≡ Menu

Don’t Wake the ‘Watchful Dragons’

Sleeping Dragon, Pedro Lopes' speed painting

Sleeping Dragon, Pedro Lopes’ speed painting

In his essay, “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to be Said,” C.S. Lewis famously explained why he wrote fairy tales:

I wrote fairy tales because the Fairy Tale seemed the ideal Form for the stuff I had to say. Then, of course, the Man in me began to have his turn. I thought I saw how stories of this kind could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralysed [sic] much of my own religion in childhood. Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or about the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.

The “watchful dragons” Lewis spoke of were, in his case “inhibition[s]” about the religion of his childhood, obligations to “to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God.”

The contemporary Christian storyteller encounters similar dragons — defensive mechanisms that guard readers’ hearts and minds when the subject of God, Christ, or religion are broached. Lewis chose fairy tales because of their “Form,” their disarming quality, their ability to “strip” stories of “their stained-glass and Sunday school associations” making the Gospel “for the first time appear in [its] real potency.”

Most Christian writers would probably say they want their stories to have such “potency.” They want their stories to slip past their readers’ “watchful dragons” and stir something beyond the fortress of their inhibitions. If so, I wonder that we’re doing it all wrong. Why? The chosen “Form” for many Christian storytellers is “Christian fiction” — stories aimed at Christian audiences with an overt Gospel message. The problem with such stories, however, is that they wake “watchful dragons,” they alert the reader’s defense mechanisms, they signal that Gospel content is present and should be handled with caution. If handled at all.

Lewis sought to retain the Gospel’s “potency” by writing fairy tales, embedding the Gospel in a less overt, less didactic fashion. In his essay “Christian Apologetics,” Lewis suggests that Christian writers should apply a similar principle to their own writing:

“What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects – with their Christianity latent.”

To be “latent” is to be “embedded,” “naturally organic,” an “intrinsic part” of something else. The opposite of “latent” is when something is “obvious,” “manifest,” “clear,” or “apparent.” Thus, Lewis suggests that the types of “Christian stories” most able to “steal past [the] watchful dragons” of defensiveness and inhibition are not stories with an explicit Gospel message, but stories where the Gospel is less “apparent” and more “organic” to the tale.

And this is where I think much Christian fiction loses its potency. For the Christian writer hoping to reach unbelievers the absolute worst thing they can do is announce their story as “Christian.” No, I’m not talking about bait and switch, sneaking your book into the mainstream market in order to clobber readers with the Gospel. Christian writers who do this deserve to get reamed by readers. Nor am I talking about going out of the way to conceal any reference to the Gospel in your story. Writers who do this may deserve to be charged with “compromise.” My point is simply that when we adopt a “Form” — in this sense, the label “Christian fiction” —  we immediately wake the watchful dragons of contrary worldviews and prevent our stories from reaching unreached audiences.

 

{ 10 comments… add one }
  • Margaret Mills September 3, 2015, 7:24 AM

    Hi Mike,
    Would like to say I enjoy following your blog, and usually find your posts thought-provoking, especially when I’ve been thinking along the same lines. Was just following a little facebook discussion with people who quit church and Christianity due to the legalism in the churches of their youth – the were forbidden movies, dances etc. Was thinking about psychological barriers with those folks – i.e. the feeling that if they open up to the idea of something good in Christianity they have to also accept the condemnation and oppression they experienced as kids. Maybe? And how to get past those watchful dragons as well?

  • Kessie September 3, 2015, 8:50 AM

    Pair this article with that one from earlier this week about how Christian movies over-explain, and I think we’ve got it in a nutshell why Christian authors have a hard time crossing over.

    That and the almighty conversion scene. :rolls eyes: Can we see some characters on the journey of sanctification, for ONCE?

  • Carradee September 3, 2015, 9:02 AM

    And that is such a better-phrased way of putting why I write what I do… Thanks. 🙂

  • Kat Heckenbach September 3, 2015, 9:04 AM

    This actually IS how I write. My whole intent from day one was to have Christianity woven in, deeply, under the surface. Nothing overt, not in your face, not directly referenced at all. Symbolism, allegory, a story *about* something else, but with faith as the foundation, or really more like the behind-the-scenes.

  • JaredMithrandir September 3, 2015, 5:07 PM

    Intelligent thoughts, to bad you didn’t start with a more credibly source then that Heretic Lewis.

    • Paul Lee September 4, 2015, 6:00 PM

      More credible than that Catholic Tolkien, perhaps?

      • JaredMithrandir September 5, 2015, 7:29 PM

        In-spite of being Catholic I do think Tolkien was better in many areas.

        • Paul Lee September 8, 2015, 2:57 PM

          Hmm… I think I understand why you come to that conclusion. Lewis’s philosophizing didn’t endear him to everyone, and I think Tolkien was more about divine wonder reflected through the hierarchy of the created order than about trying to figure out how it all works.

          But if Lewis was a heretic, I think he was everyman’s heretic.

  • Paul Lee September 4, 2015, 5:59 PM

    I think labels tend to invoke guard dragons that make people reject things for bad and artificial reasons, in general. I’m thinking of denominational labels, for one. Like, I can be inspired by the expression of faith from a Catholic, but many people I’ve known would disqualify Catholics from being Christians without knowing anything specific about their individual faith and testimonies, based on the label alone.
    I guess it’s a bit liberal and New Agey to suggest that we don’t need labels, but let’s be careful with them. Let’s use labels to allow truth to stand out against error, rather than to guard truth from people who may find it or may already know part of it, or to protect our self-esteem from reality.

  • Larry November 20, 2018, 3:13 AM

    I think this may have challenged how I write and share my faith.
    Mmmmmm.

Leave a Reply