Category: Culture

The Way The World Ain’t

Recently I was talking with a friend who mentioned to me that she’s seen only one of the Star Wars films. She saw the first one when it first came out back in 1977 and never watched another.

Why?

Because she had recently converted to Christianity from another religion and, as a zealous new Fundamentalist (she’s now a Catholic), she was horrified by the alien creatures in the film.

"I wanted to get up in front of the screen and shout ‘God didn’t make these!‘" she told me.

While she now recognizes that the mere depiction of alien beings isn’t inherently sinful, she still doesn’t particularly enjoy sci-fi, and part of the reason why is that God didn’t make creatures like what you see in the movies–at least so far as we’re aware at this point.

I’ve had other friends express similar reservations about sci-fi. They just can’t relate to the alien creatures or situations that one often finds in it, and sometimes they also point to the fact that God didn’t make the world the way that it’s depicted in sci-fi.

I’m sympathetic to this. I’m a sci-fi fan, but I’m still sympathetic.

From one perspective, I’m sympathetic to it on an emotional level. Humans have emotional comfort zones regarding what they want to experience. If our experiences are too strange, too alien, too outside-our-comfort-zones then we get . . . uncomfortable. For most people, just looking at the Star-Nosed Mole (something God did create!) is enough to give them the willies.

If science fiction gives some folks an outside-the-comfort-zone experience and makes them uncomfortable, I respect that. That’s not where my comfort zones are set, but I have such zones just like everyone else, and some forms of fiction I find distasteful and, therefore, I avoid them.

That’s a matter of taste, though, not of principle.

I’m also sympathetic to my friends’ theological concern, for I had the same concern back when I was an Evangelical. Much as I liked science-fiction, I wondered about a form of entertainment that depicts the world in a way that God didn’t make it.

After all, one could argue, if God chose to make the world this way and not that way, why should we spend time filling our imaginations with the way the world ain’t?

I realized, though, that this objection got at a principle that affected a lot more literature than just science fiction. It also affected fantasy, of course, and imaginative fiction generally. But it still affected yet more.

It affected fiction itself.

There are distinctions to be made between different kinds of fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, realistic, detective, romance, western, etc.). They all obey different rules and depart in different ways from the way the world actually is. But all forms of fiction depart in some way from the way that God made the world.

That’s why we call it fiction. . . . It’s the way the world ain’t . .  stories that aren’t true.

Sci-fi and fantasy may (sometimes) break laws of nature that apply to the real world. Detective stories, romances, and westerns may all be written according to formulas that involve wildly improbably events that seldom happen–at least in conjunction with each other–in the real world. But even the most realistic story (or what in a typical English department would be considered a realistic story) involves envisioning the world a way that it isn’t.

So the objection can be posed even to realistic narratives: Why should we fill up our imaginations with material about the world the way God didn’t make it?

It’s a question worth considering.

There are good answers to it, and in upcoming posts I’ll share with you what I take to be some of those answers, but for now why not contemplate the problem?

The Way The World Ain't

Recently I was talking with a friend who mentioned to me that she’s seen only one of the Star Wars films. She saw the first one when it first came out back in 1977 and never watched another.

Why?

Because she had recently converted to Christianity from another religion and, as a zealous new Fundamentalist (she’s now a Catholic), she was horrified by the alien creatures in the film.

"I wanted to get up in front of the screen and shout ‘God didn’t make these!‘" she told me.

While she now recognizes that the mere depiction of alien beings isn’t inherently sinful, she still doesn’t particularly enjoy sci-fi, and part of the reason why is that God didn’t make creatures like what you see in the movies–at least so far as we’re aware at this point.

I’ve had other friends express similar reservations about sci-fi. They just can’t relate to the alien creatures or situations that one often finds in it, and sometimes they also point to the fact that God didn’t make the world the way that it’s depicted in sci-fi.

I’m sympathetic to this. I’m a sci-fi fan, but I’m still sympathetic.

From one perspective, I’m sympathetic to it on an emotional level. Humans have emotional comfort zones regarding what they want to experience. If our experiences are too strange, too alien, too outside-our-comfort-zones then we get . . . uncomfortable. For most people, just looking at the Star-Nosed Mole (something God did create!) is enough to give them the willies.

