the lawkit contributor's guide

Further to the previous introduction (and as self-elected editor-in-chief) I've taken the liberty of drawing up a few guidelines. Now, traditionally a publication's style guide sets out their rules for language, grammar, formatting and so on. This post is not one of those.

Rather, I want to offer a context and some parameters, which should assist potential contributors in understanding the tone we're going for. In terms of the practical elements of formatting, I'm largely happy to satisfy the English teacher part of me in correcting the small things. The important thing here is to get across the potential style of the publication itself.

I should also mention that some of the ideas here were inspired by this excellent article on A List Apart by Erin Kissane, which the ever-pedantic @djlowry was kind enough to draw my attention to.


THE LAWKIT CONTRIBUTOR'S GUIDE

- Apparently, you should never read a book by its cover. However, you can tell a lot about the tone of a publication on first look - that's the point of marketing. To that end, the mock-up shown here gives a fair idea of the sort of style currently in the works. Minimalist but striking, letting the content do the talking. I've come up with some multi-coloured nightmares over the last while as I've been thinking about this, but after the epiphany that was the name, the style wrote itself.

- Lawkit should read like a collection of well-written blog posts. Think of your favourite online articles. What makes them so readable?

- The best way to pin down your subject matter is to start with our subject list. To complete an issue, I'd like to gather articles which collectively cover the majority of these. (Potentially, the blog would note which topics were already "taken" for each issue as well.) Currently, the list is:

Politics
Technology
Outdoors
Film
Music
Faith
Science
Sport
Gadgets
Life

- What's the point of Lawkit? It's about Life As We Know It. It's about sharing knowledge. But you don't have to be an expert to write on something, as long as you are interested in it - because if you are interested in something, you'll be interested in telling others about it. To that end, don't try to argue a point you don't believe in.

- Knowledge is king, but knowledge can also be useful. Able to write a How-To guide for something? Then do it.

- Don't be afraid to be specific or niche.

- Be clear about your subject from the start: 500 words and no waffle is highly preferable to 1500 with - and it'll get cut anyway. Slaughter your babies - omit needless content or someone else will.

- If you only have twenty minutes to bang out something, go for it all the same.

- So knowledge is king, but clarity is Grand High Poobah; you can speak a bit academically and still stay accessible to the casual expert. There's nothing more irritating than being obtuse for the sake of it, and you know it.

- This isn't to sell stuff (yet.) So don't do it - unless you're willing to give something in return for advertising (in which case, let's talk.) That said, if you're involved in something that you feel people might like to hear about, please tell us.


Got all that? Then get scribbling.

the lawkit: a call to arms

Interested in writing - about anything at all?

Two weeks ago (in Carried Along, March 10th 2011) I mentioned a desire to write more. It's been bugging me since.

When I was at school, I pestered a teacher to let me publish a newsletter aimed at our SU. The idea was I'd gather up three or four people every now and again and get them to write something meaningful. Then I'd pull it altogether in a Microsoft Word template, slap in some clip art, and get it photocopied en mass. It would be a bit of reading material for the bus home, would cost nothing to produce, and would maybe even offer a pause for thought.

Then, second or third issue in, the whole thing nearly got pulled after, for badness, I wrote a lengthly editorial questioning seven day creationism (which came straight after a lovely mild-mannered contribution from our headmaster.) I was harangued by a few peers, clearly distressed at my ability to think independently.... no, I'm winding. Although, encouraging, the aforementioned teacher grinned mildly and let me carrying on publishing for the best part of two years.

I have never lost the hunger for writing or editing. Although I ended up focusing on directing photography and editing, my initial drive for studying film at degree level was to write. One of the best parts of studying the day release couse this year has been the chance to write. And so, in the kind of epiphany one can only have spacing out in a lecture (no reflection on the lecture itself, mind) I had an idea, and the Lawkit was conceived.

The idea is to publish, initially online, a journal featuring concise-ish articles about Life As We Know It (hence, Lawkit). I'm looking for articles, reviews, thoughts, testimonials, essays, whatever. And they can be about anything...

...as long as you are passionate about it. For example: politics, entertainment, music, film, science, technology, faith, life, mild musings - whatever. 300-3000 words on something you think is important. Maybe something you hate. Maybe something you think others should find out about. It could be something you write in a few minutes or a few hours. It could be "Why You Don't Need An iPad to Function." Or "Why People Should Care More About Sheep." Or even "Why University is Pointless." How about "Why Lionel Messi is Just a Poor Man's Andrei Kanchelskis." Tell me.

Now, Google Analytics tells me a fair number of people are still reading this blog several years on. I even have a notion who a few of you are. And any of you could write something. The presentation won't be smashing - I'm not claiming much talent as a graphic designer at all - but if there's one thing I've learnt in life, it's that everyone has something to say. And with a little effort, we can collectively get it to an interested audience.

Tweet me @mediatree, or e-mail me for more info. Let's make it happen.

---

EDIT: Read the Lawkit Contributor's Guide for more inspiration.

---

love wins?

Only a short discourse here, as I'm not going to tempt fate by saying much on the topic (or for that matter, showing my hand much.) So Love Wins is out Stateside, soon to come here. Pastor Rob Bell, known best this side of the pond for that friend of the youth-worker-at-a-loose-end, the Nooma series of short videos, has finally done the rounds on the national press, plus the launch interview, to put forth his argument, and in doing so attempt to enter dialogue with the huge swell of criticism that has come his way over the last few weeks. (Interestingly, when I went to link to it on Amazon.co.uk, I found that the UK edition of the book has a completely different cover and subtitle. It's still published by Harper but under the HarperCollins label, and not HarperOne as in the USA.)

