The tricky business of critiquing a work as personal as That Dragon, Cancer
You Gotta Have Faith
That Dragon, Cancer, the long-gestating autobiographical project of Numinous Games, finally launched this week. In his review, Nick Wanserski made mention of the game’s religious themes and the ways it discussed and depicted the family’s reliance on faith throughout their son’s battle with cancer. Nick noted that he was let down by the game’s comparative lack of nuance when it came to this topic, a sentiment that sparked a wonderful discussion about criticizing deeply personal works like this (even if it did spawn from a bit of a misreading of Nick’s intentions). Is it possible to critique the work without simultaneously critiquing the creator’s personal beliefs? Drinking_with_Skeletons was the first to broach the topic:
“They tell them it’s because the man grew so tired from fighting the dragon, God granted him rest. God will fight your cancer because God is good. God will let you die of cancer because God is good. It’s an unsatisfying conclusion to draw, offering very little illumination against the darkness.”
I agree that it’s a weak message and unsatisfying, but this is the family’s personal story, and it seems wrong to criticize them for trying to cope. They didn’t deny their child treatment or anything. They were just trying to help their children cope. I certainly don’t share their beliefs, but I’m not going to begrudge them their attempts to make sense of personal tragedy.
“The language used to articulate their faith rarely rises above the generic ‘behold the glory of God’ affirmation of a Christian rock song. It is too broad and too impersonal.”
This is a better argument, but I still think it might be criticizing them more than they deserve. This isn’t a director making a film about faith as it relates to the Crusades or a theological paper, it’s a family trying to tell their story. Given my experience with people of faith, it is entirely possible that their personal beliefs are rather broad and generic; certainly relatively few people I’ve ever encountered based their beliefs on sophisticated readings of the Bible.
And Venerable Monk added to the argument:
Being a former Catholic (all the way up through confirmation), I can certainly attest to the idea that relatively few people define their faith in concrete, specific, and rigorous terms. I think part of the reason is that kids who are raised in one religion or another are strongly encouraged to develop their beliefs long before they have the language and reasoning tools to define it. Depending on the community you belong to, you might even be discouraged to question matters of faith, if it even occurs to you that you could raise questions. As far as I know, I wasn’t really aware that there were other religions that might conflict with Catholicism until middle school. It’s the whole “there is only one REAL god” part of it that kids (like myself) will take for granted.
This is all to say that I think you’d have to face a pretty serious challenge to your faith in order to be prompted to really define it on a more individual level, or to mount a rigorous defense. Even going through the process of confirmation, which sounds like a series of tests to “make sure” you’re really Catholic, it’s tacitly assumed that everyone believes. Most of the exercises and discussion revolves around your understanding of the big stuff: the major prayers, the Nicene Creed, etc. It also felt like a kind of proving ground to see who might be interested in/equipped for entering the priesthood.
As did DJ JD: