Keeping it Real

I wanted to respond to both LeeAnn’s and Marjorie’s posts, but then realized they had a similar thread and that I could respond to both of them a little more at length in a post of my own. But before I could, I remembered that I had written a 90&9 article that addressed LeeAnn’s question especially—Where should AP’s draw the line when attempting to depict reality in writing?

Drawing the line (well, attempting to)
It’s not an easy question to answer, but I’ll quote from my article in my attempt to answer it:

So, where does one draw the line? I think I’ve come up with a counter-question that may approach the answer: Do the unsavory elements one may be debating over have a purpose? What I mean is, does it serve to illustrate a particular point? Would it do the book an injustice to gloss over it or omit it? That, I think is the key.

Though the negative things in life that come about as a result of our fallen nature are not glorified in Christian circles, it does not make it any less a part of life; whitewashing the truth in our writing simply for the sake of its being accepted in Christian circles is not being true to our work. Yet, profanity for profanity’s sake is also fallacious. We’ve all read books and seen movies, where 90 percent of the “unsavory elements” were wholly unnecessary. These elements provided no further depth and, in fact, cheapened the work. We should include what is meaningful, not what could be considered a cheap garnish in the name of "authenticity."

It is a personal judgment call, and not a flippant one.

Considering the audience
But having said the above, I have to concede that in making these kinds of judgment calls, considering the audience is very necessary. If you’re writing a story for youth Sunday School literature, for example, leaving out the gritty details might be advisable. If your purpose is to reach a specific group, a writer should be aware of that group’s sensibilities. Seriously, if a writer is hoping to get a book published through PPH containing a few F-bombs . . . come on. But if an Apostolic is not writing primarily for Apostolics, or for a conservative Christian audience at large, I think there’s a little more flexibility for judgment calls.

Drawing the line in reading
I can relate to Marjorie’s conundrum after her “beach reading”: “I would feel embarrassed to admit reading such a book to some people while I would feel embarrassed to admit to feeling embarrassed when talking to others!”

Not to say that I have a literary appetite for the salacious, but suffice it to say that I might feel a little uncomfortable reading a passage from, say, Haruki Murakami over the pulpit on a Sunday morning. But does that mean that I shouldn’t read it?

I’ll put it this way—reading and learning from another’s worldview does not mean that one accepts or endorses that worldview. I can expand my mind reading certain writers whose work may be a little gritty and starve my mind to extinction reading certain writers who make it a point to present a squeaky clean work. And vice versa, I suppose. I sure wouldn’t expand my mind or enter into intelligent discourse with anyone from reading the latest Harlequin romance featuring a bodice-ripping Fabio on the front cover. We have to balance working out our own salvation with fear and trembling with realizing that all things that are lawful are not expedient.

In the end, though, I would not feel uncomfortable recommending something to someone who knew me and where I stand and whose sensibilities I knew would not be offended.

Should I Read or Should I Put It Down Now?

Apology aka Excuses
So I am days behind the posting goal! What? Why? How did this happen? Well, in short I was on a delightful family vacation and there was limited internet connectivity, plus I forgot my phone charger so after it died the second day...I was blissfully in a state of unawares! I came back today to the world of multiple messages and urgent requests. So, technology makes our lives easier, right?!?!?!

My Most Immediate Literary Conundrum
So, on this delightful vacation I was able to read a few books. While it probably behooves me to write some esoteric piece on Thomas Jefferson's thoughts about literacy and politics (which are quite fascinating), I'm going to give you some unformulated thoughts about my "beach reading."

Background
I've read Laurie King's series about Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes and I love it. After finishing all the books in the series, I experienced a great let down that there were no more to be consumed. Then I discovered a different series by her in which the detective encounters a Sherlockian mystery. I purchased the first book in this series (to get a sense of character establishment, blah blah) and the book in which Sherlock Holmes promises to play a central role. I saved these books for vacation and tore into them as soon as possible.

What's the dealio?
Midway through the first book it is definitively revealed (although I suspected it sooner) that the main character is a semi-closeted lesbian. However, this information seemed to serve more as a secondary level character development rather than being central to the book. In truth, I was impressed with how artfully the author handled what is a very polarized and politicized issue. Then the Sherlock book. Homosexuality played a much more central role in this story with the clear message being that in making people feel condemned for their sexuality, society creates monsters of people who would otherwise have happy, productive lives.

So what's the problem?
The problem is that I am very confused about what my response to this book should be. There's a degree of honesty in the author's voice that cannot be ignored. At the same time, it is never graphic or vulgar (excepting the few surprising curse words at the end of one book) and it explores the dynamic of human relationship by having morally reprehensible people of both orientations as well as heroes and heroines of both. Furthermore, it's not a deep or pivotal text--remember, this was my vacation reading! Yet, I would feel embarrassed to admit reading such a book to some people while I would feel embarrassed to admit to feeling embarrassed when talking to others! I am unused to not having a clear opinion. A judgment on my reading of this book doesn't seem contextually driven where I could be okay with responding one way in one situation and another way in a different. I think I should have a clearer sense of my response. And I don't and I don't know where to begin with developing this.

Basic conundrum
At its essence I guess I don't have an understanding of if the situation were presented to me again whether or not I would read it. Furthermore, I can't know if I should or should not recommend this book. I could go on I suppose, but I'm just confused and so I think my writing would reflect that in going back and forth between my points of view. Any clarification or insight someone has would be much appreciated, but don't be surprised if I argue both sides until the more clearly sound option presents itself!!

P.S. Please excuse all errors as my lateness has driven me to forego editing!