So, if Katherine Paterson is preaching a message I find offensive, then why was I weeping over the death of her character and weeping for the little boy who was left behind to mourn? Why didn’t I throw the book down in disgust? Why didn’t her preaching ruin the story for me?

I believe it’s because she laid the groundwork early. She chose the right characters to preach her message. The characters could not have believed differently than they did (barring God’s direct intervention).

Dave Long, at Faith in Fiction talks about “ensuring that whatever is learned by a character is earned through the novel.” Then he gives us six really great tips on how to preach without seeming to preach.

Leaving the tips for a minute and thinking further about Katherine Paterson’s work, I think the deal is that her characters were acting in character, so though I disagreed with them, I didn’t hate the author or the book.

The little one was bossy and snotty so she would say, “If you don’t believe the Bible, God will damn you to hell.”

The older girl was artsy and liberal so she would say, “I think the story about Jesus is a beautiful story, and God’s not going to send me to hell if I don’t believe it’s true.”

And the boy was deep and sensitive and in love with his friend and he would shirk the question and later feel bad, thinking she might be in hell.

The father was exactly the kind of inattentive father who maybe loved his family but never showed it, cared nothing about God, and would hush his son’s agony with the thoughtless declaration that God didn’t send little girls to hell.

Since all the characters acted according to their natures it didn’t ever feel like Paterson was preaching. It simply felt like these characters were being themselves and learning the only lessons they could learn, given their circumstances.

You Might Also Like