What to Make of Dragons, Part 2
This entry was posted on Monday, April 27. 2009 and is filed under Posts by Rebecca Luella Miller,Fantasy.
So what should we make of dragons ... or magic or wizards or trolls or faeries? Do they belong in the stories our children read? Do they belong in the stories we Christian authors write?I ended Part 1 of the discussion about fantasy with that question, generated from my reading of Richard Abanes' fine book, Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings. Well, I just received a copy of a pamphlet entitled "In Defence of Fantasy" (yes, the British spelling of defense is intentional) by Australian author Andrew Lansdown. In part this booklet opened my eyes to some of the stringent opposition to fantasy others have talked about. Mr. Lansdown systematically and thoughtfully takes the major objections to fantasy and discusses them from a Biblical perspective. I'd like to follow his line of thinking for a time.
He identifies these objections to fantasy:
- people in false religions like fantasy
- fantasy is linked to the occult
- fantasy is not true (and why should Christians spend so much time reading a lie)
- (and the corollary) fantasy depicts things that have no basis in reality
- readers (especially young ones) may become confused about what is real
- fantasy is escapist
However, Mr. Lansdown goes on to acknowledge that some writers use fantasy to further their wrong worldview. I thought of Phillip Pullman as a prime example of this.
Again, Mr. Lansdown defuses this argument as a reason to dismiss all fantasy:
A man who has sex with a prostitute does not thereby prove that sex in itself is bad and should be banned from marriages. A woman who poisons her husband with oleander sap does not thereby prove that oleander bushes in themselves are bad and should be banned from gardens. Likewise, a writer who poisons a fantasy with depravity does not thereby prove that fantasy novels intrinsically are bad and should be banned from libraries. He proves only that his fantasy is bad and should be banned.(Here I'm hoping that "banned from libraries" refers to personal libraries because banning books brings up another completely different, albeit as equally high-charge, topic.)
The second point—the link with the occult—is probably the major issue and one I touched on in Part 1. I think it's such a serious concern that I think it deserves more discussion. Let me lay out the arguments to give you time to think about the subject, then next time we'll look at Mr. Lansdown's refutation.
Some Christians object to fantasy writing because they feel that it is linked with the occult. By "the occult" they do not mean things that are merely "mysterious" and "outside the laws of the natural world". They mean things that are darkly mysterious and wickedly supernatural. Quite legitimately, they use the term "the occult" to describe an interest or an involvement in supernatural things that are evil and devilish. And they view fantasy as occult because its realms may accommodate evil people such as witches, evil spirits such as demons, evil creatures such as goblins, and evil practices such as sorcery.
Interestingly, Mr. Lansdown divides fantasy into three categories—stories with no occult, stories with some occult, stories featuring the occult. He says, "In my view, the first category needs no defence, while the third category is largely indefensible." So his refutation deals exclusively with stories containing some occult. And we'll look at what he says about them next time.
Meanwhile, let me know what you think about the three categories, the list of objections to fantasy, or anything else that comes to mind on the subject.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
| Page: 1 of 1 |
-
Monday, April 27. 2009
Susanne Lakin wrote:
Thanks, Rebecca, for that discussion. I've spent much time looking into this debate and for those who are interested, you may find my article on the Importance of Reading Fairy Tales to Children an interesting corollary. I explore Bruno Bettelheim's book, The Uses of Enchantment, and give some strong arguments why fairy tales in all their gore are necessary and beneficial for children (and adults!) to read. Feel free to take a look at www.cslakin.com under "articles" and share some thoughts. Or Rebecca, you may want to put a link to it for those interested. Thanks!
Reply to this -
Tuesday, April 28. 2009
Ken Rolph wrote:
"fantasy depicts things that have no basis in reality"
Anyone who thinks that the Bible has no time for fantasy should read Numbers 22. That has a talking donkey. Wonder what they make of that.
Reply to this-
Tuesday, April 28. 2009
E. Stephen Burnett wrote:
The Bible does indeed contain true-life accounts of supernatural occurrences that seemed fantastic then, and fantastic now. This makes it strange when some Christians nowadays shy from similar stories, especially God-honoring ones, that present supernatural events.
Rebecca, great overview as before, and I'm looking forward to reading more!
