Safe Fiction – Part 4

The Tim Downs interview continued on Family Life Today, so I made a point of listening and jotting down a few notes.

One point Downs made was that the Bible is not naive or simplistic and neither should Christian fiction be naive or simplistic. Instead we need to talk about the real world.

I thought about that a bit. Many advocates of “safe fiction” use Phil. 4:8 as the guiding principle of writing. Think on things that are … not of this world, actually. I think, too, about Colossians 3 where we are admonished to set our minds on things above. Does reading fiction that talks about the real world contradict these commands?

Maybe. And maybe not. It depends on the person. For someone who is simplistic and naive, he just might need a dose of reality, along the line of the book of Judges, to better understand the hurting world. For someone coming out of a painful circumstance, he might need to read about someone who is struggling to do it right, a believer, along the line of Esther or Ruth, who is climbing out of hardship and finding victory.

Both kinds of stories are real. But they meet the needs of people who are in different places.

Downs went on to say that stories must conform to story rules. To stop and have a character deliver a sermon breaks the rules, so it is important to find subtle ways to get a message across. He said to reach people, authors must realize we are fallen beings. But our job in fiction is not so much to inform as it is to “woo the wayward lovers.”

One of the hosts asked Downs how readers would find Christ in his new book, First the Dead. He replied, “They won’t, not from my book alone.” He went on to elaborate that he sees his work as part of the whole that God might use in the wooing process. He said his books are the kind a person can give to anyone without apology, then discuss the themes, asking probing questions.

Well, I can’t help but applaud this approach. It is the very thing I’ve said about my own writing, though I think, from what I’ve read elsewhere, I might rely more on typology to make statements about God.

So all along, I guess I’ve believed in “Christian worldview” fiction. One thing I don’t think I’d say, though, is that this kind of story is necessarily safe.

Safe Fiction – Part 3

Ironically, a program I occasionally listen to on the radio, Family Life Today, is running a series of broadcasts discussing fiction with author Tim Downs, winner of the 2007 Christy Award for best suspense novel of the year with PlagueMaker. Downs’ new novel, First the Dead, features protagonis Nick Polchak, a fornsic scientist (an entomologist, to be exact). I haven’t read the book, but from the radio discussion, I gleaned that these “bug book” stories could be considered a Christian version of CSI.

At the end of the first day of discussion, the radio host begins his wrap with something like, These books by Tim Downs are safe and entertaining, with a subtle message embedded. Safe? I’d already been thinking about this topic as the men discussed the research Downs did to understand what a crime scene entomologist would have to do, and how Downs tries to steer into the waters of reality without swamping the expectations of bookstore owners and vigilant, pietistic readers.

It was clear the radio host had read the book. In fact, he mentioned receiving a pre-release copy, but what he doesn’t know is, what each of the listeners and potential readers are dealing with in their lives. Is the book “safe” for someone like me who can’t watch CSI because of the gore? Is the book “safe” for someone who has experienced the ordeal of a murder in their family? Is the book “safe” for a five year old? a ten year old? a fifteen year old?

Those questions may strethch the point, but here’s what I’m getting at: in declaring a book “safe,” it seems to me, the radio host is giving a “G” rating, a blanket endorsement, and here is where an unsuspecting reader can become snagged.

Mind you, I know nothing about Downs’s First the Dead. Possibly, it is truly a book for all ages and stages, that no reader would have difficulty with any aspect of the story or the writing. That idea then prompts me to wonder if the “Christian” story isn’t a moralistic whitewashing of reality?

I suspect, instead, that there are hard looks at death between the covers of this novel. Downs indicated that one thing he wants to do with his fiction is “cross over,” to write a book that non-Christians might read, and leave them with questions to ask about … life, I suppose, or maybe after life.

What I’m wondering … really, what I’m doubting … is if one person can make a determination for another that a particular work is “safe.” Especially if that statement is aimed at millions of unknown listeners who tuned in to the radio on a particular morning.

As clarification, I’m a big fan of this program and the men behind the mic day in and day out. I think their stamp of approval, this declaration that Downs’s book is “safe,” was given with the best of intention. The host liked the book, likes Downs, and wanted to plug First the Dead with his audience, even though some of them might be the vigilant, pietistic readers who would squirm if a book in their local store contained cussing or sex or gratuitious violence.

It doesn’t have any of those, he seems to be saying, so come on in, the water’s fine.

What happens, then, to the discernment of individual readers? If the “expert” rules a work is “safe,” is that any better than relying on where the reader bought the book or the publisher’s imprint on the spine? In all these cases, the reader is relying on someone else to do his thinking. And frankly, I don’t find that safe at all.

%d bloggers like this: