Against Fiction

[Afterthought]

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.

Fair enough. I'm just trying to get away from the associations of "story" with "fiction" that I sometimes hear. E.g., people might talk about the "stories" of the Bible without going further and noting that these are historical accounts. It should certainly be noted that if an anti-fiction proponent carried the argument to its conclusion, one could not read even (non-Scriptural) factual accounts and take pleasure from the reading of it.

I am not sure the Free Presbyterians hold to the same ideas you are presenting as the arguments of "the anti-fiction proponent."

Thanks. I'm trying to represent the arguments fairly, but it is certainly possible I have misunderstood them to some degree. It could be that I am taking one of the FP arguments against movies and foisting it upon fiction where--as noted--it does not belong in the same way. And that then ends up in me misrepresenting the position.

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.

What would you make of such stories that are not intended as serious literature, but are just the "fun" sort that one may make up for the amusement of children or for one's own hobby? Perhaps one might view such as an exercise of imagination and leave it at that?


Thank you all for the comments. I'll give them some more thought and may return tomorrow with more questions.

 

[py3ak]

What would you make of such stories that are not intended as serious literature, but are just the "fun" sort that one may make up for the amusement of children or for one's own hobby? Perhaps one might view such as an exercise of imagination and leave it at that?

Some of the most imaginatively sympathetic literature is not "serious" in any ordinary sense -- e.g., George and Weedon Grossmith's Diary of a Nobody. I would think that a knack for fun literature is likely to be a helpful recreation and a blessing to the parents of inquisitive children, if one is aware of the subtle dangers of spinning stories where one is the central character. It is one of the best effects of good narrative that it can help us enter in to a story where someone else matters.

 

[Afterthought]

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."

Most of the examples you have given have been fiction that has the purpose of moral instruction, e.g., parables, or the examples from the FP magazine. How are you generalizing your argument from "fiction with the purpose of moral instruction" is lawful to "all sorts of fiction, including the novel, are lawful/not time-wasting even if the purpose is not for moral instruction"?


To all:
When thinking some more about being over-exposed to evil, it seems this argument is basically concerened with desensitization to evil, although Dabney makes use of this argument in another way too, and perhaps there is virtue in not knowing what one does not need to know about the various evil machinations of man. As I was thinking about it, it appears that this too is a more general argument. Consider the reading of philosophy. If one reads enough, one may become desensitized to false ideas. Or consider listening to many stories from the media. If one listens enough, tragedies could become statistics in one's mind. So the problem here isn't limited to fiction only. This does raise the question though: how does one avoid desensitization? Since this thread is about fiction, in particular, how does one avoid desensitization to evil? And how does one determine whether one is seeking to know too much about evil?

Another question: If an evil that occurs in the work does not necessarily spoil the whole work, then how does one determine when it does? It would seem there are no limits on what one might read. Perhaps there is some great classic that contains much lewdness and does not condemn it. Is the Christian doing well in reading such literature? It appears to depend on what the purpose for reading is, but what purpose would justify reading it, and what purpose would not? (Could one gain righteous pleasure from reading such? Wouldn't the sin spoil the pleasure? What about profit? Maybe simply the "profit" of having first hand experience with this piece of lewd literature because it is useful for a particular person?) This too seems to be a particular application of a more general principle that could apply elsewhere, e.g., philosophy: some philosophical ideas are just plain wicked, what purpose would justify reading it, and what purpose would not?


It would seem a number of the objections to fiction are more wide-ranging than just applying to fiction. Even the argument from regulating the passions shows up in reading other factual accounts. The main difficulty to my mind is figuring out why these arguments are wrong, not merely that they must be wrong because of the absurdity to which they lead.

 

[MW]

Most of the examples you have given have been fiction that has the purpose of moral instruction, e.g., parables, or the examples from the FP magazine. How are you generalizing your argument from "fiction with the purpose of moral instruction" is lawful to "all sorts of fiction, including the novel, are lawful/not time-wasting even if the purpose is not for moral instruciton"?

Unlawful and time-wasting are two different things. Just by the fact that something is used for good demonstrates it is not considered unlawful in itself, unless the person believes that one can do evil that good may come, which is clearly not the case in this situation. As for time-wasting, I grant it. "Redeeming the time" might be a very good reason to pass it by. It regularly prevails with me. But then the evil is in the use, and that must be argued accordingly.

Just to clarify, the FP example was taken from the news. It wasn't fiction. I was only pointing it out to show that the idea of exposing ourselves to evil cannot be an argument against the use of fiction. The exposure is part of the moral lesson.

 

[Afterthought]

Unlawful and time-wasting are two different things. Just by the fact that something is used for good demonstrates it is not considered unlawful in itself, unless the person believes that one can do evil that good may come, which is clearly not the case in this situation. As for time-wasting, I grant it. "Redeeming the time" might be a very good reason to pass it by. It regularly prevails with me. But then the evil is in the use, and that must be argued accordingly.

Just to clarify, the FP example was taken from the news. It wasn't fiction. I was only pointing it out to show that the idea of exposing ourselves to evil cannot be an argument against the use of fiction. The exposure is part of the moral lesson.

Thanks! That leaves me then with two questions here (one of them will sound as though I've asked it before, but I'm trying to word it properly to ask what I'm actually trying to ask), since I asked general questions about exposure to evil in my previous post.

1) How does one determine what is time-wasting in general? Are there things that are objectively time-wasting? Or is "time-wasting" relative to each individual because it requires too much context to speak generally about its qualities?
2) Is there a good use for the sort of fiction that does not provide moral instruction? If so, what is it? I'm trying to see if there is a place for the sorts of fiction that do not intend to convey moral instruction but merely provide an exercise in some imaginary world.

 

[MW]

(1) It is dependent on individual circumstances, but there are some general rules. One primary rule is that our diversions should be subservient to one's main business, and certainly never destructive of it.

(2) If such a thing as amoral fiction exists (which I doubt, although I recognise it might try to come across as that), then I would avoid it like the plague. That would be the most potent medium for seducing the reader.

Those stories that are overtly imaginative and do not immediately connect to a real world ethical framework are dubious. They relate things in terms of idealism and archetypes. It usually requires some promotion of occult powers and practices which are forbidden by the Bible, and which I regard on that basis as unlawful.

 

[Afterthought]

If such a thing as amoral fiction exists (which I doubt, although I recognise it might try to come across as that), then I would avoid it like the plague. That would be the most potent medium for seducing the reader.

Those stories that are overtly imaginative and do not immediately connect to a real world ethical framework are dubious. They relate things in terms of idealism and archetypes. It usually requires some promotion of occult powers and practices which are forbidden by the Bible, and which I regard on that basis as unlawful.

I am not trying to refer to amoral fiction. Certainly, whoever wrote the work is morally acountable and will infuse the work with a morality and leave traces of the author's worldview. However, I am referring to fiction that does not have as its purpose moral instruction. Instead, the purpose is an exercise of the imagination, pleasure, recreation, or (as others have argued in this thread) to put oneself in anothers' shoes. Their primary purpose is simply to tell a story; any moral instruction one might receive is not the intent of the story. These are the kinds of stories one might invent to amuse children or write as a past-time. I'm trying to think of literature that is like this so I can give a concrete example, but I don't have any off the top of my head (it is late out here). There does seem to be a difference though between a parabolic-like story that has as its entire purpose moral instruction, and a novel, which focuses on characters and plot more and does not necessarily have a "moral to the story." It is these sorts of stories to which I am referring.

 

[MW]

any moral instruction one might receive is not the intent of the story.

Then they are coming across as amoral, which is devilish. Even if the purpose of the story is to make someone laugh at someone else's stupidity one must consider some action to be stupid.

 

[Philip]

However, I am referring to fiction that does not have as its purpose moral instruction. Instead, the purpose is an exercise of the imagination, pleasure, recreation, or (as others have argued in this thread) to put oneself in anothers' shoes.

Putting oneself in another's shoes is (or can be) a kind of moral instruction, as is seen in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Most fiction has at least some sort of ethos behind it and happens in some sort of moral universe. High fantasy, like Tolkien, most often does, and even postmoderns (like Umberto Eco) often have some sort of ethos that makes their work worth taking seriously.

Occasionally you do find high modernists (like Proust or Faulkner) who deal in "art for art's sake" and prioritize the aesthetic at the expense of the moral. But these sorts of novels tend not to be all that entertaining. You might also consider authors like P.G. Wodehouse to be like this, but as Rev Winzer said above, even this seems to have some moral point as it pokes fun at human folly.

There does seem to be a difference though between a parabolic-like story that has as its entire purpose moral instruction, and a novel, which focuses on characters and plot more and does not necessarily have a "moral to the story." It is these sorts of stories to which I am referring.

Simply because you can't find a single "moral to the story" doesn't mean there aren't themes and messages being conveyed. Novels like Les Miserables or A Tale of Two Cities are all about love, betrayal, faith, hope, and self-sacrifice, but you can't distill them into one or two pithy morals. Good fiction tends not to moralize, but has broad applicability.

