Personally, I think it is just plain silly to complain about religious content in Christian fiction- the key word is Christian it is categorized as such for a reason.
Now admittedly, if a reader doesn't realise a book is Christian when they pick it up then such complaints can be understandable, and even Christian readers do not seem to take well to novels which are overly 'preachy'.
Yet I believe it is possible to go to the opposite extreme. Perhaps in an effort to avoid appearing ‘preachy’ or contrived an author may choose to avoid overt or blatant religious and theological references in their books as much as possible, but is this always for the best?
One reader expressed her view on the subject when she stated that “I like keeping some of the auxiliary characters as non-believers that… is much more realistic”.
One reader expressed her view on the subject when she stated that “I like keeping some of the auxiliary characters as non-believers that… is much more realistic”.
This reviewer may have a point where the modern Western world in concerned, but I believe that her particular idea of ‘realism’ cannot so easily be applied to past cultures, nations and civilizations.
It is almost a given that the Medieval Period, for instance, was more conspicuously religious than our own, with religious institutions exercising a more pervasive influence, and people generally more likely to identify themselves with the dominant religion.
Christian Historical Fiction novels set in the medieval era are not nearly as common as those set in say, 1800s America, but comments made by reviewers of books set during the Middle Ages can shed an interesting light on this issue.
It is almost a given that the Medieval Period, for instance, was more conspicuously religious than our own, with religious institutions exercising a more pervasive influence, and people generally more likely to identify themselves with the dominant religion.
Christian Historical Fiction novels set in the medieval era are not nearly as common as those set in say, 1800s America, but comments made by reviewers of books set during the Middle Ages can shed an interesting light on this issue.
This reader is apparently not the only one who thinks this, and I have come across a number of reviews of historical novels in which similar sentiments have been expressed. It appears then, that where some historical periods are concerned, religious content is almost something which readers may expect to encounter as a reflection of the time.
Another reviewer wrote of 'Fortress of Mist' by Sigmund Brouwer the second of a trilogy set in the 1300s England that even though he did not regard the book as 'Christian Literature' ".....there is the presence of the Church which should really only be expected of a story taking place in medieval Europe. Expectations of anything else would be inaccurate."
These reviewers were not alone in holding such opinions- indeed they do not seem uncommon.
I tend to agree that it would in be historically inaccurate to have a novel set in Medieval Europe in which there were no references to the church, or one in which most of the characters were non-religious.
So, when it comes to the Middle Ages, the above mentioned reader may be wrong, because it may not be so very unrealistic for the majority of characters in a book set at this time to be religious.
It seems that where some historical novels are concerned, religious content and characters do not constitute ‘preachiness’ but simply a realistic and accurate representation of a past society and its cultural norms. If this is the case, could it not be better for writers to be faithful to history and in doing so use the religious influence on past ages as an opportunity to explore Christian ideas and themes in their writing, instead of being afraid to be ‘too religious’?
This reminds me of a post I made in a historical forum, which I might as well post here:
ReplyDeleteThe safe approach to attempting to recreate the mindset of someone in Antiquity (or at least a convincing imitation of it) is to start by eliminating all forms of contemporary political correctitude. After that just assume people of that time have normal preoccupations and reactions. Here's a working list of what needs to be avoided like the plague:
1. Freedom is the noblest ideal, defined as being able to do what you like provided it doesn't in an obvious and direct way injure others. Loyalty, duty and honour are funny words or, at best, an irony.
2. All men are equal. Social inequalities are artificial and oppressive. Hence a peasant with some character and the opportunity will treat a lord as being on his own level.
3. Women are just as good as men at male activities. They fight just as well too.
4. Free love is universal and socially acceptable. A society that does not accept it is artificial and oppressive.
5. Religion is bad, bad, bad. The only person who can be excused for having religion is someone floating in a vague and benevolent religiosity devoid of any firm convictions. Clerics in particular are sodden hedonists or fanatical sadists. A society that to any extent ties its legal system to religion is artificial and oppressive.
6. Condonation of legal violence in any form is wrong. This goes with an admiration for excessive personal violence considered to be fine provided its recipient can in some way be said to deserve it. The admirer is generally quite incapable of the violence he/she admires unless it is sublimated into gory video games or the like. Assume that someone in the 4th century could take care of himself but was not that quick to draw a sword or knife.