Story (Part Deux)

Yesterday I looked at story, and the concurrent breakdown of story and morality.  Today I’d like to wander around a bit, asking continuing to examine story and it’s place in our lives.

I start with J.R.R. Tolkien, who famously wrote Lord of the Rings, and much more anonymously, worked on the Oxford English Dictionary for some time.  

Tolkien loved both story and words.  We see this is LOTR: he invents whole languages.  He also employs language differently depending on the situation.  The hobbits, for example, use a sort of late 19th century English (with added words, and made-up words that would fit such a time period).  Yet, during an important and “high” meeting such as the Council of Elrond, speakers use an older syntax and words with older roots.  Such detail gives the casual reader a sense that the council is quite a hallowed meeting.

But that’s neither here nor there, just an interesting note about LOTR.  What’s more pertinent is that Tolkien, with his understanding both of language and story, pens a new word: eucatastrophe.  We’re familiar with the word “catastrophe,” which traditionally means the denouement of a drama.  Since the denouement of a drama, especially a classical tragedy, is not usually good, catastrophe has in our language taken a rather negative tone.  Tolkien adds the prefix “eu” (meaning good) to this word, thereby inventing a word that means a sudden turn of positive events at the end of a story.  

Eucatastrophe is a sudden happy turn, but one that fits within the story.  You may say, in hindsight, you could see this happy turn all along.  

Though Tolkien talks mainly about fairy tales and eucatastrophe, he also says that the gospel is a eucatastrophe:

The gospels contain a fairy story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy stories.  And among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe.  The birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of man’s history.  The resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the incarnation.  This story begins and ends in joy.  It has pre-eminently the inner consistency of reality…God is the Lord of angels and of men, of men and of elves; legend and history have met and fused.

Tolkien argues that the Bible tells a story: the story of God’s relationship with humanity.  And the essence of every fairy story fits within the larger story of the Bible.  Northrop Frye, a literary critic who wrote The Great Code goes a step further: he asserts that the Biblical story is the basis for all western literature.  It’s quite a claim.

Yet, if we think about it, those who have stepped into the reality of the story the Bible tells, we see that this is the story of humanity.  We see that the Bible begins a story that everyone participates in, whether she knows it or not.  Thus, the larger story of the Bible embraces all true stories: autobiography and history and the like.  Yet, as Tolkien as Frye assert, doesn’t it also embrace the world of fiction?  

Doesn’t it embrace the essence of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings?  We see a similar eucatastrophe, a fully realized world with the forces of good and evil?  Or the essence Shakespeare, and the psychology and cunning and evil and joy?  

Perhaps you may say: I’ve read some bad stories.  Some poorly constructed stories.  Some stories that aim primarily at devaluing the Bible.  Some stories that aim only to corrupt my thoughts.  

Then let me put it differently.  The Bible tells the one all-embracing and true story of human history.  It tells from whence we came.  It tells where we are now.  It tells what hope we have, and what the ultimate future holds for us.  It is the foundational story of humanity.  And, if the Bible is the foundational story, we cannot get away from it.  We cannot tell a story that in no way relates to the Bible.  If we are defined by this story, then it defines all we do.  

We’re not coming up with new stuff, unrelated to the Bible.  (I can go on about what I mean by “embrace” or “essence” but I’ll stop here.)

Thus, I believe that we can judge a story by how it relates to the Bible.  Lord of the Rings?  So many people judge it highly because it relates so closely to the Biblical story.  It has good vs. evil, hope vs. doubt, a small people against a larger empire, etc.  The same goes with Shakespeare.  The same goes with Faulkner or Hemingway or Dan Brown.  How it mirrors and matches the True Story lets us know a story’s merit, its worth, its value.  That’s partially why we like page-turners (a tight plot, closely related to the tight plot of the Bible) but, ultimately, they don’t hold up over time.  They don’t have the psychology: characters are either all good or all evil.  We know from the Bible, and from observing ourselves, that people are more complicated that that.  So, the story has moderate value.

Or it tells why the Christ-figure turns up again and again and again in literature: there is a truth about such a figure.  

Now here’s the catch, where I will leave us today: if this is true of literature and stories, is it not true of our own, individual stories?

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Thoughts, Uncategorized

2 responses to “Story (Part Deux)

  1. Ken Knipp

    So your question is whether or not a Christ figure, or the Christ, appears in each of our stories? Am I reading you correctly?

    And to your point about the loss of metanarrative, are you saying that we’ve lost a sense of being part of God’s story??

    One other question…obviously there are many Christ figures in literature. Are you saying that ALL good literature includes a Christ figure? How do writers like Camus, Sartre, and Kafka figure into that?

    • whoops…i’ll try to clear up some of the confusion tomorrow. for tonight:

      1) my apologies. i haven’t had tons of time to form posts, so they get a bit confusing (ellis woke up in the middle of this one, and i rushed it a bit).

      2) my point about the loss of metanarrative is primarily the postmodern critique. that is, there are no overarching stories by which we define our lives anymore. that includes both Christian and non-Christian. we define our lives by individual stories (though, i may argue that we’re moving out of postmodernism, but that’s another topic altogether). Christians losing their sense of God’s story would certainly be part of this, but it’s applicable to most all of western culture.

      3) no, there isn’t a Christ figure in every story (i’m not that hopeful). rather, the abundance of Christ-figures in secular literature proves the foundational aspect of the biblical story, and how the bible “embraces” other (secular) stories. more on that in the next few days.

      4) as for camus, sartre, or kafka, men who focused on the absurdity of life (some say existentialism), we find similar themes in the biblical story. ecclesiastes, job, or certain psalms (most acutely) wrestle with these absurdity of life claims. and, the foundational story of the bible predicts that others will wrestle with the often apparent absurdity of life, too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s