Get a Free Ebook

Five Inspirational Truths for Authors

Try our Video Classes

Downloadable in-depth learning, with pdf slides

Find out more about My Book Therapy

We want to help you up your writing game. If you are stuck, or just want a boost, please check us out!

Sunday, November 25, 2007

When is Fiction Propaganda?


By Mike Duran




Hollywood has many secrets, but its political leanings are not one of them. We've grown accustomed to Bush-bashing, religion-loathing, overly-green actors using their platform to articulate their opinions. So the recent spate of anti-war films is not a big surprise. What is surprising is the reception, or lack thereof, many of these movies are receiving.

Films like Brian DePalma's, Redacted, Into the Valley of Elah, and Lions for Lambs (which garnered a miserable 25% rating at Rotten Tomatoes), are not only struggling at the box office, many critics are seeing them for what they are: too darned preachy. Apparently, we can handle Robert Redford as the Sundance Kid. But when he swaps his six-shooter for a bullhorn, that’s when we check out.

Agenda-driven art is a turnoff. Audiences want stories, not sermons; they want to see a good movie or attend a concert without being ambushed by a lecture.

Just ask Barbara Streisand. During her last American tour, she took the opportunity in between songs to denounce the war in Iraq, endorse certain political causes, and denigrate conservatives. It rankled many devoted fans. Shouts of “Shut up and sing!” could occasionally be heard from the audience.

But, from an artist’s perspective, is it really possible to separate art from agenda? One’s values, convictions and worldview will inevitably influence their creative expressions; our beliefs cannot be easily partitioned from our craft. Should we – can we -- really shut up and sing?

The forthcoming film adaptation of Philip Pullman’s >fantasy trilogy, His Dark Materials, entitled The Golden Compass, has stirred great debate amongst Christians. Pullman has been clear about his intentions from the start. Describing the trilogy to The Washington Post in 2001, he said, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” Furthermore, the author has openly ridiculed C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia. “I loathe the ‘Narnia’ books,” Pullman has said in interviews. “I hate them with a deep and bitter passion...” In fact, he’s called the series, “one of the most ugly and poisonous things” he’s ever read. (For further discussion, Jeffrey Overstreet’s thoughts and the ensuing dialog at his Looking Closer Journal is highly recommended.)

Webster’s Dictionary Online defines “propaganda” as: “The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.” With this in mind, labeling Pullman’s fiction as “propaganda” might not be a stretch. The Dark Materials trilogy, as the author himself has said, is intended to spread “ideas [and] information” (of course, we would call it lies and misinformation) for the purpose of “helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” (in this case, “injuring” the Christian cause and the institution of the Church). That this “atheistic propaganda” is aimed at the most vulnerable and undiscerning of audiences makes it, potentially, all the more malevolent.

However, isn’t Christian Fiction attempting to do the same thing?

For example, Christian Retailing recently reported:

Best-selling children's fantasy author G.P. Taylor has issued an open letter to Americans warning of the dangers of the forthcoming movie The Golden Compass, an adaptation of British author Philip Pullman's novel Northern Lights (Scholastic) controversial for its anti-Catholic themes.

. . .In an e-mail message this week, Taylor, who lives in Scarborough, England, said that the reason he wrote Shadowmancer (Charisma House/Penguin Putnam) and the other books in the series was because of Pullman and "the damage that his books were likely to do to the Christian church."

Let me get this straight: Pullman wrote his books in response to Lewis' Narnia; Taylor wrote his books in response to Pullman's Compass. Pullman's intention is to undo the damage done by Christianity; Taylor's intention is to undo the damage done by atheism. But aren’t both authors doing the same thing? Apart from their radically divergent beliefs, they’re both using fiction as an ideological tool. Is this propaganda?

“Yeah, but OUR message is true,” retorts the Christian. “Atheism’s message is false!” Well, I agree. Nevertheless, atheists feel the same way about Christian Fiction: It’s propaganda intended to poison people’s minds.

