Art without Christ - part two



This weekend, I was again thinking about the subject of art without Christ. Besides facing mortal embarrassment in the Fat Face store (see my story below), on Saturday morning I popped into Hampstead Waterstones and spent a few minutes browsing there. I love bookshops and have done so since a child and could quite happily spend hours in one. The sheer aesthetic of such places always threatens to seduce through the endless possibilities on offer, the multitude of attractive covers that hit one upon entry, screaming ‘LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME'; the new titles wanting to overwhelm one's mind, placed strategically on tables near the front; the increasingly comfy sofas to plonk one's rear into and while time away - they are delightful places. And as Waterstones go, the Hampstead branch is one of the best, books chosen by the erudite for the erudite. The cultural elite. The sophisticates. Books that positively drip with profound meanings, busily occupying space and time. Such importance is without question. The ruling classes. Media folk as my dear old grandfather might say.

But on this occasion, I found my visit slightly distressing. ‘1001 books that you must read before you die' was the first title that hit me as I entered the store. From Adams to Zola, a book that will allow one to buy a literary knowledge suitable for most dinner-party conversations. But why? Who defined such a list? What genres are included and what defines the importance of the chosen tomes? Where is Bonhoeffer, Nouwen, Lewis, Stott et al to mention just a few? Who dictated that we need to read ‘Clockwork Orange', a particularly delightful read that is about as pure as Beelzebub bathing in a cesspit of fried cockroaches deep underground in a Calcutta sewer during the annual festival of impurity...

In itself, the book ‘1001 books that you must read before you die' is no bad thing because reading is a wonderful gift and if a book can help people increase their love of reading, then that's wonderful. A reference guide to increasing one's love of literature is excellent. No, what disturbed me was the subtle sub-plot behind the book. 1001 books you MUST read before you die. Or you will be the loser. You will be sad. Inadequate. Culturally missing out.

A few tables further on, I hazarded upon the personal recommendations of the staff. Various books that had stickers attached such as ‘must read', ‘essential reading', ‘a book you have to own'. But why? Who says? And what will such books do? How will they help us? They will certainly increase our conversation, give us further ammunition to impress our friends, increase our profile in certain circles. But will they really bring us any closer to truth? I am not against reading widely or devouring secular books per se, because they do contain absolute nuggets of truths and can pinpoint us to greater things. They can also be immensely enjoyable, fun, refreshing, all good things. But to me, it was further proof of the means becoming an end in itself, chosen by a cultural elite whose compass points anywhere but to Christ.

1001 books you MUST own. 100 places you MUST visit before you die. 250 films you MUST see before you hit 60. 50 things you MUST do before you are 30 (I had done 22 of them, most of which were done before I became a Christian!). It's not that these things are bad in itself. They are good. Books are good, travel is good, films are good. They are a means to an end and moreover, are given to us for our enjoyment and our pleasure (wasn't it CS Lewis who wrote that every pleasure in the world is God-given and all the enemy does is corrupt them?). No, it's that these things take on an importance that should not be invested in them and which is only propped up by the apparatus of a cultural elite who will do everything in its power to prevent people returning to the only important thing on this planet. Fill our minds with culture. Fill our minds with chatter. Fill our minds with desires, dreams, hopes, show people what we need to read, watch, do. Stop at all costs a return to Eden.

Meanwhile, upstairs in a small sub-section, next to the huge ‘New Age and Spirituality' section that seemed to be encroaching further and further into other genres, with such wisdom contained on crystals, fortune telling, astrology and other delights, I stumbled upon the Christianity section. I have seen larger looking sections on Martian table-tennis. But before I had time to look at the seven titles on offer (excluding the Bible), my phone rang and I realised that I was late for breakfast with my friend Mimes.

I was also thinking over the weekend about what heaven might be like, in response to my blog on Hell. Can we ever truly know? Will we ever know, before we actually get there? It's a tough question and yet I spent a lot of time over the past couple of days imagining what it might be like. Tomorrow evening (Tuesday), I will try and define it, as I see it, because I do think that we need to remember where we are heading, as Christ's children.
I wonder if the same would be said of a Bible with a "Must Read" sticker on it... I guess it would depend on whether the viewer was a Christian or not..

I think people should treat books and reading as a pleasure, not a chore - unfortunately this can often be stamped ferociously out of potential pleasure-readers upon entering university, when reading can become a tedious, never-ending drone of semi-grasped ideas.

