Against Fiction

[Afterthought]

Consider the objections to the reading of fiction here.

And Dabney on Dangerous Reading here.

In addition to these objections, one can add the one usually given against watching movies as etertainment: We should not be entertained by evil, but fiction necessarily includes such in order to create drama and therefore interest in the work. Using Scripture as a parallel doesn't work because (a) it is not "entertainment," (b) the kind of evil portrayed is different from what is generally portrayed in fiction, and (c) the Scriptures have a pure perspective on evil, whereas we can never achieve that in our fictions.

To these objections, I might add some observations and comments of my own.

1) Supposing reading fiction for entertainment, amusement, or recreation to be wrong, should we draw a distinction between reading fiction for that purpose and reading fiction for some other purpose (e.g., for purposes of information gathering)?

2) Suppose all objections fall flat: What about the argument from wasting our time? Do we wate our time reading fiction? (This argument was the main one discussed in the most recent thread, so I don't expect as much response on this argument.)

3) It seems to me "fiction" is too broad a category. We should probably categorize "fiction" and discuss the merits of each separately. I would note the above articles are against the "novel," and it is possible that the "novel" to them meant something different and distinct to them than it does to us now (I have no idea). This limits the use of the Scriptures to justify fiction, since, e.g., parables are generally different from a novel.

4) Do arguments against fiction rule out telling stories for our own (and often childrens') amusement or instruction?


Given previous threads on this subject, it is likely there is overwhelming support for fiction on this board, but I am interested in hearing from both sides (if the other side is here). Thoughts on these comments and arguments? The argument against reading fiction from not setting evil before our eyes is certainly interesting, since one could object that objections to watching movies on this basis leads to the absurdity that we cannot read fiction; but this argument basically accepts the "absurdity" as not being "absurd." The argument from an over-stirring of the passions (found in the linked pages) is interesting because that would seem to rule out listening to any music.

 

[MW]

While fiction in general has tended to exercise a poor influence on society (as shown, for example, in Iain Murray's "The Undercover Revolution"), it can be beneficial for enabling us to escape self-referential analyses of life. Used well, as in Nathan's parable to David, it has the capacity to put its finger on a problem in a manner which might not be possible with a direct confrontation. The idea of history as philosophy teaching by example has opened the door for fiction to imitate history. But fiction is rarely used so well, which is why I tend to avoid it. Besides, I prefer spending time in actual history and getting to know real people; and there are only so many hours in a day.

 

[bookslover]

In the nineteenth century (just to pick one), fiction was often used to bring attention to societal problems - most of the novels of Charles Dickens or, say, Anthony Trollope's The Way We Live Now (1875). From reading the novels from that century, you can also get a good idea of how relationships between men and women worked, what marriages were like, etc. The best fiction (which then becomes "literature") from any century can be edifying. I've read many of Trollope's novels over the years and found myself both edified and entertained.

Don Quixote. The Three Musketeers. Les Miserables. Etc., etc.

 

[JimmyH]

I've read a lot of fiction in my long life, classics more than tripe. When I got into my 60s I began to reflect on how much time I had wasted watching TV, films, reading secular material. How little I had spent reading the Scriptures, books explaining the Scriptures. I hadn't read the Bible cover to cover ever. Now I haven't watched television, seen a film in years. I've read the Bible cover to cover twice, and am on my third consecutive year of M'Cheyne's 1 year plan accompanied by D.A. Carson's 'For The Love of God', which comments on the daily/nightly readings. I continue to read commentaries, the Institutes, the Confessions, and sermons. Not knowing how much time I have left, I don't want to waste any more than I already have.

 

[earl40]

I've read a lot of fiction in my long life, classics more than tripe. When I got into my 60s I began to reflect on how much time I had wasted watching TV, films, reading secular material. How little I had spent reading the Scriptures, books explaining the Scriptures. I hadn't read the Bible cover to cover ever. Now I haven't watched television, seen a film in years. I've read the Bible cover to cover twice, and am on my third consecutive year of M'Cheyne's 1 year plan accompanied by D.A. Carson's 'For The Love of God', which comments on the daily/nightly readings. I continue to read commentaries, the Institutes, the Confessions, and sermons. Not knowing how much time I have left, I don't want to waste any more than I already have.

