Shacking Up

We here at Reformed Fiction (I'm using the Royal We, because Rizzo is not here to argue) believe in a few things about relationships:

1. They are based in truth.
2. They are greatly helped along by tangibles such as chocolate, inventive alcoholic beverages and laughing uproariously at others' fictional foibles.
3. We fully expect to get the same reaction from our efforts. Go ahead.

As a good Reformed writer, We must in all godly conscience say a few things about William Young's The Shack:

It's the antithesis of what We believe in. (Except for the cool bit where the Holy Spirit character gets righteous in the garden and tells off Mack, who's getting a bit annoying.)

That's it, really. But here's some detail to shore up this assertion:

• Minor issues such as God being female and never PMS'ing, Jesus' identity (He seems to have been created after the Fall), and random pokes at orthodox Christianity and religious systems (which doesn't make sense, given the author's determined attempts to create a new religious system based on 'relationships').
• A god who ponces about in the kitchen baking cookies?! This tri-unified Person is supposed to save the world? Jesus did ACTUALLY say, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword", intimating that human relationships can legitimately be squashed for Kingdom purposes.
• The neat side-stepping about a little girl who gets violated, and this god does nothing but sit spiritually by her side and commiserate. Would be more comforting to know that those wall-eyed barstids either get thrown in the Eternal Flaming Slammer or convert.
• "No rules, just Right" - it sounded like an advert for Outback Steahouse.

Relationships are based on Rules: at some point, you have to get exclusive. Or somebody gets hurt. And what happens to the relationship then?

What's Wrong With the World

Here's a fun quote from Mark Twain, useful to use against the complainers of the world if you stare off majestically into space and deliver deliberately:

"Nothing so needs reforming like other people's habits."

That's the ironic version of G.K. Chesterton's response to an essay request by The Times on "What's Wrong With the World":

Dear sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton

I recently attended a rather highbrow Literary Conference in Kentucky ("The Louisville Conference on Literature and Culture since 1900") . The two cardinal rules seemed to be, "Don't admit that you don't know", and "Thou shalt be more pretentious than thy neighbor". This left very little room for laughter, or creativity - such as the creativity of the authors actually under discussion. The inverse relationship between (a) the amount of time separating author from public and (b) the clarity of understanding said author's work, didn't seem to impede (c) the lecturers' confidence about their assertions of what the author was 'trying to say'. (Conveniently, the authors were not around to argue.) After hearing discussion on such topics as "The Look of Flowers That Are Looked At: Auratic Distance and Eliot's Eyebeam", it was necessary to haul off to a nearby pub and drink some serious mead with friends to get all that taste of 5-syllable words off of my tongue. We had much more fun 'discussing' the relative merits and demerits of such classic films as "Far and Away" and telling amusing animal stories - and I dare say that we learned more.

So, in criticism of the critics, I merely say - stop taking yourselves so darned seriously.