Perspective #5: There
are four basic standards that one must apply to a work of art: (a) technical
excellence, (b) validity, (c) intellectual content, the world view which comes
through, and (d) the integration of content and vehicle.
Schaeffer contends that a great artist should be
recognized for his technical excellence regardless of the content or the
world-view which comes through. I agree. Schaeffer uses painting to illustrate
his meaning: color, form, balance, texture of the paint, the handling of lines,
the unity of the canvas. The painting (or any kind of drawing for that matter)
has a great many elements that go into its creation. Earlier in the essay, Schaeffer
refers to these as symbolic vocabulary
in an attempt to show the parallel with literature. This implies that art,
whether graphic or literary, has a common vocabulary
(as both say something intelligible) which is governed by ‘linguistic’ rules. Through
these rules, the speech of art allows the artist to be creative and mimic (as
an image bearer) the creativity of God (who spoke the words, “Light be!” and
there was light). When we honor the pagan artist for his excellence, we are
utltimately honoring the divine image in him and thereby the One after whom the
image is patterned.
The potential for technical excellence resides in the
secular[1] writer of speculative fiction because that is the way the Creator made him. If
a secular writer has reached realms of excellence of which we stand in awe, he
should be recognized. We should read his works not only for entertainment, but
also that we may learn how to write better. Additionally, if he has written
anything on how to write, it would behoove us to make good use of it.[2]
The second criterion, validity, is whether or not the artist is true to himself and his
world-view, or whether he is doing his work for the sake of another. If an artist paints or writes for the sake of
a patron (which can be anybody or anything the artists wants to gain the
approval of or have access to) his art has no validity.
I have often thought of how writing in a (pulp) art genre
which is hugely popular and sells well (Christian Romance, for example; see C.
S. Lakin’s post, Genre
Versus Author Platform: Which Matters Most) might be a way to gain
recognition for one’s real work, reflecting his real writing interests. To do
so, according to this criterion, would discredit that work as a work of art. I
agree, and if I am a purist about this business of writing, I won’t attempt to
do so. Unless, of course, my interest changes which poses the challenge to
actually write in a different genre to see if (a) I can actually do it, and (b)
I might actually like it – it rings true to me. With regard to the romance
novel, I think I am quite sure that neither (a) nor (b) would hold for me. But
it may be worth looking into the market to see what sells and whether I might
have an affinity for it.
The third criterion, intellectual content, is to assess the world-view that comes
through the art. It must be judged in terms of a biblical world-view. A work of
art should never be free from the judgment of the Word of God. The logic behind
this is sound: if a work of art reflects the artist’s world-view then just as
the thinking of all men, great and small, profound or superficial, is judged by
God, and all will one day answer to God for their world-view, the art work
itself is, therefore, subject to the same kind of judgment. In practice, I’m not
quite sure what this means. What does it mean to pass judgment on a work of
art? We have already granted the artist his honor if his work is excellent.
Does it mean following the praise we deplore it for its message? I think that
is allowable, but we must be careful that it does not open the door to defame
the excellency of the work and the artist. How much that is possible, I’m not
sure. It is certain that open judgment of the work is necessary because, as
Schaeffer contends, the richer and greater the work, the more powerful it is in
pressing home its message.
This holds true for speculative fiction. Much
non-Christian science fiction and fantasy is rooted in evolutionary theory, and
it seems easy for the Christian reader to ignore that. I enjoyed Carl Sagan’s
novel Contact which is about man’s first
detection of extra-terrestrial intelligence through the means advocated by the National
Research Council (an electromagnetic signature). The whole premise of SETI
(Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is based on the high probability
that intelligent life could have risen and developed elsewhere in the universe.
The Drake Equation used to come up with the number[3]
has evolutionary assumptions built into it. As entertaining as Contact was, and as technically
appealing as it was, the caveat must be sounded by the Christian reviewer that
the world-view that comes through is anti-biblical.
The fourth criterion is how well the artist has suited the vehicle to the message. “For
works which are truly great, there is a correlation between the style and
content.” As high fantasy, Lord of the
Rings was written in a style that fit the epic character of the story. The
imaginary world was best portrayed through a sophisticated and lofty literary
style. Tolkien spent great detail in describing landscape and terrain, moving
the story at its own pace (not rushed, but unfolding slowly like it does in
real life), salt-and-peppered with proportionate amounts of royal and common
dialogue, great battles, and personal struggles. Much of this had to do with
the readership Tolkien had in mind. It was not a children’s fantasy like the Chronicles of Narnia, and though the
Narnia stories have a sophistication of their own and are superbly written,
they are still a different style.
Much of today’s young adult speculative fiction is
written in a style that suits its audience, but it is not very sophisticated
and there is little elegance. Instead, there is corniness, cartoonishness, and
melodrama. Perhaps the author thinks that is the only thing that will appeal to
the younger ones. I ask, so what? Give them something they can look back on in
adulthood and see a beauty and elegance that appeals even then. A children’s
story should never be outgrown by its readership. C. S. Lewis put it this way,
“I am almost inclined to set it up as a canon that a children’s story which is
enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story. The good ones last. A waltz
which you can like only when you are waltzing is a bad waltz.”[4]
In my opinion, Andrew Peterson’s Wing-feather
Saga is the only modern Christian children’s saga that I have read that
measures up to this criterion.
[1] I am using secular in a
somewhat liberal way to include all who do not embrace Christ as Lord and Savior.
Such ones may be theists of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but there is nothing
in their claims or behavior to indicate they are of those whose hearts have
been changed and are faithful followers of Christ. The world-view that comes
through in their writing speaks volumes in this regard.
[2] I recommend Stephen King’s On Writing. I have read others, but I
like his best because of the style, and also because I like his dinosaur
analogy on how a story develops. One caveat: his language is coarse at times.
If you’re looking for a more technical approach with lots of examples from
modern day classics, I recommend Structuring
Your Novel: From Basic Idea to Finished Manuscript by John D. Fitzgerald (Great Brain series) and Robert C Meredith. Orson Scott Card (Ender’s Game) has
written Character and Viewpoint, How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy,
and is a contributor to Complete Guide to
Writing Science Fiction: Volume One, First Contact.
[3] Estimated by Sagan at 1,000,000 in our galaxy
when he wrote Broca’s Brain (1974), ten times that now because of an estimated
increase in the number of rotating planets around red dwarfs which are deemed
to have a higher probability to support life.
[4] C. S. Lewis, “Three Ways
No comments:
Post a Comment