The grace of growing older in The Lord is a true blessing for those with faith.

 

[LilyG]

Ha! And I was just about to ask the board, "So, read any good literature, lately?"

I was of the "it's a waste of time" camp for a long time, and still working on that. Last summer, I read Dr Robert Godfrey's article not only supporting, but encouraging the Christian's balanced reading of good literature.

http://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/why-read-fiction

In light of that great article, on my wish list is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Lit-Christian-Guide-Reading-Books/dp/1433522268

I just finished my first novel in decades, Soldier of the Great War by Mark Helprin. Aside from its beautiful command of language, listening to and discovering the character's deep wrestle with mortality, depravity, grief and suffering and his (the author's?) recognition that they only point to and highlight strikingly the beauty, goodness, and ultimately existence of a God Who must be good, is fascinating. Now working through Scott Oliphint's Covenant Theology, it is simply moving recalling Helprin's portrait of inward thoughts, convictions that there must be some general good deity, and yet his character's resistance to and suppression of the "clearly perceived" and "understood" true personal triune God revealed to him, to Whom he is accountable.

I think the key in our reading diet is balance and wisdom. Choose fiction wisely, and incorporate it into a good book diet with your theology, history, memoirs, etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I like my fiction to have some connections to Reformed thought or something close to it.

For example,
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0925703117/

Marilynne Robinson is a treat, especially these three (Gilead, Home, Lila), to be read in this order:
https://www.amazon.com/Gilead-Novel-Marilynne-Robinson-ebook/dp/B000O76NMS
https://www.amazon.com/Home-Novel-Marilynne-Robinson-ebook/dp/B0018QSNYU/
https://www.amazon.com/Lila-Novel-Marilynne-Robinson-ebook/dp/B00J6U7K62/

 

[LilyG]

I like my fiction to have some connections to Reformed thought or something close to it.

For example,
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0925703117/

Marilynne Robinson is a treat, especially these three (Gilead, Home, Lila), to be read in this order:
https://www.amazon.com/Gilead-Novel-Marilynne-Robinson-ebook/dp/B000O76NMS
https://www.amazon.com/Home-Novel-Marilynne-Robinson-ebook/dp/B0018QSNYU/
https://www.amazon.com/Lila-Novel-Marilynne-Robinson-ebook/dp/B00J6U7K62/

Those are on my list for sure!

 

[Afterthought]

While fiction in general has tended to exercise a poor influence on society (as shown, for example, in Iain Murray's "The Undercover Revolution"), it can be beneficial for enabling us to escape self-referential analyses of life. Used well, as in Nathan's parable to David, it has the capacity to put its finger on a problem in a manner which might not be possible with a direct confrontation. The idea of history as philosophy teaching by example has opened the door for fiction to imitate history. But fiction is rarely used so well, which is why I tend to avoid it. Besides, I prefer spending time in actual history and getting to know real people; and there are only so many hours in a day.

Yes, that is my preference too. This is interesting; I had not considered history as a philosophy, but I suppose it is inescapable since someone needs to write it. This might deal with the "waste of time" argument, and the disjunction between historical fiction and other fiction that Dabney made, but how does one jump from "parables can be beneficial by doing these things" to "novels and other fiction can too?"

Also, I don't see how it deals with some of the other arguments. If I have time, maybe I'll go through the articles and reduce the arguments to some propositions to make it easier to answer them. For now,

1) What do you think of the argument from not setting before our eyes evil?
2) What do you think of the argument that we are making ourselves "gods" by imitating Divine providence?
3) What do you think of the argument from truth? Arguably, the only things that are found beneficial in fiction are the things that correspond to reality, so an anti-fiction proponent might ask whether a Christian--who should be entirely for the truth--should be spending time engaging the imagination with a falsehood? (You may have partially addressed this with your note that some fiction can do things that a direct confrontation cannot do, but it seems to me that the argument needs to be expanded.)
4) What about the argument from the undue stirring of passions?