Lon Allison, director of Illinois' Billy Graham Centre, said of Disney's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardobe, “We believe that God will speak the gospel of Jesus Christ through this film.” Philip Pullman desires the same thing for his film, only his gospel is secular. Nevertheless, we applaud Narnia being made into a movie but plan boycotts of The Golden Compass. Why? Christians have been proselytizing with their fiction for the longest, yet when an avowed atheist comes along doing the same thing, we get our proverbial panties in a bunch. Can someone say “double standard”?

Some argue that what makes Pullman's work so insidious is that it's aimed at children and young adults. But don't Christians do this all the time? Narnia's target audience is not soccer moms. It's children. Every Vacation Bible School that ever existed was built on the belief that young minds are impressionable, and shaping those young minds is essential to the propagation of our beliefs. So when we do it, it’s OK. But when an atheist does it, it’s wrong. I don’t get it.

In a democratic society, theism and atheism should be given equal platforms. Deal with it. Sure, it could be argued that the media is anti-religious, that Christians don't get a fair shake. It's a legitimate gripe. And while pluralism is both a result and benefit of a free society, the give and take of those belief systems can get rather sticky. Which worldview wins out is often a matter of persuasion, passion and persistence.

But what part should Christian Fiction play in this clash of ideas? And how do we keep it from becoming strictly propaganda?

I firmly believe that “Christian art” can and should compete with its secular counterparts. Yet that means backing off the boycotts and confidently entering the marketplace of ideas. Not only must we articulate a sound rationale for theism, as artists we must produce the type of quality work that gives evidence of its legitimacy. In the end, if Christianity cannot withstand the assault of atheism -- and films with anti-religious intentions like The Golden Compass -- then it doesn't deserve to stand.

Books and films impact and shape society and, like it or not, fiction has become part of the cultural / ideological arsenal. This creates a tremendous challenge for the Christian author. Why? Because readers want stories not sermons. This is something that, in fact, has worked against Pullman’s trilogy, for many readers have found it too didactic and agenda-driven. As much as we want to articulate our worldviews and give voice to the Gospel, we mustn’t let ourselves fall into the same trap and use our stories simply as vehicles for rebuttal, stealth diatribes and soliloquies disguised as fiction. Perhaps this means we should just shut up and sing. But then that depends on whether we have a song or a sermon.


19 comments:

  1. I'm very interested in the intersection of faith and art, and I thought this was a good article on it. Some might disagree with me but I actually thought the movie "Crash" was propaganda because the characters weren't really allowed to speak for themselves; they couldn't be defined outside of their racism.

    I agree with your bold words: as artists we must produce the type of quality work that gives evidence of its legitimacy, as Dallas Willard set out to do long ago. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whenever I've tried to read "Christian fiction," I've always been turned off by the preachiness that is inserted into the story. I'm not against having Christian themes and ideology in a book, but if the book is fiction, those ideas must work as a natural part of the story -- not as something stuffed into a character's mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Victor, I'm a huge fan of Dallas Willard. Thanks so much for referencing him. The difference between propaganda and "worldview fiction" can often be a fine line, as I've inferred here. And Augustina, please know that all -- probably most -- Christian Fiction isn't preachy. Nevertheless, your point that "ideas must work as a natural part of the story" is spot on, and one Christian authors must learn to implement. Thank you both for your comments!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, at least atheism is based on rationalism and logic, rather than blind arbitrary belief. Some people try to peddle Intelligent Design as being a scientific alternative to Darwinism. That's preposterous and totally lacking in credibility. I agree that we should all be sensitive to each other's feelings when discussing differences in belief. But frankly, blind arbitrary belief is no match for rationalism in any credible or mature debate. It loses every time -- and it loses badly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great article, Mike. I think you are right. We need to take all of that boycotting energy and put it into creating something that can compete... However, I don't think competing should be our motive. A good story, no a great story, excellently written should be the goal. If we are walking closely with Jesus, our message will come through...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good post. While fiction can can reach the point of becoming too preachy, all good fiction does more than just tell an entertaining story. We may not always agree with the author, but the job of the fiction author is to present a point of view that the reader has not considered and allow the reader to explore that point of view through the lives of the characters.

