Two books about books

Recently I read two books-on-books from a Christian perspective that were well-written.

The first was A Landscape With Dragons by Michael O'Brien, and it was about symbols in fantasy literature.

The basic idea of sub-creation is that when God created this world, he made humans in his image, and because we are in his image, we also desire to create worlds. That is sub-creation. In writing fiction, humans worship God by imitating him through sub-creation, like awe-filled children imitating the style of a beloved hero. This is not blasphemy in that we can only make worlds using ingredients and tools that God created from nothing. However, it is a gift that may be misused, and that is one of the points of A Landscape With Dragons.

However, the main point of ALWD is the use of symbols, especially the dragon, in fantasy literature. Michael O'Brien argues that since God portrayed Satan as the first dragon, and since, in the past, dragons have always been considered as evil, there is something special about that symbol, and therefore dragons should never be portrayed as good. There is a logical fallacy here that I cannot name, but that he takes the example of Satan portrayed as a dragon in Revelation, but conveniently forgets that Satan is portrayed as a serpent, a lion, and a wolf also. Especially relating to the lion, Jesus is also portrayed as one. With O'Brien's logic, lions would be evidence of God's yin/yang nature, both evil and good residing in one. He cites several examples of dragons being portrayed as good, and cites them as dangerous for no other reason than that he thinks them a symbol of Satan being portrayed as good.

This attitude towards symbols seems to me to be flawed. Symbols, IMHO, especially in the Bible, are just that: symbols. Metaphors, similes, but not intended for anything else. Should we exalt mustard seeds because they are "like the Kingdom of God"? If you try to make a connection between the symbols in the parable of the sower and those in the parable of the weeds, it comes out seemingly contradictory and definitely confusing. This is, I think, because they were not meant to be taken literally. Metaphors and symbols are there as a literal example of something abstract. When the Bible says that Satan is like a lion, it does not mean that Satan is a large yellow cat with a big mane, or, more importantly in relation to ALWD, that we should shun lions as symbols of the devil. Likewise, I think that when the Bible calls Satan a dragon, it is calling up a picture of how terrible the Devil is. Obviously, dragons are not real beasts, but I do not think that their symbolism is any more important than that of the lion.

In fantasy literature, Michael O'Brien thinks that dragons should always be portrayed as evil. If they are not, he thinks that it is a dangerous flaw in the book. He also makes a comment about serpents being a symbol of the Devil, and that they also should not be portrayed as good. To take this to its logical conclusion, we would be called to exterminate snakes from the Earth. But did not God create snakes? Did he not give them a valuable place in the balance of the ecosystem? Snakes can be scary, but it does not make them evil.

Especially in fantasy literature, the idea of sub-creation allows for different symbols. In LOTR, a ring is a symbol of evil power. Was Tolkien trying to say that all rings were evil? In the Chronicles of Narnia, winter is a sign of the White Witch's evil dominion. Was C. S. Lewis trying to say that winter was a product of the devil? When man sub-creates another world, it will not be the same as our earth. That is why it is called fantasy. Since it is not our earth, it need not have the same "rules". Mice may talk, or birds may grow huge, or words may have magical powers. But it does represent our earth, and paradoxically must follow the same rules.

For example, many people object to LOTR because it has magic, which they equal to the occult. However, it was not Tolkien's desire to portray the occult as good when he sub-created Middle-Earth. Magic in LOTR is a metaphor, just as Middle-Earth is a metaphor for our earth. In Middle-Earth God (called Illuvatar), created more intelligent beings than just Man, and he gave them different gifts. Elves were endowed with superhuman creative talents that seem just supernatural to men, but in Middle-Earth are natural powers, not occultic. Gandalf is called a wizard, and does things that seem on the surface like the use of occultic powers, but in Tolkien's metaphor, he is the equivalent of an angel, a spiritual being endowed with supernatural powers for use in his mission from God. Saruman also was an angel and given powers, but he succumbed to evil and fell, and used his powers in direct disobedience to God.

While in our world we do not see angels performing supernatural acts in glory to God, Tolkien was not writing about our world. Gandalf's special gifts, that the hobbits may call magic, can be seen as a metaphor of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Magic, then, is a metaphor or symbol; a literal example of something abstract, like the Holy Spirit.

When fantasy, like LOTR and Chronicles of Narnia and many others, is merely a metaphor for the Kingdom of God, it has the same inner rules (creation is good, destruction is bad; loyalty is good, treachery is bad; etc.) as the Christian faith, and the outer rules (such as the appearances of dragons, enchanted castles, magical objects, etc.) are an example of sub-creation and are not meant to be taken literally.

Where Michael O'Brien's message (about the importance of symbols) fails is in his extremist point of view. His reverence for symbols drives him to, IMHO, miss the forest for all of the trees. His upset reaction to dragons being not always symbols of evil is reminiscent of people being upset with the so-called anti-Semitic portrayal of Shylock the Jew in The Merchant of Venice. But it is not so much the symbol that is important, it is the abstract principle behind the symbol. When I read The Merchant of Venice, I do not feel a repulsion towards Jews, but a repulsion towards greed and avarice. Likewise in Barchester Towers there are some very hypocritical and bad "men of the Church", but there are some truly Christian ones as well. The goal of The Merchant of Venice is IMHO not that Jews are bad, but that avarice is bad. Likewise the goal of Barchester Towers is that hypocrisy is just as bad whether it comes in the form of a clergyman or an athiest. Sometimes metaphors are misused, and therefore it is truly anti-Semitic if all Jews are portrayed as evil monsters, and it is truly anti-Church if all clergyman are portrayed as hypocritical. But if all Jews being bad is anti-Semitic, one Jew being bad is not necessarily anti-Semitic.

Christ and God are the only things we should revere. It is healthy to understand that appearances, titles, and words are not necessarily truth anywhere else but in God. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but that does not make him one. If you see an example in fiction of a hypocritical Christian, that does not mean that the book is claiming that all Christians are hypocritical. The book is often merely claiming that people are not always what they say they are, which is a healthy and Biblical attitude.

Back to the original point about ALWD, Michael O'Brien is so obsessed with symbols, that he disregards many fantasy stories merely because they portray dragons as good. What is that supporting but the idea that appearances are everything, that if something looks evil, it is? Dragons in fantasy may look scary, but they can often be metaphors for things in life. In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Wickham looks charming and gentlemanlike, but is corrupt and evil inside. The message is not to trust appearances. The same message can easily be conveyed by a dragon who looks scary but is good inside.

Symbols are neutral in sub-creation and especially fantasy. They are merely metaphors, and if they stayed constant through every piece of literature, there would no longer be originality. The only constant thing is God. Earthly things shift and move, and eventually pass away, but God is the same always. As long as sub-creation glorifies God, Michael O'Brien's concern about the use of symbols is, IMHO, unnecessary.


The second book, and one which I enjoyed much more, was Great Books of the Christian Tradition by Terry Glaspey. Not only did it discuss why Christians should read books, but it had a large list of books to enhance a Christian's spiritual walk (with detailed notes on why each particular book was picked), as well as another list of books that are excellent but don't have a particular focus on and/or direct application for your spiritual life (lots of classic books on this list). I added a few more books to my "to be read" bookshelf, and learned some more about the application of books I had already read. A great read!