 

[py3ak]

When thinking some more about being over-exposed to evil, it seems this argument is basically concerened with desensitization to evil, although Dabney makes use of this argument in another way too, and perhaps there is virtue in not knowing what one does not need to know about the various evil machinations of man. As I was thinking about it, it appears that this too is a more general argument. Consider the reading of philosophy. If one reads enough, one may become desensitized to false ideas. Or consider listening to many stories from the media. If one listens enough, tragedies could become statistics in one's mind. So the problem here isn't limited to fiction only. This does raise the question though: how does one avoid desensitization? Since this thread is about fiction, in particular, how does one avoid desensitization to evil? And how does one determine whether one is seeking to know too much about evil?

This actually is one of the criteria for distinguishing good fiction from bad. Good fiction is sensitizing rather than desensitizing, in the sense that its tendency is to make you more sympathetically aware of the possibilities in the character and life of others. That is a question not of content but of portrayal. If content was sufficient for desensitization, Judges and Ezekiel would come under a degree of suspicion also.

Another question: If an evil that occurs in the work does not necessarily spoil the whole work, then how does one determine when it does? It would seem there are no limits on what one might read. Perhaps there is some great classic that contains much lewdness and does not condemn it. Is the Christian doing well in reading such literature? It appears to depend on what the purpose for reading is, but what purpose would justify reading it, and what purpose would not? (Could one gain righteous pleasure from reading such? Wouldn't the sin spoil the pleasure? What about profit? Maybe simply the "profit" of having first hand experience with this piece of lewd literature because it is useful for a particular person?) This too seems to be a particular application of a more general principle that could apply elsewhere, e.g., philosophy: some philosophical ideas are just plain wicked, what purpose would justify reading it, and what purpose would not?

I would answer this as above. A great deal depends on how something is portrayed (and something depends on the subjective differences of how a portrayal affects us).

It would seem a number of the objections to fiction are more wide-ranging than just applying to fiction. Even the argument from regulating the passions shows up in reading other factual accounts. The main difficulty to my mind is figuring out why these arguments are wrong, not merely that they must be wrong because of the absurdity to which they lead.

Yes, I think that's part of what I've been trying to say. Because creative and skillful fiction enables you to see the world through a somewhat different set of spectacles, it doesn't mean you are looking at new objects, but that you are looking at familiar objects in a new way. This ties in with the fact that fiction (and art more broadly) is often not directly didactic, and thus its moral purpose is attempted somewhat obliquely. That inevitably leaves a certain open-endedness. But without that you get the dreariness Orwell believed in: All Art is Propaganda. Pursued consistently that view actually destroys art, even if the propaganda itself is fair and worthy. In other words, turning a story into a sermon tends to destroy the story just as delivering a sermon in rhyming couplets would tend to undermine its nature. This generic difference in conjunction with our own limitations, mean that the desire for perfect clarity on what and why and where and how is not always attainable.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks for the comments; this thread has been helpful in clarifying the subject in my mind!

So far as jumping from parable to other fiction, basically, once one grants that fiction with the express purpose of moral instruction is lawful, then one recognizes that the "good" in such fiction is moral instruction and that all fiction conveys moral instruction in one way or another; and then one concludes, any genre of fiction is not automatically ruled unlawful for being fiction.

I suppose there is the question of distinguishing between composing unlawful fiction and reading it. I guess whether reading unlawful fiction is lawful depends much on the context and the purpose of reading such.

(2) If such a thing as amoral fiction exists (which I doubt, although I recognise it might try to come across as that), then I would avoid it like the plague. That would be the most potent medium for seducing the reader.

Those stories that are overtly imaginative and do not immediately connect to a real world ethical framework are dubious. They relate things in terms of idealism and archetypes. It usually requires some promotion of occult powers and practices which are forbidden by the Bible, and which I regard on that basis as unlawful.

What do you mean by relating things in terms of idealism and archetypes?

 

[MW]

What do you mean by relating things in terms of idealism and archetypes?

Idealist in the sense that mental images are invested with properties of the material world. An archetype is your typical character in realistic terms, but in an idealist world it comes to be symbolic of abstract qualities.

 

[ZackF]

I've found this thread profitable as these kinds of subjects often go to the bottom of the barrel rapidly. Here we have a refreshing exception.

 

[a mere housewife]

One of the first things said about the trees of the garden was (along with being good to eat) that they were pleasant to look at. God made trees not merely useful but beautiful. What useful value does it serve when my heart feels melty and wobbly over a floppy baby bunny? Maybe an evolutionary atheistic view reduces that to a survival advantage for the bunny. But I think it's part of the tang of an abundant *goodness*. That goodness is expressed in moral instruction in ten commandments, but everything is telling us to taste and see. I cried yesterday seeing the colors of the sky and the golden willows. What moral instruction does a particular shade of blue melting into pink contain? It whispers of a God who not only commands me to put on compassion for my neighbor but who meets all the nerve endings in my eyes with premonitions of joy.

