In terms of the limits of depicting sin in the arts, I don’t think you and I are very far apart. You are absolutely right, Waugh’s portrayal of sex in “Brideshead” is a model of discretion, as is Flannery O’Connor’s depiction of a child rape in “The Violent Bear It Away.” With you and the Greek tragedians, I am generally in favor of keeping gross evil offstage. Questions of morality aside, I think the artistic impact is usually, if not always, greater.
The use of foul or obscene language is a matter of discretion and can easily be overdone. This is the only point in which we disagree. No, I can’t imagine Chesterton using the f-bomb. But that doesn’t mean it can never be used effectively and appropriately. Currently I am reading David Mitchell’s novel, “The Bone Clocks,” and he has his 15 year-old scruffy female protagonist of Irish descent use “feckin” as a colorful adjective. This seems to me to reflect the character and not inappropriate. How different is the use of such a tool in a writer’s hand from your use of the f-word in a com box? I’m not trying to be snarky in asking this. I’m simply trying to point out that the use of foul or obscene language can sometimes be a means of communication–in fiction, a communication of character.
]]>The problem lies here. Right in between the two thoughts of “creating a work of art” and “changing the world for Christ”. If those two things are not one and the same in the mind of the writer, he is not a Catholic writer. He is just a writer who happens to be Catholic. It is all about priorities.
If the creating of the piece has value of itself it is because it is fulfilling the calling of the writer, his Vocation. Our Vocations are not fulfilled outside of the realm of the Body of Christ. If ones actions uplift the Body of Christ, than it is fufulling it’s calling; they are not exclusive of eachother. Believing they can be is humanistic.
You and I have tasselled with this before as I objected to the foul language in one of your books. I do not believe that a Catholic writer must exclude evil, sin, and the protraying of the world as it is in order to remain “Catholic”. But a writer should be able to convey without offending. If I write, “He swore.” That is one thing. If I write, “‘FUCK!!!’, he shouted.” That is another. Somehow I can not picture Chesterton chosing the second option. Can you?
My point is backed up by the article you suggested:
Barbara Nicolosi concludes, “will always need the seven deadly sins. Sin is the
essence of the human problem with which so much art is wrestling. The challenge is to represent sin in a way that isn’t an occasion of sin.”
Evelyn Waugh, in Brideshead Revisited, adequately portrays the fact that there was illicit sex happening. He never described it. There is a big difference there.
]]>