In the nineteenth century (just to pick one), fiction was often used to bring attention to societal problems - most of the novels of Charles Dickens or, say, Anthony Trollope's The Way We Live Now (1875). From reading the novels from that century, you can also get a good idea of how relationships between men and women worked, what marriages were like, etc. The best fiction (which then becomes "literature") from any century can be edifying. I've read many of Trollope's novels over the years and found myself both edified and entertained.

Don Quixote. The Three Musketeers. Les Miserables. Etc., etc.

Good point about visiting other times/cultures. However, fiction generally isn't necessary for this (the information gathering versus entertainment or recreation distinction may apply here). It may deal with the "waste of time" argument provided fiction is established to be lawful on other grounds (i.e., the other objections to its lawfulness are answered).

I've read a lot of fiction in my long life, classics more than tripe. When I got into my 60s I began to reflect on how much time I had wasted watching TV, films, reading secular material. How little I had spent reading the Scriptures, books explaining the Scriptures. I hadn't read the Bible cover to cover ever. Now I haven't watched television, seen a film in years. I've read the Bible cover to cover twice, and am on my third consecutive year of M'Cheyne's 1 year plan accompanied by D.A. Carson's 'For The Love of God', which comments on the daily/nightly readings. I continue to read commentaries, the Institutes, the Confessions, and sermons. Not knowing how much time I have left, I don't want to waste any more than I already have.

Yes, I used to enjoy fiction when I was younger still, but it became an increasing drag as I found other things I preferred to do with that time slot.

 

[MW]

1) What do you think of the argument from not setting before our eyes evil?

It is an important biblical principle of self-government. Ps. 101. But reading a story which speaks of evil for the purpose of showing how good triumphs over evil is not setting evil before one's eyes. If I read "Tales of the Covenanters" I will see numerous evils arising in connection with witnessing a good confession, and thereby be enabled to consider "thoughts and intents" which might not be apparent in a plain factual account.

2) What do you think of the argument that we are making ourselves "gods" by imitating Divine providence?

I would have to hear the argument in full. As it stands it sounds like a leap in logic is being made. Providence does not tell stories. We have the Word of God to teach us how to understand His Providence. The Word itself will sometimes utilise a story as a means of instruction.

3) What do you think of the argument from truth?

Again, the Bible sometimes presents truth in less than a literal historical manner, and even its historical relations contain figurative forms of speech. We have similes, metaphors, extended metaphors, parables, proverbs, allegories, types, etc., which encourage us to think deeper about the things we see. This presupposes that the human personality is equipped with the capacity to be able to understand truth in more than one way.

 

[Afterthought]

It is an important biblical principle of self-government. Ps. 101. But reading a story which speaks of evil for the purpose of showing how good triumphs over evil is not setting evil before one's eyes. If I read "Tales of the Covenanters" I will see numerous evils arising in connection with witnessing a good confession, and thereby be enabled to consider "thoughts and intents" which might not be apparent in a plain factual account.

Could you explain why it is not setting evil before one's eyes or being entertained by/recreated by evil?

Does this reasoning apply also to those who would use this verse against watching movies for the purposes of entertainment or recreation (I think you know this sort of argument; if not, I'll try and find a fuller exposition of it.)? A similar argument could be from us being "simple concerning evil."

I would have to hear the argument in full. As it stands it sounds like a leap in logic is being made. Providence does not tell stories. We have the Word of God to teach us how to understand His Providence. The Word itself will sometimes utilise a story as a means of instruction.

The argument is made in the first link. I'll try and summarize it more fully when/if I get time.

Thoughts on the argument from undue stirring of the passions? Or does that argument also require fleshing out?

 

[Afterthought]

Here is the argument from Providence in more detail, along with the argument that comparison to parables does not hold. And the argument from undue stirring of the passions (which seems to be a three-part objection).

Parables not comparable to fiction
"Fiction is not justified by the example of parables in the Bible...In the parable a spiritual truth is told in symbolical language... A parable is a comparison, an allegory is a statement in other words, but a fiction is that which is made up or false... In every parable there is a spiritual transaction that underlies the narration, and withdraws it from the category of the mere illustrative story."

