I've long been of the opinion that if sanity is ever restored to the relationship between politics and religion in America, it will owe a lot to people like Fred Clark. He writes passionately and persuasively about the many problems caused by the "Religious Right" from a Christian perspective, in religious language. His Left Behind posts in particular are a treasure-- he explains why LaHaye and Jenkins's books are a disaster not only because they're aesthetically bad, but because they're theologically bad, relying on a gross misinterpretation of Christianity.
Of course, well-informed, thoughtful essays on what Christianity really means aren't half as fun as hellfire and damnation, so he doesn't get half the attention he deserves. I try to provide what little help I can by linking his best stuff, but he really ought to be nationally prominent, and I can't swing that.
Anyway, his latest Left Behind essay casts a somewhat wider net than usual, taking on critics who slide into blaming consumers for liking bad art:
This is a stumbling point for many critics of pop culture -- whether of the movies, or television, Top 40 radio or mass market fiction. All of these seem like easy targets, but it's trickier than it looks because there are too many innocent people in the way to get off a clean shot. The critic who sets out to say that TV is stupid and crass winds up arguing that TV viewers are stupid and crass. The critic who opens his mouth to call romance novels silly and unworthy closes his mouth having called all the women who read them silly and unworthy.
And that's not cool. First of all, it's not a very winsome approach to persuading others to accept whatever point it is you're trying to make. "You're an idiot," is rarely a useful starting point if you're trying to get the other person to listen to the rest of what you have to say. The result of this approach, as in the cartoon, is a sneering elitism.
Let me be clear about that word, "elitism." There's nothing wrong with having high standards for popular art and popular entertainment, standards that help you (and others) to separate the good stuff from the inferior. But when those standards are turned against the audience, when they're used to separate the good people from the supposedly inferior, that's when the critic loses my respect and attention. That's when the critic loses everybody's attention. This is what makes such critics truly elitist -- the tiny circle of people still listening to them is, indeed, an exclusive elite
Such critics also, perversely, end up siding with those they initially set out to criticize because they reinforce the dreck-merchants' standard fall-back defense, "We're just giving the audience what they want."
The main problem here, though, is that such critics are blaming the victim. That's just wrong. Someone who has been tricked into paying good money for a Clay Aiken CD has suffered enough. There's no need to add insult to injury.
From there, he turns to an overbroad condemnation of the Left Behind books and their popularity, but it's a much more broadly applicable point, and is excellent advice for dealing with any number of subjects outside the realm of dreadful religious fiction.
Of course, he quotes scripture in support of his call for more careful criticism, so it will be ignored by many of the people most in need of this advice, but if you can read moderate Christian writing without flying off the handle, it's well worth a look. As are his thoughts on "Christian bookstores" and Capraesque financial planning, and... Well, the whole damn blog.
- Log in to post comments
I'm not so sure his essay is entirely on the mark. Which is to say, I'm pretty sure I'm okay with being angry at the fifteen year old reader (which he cites) who revel in the descriptions of the suffering unbelievers, because when you get right down to it, that kid's toughest decision of the day would be figuring out if it's worse for me to have been a practicing Papist in the past, or to be a complete Apostate today.
Fifteen years old is old enough to have some sense of the contradiction between "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself," and the wanton slaughter of everyone who believes differently.
You were making so much sense until you drug Clay Aiken into it. What's Clay ever done to you?
Not a Claymate but a citizen of the Clay Nation.
An elitist! A pedantic! A blowhard! Who can tell the difference when the author blows his own credibility by injecting Clay's name ,negatively,into an article that is pure fluff. This is the most common fault of all writers (and, I use that term loosely) today....it's the 'let's throw a brick at Clay and see how our readership increases' syndrom.
At least, Clay delivers the goods on his new CD...he sounds much better than all the original singers. The CD is about love...something it's very obvious this world needs more of.
If the topic of this article was supposed to be about religion....which is 'God' and 'love' focussed...it missed the mark because all it demonstrated was inane Hollywood-style bashing.
I understand from a tactical perspective why it doesn't make a lot of sense to criticize the audience of terrible entertainment. I even think I get it from the "be nice" perspective he's playing. I'm just not sure that it's possible to do what he's asking. If I criticize Clay Aiken as vile, oversung dreck, am I not inherently criticizing the wretched taste of his fans?
By the way, I find the pro-Clay trolling you're getting for this one to be hilarious in the extreme.
Please answer me ONE question why do you hate Clay Aiken so much ? he is maligned by all writers on the internet, there was no need to mention him in your current article but you just couldn't resist it. So has he committed some offence against you, or are you one nasty little person, or again are you craving attention and this is your only way to get any responce, please tell us the reason as many of us are in the dark.
I would humbly suggest taking up any complaints on Aiken-hating with Fred Clark, whom Chad is merely quoting.
I would humbly suggest taking up any complaints on Aiken-hating with Fred Clark, whom Chad is merely quoting.
Indeed.
In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard Clay Aiken. I know of him, but I don't watch American Idol, and I don't listen to the sort of radio that plays that stuff.
What I know about the show doesn't suggest to me that I'd like his music, but I really couldn't say.
Thanks Chad at least you answered my question. but again if you do not listen to him, then why a remark that really has nothing to do with the subject? No I am not an avid claymate but I am someone who is old enough to see the world is becoming full of hate and thats very sad, and I am rather appalled at what this guy has to tolerate constantlyand how all his words get twisted.
WHOOO! CLAY! WE LOVE U 4EVER!!!!
Who the hell is Clay Aiken?
We are senior citizens, and have taken our grandchildren to Clay Aiken concerts. If I were 15 again, I would be a HUGE Claymate!! His voice is unmatched, and he has a warm confidence about him, resulting in the audience being in the palm of his hand at all times.
Why he is the target of the media bashing baffles me. There are SO many unsavory characters out there pretending to sing, and this highly talented singer is picked on continuously with lies and venom.
I think you just needed some hits for your strange article, and KNEW Clay Aiken's name would provide you with many. Pathetic
Should I just forward these to Fred Clark, do you think?
Let me join those protesting the bashing of Clay Aiken. It has gone on too long, and is SO undeserved. He sings his heart out, and is easily the best live singer I have ever heard - and I have heard many in my 66 years. Hubby, kids and grandchildren agree. He's just phenominal, and people are using his name to get hits! A pox on all of you.
Damn Chad...who knew there were so many idiots in the world with nothing better to do that grep the web for Clay Aiken.
This is to all you morons who can't fucking read for comprehension:
Chad is QUOTING AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE!
What the fuck is wrong with people?
I'm getting flashbacks to Usenet. Do these people understand that you're quoting an article written by someone else?
Sheesh.