    I believe that when a novel or another work of fiction comes off as preachy it is because the author has not explored the subject well enough to get past the rhetoric of his beliefs. It is not enough to have characters who repeat the author's thoughts in dialog. Good fiction is written in such a way that the reader comes to his own conclusion that given the situation presented the correct action would be whatever it is that author is trying to get across. When that is done, Christian fiction will have no trouble standing, while the doctrines of atheists and others will seem hollow and weak.

    While it is true that readers want stories rather than sermons, history has shown us that many of the books that have the ability to stay around are those that have an important topic skillfully woven into the plot. Authors like Charles Dickens and Mark Twain were highly skilled at this. We are hard pressed to find a classic novel that did not address an important issue in society. Jesus, the master teacher, used stories in much of his preaching. The beauty of stories is that they can teach things that sermons cannot. Stories show us why something is true while sermons tell us why something is true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. San, I appreciate your reading my piece and the comment. While this is not the place to debate theism and atheism, I will suggest you'll have to do much better than that. Some of the greatest thinkers who've ever lived have believed in God -- like THESE FOLKS -- so the "blind arbitrary belief" comment is a bit off base. My point in this post is not to delineate the "rationality" of theism (though I could do that), but to explore how / why storytelling gets dragged into the debate. I have A THREAD going on my site concerning this issue if you want to visit me there. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you so much for your insightful article, Mike! I always appreciate whenever anyone can see both sides of a controversy and give each argument its due.

    Whenever I see a movie or read a book that starts becoming "preachy," what it says to me is that the writer sat down with a message in mind and developed a story around the message. The stories/movies I enjoy are those where the writer had a great story (or character) in mind and lost themselves in the world of that story--but allowed their own worldview to inform everything about the morality and spirituality of the story.

    The whole idea of boycotting a movie, to me, is pointless. If you don't agree with it, don't go see it. Fighting and boycotting and complaining only brings more publicity to the thing being railed against, and people who might not have paid any attention to it otherwise may end up purchasing/viewing/reading it just to see what all the hubbub is about.

    I tend to judge things like The Golden Compass on its merits as a work of fiction. Does it have a good story? good characters? a strong plot? a satisfactory ending? I, pesonally, am confident enough in my beliefs that seeing one movie that has an atheist message won't shake my faith. But that's a decision each person must make for himself.

    The HOME is where faith (or non-faith) must be taught. We cannot rely on works of FICTION to do it for us, whether novels, children's books, or movies.

    Again, thanks, Mike, for bringing up such poignant and rational points about this controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Mike,

    I don't think it's an issue of “when we do it, it’s OK. But when an atheist does it, it’s wrong,” but instead, “when we do it, we’re selling truth, and when atheists do it, they’re selling lies.” Should we have a problem with Christians selling well-presented truth? (I haven't read Taylor's novel, so I can't comment on it but Lewis' books certainly became classics) Should we have a problem with atheists selling well-presented lies? (not that Pullman’s are, after the first book).

    I wonder, is it possible to write anything that is not a response, conscience or not, to something--lots of somethings--you've read? The scholarship of imagination is an amazing thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great post Mike and good thoughts everyone.

    Perhaps it is not so much that an agenda or purpose has worked its way into the novel, but was the author doing it only to spread an agenda or did it come naturally out of the author's worldview? When it's natural, it's easier to accept in the context of a story.

    I think people get tired of the Hollywood types using their celebrity "credentials" to lobby congress about issues. What makes them so smart? Maybe it's the same with authors. If we purposely saturate our books with an agenda, it can become just as icky.

    And then it all boils down to readers. Some readers gravitate toward books that strengthen their own beliefs - sometimes those are agenda driven - and some people are turned off by that. I guess there's room for everyone, which seems to be at least part of Mike's point, I think.

    Thanks Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great article Mike. I LOVE the thought provokng content. And you do it so well.

    BTW - love the new look. :o) Does Mrs. Mike like it? She must or you wouldn't wear it. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Noel! To me, the issue here isn't "selling truth" or "selling lies" -- it's SELLING. While we Christians believe we have the truth, this is not a license for preachiness or propaganda. We still need to engage in civil discourse, give reasonable evidences for our positions, listen carefully to objections, and love the dissenters. Sometimes, the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality is the least effective approach we can have toward those outside the faith community.

