The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
I've always thought of comic books and modern fantasy (which, I believe, dates back to 1858 with the publishing of George Macdonald's "Phantases"), as the first modern myths. A Christian should feel no shame with using myths, the Bible itself contains many allegorical passages, and tall tales have been told of the saints; the most famous example I can think of St. Francis of Assisi, who was supposedly able to talk to animals. We know that the case of his stigmata and other supernatural gifts of grace have been held by the Church to be non-fictional (which I agree with), but Christians have been building legends among famous people for centuries. I believe mythmaking to be universal among humanity, and that myths are eternal. Even in this Post-Enlightenment age, we all love myths.
One specific remark and one general:
Lewis' reworking of Cupid and Psyche is pretty ordinary until the end--the friend who gave it to me said, "I didn't understand it but it took my head off." I don't know if there's a standard interpretation of the ending, but to me it was only comprehensible from within the Carmelite contemplative tradition. I think that makes it far more than a retelling of a pagan myth, perhaps more a paganizing of "The Ascent of Mount Carmel". And your ending made me think of the descent of the pagan gods/planets in "That Hideous Strength" where they're angels in the Thomistic sense.
More generally, I think what we lose by trying to avoid pagan myth are the Western archetypes, and we need'em.
And your ending made me think of the descent of the pagan gods/planets in "That Hideous Strength" where they're angels in the Thomistic sense.
I probably had that partly in mind. I thought of referring to that specifically but didn't get around to it. That's another one of my quarrels with Michael O'Brien, who complains that Lewis is too pagan when he introduces all those Greco-Roman gods.
For those folks who don't know, I'm the "concerned reader" who wrote in.I wrote to our host because I'm experimenting with a story that combines the superhero genre with urban fantasy and elements of Celtic mythology. I had some concerns because at times it seemed my story had morphed into some kind of advertisement for neo-paganism or an episode of "Charmed" or something.
Deej, thanks for an excellent essay!Your feedback helps me put things in proper perspective. You mention "the Arthurian legends, a complex stew of Christian and pagan-derived elements." Very true! To that same category of mythological stew we might also add Spenser's Faerie Queene which combines elements of classical myth, popular legends of the saints, Arthurian and Italian epic romance, and Spenser's own allegorical characters. Years ago, I actually did my master's thesis on the Faerie Queene, and I feel like a dunce because it took me so long to remember it. I think somewhere in your conversion story you make the statement that very often Protestants are mythophobic; I suppose a little bit of that mythophobia slipped into my personality without my being aware of it. I did my undergraduate work at a Presbyterian school, and the Presbyterian chaplain, who became a friend of mine, used to say that I'd make a great Calvinist 
. Maybe I'm a closet Jansenist? I suppose that scrupulosity is the price I pay for being descended from Scottish Presbyterians and Irish Catholics and growing up in the South where Catholics are scarce.
Thomas, I think you are quite right in suggesting that comic books are vehicles for modern myths. I read Michael Chabon's novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay several years ago and it revolutionized the way I think about comics.
Comic book superheroes are projections or embodiments of what we wish we could be--brave, attractive, handsome, powerful, good. Their nerdy alter-egos are what we fear we are--thoroughly average, or maybe a little bit below--lonely, maladjusted, dull, unattractive, unappreciated. We sense the gap between who we are and who we want to be and wonder how we can bridge it. In the comics it’s easy--Clark Kent has only to duck into the closet and change into his Superman tights, while Billy Batson has only to say “Shazam!” to become Captain Marvel. In real life it takes divine grace and hard work to be heroic. That’s why there are so few saints and so many average slobs like me. Who wouldn’t want to be a superhero?
Comic book villains, on the other hand, are what we fear becoming--someone armed with abilities and powers and desiring more, but not tempered by any kind of restraint, especially not by goodness, kindness, compassion, or anything else resembling love. Notice how often comic book villains are vampires or cyborgs or human-animal hybrids. In their quest to become more than human, they become something less than human.
Great essay.
Though, what strikes me as the potential problem with Christians using mythology in their writing is not so much the plethora of gods & goddesses as the underlying metaphysics that these pantheons might imply. For instance, suppose I created a fantasy world with a dualist mythology. I don't think it would be problematic to give my imaginary world two gods, but I *do* think there could be a problem with the underlying rejectiong of matter as evil and the body as a prison--something that cannot really be reconciled with Christianity.
D.G.--Maybe this is a topic for another essay--but what do you think of the lives of the saints as home-grown mythology?
The reason I wonder about this is because I love classical mythology & strongly think preserving Western archetypes is necessary to form Westerners, but they are overwhelmingly male. And while I think not everything is gender-specific, some things are. If you'd like to avoid the Jungian baggage of calling them archetypes, let's say role models or exemplars. I've certainly seen non-Western mythologies offered to supply women exemplars (often with a dose of New Age or anti-"patriarchy" ideology)& I usually think we could do a lot better with thelives of the saints. You want to kick over that anthill?
Niall,
Thanks for the feedback; "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" is also one of my favorite novels. I had tears in my eyes during the scene where Joe and Sammy were walking down the street and trying to come up with a cool superhero name.
Also, if you or anyone else wants to read an awesome comic book fanfic (after you've finished reading our blogmaster's fic, of course 
) check out "The Twilight War" http://marvelite.prohosting.com/...twar/
index.html which stars Thanos the Mad Titan, quite possibly the most dangerous villain in all comicdom.
Xena, that's a brilliant idea. The lives of the saints can supply some truly awesome epic stories.
I can come up with great ideas.
The life of Catherine Jarrige, "Catinon Menette", hiding priests from the French Revolution, and making sure that everyone who needed their services got them.
St. Frances of Rome scouring the countryside to find dying victims of famine to rescue them, and miraculously refilling the larders so that no one should go hungry.
Mother Cabrini, building orphanages out of nothing.
St. Louise of Marillac and her organizational genius making St. Vincent of Paul's dream a reality (Chesterton said that the story of Sts. Francis and Clare would make a good romance, except that there was no sex in it - the same could be said of the relationship between St. Vincent and Ste. Louise, beginning with their oriigna dislike...)
St. Bathildis, Queen of France and crusader against slavery.
Ste. Genevieve organizing a food shipment that saved Paris from starvation during a siege.
St. Joan of Arc, so admired by Chesterton.
Blessed Margaret of Castello, a blind, deformed dwarf, who became the conduit of the love of God.
St. Catherine of Sienna, a force for the renovation of a sadly fallen Church.
There are epics there, if only people would bother to make them.
I'm reminded of King Alfred's rebuke to the pagans in G. K. Chesterton's The Ballad of the White Horse, his diagnosis of why the pagans, whatever their victories, will eventually fall and the Christians succeed:
"Nor monkish order only
Slides down, as field to fen,
All things achieved and chosen pass,
As the White Horse fades in the grass,
No work of Christian men.
"Ere the sad gods that made your gods
Saw their sad sunrise pass,
The White Horse of the White Horse Vale,
That you have left to darken and fail,
Was cut out of the grass.
"Therefore your end is on you,
Is on you and your kings,
Not for a fire in Ely fen,
Not that your gods are nine or ten,
But because it is only Christian men
Guard even heathen things."
Adriana, you hit a nerve with Mother Cabrini--I looked into researching a biography for her a few yrs. ago. To write a good pop bio., a scholarly one should come first and it has not been done. Almost all the institutions she opened have closed, but she wrote an enormous number of letters of practical & spiritual direction to the women building/running these hospitals, orphanges, etc. (She had terrible seasickness & every time she crossed the Atlantic by steamer, she'd stay in her cabin, writing the whole time.)Imagine the good stuff there about the spiritual life, leadership, and service! Her writing has not been edited, much less translated into English, and is spread out over several locations. For her canonization, the Vatican office would have examined everything she wrote, but neither her Order nor any academic center has done anything to make her legacy accessible. It really pisses me off.
Spenser's Faerie Queene...
I thought of throwing Spenser in there, but he got left out somehow. If you're reading my fan fic, though, I quote him in the next chapter, and I think I misspelled his name (*blush*).
As for lives of saints as homegrown mythology (I admit I'm not sure how to distinguish that which is homegrown from that which is not, just as I'm not sure about the distinctions between folkore, legend, and myth, but nobody else is sure either, so that's okay), I'm all for it. Some of the outlandish hagiographies feature dragons and other fun elements.
And as for women saints, well, we've got plenty of 'em, and good ones, too. I'm all in favor of emphasizing them. I recently used St. Philomena in a fantasy short story, which I may be able to tell you more about later.
Chesterton said that the story of Sts. Francis and Clare would make a good romance, except that there was no sex in it.
Sounds like my kind of romance, but I'm weird that way.
Wonderful essay Deej--thanks for sharing...
Maybe you experienced this as a former Protestant like myself..even though I grew up in a rather lax household...however my grandmother highly discouraged my brother and I from playing "make-believe", and not reading comic books, mythology, watching cartoons on TV, and other "not-real" stuff...said that it was "all stuff of the Devil." She didn't even like us reading Dr Seuss books since the characters "weren't real". It was especially apparent in our formative years when my Grandma lived with use for three years--for me between 7-10 years of age. I'm not really sure where she got that idea, but my folks seemed to go along with it. Maybe folks out there more familiar with old-school Protestantism will have a source. I can understand other folks who might have been raised in a similiar environment would be very hesitant to explore any kind of fantasy or mythology, especially in their own works.
Eek. Well, Sara, I've encountered views related to what you describe, but this is an extreme I've never heard of. I think forbidding children to play pretend is downright unhealthy. Exercising their imaginations, making up rules for their own games and all that is an important part of how children develop.
As a general rule, I don't talk about my family on the blog, but I would say my family's view on the whole matter is a reasonably good one, and reasonably moderate. A lot of extreme viewpoints get an airing among Evangelicals, though, partly because a lot of extremists have written alarmist books on the subject in which they fail to make clear distinctions between such separate things as Satanism, Wicca, and parlor games. I have certainly encountered some of this.
If I were raised in an environment in which all make-believe was banned, I probably would actually be pagan, and I think that is what we drive children toward when we place arbitrary rules on their imaginations. They are going to get their make-believe somewhere, and if they think they can't get it as Christians, they'll go somewhere else to get it.
I am acquainted with a Christian girl and her pagan brother who are an example of this. He became pagan largely because his Christian parents forbade him fantasy lit, and she remained Christian largely because she discovered the writings of C. S. Lewis.
There is another issue here, that what may be objectionable is not the pagan myth or mythical character per se, as some of the worldview that sneaks in.
A good illustration would be with Tolkien. Tolkien borrowed the idea of a pantheon and elves, and earth spirits, and all that, but there was also an element that he may not have been aware of.
It is the idea that ugly and deformed equals evil. The theory is that evil twists the bodies as it twists the souls. But that leads to a very unchristian attitude towards the crippled and mutilated.
Think of Blessed Margaret of Castello. In Tolkien's world, what role could a blind, twisted dwarf play? A minion of the evil one? A damned soul that lost her beauty by worshipping evil?
This is a very pagan attitude, not a christian one, and Tolkien slipped there.
That's why I maintain that Jacqueline Carey's "The Sundering" is a more Chrsitian work than Tolkien's (if you want to, I can mail you my analysis of it). Yes, she rebuked Tolkien in that book, but she rebuked him when he clung to non-Christian attitudes.
Thanks for bringing that up, Adriana. That reminds me of another post I wanted to write. Maybe I'll post it sooner rather than later.
Adriana, in reference to your post on the lives of the saints providing raw materials for mythic or fantastic adventure:
The ancient Anglo-Saxons (and maybe many other medieval cultures too) created just this sort of Christian adventure story. I recall reading a piece of prose called "Andreas" where Andrew and several other saints go to a pagan city and do all kinds of incredible things just by praying: open doors, strike people blind, cure blindness, or escape from impossible situations. It reads like a medieval comic book with Andrew and the saints as superheroes. Want more examples?
*How about the voyages of St. Brendan?
*Or St. Lawrence, accused by pagan Roman authorities of hoarding treasure in his church? He gathered together a crowd of sick, disabled, elderly, and orphans being cared for by the church and told the authorities, "These are the treasures of Rome." (With our culture's mad rush to genetic engineering, sex-selection abortions and euthanasia, I can easily imagine this scene re-played in some dystopian sf novel.
Thomas, if you like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, you might enjoy my story City in Chains. It's an original adventure of The Escapist I wrote. Just click on the link, or if that doesn't work, e-mail me, and I'll be happy to point you to it.
I think in my grandmother's thoughts--and I can't recall exactly which church she was involved with at the time..she dabbled in quite a bit--was anything that wasn't church-related or Christian-related was somehow wrong or evil..almost like what Adriana mentioned earlier (ugly and deformed equals evil).. My brother and I definitely had our share of books, but they were Bible stories written for kids. Along the same lines we couldn't listen to rock or country music..just the good ol church hymns, and Frank Sinatra and this one show on TV that played the oldie foogie music..... again nothing WRONG with that, but does put limits on you, as Deej points out. But again too--I was younger and delved into more stuff after Grandma left (I was just over 10 years old)..
I DO recall baby-sitting one time for a Pentecostal couple one time while I was in the military..their home was set up the same way...all the children's books were Bible-based. I remember reading them their bed-time story about Jesus walking on the water..that is one of my favorite stories too...
Adriana wrote:
Tolkien borrowed the idea of a pantheon and elves, and earth spirits, and all that, but there was also an element that he may not have been aware of.
It is the idea that ugly and deformed equals evil. The theory is that evil twists the bodies as it twists the souls. But that leads to a very unchristian attitude towards the crippled and mutilated.
Think of Blessed Margaret of Castello. In Tolkien's world, what role could a blind, twisted dwarf play? A minion of the evil one? A damned soul that lost her beauty by worshipping evil?
Wait a sec, Adriana. Them's fightin' words! You're forgetting that in The Lord of the Rings the heroes of the story are hobbits, "a little people, smaller than dwarves" (I believe that's a direct quote from Tolkien's intro to LOTR) with hairy feet.One of the truest and bravest members of The Fellowship is Gimli the Dwarf. Frodo loses his ring finger to Gollum while fighting for The Ring. Frodo is so physically, emotionally, and spiritually wounded by the quest he has to go into the West with the Elves for his final healing.I think that one of the major themes of LOTR is that small, ordinary people (literally and figuratively) can do great things when relying on natural and theological virtues.
With regards to the issue of adopting pagan myth and mythology and baptizing it, so to speak, for our own uses, I must say we truly are Roman Catholics, aren't we?
Niall:
We are not talking about the species of dwarves nor hobbits who have their standards of beauty (a horse does not have the same standards of beauty than an elephant), but a human deformed dwarf. Deformed according the original form. Thus Gollum becomes a deformed hobbit while Frodo and Sam have their original form.
And Tolkien buys too much into the belief that beautiful equals good and ugly equals evil - a belief that leads to eugenics.
That's why I ask people to read The Sundering, and to understand that the forces of Light are the bad guys (their wise counselor is called **Malthus** for God's sake, and they fight to keep humans from having babies...).
The forces of Light are not always good. Remember the Enlightment, for one. And remember that the Chruch has been accused of obscurantism, of bringing Darkness into the minds of men.
Sorry to interject on the ensuing LOTR debate, but I wanted to point out something. In my World Lit class 2 years ago, we studied Ovid's "Metamorphoses". My prof claimed that this anthology of "Romanized" Greek myths about magical transformations was the second most popular book in the Medeival Ages next to the Bible, so we're not exactly setting a precedent here about Christians admiring pagan mythology, but that's obviously been well established by now. I think C.S. Lewis cites Ovid's epic poem in the "Four Loves" frequently. This is because the "Metamorphoses" (like the "Four Loves"), look at different forms of love from an ethical point of view. I think it's safe to say that the "Metamorphoses" was one of the works that inspired Lewis to write the "Four Loves".
And Tolkien buys too much into the belief that beautiful equals good and ugly equals evil - a belief that leads to eugenics.
You buy too much into the idea that the "beautiful = good, ugly = evil" custom in fiction leads to eugenics in real life.
All in all, taking this and certain others of your posts into account, I must say you remind me very much of a very earnest lady I once encountered who insisted that such "militaristic" things as toy knights and pirates would unfailingly turn children into vicious psychopaths.
While I do not believe that giving children toy soldiers or pirates will turn them into vicious psychopaths, I wonder about the glorification of pirates, which after all engaged in robbery and murder.
If you are going to teach children about pirates, pray tell them what it was that they did for a living. They did not go around looking for treasure, but amassed treasure by looting and murdering the rightful owners.
There is something to ponder there.
As for the trope that ugly=evil, well it helps us to desensitize towards the humanity of those who are afflicted, and when we are desensitized enough we think that "It is for the best" that they should not be born, or that they should be put painlessly to death.
While I do not believe that giving children toy soldiers or pirates will turn them into vicious psychopaths, I wonder about the glorification of pirates, which after all engaged in robbery and murder.
I don't, truth be told. Numerous generations of English and American boys grew up playing at being Apache Indians, but this did not, so far as I'm aware, result in their scalping their neighbours as adults in most cases, or burning them at the stake, stealing horses, burning barns or any other socially questionable activity that they may have pretended to engage in as children.
As for the trope that ugly=evil, well it helps us to desensitize towards the humanity of those who are afflicted, and when we are desensitized enough we think that "It is for the best" that they should not be born, or that they should be put painlessly to death.
Hardly. Adults ought to be morally developed enough to understand the seperation between physical perfection and moral perfection in real life, and children do not need to be confused by praise of ugliness in their storytelling
Some scattered thoughts:
1. DGD--Have you read this somewhat related post yet? Or this one? Or for that matter this one?.
2. It's interesting how the debate over Tolkien using ugliness to express evil hooks up with the question about comic books that started this whole thing off. Comics have a long tradition of monster-heroes, starting with The Thing from the Fantastic Four. Of course, all of them are male. We don't see a lot of female heroes who are ugly or monstrous in SFF. This is because female readers can be attracted to monsters (thus the large, somewhat creepy Phantom of the Opera fandom, although the Phantom has become more handsome in adaptations over time) and male readers are not, because men are more visual, I guess. So the Hulk is an ape-like monster but the She-Hulk is a green-skinned babe. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the protagonist of Cecelia Dart-Thornton's The Bitterbynde series, and she gets turned beautiful in the end.
3. As far as legends involving female saints go, there's the legend of St. Martha and the Tarasque.
4. I've read that Twilight War story Thomas mentions and didn't think it was very good. It was too much of of a retread of the Infinity Gauntlet and made Thanos into a terrible Mary-Sue. Just like, um, pretty much every canonical story that ever featured him before Annihilation. I still think Thanos is cool, though. But my favorite story featuring him will always be this one. (And don't forget too look at the aftermath.
KR,
I was surprised at your reaction to the story a little bit. Sure, the Infinity Equation does seem a little unoriginal, but its connection to the Infinity Gems made sense to me. I saw this story as basically a journey of self-discovery for Thanos; he has fixed his own character flaws during the story, which caused him to lose the Cosmic Cube and Infinity Gauntlet in the comic book canon. Also, you have to consider that Twilight War is the first of a trilogy; might want to take as much time as you need to read the entire story before passing judgement.
By the way, just followed your links...all I can say is that 40 hours of community service is going *far* too easy on Thanos; we're talking about the guy who killed half of all living beings in the universe. He body should be disintegrated at minimum.
Templar said:
Hardly. Adults ought to be morally developed enough to understand the seperation between physical perfection and moral perfection in real life, and children do not need to be confused by praise of ugliness in their storytelling
Are you saying that children should be taught what is false, so that they can learn the truth later?
Since it is false that ugliness equals evil, to teach it knowingly is to lie, and since children are likely to run into ugly people (or crippled people), and hurt their feelings, it is not an inocuous lie like that of Santa Claus (or the Three Kings).
You cannot teach the difference between right and wrong by lying.
Are you saying that children should be taught what is false, so that they can learn the truth later?
Are you saying that children should be taught the exact mechanics of the sexual act so that they need not learn the truth later?
There is a difference between not telling them one thing that is true from telling them one that is false.
It comes down to that you are not required to volunteer information, but when asked you are not allowed to lie.
You have to remember one thing about children: they tend to act out what you tell them. I know from experience that telling children about murals "it is a painting, but on the wall instead of canvas" will have them get their crayons and do their own murals at home.
If we worry about superheroes, and that children have killed themselves because they believe that they can fly if they wear a cape, why shoulnd't we worry if we tell them stories that may slander their neighbors?
KR, thanks for the links. This essay is great. In reading people who try to use Tolkien as their ally, whether it be the Harry Potter fans like Dickerson and O'Hara or the sworn enemies of fantasy like O'Brien, I have sometimes thought that none of them took into account that Tolkien's viewpoint changed over time. Here at last is someone who does so. I also agree with the essayist that none of Tolkien's things are problematic if we don't go hunting for problems, and I think that goes for much of fantasy.
As for the ongoing argument about evil and deformity, I admit both that I'm not too worried about it (Templar) but that I prefer stories that don't equate the two (Adriana). It always bothered me that, in Tolkien, there is no apparent possibilty of redemption for orcs or giant spiders. I don't like it when sentient organisms have no hope of redemption, but still, I don't really hold it against Tolkien and don't worry about giving Lord of the Rings to kids.
As for adventure stories glorifying pirates, I side with Chesterton, who argued that such stories will not harm children and usually advocate virtue even as they're romanticizing criminals. Generally, I think "Pirate story" has more to do with setting than with advocating robbery.
There is a difference between not telling them one thing that is true from telling them one that is false.
And that is...?
What is true, and what is false, Adrianna, in the realm of the story book? Shall we also banish from our homes the heroic princes and virtuous princesses of legend? In this real world that is of such importance to you, few princes were really so kind or heroic as their fairy tale counter-parts, and few princesses worthy of praise.
But that's all that really matters to your mind, isn't it? Admiration for beauty leads to eugenics, admiration of strength leads to murder, admiration of bravery leads to foolhardiness. Best to confine the moppets' bed-time reading to the thrilling tale of Dennis the weak, ugly and oppressed but nonetheless virtuous peasant and be done with it.
If we worry about superheroes, and that children have killed themselves because they believe that they can fly if they wear a cape, why shoulnd't we worry if we tell them stories that may slander their neighbors?
No. We should worry about those parents who did not take care to explain to their children that Superman's powers of flight spring from his alien physiology, and not his cape.
You want to teach children about virtue? How can do so by lies?
Yes, you can admire beauty. But also it is good to remember that beauty is skin deep - look at Paris Hilton. You can admire bravery, but only bravery in a good cause - plenty of Nazis were brave after all. You can admire strenght, but not when strength is used to hurt others.
Nowhere in your list do I see the virtue of kindness. Do you want your children to admire heartless beauties and bullies?
I agree about pirates, they are sanitized to the point of being unrecognizable, so there is no harm in them.
I was just wondering why they are chosen as heroes... I guess that it would make a fascinating historical study..
Maybe it had to do with the English corsairs fighting off the "evil" Spanish Empire...
Even pros have a difficult time discerning exactly where stories go right and where they go wrong, and good Christians can have real and legitimate disagreements on the subject.
Part of the problem is that stories are inevitably open to multiple interpretations unless they are so lecture-heavy and simplistic that their meaning is clear to any but the thickest wits. Even those who get the same message may get it in different lights. One reader may emphasize a detail that another missed or didn't consider significant, and so the tenor of the message is changed.
Then there is the added difficulty of separating artistic quality from message content from personal taste, which probably nobody does perfectly. Read the movie reviews at the CCC regularly: though the reviewers discuss artistic quality and moral content separately, they are inclined to go easier on well-made movies while being quite harsh with poorly made ones. Or take Harry Potter as another example: so many Christians would not have been so determined to make them profound Christian novels if they didn't enjoy them so much.
I'm honestly unwilling to sit here and say The Lord of the Rings is morally deficient, though there are parts with which I am displeased. Part of our problem is probably oversensitivity. Yes, orcs are ugly as well as evil, but that is why they're cool. When I think about it, I realize I enjoy beautiful villains as well as ugly monsters. Neither of them really offend my sensibilities until we make the mistake--I do believe it is a mistake--of trying to make a general rule out of it and say that ugliness in fiction is a metaphor for interior corruption. That's true sometimes, and sometimes it may work, but I don't think we can make it a hard and fast rule.
Besides, everybody likes a deformed man with a heart of gold--the Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example, or the less whiny Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom of the Opera (it's curious how reinterpretations of that story tend to change him from diabolical if lovestruck villain to tragic hero).
Also, Rhinemouse, you bring up an interesting matter regarding Dualism. When I wrote this essay, I did make the assumption that the philosophy underpinning a Christian writer's story would usually tend to be more-or-less Christian, no matter where he gets his source material.
I didn't really consider the dualism issue, I suppose, because it's not a temptation for me, as I tend to aim for a certain amount of sensuality in my work. Conservative Christians who have read my writing have accused me of including too much sexuality, and that doesn't accord well with a view of matter as intrinsically evil.
Putting aside the issue of matter and spirit, if a Christian fiction writer did want to make use of a dualism of good and evil for some reason, I would point him to the collection of essays by C. S. Lewis called God in the Dock. An essay in there (I don't remember the title) suggests that a limited amount of dualism is permissable in Christianity if the war between equivalent powers is understood to be between Satan and Michael the Archangel, with God standing over and above the conflict, having decided on the side of Good. This is, incidentally, similar to The Dark is Rising, which, though not a Christian work, depicts a contest between Light and Dark with the High Magic standing above it.
That Dualism impermissable to the Christian is the view that good and evil must be kept in some kind of balance and that we need equal amounts of both. Under any adequate understanding of evil, this is nonsense. I don't think Christian writers will find it much of a handicap to forbid themselves this.
I'm going to agree with D.G. on all points here, 'though I'm curious if any of you think the Ents in "Lord of the Rings" were beautiful or ugly. As I recall, I thought of them as friendly monsters.
I think it's right to resist the idea that ugliness is always an indication of interior corruption. It's not just about prejudice against unattractive or injured people, but also the truth we affirm every Easter: do you reject the glamor of evil? If we don't learn to imagine evil as glamorous it'll be harder to recognize it when it presents that way. In fantasy, I'm thinking of Lord Foul looking very elegant & lordly, while he horribly deforms everything he touches: "by their fruits you will know them."
You want to teach children about virtue? How can do so by lies?
What lies, Adrianna?
Yes, you can admire beauty. But also it is good to remember that beauty is skin deep - look at Paris Hilton. You can admire bravery, but only bravery in a good cause - plenty of Nazis were brave after all. You can admire strenght, but not when strength is used to hurt others.
In other words, we should on those grounds discard those virtues and qualities entirely.
Nowhere in your list do I see the virtue of kindness.
You have a very selective method of reading then.
Besides, everybody likes a deformed man with a heart of gold--the Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example, or the less whiny Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom of the Opera (it's curious how reinterpretations of that story tend to change him from diabolical if lovestruck villain to tragic hero).
In the original novel, he was both, I believe. Interpretations since then have tended to veer one way or the other.
The "balance between good and evil" has always been something that got on my nerves. One idea I've been kicking around is a story where the heroes' goal is to break the balance between good and evil that the magical authorities are trying to impose.
In the original novel, he was both, I believe. Interpretations since then have tended to veer one way or the other.
This may be, then, a fine illustration of what I mean by readers' differences in interpretation. When I read the novel, I was surprised to find nothing to admire in the Phantom, who I was used to thinking of as a more likeable anti-hero type.
One idea I've been kicking around is a story where the heroes' goal is to break the balance between good and evil that the magical authorities are trying to impose.
Go for it. I like the premise.
This may be, then, a fine illustration of what I mean by readers' differences in interpretation. When I read the novel, I was surprised to find nothing to admire in the Phantom, who I was used to thinking of as a more likeable anti-hero type.
Hmm, perhaps I'm simply psychotic...
The belief in the need of a balance between good and evil comes from taking metaphors literally, accepting that darkness is evil, or light good. Unfortunately in this world we need *both* darkness and light.
We could not read, for example if we did not have *dark* letters agaisnt a *light* background.
You see, in this world, anything has to be in a correct proportion to be useful (we can die from drowning as well as from thirst). So, using natural things as metaphors for good and evil can lead to the belief that good and evil must be in balance.
(of course, the explanation that Tanya Huff gives when she talks about balance is that Good respects free will, so is willing to give people the chance to make the right decision, while Evil just wants to take over, so the big problem is to keep Evil within bounds)
There is another problem with dualism, when it comes down to human beings. That it flies against the doctrine of free will, or the truth that Solzhenytsin discovered that the line between good and evil goes through each and every one human heart.
The belief in the need of a balance between good and evil comes from taking metaphors literally, accepting that darkness is evil, or light good. Unfortunately in this world we need *both* darkness and light.
Once again, I think you're blurring the line between fantasy and reality where it otherwise would not be.
Templar:
I was trying to explain how the fantasy trope of "maintaining the balance" might have come to be, as an extrapolation of the nature of the world around us, the belief that "too much can be as bad as too little", which in the real world is very true.
So, people extrapolate. That's what human minds do.
After all, fantasy does not exist until someone writes it, and where does that someone get his or her ideas? Extrapolation from the real world is a nice source of them, so do not dismiss it out of hand.
On Tolkien WRT goodness & beauty:
The use "beautiful=good" and "ugly=evil" is a standard fairytale trope, and The Lord of the Rings is nothing more than a fairytale aimed at adults. This is why the spoiled prince gets turned into a hideous beast, since his soul is hideous, and only gets restored to his true form after he falls in love with a good woman who inspires him to be a better man. His outer appearance is made to match his inner disposition. It's the same reason that wicked enchanters may have pleasing appearances at the beginning of stories, but by the end they are usually stripped of this appearance and revealed to be hideous.
This is not simply a trope that makes stories easier for children to understand, but a fundamental understanding of the nature of reality. At the deepest level the Good and the Beautiful are transcendental properties of Being, along the the True and the One. They are interchangeable and differ only in notion. The equating of goodness and beauty is darn good metaphysics. Problems only arise if we make category errors, such as equating a beautiful appearance (category: quality, sub-category: shape) with a beautiful character (category: quality, sub-category: habit or disposition) and beautiful actions (category: action). But the possibility of category errors made on our part do not a bad story make. Otherwise we would have to worry about stories with talking animals and artifacts, since they could lead to the confusing of persons with non-persons and even non-living beings.
I would also add that "glamour of evil" is a very good phrase, since traditionally glamour was not simply something beautiful and enticing, but something made to appear so by illusions and deceptive magic. Evil only appears beautiful, but insofar as something is evil it is not beautiful, at least not in the most fundamental of ways.
The first sentence should say: "The Lord of the Rings is a fairytale aimed at adults." Strike the words "nothing more than" from the sentence. Sorry, needed to fix that error and missed it. After all, one cannot let rhetoric usurp truth.
After all, fantasy does not exist until someone writes it, and where does that someone get his or her ideas? Extrapolation from the real world is a nice source of them, so do not dismiss it out of hand.
But you seem to be more concerned over extrapolation from the literary or fantasy world, which is a problem for me, because it does not in any way agree with my life experience.
Let me give you an example: When I was growing up, my favourite toys were G.I. Joes, but I was very particular about which ones I got, because for some reason I cannot hope to recall, one of the primary rules of my childhood fantasy world was that only bad guys had facial hair, hence if asked which plastic soldier I wanted to buy, I'd always be certain to select a clean-shaven one, which was no easy feat considering the number of heavily mustachioed characters Hasbro produced through most of the line's run, but I stuck to my rule, despite it meaning that I missed out on some of the cooler Joes, because that's how the dramatic symbolism I'd invented for myself worked.
I cannot recall that this quirk of visual shorthand ever caused me to insult or flee in terror from a mustachioed man, or in any way worsened the relationship between myself and my father or godfather or any of my uncles, most of whom have maintained neatly-trimmed goatees or mustaches for most of their adult lives, nor did it cause me to recoil in confusion at the sight of Biggs Darklighter and Lando Calrissian among the heroes when I first watched the Star Wars films, nor have I ever paused to consider pursuing a campain of extermination against the Unshaven Ones, but then, perhaps this ability of mine to succesfully seperate fantasy from reality is mere further proof of my abnormality, eh?
Templar:
So no one extrapolates from fiction to reality?
So, it does not really matter whata people read because they do not carry it on into real life?
So, why are you so worked up because some authors portray dragons sympathetically? After all, they will not extrapolate into real life.
Templar, we seem to have different beliefs on what is not a good thing to tell in fiction, and it is silly or hypocritical of you to insist that there is no danger in certain things being said in fiction because they will not be carried out in real life. If that was true, why worry about pornography? Or blatantly anti-chrisitan message?
So no one extrapolates from fiction to reality?
If they do to the detriment of themselves or others, that's obviously their failing.
So, why are you so worked up because some authors portray dragons sympathetically? After all, they will not extrapolate into real life.
I believe I explained why at some length previously.
Templar, we seem to have different beliefs on what is not a good thing to tell in fiction, and it is silly or hypocritical of you to insist that there is no danger in certain things being said in fiction because they will not be carried out in real life. If that was true, why worry about pornography? Or blatantly anti-chrisitan message?
Adrianna, it's silly and hypocritical of you to suggest that a defence of the trope of physically attractive heroes or heroines opposed by physically unattractive villains or monsters against charges of inspiring eugenics is comparable to a defence of pornography.
No, but the comment that because a trope is in fantasy does not mean it is carried out in real life, is contradicted by the belief that teaching children that dragons can be "friendly" is corrupting.
You object to friendly dragons. I object to teaching that ugly=evil. The difference is that while you have not seen children getting chummy with dragons, I have seen children gang up on children who were "different", and beat them up. Is it surprising that I would object to a literature that would make them feel self-righteous for doing so?
No, but the comment that because a trope is in fantasy does not mean it is carried out in real life, is contradicted by the belief that teaching children that dragons can be "friendly" is corrupting.
Not at all.
You object to friendly dragons. I object to teaching that ugly=evil.
I object to your assertion that evil ugliness in fiction teaches that ugly = evil. As well to forbid the children to read from the Book of Genesis, lest they seek to commit genocide against garter snakes.
The difference is that while you have not seen children getting chummy with dragons, I have seen children gang up on children who were "different", and beat them up.
Yes, and...?
Is it surprising that I would object to a literature that would make them feel self-righteous for doing so?
Once again, your identification of the culprit leaves much to be desired. The childrens' parents are at fault, not their reading material.
Brendon, I like your comment so much, I'd like to post it in its entirety (with your correction) and comment on it, if I have your permission to do so.
D.G.D.,
That's fine with me. I'm just happy to contribute to the discussion.
TEmplar:
I am amazed by your logic.
When someone uses a fantasy trope that you disagree with, you complain that it may pervert the morals of the readers.
When somebody uses a fantasy trope that you like, then you come up with your version of "no woman was corrupted by a book"
Acknowledge your double standards if you want me to continue debating with you.
I am amazed by your logic.
Likewise.
Or rather, I'm amazed by your lack thereof.
When someone uses a fantasy trope that you disagree with, you complain that it may pervert the morals of the readers.
When somebody uses a fantasy trope that you like, then you come up with your version of "no woman was corrupted by a book"
This isn't about what I like, Adrianna. This is about your astoundingly ill-reasoned assertion that J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings encourages eugenics.
Acknowledge your double standards if you want me to continue debating with you.
And why, might I ask, would I want to continue the intellectual equivelent of bashing my head against a brick wall, and at your sufference, no less?
You want to know why the trope ugly=evil encourages eugenics?
All parents have good children.
Society wants good people.
So, what would be nicer than to make sure only good children are born?
Evil people should not increase.
You could not do it with ugly people per se,
But say that you want to weed out evil, and people are quite more willing.
But all you want to make sure is that no dragons are born...
Last message in this thread.
Last message in this thread.
Good to know. That was quite possibly the most simplistically nonsensical of the lot.
The sort of legalists who get offended by the content of fantasy novels (but read them anyway) and then write books about how offended they are cannot possibly be the target audience for a fantasist.
You get exactly the same dynamic in a hanger-on phenomenon to Furry Fandom: The Pathological Furry-Haters. They go on all over the net (on sites like SomethingAwful or CrushYiffDestroy) about those sicko Furverts, yet show extreme familarity with even obscure Furry Erotica/Yiff material and show up at Furry con after Furry con.
Several years ago, I got hit by a cyberstalker who falsely accused me of bestiality. Very vocally and repeatedly, with a distinct "OF COURSE YOU SCREW ANIMALS! CONFESS! CONFESS! TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT!" at all-caps and exclamation points intensity. He kept returning to The Fact That The Only Reason Anyone Could Possibly Go To A Furry Con Is Because They REALLY Want To Have Sex With Animals -- "TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT!" Wouldn't stop until my writing partner (aka "Heavy Horse", a rural preacher-man) rang in as reinforcements.
I'd known this cyberstalker once; he was a Disney animator and one of the pioneers of recreational fursuiting back in the Eighties. For three years afterwards, I spotted the guy at major West Coast Furry Cons; not only attending, but receiving homage from the fursuiters.
You see, Pathological Furry Haters are just as FURRRRREEEEEEEEE!!!!! as any of the "furverts" they talk smack about; they've just flipped one-eighty from Total Blind Adoration into Total Blind Hatred. If not, why do they keep hanging around the object of their hatred?
I must admit, at the risk of damaging my fanboy cred, that that was some brand new info right there. I'd never heard of fursuiting before. I still don't know what Yiff is...and context suggests I'm better off not looking it up.
Interesting issues, certainly. I admit I don't know what to make of it all since my contact with the furry community has been extremely tangential.
Commenting by HaloScan
