Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2003-12-16 19:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: contemplative
Current music:Blind Guardian- Another Holy War
Entry tags:fantasy rants: winter 2003, world-building rants, world-building: religion

And yet another rant.
Although by this time I think I'm writing less out of irritation than because I'm having so much fun. That's always a good motive for writing, though. *grin*



Because so many of them- and I'm counting several works of published fiction I've read in this- are so damn similar.

1) Go beyond the Christian-based religion. Yes, it's easy and it's the religion a lot of fantasy authors seem familiar with. But most of the time there is simply no context for it (one reason, possibly, that a lot of fantasy authors with a Christian-inspired religion cut out Jesus; it's too hard to make him fit into another world). This world has the same system of monasteries, convents, religious laws, taboos, church hierarchies, and so on without having any of the same justifications. I'd say that if you want a Christian-based religion, study the history of Christianity, such as why these particular laws were made at this particular time, and try to adapt it to your fantasy world. I suspect a lot of people would have trouble. Good; it might encourage them to grow beyond the rather boring, pale gilding without any of the solid gold.

There's one other fault of a Christian-based religion: it has a tendency to make its author get preachy, either for the religion or against it. I hate message fantasy- fantasy where the author should have been writing a pamphlet instead of a novel. Setting up your book to echo your own religion too deeply is just asking for trouble.

2) Go beyond the Wicca-based/Neopagan-based religion. This one is popular lately, and I can't tell if it's because all the authors are actually Wiccan/Neopagan themselves, or just think it's a cool idea. (Personally I blame Marion Zimmer Bradley and The Mists of Avalon). But these religions suffer the same problems as the Christian-based ones. They are so goddamn vague. The witches are persecuted- but there's none of the complex reasoning and fanaticism that was beyond the persecution of witches in Europe in the Middle Ages. The women are the leaders- for no apparent reason. There's a god and a goddess, just because. There may even be specific religious rituals, like the Spiral Dance, or ideas like the Wiccan Creed plunked down in the world, just because. Boring, boring, boring. Over time, these ideas have lost their distinction from fantasy to fantasy, blurring into one big, vague idea of earth mother worship.

Wiccan-based fantasies also have the tendency to get preachy, though almost always for the religion instead of against it. Also, I've read a lot of them that do the "Women good, men baaaad!" sort of thing, thus becoming religious message fantasy and feminist message fantasy at once. This combination has become the most common reason I hurl books across the room. I loathe message fantasy. I would suggest drugging the idea in its sleep and killing it, but that's too clean a death for it.

Yes, fantasy can convey important messages. But if the author leaves no doubt about whom we're supposed to cheer for- and particularly if the gods in that world are lining up behind the "right" characters- it turns preachy.

3) Come up with some original trappings for your religion. This goes back to the vagueness I spoke of. Even in the case of a religion with a goddess and priestesses that doesn't seem to be based on Wicca per se, it still tends to have vague things like marble temples, still pools, meetings at the full moon, and so on without showing me why it has them. Pretty, and meaningless.

I think all of these things can be used, but only if the author provides some justification. If you want your priestesses to take vows of chastity, think about why that might work. In one of my worlds, I used it as a natural outgrowth of the idea that a goddess of emotionlessness probably wouldn't be that much in favor of sexual passion, so all her clerics are required not to have sex. I've read one story where it was because the democratic, communal priestesses were so against royal privilege that they didn't want to take a chance on a bloodline inheritance becoming established in their own sanctuaries. The justifications are out there. Find and fashion them.

4) Consider giving your 'good' religion a less than spotless history. Study the history of most modern Earth religions (the exceptions probably being the ones established in the twentieth century, which haven't had time to get around to it yet), and you'll find them littered with heresies, executions, controversial decisions, restrictive laws, persecutions, and creative methods of killing people who disagreed with them. Yet somehow the "good" religions in fantasy have never had anything like that happen. They are happy-pretty-sparkly things. It's the Bad Guys who have heresies, and do mean things to the heretics.

Yeah, right. A religion can have done a lot of good in its time and still not be populated solely by saints. Flat characterization and stereotyping finds an easy home in those nice, otherworldly priests and priestesses who would never dream of speaking a harsh word to anybody and are consumed with guilt even if they have to kill an enemy, which somehow makes it okay (meanwhile, any bad guy who kills any of the good guys is metaphorically flayed alive). I'm much more interested in characters who grow and change, who go through crises of faith and emerge the stronger for it, or even- though I've never actually seen this happen- lose their faith and manage to go on with their lives. I always groan when I start reading a fantasy story that has a priest or priestess, because I start being sure that everyone else can change 180 degrees from what they were and the priest or priestess will still be smiling and handing out flowers.

