# Use of Biblical apocrypha in a Dark Fantasy novel.



## Watcher (Jun 24, 2013)

My fantasy novel is heavily influenced from the biblical apocrypha and Messopotamian myths. It deals mainly with fallen angels (Egrigori, Watchers, Nephilim Giants, Elder Vampires, Demons, Anthropomorhic and Zoomorphic hybrid beasts) I also have a God, a place named Eden. I am wondering if I need to name this god so that it does not resemble the biblical God. Is it appropriate to borrow elements from the biblical angelic lore (Judaism - Christianity - Islam) and build my fantasy world or do I need to introduce different names for these supernatural beings?


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Jun 24, 2013)

Watcher said:


> My fantasy novel is heavily influenced from the biblical apocrypha and Messopotamian myths. It deals mainly with fallen angels (Egrigori, Watchers, Nephilim Giants, Elder Vampires, Demons, Anthropomorhic and Zoomorphic hybrid beasts) I also have a God, a place named Eden. I am wondering if I need to name this god so that it does not resemble the biblical God. Is it appropriate to borrow elements from the biblical angelic lore (Judaism - Christianity - Islam) and build my fantasy world or do I need to introduce different names for these supernatural beings?



You can borrow elements from other myths and you might even directly take gods from different cultures if it suited your story. I would advise against naming a god something like Zeus if he was not Zeus himself, it would be weird and confusing. I invlolve various gods and myths in all my stories but being a Christian I never directly involve anything from the Bible into my work. You might see angels and demons appearing but never do i name them after any angels in the bible, nor will you find any reference to Jesus or Satan in my books. They are fictional work and I want to keep it seperate as a choice of moral confliction.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jun 24, 2013)

Coming at this from a Jewish perspective--although I'm only speaking for myself, of course!--I don't think you need to disguise where you drew some of your story from. I'm fine if you reference Gan Eden, the nephilim, etc--in fact, I may enjoy the story all the more because of your take on them. However, just don't use any of the sacred names of G-d, especially the one spelt out with the Hebrew letters Yod Heh Vav Heh. (In English bibles, they traditionally substitute LORD for this Name.) Jews don't pronounce the Name and we are very careful of any paper that it's written or typed on.  I would find it bizarrely disconcerting to see it used casually in a work of fiction.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jun 24, 2013)

I would have to agree with Mara.  Just say you have a god named God, if you want one.  Giving it a traditional name will tie it to one of the Big Three, and that does not sound like what you're shooting for.  The children of Abraham can be very testy about such things.  BUT, drawing from the Apocrypha is usually obscure enough that very few people are familiar enough to really object to its use, as long as you're being respectful and basically sticking to canon.


----------



## Devor (Jun 24, 2013)

Coming at it from another angle,

I did some brief research on demonology and angelology in the Judeo-Christian religion, and there really aren't many sources, apocryphal, medieval or otherwise.  But there's a lot of people writing fantasy in this region.  You're nowhere near the first post I've seen to mention it.

That is, however you answer these questions, someone else is doing that too.  You might want to think more about how you can twist yours in an original direction so that it will stand out from the competition.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 24, 2013)

I got to thinking of Gaiman's Sandman. He does similar/semi-related things there.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 24, 2013)

The answer to "is it Ok" is "yes." Write the story that speaks to you. Don't worry about offending people. That's my view.


----------



## Watcher (Jun 24, 2013)

Thank you so much, because I was so worried that I had to change everything in my story and that would spoil the atmosphere and the mystery I want to portray. 

I am aware of the Sandman graphic novels that Neil Gaiman wrote and he used in his gothic fantasy world (universe) angels and demons from the Judaeo-Christian lore and even Satan (Lucifer) ... especially in the Season of Mists issue. I asked many people and they told me that I should not use angel or demon names that are mentioned in the bible. As far as influences from mythologies such as Babylonian or Mesopotamian I am very careful not to use the exact names of certain locations or cities since a pure fantasy world must be totally fictional (secondary worlds). But certain creatures and beasts have Sumerian names (i.e Shedus, or the Demon Lilith) I do not want to change the names of the entities because I don't think that anyone will be offended, since these are all mythical creatures.
I feel I should stick to my inspiration and try not to worry to much about the religious aspect of it and if it will offend certain believers, otherwise I should not write it at all.


----------



## Pat Harris (Jun 24, 2013)

Just a quick comment. Several movies have gone waaaaaay out of their way not to offend certain religious groups, no doubt because they desire to attract viewers from those groups. Perhaps you should ask yourself, "Who is my intended audience?" and go from there.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jun 24, 2013)

I have to go with Steerpike here.  Otherwise, you've defeated yourself before getting underway.  

I used to read a lot of biblical and mesopotamian myths.  Thing is, while the tendency today (and for a long while beforehand)has been towards literalism and unchanging rigidity, with everything neatly categorized in its own niche, the situation at the outset was very different.  The tales you read in the bible were more like outlines.  People elaborated, changed things, borrowed this and that from other stories.


----------



## psychotick (Jun 24, 2013)

Hi,

My take on using God, just referto him as "God", "The Lord" orperhaps even "The Creator". It covers the concept well enough and everyone will understand. I have no issue with names of angels and demons from the bible either. They're just names. The only one I'd steer clear of is anything to do with Islam.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jun 24, 2013)

Devor said:


> Coming at it from another angle,
> 
> I did some brief research on demonology and angelology in the Judeo-Christian religion, and there really aren't many sources, apocryphal, medieval or otherwise.  But there's a lot of people writing fantasy in this region.  You're nowhere near the first post I've seen to mention it.
> 
> That is, however you answer these questions, someone else is doing that too.  You might want to think more about how you can twist yours in an original direction so that it will stand out from the competition.



There are plenty of Jewish sources, though you may want a Talmudic scholar to walk you through them . . .


----------



## Weaver (Jun 25, 2013)

Watcher said:


> My fantasy novel is heavily influenced from the biblical apocrypha and Messopotamian myths. It deals mainly with fallen angels (Egrigori, Watchers, Nephilim Giants, Elder Vampires, Demons, Anthropomorhic and Zoomorphic hybrid beasts) I also have a God, a place named Eden. I am wondering if I need to name this god so that it does not resemble the biblical God. Is it appropriate to borrow elements from the biblical angelic lore (Judaism - Christianity - Islam) and build my fantasy world or do I need to introduce different names for these supernatural beings?



Let me state it from a religiously neutral viewpoint:  Why should _those_ myths be exempt?  Not too many people worry about whether they may be offending anyone when they borrow from Non-Western religions, or from European ones that pre-date Christianity taking hold.

Unless you feel it is wrong to use those myths as well, what are you worried about?

Besides, if you change all the names, there may not be any point in borrowing from that source in the first place rather than just making up something entirely new anyway.


----------



## Watcher (Jun 25, 2013)

Thank you Steerpike ... I will write the story that speaks to me.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jun 25, 2013)

Weaver said:


> Let me state it from a religiously neutral viewpoint:  Why should _those_ myths be exempt?  Not too many people worry about whether they may be offending anyone when they borrow from Non-Western religions, or from European ones that pre-date Christianity taking hold.
> 
> Unless you feel it is wrong to use those myths as well, what are you worried about?
> 
> Besides, if you change all the names, there may not be any point in borrowing from that source in the first place rather than just making up something entirely new anyway.



I think you're right. All religions and mythologies are up for grabs for a writer. We can use them as inspiration for world-building, as cultural background for characters or as plot devices or, well, whatever.

I think we have a responsibility, though, to take care with what we borrow. I understand the hard-core rules against imagery in Islam, so I wouldn't include a picture of Muhammad in a book I wrote. I understand why traditionally Jews don't pronounce the Hebrew name of G-d, and why we're protective of it, so I wouldn't write it out in a work of fiction. I understand what Wiccan and other Pagan friends go through in terms of 'PR' with the rest of the world, so I wouldn't treat their religion as a joke in any work of mine. And if I wanted to write about or draw inspiration from the religion of, say, the Lakota, I'd go learn as much as I could first so I could treat it with respect. 

It's all good stuff and all grist for our mills, but we might as well be accurate and at least somewhat sensitive while we're busy borrowing.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 25, 2013)

To be brutally honest... 

When I read something that feels like the writer was trying _too hard _not to offend people, I consistently find it to be utter crap. It's always transparent, and I won't even touch it. I'm not saying you have to go and offend people on purpose, but nothing kills art like political correctness. 

It's a choice we all have to make when we write. When we start hacking away at our stories out of a fear of offending people, what are we doing to our art? We have opinions on politics, or religion, or social mores... we have the choice to silence that part of us and write something else. We have the choice not to offend, but are we writing honestly, or are we sacrificing our art for the sake of social standing?

Isaac Asimov, George Orwell, H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, and Robert Heinlein.... they all wrote things that were controversial, but they wrote honestly, and _that's _why we still read them. In our genre, I think more recently of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series, or Tad Williams's The Dirty Streets of Heaven. 

I'm not saying that we should deliberately offend people, but if we take our creations and then chop off all the bits that might offend, will it feel like that to the reader? If there is a sex scene that does nothing for the story, and you take it out, that's one thing. If it kills the story, that's another. If I write a story that plays on Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost, or rip off tales from the Bagavhad Gita and change the names, anyone with half a brain will see past that ruse. If one of the Abrahamic prophets is obviously a character in my book, and I call him Charles... if it is obvious why I called him Charles, I will offend my reader.

I have a family, I have daughters, I have a mother who is a spiritual director in the Catholic church, I have a job with much responsibility. I understand very well the pressures of trying to write honestly while not offending my community. Luckily, I live in a fairly secular place, where most people don't speak much about religion, so I have a freedom to express myself that may be lacking in places where there is a resurgence of religion, and even fundamentalist ideologies.

I do feel certain of one thing as a reader, and that is this: If you are going to take on the mythology of a religion in your story, either do it, or don't do it. If you go half-way, or embed modern PC sensibilities into your narrative, it's going to smack of social cowardice. That does not a good novel make.


I just tweeted this quote I wrote, inspiration thanks to this question:



> All books worth reading will offend someone, somewhere.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 25, 2013)

I don't think there is necessarily a duty of care or sensitivity. I agree with Scribble that going out of one's way to offend people isn't called for - it's just a cheap trick. 

But when it comes to actually having a responsibility to be careful or sensitive, my questions are:

1. Where would such a responsibility stem from?
2. Suppose you're writing satire or parody aimed at lambasting a certain viewpoint?
3. Suppose the theme of the work is meant to comment negatively on a certain viewpoint?
4. Does the duty apply to characters, as well as the narrative as a whole? Suppose I have one character who is fervently against some religious viewpoint? Suppose I'm writing in first person and it's my viewpoint character?

I think when we start to say "It's OK to write about, but you have to....X"  (where X can be anything, like be careful, be sensitive, be PC, or whatever), you're starting down an ill-defined slope.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jun 25, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think there is necessarily a duty of care or sensitivity. I agree with Scribble that going out of one's way to offend people isn't called for - it's just a cheap trick.
> 
> But when it comes to actually having a responsibility to be careful or sensitive, my questions are:
> 
> ...



Your character can argue against a religion, no problem. Your character can despise religion--or a particular religion--and no problem. What's not fair, though, is to set up a parody of a religion and lambast that. I think an author needs to play fair with religions, that's all. Don't set up a fluffy-bunny Wiccan to stand for all of Wicca. Don't take every terrible scandal you can find about the Catholic Church and set that up as the whole faith. 

Arguing is good--but good arguments and good critiques require fair play.

Now, that said, you might have a clueless character who doesn't understand that there's more to a given religion than a parody version he knows. That requires careful handling, I think--but it can be done without representing the parody as the only aspect of the religion, even if the character remains clueless. Tough, but possible.

This is all just my opinion, of course . . .


----------



## Scribble (Jun 25, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think there is necessarily a duty of care or sensitivity. I agree with Scribble that going out of one's way to offend people isn't called for - it's just a cheap trick.



I firmly believe that the novel is the best way we have to explore and express thoughts and ideas that we have about our society and culture. I dislike a novel that _preaches _that  a particular religion/ideology/practice is the best for reasons x, y and z. However, I want to read books where criticisms are laid out. This leaves it open for me to decide. Those who hold those things criticized to be sacred, they may be offended. 

