Mike Duran's Blog, page 11

No — Wonder Woman is Not an Example of “Biblical Womanhood.” (Or, Are Christians Too Eager to Find Jesus In Pop Culture?)

I recently stopped subscribing to a Christian podcast on films when, during a two-part examination of John Carpenter’s horror classic The Thing, an entire show was dedicated to examining racial themes in the movie. Huh? The Thing? The podcasters asked questions like,

Was there subliminal racism in the casting of one black actor as the cook?
How did the whites on the Arctic team wield their “privilege” to the non-whites?
Was Carpenter ahead of his time by not killing off the other black actor?

Ugh. It was a tortuous example of overreach and progressive deconstruction, and heralded my abandonment of said podcast.

Such over-analyzation of social structures and pop cultural commodities is commonplace among progressives. Now our movies and books are sifted for any evidence of cultural appropriation, whitewashing, micro-aggressions, racism, sexism, and the slightest violation of liberal groupthink. Sadly, this kind of forced reading is not unique to Leftists. It’s found its way into the Church. Only, in this case, it’s not necessarily wielded by social progressives, but by pop culture watchers eagerly looking for any evidence of God and the Gospel in films and fiction. In both cases, it’s leading to often comical overreach.

The eager embrace of Wonder Woman is just the latest example of Christians forcing God and the Gospel into some pop cultural commodity.

For the record, I believe that:

Evidences of God and the Gospel can be found throughout pop culture and
Christians should be about discerning, engaging, and redeeming elements of culture.

God has created us in His image (Gen. 1:27) and set eternity in the heart of Man (Eccl. 3: 11). So it’s no wonder that we should see echoes of God and His truth all around us. It’s why the Apostle Paul quoted from pagan poets to reinforce biblical truth (Acts 17:28). Likewise, we should be able to find God and the Gospel everywhere, even in the most unlikely places. All that to say, I’m behind Christians exercising pop cultural discernment and critiquing art through a biblical lens.

I’m just wondering if we haven’t taken this thing too far.

Like the header in this post. It’s taken from a now defunct campaign aimed at pastors by Warner Bros. upon its release of Man of Steel. According to THIS ARTICLE in the Christian Post,

As the new Superman movie “Man of Steel” prepares for its second weekend at the theaters, following a very impressive first week showing, pastors are being urged to show trailers for the film to their congregation and preach about the noted similarities between Superman and Jesus Christ.

“How might the story of Superman awaken our passion for the greatest hero who ever lived and died and rose again?” read a sermon note that was sent to Christian pastors by Warner Bros. Studios, the film company behind “Man of Steel,” according to a CNN report.

Okay. Hollywood is beginning to realize that the Christian market is viable and attempting to take steps to engage us. Of course, the campaign was criticized but, more importantly, it was simply a reflection of a much larger move among Christians to cull spiritual messages from their pop cultural consumption.

As such, the list of the possible intersections of Christ and pop culture are now everywhere! Even if those intersections are somewhat contrived.

A few examples… and there are many.

Forbes suggests that Superheroes Helped Hollywood Rediscover the Bible and the spawning of Comic Book Heroes in a Christian Worldview sites are now fairly prolific. ThinkProgress sees a Rise of the Christian Superheroes while Faith and Fandom enlists us in Finding God in Sci-Fi, Superheroes, and Video Games. Crosswalk offers 5 Lessons Learned from Superhero Movies while Relevant Magazine extrapolates upon The Gospel According to Stranger Things, subtitling the article, The deep meaning behind Netflix’s hottest show. Star Wars, as you can probably guess, gets lots of love. There’s The Gospel According to Star Wars: Faith, Hope and the Force, Star Wars Jesus,which promises to chronicle “Christian spirituality in the Star Wars movies, ” and there’s even a daily devotional for Christian Star Wars fans entitled The Real Force. Over at Beliefnet, the finale of the Wolverine series gets christened in Finding God, Redemption, and Purpose in Logan, wherein they gush, Hugh Jackman’s last stab at playing Wolverine is a masterpiece that Christian filmmakers should learn from. One blogger sees The Avenger’s Vision as A Vision of Jesus and this writer at CBN sees a parallel between Iron Man and the Christian: “Unlike Iron Man, you and I don’t battle terrorists or super-villains in a hi-tech suit of armor. But like Iron Man, we do have a battle to fight and, as Christians, we’ve been given a suit of armor that makes us invincible against our enemy.”

Our apparent preoccupation with baptizing superheroes into the Church and excavating Gospel messages whenever possible led to a bit of well-deserved lampooning from Metro in Man of Steel: The Top 25 Reasons Why Superman is Jesus. Some of those reasons are:

1. He has a beard

2. His dad has a beard

3. He has superpowers

4. His dad has superpowers

5. His dad sent him to Earth to save humanity

6. ‘He’ll be a god to them’

7. He was sort of born in a stable

8. His adoptive father is a humble tradesman

9. None of the neighbours seem to wonder why his ‘mom’ never got pregnant

10. Some humans were a bit of a dick to him

11. But he didn’t use his superpowers to kick their asses

12. Can walk on water

13. Betrayed by some guy for money

14. Willingly sacrifices himself for the good of mankind

You get the idea.

So is there a “deep meaning” behind Stranger Things? Are Christians like Iron Man and “given a suit of armor that makes us invincible against our enemy”? Are there really devotional lessons we can take from Star Wars?

Hm. Maybe. Then again, so much of this seems to be becoming a big reach.

Which brings me (finally) to Wonder Woman. In case you haven’t noticed, Christians are all over this movie. Besides the fact that unexpected, spontaneous weeping has been reported during the film, many Christian reviewers are hailing it as not just a notable installment among superhero flicks, but a profound spiritual event. In her fantastic article, Is Wonder Woman a Good Example of Biblical Womanhood?, Amy Mantravadi lists a few of the many gushy reviews of the the film:

“The Gospel According to Wonder Woman?” by Tripp Hudgins for Religion News Service
“‘Wonder Woman’: A Peculiar and Unexpected Heroine” by Gina Dalfonzo for The Gospel Coalition
“‘They Do Not Deserve You’; Wonder Woman and Soteriology” by Derek Rishmawy
“The New ‘Wonder Woman’ Is Really a Story About Jesus” by M. Hudson for The Federalist
“Why We Need Wonder Woman” by Alicia Cohn for Christianity Today
“‘Wonder Woman’ Might Be the Most Accurate On-Screen Depiction of Biblical Womanhood, And Here’s Why” by Marilette Sanchez

Mantravadi summarizes: “When I saw these glowing statements of adoration and then read the attached articles, I almost wondered if they had seen the same movie that I did.”

Indeed, the adulation for the film from those in my social media circles has left me mighty suspicious. Of course, such suspicion is usually branded as curmudgeonly or sexist, followed by the obligatory, “You can’t criticize the film until you’ve seen it!” Perhaps after I see the film I will have a different take. I don’t know. But the over-the-top attributions to Wonder Woman appear part of a larger trend and only reinforce my sense that Christians are a bit to eager to find Jesus in pop culture. I mean, Wonder Woman is “the Most Accurate On-Screen Depiction of Biblical Womanhood”? For reals? Or as Hudgins summarizes in The Gospel According to Wonder Woman at RNS:

When all our heroes are male, we need to stop and ask ourselves what we’re missing … what part of humanity is being silenced.

This is gospel that I see. On the screen we have a skillfully wrought story about a powerful woman, a divine force in the world, and all of the other women who helped fashion her. But off-screen we behold the gospel, the story of God-Made-Flesh in the talents, skills and passions of the women who made the film.

If there is a “Gospel According to Wonder Woman,” it is found in the lives of the creators, the moviemakers and the women in the audiences who are driving the financial success of the film. Their humanity as well as those they work with is on full, glorious, truthful display. This is what we should celebrate.

