As far as "being the God of your story", I'd just like to throw out the thought that God is your God, and therefore the God of any story you write.

That is a good thought, Neil. I agree.

My perspective on that (derived from Lewis's notion of his fantasy as "supposal") is that if our fantasy worlds exist[ed], God [would have] created them.

Cephron's thought-experiment is interesting (though I find the term "hypercalvinist" somewhat dubious, as I am becoming an increasingly convined Calvinist myself), but doesn't go quite far enough. It is even within our power as sub-creators (to use Tolkien's term) to write characters who are unfallen and thus need no salvation; I was going to say "in theory", but then remembered that Lewis wrote such a story, Perelandra.

On the other hand, author-as-god-of-secondary-world is one model, but author-as-mere-chronicler is another, and the paradigm within which I prefer to work for the most part. In that model, of course God is God, but what the people about whom I'm writing believe is as much in question as if I were writing about real people in our own world's history. (I choose to write about a world initially settled mostly by Christians ...)

That's a very useful way of looking at it. Where did Lewis expound on this? I haven't read much of Lewis beyond his fiction, and this sounds interesting.

What I meant was that, when you're writing a story, you determine exactly what all your characters do in all their decisions, moral and amoral alike. They literally have no free will at all, no power to shape the world in any way that isn't actually you shaping it. So by "hypercalvinism", I just meant something like "uber-strong Calvinism, with no free will of any sort allowed, no exceptions". My use of the term is not intended to make any value judgement on Calvinism as it applies to reality, or whether or not it applies to reality...

*hits up Wikipedia on Hyper-Calvinism*
...but apparently it's a pejorative term. Oops, sorry. Strike that from the HW vocab list...

Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism are vastly different. I know some Hyper Calvinists, so I know what you mean when you use the term, Cephron. I agree, I think.

This may not be the thread for it, but I'd be interested to hear what you understand as being the main differences. Or maybe just a link to something that tells it as you see it...

*chuckles * Perhaps we can pm about it.

I suspect it was in one of his letters or something; in any case, he was talking about the creative genesis of Narnia, and described his thinking as (to paraphrase) "Supposing that a world like Narnia---populated by talking animals---existed, how would God interact with and save it?" (The eternal Son's incarnation as the Lion Aslan being the answer to that question.)


So I gathered. Though there are a number of authors who would strenuously disagree with that model, and describe their struggles and arguments with their characters to get them to go where they want them to go, and so on.

*had forgotten to subscribe topic and missed discussion* I'm glad I could contribute, though, and I find the rest of the discussion interesting, as I haven't yet 'finished' considering the bigness of trying to portray God in a story at all, let a lone a fantasy story...

Oh, and I agree that while we can make all our characters' decisions, that would result in characters that are probably not very in-depth, since they'd not have the appearance of their own personality, etc. and would basically be a robot that does what we want...what I mean is, we should try to make our characters do things that are things they really would do.

One thing I've thought about with regard to this, is having "God" be a "character" in your story, rather than just having Him be God. In my only current fantasy work, I tried to keep the "God" character (called simply the Creator) within the bounds of how God normally interacts with people today. So, He is spoken of, worshiped by some, not by others, it is known that He gives the power to the characters, but He doesn't interact overtly in the story. Sure, I know He's guiding things behind the scenes, but since we don't see that overtly in real life very often, I figured it was safe to do the same in fantasy.

Not that I think that's the only way to do it, it's just the main way I've done it up to now. I do have another fantasy story where the "God" figure is like that, but then the Christ-figure does appear as a character in the story.

It's certainly a tough issue to figure out, and an important one.

Yeah, it's a scary thing to try and figure out (especially if you have a Christ figure).

And, having seen other books try to have God interacting in a similar way to how he did with some prophets, and they...flopped. I hate reading something that messes up in that area, and I'm afraid of messing up in the same way. But, C.S. Lewis did a good job I think, at least in most cases.

Yes, I think he did. But it's an awfully tricky thing. One of many reasons I'm no longer writing that book actively. Better safe than sorry, when it comes to dealing with God's character, I think. It's such an important thing... and were we to misrepresent Him, it would be blasphemous.

Yes, better safe than sorry. There is grace for such a mistake, but it would be a horrible one to make anyway...If I were to try and do it, I think I'd probably stick mostly to things that are basically said clearly in scripture and mostly stay away from the finer, more controversial points (as I see them, anyway).

I agree, and that sounds like a good policy. And you can always be growing and refining your approach as you learn more about God.

Exactly.

Yeah... I wasn't crazy about Donita K. Paul's Christ figure.... it is hard to get right.

*nods* That it is.

* finally finished reading through all this thread * Before I saw this, the thought of how to portray God – or rather, the thought of actually trying to remove him from as close contact with my world as I had been writing him – had not ever occurred to me. The discussion on here has been really good.

But...I do not think that there is much of a difference between writing about God in your fantasy world and talking about him with your friends at church. * pauses * You see...we are portraying him in our lives constantly. We are telling people about our God, and who he is, and what he does. Even if we never talk about him...that is telling people around us that our God is not a God worth talking about. We are portraying him in every single moment that we live while bearing his name. And...that is the reason why I lie in bed at night sometimes, sobbing. Begging him to forgive me. Because I am a Christian – I am his daughter – his bride – and... * pauses for awhile * * closes lips *

But he always forgives. * smiles *

So what I say is...God is a terrible God. And woe be to any who says anything about him that is not true. But...we all do. * brushes hand through hair * And we all need forgiveness. The preacher, the historical fiction writer, the Pope.

All we can do is only what we can always only do, about anything we do that is wrong. Pray for God's strength, watch our selves constantly, and do our best.

Write nothing in your fantasy stories about God that you do not believe is true.

And make sure that what you believe about God is true, whether you write fantasy or not. * smiles *

Very well said.

* smiles a little * Thankyou.

Yes.

I totally agree, Juliet, I had also thought about how you also run into the same problems if you write anything that includes God or a Christian...we just need to pray for guidance, wisdom, discernment and people that we trust that will point out any flaws in our portrayals.

And that is the key to our success as writers.

Uh-huh! Nicely said...

And it's impossible to ever get *Him* right. He's too big. Yet he doesn't require us to convey the whole weight of His glory every time we speak of Him - that's up to *Him* to convey to the person's heart.

And it's possible that different works can stress different aspects of his nature, focus in on one area. Ted Dekker's Elyon is very loving, romantic, passionate for his beloved. Aslan is good, and just. Gandalf is sacrificial and wise, etc.

I especially enjoyed the God-the-Father representation in the controversial (and yes, heretical) book The Shack. It did a great job of breaking stereotypes, of telling us how much we don't know about God, by showing Him as a rather overweight middle-aged African-American woman. Named Papa. Now *that* was an interesting read.

*shivers * I innocently read that when my Grandmother gave it to me, saying it was an amazing book.

I'm not sure how I felt about the portrayal of God.... I liked the familiarity, but.... I think the portrayal lacked His deity. His awesomeness. It felt a bit... warm fuzzy to me, in a negative way...

*jumps to another topic * However, I think Christian authors often forget the relational side of God when they write Him in their stories. They tend to focus on the deity of God, at the exclusion of His other attributes.

Yes.



Very true, we can't avoid missing something in our portrayal, and even accidentally adding something (but of course we can avoid adding something too misrepresentative, through God's grace).

That's a really interesting thought, you're right, each deity figure (or sub-deity figure) tends to emphasize a few key aspects of God, and I think that's what helps us be able to "see" him in that way...to see Aslan's (and even Gandalf's) sacrifice gives us new appreciation for God's own sacrificial love, because it was in a picture that brought that one thing out more than the "whole" picture that we have of God.



