John Calvin (right) and Thomas Hobbes (left) by SpaceCoyote
The unexpected discussion on vampire tales has now morphed into a discussion on publishing issues in the Christian world, as you can see from some of the comments on my previous posts. This brings up the question of what is the purpose of a Christian writing in the area of fantasy? Why bother with fantasy and/or science fiction?
I think it appropriate to have a rather long quote from G.K. Chesterton on fairy tales. The English is 19th century, so you have to work at it a little bit, but it is worth it. Both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien have given credit to G.K Chesterton for giving them much inspiration. So what does Mr. Chesterton have to say about fairy tales (which would have been the older way to talk about fantasy writings)? What does he see behind the writing of fantasy? [Again, this is a rather long quote.]
SOME solemn and superficial people (for nearly all very superficial people are solemn) have declared that the fairy-tales are immoral; they base this upon some accidental circumstances or regrettable incidents in the war between giants and boys, some cases in which the latter indulged in unsympathetic deceptions or even in practical jokes. The objection, however, is not only false, but very much the reverse of the facts. The fairy-tales are at root not only moral in the sense of being innocent, but moral in the sense of being didactic, moral in the sense of being moralising. . . .
If you really read the fairy-tales, you will observe that one idea runs from one end of them to the other – the idea that peace and happiness can only exist on some condition. This idea, which is the core of ethics, is the core of the nursery-tales. The whole happiness of fairyland hangs upon a thread, upon one thread. Cinderella may have a dress woven on supernatural looms and blazing with unearthly brilliance; but she must be back when the clock strikes twelve. The king may invite fairies to the christening, but he must invite all the fairies or frightful results will follow. Bluebeard’s wife may open all doors but one. A promise is broken to a cat, and the whole world goes wrong. A promise is broken to a yellow dwarf, and the whole world goes wrong. A girl may be the bride of the God of Love himself if she never tries to see him; she sees him, and he vanishes away. A girl is given a box on condition she does not open it; she opens it, and all the evils of this world rush out at her. A man and woman are put in a garden on condition that they do not eat one fruit: they eat it, and lose their joy in all the fruits of the earth.
This great idea, then, is the backbone of all folk-lore–the idea that all happiness hangs on one thin veto; all positive joy depends on one negative. Now, it is obvious that there are many philosophical and religious ideas akin to or symbolised by this; but it is not with them I wish to deal here. It is surely obvious that all ethics ought to be taught to this fairy-tale tune; that, if one does the thing forbidden, one imperils all the things provided. A man who breaks his promise to his wife ought to be reminded that, even if she is a cat, the case of the fairy-cat shows that such conduct may be incautious. A burglar just about to open some one else’s safe should be playfully reminded that he is in the perilous posture of the beautiful Pandora: he is about to lift the forbidden lid and loosen evils unknown. The boy eating some one’s apples in some one’s apple tree should be a reminder that he has come to a mystical moment of his life, when one apple may rob him of all others. This is the profound morality of fairy-tales; which, so far from being lawless, go to the root of all law. Instead of finding (like common books of ethics) a rationalistic basis for each Commandment, they find the great mystical basis for all Commandments. We are in this fairyland on sufferance; it is not for us to quarrel with the conditions under which we enjoy this wild vision of the world. The vetoes are indeed extraordinary, but then so are the concessions. The idea of property, the idea of some one else’s apples, is a rum idea; but then the idea of there being any apples is a rum idea. It is strange and weird that I cannot with safety drink ten bottles of champagne; but then the champagne itself is strange and weird, if you come to that. If I have drunk of the fairies’ drink it is but just I should drink by the fairies’ rules. We may not see the direct logical connection between three beautiful silver spoons and a large ugly policeman; but then who in fairy tales ever could see the direct logical connection between three bears and a giant, or between a rose and a roaring beast? Not only can these fairy-tales be enjoyed because they are moral, but morality can be enjoyed because it puts us in fairyland, in a world at once of wonder and of war.
Fairy tales, fantasy, and science fiction written from a solid Christian worldview are indeed fully moral. And they are fully moral not because at the end the hero has a conversion experience to the Lord Jesus Christ, but because they put before the reader the clear understanding that all peace and happiness “exists on one condition.” The condition may vary according to the tale. However, the tales mimic the great understanding of Genesis when it declares that God Himself predicated all future happiness on one and only one condition, “from all other trees thou may eat, but from this one thou may not.”
