Kaleb and Greg Discuss Symbology, Truth, and Various Awesome Topics

A little while ago I posted about reading the Silmarillion from a spiritual perspective. Shortly after that post went live on Goodreads.com, an acquaintance from my old writing group (The League of Extraordinary Scribes) commented on it briefly. I being the compulsively wordy person I am, responded at great length. I seem to have a problem not responding at great length (except when I am engaged in the activity of eating, at which time you will get no response out of me at all, or if you do, you will not be able to understand a word I say).
So, a discussion was born. You don't need to read the original post to understand it, but it might help. Read it here if you want badly to hear my original musings. For the record, this was a fun conversation that made me actually think about the backing of my points. That's always a good thing.
THE CONVERSATION
(Somewhere around the middle of my post, I mentioned reading Michael D. O'Brien to "sharpen my Harry Potter-slaying sword. As some of you know, HP is not my jam. So that's the context for these comments.)
KALEB: Harry Potter slaying sword? He's the Boy Who Lived. You can't kill him.

I never got a joy like that from my reading of the Silmarillion. It was more of a history textbook for me than anything else.
GREG: The sword is metaphorical. And it's not so much Harry Potter himself I would wish to slay as the spiritual incongruities latent in his story and other stories. But point taken.

See, that was my thing the first time I read it. But once I stopped reading it for pure entertainment (I guess we should never really read 'just to be entertained', but you get the idea) I was able to see it for what it was. And in a way, it IS a history textbook, of an imaginary place, where the struggles 'of powers and principalities' get projected onto the awe-inspiring canvas of Middle Earth. All the best fantasies do that, I think. 'Fantasies' referring to everything in a 'different world' or in a setting that is not 'real life' exactly.
KALEB: I don't think there are any stories that don't have any spiritual incongruities. And to be honest, much of what is best about the Silmarillion is also in Harry Potter. I never really understood the hardship and fear of the Crucifixion until I read the Harry Potter. It's not perfect, but none are.
GREG: Well, to be honest, I should have been clearer in what I said. Firstly, I don't mean to condemn the author or universally uphold Tolkien fantasy while despising everything else. I'd love to discuss our views on Harry Potter and fantasy/fiction in general. I actually love this kind of discussion, so I'll post here in detail. You don't have to do the same if you don't want to.

You make a good point by saying that no stories are incongruity-free. I'm not sure I would say *no* stories are, but of course we live in a fallen world, and we are fallen, so there is imperfection everywhere. But I would be careful about saying "I don't think any stories are free of spiritual incongruities" because this could lead to the thinking that "since there are some mistakes in all stories, and some good in most/all stories, then I can read whatever I wish because there is good to be drawn out of everything."

I'm not saying you're doing that, mind you. I say it to help explain a philosophy that has formed my view on fantasy/fiction. It seems to me (and I got this idea from reading Tolkien, Lewis, and other smarter people than me) that there are two kinds of story with mistakes/spiritual incongruities/corrupted details in them. The first kind is "good at heart," with some disordered details... for instance, I think Wayne Batson's books fall into that category (and I've told him so, heh heh). I think Tolkien's books fall into that category. I think my own books do, too (though I think they're not nearly as good as Tolkien's).

The second kind of book looks similar to the first, but while it has mixed good and bad on the *surface*, below it has some disordered spirituality that ultimately makes it not worth reading. Some can be more or less harmful than others in the second kind of book, just as some can be more or less good in the first kind of book. I would put Harry Potter in this second category (and I would assume you would put it in the first).

That's where we should focus our discussion, I guess, if you want to. What puts a book in category 1 or category 2 is the important thing we should think about whenever we pick up something to read.

Just to clarify again, I'm not saying all of this in order to start an argument or make anyone angry. I am simply very interested in finding out what makes a good book or a bad book (and whether or not there is or isn't an in-between... now *there's* another interesting question!)
KALEB: Discussion might be interesting, but probably futile, as I don't see there being two groups of stories. A story well told is a story worth reading, regardless of its theology.
GREG: Would you say that books can have a "good message" or a "bad message"? That some books can help us or hurt us in our life journey?

Or is your view that stories are just stories, and the only thing that makes them worth reading is whether they're well-told or not? Because then, of course, the internal message would not matter as long as the words were engaging. Actually, I would be very interested to hear about this, if this is your view.
KALEB: They can do that, but a good story will still be a good story, because what makes a story good, or beyond good, is that reflects and illuminates Truth about life, and it resonates with readers. The theology, "messages," and engaging words are all secondary. A poorly written book can still resonate and be good, and one beautifully written may not resonate at all, and so it wouldn't be good. Harry Potter does a very good job at reflecting Truth, as well as fantastic world-building and creating lovable characters with unexpected depth. Lord of the Rings does it too. So does Star Wars. And Narnia. All the great stories reflect that Truth.
GREG: Ok. What I called "spiritual congruence" and you called "theology" I meant to be the same thing as "Truth about life." I guess I'm unclear on what you mean by "theology" then. Because I think of the spirituality/theology of a story as being 'the way it shows God's truth' and not 'the way it has Christian religious items in it.'

So I guess I have 2 questions.
1- Are you saying that a well-written book is harmful if it does not reflect Truth in the right way?
2- What exactly do you mean by 'Truth about Life'? Is it that right and wrong are portrayed as they should be, or is it more than that?
KALEB: By theology, I mean the specifics of orthodox theology, like you might find in a theological dissertation. The actual tenets of Christianity, which has come to seem to be required for something to be a "Christian fantasy."

1/2. No, because Truth can not be reflected wrongly. It is what it is. Universal themes like love, redemption, sacrifice, are all parts of that Truth. Different facets of a diamond, almost. It reflects the aspects of God, not necessarily in a manner that they are in our world, but abstractly in a way that reveals them more clearly than they can be seen in real life.

This would be so much easier if I didn't have so many meds in me right now, and I'd ever done it before.
GREG: Ok. I get what you mean. And I would agree with you, then, that a book doesn't need that kind of "theology" to be a good book or in line with truth.

Well, yes, you can't mess up the Truth itself. But I don't think it's a good idea to say that you can't mess up your portrayal of Truth.

For one, what about stories written by people with twisted worldviews? I mean, assuming there is right and wrong, and right and wrong aren't different for different people, couldn't someone write a book that has a messed-up view of right and wrong?

For instance, there are a lot of great romances out there, some by Christians, some not. And then there's "50 Shades of Grey." Now, many people seem to enjoy reading it, but as far as I can tell it doesn't reflect true, good, and beautiful things very well. Is it still worth reading?

I'm not saying you approve of 50 Shades. I'm just saying, where do we draw the line?
Which stories are good for us and which are bad for us?
Is a good story a story that reflects those 'aspects of God' a lot?
Is a bad story a story that doesn't reflect those?
Also, you said "It reflects the aspects of God, not necessarily in a manner that they are in our world, but abstractly in a way that reveals them more clearly than they can be seen in real life." That makes me think of some more questions.
Can you really reflect Truth in a different way than it is in Real Life?
Is truth or goodness or beauty something different in a story world than in our world?
How do you abstractly reflect truths clearly?

Sorry, I realize that's a lot. I'm just finding this conversation fascinating. I'm actually writing some articles on storytelling and I was not expecting what you're saying. So it's interesting to me I guess.
KALEB: Yes, someone could definitely write a book with a messed-up view of right and wrong, but it won't really be reflecting Truth.

No, I'd say 50 Shades is not worth reading. WHich stories are good, and which are bad, I think is mainly decided by personal conviction and opinion. Beyond that, I don't think there really is a set line, since "For the redeemed, everything is pure, and for the unredeemed, everything is impure." Granted, books that cause you to sin by reading them, especially lust, like 50 Shades and other pornographic books, would definitely be bad. A good book doesn't necessarily have to reflect them a lot. Some are good because they're a good story that's fun to read. They might not have any profound insights or significant depth, but that doesn't mean they're bad.
You can reflect truth in a different manner than in real life, but the truth is still the same. It might be shown as more literal, or more metaphorically. But no, they're not different.
Symbols, my friend. Symbols.

Am I making sense anymore? I'm pretty tired and on hefty painkillers, plus working on a Superman archetype superhero, so I can't tell anymore.
GREG: So I guess the point of departure is you think Harry Potter reflects Truth, and I think it doesn’t.

