Mar 2, 2008
Does a story need “an element of redemption” in order to be true or good? No.
Like this post?
Redemption is certain eternally, but now hopelessness really exists.
That’s warrant enough for stories to be as unredemptive as life sometimes is.
* * * * *
This brings to mind a similar matter which of I’ve inquired others’ opinions before: does the same hold true for Christian songs?
what qualifies as a Christian song? a song you sing during worship with a congregation? or ones written by Christian songwriters?
Excellent point Abraham. This would be my reasoning to why a movie-story both originally literature like There Will Be Blood and even No Country for Old Men are important.
Yes. Those are actually 2 of the stories I had in mind when I wrote the post. I haven’t seen either of them yet, but I’ve read “No Country.”
OK: the English major in me says, “yes, I see your point.” I think tragedy conveys a true moment, or a true attribute of life.
But the rest of me, especially as I consider my life since being saved after I was a grown man, thinks that tragic art fires wide of the make often — because the message is frankly truncated. You know: if we read the story of Joseph in Genesis, but we only portray the part were his brothers plot to kill him and then sell him into slavery, and we only think about the fact of 10 brothers betraying and assaulting their half-brother because they are jealous of him, that’s really ugly. It’s true, but it’s ugly and it’s also only half the story (if that).
Here’s my question: (as I explode the 22-word limit) how true is half the truth? I think we have to be on-guard, especially in the realm of Art, that we are not speaking half-truths to people in our work as they may not stick around for us to give them the other half which completes the vision from merely “true” to “truth”.
How true is half the truth?
My calling (as a poet) is to give everything I have, not everything there is. I expect to write half the truth and accept that every reader will not-stick-around for the other half. They shouldn’t: I gave everything, and I don’t have the other half.
It’s an act of faith to trust that what I gave a reader was a true gift and not pernicious BS. And it’s another act of faith to hope that when they don’t-stick-around they will receive more somewhere else. Humbling, actually, over and over.
So, no, a story doesn’t need an element of redemption to be true or good.
Now, a couple of 22 word items in case Abraham wants to make a running item out of this topic…
***An element of redemption may be just the thing that hides truth in a work of art, or cuts it in half.***
***Every artwork has an element of redemption because it is an act of creation before it becomes an artifact we respond to.***
If in some sense the fall of man was a great act of un-creation, then every act of genuine creation this side of the fall is re-creation, rebirth, renewal, and, yes, redemption.
But sometimes … is there the possibility of truly destructive ‘art’? Nihilism only masquerading as art? I don’t know. I’m inclined to say no.
Something is very wrong when a piece of “art” has to be marketed only to Christians to be successful. Such material (music, film, etc….) is neither “art” nor “Christian” in any useful sense of the word.
For example, “Facing the Giants” was a hit among Christians (only), and yet was the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than “Daddy Day Care” or “Shrek 3.”
What possible effect can a film like this have except to 1. push Christians further toward isolation into some kind of alternate “Christian culture” and 2. to remind the world that we have nothing but bumper sticker platitudes to offer them?
My point above is that artificially adding a “message” destroys any inherent value in the piece itself and reduces it to advertising.
The only question left, then, is “to whom are we marketing?”
The flip side of that argument is that when a Christian produces true, transcendent, and beautiful art as worship to God, it should be universally recognized as excellent, even by people who disagree with it’s message.
Karsten:
I think you are missing some serious noetic implications here — because I -think- for you to affirm the bit about all art being “redemptive” in some sense is less than half the truth about both art and redemption — or it is an outright blasphemy.
And I say that to map the borders of a future conversation on this topic — not to call you a heretic. I think you are using words a little carelessly here for the effect of causing people to think about art in broader terms than most people will bother with. I applaud that effort, but I think I’d have a little more care with theological words like “redemption” and “creation” in the context of most of us here (and all of “us” — you, me, Abraham) being Christians.
I’d also be interested in the aesthetic implications of the third commandment in this discussion. Where does the artist cross the line between worship and idolatry in seeking to “create” “art”?
Not sure if this will make any sense, but here goes:
I think the “redemptive quality” must reside external to the work of art.
The Lord enables it, not the art, nor the audience. Redemption isn’t automatic or integral.
The response to the art, I mean something that brings one closer to God, is not dependent on whether there is some forced or forcible redemptive or Gospel truth inherent in the work.
My poetry is rather dark rather often, and I don’t think I’ve done much for “redemptive quality” or Christianization in it.
A response from some readers has been wonder about how I dealt with the issue in real life. The opportunity to share Christ resulted occasionally.
I agree with KP about the 1/2 truth of poetry, and the other half, that which I do not record on paper is sometimes where the redemptive theme can be found.
Been reading Flannery O’Connor, in an attempt to exorcise my fundamentalist demons. I read her first thing this morning in my pre-devotional readings–and before
reading this blog. I found her comments to be helpful and surprisingly germane to the discussion:
“dogma is an instrument for penetrating reality. Christian dogma is about the only thing left in the world that surely guards and respects mystery. The fiction writer is an observer, first, last, and always, but he cannot be an adequate observer unless he is free from uncertainty about what he sees. . . . He feels no need to apologize for the ways of God to man or to avoid looking at the ways of man to God. For him, to ‘tidy up reality’ [read: make it "redemptive"] is certainly to succumb to the sin of pride. Open and free observation is founded on our ultimate faith that the universe is meaningful, as the Church teaches.”
Which leads to another question: is it possible to write well and not be Catholic?
I’ve wondered the same thing, TJ. Protestants who can write are hard to find. And Lewis (or any Anglican) doesn’t count. Leif Enger started well with his first book. He’s no Flannery O’Connor though.
Hm. I wonder if MY writing would improve if I converted back to Catholicism.
[...] of stories and truth. The discussion was sparked by a couple of posts at Abraham’s blog (here and here). I’ve been thinking about the subject again lately and would like to pick it up. In [...]