After some revision, I reposted my article on Is Christian Horror Becoming a Trend? over at Novel Journey this week. I guess you could say I’m grinding an ax, but by the feedback I continue to get, it seems like it’s an ax worth grinding. (At this writing, it’s over 20 comments.) Not only did I receive an encouraging private email from one of the authors I cited, but both Eric Wilson and T.L. Hines have left some terrific comments on that post.
I was especially interested in something Tony Hines said in his comments:
…I do feel there’s a difference between ABA and CBA readers. And to be brutally honest, ABA readers are more sophisticated. I’m a little shocked when I see some reviews of my work on Christian book sites, with people decrying the lack of “Christian” content in a few of my works. I think, symbolically and metaphorically, the Christian content is rather obvious. Maybe a bit too obvious, as Publisher’s Weekly said of their review of my second book, “The Dead Whisper On.”
I do find it troubling that a fair amount of CBA readers (at least in my experience) have a hard time seeing symbolism; we should, after all, be BETTER about seeing these kinds of things since many of Jesus’s teachings were told in parables.
I’m sure some could misinterpret this as suggesting that CBA readers are simple-minded, naive, or uneducated. I don’t think that’s the case. Rather, it’s the natural result of how we’ve come to define Christian Fiction. By its very nature, Christian Fiction must have overt “Christian” elements — redemptive themes, salvation episodes, biblical quotations, references to God or a Supreme Deity, positive resolutions, etc. In other words, the more nuance and symbollism, the less “Christian” a novel becomes. So when Tony suggests CBA readers are “less sophisticated,” I think he’s referring to the expectation Christian readers have of their fiction. Because we are conditioned to expect the “obvious” Christian elements, we don’t look for the nuanced or symbolic. At least, that’s my take on it. What’s yours?
I suppose that’s one way to interpret the comment, but I’d go out on a limb to say that’s not my interpretation of it.
Sophistication, by definition, is worldly knowledge, refinement, to become less naive. And by that , I’d say the majority of Christian readers are indeed less sophisticated.
To me that means the “average” CBA reader wouldn’t catch a lot nuances, innuendos, and symbols rooted in worldly knowledge.
In my experience, many Christians don’t understand or are afraid of being in the world, but not of the world and that leads to a lack of sophistication.
When Snyder asked about the term “Christian fiction” on a Master’s Artist post the other day, I said something to the affect that a friend and I realized that this loosely means that it’s written by Christians, published/marketed by Christians, and bought by Christians, which means that it may or may not have anything more than a superficial reference to/of Christianity. The themes may or may not be Christian (but darnit, the main character normally is or becomes Christian). I’m not saying the quality is necessarily worse. I’m making sure we clarify–“Christian fiction” is a marketing label, not anything that has to do with quality or themes necessarily.
I’m uncomfortable, though, using a generalization that CBA is less sophisticated than ABA. I’m guessing that percentage-wise, it may be the same (let’s not forget that ABA has a lot of unsophisticated readers!), but because CBA is smaller (and younger, meaning to some extent less developed), it has less room for more literary books.
CBA has been around for 50 years, and so I’m not sure it really has the excuse of “growth” to explain the looks I got in my own (relatively “hip and educated”) church when I talked about the greatness of “Demon: A Memoir.”
There is definitely a different set of expectations among the majority of CBA readers vs. general ABA readers. There is an innate sense of code that perhaps doesn’t prevail, but certainly is abundant, amidst the CBA aisles.
This code suggests that:
a) Symbolism is risky because of open interpretation.
b) The best way to deny the devil a foothold is to speak clearly, plainly and with theological soundness.
c) Good moral tales end well.
It is a well-intended code, with very fine points. The problem is that it ends up strangling a lot of good fiction. C.S. Lewis was not bound by this code, nor was Tolkien, Dante, Chesterton and O’Connor.
When the pinnacle of “edgy Christian” fiction is Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti, I think it is patently obvious that the CBA operates with a limited scope.
Don’t get me wrong. I read CBA books. I’ve found some of them to be quite fine, and even one or two that qualify as Greats. But the Dekker and Peretti, with all due respect, should be at our midlist. They are solid workmen, but their writing strength comes nowhere near to the best works of Koontz, Gaiman, or Pratchett.
And that is because CBA publishers, in total, tolerate a lower standard of symbology in order to confirm a much higher standard of theological clarity.
Christ works through Christians in the CBA and the ABA. The rebellious few in CBA houses who fight for every nuance are vastly outnumbered within their ranks.
They are just two different entities. Christians who write or read figuratively are best suited for ABA books with the occasional foray into the CBA. Christians who desire the literal will be well served in the CBA with judicious ventures into the ABA.
Jeff Gerke said the target audience for the majority of CBA fiction is conservative, middle class women. Eric Wilson said “conservative” readers don’t tend to gravitate (buy) horror or at least not CBA horror/specfaith. Conservative needs to be defined here because it can represent denominational or political labeling.
I agree with Heather as far as generalizing CBA readers as less sophisticated. In general terms, the “average” reader can be unsophisticated in their reading requirements depending on why they read.
But then again why use the word sophisticated to point to literary prowess. Certainly being “worldly” or the world’s definition of “refined” is not a plus to Christians while demonstrating the refinement of the Spirit’s fire usually looks exactly the opposite of the world.
I realize the frustrations of writing novels which don’t place well in CBA because mine don’t. However, it doesn’t seem quite right to denigrate the writers and books that get produced within the industry. Target the publishers with your complaints, emails, thoughts, frustrations, and ideas. Maybe they’ll start listening. Maybe not.
Most of you, if I’m not mistaken, don’t read much CBA fiction anyway.
Demon . . . a memoir by Tosca Lee is one of the most brilliantly written novels to come out of CBA and points to the talent and conceptual intelligence of its finest writers.
You guys make lotsa good points. Michelle, I don’t think I can go there. No doubt, some Christians are dumbed down by a legalistic, ultra-conservative style of religion. However, there’s plenty of others with a sharpened sense of culture and biblical wisdom. The “unsophistication” I reference has to do with Christian readers who define Christian Fiction in culturally narrow, theologically-scrubbed, terms, not Christian readers in general. There’s plenty of discerning Christian readers out there. But the degree to which those readers limit themselves to CBA style fiction, is another story.
Your observation that Christians misunderstand what it means to be “in but not of the world” may be at the heart of the issue. It’s the old “detachment / engagement” dichotomy. And sadly, much of Christian Fiction operates on the “detachment / separation” model. Thanks, Michelle!
I agree people can be dense – but I submit that sometimes the ‘non-Christian crowd’ can be…well, just as creative. My degree is English lit, and maybe it’s because I’m primarily a writer and think as such, not a reader, but some of the ‘alternative interpretations’ were…baffling.
I’m really sorry, but try as I may I have no idea how a Freudian reading of anything Nathaniel Hawthorne is viable. And I’m sorry, but I’ve read Heart of Darkness twice and still can’t stand it (though I was much satisfied when an essay by Chinua Achebe, a writer I do like, criticized the book for the same reasons I did).
Personally, I think anyone, Christian or not, who tries to read things in that aren’t there (Star Wars may have things we can tweak to make a point, but it’s still zen-Buddhist in thinking) is a poor treatment of the text. It assumes ‘the thing that is not.’
All that to say, you can over-analyze as easily as you can under-analyze (yes, I know that isn’t a word).
And it isn’t just Christians who are dumbed down. People just don’t like to think anymore – at best subscribing to a type of pseudo-intellect. All hail the emotions.
Anyway, not so much disagreeing as offering the alternative problem (which could well be the same problem on a broader scale).