Well written fiction need not invoke the name of God, or of angels, or even of Christianity in order to point to an universe that is run by certain moral precepts. There is no Christianity or Judaism in The Lord of the Rings yet no one doubts its clear Catholic/Orthodox worldview. It is only necessary that the fiction well documents the moral imperative that there exists a condition, and that if that condition be broken, then all hell may well break loose. To say that there will be hell to pay is not a blasphemy but simply an acknowledgment of the great ransom that the Son of God paid on our behalf and that is often pictured in the best of Christian worldview fantasy, from the hell of the massive battles of The Lord of the Rings, to the awful sacrifice of Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. When one reads Grimm’s Fairy Tales, one is often made aware, and quite clearly so, how pride goes before the fall.
The great mistake of the Christian Bookseller’s Associations and the Evangelical Christian Publisher’s Association was in their limiting “Christian” fiction and fantasy writing to stereotyped setpieces with little subtlety. A modern Christian writer would not be able to convince either association to publish a book such as The Brothers Kamarazov. A G.K. Chesterton would be considered a borderline Christian. But, the absolutely worst effect of the content-control exercised by these associations is the constricting and limiting of the imagination of both readers and writers, a limitation that often impacts real life and creates “Christians” whose imagination and creativity is limited, and whose ability to communicate the Gospel is also limited to well memorized set pieces and spiels.
Rather than helping to promote the Gospel and good Christian writing, the two associations have done the opposite. They have reduced the Gospel to kitschy setpieces and constricted writing into molds every bit as predictable as a Hollywood prime-time TV show. We have slid a long way downward from the writings of a Chesterton or a Lewis or a Tolkien or a Dostoyevsky or a Tolstoy.
Thanks for posting this. It’s always good to see that there are more Christians who want something other than safe set-piece fiction of the kind you describe.
It’s probably important to keep in mind, for the sake of sounding knowledgeable I guess, that ECPA was created in the 1970’s by a group of CBA affiliated publishers. The way I understand it, these particular affiliated publishers didn’t think CBA was denominationally stringent enough with their guidelines, if you can imagine that. So now you have CBA affiliated publishers and CBA affiliated publishers who are also ECPA affiliated. Most of this is on CBA website which is, if I remember correctly http://www.cba.org. Their target audience is mentioned there as well which has been upgraded to say they now write for some Catholics. Well. What a nice gesture. LOL I’m sorry. I just found that hard to wrap my mind around. That must be the evangelical Catholics. O_o
Oh and you have general market publishers who publish Christian authors all day long. You know, authors like Rowling, Grisham, Tolkien, Stoker, Rice . . . Dent! đ My publisher actually calls themselves a Christian publisher though. They’re just not affiliated with CBA or ECPA. So there ya go. They specialize in Speculative fiction, another label devised to get around the fact that the label Christian fiction applies only to exclusive work put out by CBA affiliated publishers. It won’t work for long though because now CBA affiliated publishers are using this label as well. Go figure.
Well, this blog is turning out to be just downright eclectic: Not merely theology (MERELY theology: HA!) but Calvin & Hobbes, palliative care, vampire chick-lit, Nixon-in-China, Christian (TM) publishing, you name it. I think I even saw a photo of a former Miss California a while back. Interesting. We’ll blame that one on Father Orthoduck.
I first tuned in here a few months ago as a result of internetmonk’s creationism rant (and my subsequent one) and discovered Central American politics and Supreme Court decisions. It all went downhill from there. Father Ernesto, you are all over the board with interesting topics. Thank you.
As for Christian (TM) publishing, am I gathering from responses on other posts that an author may no longer use the term “Christian novel” without being a member of CBA or ECPA? If so, I would resent that. I’m a frustrated author myself of an all-but-failed attempt at a novel with Christian themes. And two of my favorite Christian authors are Flannery O’Connor (I just discovered a post by Father Ernesto about her as well) and Susan Howatch. Neither of these would meet the guidelines of CBA and ECPA because Flannery O’Connor’s characters use the “N” word unabashedly (well, that’s the way people talked in the South in the 50’s. Probably still do, when they can get away with it); and Susan Howatch explores the topic of adultery in great detail, and, in her most recent book, homosexual prostitution rings complete with drug addiction and the occult (Don’t go there until you’ve read her earlier books, particularly the Starbridge series about the Anglican Church 1930’s to 1960’s). But that book, R-rated as it may be, reminds me very much of C.S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength”, the third of his “Space Trilogy”. Lots of conflict between good and evil, leaving the reader no doubt which is which. Sin and grace and deliverance from evil. Once you get past all the “F” words, how much more Christian can you get? Again: Read her Starbridge series first, starting with Glittering Images. More like Upstairs, Downstairs.
If I ever finish my novel I won’t call CBA or ECPA.
One suggestion for this blog, Father E, could you archive posts also by topic? The titles work OK, but only recent titles are listed. Prior to that, you have them filed by month, and it’s hit-or-miss to find an old favorite or to research a rant.
Keep up the good work. I may never read a vampire chick-lit novel but it’s good to know that they are out there. I think.
You can use the term Christian novel, but as other authors have pointed out, this means that you will be typecast by secular publishers who will assume that your novel will follow certain formulaic lines. So, they won’t buy it. Christians will assume also that your novel will follow certain formulaic lines and will be offended if anything other than G rated with a clear choice of what is Christian shows up.
This blog wanders all over because it is simply a blog about what piques my interest or Father Orthoduck’s interest đ . Once in a great while someone suggests a topic and I tend to follow it up. I never intended this to be an issue blog. I figured it would develop its own identity over time. I am not sure it has one yet. đ
I will have to figure out how to archive by topic. I simply have the default settings on this blog. In passing, use the search box on the home page. It is fairly good.
Chesterton is right. What makes a book Christian is the author being Christian and being true to his or her faith when writing. This is the case with me (I hope) and my new release, Angela 1: Starting Over. I specifically did not want a “Christian” publisher so as not to limit the readership. I specifically avoided preaching and proselytising. The book (the first of a series of three set in a cosatal Texas high school) does deal with what happens when people violate ethical practices. The title character, Angela Fournier, gets into major troubles because she wants people to live ethically and behave according to what they profess. To learn more, just click on my name and follow the link to my website. Thanks!
Pues, profi, me interesa bastante leer que usted enseña nuesta lengua linda.
Rather than helping to promote the Gospel and good Christian writing, the two associations have done the opposite. They have reduced the Gospel to kitschy setpieces and constricted writing into molds every bit as predictable as a Hollywood prime-time TV show.
“Predictable as a prime-time TV show?”
More like “predictable as a porn loop”!
My comment in the above-linked thread:
“DUDE! SOMEBODY ELSE NOTICED THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN (TM) MOVIES AND PORN! I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE!
And it’s not just movies. It’s … pretty much Christian (TM) anything. Money shot every X pages (Bible Verse et al) and the Big Money Shot (Altar Call ending) at the Climax.”
Umm… Not to throw fuel on the fire (I mean, it is January 1st and we need to get started on a hopeful note), but…
I clicked on the link and read some of the comments that compared Christian movies to “propaganda” and “cultural pornography”.
I have read a few Christian (TM) novels, as you call them; and I’m afraid it may be true of literature as well.
And I wish you hadn’t said, in an earlier post, that “everybody outside the four Thomas Kincaid-decorated walls of Christian Bizarro World knows that âChristian = Crapâ.
I’m not a fan of Kinkade’s art either. His capture of light is very skilful, but his paintings are too literal, and somehow too empty. His paintings of churches and pathways give me the creeps, but I can’t put my finger on why, and I have no art background to build on. But my gut feeling reminds me of the serpent, offering the fruit, offering empty promises.
Slander. I know. I’m sure Kinkade is a very nice guy. But his art gives me the creeps.
But happy new year.
Good article. As a writer, I struggle with the obvious “Christianizing” of fiction through safe, “biblically-sound” stories, while also following my convictions. I’ve come to see, at the least, that acknowledging that morality is objective is a step in the right direction. I don’t really know where my stories would end up, publishing-wise.
Since God’s morals are universal, I try to also recognize Christian undercurrents in secular fiction that had no intent of presenting such a thing. For example, I find Luke Skywalker’s journey to selflessly save his undeserving father through love and mercy to be an incredible Christ-like and Catholic/Orthodox lesson, even though it’s dressed up in Zen Buddhism. While rare, those kinds of stories give me hope that it’s possible to communicate Christian morals when it’s least expected.
Also, greeitngs from a post-inquirer/pre-catechumen đ