You may have noticed the title of this blog. GOOD word editing.
It’s a sort of play on my last name (Goodyear). And it’s an excuse to include that funny quote from Chesterton about shooting your grandmother in the top right. And I hope it implies that I’m a good editor. At least, I’m trying to be one.
“What does it mean to be a good editor?” you ask.
I’m interested in helping writers produce a good word—in a literal sense. I want their words and sentences to be as powerful and effective as they can be. But I also mean it in a theological sense. All good words contain truth. All truth comes from God.
Here are some more thoughts about goodness from It Was Good:
“Following the creation of light, God said that ‘it was good.’ This is not just a pragmatic ‘good,’ because at that point in the sequence of creation there were no plants existing to conduct photosynthesis using the light, and no humans to work and play in the light. The light merely existed and it was good. In his book, At the Crossroads, Charlie Peacock-Ashworth states, ‘Creation is useful because it is good. It is not good just because it is useful.’†(13)
“Often good is not portrayed well in the artwork of believers… Usually ‘nice’ or ‘sweet’ are presented as synonyms of good. [But] a ‘nice’ or ‘sweet’ God would not destroy every living creature except those who could fit on one boat, in a cataclysmic flood… This makes creating artwork concerned with goodness extremely difficult.†(16)
“We look to God for insight because ‘goodness’ is one of His attributes. Unfortunately, because ‘good’ is a perfect attribute of an infinite Creator and we are only finite creatures, a complete grasp of good is beyond our reach. Though we can’t know goodness fully, we can know it truly if the Creator reveals it to us His creatures… We must read, memorize, meditate on, and receive through preaching God’s Holy Word… Other means of grace available to us for mining the depths of God are fellowship, prayer, and the sacraments… We need to practice ‘good’ to understand more about ‘good.’†(18-19)
“Edward Knippers insists, ‘Goodness needs to be attached to the real world because if you separate it from reality what you are left with is Disney World.’†(20)
“We are called to create and commission ‘new works of art that refuse to be timid, that speak the truth plainly and reveal the glory of our God in a way that gives our despairing age new hope.’†(26)
“We should not attempt to portray moral goodness as a concept or theme in our artwork merely as a pre-evangelistic tool. We need to think back to the creation of all that is and remember that God made light and called it good before it was useful and before it could be looked to by mankind as a picture of God’s invisible attributes thereby leading to salvation. No, the universe was brought into being as an act of goodness. It was ‘good,’ and it therefore gave glory to God.†(26)
There’s a lot to think about here. I’m especially interested in the paradox between the viewpoints of Charlie Peacock-Ashworth and Edward Knippers.
Creation is useful because it is good. But goodness by definition must be attached to the real world. To me, that suggests there is an element of practicality in everything good.
But it also raises some questions for artists and writers and editors. What makes a particular piece of work good? How can we use the tools of our craft to help make something as good as it can be?
{ 17 comments }
I agree that good isn’t necessarily related to “useful.” Yet, it is amazing how useful even the most minute aspect of creation is… useful for balancing the system, or providing enjoyment, or generously offering nourishment.
It would be interesting to look up the Hebrew word for “good” in that Genesis passage. (maybe I’ll do that later, now that I’m intrigued!)
I like reading your stuff, Mark.
We don’t necessarily have a conflict between Charlie Peacock-Ashworth and Edward Knippers. Creation was good because it came from God. Before creation, the real world was God Himself and nothing else. But since we, His created beings, are not the source of good, our good deeds are necessarily tied to usefulness. The thing I can’t understand, is why would mean old Mr. Chesterton want to shoot my grandma in the top right or anywhere else?
R.C. Sproul likes to say that, “it is the theologian’s prerogative to make distinctions.†So I’ll toss the word, “good†back to you for making distinctions. Good how? Sales, motivation, originality, reflecting the righteousness of God? Or is that what you’re trying to get us to do?
Great thoughts, Mark. I think God’s “goodness” is one of his attributes that I relate to and rely on the most. Yet, when I think of “good” books, movies, paintings, etc., I’ve never really thought about it being the same word or quality. In this way, then, many of the things I call “good” might not actually be.
God’s goodness seems to me tied up in redemption, making all things new. So perhaps I would now think of “good” art as something that helps clarify/reveal/relate the meaning and significance of the “real world.”
I am particularly intrigued by the last paragraph quoted. Too often art is only seen as redemptive if it is evangelistic. In fact, a lot of evangelistic art isn’t actually “good.”
I could go on . . . but I won’t. I might have to drop back by on this one though. LOTS to think about.
L.L., the word is towb. That’s about the limit of my word study so far, but that link will tell you what you want to know.
