Relief blog: What makes good Christian fiction

[Phy]

Coach Culbertson's Relief Journal is trying to offer more content on their website, and today's post by a new editor is brilliant:
http://www.reliefjournal.com/content/view/100/96/

2. Good Fiction Never Passes Judgment

This one’s best illustrated by example. Anton Chekhov, one of the great masters, almost never commented on his character’s choices or mistakes—he simply portrayed them. This didn’t mean Chekhov wasn’t compassionate—he was actually quite generous with both his time and gifts. A doctor, Chekhov routinely offered pro bono care to impoverished Russian peasants. He also, however, had a clinician’s removal. If the victim of a farming accident brought before Chekhov needed his leg amputated, it didn’t matter whether Chekhov wanted the man to not have a leg, or whether he considered the amputation morally wrong. The leg was gone, and that was that. Similarly, if Chekhov wrote about a soldier who loses his ability to believe in God, it did not matter (from an artistic point of view) whether Chekhov wanted the man to believe in God or whether the lack of belief was morally wrong. Agnosticism is the man’s reality, and Chekhov’s artistic duty is to display that reality. In one of my favorite Chekhov stories, “Lady with a Little Dog” (or “Lapdog”, or simply “Dog” depending on your translation), two characters have an affair that is illicit, flawed, addictive, specific and heartbreaking . . . and by the last word it is impossible to tell whether Chekhov thinks his characters are behaving well or poorly—but the clarity of their behavior touches us. Chekhov handles the material differently than, say, Tolstoy might in one of his desperately moralizing phases, or Steinbeck or Dickens might on one of their social crusades. Again, this doesn’t mean Chekhov doesn’t care—only that he respects the limitations of his aesthetic. He has the restraint to let his characters follow their own understanding . . . and to let his readers do the same.

[rljfl]

Very interesting, and one to keep in mind, (although I think I am prone to go on a moralizing social crusade...hey, why not combine them all :p). Maybe that's why my endings seem so forced sometimes.:)

[Tarin]

Fiction hangs from the dichotomy of both reflecting and influencing life. There's a delicate balance between the two.

[ProfessorAlan]

A sermon's a sermon, and a novel's a novel.

Different forms of communicating.

[paulchernoch]

Unless it's a police procedural or a courtroom drama. Legal proceedings imply judgment, however flawed. (What's that you said? Jury nullification? Oh, no - here we go again...)

- Paul

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Some very good points there. I wish more Christian writers would use that advice though.
Show the depravity of sin etc. but always have a spark of hope.

[Questor]

I think a lot of Christian fiction avoids overtly moralizing by having a main character who is flawed and easy to sympathize with, but at the same time either comes into the story with a Christian world view or gains one along the way. That doesn't mean the character has to be unbelievably perfect; human experience covers a lot of ground, as does the Bible. But it should somehow point to Christ and a better way of being. I think that's part of what defines the genre. Of course, that will best be done by telling a good, engaging story.

I think Tarin makes a really good point above (about the balance between reflecting and influencing).

[Tom Seltzer]

I agree with Questor that nothing is more important than telling a good, compelling story. We as Christian writers must tell compelling stories first, and foremost. We must make our readers care about our characters, and our stories. Then, and only then, can we have any hope of influencing them.

[passionpen]

I have to agree with this:

A sermon's a sermon, and a novel's a novel.



And I agree that it's important to show the depravity of sin. Otherwise, the story is too fluffy and no one will relate to it, except Christians.

I also agree that we must tell compelling stories. I think another thing to keep in mind is that the writer must know the purpose of your story. Who is your intended audience.

Some people write for Christians, and others for the lost or both.

I think if you want the lost to read your work, it has to be a story they can relate to.

I would argue that we should "tell like it is" but in some way show how it could be....maybe there isn't hope but maybe it becomes obvious that the ending is the result of wrong choices--or one wrong choice.

I don't know. I'm rambling now. Have any of you all gave your story to an unbeliever to read and critique. That would be interesting.

[wardog25]

Perhaps I'm reading the article incorrectly, but I can't say I agree.

If absolutely nothing in the story indicates any kind of moral character and/or if the protagonist never learns or grows in a positive moral direction, then how does the story differ from a secular tale?

This is what he sounds like he is saying to me. Is that how anyone else took it, or is my brain just fried from being at work too long?

[Tamera]

I agree with wardog. While I'm not saying that a Christian novel should be a sermon, to make it completely devoid of moral judgements make it devoid of the realty that God is at work in our lives.

[wowreallylongid]

Perhaps I'm reading the article incorrectly, but I can't say I agree.

If absolutely nothing in the story indicates any kind of moral character and/or if the protagonist never learns or grows in a positive moral direction, then how does the story differ from a secular tale?

This is what he sounds like he is saying to me. Is that how anyone else took it, or is my brain just fried from being at work too long?

You raise an interesting (and necessary) question Wardog; however, I think you are missing the point...slightly. No where did Alan Ackmann suggest that writing should be devoid of morality...just devoid of moral judgments exercised by the author through the narrative. He was speaking more to the tendency that authors sometimes feel they should spell out the moral of the story for the reader...which in the end doesn't give a lot of credit to the reader to put two and two together.

And with that said, I think I'd add another mark of good fiction that would state "Good fiction contains conflict." The question of "what is moral" is an excellent conflict to explore, especially in Christian writing. While good fiction should not judge it's characters, the characters should be held accountable (morally) by other characters, or their society (external conflict) or within themselves (internal conflict). I think all too often, in an attempt to write morally, Christian authors push aside time-tested methods for building conflict in an attempt to moralize. I think Alan was suggesting that through good characterization, conflict, etc., we as authors shouldn't have to judge our characters' actions. The reader will be able to infer this on their own.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Passionpen, very true, but even many Christians hate the sermonising in Christian books.

[shannonmamabear]

I liked the article. It's funny, I've been a Christian for a while, but aside from the Left Behind series when it first came out I never really got into Christian fiction. I love to read but my fear that the stories would be too clean, to perfect kept me from seeing what was out there. Then by chance my local library moved a rack of paperback books by the checkout. Noticing the Christian Publishers I tried a couple. I liked them! I really liked them. I discovered my favorite auther W. Dale Cramer. I liked his book for exactly the reason that he had flawed characters, they did dumb, hurtful things. But he also showed faith in action in the "Preach Christ, use words if you have to" (sorry if I got the quote wrong) reality. I remember getting to the end of his first book and thinking, where was the "Moral of the Story"? But he let a good story be a good story, he left me wanting more. I agree with many of you, not judging your characters is powerful writing when done well, but it by no means the lack of morality in the tale.

[Lookin^Up]

In my writing these days, the moralizing comes through my protags. My early stories did tend toward a heavy dose of judgmentalism, and it was quite a long and tedious struggle to weed those out of there and focus on telling the story. In some cases it got so bad that the narrator or character practically stopped the action to explain in detail what was wrong with the antag's statement.

Not only do my protags moralize, but so do my antags. For the past year or so I've been working on turning all my space novels into 75-80k words. In the one I'm working on now, the villain is an unbelieving moralist who sees lies in the innocent statements of the clannet--my heroes--yet is not above deceiving them himself.

His "moralizing" is designed to vaunt himself over others, as though he is the epitome of honor and honesty. I react to him through the clannet's statements about him, but in no case do I try to preach (unless I record an actual sermon during worship time).

I agree with Passionpen and Questor and others that good Christian fiction should neither have perfect heroes who do nothing wrong (even the clannet has internal conflicts form time to time) nor villains whose actions are mild compared to Jeffrey Dahlmer. They wouldn't be very good villains if they did not create severe moral dilemmas of some kind. For themselves as well as for others.

[davitainchina]

This is something I've been struggling with in my current WIP - just starting sth new and it's aimed at teenagers. I've read so many teenage Christian books where the good little Christian basically preaches at others about living a good life and believing in Jesus and all that so that the conflict - vital to any good story - was overshadowed. Perhaps I just read some poor teenage novels.

But now, as the Father is directing me toward this age group I'm struggling with how to make it filled with conflict, showing the depravity of sin, the darkness of seperation, the desperation of need and still bring the characters back toward a basic Christian acceptance (it is fantasy so it's not exactly 'Christian').

There's got to be a balance and the morality that characters learn/discover or at least see must flow from the story and not be dropped into it. As Christians, our stories will have underlying themes that can seem to be Christian cliches, but as writers we need to tell a story that pulls readers in. I read somewhere recently, can't remember where at the moment, that our themes are already within us - we don't have to go and search for them or analyze them (too much) because the themes are who we are. Now, I still define my themes in a few words just so I know my focus, but I am trying to write in a way to tell the story and allow the theme to underly everything, with little to no effort on my part (it'd be harder to cut it out as it would leave out some part of me). Focus on the story - the needs and desires of the character - the insane conflicts we get to throw at these poor people - the message deep in our hearts will be there, we don't need to shout it.

Now, I just have to remind myself of this when one of my characters starts trying to preach to another. Maybe if she gets hit, she'll shut up...hmmm

[wowreallylongid]

Just to let you all know, Alan Ackmann (http://www.alanackmann.com/www2) has posted an additional article called "Crafting Fiction Series Part Two: The Moral of the Story is . . ." (http://www.reliefjournal.com/content/view/103/1/) at Relief which builds upon his previous post. He's added these three additions:
1. MORALIZING DIMINISHES CHARACTERS
2. MORALIZING DISRESPECTS READERS
3. MORALIZING CAN CONTORT REALISM

In the end, I'm not really sure if I agree with all of the points he makes--I think it depends upon your definition of "moralizing"; however, he does offer some good insights which do seem to expand upon the discussion that began here.

[Lookin^Up]

What he calls "moralizing" I have been calling "judgmentalism," if I understand his points. I had to learn by trial and error how to let the moral flow out of the story, rather than pull it out like a frozen flounder and slap the reader in the face with it. That's a little slapstick, but you get the idea. The moral should be a silver thread running through a story, not a heavy rope that obscures characterization or plot.

[Cymrugirl]

My problem is that I adore novels that have perfected the art of detailing psychologies without casting judgement. Well, I take that back. Scrooge was certainly judged by Dickens within the first few grasping, wheezing, cold hard-flint paragraphs of his prose.

Because I love these books - because I love the truths they so eloquently, and often indisputably, convey - my writing lends itself to emulation. Problem is, I'm not Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens. Heck, I'm not even Earl Stanley Gardner.

I've learned to write like I feel - include it all - then cut later. Somehow including the psychology helps me - even casting judgement of some sort on what's happening in the scene helps me work through the story - but then I'm learning to cut it out so that I'm the only one who sees all that. It always turns out better for that.

I suppose some authors can cut it like that. Jane Austen. George Eliot. William Thackery. Dishing on the intrinsic nature of humans via clever and even wise prose - but I really don't think I can. Not with every brushstroke anyway. I have to save it up for a few cunning moments.

[Tarin]

The moral should be a silver thread running through a story, not a heavy rope that obscures characterization or plot.

Good explanation. Portraying certain viewpoints and moral decisions through theme is the heart of fiction. And that, perhaps, sums up the difficulty of this whole issue: It's tough to balance the right about of subtlety and overtness in theme - any theme. :rolleyes: