Mostly Sinful Fiction

[S_V7]

Probably another silly question- Is it alright to read or write fiction where sinful things happen (substance abuse, violence, etc.) where at the end a change for the better occurs?

My scruples are off in another direction now…

 

[Zahmir]

A lot of it will depend on what light it is cast in and what is the audience.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to write about those things for any other group than adults. And even then, generally, I would try to stay away from writing about them. But if they are necessary to the story, and the story itself has a good message, then I don’t see too big of a problem with it.

Just be sure that the emphasis of the story isn’t the violence but rather the harm of sinful things, the recovery after sinful things, etc.

 

[S_V7]

A lot of it will depend on what light it is cast in and what is the audience.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to write about those things for any other group than adults. And even then, generally, I would try to stay away from writing about them. But if they are necessary to the story, and the story itself has a good message, then I don’t see too big of a problem with it.

Just be sure that the emphasis of the story isn’t the violence but rather** the harm of sinful things, the recovery after sinful things, etc.**

Exactly why I would write this type of fiction, to show the horrors of such sin. I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t inappropriate in anyway. There isn’t too much detail on the sin itself, everything is mostly focused on the consequences and recovery.

 

[Zahmir]

I see no problem with that, but as I said, your audience should be adults who have mostly like already experienced these things or wouldn’t be harmed by reading it.

Sounds good.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To be honest, I think the question which must be asked here is: what is the purpose of art? And not: is it okay to depict sinful things in works of art? The former question addresses itself to the latter in the best possible terms, I think.

An art which seeks to re-enforce a particular moral perspective or philosophy is best referred to propaganda than to art, and if this is your interest, you may find yourself more fulfilled by writing something that is more on point and less artistic, because ultimately, your art will suffer if you don’t.

Can art be expressive of a point of view, moral or otherwise? Sure. Definitely. Naturally–whatever one writes will reflect one’s values. But is it art’s purpose to take a didactic position with regard to this point of view? No. I don’t think so.

Let’s be painfully simplistic–art is creation. It is not, however, creation ex nihilo. It is more properly sub-creation. It takes life as its core–and this life is not life as it was lived, life as it is lived, nor life as it should be lived. It is life as it could be lived. It is expression of the multitudinous possibilities of life.

A principle discipline of art is observation. But it is not a cold and cruel gaze. Art is observation in love. Love is wide and expansive. Our vision, therefore, should be wide and expansive. It should comprehend the heights and the depths as they are, not as we would like them to be. Not as they “should” be. We imagine our relationship with these heights and depths as they could be lived. We make no imposition on the world to conform to our image of it. We seek to see the world and the life in it more clearly, more lovingly, more gracefully.

Does this lead us to moralizing, to didacticism, to a spurious and illusory idealism? No. It leads us to approach the beauties and the horrors of this world and this life with love, with a love which totally and absolutely comprehends both beauty and horror. The result is a revelation of grace.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Grace & Peace!

To be honest, I think the question which must be asked here is: what is the purpose of art? (snip)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

GREAT POST!!!

To all, especially the OP: I highly recommend Walking on Water by Madeleine L’Engle (of A Wrinkle in Time fame). The gist of it:

Amazon.com
Walking on Water collects 12 brief meditations by Madeleine L’Engle on the nature of art and its relation to faith. L’Engle, the beloved author of A Wrinkle In Time among others, has written and spoken widely and wisely about the connection between religion and art. The gist of her understanding is as follows:

To try to talk about art and about Christianity is for me one and the same thing, and it means attempting to share the meaning of my life, what gives it, for me, its tragedy and its glory. It is what makes me respond to the death of an apple tree, the birth of a puppy, northern lights shaking the sky, by writing stories.

She believes that “**asically there can be no categories such as ‘religious’ art and ‘secular’ art because all true art is incarnational, and therefore ‘religious.’” And “incarnation,” in L’Engle’s view, means “God’s revelation of himself through particularity.” In this book there is some slippage between L’Engle’s autobiographical and critical voices. As a result, she often claims Christian significance for works whose meaning is not intentionally Christian. She admits this freely:

ecause I am a struggling Christian, it’s inevitable that I superimpose my awareness of all that happened in the life of Jesus upon what I’m reading, upon Buber, upon Plato, upon the Book of Daniel. But I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. To be truly Christian means to see Christ everywhere, to know him as all in all.**

Peace,
Dante