What to Make of Dragons, Part 3: Fantasy and the Occult
This entry was posted on Monday, May 11. 2009 and is filed under Posts by Rebecca Luella Miller,Fantasy.
Last time, I digressed from a look at fantasy through the writing of Richard Abanes to a discussion of "In Defence of Fantasy," a pamphlet by Andrew Lansdown answering the main objections some professing Christians hurl at fantasy. I left off with the explanation Mr. Lansdown gave for the occult from the perspective of those objecting to fantasy:
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.In addressing this issue, Mr. Lansdown turns to the Bible, pointing out that all kinds of occult activity is recorded in the text—from information about Satan, demons, witches (think, the Witch of Endor), mediums, false prophets, and false gods to idol worship, human sacrifice, sorcery, and magic. I'll even add that Daniel was put in charge, at one point, of the magicians in Babylon. These were not men of God, but nowhere did God tell Daniel to flame them. In fact, God gave Daniel one of the king's dreams, and its interpretation, which just so happened to save the lives of all the magicians, a group of which Daniel was a member.
However, as Mr. Lansdown pointed out, the Bible is clearly not an occult book. It is God's revelation of Himself—His purpose, His plan, and His work in the world. I find it instructive that His work includes His clash with forces of evil, never more clearly seen than in Jesus's ministry.
But what does that have to do with fantasy?
As Mr. Lansdown points out, the mention of the occult in fantasy clearly cannot be considered as evil or the Bible would need to be considered as evil. Instead, a reader needs to look at intent. Is the author glorifying evil? Are the dark characters set up as heroes? Is dark power portrayed as desirable, something to be sought, something to be emulated?
Interestingly, Mr. Lansdown then addresses the terms used when referring to the occult. He points out that some terms, such as "seer" are used in Scripture in conjunction with men of God. In other words, the existence of supernatural power should not automatically come across as evil supernatural power.
I wonder what these critics of fantasy would think if the word "magi" used in the New Testament to name the visitors from the east who brought gifts to the Christ Child, would be translated "astrologers," which is the literal meaning. Horrors! Astrology in the Bible? And it wasn't condemned?
I also think of Moses and Aaron pitted against Pharaoh's magicians, doing the same kinds of supernatural deeds. What separated them was the source of their power and their purpose in using it. Clearly their miraculous acts were designed to point to God.
Does that mean that fantasy, to be Christian, must identify God as the source of miraculous, not magical, power? Here's Mr. Landsdown's response:
A Christian fantasy writer may openly identify God as the source of the supernatural power that good characters draw on to overcome evil. But then again, he may not. He may decide to leave the source unidentified for reasons of literary integrity. And yet, as in the book of Esther where God is nowhere specifically mentioned, his fantasy may carry a strong implication of God and of godliness.But back to the topic of occult terms, Mr. Lansdown points out that words such as "magic" and "wizard" have been retooled by the notable Christian fantasy writers, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. In Narnia, Lewis said Aslan used "deep magic" and in the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien created a race of wizards, as distinct from men as were elves and dwarfs. In neither case is there anything evil implied.
I can't help but believe that this latter "retooling" is a legitimate creative exercise. Consequently, when Bryan Davis wrote Dragons in Our Midst series and Donita Paul wrote the DragonKeeper Chronicles, the presence of good dragons as well as evil ones seems consistent with what we know to be true about real beings in the real world: some angels fell and some did not, some men remain in their unredeemed state and some do not.
Isn't such fabrication, of itself, dangerous because it ... well, isn't true. So say the critics, which means we'll take a look next time at fantasy and truth.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
| Page: 1 of 1 |
-
Monday, May 11. 2009
Amy Timco wrote:
I agree with Lansdown's ideas, but would point out a small distinction: many Christians who rail against fantasy literature would say that it's not the fact that there's witches and warlocks and all that, but that those elements are used in works written primarily to entertain. They would say that the Bible was not written as entertainment for us, so the same rules do not apply. How would that argument be countered?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here — I'm a Christian who LOVES fantasy literature, and I think it's proof positive of our desire to explore the nature of good and evil.
Reply to this -
Tuesday, May 12. 2009
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
Amy, I think that's an excellent question! Personally I think some Christian writers confound the issue by insisting that we SHOULD be writing just to entertain. As I see it, that view has come into play as a reaction to the accusation that Christian fiction was "too preachy."
My belief is that neither position is accurate: Christian fiction was never too preachy—the themes were simply poorly woven into the story—and consequently the "stories are just for entertainment" counter-revolution is an overreaction.
Any literary student knows that "theme" is one element all stories must have. Authors have something to say ... or should. From the days when stories were actually told, there was something behind the depiction of events—a hero to praise for his bravery, young people to inspire or warn ... something.
Good Christian fantasy will uphold the idea that something important must be said in and through the story. Blaggard's Moon by George Bryan Polivka is an excellent book that accomplishes this, as do Sharon Hinck's The Sword of Lyric books.
In actuality—and I think I'll begin to unfold this point in the next post on this topic—fantasy is perhaps the best genre for truth-telling via story.
The White Witch didn't need a lot of backstory for readers to know she was not the rightful ruler of Narnia and ought to be feared, not followed. Could Lewis have pulled off the same effect by creating a White Polar Bear as Aslan's opponent instead? Or a White Hunter? Maybe a White Python, but a lot would have been lost in making a snake not a humanoid the great evil.
Certainly when Lewis used a witch in Narnia, he accomplished a great deal more than mere entertainment.
Becky
Reply to this -
Tuesday, May 26. 2009
Mark Lucashu wrote:
How ironic that I should read this article after the last comments I posted. Lansdown has a good point. What matters it the source of the power. Even so, while I admire the desire to 'redeem' terms like 'wizard' and 'magic', I'm not sure I would, personally, be comfortable doing so in my own work. I'd be too afraid of someone taking it the wrong way and using it for evil ends. "Avoid even the appearance of evil" and all that.
If someone could convince me otherwise, by all means. I'm just going off a gut feeling is all.
And truth be told, there are still self-proclaiming 'Christians' around that condemn Lewis for EXACTLY those sorts of things. Using creatures from pagan myth and such. I tend to agree that, especially using those terms, is dangerous, specifically because of their cultural implications, but that's just me.
Reply to this -
Thursday, May 28. 2009
Amy Timco wrote:
I've read articles by people who claim Lewis' Narnia books are Satanic because he uses terms like "Deep Magic" and "wizard." One example in particular seems to rankle with these critics: Lewis's "redemption" of the Faun character. In ancient myth, Fauns are lecherous, disgusting creatures. But what Lewis does with Tumnus is a tiny-scale picture of what God is ultimately going to do with the universe. He's going to rehabilitate it! He's not trashing the whole thing and starting from scratch; oh no. Originally all things were "very good," and evil is only a perversion of those good things. It cannot create anything new. It can only distort. Lewis took a mythological creature with an immoral tradition and fearlessly placed this creature in a wood with a young girl. And it's one of the best-known, most memorable scenes in fantasy literature.
Not everyone can pull off such a feat as Lewis does in the Chronicles. I'm not suggesting that we all go out and try to find bad words/ideas/characters to redeem somehow. But it *can* be done. And, done well, it reflects something that the Author of All is going to do someday with His creation. I love it.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, March 31. 2010
porn tube wrote:
your article is so informative and interesting. nice shared.
Reply to this
| Page: 1 of 1 |