I’m reading Cormac McCarthy’s The Road right now and my heart is heavy under the tremendous weight of it. I’m reading the novel for the second time and for the moment I think it might be my favorite novel. I will probably change my mind on that at some point, but for the moment I’m utterly immersed in the world McCarthy’s has created. He won the Pulitzer Prize for the novel and I believe it was justly earned. His prose is lyrical, haunting and breathtakingly beautiful; it really sticks with you.
The novel is set in a post-apocalyptic world where humans are slowly becoming extinct. A father and son set out on a journey along what used to be an Interstate highway, but is simply known as “a road” since there is no such thing as states anymore. The duo’s journey south is out of necessity as the region they formerly inhabited is increasingly becoming too cold to sustain their existence, and like other great stories of migration, the journey gives the father a quest (he must deliver his son safely to the coast) as well as hope for the child (that he may find a better life in the south with food and other children to play with). But the landscape is bleak and desolate and though the child must have faith and hope, the reader, like the father, is constantly aware of the direness of their circumstances and the reality that their hope may be in vain. Literally all the two have to keep them going is clinging unflinchingly to the love they share.
The story evokes primal emotions and beliefs about what it means to exist and be human. The father and son have to decide what it means to choose good or evil and are forced to reinvent its parameters in a world stripped of human civilization. A world where some have reduced everything down to one axiom: survival. In this world where survival is uncertain and the fragileness of existence an incessant reality, theft, plunder, slavery and cannibalism are viable options for many and their merits the only means of subsistence. The ethics of this world are extraordinarily troubling to our sensibilities, but not outside the realm of possibility given the circumstances, which makes the territory McCarthy navigates resonate with disturbingly profound insight and tension.
The story also ponders the existence of God. The father cannot accept belief in God because of the terrible loss he has experienced, but at the same time the father clings firmly to his notion of what distinguishes good from evil and resists the temptation to choose evil. The father also admires what he sees as pure beauty and goodness in his son, and he cannot fathom where this beauty and goodness comes from or how his boy is capable of feeling and choosing it in the face of overwhelming atrocity. McCarthy captures the conflict at war in the core of the human soul: the paradoxical coexistence of good and evil and the fragile hope that pursing good will not be in vain, that at some point there will be a redemption of sorts—whether from divine intervention or from the eventual triumph of the good in the human spirit is unknown—but that in whatever form it takes, it will realign the universe and prove the endeavor of human existence had some sort of purpose beyond biological survival and the cold mechanical turning of the planetary system. Though for the moment this may be all we seem to have.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Infrastructure
The other week I heard on NPR an analyst talking about infrastructure in the U.S. and how it’s an important topic these days because the U.S. is falling far behind other developed countries.
Despite these tough economic times, if we don’t put some significant money into improving our infrastructure, then it will be worse in the long run. The analyst said that one main stumbling block of improving infrastructure is that it would mean the states’ governments would need to work together, and this is a difficult thing in our system because the people elected to office tend to pass favorable legislation for the people who made the biggest contributions to their campaign. This results in the clichéd “bridge to nowhere” which means for instance that instead of improving highways that are badly in need of repair or instead of putting a new road between states where one desperately needs to be put, they will approve funding for a unnecessary highway that may increase value in land owned by these special interest groups or the government may subsidize the building of a new sports arena when the old arena was perfectly fine, but the sports organization can profit by increasing ticket prices.
This is to say that when companies invest millions of dollar helping a politician get elected they expect something in return.
Hurray for Democracy!
The analyst noted that there are a few states that seem to be doing well, but it’s a tough sell all around because these are not the kinds of projects that help congressmen get reelected. They may have to say “no” to their special interest groups, and they know doing that will mean they loose campaign money.
I bring up this point to further illustrate my concern and question how it is possible to have faith in a system that is so thoroughly corrupt and functions according to the principles of greed and self-interest?