It does sound interesting, and I can see how you might be able to get something out of it....not planning on reading it though.

I am not sure what you mean, so I don't know if I agree with you. In my belief, if you say that something is God, then it must be God as far as in you lies. God emphasizes different parts of his character by different actions, and I do not think that that would be bad. But...emphasis is different from exclusion, if you see what I am saying.

Of course, characters can be used to portray different aspects of God.... I hope that I am portraying them. * smiles a bit * That's what he does here, portrays many, many aspects of himself through the things he has made. We can do that too. Like Gandalf...he was not God and was not meant to be God. But he displayed attributes of him. As for Aslan, in my opinion he was God. God in every way.

I don't know about Elyon because I haven't read that book...

Oh yeah...'de Shack'. That is Definitely an interesting book. I read it awhile ago. I don't know any of the controversy about it, though I know that it is controversial. All I saw about it is that it had some things wrong and some things right. Like most any theological work I've read.

However, back to the subject of God in a novel...I do think his portrayal of God was flawed. But helpful, nonetheless. It taught some things that aren't often taught. (I don't think God deciding to manifest himself as a middle-aged black woman was the flaw, though, just for the record... He made them after all, and has manifested himself as animals before.)

Actually, if you're refering to her original series (the name escapes me) she clarified online that the character many had mistaken for Christ is not meant to represent God. She has hinted elsewhere that he (was his name Paladin, or something?) may be similar to the Pope.

Really. Interesting, Jordan. I didn't see that.

Yes, Paladin was his name.

And that annoyed me, because in Luther there's a character named Spalatin, but everybody says "paladin" and so, when reading those books, I envisioned a long-haired lawyer who speaks German and Latin and hangs out with outlaw Bible translators in Gothic castles.

And yes, it did bother me that the books make him seem like Jesus. And the pope thing isn't very clear either. You have to hear it from him.

Now, I'm going to weigh in here. Or wade in here. Actually, instead of getting wet, maybe I'll just toss my hat in.

You can't go wrong repeating God's words. There's something in there that is appropriate for every possible situation in your story, even humor.

Maybe this has already been said, but I think the ultimate point here: when portraying God, do it in such a way that honors Him (this should be obvious). Glorify Him with honest worship. He understands offerings better than anyone. Give it as an offering. Your inadequacies are not something that needs forgiveness. Rather, your praise is worthy of heavenly rewards.

Good thoughts. I started a topic on this principle of "How much do we have to get right" in allegory in general.

I loved "Papa" from the Shack.

Funny Airi, my pastor-grandfather recommended it to me.

Good thoughts Neil and Lycanis.

This is a great thread and it makes a few good points.

- As far as having a flawed God goes I would say that yes that's not a very good idea unless they are in fact villainous supernatural entities pretending to be gods which may I say always works out pretty well. Unless you are trying to slight the one true God. In my universe I have spirits both good and bad that usual take the place of flawed gods as they aren't really gods but have "godlike" powers it makes them a useful and fun plot element.

Someone brought up the Idea that you aren't supposed to "create a new god but rather portray the one true God in a different world. I agree with that statement. And am trying my best to do just that. I have even changed the name used for God in Ska'Lah'Seh from Dia (From the word Diety) to Yah (From the name Yahway) for just that reason.

Thanks for bringing this subject up!

I'd say it's fiction and yes it would seem wrong for a Christian to use a flawed God but maybe it's fine? IN fact, I would argue it is fine.

Why, and how, would you argue it is fine?

Why? Because it is not real and like my post in Eli's thread in a sense you are god of your fiction.
How? Not sure if you want a method here or not..

God is our God, and our fiction answers to Him, not just to us. If it portrays Him, it needs to do so accurately.

Mmm

Not necessarily.

What is an example of an exception?

Why does one need an example?

You said it wasn't necessarily true that we need to portray God accurately. When would it not be true?

Whenever you write fiction. Character, at least to me, defines the the way the fiction runs. If I have a character, say in real life fiction, who denies God or at least sees Him in a wrong way and I write from his perspective then I have every right to portray God wrongly. Or in fantasy if you have a main character who scoffs or mocks or seems to disbelieve the God-figure in your story then portraying God as the character sees Him is fine. Now, you could have the balance of both/and ion which one person makes up falsehoods about God but at the same time there are others to tell the truth. For me, I would not do so.

What would be your purpose in writing a story where the character viewed God wrongly and was never shown to be wrong?

I would have to PM you one of my non-fantasy stories in which I do so.

Can you summarize your goal in such stories here?

Well when I write I never have a goal beyond writing a good story.

My goal in everything I do, including writing stories, is to glorify God. And God would not be glorified by being portrayed as something which he is not. Do you see what I mean?

You said in the other thread, Freedom In Allegory, that "God calls us as we are - screwed up people trying to write to His glory and for his benefit and for our own enjoyment. He is not calling us to be perfect and oh so mighty and avoid evil....live life to the fullest, write to the fullest and God will be in your work." However, although God gives us grace and mercy in forgiving us for our mistakes and sin, he wants us to be perfect, and say perfect things. He said, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." That does not mean that we ever will be perfect in this life...but it means that we should do our best. Do our best in portraying him as who he is and right as right and wrong as wrong. Do you see what I am trying to say?

Art needs no justification. When I write to the best of my ability no matter what I write God is glorified in that. I am using my talents in a way which requires me to pursue excellence. The story I mentioned previously has a purpose and deals with themes but the main isn't likable and he mis-portrays God in some ways. That's not wrong. As a Christian I am free to write a story in first person without him being told here's who God really is. If that is my only duty as a writer then I simply can't write.
And see, being a Christian does not mean that I need to make sure everything is morally right. Is nudity in art bad? Michelangelo used nudity in the Sistine Chapel and yet he was a Christian. Would I say he did not glorify God because nudity is shameful unless in marriage? Absolutely not. Using our gifts to the best of our abilities is how we glorify God. I firmly believe, whether in writing and the arts or real life, that God hates us trying to get everything right. That's not my duty as a writer. I write to the best of my ability, I learn from great writers, and I write, for me, what is on my heart, and I write from my heart. I can't do anything less or anything more. Since most of my stories involve God they inevitably revolve around my thoughts on God, his existence or not, his attributes, most of my stories are about grace and sin and the contrasts, but also about doubting. Sin is a thing I think about a lot in my writing. Sin preoccupies my mind with grace. IN my stories I tend to explore sin and what it does to people, to relationships with others, with the apathy it causes and in this sometimes my characters curse God and portray him wrongly. I don't try to bash on sin because of Christ it's no longer "me" and "them." And if writing sin and portraying God wrongly is a problem then the book of Job is a problem.
I would recommend reading a bunch of Flannery O'Connor stories for a better understanding of this, and a far better writer.

::peeks in::

I believe we should represent God as well as can. We won't be able to do it perfectly, but we should try our best. The way we represent God in our books may very well influence our reader's view of God.

One consideration is if we are really trying to represent the God of our universe, or actually creating something entirely different to rule our fantasy world. That is, is the God of my fantasy world the same as the true God in character and power, or are we doing something completely different? If we're really trying to represent our God, we had better be careful. A wrong view of God can be devestating.

I'm not saying we can't have characters with the wrong view of God, but we need to establish that those characters are wrong. God made it pretty clear in the book of Job that his friends (exempting, perhaps, the last one) were pretty disillusioned. He said they darkened counsel with words with no knowledge, and then He sets the record straight. When the curtain falls, God makes sure we know the truth.

If we choose to create something different from God (in character and power), we had better to make sure our readers know why we did it, or at least that that isn't how it is in the real world.

If that was confusing, I apologize.