We teach children wrongly if they do not learn that God's creative goodness made a panda to apparently sleep and eat bamboo and tug at our hearts as well as a hard working multi-talented animal like a horse. His goodness is so exuberant that there's room in the 'multi-color, multi-form' world for the fuzzy delight of Winnie the Pooh. Our human creativity mirrors His. Really our creativity only ever plays on the edges of His, celebrates a little bit of what was once spoken and will be. Sheer fun is one aspect of our playing. We diminish our worship of God if we say otherwise, and in doing so, diminish ourselves.

With respect to fantasy, nothing the human mind can hold up is as beautiful as the revelation of God in Christ. No other world created by human minds holds any being as powerful or wise or self-giving as God. But holding up these pictures shows us a little more vividly what our own reality is like -- impresses on us what it means that truth surpasses this. The imagination was made by and for God, to help us apprehend Him and love Him. It deals in things not visible to the senses. So the Bible turns to richly imagined, almost fairy tale language when speaking about the unseen, specifically the wonders of new creation -- from prophetic language about the cross, through to Revelation. The language of the moon turning to blood (used of the cross, Acts 2) describes unseen reality in a way that the statement 'Christ took my judgment' does not (though this statement is also vitally precious and important).

Eve's first sin was to doubt the goodness of God. And she sinned against what the trees were always declaring not just about his goodness meeting her in practical, useful ways, but delighting her every created capacity. Jesus spoke to us of how our Father lavishly clothes the flowers. He could have made them plain, and the world would still have been a moral, useful, instructive place. But He made them to delight even our human Saviour's senses. His least works whisper wonders of goodness. The precise design of by far most of the snowflakes that have ever fallen or will yet fall is invisible to us; and they fall only to melt. God makes this incredible pageant of beauty out of water, seemingly to great waste. Human creativity is engaged primarily in an endeavor to do the same, in His image. One is striving to create something that speaks of beauty, of the tang of a great goodness -- whether we taste it as a sense of huge loss, of present sweetness, of huge possibility -- and whether or not anyone sees or is changed. We can't help it. It's what we were made to desire, and the faith in which we keep trying to make something new from the rubble of the world.

I don't intend to argue this for I have such a fear of causing others to sin against their conscience -- if anyone wishes to contradict it, I'll let that stand. Our conscience should be convinced in God's goodness and presence. But I think we wrong Him by diminishing His goodness to a sort of useful-moral-instructionism.

Angelic minds, they say, by simple intelligence
Behold the Forms of nature. They discern
Unerringly the Archtypes, all the verities
Which mortals lack or indirectly learn.
Transparent in primordial truth, unvarying,
Pure Earthness and right Stonehood from their clear,
High eminence are seen; unveiled, the seminal
Huge Principles appear.

The Tree-ness of the tree they know-the meaning of
Arboreal life, how from earth's salty lap
The solar beam uplifts it; all the holiness
Enacted by leaves' fall and rising sap;
But never an angel knows the knife-edged severance
Of sun from shadow where the trees begin,
The blessed cool at every pore caressing us
-An angel has no skin.

They see the Form of Air; but mortals breathing it
Drink the whole summer down into the breast.
The lavish pinks, the field new-mown, the ravishing
Sea-smells, the wood-fire smoke that whispers Rest.
The tremor on the rippled pool of memory
That from each smell in widening circles goes,
The pleasure and the pang --can angels measure it?
An angel has no nose.

The nourishing of life, and how it flourishes
On death, and why, they utterly know; but not
The hill-born, earthy spring, the dark cold bilberries.
The ripe peach from the southern wall still hot
Full-bellied tankards foamy-topped, the delicate
Half-lyric lamb, a new loaf's billowy curves,
Nor porridge, nor the tingling taste of oranges.
—An angel has no nerves.

Far richer they! I know the senses' witchery
Guards us like air, from heavens too big to see;
Imminent death to man that barb'd sublimity
And dazzling edge of beauty unsheathed would be.
Yet here, within this tiny, charmed interior,
This parlour of the brain, their Maker shares
With living men some secrets in a privacy
Forever ours, not theirs.

C. S. Lewis

 

[Logan]

I've been thinking about this over the last week or so and a couple of random thoughts:

Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress, which is fiction.
Milton wrote Paradise Lost, which if not fiction, is a greatly expanded imagining.
The Puritans frequently quote from Greek mythology, which is fiction.

It seems to me there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but like anything it can become a trap. I read a lot of technical documents and I find it quite refreshing to my mind to read something lighter. Some of the most influential books I've read have been fiction: one example is a short story by Megan Linholm that describes an older woman with Alzheimer's, struggling to make sense of how the world is changing and the way people are treating her. Stories like that can have a profound impact in helping us to better relate to the struggles of others.