own words), then he’s a protector of paedophiles (never mind that he was one of the one’s trying to do right in that regard).



So it stands to reason that I decided to do something—well—different—to go against the grain. The religious folks in my book aren’t the villains. While, Pope Leo is a man of his time, he is also a man of the future in thought. He was a son of a noble family, quite different from his predecessor and successor (Pius IX and Piux X) both of whom came from humbler beginnings. Perhaps that is why Leo has not been put on the sainthood track, though his care for the poor and the working class was legendary. But I realized through simple research, all I had to do was write Leo as he was to the best of my ability to have an interesting character.



Sherlock Holmes himself says in the story “A Case of Identity”—“Life is infinitely stranger than the mind of man can invent.” I would suggest to the would-be storytellers of the world that before you go with the tired cliché of a corrupt religious character, try making them three dimensional, tell the truth about them. Give them a point of sympathy, for most humans have one. It is far more satisfying for your readers/viewers (not to mention less bigoted).

About the Author: Ann Margaret Lewis

Born and raised in Waterford, Michigan, Ann Margaret Lewis attended Michigan State University, where she received her Bachelor's degree in English Literature. She began her writing career writing tie-in children’s books and short stories for DC Comics. Before Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, she published a second edition of her book, Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, for Random House.

Ann is a classically trained soprano, and has performed around the New York City area. She has many interests from music to art history, to theology and all forms of literature. She is the President of the Catholic Writers Guild, an international organization for Catholic Writers and the coordinator of the Catholic Writers Conference LIVE. After living in New York City for fifteen years, Ann moved to Indianapolis, Indiana with her husband Joseph Lewis and their son, Raymond. Together they enjoy their life in the heartland.

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays

This one may have slightly less snark.  We'll see how it turns out.



I hear from a lot of people that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex.  I usually hear this from people who aren't Catholic, or Catholics who haven't been to church since they left their parents' basement.  I've been going to church every Sunday for about 20 years.  That's approximately a 1300 masses, with holy days ... and I'm adding this note at 2:30 in the morning, so don't nitpick my math ....



In all 1300 masses, I don't think I've never heard the priest talk about sex unless there was a reading that involved adultery, or someone begetting someone else.



This month, I turn 29. I believe I am one of the few male beings on the planet, and maybe the only person in New York City, who is deliberately a virgin.



I put special emphasis on deliberately, since being one involuntarily is not really that impressive for a nerd of my caliber. I've been given the option, and I have expressly said no.  I don't think this is a gloating matter, and I don't mean it to be "Haha, I'm more virtuous than you," I mean it more in the context of "Whew, I dodged a bullet."



My reasons for avoiding sex are numerous. For starters, I'm not married.  I have personal reasons (I've met too many people where sex has taken normal people with slight personality quirks, and turned them into full-on neurotic messes). I have practical reasons (my parents are both in the medical field, and I ask far too many questions when I'm at a microbiology conference--did you know that there are 25 difference STDs, 50 with varying mutations, and that condoms have an 85% failure rate against pregnancies, and viruses are many, many times smaller than a sperm cell? Oy!)



Also: I've got this strange notion from my philosophy and my faith that has said that, “Sex should be the perfect union of two people, so that they are linked biologically, psychosomatically, psychologically, and spiritually, making them one.  You don't do that with just anybody.”



Hey, I warned you I was a romantic sap. You should expect some of this tripe every so often.



But this is just me. What about the Church of Rome?



Oh, yeah, apologetics.



My last, "philosophical / religion" position, is the same position of the Catholic Church, which isn't half as obsessed with sex as the average American. To expand on that original premise, sex should be such a perfect union, only undertaken by two people in a committed relationship. And, sex should also fulfill all of its natural functions.  I briefly covered this topic before.



Thus, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one where sex is a sacrament.... Something blessed by Christ that gives god’s grace



Yes, you read that right. You get married, you are supposed to have sex. Children should be an end result, but timing is everything, isn't it? There are usually enough signs and portents in the average hormone cycle that self control is the best method of birth control available.



For the record: sterility doesn't really enter into the equation. The married couple having sex is doing everything right, it's just a matter of equipment failure.



And now you know everything about the Church's, um, position on sex … Tab A goes into Slot B.  The Church doesn't care where else it stops on the way, it doesn't care if whips, chains, exhibitionism, or anything else is involved, as long as the end result adds up to Tab A in Slot B.  It doesn't matter how it starts, it matters where you finish. 



And, personally, not only do I not care, I don't want to know.



In sum: sex that has no possibility of procreation is considered a deliberate violation of the natural order of things, and hence considered a sin.  Save sex for marriage, and after that, knock yourself out.  Have fun. Thank you, the end, goodbye ....



What? You mean I missed something?



Q: “What about the pill?”



A: Sigh ...



To start with, even environmentalists are wary about the pill.  Something about chemicals and the environment.  I'm not big into the Green movement, so find one of the Green people to explain this. 