A “a divine force in the world”?  The story of “God-Made-Flesh in the talents, skills and passions of the women who made the film”? Makes me wonder if tongues of fire appeared on the set while the Shekinah glory descended on the cast and crew. Alas, such is the over-wrought praise for the film.

Mantravadi does us a favor by carefully parsing some of the film’s elements to speak to the central theme that many Christian reviewers seem to be arriving at: Is this really biblical womanhood? Spoilers follow:

Princess Diana reveres multiple gods and goddesses, so right off the bat we should be suspicious. Raised in an entirely female enclave, Diana is certainly independent and strong, but as soon as a lone male lands on their shores, she forms an emotional connection with him. I’m not just talking about something platonic. She walks in on him naked and takes in more than a few eyefuls. In this scene, she makes a comment that the audience is certainly led to believe refers to Steve Trevor’s private parts. It is then humorously revealed to be about something else. If the roles were reversed and a male superhero had walked in on and continued to stare at a naked woman, I’m sure people would be upset.

Diana agrees to follow Steve into the wider world to help stop World War I. Her motivations for this seem to be fairly pure, though it is hard to imagine that some affection for Steve isn’t playing a role. As they travel together by boat, Diana invites Steve to sleep next to her. He objects, saying that in his world it is not appropriate for men and women who are unmarried to sleep together, though he clearly hints that he has done so. Diana reveals that she has no concept of marriage, but she certainly knows a lot about physical pleasure. She once again tells Steve to lie next to her and then details how the Amazon women read all about the joys of the flesh and don’t need men to help them in this regard. This is a clear reference to either lesbianism or masturbation.

Steve is literally the first man that Diana has ever met. It takes her about two or three days to climb into bed with him. Writing for The Gospel Coalition, Gina Dalfonzo said, “There’s a suggestion of a bedroom scene, but nothing is shown except a kiss while both characters are fully dressed.” That’s technically true, but I don’t think the implication will be lost on anyone. Diana apparently has no concept of sexual fidelity. Her ideas about physical pleasure have no connection with marriage, as demonstrated by the fact that she had never even heard of it.

Mantravadi concludes: “I can’t help thinking that Wonder Woman would be a better model for girls if she did a little less fighting and had a few more principles.”

Of course, there may be many redeeming qualities to Wonder Woman, as well as the entire canon of superhero films and other pop cultural icons we are eager to embrace. My question here is whether or not this isn’t further evidence that Christians are far too eager to read God and the Gospel into their favorite fantastical stories. Why do we do this? Maybe it’s because God and the Gospel are actually there!

Then again, I’m beginning to suspect it’s more of a desire to co-opt pop culture as our own.

Which is likely evidence of our inability to create viable pop-cultural commodities.

Either way, before you start pitching The Gospel According to Wonder Woman to your publisher, I’d like to encourage you to make sure that the message of Wonder Woman is really that biblical. And whether the trend to spiritualize pop culture and co-opt its superheroes hasn’t run its course.

The Importance of Implicit (v. Explicit) Christian Content in Fiction

Tip of the Iceberg — Image by © Ralph A. Clevenger/CORBIS

Later this week, I’ll be teaching a class at a writers conference entitled “Writing for the General Market.” This is a Christian writers conference, thus the emphasis on the general market as opposed to the “Christian” market. When I officially began pursuing a career as a writer back in 2003 /04, the Christian market was the default market Christian novelists were aiming at. At that time, Christian fiction was thriving. Combine that with oft-stated objections to “secular content” and a rather narrow interpretation of evangelistic methodology (I’ll get to this in a second), and you had a fairly saturated market.

Over a decade later, things have changed significantly. Part of this is due to changes in the publishing landscape. Another part, at least among Christian authors, is a growing (perhaps “maturing” is a better word) understanding of what art and cultural engagement can look like. Either way, more and more Christian writers are now seeking to branch into the general market.

I recently discovered a good example of this developing perspective in professor Holly Ordway’s new book, “Apologetics and the Christian Imagination.” Early on in the book, Ordway establishes that one component of apologetics involves “creating meaning,” bringing life to foundational concepts intrinsic to salvific belief which may be misunderstood by the hearers (concepts like sin, redemption, faith in God, etc., etc.). However doing this requires we approach apologetics as “a spectrum of engagement.” Some of this involves appealing to Reason, others involves appealing to Imagination.

Reason and Imagination are twin faculties, both part of human nature–and both given to us by God our Creator!–that, together, allow for a further grasp of the truth.

In this sense, effective apologetics must not simply appeal to linear thought but to abstract thought as well. Ordway uses C.S. Lewis (and herself) to describe what she calls “a two-step conversion.” The first step in Lewis’ conversion was “a conversion to Theism, not to Christianity.” He moved from strict atheism to a belief in God. It was an inability to grasp certain doctrinal issues, namely the Atonement, that prevented Lewis from taking the next step and embracing Christianity. This changed when Lewis’ Imagination was engaged. Specifically his love for myth and how Christ was “the true Myth” or “Myth become flesh.” Ordway summarizes,

When Lewis realized that he could connect his imaginative response to the story, to the factual reality of the Christian claim about the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the final barrier to belief fell. He could become a Christian as a whole person, with both his imagination and his reason fully engaged.

This is an important point for Christian novelists. Too often we see our work as not “Christian” enough unless it appeals to Reason and clearly articulates some element of the Gospel. Another way to view this could be in terms of Implicit and Explicit Christian content. Many believers have been conditioned to define a novel’s Christian-ness in terms of explicit content — overt Scripture references, Christian characters, some form of Gospel proclamation, a redemptive movement, etc. However, what we often fail to recognize is this:

Implicit biblical ideas form the foundation of more explicit biblical beliefs.

To tease this out, here’s one of the slides I’ll be using in my class. It’s a quote from Tom Pawlik, a popular Christian author, from an interview I conducted with him. We were discussing what exactly constitutes “Christian content” in a novel.

 

Pawlik rightly notes how the story of the Good Samaritan, though containing no explicit references to God or the Gospel, “upholds Christian virtues.” So a listener or reader of the Good Samaritan, without having explicit knowledge of the Gospel, can still engage with its implicit biblical concepts. The idea of intrinsic human worth, transcending structures of class and race, and sacrificing ourselves for the good of others are intrinsic to a biblical worldview. Once extrapolated to their fullness, they speak to explicit Christian concepts concerning the nature of human beings, the societal and individual repercussions of sin, and the risks and rewards of redemption.

And this brings us back to Ordway’s idea of a “two-step conversion.” In the same way that Lewis moved incrementally from atheism to theism, people usually move from implicit to explicit Christian beliefs. Before one can embrace a specific doctrinal distinctive — like the Atonement, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. — one must at least be a Theist. But the path from atheism or agnosticism to Theism is often incremental. We simply cannot expect someone to embrace explicit biblical concepts without first embracing foundational implicit concepts. Part of the “spectrum of engagement,” at least from a novelist’s point of view, is to engage a story’s abstract, implicit, and Imaginative components. Using fiction (and giving permission for Christian creatives) to engage the Imagination rather than the Reason is an important step to more powerfully engaging a mainstream audience and seeding the Gospel in culture. While a work of fiction may not explicitly articulate the Gospel, it can still contain implicit elements which engage a person’s imagination and move them forward in their spiritual pilgrimage.

Point being: Writing for the general market and engaging mainstream audiences means being able to see below the “tip of the iceberg” and affirm the much larger body of principles and beliefs which support a biblical worldview.