If science fiction gives some folks an outside-the-comfort-zone experience and makes them uncomfortable, I respect that. That’s not where my comfort zones are set, but I have such zones just like everyone else, and some forms of fiction I find distasteful and, therefore, I avoid them.

That’s a matter of taste, though, not of principle.

I’m also sympathetic to my friends’ theological concern, for I had the same concern back when I was an Evangelical. Much as I liked science-fiction, I wondered about a form of entertainment that depicts the world in a way that God didn’t make it.

After all, one could argue, if God chose to make the world this way and not that way, why should we spend time filling our imaginations with the way the world ain’t?

I realized, though, that this objection got at a principle that affected a lot more literature than just science fiction. It also affected fantasy, of course, and imaginative fiction generally. But it still affected yet more.

It affected fiction itself.

There are distinctions to be made between different kinds of fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, realistic, detective, romance, western, etc.). They all obey different rules and depart in different ways from the way the world actually is. But all forms of fiction depart in some way from the way that God made the world.

That’s why we call it fiction. . . . It’s the way the world ain’t . .  stories that aren’t true.

Sci-fi and fantasy may (sometimes) break laws of nature that apply to the real world. Detective stories, romances, and westerns may all be written according to formulas that involve wildly improbably events that seldom happen–at least in conjunction with each other–in the real world. But even the most realistic story (or what in a typical English department would be considered a realistic story) involves envisioning the world a way that it isn’t.

So the objection can be posed even to realistic narratives: Why should we fill up our imaginations with material about the world the way God didn’t make it?

It’s a question worth considering.

There are good answers to it, and in upcoming posts I’ll share with you what I take to be some of those answers, but for now why not contemplate the problem?

About Writing

I’ve decided to add a category to the left hand column devoted to the subject of writing. I already have categories on fiction, books, etc., but these are mostly taken up with particular works or series.

The new one will be devoted to blog posts about the craft of writing itself–both how to do it and what moral and theological questions it raises.

A couple of things started me thinking along these lines. The first was a request I had to help someone learn how to do apologetic-style writing. I’ve been doing this for a baker’s dozen of years now, and in that time I’ve grown a lot as a writer. (Of course, like everyone, I also have more growing to do.) There are certain tricks of the trade–both of writing in general and apologetic writing in particular–that I’ve learned, and I wanted to start writing them down in a place where they could benefit others.

The second thing was the recent dustup over what Pre-16 may have written in a thank you note regarding Harry Potter. This surfaced a number of moral/theological issues connected with that, while I didn’t have time to go into them at the moment, I still thought were worth exploring.

I’ve got less experience writing fiction than non-fiction. Frankly, I don’t have that much time for it. But I do have some experience, and many of the rules are ones it shares with non-fiction writing.

I also have the same experience as others of reading (or viewing or listening to) fiction and wrestling with the moral and theological isues it raises.

So. . . . Hope this’ll be of interest to folks!

To be continued. . . .

Return Of The Sith

Coming soon to a DVD player near you: Revenge of the Sith is to be released on DVD on November 1:

"The Force will return to retail stores Nov. 1 with a double whammy: Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith will be released on DVD, and Star Wars Battlefront II will be made available for all the top video game platforms.

Sith is the year’s top-grossing movie, with domestic box office earnings of $373.9 million (and an additional $425 million overseas). The two-disc set will include a full-length documentary; two new featurettes, one exploring the prophecy of Anakin Skywalker as the Chosen One and the other on the movie’s stunts; and a 15-part collection of ‘Web documentaries.’"

GET THE STORY.

Practice your Jedi mind tricks now so that you can convince the Star Wars fanatic in your life that he does not want the new DVD until Christmas Day. If that doesn’t work, take heart. There’s sure to be a jumbo-deluxe, extended-edition, collector’s set of all of the Star Wars movies Any Day Now.

Raiders Of The Lost Templars

Those perennial heroes of conspiracy theorists everywhere, the Knights Templar, have surfaced again. Now the Knights are claimed to be responsible for Renaissance paintings of the pregnant Madonna:

"A string of artists working from the middle of the 14th century near Florence painted the Virgin Mary as they imagined her to have been while she was pregnant. The best-known of these swelling Madonnas is by the great 15th century Tuscan artist Piero della Francesca. It shows an apparently dejected mother-to-be with one hand resting on the burgeoning front of her maternity gown.

[…]

"Carvings and sculptures of pregnant Marys have a longer history before and after the early Renaissance. But the painting of them by artists of stature is almost entirely confined to Tuscany in the 130 years ending around 1467, when Piero della Francesco is reckoned to have created the fresco at Monterchi.

"In a 40-page booklet published last month, Renzo Manetti, a Florentine architect and author of several works on symbolism in art, argues that this is no coincidence.

"’Florence was a major Templar centre and these Madonnas start to appear soon after the suppression of the knights in 1312,’ he told the Guardian this week. The first by a celebrated artist is attributed to Taddeo Gaddi and dated to between 1334 and 1338.

"In virgin and child paintings, the child symbolises wisdom, knowledge, truth. So what the pregnant Madonnas represent is a temporarily hidden truth,’ Mr. Manetti said."

GET THE STORY.

When Mr. Manetti has time for a sabbatical from architecture, I suggest a course in Logic 101. The attribution of one thing to its immediate predecessor simply because it happened afterward is known as the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin, "after this, therefore because of this"). The article reports that an Italian priest has offered a far simpler explanation of the paintings of the pregnant Madonnas:

"In a 15-page article due to appear soon in the diocesan periodical, Father Giovanni Alpigiano argues for the traditional view that the expectant virgins represent the theological concept of incarnation. There is ‘no arcane secret’ attached to Gaddi’s Mary, he insists, despite her cryptic, knowing expression.

"’Great care needs to be taken in attempting to rewrite the history of art or literature solely with the help of esoteric clues,’ Fr. Alpigiano adds. An account of his counter-blast was splashed over the best part of a page in Avvenire, the national daily newspaper owned by the Italian bishops’ conference."

But, of course, simple explanations do not sell books or establish academic reputations so Fr. Alpigiano must be satisfied with being a Catholic apologist rather than an art "expert."

Christ Is Kewl

Hollywood may have been unwilling to honor Mel Gibson for his blockbuster The Passion of the Christ, but it is definitely willing to cash in on the success of his movie by scavaging religious imagery to plump up otherwise thoroughly secular films:

"In the summer blockbuster movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith, from 20th Century Fox, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie play godless suburbanites and professional assassins. But when they steal their neighbor’s car for an extended chase scene, a crucifix hangs conspicuously from the rear-view mirror, and in the next scene the actors wear borrowed jackets that read ‘Jesus Rocks’ as they go on the lam.

"’We decided to make the next-door neighbor, whose crucifix it is, be hip, young, cool Christians,’ explained the movie’s director, Doug Liman. ‘It’s literally in there for no other reason than I thought: This is cool.’

"Liman isn’t alone. Mainstream Hollywood, after decades of ignoring the pious — or occasionally defying them with the likes of Martin Scorsese’s revisionist Last Temptation of Christ and Kevin Smith’s profane parody Dogma — is adjusting to what it perceives to be a rising religiosity in American culture."

GET THE STORY.

Uh huh. Sure.

What these Hollywood types don’t seem to understand is that Mel Gibson’s movie succeeded because it was sincere. It wasn’t aimed at milking the presumed "religiosity" of a target audience. (Had it been so crassly targeted it would have been far less overtly Catholic in its appeal to an overwhelmingly Evangelical Christian audience.) But draping a crucifix on a mirror and stuffing pop icons into "Jesus Rocks" jackets is so patently patronizing as to be immediately scorned by the audience whose bucks Hollywood wants.

Christians, in the eyes of Hollywood studios, are handy milch cows but are not worth taking seriously.

Harry Potter 6

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Read it myself.

I think we need a spoiler warning thread or we will all burst.

Your wish is my command.

One spoiler-warning thread coming up.

Abandon all right to complain about spoilers, ye who enter here.

SPOILER WARNING ON THE COMBOX!

