This is in response to Joni’s post. When an obsessive blogger’s comment gets rather long, he instinctively recognizes the opportunity for a free blog post. ;) The “as Liz says” parts refer to Liz’s comment.
Methinks that the offense comes from mistaking the portrayal of evil to be an endorsement of evil, as Liz says. For example, in the Book of Mormon itself we have scenes where a girl dances provocatively to seduce a man, Nephites raping and cannibalizing Lamanite women, and decapitation, to name only a few instances (and we won’t even get started on the Bible! :)). But it’s very clear in the text that all of these things are evil and they’re absolutely not condoned or advocated by any stretch of the imagination.
There are, however, a lot of modern books and films which do condone evil, to one degree or another, and I think that’s a plague which is gnawing away at our society. Gratuitous violence and sex and such aren’t acceptable — at least not to followers of Christ, in pursuit of all that is virtuous, lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy.
I do think books and movies that are virtuous and so on can — indeed, must! — portray evil, because the whole point of human existence is to come off conqueror in the struggle against the evils of the flesh and the temptations thrown against us by the adversary. Art (in the general sense, including books and music and film and all that) which doesn’t reflect that reality will inevitably ring false. Being in the midst of this conflict between good and evil, we’re drawn towards stories that mirror our conflict, as opposed to relativistic tales where nothing really matters. Sure, I don’t like evil, but it’s only through a knowledge of the darkness that the light has any meaning to me. The more I comprehend how awfully things can go wrong with humanity, the more I love and cling to the goodness that emanates from the Savior.
One trap that it’s easy to fall into is thinking that it’s okay to consume portrayals of evil that do bring us down and offend the Spirit. That’s wrong. And in the end, it really comes down to that — the way to tell if something is appropriate or not is to see what the Spirit says. If it leaves, it’s not good for the soul, regardless of what we think of it. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it doesn’t matter so much what we think of things as what God thinks of them, since He has the full perspective.
Following along with what Liz says, it’s much easier to really relate to imperfect characters, complete with a myriad of flaws and foibles, than to apparently perfect paragons of virtue. That doesn’t mean we oughtn’t have an ideal, of course, but I find nothing wrong at all with good people doing bad things, provided that they’re not condoned. Evil and good mustn’t be reversed. But if weaknesses are shown for what they are, we can learn from that — regardless of whether the character triumphs over them in the end or lets them bring him or her down to destruction.
Darn, I want to read Les Mis, but I guess I’d better finish War and Peace first. :)
Comments
Well, there’s hope for you yet, Ben. I was beginning to worry that you had a completely unreasonable perspective on evil in literature. However, could you clarify what you mean by “One trap that it’s easy to fall into is thinking that it’s okay to consume portrayals of evil that do bring us down and offend the Spirit”? I’m still not exactlly sure where you’re saying the line should be drawn . . . .
Additionally, what happens if not all the evil/un-virtuous characters repent of their evil doing? It’s realistic to real life–not everyone repents, or even acknowledges the existence of evil, in their lifetime. Also, in reality, a lot of people who do immoral things live fairly happy and successful lives. An important function of literature is to deal with these delimmas–think book-of-Job-style, only inverted (why do the evil prosper rather than, why do the righteous suffer). But would you see books like that as an “endorsement” of evil?
In reality, not everyone comes to the same conclusion as to what is right and wrong, and I feel that has to be portrayed in our literature. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in absolute right and wrong–of course I do–but you have to admit that not everyone sees them in the same way. Not every character has to come to the same moral conclusion, in my opinion. It’s not realistic to life. I tend to go by the overall message of the book, rather than the attitudes of individual characters.
Also, novels that come to “incorrect” moral conclusions are sometimes also important to understand. If we can’t reconcile ourselves about why that viewpoint is wrong now, our faith could be greatly shaken when we come up against those ideas in the natural course of life. Ignoring them doesn’t make them any less sophistically tempting. We can’t just ignore things that challenge our faith–we must deal with them, albeit in a faithful way.
Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? I would be interested to hear your perspective on the portrayal of evil in that novel. I personally think it’s a very moral story, but I think you might disagree.
I’m not necessarily drawing the line, only stating that it’s possible to rationalize offenses against the Spirit in the name of learning from literature. For example, we’ve already said that portrayals of evil can be healthy. If portrayals can be healthy, we tell ourselves, then maybe this movie we’re tempted to watch (which has gratuitous sex and violence, and we know it) would be acceptable. We know deep down inside that it’s wrong, but we make excuses and justify our behavior. This is wrong, plain and simple.
As for where the line is, I think we can set general guidelines, but it’s in the fuzzy details where we really need the Spirit to tell us what’s right for us (individually and as families) and what’s not.
“What happens if not all the evil/un-virtuous characters repent of their evil doing?” See the last line of the second to last paragraph :) — “regardless of whether the character triumphs over them in the end or lets them bring him or her down to destruction.” (emphasis added)
It seems to me that cases where evil prospers or doesn’t repent are dependent on whether the work as a whole condones the evil (as you say). Evil characters are going to condone their own actions (usually), so we certainly can’t go by that; it’s the message of the book that matters. A few months ago I read about a book where the main character is a pedophile who rapes and then minces his victims, relishing the thrill of it all, drooling with appetite over the blood, and from what I could tell, the author agreed. That’s sick, wrong, and demented. If something like that happened in a book where it was clearly seen for the evil it was (though I don’t know that graphic detail is always necessary to portray evil well; but that’s a topic for later), then it’s not sick, wrong, and demented.
This reminds me of a term Oliver de Mille uses: bent. (Similar to C.S. Lewis’s use of the word in the Space Trilogy.) Bent books twist values and make good evil and evil good. Bent books are bad.
Do we need to read bent books? I’d say that there’s no obligation to read them, and if someone chose to avoid them entirely, I certainly wouldn’t blame them. Those who do choose to read them would be under the responsibility to recognize the false philosophies for what they were, and also (most importantly) to be in tune enough to tell if the Spirit leaves. We have to be careful not to let incorrect doctrines slip under our radar and become part of our worldview.
Yes, I’ve read Crime and Punishment, and it’s one of my favorite books ever. (Ha! :)) True, I felt guilty as I read it — as if I’d committed the murders myself — but it taught me a lot. I read literature to become a better person, and Dostoevsky helped me do that. In contrast, a lot of literature (mostly trashy stuff) emphatically does not help us become better people. And what of those mostly trashy works which have a few gems hidden within? Would you be willing to dive through a vat of fly-infested excrement to find a pearl? I wouldn’t.
Throw in your two cents