Despite these tough economic times, if we don’t put some significant money into improving our infrastructure, then it will be worse in the long run. The analyst said that one main stumbling block of improving infrastructure is that it would mean the states’ governments would need to work together, and this is a difficult thing in our system because the people elected to office tend to pass favorable legislation for the people who made the biggest contributions to their campaign. This results in the clichéd “bridge to nowhere” which means for instance that instead of improving highways that are badly in need of repair or instead of putting a new road between states where one desperately needs to be put, they will approve funding for a unnecessary highway that may increase value in land owned by these special interest groups or the government may subsidize the building of a new sports arena when the old arena was perfectly fine, but the sports organization can profit by increasing ticket prices.
This is to say that when companies invest millions of dollar helping a politician get elected they expect something in return.
Hurray for Democracy!
The analyst noted that there are a few states that seem to be doing well, but it’s a tough sell all around because these are not the kinds of projects that help congressmen get reelected. They may have to say “no” to their special interest groups, and they know doing that will mean they loose campaign money.
I bring up this point to further illustrate my concern and question how it is possible to have faith in a system that is so thoroughly corrupt and functions according to the principles of greed and self-interest?
Friday, January 2, 2009
Happy New Year
As I was counting down the new year a couple nights ago, I turned on the TV and caught Ludacris singing his hit single One More Drink, which is a celebratory composition about sleeping with a girl one wouldn’t have ordinarily slept with without first having drank too much alcohol.
As the initial notes of his chart-topping number began, he gave everyone in Times Square as well as all tuning in on national television this injunction: “Everyone out there needs to drink responsibly tonight.”
Ting-a-ling!
As the initial notes of his chart-topping number began, he gave everyone in Times Square as well as all tuning in on national television this injunction: “Everyone out there needs to drink responsibly tonight.”
Ting-a-ling!
Film Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a film that is the third cousin twice removed from the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. This is to say the film rifled the basic premise of Fitzgerald’s story—that a man ages backwards—but has nothing further akin with the literary version.
What the film has going for it is the cinematography and the acting. The film is absolutely gorgeous to look at. The lighting is perfect, the colors deep and meaningful and the images beautiful. Also Brad Pitt’s performance is astounding; it’s understated and perfect for the part. He does so much with a single facial expression, more than most actors could do with the proverbial 1,000 words. What amazed me was that he could express in purely cinematic ways a child’s curiosity in the body of an eighty-year man. That’s no small feat. He is truly one of the greatest actors of our time. Also Cate Blanchett’s performance is phenomenal. She develops her character with great depth and sympathy.
Throughout the film I found myself lost in the cinematography and the acting, and I really enjoyed it.
However, when the film was over I had two immediate negative reactions mingled in my general feelings of warmth and pleasure. One was that there was too much voiceover narration, which is common of many films based on literature, however this film didn’t lift much of Fitzgerald’s prose because it didn’t match the differences in the tone or the plot of the film.
The other immediate problem I had was the lack of connection between the film’s framing narrative (the person reading the story about Benjamin Button) and the “actual” story (the story of Benjamin Button). There was an obvious connection between them, but thematically the connection wasn’t intuitive, and furthermore the framing narrative seemed more of a contrivance rather than something that helped develop the other story.
Upon further consideration of my second problem, the film fell apart for me.
I started asking numerous questions (which I’ll refrain from posting here in respect to anyone who wants to see the film) which I was afraid a second viewing of the film couldn’t answer. The basic problem of the film was, I decided, that as a fantasy it’s okay that it’s implausible (anyone wanting to see any film enters into a willing suspension of disbelief) but to be successful in the fantasy genre the film has to establish the rules of the fantasy land and abide by them. This film unfortunately never established the rules, and in the end had no clue what they were. After the emotion subsided I realized I too had no clue what they were, and this was a big problem. It’s certainly okay for a film to lack a certain correspondence to reality (people don’t age backward), that’s not the sort of plausibility I’m talking about, but rather it is important that a film express a logical internal coherence, and there were too many flaws in this film’s internal logic.
The film wanted one foot in fairy tale and one foot in reality. I thought the foot in fairy tale landed solidly, and the cinematography emphasized the fairy tale aspect of the film consistently and marvelously throughout. But the foot that tried to ground the film in reality stumbled miserably, and I thought ultimately lead to the failure of the film.
The film is directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac), so I expected the film to be a bit darker. However, it was penned by the writer of Forrest Gump, and I felt it was a little too schizophrenic in that it looked like a dark film visually, but was plotted like a “feel good” film.
My advice is to see the film in the theatre if 1) the premise interests you 2) if you don’t care to analyze film too much 3) if you love cinematography, good acting by Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, or getting lost in a story. But if you’re looking for one of the best films of the year or something whose plot holds together well, don’t look here. Also it’s probably not worth seeing on DVD unless you have an HD TV and Blue Ray player, because the strength of the film is the visuals and is best suited for the big screen. I’ve heard buzz that this film may get a nomination for best film of 2008. I sure hope this isn’t one of the 5 best films of the year because it wouldn’t have even been in the top 25 of last year.
What the film has going for it is the cinematography and the acting. The film is absolutely gorgeous to look at. The lighting is perfect, the colors deep and meaningful and the images beautiful. Also Brad Pitt’s performance is astounding; it’s understated and perfect for the part. He does so much with a single facial expression, more than most actors could do with the proverbial 1,000 words. What amazed me was that he could express in purely cinematic ways a child’s curiosity in the body of an eighty-year man. That’s no small feat. He is truly one of the greatest actors of our time. Also Cate Blanchett’s performance is phenomenal. She develops her character with great depth and sympathy.
Throughout the film I found myself lost in the cinematography and the acting, and I really enjoyed it.
However, when the film was over I had two immediate negative reactions mingled in my general feelings of warmth and pleasure. One was that there was too much voiceover narration, which is common of many films based on literature, however this film didn’t lift much of Fitzgerald’s prose because it didn’t match the differences in the tone or the plot of the film.
The other immediate problem I had was the lack of connection between the film’s framing narrative (the person reading the story about Benjamin Button) and the “actual” story (the story of Benjamin Button). There was an obvious connection between them, but thematically the connection wasn’t intuitive, and furthermore the framing narrative seemed more of a contrivance rather than something that helped develop the other story.
Upon further consideration of my second problem, the film fell apart for me.
I started asking numerous questions (which I’ll refrain from posting here in respect to anyone who wants to see the film) which I was afraid a second viewing of the film couldn’t answer. The basic problem of the film was, I decided, that as a fantasy it’s okay that it’s implausible (anyone wanting to see any film enters into a willing suspension of disbelief) but to be successful in the fantasy genre the film has to establish the rules of the fantasy land and abide by them. This film unfortunately never established the rules, and in the end had no clue what they were. After the emotion subsided I realized I too had no clue what they were, and this was a big problem. It’s certainly okay for a film to lack a certain correspondence to reality (people don’t age backward), that’s not the sort of plausibility I’m talking about, but rather it is important that a film express a logical internal coherence, and there were too many flaws in this film’s internal logic.
The film wanted one foot in fairy tale and one foot in reality. I thought the foot in fairy tale landed solidly, and the cinematography emphasized the fairy tale aspect of the film consistently and marvelously throughout. But the foot that tried to ground the film in reality stumbled miserably, and I thought ultimately lead to the failure of the film.
The film is directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac), so I expected the film to be a bit darker. However, it was penned by the writer of Forrest Gump, and I felt it was a little too schizophrenic in that it looked like a dark film visually, but was plotted like a “feel good” film.
My advice is to see the film in the theatre if 1) the premise interests you 2) if you don’t care to analyze film too much 3) if you love cinematography, good acting by Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, or getting lost in a story. But if you’re looking for one of the best films of the year or something whose plot holds together well, don’t look here. Also it’s probably not worth seeing on DVD unless you have an HD TV and Blue Ray player, because the strength of the film is the visuals and is best suited for the big screen. I’ve heard buzz that this film may get a nomination for best film of 2008. I sure hope this isn’t one of the 5 best films of the year because it wouldn’t have even been in the top 25 of last year.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
It's that time: the best of the year
While most critics are busy compiling their lists for the year’s best films of 2008, if you’re like me and 1) have small children 2) have a very limited budget and/or 3) live in a city where many films either aren’t released yet or ran for one week in one theater and you couldn’t make it, most likely for reasons #1 or #2, then like me you’ll be lucky to see 2 or 3 of the best films of the year before the Academy Awards time.
So instead of creating my top 10 films of 2008, like an amateur critic, I’ll post my top 10 films of 2007, which has its benefit of giving me a whole extra year to see and consider my picks. It also means they’re ALL immediately available on DVD, so you don’t have to wait to see them if you happened to have missed one.
1. There Will Be Blood
If you had asked me a year ago I would have ranked this film #2. But having watched it a second time, which I think everyone needs to watch this film at least two times, I thought it nudged my other pick back to #2. I think this is a film scholars and historians will watch and study, and that history will show to be one of the best films in American cinema. For more read my review on it.
2. No Country for Old Men
The Coen Brother’s faithful and flawless adaptation of the excellent novel by Cormac McCarthy. This film along with TWBB are not just two of the best films of the year or of the decade, but I think will prove to be the best in history. I can’t believe they came out the same year. I plan to post a review on this film someday.
3. Eastern Promises
David Cronenberg’s gangster film displays the talent he cultivated making sci-fi and horror films in the 1970s through the 1990s with his idiosyncratic blend of the corporal and the technological. He’s the master of the intellectual gory shlock film, and his latest film along with A History of Violence are a successful foray into new territory, working in a genre which may finally bring him some renown, as critics will actually acknowledge the gangster film as “serious.” The writing is solid, the cinematography is gorgeous, the colors rich with depth and Viggo Mortensen’s performance would have won an Oscar in almost any other year, at least one not dominated by Daniel Day Lewis.
4. Zodiac
This is a film that I think slipped under the radar because it was released so early in the year, and by the end of the year there was an unusual excess of good films being released. It was directed by David Fincher and should have been nominated for best film. Strangely enough Fincher may get a nominations this year for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, when I believe Zodiac is a superior film. Go figure. The film is stylish and the cinematography is stunning.
5. Snow Angels
A small drama by David Gordon Green, the young master of the independent film. The film has an excellent script, great acting and it’s not over-done. It’s simple and powerful. My immediate reaction to the film was that it was the antidote to Gone Baby Gone.
6. Atonement
The first half of this film was simply amazing. I thought the second half stumbled a bit, but I loved the ending. Excellent writing and acting.
7. Michael Clayton
Great performance by George Clooney. The film is stylish and taut.
8. Ratatouille
Pixar’s animation is beautiful and the film is hilarious for kids and adults. Everyone needs to see this film, especially all foodies.
9. Once
The best musical film I’ve seen in a long time. The soundtrack is amazing and the style makes sense given the nature of the characters. The plot is very loose and improvisational which works because the centerpiece of the film is the music and the musicians/characters.
10. Juno
A film that is both funny and tender. The writing is strong as is the acting.
2007 was an excellent year for film. It was difficult to make a Top 10 list because I was forced to leave out over a dozen films I really wanted to see in the list including Charlie Wilson’s War and The Savages (ha, ha...some honorable mentions). Last year I had a tough time trying to pick which films I wanted to see in the theater and which ones I could wait to see on DVD.
2008’s list may be difficult for the exact opposite reason. Over Thanksgiving I wanted to see a movie in theaters with a friend, but we didn’t go because there was not a single thing playing that looked even remotely decent. However, I will note there are a handful of films out now that I really want to see and several more that haven’t been released in our city, so I’m hoping it won’t be too tough to find at least 10 good films this year. But there certainly doesn’t appear to be the volume of last year’s.
So instead of creating my top 10 films of 2008, like an amateur critic, I’ll post my top 10 films of 2007, which has its benefit of giving me a whole extra year to see and consider my picks. It also means they’re ALL immediately available on DVD, so you don’t have to wait to see them if you happened to have missed one.
1. There Will Be Blood
If you had asked me a year ago I would have ranked this film #2. But having watched it a second time, which I think everyone needs to watch this film at least two times, I thought it nudged my other pick back to #2. I think this is a film scholars and historians will watch and study, and that history will show to be one of the best films in American cinema. For more read my review on it.
2. No Country for Old Men
The Coen Brother’s faithful and flawless adaptation of the excellent novel by Cormac McCarthy. This film along with TWBB are not just two of the best films of the year or of the decade, but I think will prove to be the best in history. I can’t believe they came out the same year. I plan to post a review on this film someday.
3. Eastern Promises
David Cronenberg’s gangster film displays the talent he cultivated making sci-fi and horror films in the 1970s through the 1990s with his idiosyncratic blend of the corporal and the technological. He’s the master of the intellectual gory shlock film, and his latest film along with A History of Violence are a successful foray into new territory, working in a genre which may finally bring him some renown, as critics will actually acknowledge the gangster film as “serious.” The writing is solid, the cinematography is gorgeous, the colors rich with depth and Viggo Mortensen’s performance would have won an Oscar in almost any other year, at least one not dominated by Daniel Day Lewis.
4. Zodiac
This is a film that I think slipped under the radar because it was released so early in the year, and by the end of the year there was an unusual excess of good films being released. It was directed by David Fincher and should have been nominated for best film. Strangely enough Fincher may get a nominations this year for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, when I believe Zodiac is a superior film. Go figure. The film is stylish and the cinematography is stunning.
5. Snow Angels
A small drama by David Gordon Green, the young master of the independent film. The film has an excellent script, great acting and it’s not over-done. It’s simple and powerful. My immediate reaction to the film was that it was the antidote to Gone Baby Gone.
6. Atonement
The first half of this film was simply amazing. I thought the second half stumbled a bit, but I loved the ending. Excellent writing and acting.
7. Michael Clayton
Great performance by George Clooney. The film is stylish and taut.
8. Ratatouille
Pixar’s animation is beautiful and the film is hilarious for kids and adults. Everyone needs to see this film, especially all foodies.
9. Once
The best musical film I’ve seen in a long time. The soundtrack is amazing and the style makes sense given the nature of the characters. The plot is very loose and improvisational which works because the centerpiece of the film is the music and the musicians/characters.
10. Juno
A film that is both funny and tender. The writing is strong as is the acting.
2007 was an excellent year for film. It was difficult to make a Top 10 list because I was forced to leave out over a dozen films I really wanted to see in the list including Charlie Wilson’s War and The Savages (ha, ha...some honorable mentions). Last year I had a tough time trying to pick which films I wanted to see in the theater and which ones I could wait to see on DVD.
2008’s list may be difficult for the exact opposite reason. Over Thanksgiving I wanted to see a movie in theaters with a friend, but we didn’t go because there was not a single thing playing that looked even remotely decent. However, I will note there are a handful of films out now that I really want to see and several more that haven’t been released in our city, so I’m hoping it won’t be too tough to find at least 10 good films this year. But there certainly doesn’t appear to be the volume of last year’s.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Not Quite a Film Review: Encounters at the End of the World
I've been trying to write a film review of Werner Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World (2008), but it hasn't coalesced, so I'll just post it as some thoughts on this film which I think everyone should see ASAP.
Although Werner Herzog claims in his latest film Encounters at the End of the World that he’s not making another movie about fluffy penguins, he does claim to be making a movie about the dreams of the people compelled to inhabit Antarctica, a cold an desolate place, but strangely enough throughout the course of the film we see that the dreams of these people may have something remarkably in common with the uncommonly deranged penguin Herzog manages to film on the frozen continent.
This film may be the best documentary of 2008, and is yet another great achievement in Herzog's oeuvre alongside his other great documentaries, which include Grizzly Man, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, and The White Diamond.
Visually the film is mesmerizing; there are numerous incredible shots of the barren glacier continent, and Herzog takes us into regions explored by few in the entire course of human history. For nearly that alone the film is worth seeing.
But the film is also a classic Herzogian composition complete with: off-beat characters whom the camera focuses on till the point it becomes just slightly uncomfortable, incredible respect for the idiosyncrasy of the individual’s story, homage to the beauty of nature, and a celebration of humanity’s insatiable curiosity.
