God, in stories?

[This Baron of Mora]

Hey-o! I was happened upon this website/article:

www.vintagenovels.com/2011/01/theology-of-stories-i-why-fantasy-might.html

And thought it presented some excellent point that would be worth you all to hear as writers and readers.

"When writing a book about a person experiencing a close relationship with God, God is made a character in our own story. Any “God” we create or write about in fiction becomes our own creation and may break any or all of the first three commandments, especially if the work is trivial or dares to state outright how “God” reacts to a fictional prayer. From the looks of it, the Puritans Spenser and Sydney knew they trod on dangerous—because holy--ground."

It goes on before and after that, and while a tad convoluted at the start it is worth reading for its additional points and extensions on this. I think the writer is correct, to follow Tolkien's ideas of 'subcreation' man is meant to imitate God, and to almost 'subcreate Him into the story' is a grave error as creation is beneath creator.

The article goes on about how a balance is struck, in short, the story and subcreation should not ignore God, but shouldn't make Him a character so to speak. The example given is the Christ-like attributes given to characters like Frodo, Gandalf, or Faramir without actually placing Christ in the story.

[Bethany J.]

I heartily agree!

[rjj7]

A very good article. However, I would quibble a bit with the author's implied decision that writing Aslan is not the same thing as writing God. Lewis obviously intended the characters to be one and the same, so I would say that he is not exempt from the criticism of writing God as a character.

I think where Lewis comes off much better than other authors is that he keeps his stories simple and his theology limited to what he might call "mere Christianity". He doesn't wield Aslan like a bludgeon to make his pet theological points, nor does he make any attempt to portray Aslan's reasoning or thought processes. Why didn't Aslan come roaring in to save the day in Prince Caspian? We don't know. All we know is that he acts in his time, not ours.

This is different from, say, Mitchel Bonds' book from Marcher Lord Press, Hero, Second Class. In this book, the protagonist is essentially mad at God because bad things happen to good people (his mother died, I think). Near the end of the story (which has had a couple of appearances by a Jesus figure), he humbles himself before God. The chains that are holding him then magically dissolve away, and he is allowed to go out and save what can be saved of the day. This doesn't sit well with me, because it introduces an element of 'we do X, then God does Y'. Mr. Bonds tried to tame the lion for the purposes of the story.

I may be too sensitive, I may not be, but it demonstrates the peril of writing God in our stories. Porting the thing over into a fantasy world doesn't fix the issue unless, as in Tolkien, you hide everything behind the veil. Fantasy does come with a pre-manufactured veil, but it is up to the individual author whether he uses it or not.

[This Baron of Mora]

To come to Lewis's defence, it must be recalled the he purposed that Aslan we be like Christ, the Christ for Narnia, not for our world. As such he meant for them not to be the same but acceptable similar. That said, I think 'better hiding' is better, and such along with his use of English things in the stories like a faun with pakages, a lamppost, and Father Christmas was why Tolkien disliked them.

[lexkx]

Whenever I teach on writing dialogue, I always set aside some time to talk about writing "the voice of God." In much simpler terms than this article uses, but I believe in the same vein of spirit, because He is real. Your readers may have met Him. Those who have met Him will recognize immediately if you have written Him correctly. Those who don't know Him, God knows Himself quite well and is keeping count of the people you mislead. He keeps track of us all the time, but writing Him as a false god is a pretty transparent vanity for which He will hold you (or me) accountable.

As such, Christians who wish to write a false god have no more restrictions than pagans. But Christians who wish to write of the real God in fiction had better reflect Him accurately. (When teaching dialogue, I recommend only using Scripture or directly quoting from personal prayer times He has ok'd for sharing.) The biggest difference, as well as being the easiest for writers to account for in their own works, is that a false god is cryptic where our own, true God is mysterious. The former hides things by his speech, the latter reveals the unknown.

If you can't write Him well, then by all means, leave God out of your writing. But if God is real to you, is He not real to your characters? Does He not communicate with His beloved creation? There is a very big difference between writing the whole and complete truth of God (which isn't known this side of heaven...) and writing the reality of your own intimate experience with God. That, you can expand upon in fiction. Not only in fantasy, but in adventures and romance and tragedy. But in speculative fiction, we have greater freedoms of invention than in other genres. This gives us more responsibility, to be sure, but it doesn't lessen the wondrous glory of the truth we communicate when we get it right.

Why should we decline to write God into our stories, just because others have done so poorly?

Though I have to say, the student and scholar in me swooned when the author mentioned Spenser. Well done!