Vulgar.

I was looking over notes that I had compiled for my critical essay and decided to write a blog on it. I struggled with this essay because I couldn’t decide on much of what I was arguing. You might remember Oke’s books from when you had a Christian literature faze, and I would really like to hear what members of the class have to say. This is a bit rough, but hopefully it will make enough sense for the time being.
Breaking away from portraying a life that follows a religious code, the Christian novel attempts to reach those looking for a union between aestheticism and theology. Characterized by use of symbolism and more indirect ways of making Jesus’ lifestyle relative to contemporary times, author’s of symbolism fail to produce as elaborate novels as Herman Melville’s Billy Budd or Ernest Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea (Detweiler 11). Authors struggle with reconciling “the doctrinal Jesus he propagandizes and the symbolic Christ he tries to fashion…” (Detweiler 11). The novels of religious writers are vulgar due to the Christian fiction writer’s attention to content over form
Debates over the religious content of these novels tend to dominate discussions of Inspirational Christian Fiction. But these debates obscure the far more important issue of this genre’s lack of linguistic eloquence. Using Janette Oke’s prairie novel, They Called Her Mrs. Doc as an example, readers encounter a less eloquent side to literature.
Descriptions of characters throughout the novel contain lackluster descriptions of hair and womanhood. The diction is too candid as characters eventually resemble stereotypical, helpless women in need of masculine support. The main character, Cassie, is described as a young, strong prairie woman, looking to God for strength and guidance. The problem with Oke’s writing is it is devoid of form and attention to delivery. She writes in a religiously gaudy manner, projecting godly character onto the readership until the reader is burdened with the prayers and miracles surrounding Cassie in predictable prose and detail (Oke 132). The elite acknowledge that “the autonomy of production is to give primacy to that of which the artist is master, i.e., form, manner, style, rather than the ‘subject’, the external referent, which involves subordination to functions…” (Bordieu 1811). Oke fails to abide by this concept, exemplified in this specific critique of Inspirational Christian Fiction.
At this point you will probably object to my critique of Janette Oke as insufficient. While it may lack further supporting examples, I still maintain that her writing is vulgar and beneath the status quo of elaborate linguistic codes. Based on my own higher education and experience with art, I have been equipped with the right to express this critique of vulgar literature.
Within Inspirational Christian Fiction’s mission is the purpose of outreach. Authors in dedications attribute success to a higher being; “…working class people expect every image to explicitly perform a function, if only that of a sign, and their judgments make reference, often explicitly, to the norms of morality…whether rejecting or praising, their appreciation always has an ethical basis” (Bordieu 1812-1813). Bordieu would argue that vulgar literature is crucial to the health of a society; however, I would assert that the lack of elaborate linguistic codes for the purpose of reaching a “popular” or vulgar audience is devoid of aestheticism and should not be included into the literary canon. Furthermore, I support my statement and believe Hume’s accusation of superstition within religious writing as a reason to avoid the genre of Inspirational Christian Fiction (Hume 499). Content is the main focus of this genre and with no form, content is all that is left to critique. The content instills superstition; therefore, this genre of literature is vulgar material, remaining outside the literary canon.