Of course, I say dialogue, but he remains suitably vague as ever. (Not an un-Christlike quality, I should hasten to add, but that is in no way to compare Rob with Christ!) And I say criticism, but, in classic conservative American style, that would be putting it politely.

I don't want to agree or disagree with Rob Bell's theology: firstly, as I haven't read Love Wins yet, but probably will at some point soon; and secondly, because of my firmly held belief in the conversational nature of theology.

That is to say, I firmly hold that, in the same way to rule on a case, a court must hear arguments and evidence from all sides concerned, I believe that if we want to try and discern the true nature and purposes of God, we must spend - quite literally - our lifetimes trying to discover them. Like it or not, it is not often disputed that the Bible cannot comprehensively provide to us a full picture of God. It just can't physically fit in. The Bible is snapshot - the trinity is not, as some might seem to hold at time, the Father, Son and Holy Bible. Only from God's own self-revelation can we try and behold His glory.

(That sounded very evangelical. My apologies. Time to get back on track.)

I'll say one thing. I was very, very disappointed in the now-infamous John Piper tweet. You can be damn sure Jesus wouldn't have made that quip. Piper is a great theologian and teacher, but you can't account for a very human case of the headstaggers I guess. Put me right off my quest for more gelato for at least thirty seconds.

Here is my real point though, and it has troubled me for the past couple of weeks. I have no doubt that there's the possibility of cavalier attitudes going on in Bell's latest discussion. I lend some credit to Mark Driscoll for his explanation as to his symbolic departure from the Emergent Church circle - that, although there is value in asking doctrine-shaking big questions, there is a point which you should not pass, Biblical truths that are axiomatic. I would dismiss the extreme of American conservative Christianity in its criticism, because of course as Europeans we are above that level of knuckle-dragging thinking. (US readers please note: this is what we older nations call "humour". Spelt correctly too, mind.) But I would question that the same neo-Calvinists, and in particular the Gospel Coalition style folks who have been especially voracious in their opposition. And this is why.

The typical position for the criticism has been that Bell is heretical. That he is wrong. I don't mind that. But how do you, dear critic, know he is wrong? And this is the crux of what bothers me. Those who are most famously criticising the likes of Bell, McLaren, Campolo et al on their theology speak from the position of this troubling statement:

Because if you disagree with what I am saying, then you disagree with God.

That's it. End of discussion.

But what position does this place the speaker in? Are those critics claiming to have the complete definition of God's character? Perhaps they would argue that the only knowledge they need for these arguments are those axiomatic truths we just referred to, those obvious Biblical facts that are so fundamental to the Christian faith, they cannot be questioned. Perhaps. But I wonder.

Anyway, I'm done. Kevin DeYoung has posted the definitive Gospel Coalition review of the book online today. However, for balance - and I would strongly urge you to take a few minutes to read this - Prof. Eric Kaitan has written a short essay articulating, amongst other things, a similar idea to what I have tried to put forth, and some Biblical questions to consider when approaching Bell's controversial work.

Will faith overcome in all this? I doubt it in terms of the debate. But thankfully, I don't think God is too bothered by our quabbling. Mercifully, regardless of the holes we dig ourselves in to, Love does, in the end, Win whether we realise it or not.

keep on rocking?

I was a Guitar Hero addict for a while. You know the type (certainly, if you were at my stag do, this is DEFINITELY going to resound with you.) After a while, I don't just play. I go nuts, jumping and throwing shapes and generally doing my best possible uncoordinated-white-boy-thang. And whilst recent games have not matched the initial euphoria, and have resulted in the axing of the Guitar Hero series, today's announcement from Ubisoft has got me a little a-quiver.

You see, Ubisoft's Rocksmith game takes it all to a whole new level - because you can use your actual guitar to play actual music.

My mind has just interrupted me here and said, yes - and if you got a band together again you could do this with actual people...

But that's not the point. Guitar Hero and Rock Band, among other things, introduced an awful lot of people to some awfully good music. And whilst the quality of track selection in the last few games has been increasingly poor, I will forever cherish pushing Paul Reddan around his living room to Welcome to the Jungle and Killing In The Name, hammering multi-coloured plastic buttons into Kingdom Come. So to restore that kind of experience, and to be able to plug in my own (lefty!) Strat to do it...

..it'll either be brilliant, or completely pants.

carried along

We got married a fortnight ago, and it's been understandably crazy since. In the midst of it all (it's still going on in it's own way, to a certain extent) I've been sitting working to try and finish off a paper on the theology of work. Ironically, much of this has been done today in the Box42 office, the most peaceful place I could find to work as my coworkers are both out and about. And a pleasant distraction from that, for the five minutes I'm allowing myself, is to contemplate writing topics for the future.

Whilst we were away in Florence for a pretty fantastic honeymoon (even managed to get to the Odeon Firenze twice - The King's Speech in a cavernous theatre was quite brilliant) one of the topics of conversation was writing. I am a big writer, scribbler, whatever. I would believe that the vast majority of it is absolute pap, which is conveyed somewhat in the fact that my blogging, for example, is less than frequent - keeping to a regular one a week for the last few months has been struggle enough. Not, I suppose, that there wasn't anything to share, but rather my usual terror that it's nothing but psychobabble. Which, if you were to spend a couple of moments in our office, listening to me mumble my way through the narration of a morning's e-mails, for example, you would probably appreciate all the more.

But I do love to write. And so, whilst getting carried along by all the palaver of the last few weeks, I am starting to slump down the other side and considering making one of the aspects of this new chapter.... to write.

But what... to write?