Make them live a little. For their sake, and the gods' sake.

5) If you must make a religion evil, at least come up with original ways of making it so. I've lost count of the evil priests I've read in fantasy who torture people, rape children, bloodily sacrifice virgins, and hold rituals at midnight around black altars in the depths of the earth.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of the hoary old Satanist clichés- especially the completely unjustified ones, like upside-down crosses in a world where no one has ever heard of Christianity. Why can't evil priests have their rites in the daylight for once? Why can't there be evil priestesses who are not seductive sluts, or evil priests who aren't secretly waiting to have sex with every child around?

Most authors seem to accept that the people in their 'good' religions joined the faith out of love for the gods and a genuine desire to do good. Does that never apply to someone who worships the "wrong" gods? It seems to be an active desire to do evil that guides them, even more than the wish for power. In reality, as with most worshippers who make people uncomfortable, it's much more likely to be because they were raised in the religion and never thought to question it, or because they believe they are doing the right thing.

It's really hard to take them seriously when they're dancing around their altars to the light of thirteen black candles getting ready to sacrifice the latest virgin, though.

6) Consider some variety. If you want to use mythologies from the real world, why not use Chinese, South American, Russian, Eastern European, Indian, or Southeast Asian mythologies instead of or in addition to Greek, Roman, and Egyptian pantheons? Those show up all the time in fantasy, I suppose because the mythologies are the most accessible to a lot of Western writers. But just like the Christan-based and Wiccan-based religions, they lose a lot of their charm through repetition and no attempt to adapt them to their new worlds. Unless you're writing alternative history and your world happens to have events happening exactly as they did in Egypt, Rome, or Greece, then the conditions will be different in your fantasy world, and probably wouldn't have produced the exact same gods.

Similarly, there seems to be a uniform level of faith in most fantasy worlds, unless you count the difference between the priests and the laity. Does everyone in your world really accept unquestioningly what they're told, especially if they themselves have never seen the gods? There's a distinct lack of atheist and agnostic characters, even in worlds where the gods don't directly show their physical selves, even in highly secular societies. This could be a new direction to explore. Even if those characters are wrong, I think it would be a lot more entertaining to have at least some doubt than to assume everyone just accepts all the legends as true. (And okay, I'm biased here because I'm an atheist, but it really puzzles me, too).



It really stands out when an author spends time carefully working out history, languages, geography, and so on, and then just plops down real-world tropes of religion in a world that would never have produced them.




(Post a new comment)


[info]kutsuwamushi
2003-12-17 02:24 am UTC (link)
Does that never apply to someone who worships the "wrong" gods?

That would be such an interesting idea to play with. Do you know of any novels that do deal with it?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2003-12-17 03:15 pm UTC (link)
I think the closest novel I've read is Guy Gavriel Kay's The Lions of Al-Rassan. It's based on Moorish Spain, so he has characters from analogues of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. None of them is shown as wrong, and in fact a few characters have the chance to give up their religion to choose the "right" one and don't take it. Of course, the book's also a tragedy, so it's also about the loss religion causes.

I don't know a book whose world is divided dualistically into light and dark that does this, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]warnthepenguins
2003-12-21 06:38 am UTC (link)
What about the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia? There's the good god (Aslan) and the evil god (evil bird-guy, I don't recall his name), and there's an evil birdite soldier who's a good person and merely wants to meet his idolized god. Then he's in there talking to Aslan and Aslan says "No, evil bird-man is for evil people. Anything good you do was actually for me." It seemed like a cop-out at the time, almost, but it was an interesting situation. I love Narnia.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]calanthe_b
2003-12-17 06:09 am UTC (link)

This one is popular lately, and I can't tell if it's because all the authors are actually Wiccan/Neopagan themselves, or just think it's a cool idea.

Have you read Tamora Pierce's Circle of Magic and Circle Opens series? She's one of the few authors I've read who does a credible otherworld religion based on neopagan ideas (I think she may be a practising Neo-pagan of some creed, but I'm not sure on that). She's obviously taken the trouble to think things through. So, some of her characters can be Dedicates, but they don't have to be celibates unless they want to be; there are different religions in different parts of the world and, while they don't all necessarily get along, none are automatically 'good' or 'bad', nobody's persecuted 'just because', men and women really are pretty much equal, and--best of all--the gods themselves never appear.