Craver, that’s a really nice thing to say. And what a smart distinction between our need for goodness to be useful as particular to humans! As for how to determine what is good… I don’t know. Isn’t that what we pay the critics for?
Seriously, though let me think about that some more. I’ll get back to you with a full post.
Charity, you are very generous when you say “a lot of evangelistic art isn’t actually good.” I’d say good evangelistic art is almost an oxymoron. Evangelistic art by definition sets itself up to be didactic. I think art is good at raising questions and creating tension. When we try to use it to provide answers, we come across preachy and didactice and pedantic and bombastic and all those fun tone words I use to teach in AP English.
Don’t get me wrong, I like preaching. I just want the preachers to do it. Artists are usually pretty bad preachers.
Oh, you sent me to my favorite place. I’m always over there looking up Hebrew words!
Anyway, I think it’s interesting that the word is often used to communicate a pleasant smell. This says to me that the “good” is not a utilitarian good, but rather an experience… the kind of thing that enters whether or not you want it to, and captures your senses, and fills you with awe and the desire for more…. without a word spoken.
Now, what would that look like in writing? It would be writing that simply captures you and holds you close… inescapable, intoxicating. And not able to be closed in, hemmed in, completely defined or boxed up.
Do you mind if I add you to my blogroll? I have been blogging for family for awhile, and I just started this blog so that I can practice more writing. I would like to refer to your blog from time to time if that’s OK.
By the way, I love the “good” quote in the top right corner. That’s just funny.
By the way, to answer your question, I think what makes a piece of work good is the way it makes me ponder and reflect the truth that is revealed in it, and the application of that truth to my life. When I write, I do try to include questions that require further thought, so that those who are seeking may look in His direction.
Writing that captures you. I like that. It’s a biblical mandate to write page-turners!
I also like the comments about smell. You know the old adage about “show, don’t tell.” But that limits our imagery to visual senses.
Quick English teacher lesson (I can’t resist): Imagery is any description that appeals to the senses. This definition isn’t a metaphor. The most powerful kinds of writing actually provoke a visceral response. Good descriptions of food make my mouth water. Good descriptions of col make me shiver. Literally.
But maybe I just take my books a little too seriously.
Stacy, you are more than welcome to link to me as much as you want! Links are the currency of the blogosphere. So shower me with wealth. : )
I like your definition of good, by the way. For me the sticky issue comes in when I write for a particular audience. For example, I’m working on what is essentially a horror short story right now. It raises many questions, but none of them directly. In fact, Flannery O’Connor is pretty much my model for good fiction.
I could argue (and have) that “A Good Man Is Hard To Find” is the best Christian short story ever written. But in the wrong context that story is completely inappropriate.
Marcus — Just a side note — I have a friend who is a Christian and also is making quite a name for himself as a horror writer. (Notice I didn’t say a Christian horror writer!) His name is Maurice Broaddus, and here’s a link to his website if you’re interested (and if I can make html work like I want it to): The Sinister Minister. He’s done a lot of thinking and writing about the horror writing and spirituality.
Thanks for the link Charity! I’m heading over there tonight. Mwu ha ha.
Wow. A heavy but GOOD topic!
There is so much to say here theologically, that it’s hard to know where to start (for me). I see GOOD as fitting, in thought and experience. Though to know what is REALLY fitting, and therefore GOOD, takes nothing less than revelation from God, for us to even begin to “get it”.
And of course, there is “general revelation”, in which God lets his goodness be known to all. As well as “special revelation”, in which God gives the good news of his goodness coming in his Son, to us humans. Showing his goodness to us (being willing to die- Romans 5) who were, in a sense, not good at all…. in the supreme act of love at the cross.
Ted, I’m glad you brought up the difference between the general revelation and the special revelation. I think a lot of Christians don’t even think about the difference and so forget about the power of God’s general revelation.
That’s the goodness that I strive for when I edit. If I’m working with specifically Christian work, I keep Christ’s special revelation in mind. But the vast majority of work we do is about being part of God’s general revelation–whether someone is acting as editor or a dad or doctor or lawyer or teacher or whatever.
Momentarily veering off from systematic theology, I wanted to add a reminder that Fernando said, “To look good is better than to feel good. And if I may say… Youuu lllook mmmarvelous!”
That is all.
Now, Craver, I’m sure there’s a theology of fashion out there somewhere (and in there, in what you said) You make me LAUGH!
Craver, thanks for getting us back on track. This blog is about editing not systematic theology! (Slapping himself) What was I thinking?
L.L., a theology of fashion sounds intriguing actually. Would it include a history of various garbs worn by Christians?
Ted, I’m just kidding about “getting back on track.” I loved your comments.
Come back later today for more practical posts here.
Comments on this entry are closed.