I'm so glad I don't have to do that for my degree & I pity everyone else who does!
I agree that we should treat reading as a pleasure and most of my favourite books are, actually, non-Christian ones (novels largely), but it's just who decides what is worth reading and what isn't and why are certain books chosen? It's partly canonical but partly a thing of self-importance and for so many people, books are something to acquire and read just to say that they have read them. But where does that get one, by reading a certain book? Does it automatically help and does it give a greater understanding about life?
I suppose, as people, we like to know what other people like and enjoy. If they are similar minded people then perhaps we'll like the things they like, and vice versa. A books' worth is determined by how many people reccommend it perhaps, or how often it's title crops up in conversation. How appealing the cover looks, usually followed swiftly by how interesting the blurb is. Good? Yes. So if it's good enough (and possibly on special offer) get it! Completely not your thing? put it back and wander on...

I think the self-importance tag can come into it in situations like "Richard & Judy's top 100 best books to read" thing (or something like it - I didn't have a TV then either) or when you meet someone who attempts to express their entire knowledge capacity through book titles instead of actually discussing the theories or concepts they may have picked up out of said titles.

I stand on somewhat shaky ground though - I know I do that sometimes, but I like to explain what it's about too! I have books I never read, ever, and ones that are heading towards dog-eared. Perhaps it's about time I did a bookshelf edit - sweep or swap.
well, my favourite novel ever is A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry, which has been recommended on loads of shows including Oprah. It's not a bad thing per se; in fact, it's often a good thing and swapping books, recommending books, general literary chit-chat ('have you read so and so'?) can be so much fun and a good thing. I am just weary of this self-elected elite that seems to presuppose what is good writing and what is bad and decides why certain books are good and why certain books are not. Who determines, for example, that Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece?
Sure! I'll lend you "quite ugly one morning" on saturday. It's his first novel. I gotta warn you though, it's half written in colloquial scottish, but that's what really gives it humour and edge ;)

I did the whole "not going to read it cause everyone is raving" thing with the Harry Potter series - SO glad I got bored one day and picked it up!
I never really got into Harry Potter.
I started off not wanting to read it, partly because of the hype, and partly because I was (and am) a massive Lord of the Rings fan, and there was a certain amount of antagonism between the two titles at that stage...

I got challenged by a friend to read the first three books (otherwise how could I go on complaining about how the Lord of the Rings was a better series?) - and did...
And... well... I'm not hooked.
I'm not a fan... and I feel no real inclination to read book number 4.

JK Rowling's writing just doesn't grip me - but I guess its a question of preference.

I have the same impression that there is this slightly sinister agenda in the cultural world: fill up the sky with culture and clamour so we can no longer see the sun...

I think perhaps these "things you MUST do" and "books you MUST read" are expressions of people's desires to live full lives - to have guidance which they arnt getting from other (proper?) sources.

We're all terrified of dying unfulilled. Maybe we want a list we can check off, so that when we get to the end and die we can complain to life: "But I did everything they told me to do, and I'm still not satisified!"

I think it takes two to tango: There's a desire to make culture an end - not a means (for various reasons perhaps: as a comfort blanket, as a means to control or influence popular opinion, as a device to stoke one's own ego?)... and there's a desire to have this direction.

- James
James, the last three Harry Potters are the best three, actually. They sort of 'grow up' around number five. But they are not even in the same ballpark as LOTR. It's like comparing Michelangelo to a street cartoonist.

But generally, I imagine that it must be so scary when people consume culture like hungry vultures, devouring it in the belief that it will be the one thing that will satisfy them, and then the next day, they realise that they are still hungry. 'But the critics told me that this book would satisfy me and change my life????!!!!****' they scream.
it takes two to tango, but three to play limbo!

I'm a big fan of Both LOTR & HP. I like the comparison of Michelangelo to a street cartoonist though! Did you know that 90 of his works are being showcased in the British Museum?
i like bookshops & CD shops too.

but i experience the oddest of phenomenons almost without fail each time i decide to visit one.

i instantaneoulsy need the loo. no. 1 usually, but occasionally no. 2. it completely destroys* what should be a leisurely activity.

it's most unsettling, and i look forward to the day toilets become standard additions to highstreet shops...



 
*correction made [- previously wrote 'enjoys' for some reason]

ah, I love the third floor in the Oxford Street Borders because it contains the only loo anywhere for miles!

Trying to find a public loo in town is about as as easy as trying to find a contact lens dropped in the Atlantic Ocean during the worst storm to have hit it since 1573 while, simultaneously, being tortured in a dingy by three sadistic chimpanzee triplets named Colin, Clive and Christopher.