Argument from imitation of Providence
"Fiction is a presumptuous forgery of the handwriting of God in providence. Having studied the course of God's government in the world, the author is now creating a little world of his own, stored with things ordinary and things extraordinary, inhabited by men and women begotten at the bidding of his lively fancy. All is arranged as he sees fit. Now he kills, and now he spares alive....[etc., I think you all get the point] Thus are the various dispensations of providence counterfeited, and the counterfeits are presented to Christian readers as equally instructive with the veritable works of God."


Argument from undue stirring of the passions (from Dabney)
"2. The habitual contemplation of fictitious scenes, however pure, produces a morbid cultivation of the feelings and sensibilities, to the neglect and injury of the active virtues. The purpose for which fictions are read, and the drama is frequented, is to excite the attention and the emotions. They must be animated and full of incident, or they will not be popular. The reader who indulges much in them soon becomes so accustomed to having his sensibilities excited, and the labor of attention relieved by the interest of the plot, that he is incapable of useful reading and business. The just, natural, and instructive pages of history seem to him too flat, and he dozes over the most noble exertions of intellect which literature offers. His debauched mind is as unfit for useful studies as the tremulous and enervated arm of the drunkard the morning after his orgies for wholesome labor."

"Now, all works of fiction are full of scenes of imaginary distress, which are constructed to impress the sensibilities. The fatal objection to the habitual contemplation of these scenes is this, that while they deaden the sensibilities, they afford no occasion or call for the exercise of active sympathies. Thus the feelings of the heart are cultivated into a monstrous, an unnatural, and unamiable disproportion.[2] He who goes forth in the works of active benevolence among the real sufferings of his fellow creatures will have his sensibilities impressed, and at the same time will have opportunity to cultivate the principle of benevolence by its exercise. Thus the qualities of his heart will be nurtured in beautiful harmony, until they become an ornament to his character and a blessing to his race."

"There is one more reason against fictitious reading, simple, brief and absolutely conclusive. All men who read novels will confess that usually they read them as an indulgence, and not as a means of improvement. Now, it is an indulgence which is not recreation, for it excites, wearies and emasculates the mind even more than excessive mental labor. But every man is responsible to God for the improvement of every hour which is not devoted to wholesome recreation. Novel-reading is the murder of time, and on this simple ground every mind which professes to be guided by religious principles is sternly challenged by God's authority to forego it. "

 

[MW]

Novel-reading is the murder of time, and on this simple ground every mind which professes to be guided by religious principles is sternly challenged by God's authority to forego it. "

Then it should be argued as a matter of wisdom rather than law.

The earlier argument from Providence misunderstands the nature of human communication. To speak or to write is to present a world of one's own making. Must everything I say correspond to the world as it is? Can it never be pictured in terms of what it might be? Morality recognises the presence of good and evil. If I argue a reductio ad absurdum I am presenting the world in a way in which it does not presently exist. Dabney and the other opponents have argued in this manner. They set forth evils of fiction as consequences which are not tempered with any good. Are they arguing less than truthfully? If they present what good may yet result from only reading factual accounts of history, are they not presenting a fiction, since the world as it exists does not know this good? The imagination has generated the argument, and the imagination does not reflect reality as it is. Does that make it less than truthful?

 

[Afterthought]

Then it should be argued as a matter of wisdom rather than law.

The earlier argument from Providence misunderstands the nature of human communication.

Thank you; I'll give this some thought and maybe come back tomorrow with further questions. Thoughts on the comments in my earlier post: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/against-fiction.92530/#post-1129423 ?

 

[MW]

Thoughts on the comments in my earlier post: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/against-fiction.92530/#post-1129423 ?

I suppose you have to assume "entertainment of evil" as the purpose, when there is no valid reason for doing so.

On movies and such, that contains additional elements, so there is no one to one transfer of arguments. If a picture tells a thousand words then a movie must tell billions, and the power of human mental faculties cannot cope with that many words in that amount of time. This means there are subliminal messages. Most people give up and work entirely off their intuitive emotional responses, which is the way movie-makers have managed to manipulate society for some time now.

 

[SRoper]

In the nineteenth century (just to pick one), fiction was often used to bring attention to societal problems

Can't imagine why Dabney was against fiction.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I'm struggling to draw out cogent arguments from the sources you link. The FPJ one is basically just a string of quotes asserting negative sequelae to the reading of fiction without much in the way of argument or demonstration. Dabney's arguments seem to solely militate against bad or degenerate fiction. The answer to both articles is, in the large, abusus non tollit usum. He finally gives a more general argument at the end:

"All men who read novels will confess that usually they read them as an indulgence, and not as a means of improvement. Now, it is an indulgence which is not recreation, for it excites, wearies and emasculates the mind even more than excessive mental labor"

But as an argument from commonly admitted experience these seem false on the face of it. Most serious Christians that I know that read fiction do, in fact, claim to read them in part as a means of improvement and, even as an indulgence, find it relaxing and calming to the mind.

Regardless, I don't read much fiction, but when I have made an effort to enjoy good fiction (Tolstoy, Doestoevsky, Hugo etc.) I've found it immensely profitable. Good fiction will teach much more (and often more accurately) about human psychology and experience than any textbook.

 

[py3ak]

2) Suppose all objections fall flat: What about the argument from wasting our time? Do we wate our time reading fiction? (This argument was the main one discussed in the most recent thread, so I don't expect as much response on this argument.)

3) It seems to me "fiction" is too broad a category. We should probably categorize "fiction" and discuss the merits of each separately. I would note the above articles are against the "novel," and it is possible that the "novel" to them meant something different and distinct to them than it does to us now (I have no idea). This limits the use of the Scriptures to justify fiction, since, e.g., parables are generally different from a novel.

No, reading fiction is not intrinsically or necessarily a waste of time. There is time-wasting fiction, to be sure, but there's time-wasting philosophy, history, theology, and even literary criticism as well.

Our acquaintance with older novels is often with what was among the best of it. Many novelists have deservedly been forgotten, while Jane Austen has not been and likely will not be. But other than that, they meant by a novel an extended fictional story, often in three volumes (or serialized), dealing with the life and experiences of a particular set of fictional though broadly realistic characters.

There are two reasons for reading anything at your own discretion: pleasure and profit. The best novels combine both, and in my own opinion are more successful at being profitable as they are more pleasurable, and vice versa. Thus Anthony Trollope's remarkable perspicacity and authorial charity combine with the unflagging charm of his diction to produce intense delight as your sympathies are cultivated.

I have found that Dabney frequently speaks de haut en bas but often on rather a shaky foundation. Indeed, in the wild generalizations of some 19th century theological authors one finds quite as much fiction as in any ordinary novel of the time.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I don't always read fiction, but when I do, I prefer Dostoevsky.

 

[Dachaser]

Consider the objections to the reading of fiction here.

And Dabney on Dangerous Reading here.

In addition to these objections, one can add the one usually given against watching movies as etertainment: We should not be entertained by evil, but fiction necessarily includes such in order to create drama and therefore interest in the work. Using Scripture as a parallel doesn't work because (a) it is not "entertainment," (b) the kind of evil portrayed is different from what is generally portrayed in fiction, and (c) the Scriptures have a pure perspective on evil, whereas we can never achieve that in our fictions.

To these objections, I might add some observations and comments of my own.

1) Supposing reading fiction for entertainment, amusement, or recreation to be wrong, should we draw a distinction between reading fiction for that purpose and reading fiction for some other purpose (e.g., for purposes of information gathering)?

2) Suppose all objections fall flat: What about the argument from wasting our time? Do we wate our time reading fiction? (This argument was the main one discussed in the most recent thread, so I don't expect as much response on this argument.)

3) It seems to me "fiction" is too broad a category. We should probably categorize "fiction" and discuss the merits of each separately. I would note the above articles are against the "novel," and it is possible that the "novel" to them meant something different and distinct to them than it does to us now (I have no idea). This limits the use of the Scriptures to justify fiction, since, e.g., parables are generally different from a novel.

4) Do arguments against fiction rule out telling stories for our own (and often childrens') amusement or instruction?


