The Importance of Fiction

[EllethValatari]

I wanted to get some helpful criticism of an essay* I wrote for school.

Topic: How can Fiction Glorify God?

*I would like to admit that I had not read Tolkien's On Fairie Stories before writing this essay, and I deeply regret not incorporating its themes or quoting it.

Here's the essay (it written with a Christian worldview, but I would still greatly benefit from any non-Christian's critique):

Refracting the Light of Heaven
“Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” The unending flow of time is a great dance of countless acts and movements, written and directed by the Creator for whose glory it exists, in which each iota of Creation has a part. Upon Creation, God gifted man with the ability to create, and He commands us to use this gift for His glory. The first job ever given to man required a creative effort-the use of imagination: “Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would name them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name” (Gen. 2:19 ESV). Today it is impossible to imagine the world without man's creation, for we employ our own inventions daily. This, however, is no extraordinary act. As Isaac Watts writes in his book on logic, an imaginary idea “is made by enlarging, diminishing, uniting, or dividing real ideas in the mind, in such a manner as no objects or exemplars did or will ever exist.” When someone writes fiction, they are using real ideas found in Creation. If we take two ideas, gold and mountain, and join them, we have a golden mountain. If we take the next step, and climb that golden mountain, explore and conquer it, we have not mere writing, but a first step towards good literature.
In writing good fictional literature, we cannot merely excavate the first idea found. We must search for that which is good, beautiful, and glorifies God. But how can the writer’s creation glorify the creator? First and foremost, Mark 10:18 (ESV) states that “No one is good except God alone.” Therefore, if God is goodness, what is good in itself glorifies God because it reflects God. Good fiction must glorify God by reflecting his goodness, his love, and his creation.
In demonstrating how fiction glorifies God, it is crucial to first address how it does not. The most obvious of examples, unfortunately, is found everywhere in current culture, and that is the attempt to satisfy the world's thirst for entertainment. As Annie Dillard muses, "novels written with film contracts in mind have a faint, but unmistakable, and ruinous odor." And this is not the fate of merely corner-store movie-books, but anything written to reap fame or fortune. In this case, the end destroys the means, and the book is only words and paper. However, do not then conclude that any book that has been made into a movie is worthless. A Tale of Two Cities and Pride and Prejudice are both examples of excellent novels that have been adapted to film. Despite the obvious fact that recording had not been invented at the time of original publication for both works, in both of these cases we find writers working towards the creation of something beautiful, something that glorifies God, rather than themselves. As Marge Piercy states, "work is it's own cure. You have to like it better than being loved." For this reason, authors of fiction have to enjoy the realm of fiction itself much more than any practical benefits they might desire or even need. One important difference between a poor fiction writer and a good one is whether or not they care if the rest of the world enjoys reading what they wrote.
As stated earlier, good fiction glorifies God because it reflects God. This does not mean that a non-Christian writer cannot produce good fiction. Even if a writer’s purpose is not to glorify himself, he does not have to intend to glorify God in order for his work to do so. The Bible is full of examples of how things meant for evil can be used for good, and the Fall is the greatest example of them all. Satan tempted Adam and Eve in an attempt to ruin God’s plan for mankind, and it seemed that he succeeded. God, however, predestined mankind from the beginning of time to be saved, and to live with Him eternally. Therefore He sent His only Son to die for sinners, and by Christ’s death and Resurrection all those who believe in Him are saved. In tempting Adam and Eve, Satan attempted to deny God’s power, and yet he played a very important role in God’s plan for his creation. Certainly God can use a writer, even one who intends wholeheartedly to deny God, to create something that glorifies Himself. Concerning an author of fiction, he may glorify God by writing that which glorifies God, or he may write that which does not glorify God; and by the grace of God the writer’s plan will play a role in God’s plan.
Fiction, however, cannot be divided into that which is written for the glory of God and that written to deny God: it serves to fulfill a third purpose. This is the revelation of truth; which cannot be gathered from writing fiction, but from reading it. People who enjoy reading fiction do not necessarily enjoy it because they are escapists. While there is no harm in reading fiction for pleasure’s sake, in letting you flee reality, fiction allows reality to pursue you. If you asked a child what fiction is, he would tell you it is a story that is impossible or not true. However; the outrageousness of a fictional world is attractive because it does reflect reality; it reflects an outrageous world. We believe in an omnipotent and omnipresent God, and it is not unreasonable that so many deny the Gospel due to what they think is absurd. What’s wrong with an absurd world? Why is humanity repelled by impossibilities and ambiguities? Those who refuse to put their faith in God have no other way to reconcile with the world besides human reason. As J. M. Coetzee wrote, “The intellect itself will ultimately lead to nowhere,” and thus when you rely on man’s reason to explain life, impossibilities and ambiguities are daunting.
Bilbo was right when he said, “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door.” Leaving what we feel we know to be fact and going out into the world of chaos is a dangerous business, and it requires faith. What we have to learn is that reality is something we don’t see and know, something we cannot prove exists, something so inconceivable that there are thousands of scientists constantly trying to explain it. Even Jonah Lehrer, an expert on topics such as psychology and neuroscience, recognizes science’s limitations, “modern science has made very little progress towards any uniform understanding of everything.” Scientists know their limitations, Satan knows his limitations, and the sinful reaction to that understanding is to deny it.
G. K. Chesterton once said, “the poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” Those who claim to know any truths about the world purely by man’s reasoning have not thought about the fact that what we perceive just might be blurred, and what is really true might be unperceivable. As Ralph Ellison says, “[fiction] can arrive at the truth about the human condition, here and now, with all the bright magic of the fairy tale.” Therefore, rather than attempting to comprehend the incomprehensible, let us be humbled by our human limitations and allow fiction to refract the light of the heavens into our minds, that we might be drawn closer to God.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Since I specialize in latching onto insignificant things:

That quote at the beginning is familiar; I'm pretty sure it's from a catechism. Is it Westminster? (EDIT. Just found this: 'God, however, predestined mankind from the beginning of time to be saved, and to live with Him eternally.' I'm guessing that's a 'yes', then. )

I actually wrote a (somewhat) similar tidbit for a grad school application. It wasn't centred on fiction as glorifying God, but it did relate the goals of philosophy, theology, and literature.

A couple of critiques:

There's rather too much citation. It feels like we hardly go two sentences without a quote; paring them down would do the article some good.

And this is not the fate of merely corner-store movie-books, but anything written to reap fame or fortune.

This is an appealing idea, but untrue. Money was a significant motivation in the creation of many great works of art. You mention Dickens as a example of great lit, but he famously was paid by the word. Much of Handel's music was written for money. A great deal of Rennaissance art was created for pay. The list goes on. Naturally, if one were to say that since they were great, money was only a secondary motivation, this would be begging the question.

One important difference between a poor fiction writer and a good one is whether or not they care if the rest of the world enjoys reading what they wrote.

Also untrue. A hack writes in order to maximize sales, and they maximize sales and ensure repeat customers by writing something people will enjoy reading, but a hack is, in the end, a bad writer.

Why is humanity repelled by impossibilities and ambiguities? Those who refuse to put their faith in God have no other way to reconcile with the world besides human reason.

Some people reject faith and the intelligibility of the world. They reconcile simply by acknowledging the absurdity, and saying there is no reason for it.

Those who claim to know any truths about the world purely by man’s reasoning have not thought about the fact that what we perceive just might be blurred, and what is really true might be unperceivable.

Many of them have thought about that. Most notably, see Descartes, who proves (or believes he proves) the reliability of perception from reason.

Minor and stylistic critique:

Generally, it's rather "purple patch" for a school paper, I think. This line, in particular, is rather excessive: "The unending flow of time is a great dance of countless acts and movements . . ."

Therefore, if God is goodness, what is good in itself glorifies God because it reflects God.

I would say the cause of goodness is participation, rather than reflection. It is good because it participates, and it reflects because it is good.

it serves to fulfill a third purpose.

"Serves to" is unnecessary.

God gifted man with the ability

This construction is more convoluted than it needs to be; "gave man the ability" would serve equally well.

The Bible is full of examples of how things meant for evil can be used for good, and the Fall is the greatest example of them all.

Not a critique, but Felix culpa!

Concerning an author of fiction, he may glorify God by writing that which glorifies God, or he may write that which does not glorify God; and by the grace of God the writer’s plan will play a role in God’s plan.

I don't think you should have a conjunction after a semi-colon.

However; the outrageousness

Should be a colon.

[Earniel]

I started reading, but the wall of text and the slightly proselytising tone put me off until I read Gwai's comments. So I tried reading it again. On the whole I can't find many ideas in it that I can agree with, in fact here and there I am rather somewhat irked by it, but then I am an agnost and an (amateur) writer myself.

I agree with Gwai on the excess of quotes. In my own personal opinion (take it the way you want it, I cannot claim to have ever done well on this sort of essay myself in school) quotes should be used sparingly. And especially in philosophical debates I find they should never be used as irrefutable proof. They should (IMO) rather be used as an illustration of a thought or when they put something better in words than I can. In philosophy you can find quotes of all sorts, and one quote can easily contradict another without either of them being fact.

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

In demonstrating how fiction glorifies God, it is crucial to first address how it does not. The most obvious of examples, unfortunately, is found everywhere in current culture, and that is the attempt to satisfy the world's thirst for entertainment.

IMO this doesn't quite gell in what you go on to say later, that no matter what the author intended, he can still be glorifying God if it is God's plan that he does so.

One important difference between a poor fiction writer and a good one is whether or not they care if the rest of the world enjoys reading what they wrote.

An overly naieve statement. People write for so endlessly many reasons. Their reasons do not necessarily impact their writing's quality. It's one thing to write about how fiction in general can glorify God, but it is quite another thing to call all fiction that glorifies your god immediately 'good fiction'. I can write a dozen sonnets to any god's glory, but the subject matter doesn't necessarily make them any good. This is a distinction you added and that is not in the title of the essay. The discussion of what is 'good' or 'bad' fiction is another beast entirely.

Even if a writer’s purpose is not to glorify himself, he does not have to intend to glorify God in order for his work to do so. The Bible is full of examples of how things meant for evil can be used for good, and the Fall is the greatest example of them all.

I kind of take exception to this comment. I don't write for god's glory, if people think my writing glorifies god, that's their perogative. If they go on saying I am glorifying god whether I know it or not, I'm going to be a bit miffed that other people think they understand what I put in my writing better than I do myself. But to go on and imply that those writings must be evil if I didn't intend to glorify god in the first place, that really gets my goat.

This is the revelation of truth; which cannot be gathered from writing fiction, but from reading it.

I disagree strongly. A writer can just as easily come to new insights, or better understanding of something in the very progress of writing.

Why is humanity repelled by impossibilities and ambiguities?

We are? Since when?

Leaving what we feel we know to be fact and going out into the world of chaos is a dangerous business, and it requires faith.

It does not.

Sometimes, a very big hammer is sufficient.

What we have to learn is that reality is something we don’t see and know, something we cannot prove exists, something so inconceivable that there are thousands of scientists constantly trying to explain it.

IMHO, when you're dealing with something that can't be proven to exist, or something inconceivable, you won't be dealing with scientists but with philosophers.

Those who claim to know any truths about the world purely by man’s reasoning have not thought about the fact that what we perceive just might be blurred, and what is really true might be unperceivable.

You sell a lot of people short by saying this. Many people have thought about this long and often. Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind for example.

[Tessar]

My main critique is simply an echo of what Gwai and Earniel have already said... you have a number of unsupported statements, and far, far too many quotes. Particularly when posting something online you want to seriously consider how you format it. As Earniel has mentioned right now it looks like a wall of text and it's a bit intimidating .

Fiction, however, cannot be divided into that which is written for the glory of God and that written to deny God: it serves to fulfill a third purpose. This is the revelation of truth; which cannot be gathered from writing fiction, but from reading it. People who enjoy reading fiction do not necessarily enjoy it because they are escapists. While there is no harm in reading fiction for pleasure’s sake, in letting you flee reality, fiction allows reality to pursue you. If you asked a child what fiction is, he would tell you it is a story that is impossible or not true. However; the outrageousness of a fictional world is attractive because it does reflect reality; it reflects an outrageous world.

This paragraph particularly bothers me because it feels like a flow of thought that is not being entirely rationalized, and it does not read easily. In fact you set up as if you are about to make a point:

Fiction, however, cannot be divided into that which is written for the glory of God and that written to deny God: it serves to fulfill a third purpose.