I am so sick of fantasy books in which gods manifest with a regularity you could set your calendar by. Haven't authors realised yet that all the best fantasy books are the ones in which gods (not religions, just *gods*) just don't appear?

If you want to use mythologies from the real world, why not use Chinese, South American, Russian, Eastern European, Indian, or Southeast Asian mythologies instead of or in addition to Greek, Roman, and Egyptian pantheons?

I suspect many people are worried about appropriation. The thing about Roman, Greek and Egyptian mythologies is that they're not in use any more; they're not living mythologies. You might annoy people if you get something wrong or tweak them a bit to fit your story, but you're not going to offend anyone as you might if you played fast and loose with a religion that's practiced today. That's one reason I won't use Christianity as a basis for a religion in any of my fantasy writings (though incorporating characters who *are* Christian is a different matter). I know Christainity has been seen as 'fair game' rather, by some writers, but to me it's entitled to the same degree of respect as any other living religion.

There's a distinct lack of atheist and agnostic characters, even in worlds where the gods don't directly show their physical selves, even in highly secular societies.

Try The Riddle-Master's Game. Or, for that matter, anything by Patricia McKillip. There are no gods, no religions, no anything in her fantasies; all of her characters come across as agnostic or atheist. It's quite a relief, really. Those of us who are atheists rather like characters to identify with too, after all...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2003-12-17 03:28 pm UTC (link)
Have you read Tamora Pierce's Circle of Magic and Circle Opens series? She's one of the few authors I've read who does a credible otherworld religion based on neopagan ideas (I think she may be a practising Neo-pagan of some creed, but I'm not sure on that). She's obviously taken the trouble to think things through. So, some of her characters can be Dedicates, but they don't have to be celibates unless they want to be; there are different religions in different parts of the world and, while they don't all necessarily get along, none are automatically 'good' or 'bad', nobody's persecuted 'just because', men and women really are pretty much equal, and--best of all--the gods themselves never appear.

I started the Circle of Magic books but never felt compelled to finish them. I think I found the main characters too irritating, though it was a few years ago so I don't remember for certain. I know that it really turned me off in the Alanna books that Alanna was the chosen of a goddess.

I am so sick of fantasy books in which gods manifest with a regularity you could set your calendar by. Haven't authors realised yet that all the best fantasy books are the ones in which gods (not religions, just *gods*) just don't appear?

I think it depends on the kind of book. If the book's a fantistorical like Kay's or Martin's, then I think the gods appearing would be a jarring note. If the book is written in a more otherworldly vein, however, I can accept it. The Silmarillion wouldn't be what it is without its Valar. It's when the book is written in that mix of modern and otherworldly style that a lot of fantasy seems to be written in and keeps jerking me back and forth that it's hardest.

I suspect many people are worried about appropriation. The thing about Roman, Greek and Egyptian mythologies is that they're not in use any more; they're not living mythologies. You might annoy people if you get something wrong or tweak them a bit to fit your story, but you're not going to offend anyone as you might if you played fast and loose with a religion that's practiced today.

That's why I think authors who want to use a real world pantheon should do more research- and why the most appealing thing about Roman, Greek, and Egyptian mythologies to many authors is that they often don't have to do that much research, since they're already familiar with the myths. Treating mythologies respectfully is certainly a good idea, but I don't think it means that people can never tell those stories at all.

Of course, I'm more in favor of authors making up pantheons completely, because I prefer fantasy that takes me out of this world rather than remaining indebted to it so obviously, but that's not always possible.

Try The Riddle-Master's Game. Or, for that matter, anything by Patricia McKillip. There are no gods, no religions, no anything in her fantasies; all of her characters come across as agnostic or atheist. It's quite a relief, really. Those of us who are atheists rather like characters to identify with too, after all...

Hmmm. I've read several of her books, and never gotten that impression. I suppose I thought in the Riddle-Master books that the High One served as a kind of god, and in the others that magic filled the place of worship. But I'd like to read them again with an eye out for what you mention and see what happens.

And I suppose there are some atheist characters in fantasy; they just don't announce themselves. Terry Pratchett has one in Small Gods (although he's wrong), and his character William de Worde in The Truth thinks of prayer as "a more sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." Of course, it's subtle, but the Christians get upset anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]calanthe_b
2003-12-17 11:39 pm UTC (link)
I know that it really turned me off in the Alanna books that Alanna was the chosen of a goddess.

That always annoys me too--but it helps to know that even Pierce acknowledges that Alanna is a no-holds-barred Mary Sue. :)

The Silmarillion wouldn't be what it is without its Valar.

Except, of course, that the Valar aren't gods per se. It's that fine distinction that makes it easier for me to accept it...it's when you get things liek the Belgariad, with Gods slopping here there and everywhere to no point at all, that it annoys me.

I suppose I thought in the Riddle-Master books that the High One served as a kind of god

~stuffs two chapters of thesis firmly back into hindbrain where they belong~ Erm. Take it from he, he's not. The most you can call him is a kind of genius loci...as to the magic thing, I think in some of her books you may be right--the Cygnet duology particularly. In things like Song for the Basilisk and The Book of Atrix Wolfe, however, the parallel's much less clear, and I think I can call those books agnostic or atheist in worldview without hesitation.

And I suppose there are some atheist characters in fantasy; they just don't announce themselves.

True. I think part of the reason they're less common is because all those books and courses on How To Write Fantasy insist that the invented landscape Must Include Religion...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2003-12-18 02:02 pm UTC (link)
That always annoys me too--but it helps to know that even Pierce acknowledges that Alanna is a no-holds-barred Mary Sue. :)

Heh. That's good- good that she admits it, and good to have a reason next time someone demands, "But why didn't you love the Alanna books? They're so GOOD!"

Except, of course, that the Valar aren't gods per se. It's that fine distinction that makes it easier for me to accept it...it's when you get things liek the Belgariad, with Gods slopping here there and everywhere to no point at all, that it annoys me.

Well, you do have Eru on stage at a few points in the story...but I see what you mean. One problem I have with a lot of fantasy gods is that the author simultaneously wants me to believe they're like Greek gods, just overgrown humans, and then wants me to take them seriously as these distant remote things like the Christian God. And then my brain implodes.

Parodies are the only ones that can have gods popping in and out all the time with impunity, since they're meant to be stupid, and after long thought, I have come to the conclusion that the Belgariad, sadly, is not a parody.

~stuffs two chapters of thesis firmly back into hindbrain where they belong~ Erm. Take it from he, he's not. The most you can call him is a kind of genius loci...as to the magic thing, I think in some of her books you may be right--the Cygnet duology particularly. In things like Song for the Basilisk and The Book of Atrix Wolfe, however, the parallel's much less clear, and I think I can call those books agnostic or atheist in worldview without hesitation.

Hmmm, interesting way of looking at it. I suppose I'm not used to seeing that way, since in so many books, if the author makes no actual announcement to the contrary, it seems you're just supposed to assume that all characters are religious (the same way you're supposedly right to assume that all characters are straight unless explicitly told otherwise). So I was looking for actual defiance of religion, rather than lack of it.

But either works.

True. I think part of the reason they're less common is because all those books and courses on How To Write Fantasy insist that the invented landscape Must Include Religion...

And, if they're American, they tend to still think that atheism is either the ultimate evil, or that atheists really must "worship something," so of course they're not going to add those silly people to their stories.

No, I'm not bitter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]calanthe_b
2003-12-18 11:37 pm UTC (link)
I have come to the conclusion that the Belgariad, sadly, is not a parody.

If it were a parody, he'd never have gone on to write the Malloreon, I think...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]warnthepenguins
2003-12-21 06:50 am UTC (link)
Yay! Almost every Pratchett book is rated "Harmless/Dangerous" by the Christian watchdogs! Whee! And I loved "Small Gods" like crazy. That was an awesome book. Awesome.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2003-12-21 05:55 pm UTC (link)
I liked it too. If more gods were like Om- well, Om after his reform, not before- I think I would have a lot easier time understanding religion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

BbHtrYoink
(Anonymous)
2003-12-17 08:48 pm UTC (link)
Do you think it would be realistic in a story to either (1) ignore religions completely, or (2) mention that they exist, but in a totally general way?

For number one, I don't mean that the author should either directly say or imply that religion doesn't exist in the world, I mean that the characters don't have any occasion to run across it. An example (albiet a cliched one -- all of my examples seem to be) would be a visitor from another world, into a world where religion doesn't play a big role (no big public demonstrations, few if any fanatics). That way, the auther can make sure the visiting characters never come across any references to the world's religion(s).

For number two, (to take the same example), perhaps the visiting character meets a resident of the world, and the topic of his/her/its religion briefly comes up. Or, the character in the story sees a few priests/priestesses, and maybe passes by or through a few temples.

Obviously, the likelihood of either of these events happening in the world depends on the fervency and the spread of the religion(s) on this world. What I want to know is, assuming a situation in which one of these would be possible, do you think they are realisitic/sound scenerios for a story?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: BbHtrYoink
[info]limyaael
2003-12-18 01:56 pm UTC (link)
I think either would be perfectly fine. Tolkien basically did 1), since the Valar do exist but barely get mentioned in LOTR, and even the ceremonies for Eru that are mentioned are very understated. 2) I think is fine, since there's no rule that religion has to be intimately involved in the storyline, and especially if you have a highly secularized society, there's no need for it.

I don't think religion's a must; I just hate a lot of the common tropes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]marumae
2003-12-19 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Jesus; it's too hard to make him fit into another world).

Actually it's quite easy, almost too easy so that it leans on the border of being cliche.

Jesus was the savior of his people the hebrews, he healed, he preached peace and was hunted all his life because other non christian kings were upset by his very existence, I don't know about you but I know and can picture several crappy fantasy plots that would assuridly get published or written by David Eddings following this very scenario, where the hero is obviously the "Savior" or reincarnation of such and it's simply to easy to make them a "martyr" to gain sympathy for the flawless hero. So yes, it's quite easy to fit Jesus into a fantasy world. Should it be done? No, no, no no.

Setting up your book to echo your own religion too deeply is just asking for trouble.

I see nothing wrong with this as long as the writer is especially attentive and realizes when they are slipping into "preeching" instead of "Telling a story". Though there are many authors who probably hate preechy books as much as you and I it's too easy to slip into it ourselves when writing books about something that has a close connection to us. Femininism is a strong example of female authors who, although they may not be a feminist persay but believe in equal rights and can easily fall into the "Women Goood...Men...BAAAAAD" thing.


Go beyond the Wicca-based/Neopagan-based religion.

Let's just drop the all mighty goddess schtick please? (Personally I blame Marion Zimmer Bradly all the way as well). This is where female authors get caught in the trap that I mentioned before, sure sure equal rights are great but that doesn't mean they always work or would even be considered in the mideval societies? Perhaps if you are basing your society on Elizabethan England I can see it, but one has to make it work and that's just hard to do.

4) Consider giving your 'good' religion a less than spotless history. Study the history of most modern Earth religions (the exceptions probably being the ones established in the twentieth century, which haven't had time to get around to it yet

Exactly, almost all major religions have a huge fault in their clause that is often purposly overlooked. A lot of even modern religions have faults as well. They may not be quite the extent of Christanity or sacrifces of some earlier pagan religions but that doesn't mean they don't exist.


5) If you must make a religion evil, at least come up with original ways of making it so.

I have to agree with this as well, what person would unless they were a socio or psychopath enjoy sacrificing children? I mean really?

the hoary old Satanist clichés- especially the completely unjustified ones,

Yes, please please not every major religon has a Satan character in it you know? They may have someone of darker aspects of the relgion but that doesn't mean that upside down crosses, red horned demons and blood sacrifices are a required part. What about Hinduism where I Think it's vishnu? The goddess of destruction is also the goddess of fertility too right? Something along those lines, she's both for the dark aspects and the lighter ones. Why haven't we seen any such thing in fantasy? I never have...

6) Consider some variety. If you want to use mythologies from the real world, why not use Chinese, South American, Russian, Eastern European, Indian, or Southeast Asian mythologies instead of or in addition to Greek, Roman, and Egyptian pantheons?

Greek and Roman I've seen used a great deal, that's where I believe most fantasies that feature a "father god" get it from, along with Norse as well (Norse itself is heavily used in fantasy). But South American, Indian, Native American even or Egyptians and their obessesion with death would work great aside from the cliched David Eddings brand of gods...

It really stands out when an author spends time carefully working out history, languages, geography, and so on, and then just plops down real-world tropes of religion in a world that would never have produced them.

*nods* I Completely agree.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]laraqua
2006-02-18 03:29 pm UTC (link)
Equality is a huge thing in many societies. The difference is the concept of equality. The Aboriginal Australians had women betrothed at an early age, perhaps before they were born, but they couldn't be touched until adulthood. At that time, they moved in with an old man. Sounds unequal, right? Cept when a boy becomes a man he's 'awarded' an old woman as his first wife who's there to reign in his dangerous impulses and, later on, help out his later brides. That way everyone gets a chance to be looked after by a young 'un and there is an equality there. Most women get two husbands since the young 'uns are like to out-last their old husband and vice versa.

The difference between medieval and some other cultures is that most cultures nowadays up until very recently - and still a lot, today - figure that women are near valueless and men are all-consuming creatures of importance.

I find a fantasy world where you have both Equality between Genders = Same roles AND Men as Important, Women as Valueless societies as the ONLY societies when there are many societies highlighted, is superficial. At least put some thought into why ... pregnant women don't make good soldiers, reputation is built solely through battling, causing wars causes population decimation so women must remain perma-pregnant, would be a good example of why women would be controlled and stifled (or perhaps worshipped and revered) but usually it's just "Because"

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nextian
2004-02-12 04:30 am UTC (link)
OK. Inspired by this rant, I've been reworking the mythological and religious structure of my world. Basically what I have now is an atheist world, but I'm worried that as a deist I'm ignoring what might be called the "problems" (better, the conflicts) within atheism.

In my world, there are two powers, and the myths say they found the world, and because they love playing around and taking weird forms they created everything. Now, people can call on them and bring things to being through them. They're more like Scarlet and Azure in your Faean-- kinda sentient and very powerful, but not gods per se. And the people know this; there is no worship. (Why would you worship a god you can control?) There is no "all-powerful" god involved with this world; no prayers, no temples, no priests or priestesses.

So what do you think the (non)religious conflicts could be?

(Reply to this)

Evil Religions
[info]rhjunior
2005-08-02 12:51 am UTC (link)
Granted that, IRL, evil religions don't tend to vary much in their general behavior. .... the various trappings change a bit, but it's the same thing at root. The prophets of Baal burned infants alive, the Incas and Aztecs hacked out human hearts at the tops of ziggurats, the Anasazi engaged in cannibalism, the Islamists strap bombs to their children and fling them at infidels and Jews. Whether the goal was secular or mystic power, 72 virgins, or convincing the masses that you make the sun-god rise, the techniques have always been pretty much boilerplate--- subjugation, oppression, sexual depravity and exploitation, and gruesome ritual murder.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Evil Religions
[info]selecasharp
2005-09-15 09:19 pm UTC (link)
Oh, please don't confuse those Islamic extremists with most of the entirety of the religion of Islam. It's like assuming Fred Phelps represents the whole of Christianity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rhjunior
2005-09-15 11:08 pm UTC (link)
When I see Islamic "holy leaders" start excommunicating people en-masse for murdering their own children and the children of others, maybe I'll think about it. I've seen too many transcripts of the weekly sermons in the Mideast to hold out much hope, though.

They're not the "extremists" when they make up the majority of the group in question.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]monroe_nell
2005-10-05 07:52 pm UTC (link)
actually, the place with the largest islamic population is indonesia...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sennen_ring
2006-01-07 11:43 pm UTC (link)
Nothing's completely black and white, good and evil. All religions have people that've done shitty things. Christianity persectuted thousands.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rhjunior
2006-01-08 10:21 am UTC (link)
We are not asking for perfection. We are asking for the bare minimum moral standards required by civilization.

Islam fails to meet that piteous minimal requirement even to this very day.

As to the crimes of "Christianity," let us acknowledge some brutal, painful, ugly facts that secularists and equivocators can't seem to choke down:

1) The sect of Christianity directly responsible for the the worst cruelties and terrors--- Roman Catholicism--- ceased its practices of persecution centuries ago, and in fact has openly and publicly issued an admission of guilt for its acts and apologized to the world, via the Pope himself.

2) Even with that acknowledgement, history has proven that the scale of the crimes were grossly exaggerated by sensationalists. For instance, the commonly bantered number of "witches" the Church allegedly burned is so large they would have had to chop down every tree in Europe for the kindling. (when in fact the common legal penalty for witchraft was a fine and a considerable period of penance.) Nor is it acknowledged that the Crusades were, in fact, a military response to over a hundred years of military invasions into Europe by Islamic forces.

3)Nor is it acknowledged that most of the brutalities of medieval christendom were status quo in EVERY society of that period, and often considerably worse in many others. Every schoolchild is taught to spit on the Conquistadores for "destroying Incan/Aztec civilization"--- not a paragraph is given to the fact that the Incans and Aztecs engaged in slavery, gruesome torture, and human sacrifice bloody enough to turn the stomachs of men hardened to the fortunes of war.

4)No mark is made of the contributions of Christianity to society. It was a Christian society-- not an Islamic one, not a Hindu one, not a Pagan one--- that confronted itself on the morality of slavery and, through a terrible struggle, birthed the end of slavery. It was the only one where The slave owning caste was the one that debated, and ended, the practice.

Islamic society still has slavery. And in Africa, children are kidnapped and sold as slaves to this day.

It is the only society that openly debated racial and gender equality, and daily struggles to bring that about.

In Islam, women and little girls are subjected to beatings, stonings, rape, and honorless "honor killings." And "the infidel" has fewer rights than a prize camel.

Freedom of speech, press, religion, lawful assembly, petition of grievance, the right to bear arms--- products of a free, Protestant, Christian society.

None of the above found in Islamic countries.

Which society is more in need of penance, again?


5) And in all this, NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS MADE THAT THE MORAL VALUES BY WHICH YOU CRITICIZE CHRISTENDOM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE THEMSELVES A PRODUCT OF A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. You criticize christians for falling short of their own moral ideal----- and never consider, for an instant, that no other society would even acknowledge the validity of that ideal in the first place.

Who is the hypocrite: the one who falls short of his high standards....

Or the one who damns another for failing to meet a standard he himself does not believe in, and would have never heard of in the first place if not for the efforts of the first man?







ISLAM IS A RELIGION WHERE YOU'RE EXPECTED TO SACRIFICE YOUR SON FOR GOD. CHRISTIANITY IS A RELIGION WHERE GOD SACRIFICED HIS SON FOR YOU.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]laraqua
2006-02-18 03:37 pm UTC (link)
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of non-Christian countries that allow the right to bear arms. Personally I doubt that's a very good thing, simply due to the number of poor, stupid little kids who wanna play with daddy's gun and die. But then, I'm Australian, and we've been biased since a Tasmanian ran around gunning down thirty passersby.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sue_hell
2005-11-17 01:49 am UTC (link)
I'd say that if you want a Christian-based religion, study the history of Christianity, such as why these particular laws were made at this particular time, and try to adapt it to your fantasy world

I think the main reason why Christain and Wiccan Religions are so flat in fantasy is because they lack knowledge of the history or philosophy behind the religion and only know the rituals.

Christianity has over 2,000 years of corruption, doctrine, heresies, different religious groups, tradition, ect which are some of the most twisted, 'murder-most-foul' type of history that I'd love to see incorporated into the fabric of a fantasy novel. Even more so with Wicca, because it draws off of pagan relgions which themselves or even older than Christianity. the Da'Vinci Code, wether you see it as right or wrong, sold so well because it did exactly that- it addressed the actual history of the Catholic church and the Doctrines of Wicca.

Also, these religions, when in books are too static, uniform, and isolated. both the Christian Church and Wiccan had huge influences and where influenced by their surrounding cultures, in other ways that just "woe to us! We are being forgotten!" Christianity has factions amoung itself(the baptist church alone has 200 denominations), heresies, and cults. Wicca is a highly personal religion; no two people practice it the same. but these facts are never addressed.

(Reply to this)

Weird gods
[info]onyxflame
2006-02-15 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Heh, my world is unusual in that all the modern gods used to be mortals, and the vast majority of the mortals have forgotten that there's even actually a Creator. It's all tied up with the way magic works, and the reason the gods have as much power as they do is because their spells/miracles rely not only on their own belief, but the faith their followers have in them. (Naturally 99.99999% of mortals don't realize it's even possible for them to become gods, and of course the gods aren't about to tell them, heh. It does, however, lead to interesting possibilities such as the God of Nose Picking.)

Even then though, not every mortal sits around worshipping their chosen god every day. But even someone who doesn't worship their death god wouldn't DARE try to deny that there IS a death god, otherwise he's likely to have unpleasant spiky things show up in rather fatal places.

Now if only I could make myself finish book 1 so I could get on to book 2, where we find out what happens when a crazy mortal becomes a god... ;)

(Reply to this)


[info]mypsychoticself
2006-10-06 11:12 pm UTC (link)
Have you read Pratchett's "Small Gods"? It's one of his better books. Some of his writing is annoying, but for the most part he's good about things like realistic human traits.