Given previous threads on this subject, it is likely there is overwhelming support for fiction on this board, but I am interested in hearing from both sides (if the other side is here). Thoughts on these comments and arguments? The argument against reading fiction from not setting evil before our eyes is certainly interesting, since one could object that objections to watching movies on this basis leads to the absurdity that we cannot read fiction; but this argument basically accepts the "absurdity" as not being "absurd." The argument from an over-stirring of the passions (found in the linked pages) is interesting because that would seem to rule out listening to any music.

I think both JR Tolkien and CS Lewis used fiction in a good biblical sense!

 

[Afterthought]

I suppose you have to assume "entertainment of evil" as the purpose, when there is no valid reason for doing so.

1) Why is it not setting evil before one's eyes to read fiction that contains scenes of evil? Or why is it not in violation of us being simple concerning evil?
2) If one reads fiction for the purposes of entertainment and evil is a part of the story, how does one escape from being entertained by evil to some degree?
3) Must one always read fiction for at least the purpose of profit (even if only to critique the work) and not for entertainment only? Is reading for the purpose of entertainment only a waste of time?

I'm struggling to draw out cogent arguments from the sources you link. The FPJ one is basically just a string of quotes asserting negative sequelae to the reading of fiction without much in the way of argument or demonstration. Dabney's arguments seem to solely militate against bad or degenerate fiction.

Whether that is the effect of his arguments or not, Dabney does say he is talking about fiction in its purest form and then later critiques fiction as it is degenerate. Yes, it is somewhat difficult to draw out arguments from the FPJ, but I think it can be done and some of them worth thinking about.

No, reading fiction is not intrinsically or necessarily a waste of time. There is time-wasting fiction, to be sure, but there's time-wasting philosophy, history, theology, and even literary criticism as well.

What makes fiction time-wasting fiction? What are the qualities that turn fiction into time-wasting fiction?

There are two reasons for reading anything at your own discretion: pleasure and profit. The best novels combine both, and in my own opinion are more successful at being profitable as they are more pleasurable, and vice versa. Thus Anthony Trollope's remarkable perspicacity and authorial charity combine with the unflagging charm of his diction to produce intense delight as your sympathies are cultivated.

Of course, reading for "pleasure" assumes that reading fiction is lawful. So this would only really work after such has been established.

 

[MW]

1) Why is it not setting evil before one's eyes to read fiction that contains scenes of evil? Or why is it not in violation of us being simple concerning evil?

Virtuous simplicity relates to singleness of purpose. Simplicity of the naive kind is exposed as weakness in the Proverbs. In contrast, a prudent man foreseeth the evil. When Proverbs describes the adulterous woman it enlarges on the character of evil in order that a man may be able to recognise it when he sees it and take necessary steps to keep away from it. It is not setting evil before a man's eyes.

2) If one reads fiction for the purposes of entertainment and evil is a part of the story, how does one escape from being entertained by evil to some degree?

Again, I am wondering why the idea of "entertainment" must be imposed on the subject, and what kind of "entertainment" is in mind. Reading is a kind of conversation. The reader mentally listens and reflects on the text.

If the writer intends to present evil as good or good as evil then there is a case for making an adverse judgment on the fiction; but then it is not fiction itself which has created the problem.

3) Must one always read fiction for at least the purpose of profit (even if only to critique the work) and not for entertainment only? Is reading for the purpose of entertainment only a waste of time?

Perhaps I am old fashioned but I think boredom is a state of the mind, and I tend to think that entertainment is also. I find entertainment in learning new words or seeing a play on words. Some people find it in collecting stamps or coins. It seems to me that when you use the word "entertainment" you must have a specific kind or quality in mind.

 

[py3ak]

What makes fiction time-wasting fiction? What are the qualities that turn fiction into time-wasting fiction?

Of course, reading for "pleasure" assumes that reading fiction is lawful. So this would only really work after such has been established.

Fiction is time-wasting when you should be doing something else or it's stupid and you're not getting anything out of it.
To the second, we don't believe in a regulative principle for daily life, so I don't think what you say is quite accurate. You have to have a reason to say that some pleasure is unlawful, because the default category is not: pleasurable=bad.

Or look at it this way. There is a category of lawful recreation; rest is necessary to the mind as well as to the body. Variety is refreshing because it draws on parts of us that our ordinary calling may not, and in that way keeps us overall in better shape. It's a curious thing that people who only read books of information often misread those books, and I think the reason is that their overall linguistic muscles are not harmoniously maintained.