What do you mean by no justification? I believe I am responsible to God to write that which is glorifying to God. That means I believe some things I could write are not glorifying to God. In my belief, just because something is written to the best of my ability, does not qualify it to be glorifying to God. How something is written does not garauntee that what is written is acceptable.

Hans Rookmaaker called Art Needs No Justification, from which the following is one of my favorite quotes:

Handel with his Messiah, Bach with his Matthew Passion, Rembrandt with his Denial of St. Peter, and the architects of those Cistercian churches were not evangelizing, nor making tools for evangelism; they worked to the glory of God. They did not compromise their art. They were not devising tools for religious propaganda or holy advertisement. And precisely because of that they were deep and important. Their works were not the means to an end, the winning of souls, but they were meaningful and an end in themselves, to God’s glory, and showing forth something of the love that makes things warm and real. Art has too often become insincere and second-rate in its very effort to speak to all people, and to communicate a message that art was not meant to communicate. In short, art has its own validity and meaning, certainly in the Christian framework.

* thinks for a while before answering *

God doesn't like being portrayed wrong...you mention Job, and that was a good example of him being portrayed wrong very artistically (some experts on the language and so on say that the argument between Job and his friends was a phenomenal piece of poetry, and you have only to read it to see that that is quite true)...and it also a good example of God getting really, really angry at some people. Namely, the untruthful poets. Like Phylis said, he sets the record straight, in a very pointed and dramatic way.

Job 38
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who [is] this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

(continued for a few chapters in striking poetical monologue on his glory and Job's foolishness...)

Job 42
1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every [thing,] and [that] no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who [is] he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6 Wherefore I abhor [myself,] and repent in dust and ashes.

(Then apparently Job's three 'comforters' don't repent like Job did, and...)

7 And it was [so,] that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me [the thing that is] right, as my servant Job [hath.]
8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you [after your] folly, in that ye have not spoken of me [the thing which is] right, like my servant Job.

There is no question that what Job and Eliophaz and Bildad and Zophar said was beautiful and poetic...but there was also no doubt that God was not happy with them and that they should not have said it, no matter how artistically they phrased it. Do you see what I mean?

Sin is something that the Bible talks a lot about too...and I agree with you. It is not something we should shy away from and try to ignore. Our characters do wrong things. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a book, and it wouldn't be realistic. But the difference is...you can't say that sin is not sin. You can portray sin, and even that the main character doesn't believe it is wrong. You can portray that your characters think God is an ill meaning tyrant, or a lustful, partially powerful creature – but you cannot portray that he is because God said he isn't, and he does not like being misrepresented.

1 Kings 20
28 And there came a man of God, and spake unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the LORD, Because the Syrians have said, The LORD [is] God of the hills, but he [is] not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.
29 And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And [so] it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day.

Do you base this belief on scripture? If you do I would really like to see it.

I am sorry, I am not really trying to convince you of anything...I want to know what is right, so I can do it. I am interested in what you believe.

I see what you mean... That is a cool quote. I have a book called The Hidden Art of Homemaking that discusses similar topics, and it is one of my favorites. It does annoy me that sometimes people don't see how a story or a song or a painting can be any good without a 'moral'.

But I do believe that if you portray something in your art, you should not do so in an untruthful way...it is perfectly good to write a piece of music without lyrics, and have it be beautiful, and glorifying to God. However, I do not believe that God likes it when we do write about him in our music and say he is something he isn't, no matter how beautifully we say it. I don't like people telling things about me that are untrue – it hurts. And I do not believe that God likes it either.

I think I agree hesitantly with you. My only caveat is this: in some fiction, or better in music, portraying God wrongly is bad. But if I am writing from my heart, what I'm feeling etc. Then I find it okay. David did this. He implies God would abandon him, that he would be forsaken. These are outright lies, and yes the canon of David's work testifies to the truth about God, but I still see precedent to write in a way which glorifies God even if what we write is untrue.