    You asked, "...is it possible to write anything that is not a response, conscience or not, to something--lots of somethings--you've read?" I personally don't think so. We -- and what we write -- are the sum total of all that we have met. The tone and presentation of that response is what I'm addressing here.

    Grace to you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, there are quite a few definitions of propaganda. I'll go with this one: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.


    I'm looking at my mission statement above my desk and it reads: "To use every gift God has given me to serve Him and bless others."

    Everything I do consciously to support that mission is propaganda. When I write, I don't set out to tell this particular moral, but my Christianity comes out in what I write and I do write with the purpose of telling a good story, yes, but also to glorify God.

    I can't remember who said this in their interview with us but I really liked it, (paraphrased) It's our job as writer to ask the questions. It's God's job to answer them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey Mike,

    If we’re not spreading, i.e. propagating ideas with our writing, what are we doing? Few authors are invisible. When does "spreading ideas" become "propaganda?" Is it when Story loses supremacy? Who decides when that is? I read The Last Battle with as much enjoyment as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I read The Golden Compass in three hours, and The Amber Spyglass in three weeks. But that’s me.

    If we’re to understand anything without retreating to relativism, we have to go back to the Christian belief in revealed truth. It IS lame to non-Christians, but to US, it’s the license for spreading our beliefs and objecting to contrary beliefs. According to that truth, Christian parents are to propagate their beliefs to their children. Lewis was imitating this with his Chronicles. Christian parents are to guard their children against clever facsimiles. Anti-Materials pieces are imitating this. Most are poorly done—“Pullman hates God—pass it on!” I agree with you, we need to engage in rational discourses. That’s what I tried to do with the Materials article I wrote. (though this comment is anything but rationally concise!)

    Yeesh, I’m supposed to be dissecting anti-federalist papers right now. A+ on distraction techniques, Mike! :) (or should I call you The Great Knock?)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gina, propaganda is typically viewed in a negative light and is often associated with tyrannical regimes and Orwellian societies. While it can contain complete truth, some propaganda presents facts selectively in order to tweak people's opinions. In my mind, there's a huge difference between writing to glorify God and employing techniques to tweak people's opinions. I would not characterize your mission as propaganda. By the way, thanks for letting me stir it up at NJ once a month.

    Noel, I'm not sure I disagree with anything you said. We propagate ideas and beliefs in everything we do. However, you'll agree that there's a difference between Lewis's Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength. While both propagate similar ideas, one does it with far more nuance and far less exposition. But The Great Knock? Surely you can slap me with a better tag than that!

    And Ane, thanks for the compliment. But Mrs. Mike likes whatever Mr. Mike chooses.

    Blessings, girls!

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, you're a mean old guy who makes me THINK too much. The Great Knock. :)

    Thanks for all your thoughts, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice post. Another interesting perspective:

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/11/25/god_in_the_dust/?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thought provoking as always, Mike.

    Regards to Mrs. Mike -- I'd love to meet this woman some day.

    "Mrs. Mike likes whatever Mr. Mike chooses."

    : ) You do let her out, right?

    : )

    ReplyDelete
  19. "We may not always agree with the author, but the job of the fiction author is to present a point of view that the reader has not considered and allow the reader to explore that point of view through the lives of the characters."

    All literature is a response to something or other. All literature also conveys truths and lies (a wise theologian once pointed out that in all likelihood 1/3 of what he said was wrong--he just didn't know which third!) But I think it's the beauty of good stories that they allow us to wrestle with it on our own terms.

    If we act otherwise, we end up with the ending to The Little Mermaid: after a heart-rending act of self-sacrifice, the little mermaid is offered the chance to regain her soul and go to heaven--but only if the children who hear the tale do good deeds and obey their parents. Such disinginuity, though certainly claiming to be in support of truth, is often more transparent than the author might wish.

    In fact, it's that laziness that constantly works to turn the world-shaking message of Christ into Marx's infamous "opiate for the masses." But if we're ever to change the world, it can't be on Marxist terms (everything is ideology, everything is debate, you're either for us or against us.) If the world is to be redeemed, it will be by quiet, humble recognition of the transformation of Christ--a transformation unconsciously echoed in everything we do, including our writing.

    ReplyDelete

Don't be shy. Share what's on your mind.