 

[Afterthought]

Virtuous simplicity relates to singleness of purpose. Simplicity of the naive kind is exposed as weakness in the Proverbs. In contrast, a prudent man foreseeth the evil. When Proverbs describes the adulterous woman it enlarges on the character of evil in order that a man may be able to recognise it when he sees it and take necessary steps to keep away from it. It is not setting evil before a man's eyes.

Of course, the anti-fiction proponent would say this could only be done by the Scriptures with their pure perspective on evil, not by a sinful man. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "singleness of purpose:" Is there an extent to which we should not be overexposing ourselves to evil though? I'm not sure how to word that carefully.

Again, I am wondering why the idea of "entertainment" must be imposed on the subject, and what kind of "entertainment" is in mind. Reading is a kind of conversation. The reader mentally listens and reflects on the text.

If the writer intends to present evil as good or good as evil then there is a case for making an adverse judgment on the fiction; but then it is not fiction itself which has created the problem.

Perhaps I am old fashioned but I think boredom is a state of the mind, and I tend to think that entertainment is also. I find entertainment in learning new words or seeing a play on words. Some people find it in collecting stamps or coins. It seems to me that when you use the word "entertainment" you must have a specific kind or quality in mind.

Ah, I think I see what you mean by the word "entertainment" being tricky. I think there are a couple of things one may have in mind. The anti-fiction proponent might mean "pleasure:" are they taking pleasure in reading this fiction that contains evil in it? When I hear the word in this context, I think of the sort of stories one might write or tell children for their own amusement; there is not necessarily a moral lesson involved, but some world and some characters are invented for the purpose of telling a story. It's the sort of thing one might do as a hobby or past-time. The characters go and do something, but the only possible profit I can see in such cases would be, as you have said, verbal and in exercising the imagination.

To the second, we don't believe in a regulative principle for daily life, so I don't think what you say is quite accurate. You have to have a reason to say that some pleasure is unlawful, because the default category is not: pleasurable=bad.

Sorry, I thought I had clarified in the thread already that by "established," I only meant that the objections were handled; I suppose I should have also clarified that in the post to which you are responding. Such seems fair in a thread where the lawfulness of the subject is in question.

 

[TheThirdandReformedAdam]

The anti-fiction proponent might mean "pleasure:" are they taking pleasure in reading this fiction that contains evil in it?

Not to interject, but I hope we are clear that stories that contain elements of evil do not necessitate the rejoicing in those particular acts of evil. This is seen in no place better than the gospel, itself (which I might say, truly is a story of redemption). There, the bitterness of sin ultimately serves to add to the sweetness of our redemption. Do we, therefore, rejoice in our sins? Of course not. However, we openly praise God for, in His infinite wisdom, using that sin to make His redemption story all the more glorious a tale.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Is there an extent to which we should not be overexposing ourselves to evil though?

I'm going to take a stab at this one--one of the things that one will find in reading, say, Dostoevsky (sorry about by stupid comment earlier by the way!) is that his stories often constitute a study in human depravity. He explores neurosis, pride, envy, and other such sinful mindsets, and shows how they affect a man. He gives an honest and ugly display of them. In doing so, he doesn't commend the sin--he exposes it for what it is.

When one puts down Dostoevsky, having taken his depictions of depravity to heart, he is equipped with arguments to pursue righteousness and to flee sin, and with tools for understanding those around him.

 

[Afterthought]

Not to interject, but I hope we are clear that stories that contain elements of evil do not necessitate the rejoicing in those particular acts of evil. This is seen in no place better than the gospel, itself (which I might say, truly is a story of redemption). There, the bitterness of sin ultimately serves to add to the sweetness of our redemption. Do we, therefore, rejoice in our sins? Of course not. However, we openly praise God for, in His infinite wisdom, using that sin to make His redemption story all the more glorious a tale.

The gospel is not a "story" but good news to sinners from a factual account. The anti-fiction proponent would simply say that the Scriptures are different: Why should we be exposing our imaginations to other evils unnecessarily? And would also say that the Scriptures are the only account that have a pure view of evil.