Herzog’s juxtaposition of interview, imagery and voice-over narrative insight demonstrates the subtle irony that the consequence of science and technology, a human drive we all honor and herald--this very drive to improve on nature, to travel to places like Antarctica where humans are absurdly illequipped to thrive--is also the reason human life in its current context is unsustainable on Earth. Herzog captures the beauty and the tragedy that is this human story resounding from Antarctica with his signature acumen. His profound respect for nature and for the stories his subjects tell, whether they are a world renown scientist or a working class welder, and his obsessive dedication to portraying them as cinematically accurately as possible reminds of a passage from Nabokov’s Pale Fire which I slightly revised to fit a different context: but sometimes when the director paced back and forth across the set, or sat down for a moment on his chair, or yelled “cut” to go mediate in his trailer, I could distinguish the expression of passionate interest, rapture and reverence with which he visualized the story coming to life image by image in his mind, and I knew that whatever my atheistic friend might say in denial, at that moment our Lord was with him.
Although Werner Herzog claims in his latest film Encounters at the End of the World that he’s not making another movie about fluffy penguins, he does claim to be making a movie about the dreams of the people compelled to inhabit Antarctica, a cold an desolate place, but strangely enough throughout the course of the film we see that the dreams of these people may have something remarkably in common with the uncommonly deranged penguin Herzog manages to film on the frozen continent.
This film may be the best documentary of 2008, and is yet another great achievement in Herzog's oeuvre alongside his other great documentaries, which include Grizzly Man, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, and The White Diamond.
Visually the film is mesmerizing; there are numerous incredible shots of the barren glacier continent, and Herzog takes us into regions explored by few in the entire course of human history. For nearly that alone the film is worth seeing.
But the film is also a classic Herzogian composition complete with: off-beat characters whom the camera focuses on till the point it becomes just slightly uncomfortable, incredible respect for the idiosyncrasy of the individual’s story, homage to the beauty of nature, and a celebration of humanity’s insatiable curiosity.
Herzog’s juxtaposition of interview, imagery and voice-over narrative insight demonstrates the subtle irony that the consequence of science and technology, a human drive we all honor and herald--this very drive to improve on nature, to travel to places like Antarctica where humans are absurdly illequipped to thrive--is also the reason human life in its current context is unsustainable on Earth. Herzog captures the beauty and the tragedy that is this human story resounding from Antarctica with his signature acumen. His profound respect for nature and for the stories his subjects tell, whether they are a world renown scientist or a working class welder, and his obsessive dedication to portraying them as cinematically accurately as possible reminds of a passage from Nabokov’s Pale Fire which I slightly revised to fit a different context: but sometimes when the director paced back and forth across the set, or sat down for a moment on his chair, or yelled “cut” to go mediate in his trailer, I could distinguish the expression of passionate interest, rapture and reverence with which he visualized the story coming to life image by image in his mind, and I knew that whatever my atheistic friend might say in denial, at that moment our Lord was with him.
Friday, December 19, 2008
What is Christian Literature?
Recently I was approached by a friend who asked me if my writing was Christian. I didn’t know quite how to respond, but I thought I’d dedicate a few blog posts to the issue. So this will be the first of probably several blogs to come on the issue.
Before I get to the issue of whether or not my writing is Christian, I thought it worthwhile to deliberate a bit more about literature in general.
It used to be the case that the church was the center for culture and the arts. This was a very long time ago before the printing press when the general population was not literate, so society relied on the church to keep record of literature. It wasn’t until various reformations, which I don’t have all the exact names for, that the church started differentiating between what they considered worldly or Christian literature. The point being that this is an archaic debate, but nevertheless one worth engaging in.
To start with I’ll pose a series of questions that are by no means exhaustive on the issue, but are just some questions that came to my mind after my conversation. Here are some of them.
One question I have with the term “Christian literature” is, if there is such a thing, is it a genre? If it is a genre then it must have some sort of generic conventions that would make it readily identifiable. What then would those be? Would it have to have a redemptive theme? Must it always have Christian characters in it or characters who turn out to be Christian by the end? Would part of its generic features be that there could be no representations of sexuality, violence, and bad language? In other words, should it be suitable for all first graders to read should they want to? Does it need to have a Christian setting? Tone? Mood? And if so what constitute such?
Other questions I have are does “Christian literature” have to be written by Christians? Does it have to be published by Christian publishers? Edited by Christians? Illustrated (if applicable) by Christians? Does it have to be marketed by Christians? Should it only be read by Christians? Sold only in Christian bookstores? Should it seek to convert non-Christians (worded differently, should it be propaganda)?
These are a lot of difficult questions to answer without having even answered a more basic question of what we mean by “Christian.” By Christian are we referring to people who read, study and try to imitate the words of Jesus Christ as reported in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Can we include people who do the previously mentioned and come to the conclusion that God the Father is an utterly sovereign being completely in control and determining everything? Can we also include people who do the same and come to the conclusion that the future is open and that God the Father does not pre-determine everything? What of people who speak in tongues? Or believe tongues are dead? People who think it’s okay to smoke? Drink? Gamble? Dance? Play cards? Read John Grishom?
The point I’m getting at here is that in order to say something is Christian and something isn’t requires that we start to draw lines around “us” and “them.” While certain items may seem simple enough (we read the Bible and follow Christ’s teaching). Other things (just about any specific point of theology or practice) are not quite as simple—which is why there are an infinite array of denominations, church splits, plants, etc.
What I’ll try to do over the coming days, weeks, months, years (heck, for the rest of my life) is try to answer some of these questions. If anyone has any thoughts or guidance, feel free to chime in. I’m just doing my best to figure it all out.
Before I get to the issue of whether or not my writing is Christian, I thought it worthwhile to deliberate a bit more about literature in general.
It used to be the case that the church was the center for culture and the arts. This was a very long time ago before the printing press when the general population was not literate, so society relied on the church to keep record of literature. It wasn’t until various reformations, which I don’t have all the exact names for, that the church started differentiating between what they considered worldly or Christian literature. The point being that this is an archaic debate, but nevertheless one worth engaging in.
To start with I’ll pose a series of questions that are by no means exhaustive on the issue, but are just some questions that came to my mind after my conversation. Here are some of them.
One question I have with the term “Christian literature” is, if there is such a thing, is it a genre? If it is a genre then it must have some sort of generic conventions that would make it readily identifiable. What then would those be? Would it have to have a redemptive theme? Must it always have Christian characters in it or characters who turn out to be Christian by the end? Would part of its generic features be that there could be no representations of sexuality, violence, and bad language? In other words, should it be suitable for all first graders to read should they want to? Does it need to have a Christian setting? Tone? Mood? And if so what constitute such?
Other questions I have are does “Christian literature” have to be written by Christians? Does it have to be published by Christian publishers? Edited by Christians? Illustrated (if applicable) by Christians? Does it have to be marketed by Christians? Should it only be read by Christians? Sold only in Christian bookstores? Should it seek to convert non-Christians (worded differently, should it be propaganda)?
These are a lot of difficult questions to answer without having even answered a more basic question of what we mean by “Christian.” By Christian are we referring to people who read, study and try to imitate the words of Jesus Christ as reported in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Can we include people who do the previously mentioned and come to the conclusion that God the Father is an utterly sovereign being completely in control and determining everything? Can we also include people who do the same and come to the conclusion that the future is open and that God the Father does not pre-determine everything? What of people who speak in tongues? Or believe tongues are dead? People who think it’s okay to smoke? Drink? Gamble? Dance? Play cards? Read John Grishom?
The point I’m getting at here is that in order to say something is Christian and something isn’t requires that we start to draw lines around “us” and “them.” While certain items may seem simple enough (we read the Bible and follow Christ’s teaching). Other things (just about any specific point of theology or practice) are not quite as simple—which is why there are an infinite array of denominations, church splits, plants, etc.
What I’ll try to do over the coming days, weeks, months, years (heck, for the rest of my life) is try to answer some of these questions. If anyone has any thoughts or guidance, feel free to chime in. I’m just doing my best to figure it all out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)