Wow, I have not posted in a long time! Sorry about that. I have the usual excuse: life was crazy, and I was lazy.

A few months ago I spent about four bumpy hours in a van with a girl I had never met before. Fortunately she was good at making conversation, and she had read many of the same books I had read (which always helps when I'm trying to be friendly). As might be expected, we got on the subject of The Lord of the Rings. I was delighted to learn that she had read it too, since I don't often meet other people willing to plod all the way through that enormous three-volume book. However, she did say that she didn't like The Lord of the Rings as much as The Chronicles of Narnia because, among other things, The Lord of the Rings "had so much evil in it".

Now, the Tolkien fanatic in me wanted to have a long debate about the purpose of evil in stories right there in the van. But I restrained myself, and since then I've come to realize that the girl had a point. The Lord of the Rings does involve a lot of evil. Balrogs, Black Riders, orcs, giant spiders, Saruman, the Dark Lord - there are a lot of scary creatures in that book. The main characters are often put into terrible situations, and not every plot thread ends with "happily ever after". There's more violence in Tolkien's masterpiece than in the whole Narnia series put together. And that leads me to the question: How much is too much? How much evil should we tolerate in the stories we read and write?

Since it's impossible to write a story with no evil in it, I think the answer to that question depends partly on the target audience of the book you're reading or writing. If The Lord of the Rings were meant for children (which it's not), then there would definitely be something wrong with having an army of orcs catapult the severed heads of Gondor's soldiers over the walls of Minas Tirith. But since it was written for adults, I consider that an acceptable way to show what our heroes are up against. The villains in books targeted towards kids (such as The Chronicles of Narnia) are, rightly, more subtle.

But even in adult books, we have to draw the line somewhere. Most Christians don't want to read a book full of detailed descriptions of sin, violence, and death, without any redemptive themes. I certainly wouldn't want to write one! So where should the line be drawn?

I don't think there's a simple answer to that question. There are some things, of course, that don't need to be included in any story - descriptions of sex, for example, or unnecessarily gruesome violence. We need to keep in mind Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." But beyond that, I don't think there's a certain standard that everyone needs to follow. Everyone has different convictions, different temptations. Just don't read or write anything that would be harmful to your soul. Personally, I don't have a particular limit of how much language or violence I'll tolerate in a book. For me it's more a question of whether the book is glorifying evil or merely portraying evil. I  won't read a book that is trying to make me admire the person who's sinning. But if the sin is shown to be wrong, if good is exalted over evil, then I don't care as much about the number of swear words or the intensity of the battle scenes.

As I've said before, I believe that our stories are meant to reflect the true Story - the one God has been writing since the beginning of time. In order to do that, I think we need to be honest about the reality of evil. Let's face it - God's story is not "nice". The Bible contains a story about a Man who was stripped naked and nailed to an upright piece of wood to die slowly while crowds looked on and mocked Him - to name only one of its disturbing episodes. Why would God put something so gruesome and uncomfortable in His story? Well, obviously it was the only way to save us from His wrath. But I think He also did it in order to display more of His glory. God is the Hero of this story, after all. And, as I said a couple of posts ago, the best heroes are the ones who sacrifice the most. I think that, in the crucifixion, God was displaying evil in all its hideousness - and He was also displaying His love and power in all its beauty and majesty. And he was setting the stage for the happiest ending ever written. Honestly, would Easter be as joyful if Good Friday had not preceded it?

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense or not. But my point is something one of my favourite preachers has said: A diamond shines brightest against a black background. God chose a very black background so that the diamond of His glory would shine all the brighter. And I think we can do the same. By portraying evil honestly in our stories, by sending our heroes into danger and darkness, we can make them look all the more admirable and worthy of imitation - and hopefully we can give our readers a glimpse of the hope found in the gospel.

So, in answer to my car-trip friend's objection, I say: Yes, The Lord of the Rings does have lots of evil in it. That's why I love it. If Gandalf didn't have to fight the Balrog, he wouldn't be the heroic, Christ-like figure he is. If Frodo and Sam didn't have to go through Mordor, I wouldn't shed tears of joy when they woke up in Ithilien. In this way, The Lord of the Rings imitates the ultimate Story. So it is with all great stories - and so may it be with ours.