I suppose the anti-fiction proponent could answer the reductio by saying: Why is one reading something in which sin is required for the whole work to be enjoyable? Why is sin being used as a means for one's reading to be pleasureable?

(I do think you are on to something though; it appears those who make such an argument are looking at a part of a work and viewing it as spoiling the whole of the work. They then need to rely on the sorts of thoughts I mentioned in the first paragraph: Why the unnecessary exposure to evil? etc.)

I'm going to take a stab at this one--one of the things that one will find in reading, say, Dostoevsky (sorry about by stupid comment earlier by the way!) is that his stories often constitute a study in human depravity. He explores neurosis, pride, envy, and other such sinful mindsets, and shows how they affect a man. He gives an honest and ugly display of them. In doing so, he doesn't commend the sin--he exposes it for what it is.

When one puts down Dostoevsky, having taken his depictions of depravity to heart, he is equipped with arguments to pursue righteousness and to flee sin, and with tools for understanding those around him.

There are a lot of evils in the world. Must one know about them all? If not, it seems there is an extent to which one must not be overexposing oneself to evil?

Fiction is time-wasting when you should be doing something else or it's stupid and you're not getting anything out of it.

Thanks, I was hoping we might eventually get around to discussing "stupidity" to some degree, since it is helpful to discuss the parameters of what is lawful fiction. Do you think some kinds of fiction might be inherently "stupid"? Would you say that a fiction that has some characters going about to no purpose is a "stupid" work?

 

[TheThirdandReformedAdam]

The gospel is not a "story" but good news to sinners from a factual account.

As an English major (not great credentials--I know), I think this misses a basic principle of story-telling. Stories, as is implied in your post, are not "false accounts." They may be, and, as we all know, we refer to those stories as fiction. Yet I believe you wouldn't challenge the statement that stories simply do not have to be fictional in order to be qualified as stories. I can tell you stories about my family, my work, my friends, and all of them are absolutely true, yet no one will challenge me and say, "But those are factual accounts; not stories."

Simply put, the gospel truly is a story (the most glorious story of all, and, I believe, is the one story which all other stories ultimately are pointing towards--fictional or not). God is actively telling it, and he has included sin within his narrative.

 

[MW]

Raymond, have you read any of the stories in the Free Presbyterian Young People's Magazine? Just choosing one at random -- I am exposed to the evil of robbery. Robbery is condemned by the story writer, but I am exposed nonetheless. I would say that I am exposed in a good way. The robbers are caught because a dolphin delays the sailing of a ferry. I can see Providence intervening to catch the robbers. I think I am the better for having read this story. It enforces the lesson, "Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." I could pull up numerous such stories I have read over the years. I am not sure the Free Presbyterians hold to the same ideas you are presenting as the arguments of "the anti-fiction proponent."

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, I was hoping we might eventually get around to discussing "stupidity" to some degree, since it is helpful to discuss the parameters of what is lawful fiction. Do you think some kinds of fiction might be inherently "stupid"? Would you say that a fiction that has some characters going about to no purpose is a "stupid" work?

Stupidity is not limited to fiction, by any means, so I'm not sure that it's the fault of any kind of fiction, but rather of its authors. I believe it was Clive James who said of Leonid Brezhnev's memoirs that if one were to read them aloud in the open air, birds would fall stunned from the sky. Something can be stupid as to its matter, its form, or both. And not all judgments will command universal assent (apparently Leonid Brezhnev and his publisher would not have concurred with Clive James).

An aimless character need not be therefore a purposeless character. If an author is introducing characters who add nothing, either they are bad at what they do or are paid by the word. But a character without a purpose of their own may still serve a broader purpose.

All good writing helps you to see something through another's spectacles. Fiction is particularly useful for the creative and sympathetic identification with characters, experiences, and problems not your own, or as experienced by someone different. If the writing is so bad it does not allow that, or if the perspective you are being exposed to is worthless, then that is probably not a book to carry on with, given the abundance of other choices. To balance that, however, sometimes the failure to have a widened apprehension is on the part of the reader, rather than the author; one reason I sometimes give books a second chance.