Reply to this
-
Tuesday, April 28. 2009
E. Stephen Burnett wrote:
-
Tuesday, April 28. 2009
Daniel Smith wrote:
This is interesting and I too look forward to the next installment.
I was wondering where Harry Potter might fit in since he's a de-facto standard in YA fantasy these days. I assume he's in the "stories with no occult" category though I can see him barely in the "stories with some occult" category due to the fortune-telling components. They are most notable in books 3 and 5.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, April 29. 2009
Sean Malone wrote:
The three categories Lansdown provides seem misleading. I would argue that the acceptability of a story has less to do with the amount of occult-related content than it does with the attitude with which the occult-related content is treated. Consider the following situations:
----------------
1) There is only a very small amount of sorcery in a story, but it is presented as good and something to be pursued. It is possible for any person to practice sorcery, and all are encouraged to do so. There are minimal, if any, negative side effects of sorcery.
This story is potentially deadly, especially if given to those with young and/or impressionable minds.
----------------
2) Another story has a relatively large amount of sorcery and other evils, but they are presented as evils that must be fought and resisted--and entirely avoided when possible.
This story is fine, given that the reader is old enough so as not to be given nightmares by it. This is closely analogous to the real-world situation, and promotes the Christian view of evil while acknowledging that evil does exist in the world.
----------------
3) Yet another story has some amount of witchcraft in it, and it is presented as neutral. However, there is a clearly defined line between who can use magic, and who cannot. (Think Harry Potter)
This is the most complex situation. In this case, I would say that the story is acceptable because there is not the same temptation presented in the first example. Some laws of the universe simply work differently, which lets some people have abilities that humans in our world do not have. It is less likely that a person reading this would try to obtain powers through demonic means, since they (presumably) are one of the "muggles," to borrow the term.
----------------
This type of division seems to lend itself more readily to an evaluation based on Christian principles. Evil does exist in our world and must be reckoned with, so judging a story purely on the amount of evil it possesses does not see appropriate. I admit, though, I have not fully investigated my own division ... I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for the great article!
Reply to this -
Saturday, May 02. 2009
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
Sean, I suspect Mr. Lansdown would not disagree with your divisions. If a "small amount of sorcery" is presented as something to be pursued, then I don't think it really is small. But I could be putting words in his mouth.
Your number two is where those advocating "Christian horror" would find themselves. I did wonder about Mr. Lansdown's categorical "indefensible" determination of stories featuring the occult. Wouldn't Frank Peretti's This Presnet Darkness and Piercing the Darkness fall into that grouping?
But your third category doesn't take into consideration Mr. Lansdown's definition of the occult as "things that are darkly mysterious and wickedly supernatural." By that interpretation, there would be no "neutral"witchcraft.
In other words, the witches and wizards in Harry Potter aren't "occult" until the evil ones come on stage. That wizards can do magic and muggles can't is no different than Christopher Robin being able to talk with Winnie the Pooh. It's "magic," but not evil.
Becky
Reply to this -
Tuesday, May 26. 2009
Mark Lucashu wrote:
I have enjoyed reading these articles but must ask one question. Why do we keep assuming sorcery is wrong? Well, the obvious answer is "because the Bible says so". Alright, well WHY does the Bible say sorcery is wrong? Well, because it's either seeking to 'beat' God at his own game by seeing the future, or it's simply foolish. The base of both, however, is that such things are not possible in our universe except by two powers: God, or the Enemy. If God gives someone the ability to shoot lightning from their fingers, no Christian in their right mind would think twice about it. But if that person goes, reads a book about pentagrams, and summons a demon that, likewise, gives them that power, well, now the Christians are all over it!
The difference, then, (with some exceptions, like seeing into the future), is in the source. 'Magic', being, as defined by the dictionary, "power from an unknown source", is not wrong. Not inherently. What matters is where it comes from.
So if I write a story about people who can use magic that they get from tiny seeds, obviously, that's good. God made the seeds, they used them. It's a tool. Yet so many Christians would ignore that fact and condemn it as Satanist for one fact alone: the WORD "magic". Change that word, give it a different name, and call its users something other than 'witches', and you have a perfectly acceptable solution.
Reply to this
| Page: 1 of 1 |