Science Fiction’s God Problem

One of the most recent theatrical trailers for Ridley Scott’s Alien: Covenant includes this ominous tagline: “The path to paradise begins in hell.” In an an article at ScreenRant entitled “Alien: Covenant Tackles Science and Religion,” the author notes:

That Covenant will be exploring themes of religious beliefs and faith has been clear for some time, going back to when the movie was originally titled Alien: Paradise Lost (as a reference to John Milton’s Biblical poem, Paradise Lost).

But the film’s (and the series’) religious parallels and references don’t stop there. In fact, the religious themes are so prolific that the folks at Movie Pilot were led to ask,  Are ‘Alien: Covenant’ & ‘Prometheus’ Religious Propaganda?

The recent Alien prequels have taken the classic sci-fi franchise in a very different direction to the originals, introducing a plethora of new concepts and themes. One of the most recurring and surprising addition to this backstory is the high amount of religious references.

What makes this so surprising is the fact that director and writer Ridley Scott is a staunch atheist. In an interview with Collider, he once said that “one of the biggest problems in the world is the word we call religion. That creates more problems than anything else in the goddamn universe.”

And yet despite his stance on religion, he still includes an inordinate amount of religious metaphors in his films.

It’s interesting that a “staunch atheist” would be so drawn to religious themes. Or is it?

The truth is, while many science fiction writers and readers share Scott’s atheism, or some softer version of agnosticism, the genre appears to keep coming back to religious ideas, images, and questions.

In an older post over at the Tor website, Teresa Jusino explores the same overlap. Her post, Religion and Science Fiction: Asking the Right Questions, notes the proliferation of religious themes in sci-fi. Not only does she not have a problem with it, she thinks it’s quite normal for us to go there.

What all of these stories do well with regard to religion (with the exception of The Phantom Menace, which did nothing well) is capture what I think the discussion should really be about. Most people who debate science vs. religion tend to ask the same boring question. Does God exist? Yawn. However, the question in all of these stories is never “Do these beings really exist?” The question is “What do we call them?” It’s never “Does this force actually exist?” It’s, “What do we call it?” Or “How do we treat it?” Or “How do we interact with it?” One of the many things that fascinates me about these stories is that the thing, whatever it is—a being, a force—always exists. Some choose to acknowledge it via gratitude, giving it a place of honor, organizing their lives around it and allowing it to feed them spiritually. Others simply use it as a thing, a tool, taking from it what they will when they will then calling it a day. But neither reaction negates the existence of the thing.

Good science fiction doesn’t concern itself with “Does God exist?”, but rather “What is God?” How do we define God? Is God one being that created us? Is God a race of sentient alien beings that see all of time and space at once and is helping us evolve in ways we are too small to understand? Is God never-ending energy that is of itself? And why is it so important to human beings to define God at all?  To express gratitude to whatever God is? Why do people have the need to say “thank you” to something they can’t see and will probably never understand? To me, these are the important questions. They’re also the most interesting. (emphasis mine)

I think Ms. Jusino’s angle is a good one. The question is not whether God exists, but what is he/it like. In fact, this appears to be the trajectory of Scott’s Alien series — to address the issue of origins. However, conceding the existence of God or some Super Intelligence (or in the Prometheus world, the Engineers), is precisely what hangs up many hardcore proponents of science fiction.

For example, take the following comment on the aforementioned post (#22):

As to science and religion being complementary, though, I have to say I disagree. Critical thinking and rigorous standards of evidence are at the core of science. Religion seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum–employing the weakest conceivable criteria and standards of evidence.

I think that’s why so many of us who are interested in science come to be nontheist even when, as in my case, they were raised religious. To believe religious claims requires that one set the bar artificially low. As one commenter noted, this didn’t have to be the case. In so many of the science fictional worlds described there is clear evidence for the supernatural forces and being at work in the world.

In the actual world though we have to settle for rather weak philosophical arguments, miracle claims that never seem to be verifiable, claims of prophetic foreknowledge about as dubious as the latest newspaper psychic’s predictions for the new year, and, most of all, “I just feel it in my heart” (and here we hear the bar hit the ground with a resounding thud).

Is it any wonder that so many who are scientifically literate are nonreligious? (bold mine)

So while many accept that a hunger for God (or Something numinous) is fundamental to human nature, hardcore materialists refuse to go there. And as many science fiction fans are devotees of Science (see: scientific materialism), it is only natural that they tolerate the “God question” only insofar as it is answered in accordance with scientific literacy.

Of course, this didn’t stop one reviewer (who happens to call himself a chaos magician) from seeing the films as channeling a “gnostic creation myth“:

Prometheus really is a gnostic creation myth and the deliberate – sometimes clunky – injection of physical AAT [Ancient Astronaut Theory] into a Biblical creation arc designed to make those who have eyes to see really sit up and notice. Scott’s not just sprinkling some churchiness on top of a monster movie.

…This is a nested gnostic tale. It is a Luciferian story nested in the ‘Alien Bible’ universe that Prometheus describes. It also does a bang-up job of exploring the anger in the Lucifer form and has some detailed meditations on the notion of creation and justice that really surprised me after the on-the-nose opening sequence. Whilst it can come close to the fruity, Theosophical Luciferianism of the nineteenth century and the Romantics that preceded them -“but if God bad then me think Lucifer… good?”- Covenant manages to pull back at just the right moment to avoid that fate.

And herein lies sci-fi’s “God problem.”

On one  hand, to concede the premise that God, or something like God, may exist, is to undermine the entire atheistic presupposition of so much science. It’s the same reason why the above commenter suggested that “so many who are scientifically literate are nonreligious.” It’s not because there isn’t evidence for an Engineer, but because by conceding the possibility of an Engineer, scientists get a step closer to conceding the possibility of a Super-Intelligence, a Creator, and ultimately the Judeo-Christian God. And this is the big no-no.

On the other hand, there’s the “gnostic creation myth,” the “Luciferian story nested in the ‘Alien Bible’ universe” theory. How far such an esoteric theory goes in satisfying the “God question” is another story. No doubt, hardcore sci-fi fans will see any connection to Luciferian archetypes as far too “religious” to deem a plausible resolution and not nearly “scientifically literate” enough. However, such a nebulous interpretation at least steers clear of anything remotely biblically sound… which is the ultimate objective of “true” devotees of Science.

“Children of Men” — Feminist Agitprop or Pro-Life Film?

I recently dared to suggest on social media that Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale was feminist propaganda. Interestingly enough, I received pushback from two different sides — Those who objected to it being  portrayed as feminist propaganda and those who defended it AS feminist propaganda. The series is being hailed as a dire warning against totalitarianism, especially as foisted by political conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and the Patriarchy. Who else? The series’ application, so they say, is specific to Trump’s America and as a Warning to Conservative Women.

Of course, this is not much of a surprise. Railing against conservative Christians and white men is the perennial cause du jour for progressives. Now with Trump in the White House, they’ve set the Doomsday Clock to midnight and proclaimed themselves the new #Resistance.

What’s mildly surprised me is the degree to which artists are being recruited into this #Resistance. Whereas agenda-driven, preachy stories were once condemned by the gatekeepers, now they appear to be in vogue. Building upon this “revolutionary” momentum set in motion by The Handmaid’s Tale, lists of other works of “feminist fiction” have made the rounds. What strikes me as interesting in many of these lists is the inclusion of Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 film Children of Men. For example, this list from i09 recommends 10 Other Works of Feminist Fiction. Number 2 on their list is Children of Men. Their summary:

…Cuarón’s 2006 film takes place in a dystopia that resembles a grimier, way less pious, way more disorganized parallel universe to The Handmaid’s Tale. They share, of course, the idea that widespread infertility will re-shape society as we know it—and that the (male) leaders of the future will deal with the crisis in different but still deeply shitty ways.

Men acting in “deeply shitty ways” is a requirement of feminist fiction. The question that I’ve had while perusing these lists is, How ‘feminist’ was Children of Men?

