Discussing
Marilynne Robinson, The New Yorker and oblique evangelism

two things: thanks for bringing up this author . . have never read her and now i'm 1/3 way through *Gilead* and it's just beautiful . . reminds me of O'Connor or Anne Lamott . . very subdued, but just so knowing . . of course, i suppose that was the goal . .

i do have to take issue, however, with something that's been *constant* in writing pedagogy and discussion for as long as i've been involved: this belief that somehow writing for theme or message is bad . . as you put it: "art, and literature, is never a platform for a message" . . i don't fault you for thinking this in whatever sense you do--i've heard versions of this from nearly every writing person i can think of, all of whom, also, invariably think that good writing is *always* mainly about character--but i do think it's this take that leads to the whole "how can art be both evangelistic and true" question . .as if the two don't naturally fit together to begin with . .

with you, i'd agree that being too obvious with theme/message tends to preempt art . . just as losing some truth might be an effect of being to overtly evangelistic . . but aren't the gospels themselves, for example, artistic and literature and truthful and evangelistic? . . particularly John and Luke are very overt about having a stated message/theme--about being evangelistic--yet they're clearly still truthful, artistic . .

i'm sure i'm not saying anything you'd disagree with . . and i do think i know what you mean . . i've just always disliked making theme the sort of "red-headed stepchild" when it comes to valuing things in writing . . for the record, i don't think there's anything wrong with a writer sitting down, first thing, and having a message or theme in mind *first* and then having everything else--including good, truthful, artistic characters, etc.--flow organically from there . .

thanks for your post and for Robinson!