Continuing in my defense of the importance of literary excellence…
2. We aren’t relativists when it comes to art.
We believe in artistic standards of excellence. We who hold to absolute standards of truth shouldn’t suddenly become relativists when it comes to art. The beauty of the humanities is that an individual’s enjoyment of a work of art is partially subjective; Derek loves 20th century Southern authors, while I prefer 19th century British novelists. However, within literature, as with other art forms, there are established rules for good writing.
In An Experiment in Criticism, C.S. Lewis mentions distinctions of good children’s literature: “descriptions that really describe, dialogue that can produce some illusion, characters one can distinctly imagine.” Here’s how it works for us right now. Tommy’s really into trains, and the clever Thomas the Tank Engine marketers have produced a lot of pulp book tie-ins that appeal to little boys like Tommy. However, these books are not works of art or even written by real authors. Instead of giving Tommy Thomas books (which are morally acceptable), we have provided him with train-themed books with quality illustrations, dialogue, and characters—The Little Engine that Could, Choo-Choo, The Caboose Who Got Loose, and The Little Red Caboose. This decision is not based in my dislike of Thomas mania (for the record, Tommy is NOT named after the train), but in the fact that our books are objectively better literature.
I love how Lewis explains literary standards.:
The rules for writing a good passion play or a good devotional lyric are simply the rules for writing tragedy or lyric in general: success in sacred literature depends on the same qualities of structure, suspense, variety, diction, and the like which secure success in secular literature…Christian Literature can exist only in the same sense in which Christian cookery might exist. It would be possible, and it might be edifying, to write a Christian cookery book. Such a book would exclude dishes whose preparation involves unnecessary human labour or animal suffering, and dishes excessively luxurious. That is to say, its choice of dishes would be Christian. But there could be nothing specifically Christian about the actual cooking of the dishes included. Boiling an egg is the same process whether you are a Christian or a Pagan. In the same way, literature written by Christians for Christians would have to avoid mendacity, cruelty, blasphemy, pornography, and the like, and it would aim at edification in so far as edification was proper to the kind of work in hand. But whatever it chose to do would have to be done by the means common to all literature; it could succeed or fail only by the same excellences and the same faults as all literature; and its literary success or failure would never be the same thing as its obedience or disobedience to Christian principles.” (“Christianity and Literature”)
There are absolute standards of excellence in literature, and that it’s important to acknowledge them. Furthermore, as Lewis points out, the skills necessary to create great Christian art are the same skills necessary to create great art in general. Today’s Evangelicals are often so stuck in our little Christian ghetto that we refuse to acknowledge that by letting go of high standards of artistic expression, we’ve come to judge our art, literature, and music only by what Lewis calls ‘obedience…to Christian principles’ and and not by centuries-old rules of good art. I see this especially in the homeschool community. Martha Finley wrote a series of books about a perfect heroine intended to instill Christian principles in young girls, so they must be good literature. L.M. Montgomery wrote a series of books intended to delight young girls with the hilarious exploits of a realistic orphan girl, but those books are suspect because they are not explicitly Christian and because their heroine (gasp!) is imperfect. Both series are by Christian authors, but because the Elsie books are chock-full of scripture verses, mothers give them to their daughters despite their abysmal writing style while hesitating about the worldliness of Anne of Green Gables. I’ll be blogging on the literary and spiritual value of both series later on, as the contemporary treatment of these two series is a particular pet peeve of mine!
If we paid more attention to the literary merit of books, we’d be better equipped to dialogue with others about children’s literature. Remember the Harry Potter controversy when those books were coming out? Having read them, I can say that The Chronicles of Narnia are better—not because Narnia’s fantasy has elements of Christian allegory (which makes it “safe” to Potter critics), but because Lewis is a more skilled, thoughtful, beautiful writer than Rowling.
Can you tell I love Lewis? I’ll continue on this topic tomorrow…
(to part five)
Again, I agree with you that there are absolute standards governing excellence in literature. But I think you’re being to harsh on Christians and home schoolers. Christians only live in a ghetto because they’ve been placed there by others. And people both inside and outside of the Christian guetto love reading literary slop.
Every year or so, I read a NYTimes best-selling novel. Every single novel has been total and complete literary barf. Have you read the Hours, The Nanny Diaries, or the Twilight series? How about Catcher in the Rye? Horrid. Comparing that “literature” (outside the ghetto) to Christian ghetto novels like Elsie Dinsmore, I think the Christians win. Sure the novels might not be well-written, but they do resonate on the moral scale. I’ve never read the Elsie novels, but my little sister and best friend were obsessed with them in junior high and the fruit I saw in their lives was a deeper desire to know God, live virtuously, and be a blessing to their families. That’s not so bad.
I still think we should inspire brothers and sisters in Christ to love truly excellent literature (excellence in writing, content, moral lessons, etc) and this series you’re writing is so good for that purpose. I just think that the gravity of ugly “literature” outside the bubble is a much more serious problem than what’s being read inside. So I’m feeling a little defensive on behalf of the saints.
Bethany, thanks for commenting! I’m always afraid when I’m writing long posts that no one will actually read them.=)
I disagree that we’ve been put in our cultural ghetto by others. We’ve chosen in large part in the past century to disengage from culture and settle for mediocrity in music, cinema, art, and literature, to name a few areas. There are, of course, exceptions in all these categories (I’m thankful for Keith occasionally blogging about contemporary musicians who strive for excellence in their genre!), but in the circles I’ve moved in, there’s a lot of junk. I totally agree about junk outside of the Christian subculture–as part of this whole project, I realized it would be unfair to compare contemporary Christian mediocrity to the classics, so I read the Twilight books, Pillars of the Earth, and a couple contemporary detective series featured at our public library this summer. Literary trash. A couple of the books shocked me so much that I was physically ill at the depravity therein. But I’m not advocating that we read that stuff, either. (And I generally think that my target blog audience wouldn’t read most of it, so I’m not addressing it here.)
Let’s say we come up with four buckets of literature: morally and aesthetically good; morally good, aesthetically bad; morally and aesthetically bad; and morally bad, aesthetically good. I’m not saying that we make our teen daughters choose between Janette Oke (morally good, aesthetically bad) and D.H. Lawrence (morally bad, aesthetically good). I’m saying, we shouldn’t be forced to make that choice at all! We should be pursuing morally and aesthetically great works, so that we don’t settle for, “Well, everything on the NY Times list is garbage anyway, so we’re going to buy our own garbage, but at least it’s virtuous.” I’m saying we choose Anne of Green Gables over Elsie (and Twilight et al).
As far as Elsie goes, you can read the books online, and I’d really love to know your thoughts having actually read one or two. I have a post all ready to go on them in a few weeks. What else was your sister reading in her Elsie stage? Would she recommend them now? Do you really attribute that positive fruit to the Elsie books or the fact that they were quality girls to begin with? If your sister still would recommend them for E, I’d really like her to read and comment on my post when I get there! I honestly haven’t encountered that position among the 20 or so (largely homeschooled-quality-girl) women I’ve asked about this series in the past year, and it would be good to have it present that week.
“Sure the novels might not be well-written, but they do resonate on the moral scale.” Okay, I think this is the crux of my argument, and this shows I haven’t convinced you.=) Please continue to push back on what you find unconvincing because it’s good to have to defend my positions!
Lastly, I do want to speak from a position of love and respect for the Evangelical homeschool community in which I grew up and in which I hope to raise my kids. I hope this comes across not as “we’re doing everything wrong!” but more like “we can do better!”
I’d love to hear your factual case behind the assertion that Christians have “chosen in large part in the past century to disengage from culture and settle for mediocrity in music, cinema, art, and literature, to name a few areas.” What are historical examples of Christians withdrawing and settling? Seems like the 19th and 20th centuries are full of examples of Christians being pushed out of positions of power, influence, and public recognition (especially in culture and the arts) by elite universities, the NEA, art schools, etc because the Christians wouldn’t condone evil or the bad philosophies that took a hold in those places.
Even if you don’t agree with my point re the Christian ghetto, you did acknowledge that the dominant culture produces a lot of literary garbage. So, why specifically throw Christians under the bus because some of them like moral yet ugly books?
Not all people have elite literary tastes. Is that wrong? Most Americans don’t have refined culinary tastes. They are happy eating tater tots and freezer lasagna. That’s ok, right? I mean is it immoral to like Marie Calendar’s apple pie over an blackberry-apple tart with a rum reduction sauce? And even the best of us settle for freezer lasagna in some situations (new baby, sickness, etc). Should we feel guilty? I mean, in one sense, we are withdrawing from culinary excellence and settling for mediocrity.
I have not missed your point re the Elsie books. I’m simply arguing that (1) people will, to greater or lesser extents, read books that don’t meet the morally and aesthetically good standard and (2) it is better when those books meet the moral standard while failing on the aesthetics rather than visa versa. When a twelve-year-old girls reads the Elsie books, she is thinking on things that are “lovely and pure” (Philippians 4:8) even if they’re not very realistic. If the same girl reads the Twilight Series with its positive portrayal of teenage titillation, bad attitudes toward parents, and self-love, she is filling her mind with things the Bible condemns (Col 3:5, Ex. 20, Philippians 2:3). Back to the cooking analogies. Isn’t it better for a girl to eat a box brownie (Elsie books) rather than a brownie laced with dog poop (Twilight series)? And is it worth getting upset that many people like box brownies over home-made ones straight from the oven (Anne of Green Gables)?
You and I are literary elites, Emily. I’m loving all the stuff you’ve said in this series about literature. I want my kids to have a taste for good books and great art. As a foodie, I also want my kids to enjoy the subtly of an almond brownie tort and despise Burger King. And one of my arguments for enjoying these things is that they represent excellence in the God-give gift of creativity. But that doesn’t mean Christians who enjoy less excellent books and food are immoral or worthy of disdain.
I guess I’m advocating an odd sort of paradox. Yes there are norms governing literature. But the norms don’t condemn people who don’t adhere to them, especially when those people are within the family of God. Rather, we love the saints no matter what. And, when it’s appropriate, we can inspire brothers and sisters to enjoy good literature, which is really what I think this series you are writing does, my quibbles with it aside! 🙂
Bethany, it sounds like we have a very different understanding of the church and culture in the 20th century. I’ll have my dad (a professional musican who likes this culture stuff) think of book recommendations, as he’s shaped much of my thinking in this area! I guess I’d start with Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey. She not only addresses what has happened, but why. Mark Noll writes about it, but I don’t like his attitude, even if his scholarship is good. =)
But I don’t want to get too sidetracked on this issue here, so maybe this is the point where we move this part of our discussion to a separate email exchange with us and our hubbies? (Unless anyone else isn’t commenting but wants to be in on this?)
I’m addressing the category of morally-good-aesthetically-bad books because the conversation that started my whole thinking process on children’s literature centered around friends who believe that it’s either this category or morally-bad-aesthetically-good. I will never argue that we should read morally-bad-aesthetically-good books to children. Hey, I didn’t enjoy reading them in college as an English major. My first principle always, which I mentioned first, is that the moral dimension has to be acceptable before a book can even be considered for our family. All of this series has grown out of my contention that the morally-good-aesthetically-good category exists, it’s full of readily accessible books for our children, and we should look there first! I’m not addressing the morally-bad-aesthetically-bad category that you bring up because it’s not relevent here–my friends and I wouldn’t let our kids read those books in the first place! I don’t want to throw anyone under the bus–I want to address a specific issue that grew out a specific conversation with parents who share our intellectual and spiritual background (and who, like us, are homeschooling, hence my references to that subculture). And I want to do it in a forum (not just a private email with the moms in question) where others, like you, can push me on it and help me evaluate whether my position lines up with Scripture.
I think the comparison between literary and culinary tastes is right on, and I do want to end my series next week by addressing that we don’t always have the time and energy to cook from scratch meals and preview all of the books that our kids read! I don’t want to sit in judgment of moms who feed their kids frozen pizza and let them watch TV instead of reading them books because I just went through a two month period of settling for that a lot myself with my physical limitations! But as a full-time mom, one of my jobs is choosing good nutrition and good literature for my children, in so far as I am able. In general, I don’t feel strongly that one piece of “bad” literature can ruin a child. But I do feel strongly about Elsie, and I’ve decided to post about her this week instead of waiting for people to read her because I think we just have to get her out in the open and take care of her before we can move on. =)
I’m really enjoying this conversation and hope that you are, too, Bethany–I appreciate you taking the time to “talk ideas” with me! And I would love to hear from anyone else who might be taking the time to read all this!
A few brief points.
First, the dispute over whether Christians withdrew from culture or whether they were booted from culture is, I think, fairly irrelevant. Black Americans were pretty much booted from culture in the early 20th century, but Harlem and jazz were awesome. So even ostracized groups can create beauty in their own ghetto.
Second, I don’t think a critique of Christian trash literature is a validation of secular trash literature. None of us are advocating exposing our kids to secular trash. But, as Christians, we pretty easily can eschew the morally bad literature (at least for young children); on this, we agree. So, if we’re left with a couple of buckets of moral literature, aesthetically good and aesthetically poor, the question is, should we have a preference?
Third, what about Christian theology? We (and I direct this to the Millers, I think) pretty readily would frown upon morally good, substantively lousy theology treatises (say, Max Lucado). Right?
But maybe this gets at the tension you’ve identified, Bethany. We can, and should, be aspirational in our approach to literature, food, theological treatises, etc. We should aspire to the morally good and the substantively (aesthetically, etc.) good. We should not, of course, penalize, or look down upon, our brothers and sisters in Christ who have not had the opportunity to think seriously about these things, or who may not have the chance to develop their understanding of these matters, or whatever the case may be.
That, however, is not, I think, the thrust of Em’s post. It’s directed at the believers who reject the value of the aesthetic (hence, the reference to culturally-withdrawn Christians) and would take a morally-good-aesthetically-bad book because the relative importance of the “moral” side means that the “aesthetic” side can suffer with little consequence.
Dear Emily,
What’s funny to me about these posts is that we probably read 98% of the same literature to our children. And I agree with almost everything you’ve said in here. We should read aesthetically excellent books to our children. I think a lot of the difference in our reading lists (all two books that are different ), is simply a matter of preference. The Princess and the Kiss doesn’t bother me aesthetically, and it does bother you. And honestly, I would almost consider that story amoral regarding the main character. It does have a pointed point, but the character herself is involved in such a short storyline that she doesn’t have a chance to sin, much like the characters in Blueberries for Sal. There are books that in general are considered aesthetically excellent, like the Madeline books, that I will not keep in our personal library, because they drive me crazy to read. So I feel like some of the difference comes down to a matter of personal taste, and where one family draws the line of excellence in beauty. Ours is a little lower. I never liked lit classes in college—maybe that explains it!
Where I do take bigger issue is how we evaluate aesthetically-excellent literature as we read it to our children. In this conversation and others, you’ve listed Anne as the ‘excellent’ counterpart to Elsie. I will read Anne to our girls, in time, but I feel like the conversations we have with our kids as we read it will be different. I feel that LM Montgomery portrays Anne as the adventure-seeking, willful, fanciful teenager who does eventually settle down into married life (to the handsome Gilbert) with children. But even as a wife, she is still emotion-driven, adventure-seeking, and above all, glamorous to the pre-teen reading her story. Meanwhile Diana, who married early the chubby, reliable Fred, is portrayed as slightly boring. First of all, which of these two characters more closely represents what the Christian life and marriage should look like? I believe it is Diana, who plods along faithfully at her work. Second of all, who do we want our daughters to emulate? We do want them to be creative, social, and fun-loving, but I pray, pray, pray, that they will exhibit less pride and selfishness and more self-control over their emotions than Anne ever displays. I feel like those are the issues we will be talking about as we read these books. I love Anne. But I am becoming more and more convinced that it is literature like Anne that led me to an unrealistic view of marriage. I feel that these are dangers that we need to be talking about with our girls and warning them against.
We do not need to read twaddle to our children. Derek’s right—Max Lucado is not ok. But we need to be discerning about what we are reading to our children and the life lessons that is teaching them, while allowing for preferences of tastes among parents. I also agree with Bethany that we need to exercise a lot of charity with other parents who do not make these same decisions, and be careful of the pride that lurks behind every door for people who value education.
And, I almost forgot! If you guys have an e-mail conversation about Christianity and the arts, I’d love to be included!
With love,
Anna, you’re right that families with different preferences and interests are going to have different books on their shelves. That’s totally okay! I don’t think there’s a set number of specific books that parents must read to their kids to be “good” parents–rather, there are principles we should consider as we select our reading material. Within those perameters, there is a ton of freedom. I think we agree on this–just wanted to clarify in case I’m giving the wrong impression!
(We passed on The Princess and the Kiss because we won’t be equating sexual purity with saving your kiss for marriage in our family. We don’t juge others who find that boundary helpful, we just plan to address purity in a different way, so that particular book is irrelevent to us. I’m glad it’s helpful to others!)
And I DO appreciate your questions regarding Anne and Diana–they’ve helped me reread the series with a critical eye, and that is what I want to do with all my books, even my favorites! I think your points are actually quite valid for the movies–sadly, as I love the movies–but I still am not convinced on the books. Derek’s never read them before, so we’ll post on them when he and I have had a chance to read them together. Looking forward to good conversations therein!
Em,
I’m in DC with family and am both behind in reading your posts and have yet been to engage in this discussion. I just wanted to quickly say that I want to be part of the discussion (if possible) so please don’t move to email format. 🙂
Also, I’ve been waiting for a post about young children’s books specifically. Were you going to write one? I think there is more to be said on how we approach books for our very young children. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that, on books that are arguably only/mainly educational, on creating a love of story in our children, and on fun. =)
oh, and a post on how you approach the library, please. 🙂
Christina,
I’m also out of town for the next week with my in-laws, and I won’t have a ton of internet access. I have a few posts scheduled, but I’ll get back to responding and reading when we get back next week. I would love to talk more about the things you bring up and ask how the rest of you handle them–especially Anna who is already officially homeschooling! I’ll say quickly that I get a lot of recommendations of picture books from my friends’ blogs–I love it when you girls list what your kiddos are reading! We’ve found some new favorites that I somehow missed growing up! (For example, the non-Curious George H.A. Rey books like Katy No-Pocket. Delightful!)
Per the Christians-in-culture (did we retreat or were we booted) question, I feel like anecdotal stuff (which has partially informed my opinion) won’t be helpful, so I need to take a look at mission statements of various Christian groups and pull out some of the books I’ve read on the topic to reread or at least skim for hard facts as requested by B! It’s potentially a big topic, I definitely won’t have time before Christmas, and this whole series took 10 months of research before I started posting, so I think I’ll hold off on that until things calm down in the New Year. Don’t want to brush you girls off–I just want to do justice to our discussion! Does that sound okay?