But then don't follow through.

This is the revelation of truth; which cannot be gathered from writing fiction, but from reading it.

Fiction is not, in and of itself, purely a revelation of truth. Otherwise it would be called fact, not fiction. Fiction may certainly have many elements of truth and be driven by what we know/consider to be facts of life or the world, but that does not make those facts into a fiction.


Overall your prose tends to be jumpy... you are trying to make a LOT of points, and draw in a lot of viewpoints, in a very short paper. If you feel like revising the paper, I would seriously consider streamlining it by latching on to one of the topics/ideas you presented, cutting out about 50-75% of the quotes, and having a clearer idea of what point or idea you are trying to present by the end.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Just from a quick scan, it looks like the same paper as the one from this thread; am I missing something?

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Just from a quick scan, it looks like the same paper as the one from this thread; am I missing something?

I didn't even realize I had posted that! I guess I should go delete that thread...if I can...

[Earniel]

You can't, but I can. And since it pointless in having two identical threads around, I've deleted it for you.

[inked]

Shud du nicht be vot kounting, Earniel? Und her du be doing de EntMut kleaning!

[brownjenkins]

The Bible is one of the most successful fiction pieces in the last few thousand years, so I agree with you premise. I'd take a page from that and say that the most important aspect of theological fiction is convincibility, which is untimately vagueness, much like philosophy. But of an inspirational kind that spurs others to grasp onto it. It's that fine line between wonder and plausability, with a little bit of suspended disbelief mixed in.

There have been a few over the years.

[inked]

Ah, I see BJ is back and not wasting anytime spreading the fiction that the Bible is fiction.

What line of reasoning would like to use to substantiate that fictional statement, BJ? Considering it's a pretty blanket statement that a large number of corrected archeologists and historians would have to disagree with in general.

Your allegation has all the vagueness it proposes for the Bible. But I'll give you the chance to redeem your statement.

[brownjenkins]

Archeology and history weave in a good bit of fiction in an attempt to connect the dots, and they've never had any problem admitting it, unlike their theological brethren. Those sciences are about discovery and reinvention on a regular basis.

Theology's bread and butter, from the Eddas to the Vedas to the Old Testament, is all about *truth* over fiction. Find a handful of information that a story may have a nugget of actual history within it, and it somehow validates the whole bananna, from nut to rind.

The best you can do is single out a few parts of the biblical texts that may not be fiction.

[inked]

Then be careful of your reading, BJ. CS Lewis once observed that an atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. I'm pretty sure that goes for agnostics too!

By the way, good to see you around again!

[GrayMouser]

Adding my welcome-backs

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The best you can do is single out a few parts of the biblical texts that may not be fiction.

How about the hefty chunk that is not narrative? Prophets, Psalms, Wisdom books, epistles, and all that stuff?

[inked]

The narrative parts are pretty good, too! Specially the parts about the Hittite empire and other non-existent peoples that were derided as spurious until the archeologists' spades uncovered the reality. Check out History dot com and Discovery and all those sorts of places for really dull and uninteresting techno thrillers about that kind of stuff ... ... ...

But what we really need is to for BJ to decide what his definition of non-fiction is!

[Earniel]

It's a bit off topic but... just because Troy was found by going by Homerus' works, doesn't mean the rest of the Iliad is 100% correct. After all, the Troy from the Iliad has not yet been successfully identified with one specific layer of inhabitation found on site.

It's never all or nothing with historical/ritual texts. Facts and fiction are often very mixed and a tough job to find out which is which.

(I'm also pretty sure the Bible is not the only source about the Hittites as they were also mentioned in clay tablets and Egyptian sources.)

[GrayMouser]

Yes, but (and I think this is inked's point) those other sources confirming the existence of the Hittites weren't rediscovered until the 19th Century. Up till that time they had simply been an kingdom mentioned in the Bible, unknown from any other sources.

[inked]

Bingo! GM.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There are some events corroborated in striking detail by external, non-Hebrew sources. Certainly, this doesn't prove the historicity of the historical books as a whole, but it at least may lead one to think there is more historical accuracy than one might think. At the same time, archaeology and other factors show that some elements do not seem to be historically accurate, so we don't want to go too far in the other direction, either.

[inked]

Bingo, Gwai!