(Reply to this)


[info]serpentrose
2007-04-11 03:23 am UTC (link)
I suddenly feel the need to create a story in which a very (outwardly, at least) pious and priestly character loses his (or her) religion and becomes a happy atheist.

(Reply to this)


[info]serra_nolwen
2007-04-19 01:18 am UTC (link)
Wow! Your rants really are great. This one was particularly useful, as one of the stories I was planning to write includes religion in a very important way. What do you think about it if one goddess makes a few appearances, but it's only once, in a temple, and sometimes in dreams, so people tend to think that it's not true, except a few people who decide to do what they were told?

P.S. I hope you don't mind. I added you as a friend.

(Reply to this)


[info]jordan179
2007-05-15 11:43 pm UTC (link)
Harry Turtledove does religions especially interestingly.

In his "Videssos" universe, his (Byzantine-like) Videssans have a religion similar in its tenets to Zoroastrianism, and his (Persian-like) Makuraners at first have a religion similar in its tenets to Islam, and then later switch to worshipping the Evil god (Skotos) from the Zoroastrian-like religion.

Although he tends to sympathize with the cult of Phos (the god of Good in the Zoroastrian-like religion), the Videssan religious establishment has had heresies and the persecutions thereof, some of which have led to serious civil disunion to the benefit of the enemies of the Videssans.

(Reply to this)


[info]book_worm5
2007-06-22 11:07 pm UTC (link)
You might be interested in The Cleric Quintet by R.A. Salvatore, in which the main character actually spends much of the first three books as a closet agnostic. His character progression seems quite well done. Of course, there are other somewhat cliche things, such as arrogant elves and a gruff dwarf with a Heart of GoldTM. He does alleviate that somewhat by giving said dwarf a brother who is emphatically not the stereotypical dwarf, and making them both the cooks. Oh, and the main plotting antagonist of the first four books turns out to be the hero's father, but the readers get to learn that much sooner than the hero does. Anyway, you might enjoy it.

(Reply to this)


[info]ravenclaw_eric
2007-10-17 06:58 pm UTC (link)
One thing I'd like to point out is that Greek and Roman mythology had very little to do with how the actual religions in question worked---and that Greek and Roman religion were very different from each other. We tend to think of them as one big lump because the Romans loved Greek myths and wrote about them a lot, using the names of Roman gods and goddesses instead of the Greek ones, for some insane reason.

Real Roman religion had two sides: a public side, which had a lot in common with a lot of our modern secular holidays, and a private side, involving the worship of lars and other small household or farm spirits. Before they got mixed up with the Greeks, Roman gods were mostly numen---formless---and often had very different portfolios than the Greek gods they got identified with. Venus got identified with the Greek Aphrodite---but in one form, Venus Erucina, she was the patroness of the funeral industry; in another, she was the patroness of whores. Jupiter Optimus Maximus (Best and Greatest) was the patron of Roman men---but Jupiter Stator was the god who was supposed to stop Roman armies from fleeing, Jupiter Pluvius was a rain-bringer, and so on and so forth.

The Romans also had a different approach to religion than most moderns do: their notion was do ut des; in other words, "I do for you, that you may do for me." Most priesthoods were public offices, held by aspiring young men on their way up the ladder, and were not lifetime appointments; they also had (with some exceptions, such as the flamines) few or no restrictions on their everyday behavior.

And the Romans were very, very superstitious; there was a whole class of priests who did nothing but interpret omens. This got bound up with politics, with public meetings that were about to go the way the bigwigs didn't want them to go called off because the augurs saw an unfavorable omen.

Actually using the real Roman religion, with the names changed and the serial numbers filed off, would make for a very interesting fantasy-world religion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]talheres
2008-01-10 08:41 am UTC (link)
The numen theory is pretty much dead now, actually. Not that you don't have good points, or anything, but have you ever read Mary Beard's work?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ravenclaw_eric
2009-06-18 06:31 pm UTC (link)
Can't really say that I have. Got any titles?

Other things that you find in real ancient religions are stuff like, for example, not being able to enter a temple after a battle until you were ritually purified. Many or most ancient religions considered human blood defiling---as did medieval Christianity; IIRC the cathedral at Canterbury had to be re-consecrated after Thomas Becket's martyrdom.

This might complicate the life of a fantasy warrior, I think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…