When I first saw the film, I blogged about my thoughts in a post entitled Hollywood’s Violent Contradiction. Here’s some of what I wrote:

The sanctity of life is a consistent theme in Hollywood films. How many times has a movie left us with the message that one life matters, that everyone’s special, that we all have a sense of destiny. A film as innocuous as The Revenge of the Sith culminates with the birth of a child (Luke Skywalker, who will save his people from the Empire). The Butterfly Effect reminds us that every action — every choice — is infinitely important. Darren Aronofsky describes the central theme of his new film The Fountain, as “the sanctity of life.” Some have gone as far as to suggest that in Children of Men: Hollywood Goes Pro-Life. The official site for the film opens with a glowing embryo descending onscreen.

Here’s the catch: Hollywood celebrities are decidedly pro-abortion.

Therein lies the “violent contradiction” I spoke about. Hollywood wants to celebrate individual worth and human dignity while supporting the legal termination of almost 1 million unborn children a year. Nevertheless, many have noted the blatant pro-life message of Children of Men. One blogger called it “unabashedly pro-life.” Another wrote about, “the fundamentally pro-life fabric of the film: human dignity should never be compromised, and human life, foreign and domestic, young and old, is a gift that should be protected.” Students for Life included the film in their list of Films with a Pro-Life Message.

But to the degree that Children of Men contains a pro-life message, it deeply undermines its feminist cred.

Of course, this “pro-life message” is but a shadow of the author, P.D. James’, original novel. For example, Terry Mattingly noted that “the team behind the movie ripped out the book’s gripping Christian foundation.” Reflecting on the film a decade later, Warren Henry wrote in Ten Years Later, Critics Still Love—And Misunderstand—’Children of Men’:

…the critical adoration for “Children of Men” is largely misplaced. The movie is technically brilliant, but fails even as the sort of political agitprop its admirers would like it to be.

Beneath its sci-fi veneer, the novel is an essentially Christian nativity tale that strongly suggests that the global infertility (and resulting statism) is the product of a civilization that became so godless and hedonistic that children and family were no longer the future of humanity. The movie avoids identifying an express cause of the infertility, but presents divine judgment as the theory of crazed, masochistic zealots.

Cuarón, the director, told Filmmaker magazine the “book is almost like a look at Christianity, and that wasn’t my interest. I didn’t want to shy away from the spiritual archetypes but I wasn’t interested in dealing with Dogma.”

Another reviewer called the book a “subtle critique of our current culture of sex-obsessed, anti-Christian, child-phobic self-indulgence.”

These are NOT the types of things one would naturally attach to a “feminist film.” Yet despite the director’s disavowal of the author’s faith and her novel’s message (the last act of the novel is the baby’s baptism), the film still cannot shake the novel’s pro-life underpinnings.

Perhaps this says more about the hijacking of art for political and/or religious purposes. I tend to see it as an indictment of Hollywood and contemporary feminism. Recently, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez made it clear that pro-lifers are not welcome within the Democratic party, demanding that unwavering support for abortion is “not negotiable” for “every Democrat.” A similar groupthink is demanded of feminists regarding abortion rights as a central tenet of their creed. Making “pro-life feminism” a virtual oxymoron.

Supporters of The Handmaid’s Tale and its perceived message, though eager to include other pieces of art and fiction in their cause, shouldn’t get too excited about Children of Men’s inclusion. For to the degree that Children of Men contains a pro-life message, it is not “feminist fiction.”

“Saint Death” is Nominated for the Alliance Award

Saint Death, second book in my Reagan Moon, paranoir series, has made it to the semi-final round of the Alliance Award voting. The Alliance Award is sponsored by Realm Makers and is a reader’s choice award, which makes the nomination even more special. In order to vote, you must be familiar with 2 of the books on the list. The voting for the Alliance Award is closing THIS WEEKEND! Sunday, April 30, is the last day for readers to vote. For those of you who have read Saint Death and are familiar with one of the other titles, you can vote by going HERE. Your readership and support is much appreciated!

Why Novelists Should NOT Keep Their Politics & Religion to Themselves

In a recent post entitled The Non-Partisan Author,  Dan Balow, President of Gilead Publishing, expressed what is a fairly common sentiment about writers keeping their mouths shut regarding politics.[image error]

The political environment has been toxic for author branding since the Internet debuted over 20 years ago, but has gotten significantly worse and more dangerous as social media grows in the last decade. When expressing opinions became as easy as a mouse-click “like,” authors entered a danger-zone.

Unless your author brand includes political commentary, or a focused societal issue, it is probably best to stay away from political expression in your communication. Even a “like” can be a problem to some of your followers who might leave you because they disagree.

The divisive political environment across the entire world makes it tempting to express yourself and take sides, simply because you so easily can.

But again, unless your author brand focuses on political interplay, or a focused societal issue, it would be wise to consider refraining from commenting on them.

Balow’s stance on this issue is uncontroversial. Many writers adopt this position, choosing to simply shut up about politics altogether. Why? Well, mostly to sell books. Which is also Balow’s bottom line:

The question is simply this; do you want to sell books to anyone and everyone, or just to those who agree with you on everything?

While some might quibble with this, labeling the “Non-Partisan Author” as a sellout, I don’t have a huge problem with the approach. I mean, in the public sphere, we are constantly navigating our interactions with others. Whether it’s your workplace or your neighborhood, sometimes it’s simply better to keep your opinions to yourself. Nothing wrong with this. I don’t need to air my thoughts about everything to everyone I meet. Same could apply to the novelist. Besides, I want to write books that entertain, scare, or inspire, not preach and propagandize.

Nevertheless, a couple very important things are worth considering here. One has to do with religion and the other has to do with social / political conservatism and the state of the art industry.

First, does “non-partisanship” apply to one’s religious beliefs, specifically Christian beliefs? Talking religion can be just as volatile as talking politics. So should the Christian novelist keep her mouth shut about her beliefs in order to not offend someone and sell more books? Yes, talking politics will lose you readers. But at some point, talking religion will cost you readers, too! Compounding this are the biblical injunctions for believers to not put their light under a bushel, but to speak up, testify, and proclaim the good news. No, I’m not talking about turning our fiction into a religious tract. However, there’s some things that novelists should not be silent about. Their religion may be one of them.

As a Christian, and a publisher of Christian fiction, Balow is already branded. Which is why I appreciated novelist Jon Del Aroz’s response to Balow’s thoughts in a lively post entitled The Trad Pub Mindset on Christianity.

It’s interesting seeing this [opinion] from a Christian literary agent/author. Already, with the branding of Christian, he has turned off a large segment of the population who doesn’t want any reminder of Christ or God in their lives. That’s already a controversial stand, and unfortunately when it comes to artistry, that brand has come with a scarlet letter of “L” for lame when it comes to the entertainment market. It may not be warranted, but it is what people see from the outside, and if the concern is about turning off a large swath of the market, that would be the first step to avoid. If you’re labeled a Christian Author, and published by a Christian Publisher, you have that brand riding with you, you have that divisiveness built into your career. You’ll be expected to be in a corner with the other lame Christians, not to be out in the world or in public discourse, because you should only be talking in Church about such things. That’s what the world tells us. 

…This mindset comes from the relentless push by secular society that good Christians should “turn the other cheek” by never speaking out. It’s what led to a complete decay morally and culturally of our society over the last few generations, as every few with any sense of artistry have been willing to stand up for Christ, produce good work, and say “hey, we’re on a wrong path.”  Part of it is because of the non-believer or Churchian induced guilt trip that we should be turning the other cheek, the other part of it is a fear of turning off people who don’t agree as Mr. Balow mentioned. 

The fear is what forces people to stay silent.

I’m pretty sure Balow would not suggest that a believer turns the other cheek (meaning “keep their religion to themselves”) in order to sell books. In fact, he admits that some social / political issues require us to speak up. Balow again:

There are some societal problems where any reasonable Christian or moral person should stand united.

Human trafficking is evil and wrong.

Child pornography is evil and wrong.

Killing people for their religion is evil and wrong.

Terrorism is evil and wrong.

We could come up with many more with very little thought.

But this still doesn’t mean you should venture into the political arena.

So some social / political issues ARE worth engaging. In fact, this may be especially true for the Christian novelist. Will taking a stand cause you to lose some readers? Probably. Is it worth it? Depends. Perhaps it simply comes down to what beliefs and causes one values as important enough to possibly lose readers over. I mean, speaking up about the abortion industry might cost me readers. But not speaking at all may, in the long run, cost me more.

Which brings me to my second observation:  The state of the art industry may demand that novelists who are socially / politically conservative actually need to speak up more.

It doesn’t require a close look to see that the arts — film, fiction, music, etc. — are largely driven by liberals and liberal causes. Just recently, I read about an alternative band, The Lumineers, who donated all the profits from their show to Planned Parenthood. Of course, most of the reportage was celebratory. Did they lose fans over this? Maybe. I have one of their albums and frankly, after this, don’t plan on buying another. Either way, I’m guessing that the band’s gesture did nothing significant to damage their fanbase. If anything, they gained some new pro-choice followers. But really, this is fairly typical of the music industry and their love for liberal politicians and liberal causes. Likewise, the predominance of progressive ideology in the publishing industry has been well-documented. (If you read one thing on this subject, read THIS.) A good example is the ongoing controversy about the Hugo Awards. The “battle lines” are largely drawn between those of more liberal and conservative stripe. The controversy arose when conservatives simply started pushing back, challenging the gatekeepers’ cheer-leading for liberal causes, censoring of conservative voices, and actively promoting “message” driven fiction.

My point: If conservatives and Christians DON’T speak up and push back, culture, politics, and the arts industry will continue their slide into the proverbial gutter. Remaining “non-partisan” may be good in the short term; it may enable you to attract more fans and sell more books. But in the long term, what is our “silence” doing for culture, religious freedom, the Gospel, etc.? The fact is, that the silence of conservative Christian artists is hurting the industry, the culture, and the Church. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we use our art as a megaphone for our beliefs, but that we not live in constant fear that our careers are toast if we let on about our convictions. Doing that just empowers the System.

You see, the suggestion that novelists remain silent on politics or religion is mostly aimed at conservatives. Liberals don’t really fear speaking up… because liberalism is the predominant ideological climate. Speaking in favor of gay marriage, abortion rights, open borders, gender fluidity, and free health care is not controversial in creative circles. Speaking against them often is. And this is exactly what conservatives have NOT done enough of.

All this to say, building a readership and marketing yourself is obviously a tenuous thing. Like many walks of public life, the broader the audience, the more we must temper what we say. To what degree we temper our opinions is another story. Either way, people come to fiction, film and music for what it does for them, not the political, ideological views of the artists. Of course, some of those views may or may not expand their audience. Still, a good story, well told, trumps ones political affiliation. As such, my stories are not political or religious tracts. I want to entertain, surprise, scare, and inspire readers. I don’t want to preach or propagandize through my stories. Yes, my worldview will come out. But at this stage in the game, I agree with Del Arroz that silence — whether it concerns politics or religion — may be costing us far more than just a drop in readership.

“Christian Science Fiction”

That’s the name of the new project I’m working on. (The pic on the right is just a placeholder until a more professional cover is designed.) Aside from the fact that I’m fascinated by the intersection of pop culture, the speculative fiction genre, and religion, it’s the reception of my previous non-fiction work, “Christian Horror,” that has piqued my interest in a similar topic. Frankly, I’ve been surprised at the number of people who found my discussion on “the Compatibility of a Biblical Worldview and the Horror Genre” so helpful and encouraging. Just last week, I received this email from a writer who was reading Christian Horror:

As a horror author and fan that gave his life to Christ 9 years ago, this book is packed with all of the explanations I have never been able to give words to when asked how I could love both Christ and the horror genre.

I had been published by a small press… a horror novel that was pretty grim and dark and with no real redemptive qualities. The same could be said for my short stories; while they did not promote evil, they certainly did not represent Christ, as I did not know Him.

Since then, I’ve continued to have some minor small press success (mostly Christian or faith-based horror). I have a new novel being released in June through another small press and am finding that while I’m still not at the success level I’d like to be, Christ has been rewarding me through my writing. He’s connected me with some great writers that have motivated and encouraged me (namely James Rubart and Robert Liparulo) and I’m continually amazed at how He can work through even horror writing.

I’ve had the Christian horror discussion many times, with believers and non-believers, writers and non-writers. And man, oh man, I wish I had already read your book. It’s not only better equipped me for those conversations, but has also given me more motivation than ever to continue trying to establish myself within this sometimes polarizing genre.

So again, thanks for your amazing book.

Wow! This is the kind of thing that keeps us writers going.

While the sci-fi genre may not be as openly loathed among evangelicals as horror, there is still a great deal of animosity and apprehension towards it. James A. Herrick, in his article Sci-Fi’s Brave New World, notes the profound impact that science fiction has had on shaping contemporary thought and even spiritually, saying,

…science fiction has played a disproportionate role in modern myth crafting. The genre has profoundly shaped not only the entertainment industry, but Western spirituality as well.

Indeed, much of sci-fi’s influence has been counter to that of a “biblical worldview.” While some more conservative believers have gone to extremes in their suspicion of the genre, others rightly note the influence of humanistic, pantheistic, atheistic, and anti-religious themes in much sci-fi. In their interview with sci-fi veteran John C. Wright, the National Catholic Register asked the author to “give some examples of successful portrayals of spirituality in classical science fiction and contemporary pieces.” Wright responded,

Hmm. Very difficult, because there are so few. All science fiction books are spiritual descendants either of HG Wells, a socialist atheist, soft SF that mock religion as a sham, or of Jules Verne, who wrote hard SF, where religious ideas do not come up at all.

Science fiction has always been leery of religion.

This animosity or suspicion continues to this day. David Laughlin at Answers in Genesis’ Science Fiction: A Biblical Perspective cautions that,

Although science fiction has predicted a number of useful technologies, the genre is permeated with unrealism, humanism, occultism, New Age philosophy, Eastern mysticism and evolutionism which are of no value in the real world and are condemned in the Scriptures. It is because science fiction has its roots in evolution that the false belief systems mentioned have emerged and thrive in the genre.

A high percentage of scientists have been inspired toward their profession by reading science fiction during their youth. Unfortunately, they are also influenced by its evolutionary worldview.

So is sci-fi antithetical to a biblical worldview? Must we tread with extreme caution when watching or reading sci-fi fare? Is the deification of Man or Technology, or an Eastern view of the Cosmos lurking behind the veneer of most contemporary sci-fi storytelling? Are there religious themes in science fiction that support a biblical worldview? How do believers writing and working in the genre incorporate their beliefs into their storytelling?

Like Christian Horror, I hope to divide this work into five main sections:

Religious Themes in Science Fiction
Science Fiction Themes / Elements in Scripture
Evangelical Culture and the Science Fiction Genre
Christian Science Fiction—Towards an Apologetic
Objections to Christian Science Fiction

Likewise, I think it’s important to clarify my intentions — I am not seeking to establish a new sub-genre (“Christian Science Fiction”), but to encourage and facilitate authors of faith in fully embracing, both in appreciation of and participation in, the science fiction genre. C.S. Lewis famously said that “The world does not need more Christian literature. What it needs is more Christians writing good literature.” In this sense, I am employing the term Christian Science Fiction as a catch-all for Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox believers of broad persuasion. Also, while I want to explore religious themes more broadly, this book is written from an evangelical point of view and will seek to address evangelical readers and publishers and the scarcity of sci-fi titles in evangelical circles.

Along the way I hope to discuss issues like:

Extraterrestrials, Sin, and Salvation
Transhumanism and the Deification of Man
Why Dystopian Themes Resonate w/ Scripture and Human Experience
Sci-Fi as Religion
AIs and the Soul
Bible Prophecy and Fluid Futures
Ancient Astronauts and Human Origins
Technology and the Search for Transcendence

Really, there’s much to cover and this guarantees to be a fun project. Along the way, I’ll be looking for articles, posts, essays, and books that touch on these subjects. (If you know of any, please contact me. I would greatly appreciate it.) In all of this, I am moving on the assumption that science fiction can be a powerful tool in asking questions, exploring the nature of Man and the Universe, discerning the nature of reality, and reinforcing the majesty of the Maker and His creation. Sci-fi is a genre that Christian writers should actively seek to engage.

The Politics of #ResistanceFiction

Apparently Donald Trump is making Doomsday Preppers out of those who once scoffed at the apocalypse.

Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, you must admit that the election of Trump has been revelatory. Although the U.S. economy and optimism indexes are responding favorably, other industries are lagging in said optimism. One such industry still trying to gauge the real import of the new President is the publishing industry.

Literary agent Janet Reid recently addressed the question, “Do current events affect what editors buy?” The writer asked,

In your years as QOTKU [Queen Of The Known Universe], have you see the tenor of publishing change as presidential administrations change? My agent told me last month that the fiction market has been tough — and she expects it to be tougher — because a lot of the folks in New York have taken a bit of a (possibly justified) apocalyptic view of things the last two months.

Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise. As I pointed out in my previous post, when comparing Democrat vs. Republican Occupations, under the category of Book Publisher, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats 100 to 0. So the notion that “the folks in New York have taken a bit of a (possibly justified) apocalyptic view of things” since Trump’s election, is not that remarkable. Reid’s response, however, is still rather fascinating.

…we’re certainly seeing a sea-change since November. There’s no market for satire. Editors aren’t looking for much of anything that’s grim. There’s enough grim (at least to their way of thinking) on the front page of the Times.

I think we’re going to see an uptick in escapist fiction.

And I think we’re going to see a lot of Resistance Fiction, as writers begin to talk about what this new zeitgeist feels like to them.

So in the Era of Trump, satire is out, as is anything too “grim.” However, Reid predicts “an uptick in escapist fiction” and “a lot of Resistance Fiction.” While “escapist fiction” could encompass a broad swath of genres (from bodice rippers to Jack-the-Rippers), Resistance Fiction is another story. Though fiction has often been used as a tool to counter political ideas or climates, both Right and Left, Reid has a very clear Resistance in mind. The #Resist hashtag is, apparently, the one hashtag that is uniting Americans in the fight against Trump. What exactly must we #resist? Well, bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc., etc. Which leads me to conclude that Resistance Fiction is simply fiction that addresses those subjects. However, without some fairly clear attributions to the current administration, lots of fiction can probably fall under the Resistance label. Which leaves me a bit perplexed as to what kind of fiction is anti-Trump fiction.

Others see this #NewPublishingResistance in the resurgence of dystopian fiction. According to this article, Dystopian fiction has been selling like there’s no tomorrow.

Save the light reading for later. In 2017, dystopian fiction is all the rage. Gloomy classics depicting societies gone terribly wrong have shot to the top of best-seller lists like Amazon’s in recent months, including George Orwell’s “1984” and Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” prompting publishers to ramp up production decades after the books were first released. Others have followed close behind, such as Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here” and Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451.”

So why the spike in dystopian tales? You guessed it. Trump!

Much of the renewed interest has followed the November election of President Donald Trump, which publishers and scholars say is no coincidence. “Definitely the election had an effect,” said LuAnn Walther,” editorial director of the paperback division at Knopf. “There’s fear out there about what is going to happen, and I think these predictive books are helpful to people who are looking for the dangers the future might hold.”

Never has an American President caused this much panic among publishers.

Dystopian tales have been popular for quite a while now. More recently, that interest has roots in the YA phenomenon, The Hunger Games, and the spate of similar novels that followed.  While most of those novels are typically aimed at expounding the evils of totalitarian governments, they are seldom directly tied to current political events. The renewed interest in dystopian fiction is different than the YA trend in that 1.) This trend is generated by disaffected adults (rather than youth) and, 2.) It involves older works, not new ones. Of course, at the top of the list is George Orwell’s 1984.

Shortly after the election, 1984 surged to the top of Amazon’s best-seller list, fueled mainly by the political Left’s co-opting of the novel as a warning against the Trump administration. Which is quite fascinating. Especially when you consider that totalitarianism — re-framing speech codes and gender definitions, defining what is “permissible” thought, controlling media outlets, suppressing contrary opinions in science, academia, and the arts, censoring speech on campuses, growing the Nanny state, etc. — is currently more likely to be espoused by liberals, not conservatives.

In his article, The True Lesson of 1984, Nathan Schlueter describes the novel as “a warning against socialism.” He concludes,

…the person reading 1984 for insight into America’s current political situation should ask a number of questions: Which political party had a leading presidential candidate proudly declare himself to be a socialist? Which party’s president consistently sought to expand the regulatory administrative state, often by lawless means? Which party dominates the institutions of higher learning, where the possibility of truth has been consistently undermined by assumptions of skepticism, scientism, and value relativism, and where utility has replaced contemplation as the end of education? Which party controls America’s public-school system, where these same ideas are consistently promoted? Which party is most closely associated with Hollywood’s celebration of sexual liberation and sentimentalism? Finally, which party has sought to elevate the state over God by coercing private individuals to violate their consciences?

So what exactly is Orwell challenging us to #resist? Sexism? Bigotry? Xenophobia? All the more fascinating is how those on the political Left are using the election of Donald Trump as a call for this Resistance, while empowering the very structures that buttress the Party.

#ResistanceFiction has a long history. And if the sentiments expressed by many in the publishing industry are indicative, we should be prepared for more stories about dysfunctional societies and those who suffer in them. But perhaps the real question is why those stories did not seem urgent under the previous administration? One could argue that, under Obama there was a massive expansion of government, increased surveillance of citizens, targeting of conservative groups, and collusion with the media. Sure, there were nutters who framed this as evidence of Armageddon. However, the paranoia has now switched sides. The fact that a #Resistance has only now arisen makes me wonder where it was and who’s leading the charge. Then again, perhaps it’s Big Brother himself.

Is Sci-Fi Anti-Religion? Not Unless a Religion is Portrayed as “True”

Is there an anti-religious bias in publishing and the art and film industries? The answer often depends upon what side of the question you fall on. According to this breakdown of Democrat vs. Republican Occupations, under the category of Book Publisher, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats 100 to 0. For those of us who happen to be politically and religiously conservative, this is not a huge surprise. Thankfully, there is beginning to be a bit of pushback against publishers foisting a blatantly progressive agenda.

While I mostly believe that there IS an anti-religious bias in “secular” media — make that an anti CONSERVATIVE religious bias — it’s not nearly as vast as many claim. In fact, many artists of faith use this as an excuse to retreat from, rather than professionally engage culture. Which is a big factor in the maintenance of the “Christian art” industry.

That said, I recently stumbled upon a semi-pro sci-fi mag that is very up front about its bias. Crossed Genre Press is candid about its “progressive bent.” For example, in their Submission Guidelines they solicit stories containing:

Queer Main Characters
MC’s of Color
Women MC’s
Disabled MC’s
Science saves the day!
Far future
Stories set outside North America

Equally telling is what CGP is NOT looking for:

Stories based off the assumption that any particular religion’s beliefs are real
Weak women being rescued by macho guys
“Science-as-villain”
Vampires, zombies, werewolves, Arthurian retellings, Eurocentric faeries, or ghost stories
Time travel

It’s hard to maintain that publishers are indiscriminate and unbiased when their submissions page flat-out says “keep your religion to yourself.” Sure, publishers are free to want what they want. Seeking to expand representation of a multicultural universe and dash steretypes can be admirable.  Besides, religious publishers do the same thing! They are blatant in vetting their stories FOR religious content. Still, I’d expect a bit of frothing if I announced that I was publishing an anti-Science anthology. The guidelines would read,

What we’re NOT seeking:

Stories based off the assumption that [Science’s] beliefs are real

In an age where Science has replaced Religion as our creed of choice, I’d be inviting ridicule and disdain from the smart kids. “Another anti-science conservative!” they’d bemoan. Nevertheless, here we have a publisher doing just the opposite. They don’t want stories where Science is portrayed as a “villain.” In other words, Science as Savior is a winning narrative.

Of course, you could argue that science and religion are two different things. Even though both require faith. And pitting science against religion is a narrative that conveniently services the secular POV. By requesting tales where Science is Savior and religion isn’t true, one can safely construct a god of our own design. While denying any religion theirs.

But from a writer’s perspective, seeking stories that are NOT “based off the assumption that any particular religion’s beliefs are real” is problematic. For one thing, shouldn’t our religious characters act like what they believe is real? I have met very few religious folk who believe something while not believing it is true or real. I’m just not sure what kind of religion asks its devotees to believe what is fake. Furthermore, if someone believes that all religions are true, they’re essentially saying that there is no truth. Religions make truth claims. If a person believes that “no religions are real/true,” then they believe that THAT belief is true. So it’s a bit telling when a publisher wants its Science immutable, and its Religion squishy.

So is sci-fi “anti-religion”? Basing the conclusion on one indie mag is unfair. Fact is, there are plenty of religious themes in the genre and religious writers who are writing great stories. But if Cross Genre Press is any example, the only religion worth portraying is the one that no one believes is really worth believing.

“Sensitivity Readers” — Love Your Neighbor 101 or Intersectional Nonsense?

Last week, the Chicago Tribune published a piece about how Publishers are hiring “sensitivity readers” to flag potentially offensive content. Here’s how they framed the problem:

Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate – fueled in part by social media – in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

Last year, for instance, J.K. Rowling was strongly criticized by Native American readers and scholars for her portrayal of Navajo traditions in the 2016 story “History of Magic in North America.” Young-adult author Keira Drake was forced to revise her fantasy novel “The Continent” after an online uproar over its portrayal of people of color and Native backgrounds. More recently, author Veronica Roth – of “Divergent” fame – came under fire for her new novel, “Carve the Mark.” In addition to being called racist, the book was criticized for its portrayal of chronic pain in its main character.

This potential for offense has some writers scared. Young-adult author Susan Dennard recently hired a fan to review her portrayal of a transgender character in her “Truthwitch” series.

“I was nervous to write a character like this to begin with, because what if I get it wrong? I could do some major damage,” Dennard said. But, she added, she felt the voice of the character was an important one that wasn’t often portrayed, so she hired a fan, who is a transgender man, just to be sure she did it right.

It’s critical to note that the perceived need for sensitivity readers has “emerged in a climate.” What has created this “climate”? What does this “climate” demand of the writer? To the latter, it’s pretty clear: writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group. So as a white male I am under “increased scrutiny” to portray minority and/or opposite sexed characters accurately. Answering the former question — What has created this “climate”? —  is a bit more complex.

Sensitivity Readers and Social Theory

Many supporters view the cultural “climate” behind the sensitivity readers trend simply in terms of moral/societal evolution — we’re getting better at recognizing multicultural realities and the marginalized. And that’s a good thing. Some even tend to see this as a biblical mandate of sorts, framing the sentiment behind is as “Love Your Neighbor 101,” a Golden Rule that everyone should practice. Authors should want to understand their audience, different people groups, and to not alienate fans. For the novelist, loving your neighbor as yourself should translate into sensitivity to multiple points of view, especially those unlike ours. In this sense, sensitivity readers are simply about cultivating our own humanity, coming to grips with our own privilege, and loving others enough to want to portray people like them correctly and not offend them.

Others, however, trace this “climate” back to something more complex, perhaps even more insidious — critical race theory. Progressives have long realized the importance of art in shaping culture. Robin Phillips in his article on German philosopher and sociologist Herbert Marcuse entitled The Illusionist, discussed the profound effect Marcuse’s theories have had on shaping American thought. Marcuse was part of a unique intellectual vision that came to be known as the Frankfurt School. The adherents were disillusioned with traditional Western society and values, believing that Western Civilization was something we needed saved from. Phillips summarizes the vision of the Frankfurt School thus:

That vision was essentially Marxist, but with a twist. Whereas Marx believed that power rested with those who controlled the means of production, the Frankfurt school argued that power rested with those who controlled the institutions of culture. The school would come to include sociologists, art critics, psychologists, philosophers, “sexologists,” political scientists, and a host of other “experts” intent on converting Marxism from a strictly economic theory into a cultural reality. (emphasis mine)

The Frankfurt School inevitably came to the United States where its vision was progressively embraced by American academia. Thus began the “sabotaging”  of American ideals, the deconstruction and revision of commonplace terminology, an appeal to youth (Marcuse was an intellectual guru of the 60’s counter-culture who invented the catchphrase “Make love, not war,”) and the slow takeover of “institutions of culture.” Publishing was one of those institutions of power. Ever wonder why the mainstream media, the arts, the entertainment industry, the halls of academia, major news outlets, and our youth culture primarily lean Left? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s part of a decades’ long deconstruction of Western culture.

One element of this cultural morphology is intersectional theory. Wikepedia defines intersectionality as the,

…overlapping or intersecting [of] social identities and related systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination. Intersectionality is the idea that multiple identities intersect to create a whole that is different from the component identities. These identities that can intersect include gender, race, social class, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, age, mental disability, physical disability, mental illness, and physical illness as well as other forms of identity. These aspects of identity are not “unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather…reciprocally constructing phenomena.” The theory proposes that we think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one’s identity.

In this way, Marxism and identity politics are inherently linked. As the Encyclopedia of Marxism puts it:

Identity politics is the political terrain in which various social groups engage in a “struggle for recognition” within bourgeois society, each seeking recognition for the special interests of a specific social group.

Intersectionality is the affirmation and recognition of “various social groups” and their “special interests.” These groups are parsed according to many elements — “gender, race, social class, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, age, mental disability, physical disability, mental illness, and physical illness.” Intersectional theory is intended as a framework for understanding “how systemic injustice and social inequality occur on a multidimensional basis.” Sensitivity readers, in theory, help the writer become aware of  these “various social groups” and their “special interests,” as well as a more complex, multidimensional, social web in which they exist; they help the author better understand fictional characters whose demographic particulars she doesn’t share.

However, it is its organic tether to Marxist theory that ultimately undermines the sensitivity reader movement.

Sensitivity Readers and Censorship

Beta readers are essential to novelists. These are the people whom, after the novel is completed, you submit it to for critique. Most writers will admit how essential this stage is to the process. Good beta readers will catch things that the author misses and give them a glimpse into other points-of-view that they may have missed. This will include many of the aforementioned “identity” issues.

When I completed my first novel, I submitted it to my then-writing group. As a new-ish author, this was a scary time. My protagonist was a handicapped, late-20-something, married white woman and mother of two. The feedback was mostly good, except for one common critique — the female POV. You should understand, our writing group consisted almost entirely of women. And so when they started getting back to me saying, “A woman wouldn’t think like that,” or “What about her purse, make-up, and jewelry?”, it made me realize that I indeed had a blind spot regarding a female point of view. It was quite helpful and led me to make some changes in the story.

In this way, beta readers used to perform a similar fiction to today’s sensitivity reader — they helped the author get a glimpse into other people groups, perspectives, genders, occupations, and modes of being.

So what has changed? Sensitivity readers are now more tethered a specific ideology, to multicultural Marxism and progressive social theory, than their beta-reading forerunners. Furthermore, their ultimate intent is not necessarily to make a particular story better, but to control a cultural narrative and suppress those it disagree with.

By atomizing individuals into various social groups based on status, sexual preference, age, wealth, skin color, handicap, etc., etc., we inevitably create an unending platform for grievance. In their article, Black Lives Matter is Bringing Back Traditional Marxism, the folks at The Federalist illustrate the absurd degree to which intersectional theory leads us:

Where Marxism prioritizes the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (or between black and white), the modern theory of intersectionality prioritizes differences between identity politic groups. It posits that while white women face marginalization for their sex, they gain privilege from their race. Conversely, black men gain privilege from their sex while facing marginalization because of their race. Black women experience “double jeopardy,” suffering from both sex and race. This creates a hierarchy of oppression that is in constant flux as new forms of marginalization are recognized. Intersectional theory fractures the class conflict from two opposed groups into an unlimited number of conflicts within the hierarchy of oppression.

Behind the sensitivity reader movement is the idea of “a hierarchy of oppression.” But what counts as “oppression” is in constant flux as cultural legislators churn out “an unlimited number of conflicts.” It potentially creates a no-win situation for the author… unless she is higher up the chain of the hierarchy of oppression. (Who’s at “the top” is anyone’s guess.) So according to intersectionality theory, because of their privilege white authors immediately lose points. Especially young healthy white authors.

Just ask Veronica Roth.

Via Huffington Post:

For months now, readers have talked about the problematic racial elements present in Divergent author Veronica Roth’s latest novel, Carve The Mark. Young Adult author Justina Ireland wrote about the damaging content in Carve The Mark and the now-postponed release The Continent. Readers on social media have carried on that conversation and as ARCs poured out into the world, some blogs even declined to include them in giveaways. Carve The Mark seemed poised to be the most problematic, rejected YA offering of 2017.

Roth was initially charged with worldbuilding that was “vaguely racist and relie[d] heavily on aspects of white supremacy.” After further scrutiny, Roth was also charged with “appropriating” the chronically pained. Apparently, the story involved individuals who were “gifted” with a type of chronic pain. In fact, Roth explained that she was inspired by some friends who have endometriosis (chronic pain). This, however, did not stop her from being charged with ableism. The HuffPo author concludes:

I don’t know how Roth’s friends with endometriosis feel about their pain being appropriated to make Roth, an already famous and successful author, more money. I don’t care to know because their opinions don’t represent every person suffering from chronic pain and won’t excuse the harm Roth has caused by depicting chronic pain as a “gift.” …The notion of suffering as a gift doesn’t make chronic pain patients feel better; it makes abled people feel better.

And so Roth, “an already famous and successful author,” is charged with appropriating the pain of others to leverage her privilege.

As much as supporters of sensitivity reading might disagree with such charges, this is the logical outcome of the ideology which drives them. Like the spider on its web waiting for the slightest tremor from its victim, the sensitivity reader sits poised, alert for the slightest possible offense. And when that “offense” is found, there’s only one logical conclusion — censorship.

Most often, this occurs in the form of “self-censorship.” As the author of the Chicago Tribune article noted, “This potential for offense has some writers scared.” Scared of what? Well, scared of being publicly shamed, called a racist or bigot, boycotted, or in the worst case, even losing a book contract. Which is why YA author Susan Dennard was preemptive when she wrote a transgendered character:

“I was nervous to write a character like this to begin with, because what if I get it wrong? I could do some major damage,” Dennard said. But, she added, she felt the voice of the character was an important one that wasn’t often portrayed, so she hired a fan, who is a transgender man, just to be sure she did it right.

Did it right? What does that mean? And who gets to say what it means to do a character right? Indeed, making sure my female characters act like females is reasonable. But isn’t THAT assertion itself somewhat condescending and sexist? I mean, do ALL women act and feel the same way? Who gets to say what it means to do a character right? Especially when you’re speaking for an entire gender, race, or class of person.

In his article Publishers now hiring ‘sensitivity readers’ to ensure political correctness at The American Thinker, Rick Moran concludes,

Self-censorship is still censorship and represents a threat to free speech. Certainly, portraying a black person as a shuffling, lazy character who eats fried chicken and watermelon is inappropriate. But beyond avoiding racial stereotypes, what responsibility does the author have to “marginalized” groups?

Can he portray a black man as a villain? Can he portray a woman as an airhead? Portraying “marginalized” characters as anything except heroic, smart, and beautiful is where “sensitivity readers” are driving the publishing industry.

The mentality that is now “driving the publishing industry” is dangerously Orwellian; it demonizes words, creates “a hierarchy of oppression,” divides and sub-divides humanity into protozoan complexity, and demands a positive, politically correct portrayal of the “constant flux [of] new forms of marginalization.” The sensitivity reader is, sadly, just a comrade in the Marxist reinvention of culture.

But as is true of most nonsensical social theories, they inevitably eat themselves. Later on in the Chicago Tribune article, one sensitivity reader, Dhonielle Clayton, expressed being conflicted about serving as a black reader for white authors:

On the one hand they help a writer create the experience of a marginalized group more authentically. On the other, they legitimize the mimicking of marginalized voices by non-marginalized writers. “It feels like I’m supplying the seeds and the gems and the jewels from our culture, and it creates cultural thievery,” Clayton said. “Why am I going to give you all of those little things that make my culture so interesting so you can go and use it and you don’t understand it?”

So on the one hand, authors are charged with a correct portrayal of marginalized individuals. On the other hand, when the privileged write about such groups, it’s a form of “cultural thievery.” Thus, sensitivity reading inevitable demands censorship. However, with a “constant flux” of marginalized groups and new, ever-changing grievances and micro-aggressions, the underlying theory can never escape the weight of its own unintelligence.

Conclusion

The Golden Rule is a wonderful ethic to live by. The author who seeks to live by such a rule is to be commended. But like all such principles, there’s balance. Seeking to understand the plight of minorities or marginalized people groups is a good thing. Acknowledging our own privilege is important. Heck, learning to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes is foundational to the creation of believable, sympathetic characters. However, parsing people groups into an ever-expanding menagerie of differences, acquiescing to voices of shame and censorship, straining at intersectional gnats and swallowing camels, and nit-picking every God-blessed work of storytelling to death is hardly the logical outcome of loving your neighbor.

If you really love your neighbor as yourself, then that means giving the author the benefit of the doubt; it means not rushing to conclusions, not demanding they NOT offend you, much less not staging boycotts and campaigns demanding they conform to your liking. Sure, if a book is blatantly biased or sexist or hateful or incendiary, that should be pointed out. But how far do we go in demanding that we not be offended, much less shaming those who portray a character that don’t quite up to our liking? In fact, shaming those who dismiss the need for sensitivity readers is insensitive and a violation of the Golden Rule.

Sensitivity readers could indeed accomplish some important things, providing the author with pivotal insights into different cultures and characters. However, it is the reader’s tether to multicultural Marxism and progressive social theory that undermines their input. When the primary intent of the sensitivity reader is not to make a particular story better, but to control a cultural narrative and perpetuate a “victim class,” it has morphed from being about art, to politics. That’s where it moves from being Love Your Neighbor 101 to Intersectional Nonsense.