UPDATE: Comments on this one are still going strong, so I’m bumping it up in the stack so folks who want to interact won’t have to scroll so far down to get to it.

Midnight Madness

For laffs and for lack of anything better to do that evening, I decided to try and pick up my pre-ordered copy of Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince at the “Midnight Magic” party my local bookstore was throwing to celebrate the release.  By the end of the evening, I wasn’t laffing and I was wishing I’d found something better to do with my time.  The only perk was actually getting the book.

The procedure called for picking up wristbands to claim your spot in line at 6 PM.  By the time I got there after work, people were already queuing up.  The bookstore’s café offered itty-bitty samples of Starbucks-esque coffee to the hot and cranky crowd, which was nice.  I nearly choked on my vanilla frappacino when a small boy of about eleven said solemnly to the brother he’d been roughhousing with, “Violence is never the answer…. Except in virtual reality, where violence is definitely the answer.”

Worried about parking hassles if I waited too long to come back to the store, I returned to the store around eight, figuring I’d grab one of the comfy armchairs and spend the evening reading.  With the exception of being continually distracted by hordes of screaming children running around the store in capes, Potter glasses, and homemade wands, I managed to get a lot of reading done.  About a half-hour before the sale, my eyes were drooping, so I decided to cruise around the store checking out the games and crafts stations.  The crowds made it impossible to see what was going on at those stations, of course.

Around fifteen minutes to midnight, I noticed a large group of people starting to crowd around the registers.  Interrogation of individuals in the crowd yielded the information that this was how we were expected to get the books.  Despite assurances that wristbands would be checked, it became obvious that the wristbands were a polite fiction.  I could have cruised into the store at 11:45, told the clerk distributing wristbands that I had pre-ordered, and then worked my way through the crowd to the register to present myself as first in line.  Fortunately for me and for the store, I was out within ten minutes with my copy, so there was no need to complain about the situation.  Next time though, when Year 7 is released, I’ll go the next day to pick up my copy.

This past weekend was spent reading Year 6.  All in all, very good.  I’m still bleary-eyed from the last couple of late-night reading marathons.  Despite the frustrations with the "Midnight Magic" brouhaha, the new Harry Potter book was well worth the wait.  It’s difficult to discuss my specific thoughts about the book without revealing huge, honking spoilers that would disappoint those who haven’t yet read the book, so that post will have to await a future date when more people have had a chance to finish the book themselves.  In the meantime, all I can say is that the climax is problematic, but I am hopeful that Rowling can play it out in Year 7 without destroying one well-loved character and another character for whom I’ve always had a grudging admiration.

Just Like a Fine Wine

RedhatAs an artist, I feel an obligation to look for beauty in the world and draw attention to it. Beauty deserves praise, and people benefit from giving praise where it is due.

To that end, I would like to call your attention to the man in the red hat. No, that is not the late Gene Scott, and no, this is not the beauty that I spoke of earlier. The man in the red hat is Gerry Rafferty, and it is his music to which I would like to call your attention.

Let me back up a bit… 1978. Disco was all over the radio, and punk had fought back, kicking and gouging. The New Wave had not yet broken. I had my favorite songs, like everyone, but there was one song that could turn me in to a road hazard every time I heard it on the car radio: Gerry Rafferty’s "Baker Street", which sported the most arresting hook and spine-tingling sax line ever devised in pop music. I often pulled over just to listen to it (ah, to be 17 again…). It was completely unique, and sheer genius.

So a couple days ago I’m poking around on Google, playing a round of "Whatever Happened To…" when I thought of Rafferty and decided to see what he’s been up to lately. Fortunately he has been making music, and his skills have not dulled, but matured. His new release, Another World, is a masterpiece. You want to talk about melodic structure? Vocal harmony? Spiritual depth? You don’t listen to this music, it just washes over you. But I’m gushing.

You can find out more about Mr. Rafferty and his music at his website, which features several free music downloads, including two traditional Christmas carols. If you have ever heard the National Anthem butchered by a showy vocalist (and who hasn’t?) you will appreciate his beautiful, understated harmonies.
Did I mention he also has a free download of his rendition of the Kyrie Eleison?

Enjoy…