Following up John Quiggin’s follow-up to my first post on Silenced and Left Behind-style tribulit generally, a couple quick links and thoughts.
First, as a commenter reminded me, the Slacktivist has a long series of insightfully barbed posts adding up to a close reading of the first 66 pages of Left Behind. Start at the bottom and work up.
Second, Maud Newton has an interview with Chris Lehmann, including a link to a Lehmann essay in The Revealer. Actually, it’s part three of three on religious themes. It’s about author Joel “The Last Days” Rosenberg. I’ll just quote the last bits:
And at one point, as I am talking with Rosenberg, GOP strategist Grover Norquist drops by to congratulate Rosenberg on the new novel. When I greet Norquist, he announces that things have never been better: “We’re winning on all fronts.” I gesture over to Rosenberg and offer the mock protest “But he thinks the end of the world is coming.” At which point, Rosenberg mildly avers: “Not just yet.”
Maybe that answers John’s question about who is going to feed the cat.
I am still torn between thinking these silly novels are mostly harmless, apart from being badly written, and suspecting they are seriously pernicious - the worst of both worlds when it comes to cynical political calculation and severe cognitive dissonance. (To be fair, I don’t know whether the Rosenberg book is badly written. I have now empirically verified, by means of valid samples, that LaHaye and Jenkins are execrable stylists.)
You might wonder how I can doubt these novels are pernicious in effect if not authorial intent, in light of Norquist’s cynical glee. (No doubt the government will be easier to drown in a bathtub after the Rapture erodes the tax base.) The trouble is that I still look to my own case and notice I, too, enjoy consuming books and movies in which morality is entertainingly oversimplified and even seriously distorted. I enjoyed reading The Stand in high school (hence all the heavy-handed references in my first post.) Apocalyptic clashes between Good and Evil put the Fun back in fundamental. It’s fun to conceive of Evil as a lurking, malignant, external thing. “Mum, dad, don’t touch it. It’s EVIL.” But Time Bandits never confused me about metaethics. I never believed Evil has a definite spatial location.
But maybe it’s different when people actually have religious convictions - about Apocalypse, in particular. Then Apocalypse will not be potential fairy tale material but as real as a stone in the road. Folks who believe some version of the story will insist the version that gets told should reflect their sincere convictions. Whatever the way the best-seller then gets told tells you what these folks’ true convictions are.
But I - and lots of other people - seem capable of enjoying, for example, cop buddy actions films without becoming seriously delusional about the ethical propriety of callously blowing the bad guys up and away. You leave the theater, turn off the DVD, that nonsense slides off, leaving nary a moral slick on the soul. (Well, maybe a very small one.) I have my true beliefs about how cops should act. I enjoy them acting badly in movies, while somehow being stipulatively ‘the good guys’. It’s complicated obviously. In part I’m just letting my id run around wearing a superego hat. Lord knows why it loves to do that, but it does. I have my real morality, on the one hand, and my just-for-fun cop movie morality, on the other. It’s like the real one seen through a funhouse mirror of genre. (Brian? Care to take up the cudgels of imaginative resistance to morally deviant fictional worlds?) Why shouldn’t Christians have their sincere religious convictions and their just-for-fun religious convictions?
If only William James had added another chapter to his fine and nuanced treatments of ‘conversion’, ‘saintliness’, ‘mysticism’ and so forth: Bruckheimeresque religious experience. Oh, Lord, make me pure, but not for the next 90 minutes of thrills, spills, chills and kills.
The perniciousness of a book is its means of vilification.
- Captain Vienna
Which is to ask or enquire what consequences your potential unfavourable judgement might have? Personally, I wouldn’t attempt to do anything at all, and I have accordingly spared myself the trouble of having an opinion. (It is OK, I have plenty of others.)
My stairs, they are haunted: “The nuisance of a book is its means of vilification.”
…and when all tv productions shall bear the mark of Jerry Bruckheimer, thou shalt know that the end is nigh…
If there was a large, active religious cult whose central belief was that God had decreed maverick cops should run around town executing supposed criminals right and left, we would all take the Lethal Weapon series a bit more seriously.
There’s a Giuliani joke somewhere inside of mq’s response, desperately trying to claw its way to the surface. Nonetheless, I agree: it would seem like the political dimension is a rather important distinction between Lethal Weapon and Left Behind: even nominally tough-on-crime folks generally don’t let on that Dirty Harry informs their personal view of urban policy, but it’s dog-bites-man news in this country that a large wing of the Republican party does base their policy planning on the imminence of the rapture (among other eschatological waypoints).
…which is not to say that the books are pernicious in and of themselves: the symptom-vs-cause relationship looks pretty clear. But raising a stink about them every once in a while is politically useful anyway, since it viscerally reminds people who would otherwise happily ignore it that, yes Virginia, several of your neighbors expect to be bodily raptured to heaven sometime in the next ten years, and they’re voting accordingly.
There is a distinct left-wing counterpart to Apocalit, and a lot of it goes under the radar disguised as Science Fiction. Recent examples that come to mind instantly are Octavia Butler’s “Parable” books, Robert C. Wilson’s “Chronoliths”, etc etc…
If the author of Christian America: What Evangelicals Really Want is to be trusted, most evangelical Christians are a hell of a lot more moderate than the televangelists who purport to lead them. Maybe the vast majority of the people who buy Left Behind are reading it as Lethal Weapon-style exaggeration for the sake of entertainment.
I would say more on this topic, but I have to head out to my local sukkah for lunch. Leviticus 23:42 and all that.
Well, the problem of quasi-real values in art, and how society and individuals both should react to them, is an ancient one, and not a simple one. Socrates first seems to address it in the Ion, and Plato takes it to further extremes in the Republic, coming down against fiction very strongly as something that messes with your ability to interact with the real world, giving lots of examples as well as metaphors, such as the distorting effects of mirrors, by arguing that by presenting the gods as lecherous bums and heroes like Achilles as whiny brats, you ran the risk of inculcating in people a contempt and cynicism for everything, for instance.
Then you have the modern view, always invoked in the 80s heyday of the glorification of slaughter - “chill out, it’s just a movie!”
Against these both, with Tolkien, Lewis, and the ancient philosopher Maximus of Tyre, some of us would argue that art can be a way of safely handling things that you wouldn’t deal with in RL, and that it’s possible for people to write, and to enjoy, situations that ethically will violate those norms that they hold, without being automatically damaged or contributing to evil - that not all lit/art has to be “good for you” no matter what your view of “good for you” is (ie the LB people think that LB is psychic vitamins, not psychic poison, and that Star Wars is dangerous because it isn’t “true.”)
Yet, still, it does have the potential of making the pernicious seem reasonable and attractive, and so has to be dealt with thoughtfully and responsibly. Triumph of the Will - the Allies’ rx was Platos: “Ban it!” No one here thinks (I hope) that Riefenstahl’s work is morally neutral, or that it’s “just a movie” and has no effect. (I hope no one here buys that oversimplification: if it were true, corporations would not pay highly to have their products placed in movies, using them as giant advertisments, for one, and fads would not follow films.)
But those of us who are Free Speech advocates who do take the rhetorical power of art seriously, giving it respect, nevertheless think that the answer to misuse of freedom of speech is more thought and talk, not trying to hide everything dangerous from vulnerable minds. Make the rational mind strong, encourage critical thought, and aesthetic analysis, and you make readers less vulnerable to demagoguery, whether hidden in fiction or openly as via Clear Channel.
Thus I think that LB is pernicious. It would be better if we had a world where it wasn’t a best-seller. The answer to it is for Evangelical Christians like Slacktivist (and others too) to face it head on, and expose what’s wrong with it, revealing the solipsim, moral cowardice, strenght-worship and hate that it rests on. (I loved a bent LaHaye trying to explain in a letter why it was really about love, to slaughter all Non-Christians, after Kristof demolished the ethos in NYT and linked it to the “crusade” mentality of the Iraq war.)
The worst thing for society has been the extension of Godwin’s Law to anything tacky and plebian, maintaining a radio blackout on pop culture and the best thing has been that trend in academics to take pop culture seriously, to the screaming fits of “culture vultures” like Buckley etc.
This is one reason I tend to push people towards Sherri S. Tepper, Terry Pratchett and even, for those who feel that their fiction need be Christian, Charles Williams (Thanks to the Cranky Professor for introducing me to Williams in grad school). Of course, I may burn for it.
Can I get all abstract for a second while I have the ear of actual philosophers? It seems to me that the belief that “a comfortable chair is pleasant to sit in” is an entirely different species of belief from, say, “the wicked shall be punished and the righteous spared.” And perhaps that is a different belief from “I am among the righteous.”
What frightens me w/r/t apocolit is that a significant proportion of the population are unwilling to accept that various fundamentally different phenomena are all described as “belief.” Therefore, they must accept the fact of divine judgement in exactly the same way that they accept the fact of comfortable chairs. If they fail to do so, their religion is meaningless. Of course, these two species of belief are irreconcilable, so it requires a lot of effort and will power to maintain the illusion that they are reconciled.
I don’t think that the LB audience necessarily “believes” the apocalypse is as real as a stone in the road (certainly not in the same way that a paranoid fantasist believes his delusions); I think they try really hard to believe it. And I think that effort, and the mental habits it engenders, is what makes it unlikely that these people would be able to apply critical thinking to unrelated areas of their life—like, say, politics. It is much easier to use faith as a blanket strategy for dealing with life, the universe, and everything, than to cordon religion off into its own little “faith ghetto” against a larger world run by reason.
Following up on doctor memory’s comment: as an extreme example of left-wing tribulit I nominate John Brunner’s Children of the Thunder.
One pertinent sociological fact about many of the LB fans which should not go unremarked: many of them are stone batshit crazy.
Serious, yo.
national review online: Rod Dreher: Red-Heifer Days
… April 11, 2002
As it turned out, during the three years of waiting for the heifer to reach the ritually mandated age of sacrifice, white hairs popped out on the tip of her tail. This bovine was, alas, not divine. But now there’s a successor, and rabbis who have examined her have declared her ritually acceptable (though she will not be ready for sacrifice for three years). She arrives at a time when Israel is fighting a war for survival with the Palestinians, who are almost entirely Muslim, and a time in which Islam and the West appear to be girding for battle with each other, as Islamic tradition predicts will be the state of the world before the Final Judgment.
…
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, my in-laws, very nice people, gave me a copy of Left Behind as part of their ongoing conversion effort. It’s not really fantasy to these folks, more, ah, speculative fiction.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review