Aside from medical purposes, the Church doesn't like the pill; to start with, it's tinkering with natural body chemistry, and I have to tell you, the warning labels scare the crap out of me. And, I already told you, marriage is a contract to have children—unless the pill is for a medical purpose, like to correct an aspect of body chemistry that's out of whack, Catholic married people don't need it, do they?



Q: “What about condoms?” Again, marriage, contract, children.  Tab A into Slot B. 



A: Let's look at something ELSE the Pope said about contraceptives, aside from the Condom article.  "If we separate sexuality and fecundity from each other in principle ... then sexuality becomes arbitrary.  Logically, every form of sexuality is of equal value."



In English: when you separate sex from producing children, sleeping with a hooker has just as much value as sleeping with your wife.  They both have the same outcomes, and are treated with just as much responsibility.  Separate sex from reproduction, and now you can introduce animals and batteries into the conversation.



Q: "But maybe I don't want to have children right now, and I am married, and no one has an STD?"



A: Okay, fine, if you want to drag this out.....



What do you call a girl who uses the rhythm method of birth control?  Pregnant. We've all heard this joke, and there are probably priests who've told this joke.  The rhythm method is so broken, it's not funny.  There is something called natural family planning, which requires observation of natural body functions, and self control.  Please look it up yourself, I am not going into those details here on this blog, thank you very much.  Though I should note that it has a success rate against pregnancies that is somewhere in the mid-90% range. 



To quote the pope (Yes, I'm whipping out the Pope here), the Church goes for

"natural regulation of conception, which is not just a method, but also a way of life.  Because it presupposes that couples take time for each other.  And that is something fundamentally different from when I take the pill without binding myself interiorly to another person, so that I can jump into bed with a random acquaintance."

IE: If you don't want to have children, use your brain, and keep it zipped for a few days, okay?  Thanks.



Bye.  We're done. Good day.



Q; “But I'm not married, but I want to have sex. That means I should ditch both the pill and condoms, right?”



A: All right, fine.  I'm going to bash my head against a wall a little.



Keep it zipped if you're not married is the Church's position. As I already mentioned in my Church, Sex and Latex article, if you're already committing a sin (like, you know, non-marital sexual affairs, or even, God save us, extra-marital affairs), taking precautions to mitigate side-effects of your screwing around would be a good idea.



Q: “Are you judging me?” 



A: I don't know how many times I can say that, 1) I don't care  2) I'm only explaining aspects of my religion, and 3) as far as judgement goes, I already did that article.  I've been asked these questions a lot.  And very often, I have to say it a few times.



Q:  "But what about this fling I had"---



A: Let me stop you right there, and see if I can issue a generic statement that should cover a lot of things.



Can we agree that somethings are better than others?  Dark Chocolate better than milk chocolate, or New York Pizza versus California pizza, or ... you get the idea.



As far as sex goes, it was once broken down for me like this ... think of this as the only secular portion of this blog.



Solo <   $ <   One Night <  Friends w/Benefits <    Girlfriend <    Committed Relationship <  Marriage.



And if I have to translate that into English for you, forget it. This blog has been PG in language since the start, I'm not having it go into an R rating now.



Even Matt, who is an atheist, and as far as I can get from Catholic theology, has also noted that a committed relationship is better than occasional flings ... And he's made this argument from experience.  I guess I'm not the only romantic sap around here.



Oh, yeah, and Matt's position is basically a secular version of the Catholic Church's.  Again, Rome prefers a committed relationship that lasts for, oh, life.  But welcome to America, where the divorce rate is a little over 40%



Q: "The Divorce rate is over 60%, isn't it?"  



A:  Not if you take out all of the repeat customers to the lawyer's office (thank you to my friend Jason for that number).  Next topic?



Q “What about gays? Why does the church hate them?”



A: ..... 



The Catholic Church hates nobody.  If it makes you feel any better, if I get any more stupid questions, I will hate you.



Let's go straight to the videotape.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible ... They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives."

Yes, we really hate gays, don't we?



Q:  "Then what's the Catholic issue with Gays?"



Here's the part where the Church and gays might, conceivably, have an issue:



Back to the Catechism.  "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture .... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."



Yes, that's the harshest word that Catholics have towards gays: disordered.  Ooooo, let's call out the SWAT team... And when you consider that the American Psychological Association had homosexuality down as a psychological disorder until a couple of decades ago, I wonder where we got the term from .....



Here's a question for you, dear reader: What do the gay commentator and playwright Harvey Fierstein, Lesbian Lawyer and ex-NOW (CA) President Tammy Bruce, and the Pope all have in common?



They really don't like gay lifestyles …



Nope, I'm not joking.



With Fierstein, a little background.  Fierstein was picketed for a brief period of time in the early 1980s, because he had come out with a play that had three, monogamous, gay couples ... he was picketed by gays, who protested on the grounds that "We can have sex with anyone at anytime, we don't need to be tied down to one person!"



Then newspaper stories on AIDS came out soon after, and monogamy became very popular.



More recently, Fierstein has noted that the trends have come back.  He's written in the New York Times about a trend of gay youth that says “Hey, if you get AIDS, that means you have become a man!” Apparently, according to Fierstein, the triple cocktail and other AIDS medications have made AIDS "trendy"—the infected can live for decades, so now it's “just a status symbol.”  Fierstein's a little nervous of such "trends." 



Lesbian, Lawyer, and ex-NOW California President Tammy Bruce has noted that this thought process of "Hey!  AIDS won't kill you immediately" has led to another trend—multiple partners a year, with numbers in the triple-digits.



While, on the other hand, you have the Catholic church running clinics that take care of 25% of all AIDS victims on the planet, and 40% of those infected in Africa.



Now, if you go from the Catholic position on sex, you can understand why the church doesn't like gay sex.  The distinction usually made that that the Church dislikes the actions, not the people committing the acts.  Hence why on one hand, we should care for the people, but the actions are "disordered."  The older summation of this idea (going back 1500 years) is: "Error has no rights, but people do."



Also, let me note something.  Last time I checked, the Catholic Church has never utilized stoning as an official punishment for, well, anything.  We don't kill people for being something -- being gay is not a sin.  Thank you.



Q: "So, what? That means you're going to legislate who people love?" 



A: Me? Personally? I don't care.  I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.  Sleep with whoever you like, just don't tell me about it the morning after.  This goes for you straight people, too. 



In fact, since there are more straight people than gays, this goes double for you.



Again, it's not about who loves who.  It's more lifestyle issues.



Q: "So, basically, that means that all gays should become virgin priests?" 



It's not required.  Though it's not out of the question, because a lot of gays are following that route. 



According to statistics from Fr. Andrew M. Greeley, PhD (Sociology, U of Chicago), about 10% of the priesthood is gay, and keeping it zipped. (I'll see if I can find a link for this, I remember this from an article of his a few years ago -- and you type in "gay" and "Catholic" into a search engine, see what screwed up stuff you get).



Q: So, pedophilia ...?

A: Separate question, separate article. I'm blogging as fast as I can.  Short version from the Church: pedophilia bad.  Personally: If I had my way, sharp objects and kerosene will be involved ... but no one asks my opinion.



I think that just about covers it.  Any other questions can be asked in my comments.  If you have issues with how I have translated Italian, religious Bureaucratic-Speak into Plain English, comment.  If you have complaints about the content of what I have said, take it up with the Vatican. 



HOWEVER, keep it civil.  I've never said it before, but before the little exchange of words over Lent, I never felt the need to.  I did not delete any of the comments from the Lent article, because I didn't tell people "no profanity," and I wasn't going to pull a bait and switch.   Now, you have been warned.



Keep in mind, next week we will have a guest blog from Ann Margaret Lewis, an interview with her, and a review of her novel Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes.

Coming soon to A Pius Man: Catholic FAQs, Feedback, etc.

Since I have the next few weeks of blogs scheduled, and the blogs written, I thought I would give you a preview of what's to come.



February 22: "But what is he when he's at Home? Other Novel Ideas" -- Basically, for anyone who loses track of all the various and sundry projects I'm working on, this is a comprehensive list.  No, it's not just A Pius Man.



March 7: Catholic Cannibals: Snarky Theology -- Lent starts the week of March 7th, so I thought I would start by kicking the explanations into full gear.  I'm starting with WHY I have no intention of trying to actively convert anyone.  Why?  Because in my Church, we eat people.  Involves CS Lewis and Lewis Carroll.

March 14: Snarky Theology: FAQs about Lent.  Pretty much everything it says.  If Catholics shouldn't eat meat on Fridays of Lent, what about fish? Do fish grow on trees now?  Why do we fast?  I am taking questions as of now.  So if you have them, now's the time to ask them.

March 21: Snarky Theology: Evolution, Who knows and Who cares... Some people believe creationism.  Some believe in evolution uber alles.  I believe that it really doesn't matter.

March 28: Jesus Freaks Scare Me -- They do, they really do.

April 4:  This entire week will be dedicated to  Murder at the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes.We will have a guest blog from the author, a brief Q&A session, and my review.







April 11: This week shall appear much the same as April 4th, only the book is Infinite Space, Infinite God II.

April 18: Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks-- being fair and mentally unbalanced, I want to play whack-a-mole with a few anti-theists.   Paging Mr. Dawkins ...

This last project may or may not happen.  For Easter week (April 25), I have considered a week of "Evil religions, From Islam to Christianity" .... as usual, it's not what you think it is.  These blogs I have yet to write up, but I would like to the "Evil Religions" posts the whole week.  We'll see.  There's Islam, Christianity, Judaism.... though I may be able to break it down regionally.  We'll see.  Why everything you know about the evils of religion is wrong.

Keep in mind, these blogs may be interrupted by stupid news from the Vatican, or by breaking news by a publishing industry outpost.  If I get a contract with a publisher, this schedule might be a little thrown off, due to my dancing in the streets.

However, I would like to ask, once again, for any questions you may have.  Or, since I'm currently taking suggestions, does anyone have any articles you would like me to write up?  Anything you'd like me to comment on, or make fun of, or get my utterly sideways viewpoint on it.  There's no pressure, I have enough blogs to last me a while, but input is always appreciated.