The Possessed as good  writing
 
 
I donno about the following article  -even though it makes its point  
effectively
and is not afraid to be critical in spirit despite the nature of  
Evangelical audiences
who often prefer stories that are predictable and almost 2  dimensional, 
which 
the author notes even though he also is an Evangelical. But please read 
the article first before considering this rejoinder; it  would help if you 
knew what was being replied to.
 
After many years I finally read Dostoevsky's The Possessed.  Excellent book.
At times you could say that it was "overdone," and there is too much in it  
that
is so uniquely Russian that it can be difficult to follow the story line,  
but in a sense
that does not matter. Dostoevsky was a superlative writer. You know it is  
fiction
but everything is so well crafted and realistic that, well, ...you forget.  
There you are
in mid 19th century Russia amongst characters who  -mostly-  come  to life 
as
you read the pages.
 
About Dostoevsky, he almost breaks every rule of modern-day fiction  
writing.
But his material is better for it. You just know, at no more than perhaps  
50 pages
into the book, that you are reading quality that has lasting value. In a  
way it is like
reading the Bible, say, Esther  -one helluva great story- or the book  of 
Acts.
Many, many things are going on and there are subplots that have value
in and of themselves, but there is no real confusion. The material is  good,
you are spending your time wisely.
 
With Dostoevsky you also get a heavy dose of philosophy in at least every  
other
chapter. Nothing is action for the sake of entertainment, or only very  
little is
any such thing.  Basically all action supports ideas and ideas  determine 
actions.
The ideas have different value, by design, so the results of action may be  
good
or bad or very bad, which is also the point: Bad ideas  will ruin your life.
 
Reading Dostoevsky also cuts against the grain of modern day values  insofar
as in many fields it is regarded as a virtue to always be concise. You  
learn,
from Dostoevsky, the writer, that brevity may be a liability, that some  
questions
require considerable soul searching and thinking through. You cannot take  a
short cut and expect a long-lasting and good result. 
 
My guess is that this really is an essential requisite for business as well 
as literature even though people in business  -not all, but a  significant 
number-
regard serious reading as a burden, a waste of time, and unnecessary.
But to use the Bible as an analogy again, would a 3 page version of  Ezekiel
be nearly as meaningful as unaltered Ezekiel? To ask the question is to  
answer it.
No 3 page edition of Ezekiel, no matter how well organized or  stylistic, 
can
possibly substitute for the real thing.
 
This is not to say that The Possessed is flawless. It is easy  enough to 
find faults,
like the rather surrealistic suicide in the book which is more bizarre  than
anything else. Then there is the running-away-from-home conclusion  that 
ends
so disastrously. The trouble with that is that it is almost  perfect, 
almost 
pure inspiration, but there is just enough that is contrived, that leaks in 
 under
the door as it were, that the final chapter is more perplexing than  
enlightening. 
And in discussing the Utopian Socialists, whom he despises, why did  
Dostoevsky 
do so little serious research? He really cherry picked what he disliked  
about 
Fourier and the Utopians not realizing that many
Utopians had no use for Fourier, either. 
 
Yet, as a measure of Dostoevsky's genius, he projected the story of  the 
Fourierists
into the future and, 150 years ago, created a fictional world in which  
actual
'Stalinists' would arise, which, obviously, would happen. 
 
Do you want to write as well as Dostoevsky ?  Or even somewhat as  well ?
 
Prepare yourself for a great deal of hard work, a great deal of revising 
and still more revising in order to get things right, which is exceedingly  
difficult 
even though, when it all is done, it must seem inevitable, as if  no other 
story line
was even possible. It all "flows" so easily, every complexity works  out
so smoothly, how else could it have conceivably been said?
 
To get to that place you really need to work hard and live thorough
many mistakes in getting there.
 
Entertainment ?  Yes, Dostoevsky sought to engage readers at the  level
of good action-filled story telling. But, for him, action that is not  
rooted
in the deepest imaginable meaning is worthless.
 
And sometimes the best "action" consists of such things as an  agonizing
discussion of religious faith unfettered by some kind of false need  to
conform to a doctrinal formula, or psychological observations that
define a character and take us inside his or her life.
 
How could you put Dostoevsky on television?  Does anything come  close?
I simply cannot think of anything even though, for sure, there have  been
a large number of world class American movies subsequently shown on  TV.
But maybe the question is unnecessary. For the best in reading, for  lessons
in plot development, characterization, and sheer human depth, you 
cannot do better. And, this said, Dostoevsky's message is  indispensable
to the value of the book.
 
BR
 
 
 
-------------------------
 
1/9/14  
In Stories, the Message 
is NOT the Thing
by _Christian  Post Guest Voices_ 
(http://blogs.christianpost.com/guest-views/author/christian-post-guest-voices/)
 

 
 
By Darren Wilson 
Throughout the history of the church, the message has been the central,  
defining feature of evangelism. Our services have been entirely built around  
this foundation—everything from announcements to worship to ministry serve 
as a  kind of buffeter to the man (or woman) standing on a platform and 
telling us  things that are supposedly important. 
While this has been quite effective for a long time, something new is being 
 birthed in this generation—and that is the concept of media playing a 
central  role in the spreading of the gospel message. Almost from the very 
beginning of  cinema the story of Christ has played out on movie screens and 
(eventually)  televisions around the world, and for the longest time the same 
concept as the  church service has reigned supreme. The message is the thing. 
It doesn’t matter  if it’s a terrible movie as long as the message is there.
Unfortunately, this  is no longer good enough. 
Being someone who makes movies for a living, I probably hear more than most 
 the great lament of countless Christians in America: why are so many 
Christian  movies so terrible? To get to the bottom of this, we must first 
drill 
down to  realize what exactly they mean by “terrible.” Sometimes it is bad 
acting, other  times bad cinematography. But more than anything, if we’re 
honest with  ourselves, is that these movies usually lack the single most 
important element  of all great films. They are simply not very entertaining. 
The problem here isn’t that the stories we are coming up with aren’t  
inherently entertaining. The problem, I think, stems from the very thing that  
Christianity and evangelism is founded on—namely, that the message is the 
most  important thing. As much as I dread the backlash that this could bring, I 
have  to say it. For any Christian in the entertainment industry, the 
message is NOT  the most important thing. 
Without question, the most important element for all stories is that they  
must be, first and foremost, entertaining. If they are not entertaining, 
well  told stories, then no one is going to stick around long enough to 
actually hear  your message. Not too many people get up and walk out of a lame 
sermon, but  EVERYONE turns the channel if they re bored with what they are 
watching.  Unfortunately, though, most Christian artists have grown up with the 
mentality  that “the message is the thing”, and this is a difficult 
boundary to break. So  we become hamstrung into trying to make our stories fit 
into 
some unnatural box,  and the story always suffers when you treat it with a 
heavy hand. 
I once heard a respected Christian filmmaker admit that for his films, he  
comes up with what he wants the ending to be based on what he wants his 
message  to be, and then he creates a story designed to get to that ending. The 
only  problem with this kind of mentality is that any story designed first 
and  foremost to preach to people is always going to feel phony. The 21st 
Century  audience has grown up on media and has gained a sophistication for 
consuming  media unparalleled in history. Put it this way, my KIDS can identify 
cheesy  dialogue when they hear it. 
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the message is not important 
for  the Christian artist. It is absolutely essential, for without any kind 
of  message our art is ultimately stillborn—it carries no life. It’s just 
pretty  pictures that mean nothing. What I am saying is that it cannot be the 
MOST  important thing. If your film, for instance, has a great message but 
very little  entertainment value then the only people who will pay attention 
to your film  will most likely be people who already agree with your 
message. Those who don’t  will have clicked to something else long before it 
ends. 
So you haven’t created  a compelling story, you’ve simply created Christian 
propaganda. 
I have created some of the most hardcore “message” films out there with my 
 documentaries, but my team can attest to the fact that when it comes time 
to put  these movies together, my primary goal is to entertain you. I’m a 
documentary  filmmaker who doesn’t really like documentaries. So I figure if I’
m going to  have to make these things because God is asking me to, then it 
better be  entertaining! I have left some of the most amazing message 
material on the  cutting room floor because it simply didn’t serve the story or 
move things  along. 
Ultimately, I think this all boils down to trust. Most Christian artists  
simply don’t trust themselves. They don’t trust that what they believe will 
come  through in their story if they just let go and try to tell a 
rip-roaring yarn.  But they forget that what they believe makes up the very 
essence 
of themselves.  Therefore it will have no choice but to come out in what they 
create. It may be  hidden, but it will be there. 
How does an atheist sit through a Christian documentary, and then decide 
they  no longer want to be an atheist (as has happened many times with my 
films)? I  think it’s because the documentary is entertaining. Now I still have 
a long way  to go as a storyteller, and my hope is that my next film will 
always be more  entertaining than the last. But the last thing I need to worry 
about is my  message, because my art comes from my very soul. And my soul 
is found in Christ  alone, so I know that if I can just create something that 
keeps you riveted, the  message of Christ will be seeping through the 
screen and into your  spirit.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to