You seem to be saying here that good stories/bad stories depend on taste. Well, I guess I would agree with that, with one clarification. We’re entertained by different stories depending on our different tastes, and that can *help* us find good stories, but taste isn’t enough to make a story ‘good’ on its own. For instance, I’ve read some of the Harry Potter books, and I liked them. But things about them bothered me, so I did some reading and praying and decided they weren’t good for me. My taste led me to them, but something else led me away. SO: Is there some standard above personal taste we can use to judge stories? If so, what is it?

Is that a biblical quote? Could you give me the verse? It sounds familiar but I can’t place it. Second point of departure: I would say there is a line, outside of taste, but it is for each person to discern and judge it for themselves. Not *different lines*, mind you, but different people with different ideas looking for the same line.

Ah, so I see what you mean. Books that cause us to sin/harm us spiritually are bad. So, how do we judge which stories harm us spiritually and which help us? Can any stories be spiritually indifferent?

I agree with you. Some good books/movies are just plain fun. But I’ve noticed that even fun stories have a line. They’re not deep, like you said, so they can’t be *very* bad or *very* good, but they can have a *little* bad or a *little* good.

Could you give me an example of truth reflected differently than in real life? It’s still confusing to me for some reason. I think I must be misunderstanding your terms, so an example might help.

Ah yes! Symbols! So are you saying that stories have symbolism that is good or bad, and that helps them reflect truth or reflect not-truth? Because, for instance, I have a problem with much of the symbolism in Harry Potter.

If you want to wait until the painkillers are gone you can. I don’t want to force a discussion, but I’m learning a lot and you are making sense, I think. Am I making sense? I figure even if we don’t end up agreeing on much, we’ll have learned something and it will be worth it.
KALEB: Probably, and the HP books do, especially at the end of the series. If they were any more explicitly Christian, they'd be preachy.

Yes, there is a standard, but I'm not sure what it is. I can usually tell pretty easily though.

Yeah, it is, but I can't remember where it is. Paul said it though.

Right. Hence the different opinions on Harry Potter.

Probably depends on the person. Yes, I think they can be spiritually indifferent.

Right. They don't have that extra depth, but that wasn't the purpose for which they were written, so they can't be held inferior to other books because of that.

Okay. I'll try. In the real world, sin corrupts. We see that as a person becomes corrupts. In LotR, that is shown with what happened to Boromir, Gollum, and Frodo at the end. It's the same truth, but it's shown in a different manner.

I'd say symbols are how they reflect truth or not truth. But, I'm bad with symbolism, so I'm not good at explaining it. I think the LotR example would be the best example.
GREG: Well, I would disagree that "explicitly Christian" means preachy. Graham Greene is a classic author who drags Christianity through the mud and grit of real life, totally un-preachy, but he gets across the message of how awesome the Truth is.

I assume you mean Harry's "conquering death" and the bible verses on the gravestones, and that sort of thing. And you're right, there are some definite Christian elements in there. But I would venture to say that the similarity goes no deeper than appearance. You can mix elements of goodness into a story that is disordered at heart, and make it look good that way. Imagine mixing some healthy soup in with some soup that has mold in it. It will look like good soup, and probably even taste like good soup, but you'll get sick anyway.

As far as particular incidents go, I think the end of the story is a corruption of Christianity rather than a good allegory for it. Harry's conquering of death has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with his own power. *He* saves himself, *he* gains power over death, *he* is able to fix all problems by the power and knowledge he has gained. Rather than making him a type (literary sense of the word) of Christ, this makes him a replacement. Contrast this with, says, Gandalf, who sacrifices his own life, knowing he will help others to succeed by doing so. This is closer to "no greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." Gandalf does not conquer death, he is not the savior, and when he returns to the story, he was *sent* back. It is not his power that saves the day. It is God's mission for him.

Now, this is my paraphrasing of other, older ideas. Our own views, after all, are often flawed and inconsistent. That's why I think it so important to base ideas in some solid ground- previous great thinkers, the church, etc. While it is everyone's choice what they read, it is also everyone's duty to makes sure they are doing 100% what they can to judge aright according to The Standard, God's, not ours.

Well, I don't really believe we can ever say or write anything that is entirely neutral. The world- real-life and everything in it- is a spiritual battleground after all, and in a warzone every single thing you do contributes to victory or defeat, even if only in a very, very small way. All books, therefore, while they needn't have explicit depth and/or spirituality, will always lean in one direction or another: truth or falsehood. That's why nothing is "pure entertainment."

For instance...

I love the Frodo corruption analogy. It shows that by sheer exposure to evil one can be corrupted, as Frodo was, even while knowing the whole time what evil it is! It reminds me that it isn't enough to say "I can dip my hands into the dark side and come out unscathed, because I know it's the dark side and I don't agree with it." That doesn't work out... just ask Saruman.

What I mean about symbols is that in real life, symbols mean something. Something unalterable. The cross means something. The Dragon of Revelation means something. Symbols are how we understand reality, and to mess with their meanings in a story is dangerous. Witchcraft, for instance, is full of symbology- and to redefine that symbology to make it neutral or good, rather than evil (as it is in real life) is extremely unwise.

Or I could be crazy. But most of these ideas have their root in great thinkers, rather than myself, which is why I think they hold more weight than anything I could come up with on my own.
KALEB: The person who came up with the idea has no bearing on the validity of the idea. Aristotle, for example, very firmly espoused the theory of spontaneous generation, which was completely wrong.

No, actually, I meant the willingly going to his death because that was the only way to defeat Voldemort. It wasn't about him. It was about his dying so that everyone else could live. It wasn't his own power, though why that could be a problem doesn't make much sense, since Jesus is God, so being resurrected by God is using His own power.

True on nothing being just pure entertainment.

Symbols are not unalterable. Until Christianity gained enough members and traction to change how cultures see things, the there was nothing good symbolized by a cross. It was a brutal tool used for execution of the worst of the worst. It wasn't until later that it gained its current meaning.
GREG: I see what you mean, but I respectfully disagree. You'd give more weight to what your best friend says than what a bum on the street says. You'd probably give more weight to something you read in Aristotle than in Professor N.'s book of Materialist Sociology. So my point in saying my ideas have roots in smarter people's ideas was supposed to mean something along the lines of "this isn't some random thing I made up; this has evidence to support it."

You're right to point out my incomplete knowledge of the book. I guess I should clarify, I wasn't critiquing Harry's self-sacrifice. Of course Harry Potter has moments (big moments, too) of self-sacrifice, love... the 'universal themes' you mentioned earlier. My problem was the engine by which these themes are driven. It spoils a good theme to convey it through corrupted imagery/symbology.

As far as Jesus being God and therefore "taking up His life again," you are of course correct. But Harry Potter isn't God.

So, if nothing is pure entertainment, then we must at least think critically about everything we read for entertainment. Agreed?

I would argue that God changed the symbol of the Cross, not the Christians who came afterward. Real, timeless symbols--not slang words and swastikas, that's a whole different story--are symbols of reality, of the great story of God's Kingdom.

A quote from Michael D. O'Brien's book "A Landscape with Dragons."

“Yes, I thought, always a new story, but really a very old story. It sounds simple: A king made a beautiful kingdom, and he filled it with creatures he loved. A dragon crept out of the darkness and sought to devour an entire world. A brave man faced him, and the dragon slew the man. And the man was God, but nobody knew that until the man came back to life. Then he took the weapon with which the dragon killed him, and he battled the dragon. The dragon hated the Cross and feared the way the man changed it into a thing that could defeat him and his legions. God is the maker of this one great story, which contains all the billions of lesser stories, and he will decide how the tale ends. This story really happened, and parts of it are still happening and some of the most terrific parts are still to come.”

This conversation has grown quite epic in length. Would you be opposed to us making some closing statements, and me putting it up on my blog? Well, I meant that to be a short response instead of another long one. Ugh. Sorry about that. I'm far too wordy.
KALEB: That is a fairly short one, actually, and no, I'm not opposed to it. I just wish I could phrase it better.

Yes, I'd agree.

No, actually, I wouldn't. I'd weigh the statement on its own merits without regard to who said it.

Yes, we'll probably just have to disagree. All Creation will be redeemed, and symbols are part of creation, so they too can be redeemed. Christians have been doing that since it was founded. Christmas trees, Easter eggs, and so many more have all been "taken captive for the Glory of God." 
GREG: Cool. I think that actually is a really good note to end on. If this conversation gets someone thinking, it is a success (and it's already got me thinking).

God Bless,
Greg