Advertisement
Defining Edgy (Again) PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kimberly Culbertson   
Monday, 14 April 2008

In a recent conversation, a reader explained to me that Christian writing should not have any graphic sin, because the images might stay in someone’s mind and that person may become disturbed.  And with this theory rolling around in my mind I sat down to read my morning Bible passage. (I am working my way through a yearly reading plan—though I was skeptical of at first, I now see many benefits.)  One of the passages was assigned was Judges chapters 19 – 21.  If you’ve got a minute, click on over and read it yourself.  Needless to say, I did spend my day feeling disturbed, but I can only conclude that there are times when God asks us, even needs us to feel disturbed and disgusted.

Your thoughts? Make sure to read the passage before commenting!

Comments
Add New Search RSS
Anthony James Velez     |2008-04-15 19:56:52
I do not doubt that God wants us to be disturbed as opposed to acclimated to
the fallen conditions of our worldI do not doubt that God often disturbs us to
prevent us from becoming too acclimated to our fallen world. When I read through
the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, I find stories, images, and ideas
that are disturbing, things that I am tempted to explain away or gloss over. I
don’t, however, because I sense I am supposed to be disturbed, that
being
disturbed can become my opportunity to wrestle with an angel and thereby
establish
a deeper more genuine faith.

As far the question regarding how
graphic should writers let their writing be in order to
disturb an audience, I
don’t think there are clear, inviolable aesthetic nor moral laws
that can be
drawn. It did strike me, however, that even in the passages in Judges were
not
particularly graphic. Sure, it did not hold punches in dealing with dark
subject
matter, and it did directly state what actions the various characters
committed. And yet,
when it came to actually providing details to describe
these actions, the writing was a
bit muted. For example, the passage when the
Levite divided his dead concubine into
twelve pieces merely stated that he
committed this action. It did not provide a more
graphic narrative such as “The
Levite having placed the dead, rigid body of his concubine
on the floor of his
house, took his knife and pressed it against her graying flesh. He
hesitated
and then pushed, and though there was initial resistance the sharpened
knife
easily cut into her, dividing sinews, muscle and various organs. Years of
serving in the
temple, assisting the priests in preparing animal sacrifices had
prepared him for the
copious amounts of blood that flowed from her onto the
stone floor. He also new how to
sever bodies so as to avoid the grueling
endeavor of hacking through bone.” This is
certainly more graphic than the
original passage, and probably more disturbing, but is it too disturbing? What
if I was to take this level of graphic detail and describe how the
twisted men
of Gibeah ravished the concubine? Would this narrative thereby take a
turn
toward pornography? Would it go beyond disturbing people out of moral
complacency and
actually have the opposite effect of stirring up lust?

I
think your question is a good question, but its virtue is not necessarily in
the
answers we might provide (as good as that may be). Rather it is a question
that calls
writers, again and again, to be conscientious about their craft and
consider if the
effects of their writing will actually match their purpose.
jeff carter  - bordering on pornography   |2008-04-23 18:58:13
some of Ezekiel borders on (even crosses the border) pornography - particularly
chapters 16 and 23 - nipple fondling - donkey ejaculations and shameful whorings
abound

and this is scripture.

jewish rabbis insisted that anyone under
the age of 30 should not be allowed to read these passages.
Brad Fruhauff   |2008-04-15 23:13:31
We seem to have this conversation all the time with people, and maybe we just
have to live with that for a while. I just wanted to acknowledge Anthony's
comment for thoughtfully engaging Kim's question. I would point out that the
issue of graphicness in ancient texts, as in contemporary ones, has much to do
with the rhetorical context, i.e. the author's purpose, message and audience.
Hence Anthony's closing thought, that writer's should "be conscientious
about their craft and consider if the effects of their writing will actually
match their purpose" strikes me as pretty right on. As readers, too, we
ought to judge the work on what it does and the kind of audience it appeals to.
We then have to decide whether we want to be a part of that audience or not.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
:angry::0:confused::cheer:B):evil::silly::dry::lol::kiss::D:pinch:
:(:shock::X:side::):P:unsure::woohoo::huh::whistle:;):s
:!::?::idea::arrow:

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."





Reddit!Google!Live!Facebook!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Blogmarks!Yahoo!Squidoo!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
 
< Prev   Next >