I severely dislike the idea that a person is responsible for offending another. The offended person has a right to complain, but the offense is experienced on the part of the observer, it is not inflicted by the other. We have this idea infecting our culture that it is on the part of the offender, and that we have a "right" not to be offended. This kind of thinking is the seed of many social evils - it gets us primed to "remove" the people who offend us, as we feel it is our right to do so. Who is to judge who and what is offensive? But, I am ranting now 

When folks read Paradise Lost by Milton, there were people frothing at the mouth at the heresy, the not-so-subtle accusations of idolatry. The devil was shown as a sympathetic character, a rebel more than the source of evil. If Milton had changed the names, would we still be reading it today? I don't think so, and it's not because it was "controversial". He asks questions in that book and he tries to get at some answers, and he exposes certain human truths in the process. If he had changed the names, it would have been crap, we would have seen it as cowardice. 

This is just my opinion as a reader: if you are going to use it, use it. If you are afraid to, then don't.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 25, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> Your character can argue against a religion, no problem. Your character can despise religion--or a particular religion--and no problem. What's not fair, though, is to set up a parody of a religion and lambast that. I think an author needs to play fair with religions, that's all. Don't set up a fluffy-bunny Wiccan to stand for all of Wicca. Don't take every terrible scandal you can find about the Catholic Church and set that up as the whole faith.
> 
> Arguing is good--but good arguments and good critiques require fair play.
> 
> ...



I think this is all good advice when you're writing a serious work. I don't think it holds true if the work itself is a comedy, parody, satire, or what have you. 

Think about something like _Monty Python_. From _Life of Brian,_ or parts of _The Meaning of Life_. Setting up these sort of far-out parodies is part of the point. They lambast both Catholics and Protestants, for example, based on caricatures of those groups. Because that's what they set out to do, and you couldn't have that same work without it.

That sort of thing, I don't have a problem with. If you're trying to write a "serious" work and you use caricatures, you'll rightly be criticized for it, because you're trying to put the work out there as serious commentary. But humorous writing shouldn't be judged by that same standard. Sometimes the humor is in the caricature itself.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 25, 2013)

This idea sounds bomb and tbh, people will criticize you for anything. If you're down to use this type of idea, best to go full force and not worry about offending anyone, just write what you want. There will be an audience for it. But as a couple posters here have mentioned, don't try to hold back in saves of offending someone...because it will shine through as weak in your writing!


----------



## Scribble (Jun 25, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think this is all good advice when you're writing a serious work. I don't think it holds true if the work itself is a comedy, parody, satire, or what have you.



Good point, I wasn't thinking of satire, etc... Piers Anthony's books might fit in here as well.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jun 25, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think this is all good advice when you're writing a serious work. I don't think it holds true if the work itself is a comedy, parody, satire, or what have you.
> 
> Think about something like _Monty Python_. From _Life of Brian,_ or parts of _The Meaning of Life_. Setting up these sort of far-out parodies is part of the point. They lambast both Catholics and Protestants, for example, based on caricatures of those groups. Because that's what they set out to do, and you couldn't have that same work without it.
> 
> That sort of thing, I don't have a problem with. If you're trying to write a "serious" work and you use caricatures, you'll rightly be criticized for it, because you're trying to put the work out there as serious commentary. But humorous writing shouldn't be judged by that same standard. Sometimes the humor is in the caricature itself.



I sort of agree, Steerpike--although you're giving the best example possible! Monty Python does just about everything right in _Life of Brian _(and I say that affectionately since they took plenty of shots at Jews too. ) But watching it, I never got the impression that they were telling everything there was to tell about Judaism or Christianity. As you say, they didn't pretend they were. 

However, in less skilled hands, I think satires can and do fall flat. I think for a satire to work, we the audience have to both recognize the caricatures for what they are, and also be left with the feeling that the satirists know there's more to what they're satirizing, if that makes sense. 

In the hands of Monty Python, it generally works great--whether they're satirizing a religion in _Life of Brian _or a communist collective in _Holy Grail_. But in lesser hands . . . meh. Like I said, to me, it sometimes falls flat.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> Your character can argue against a religion, no problem. Your character can despise religion--or a particular religion--and no problem. What's not fair, though, is to set up a parody of a religion and lambast that. I think an author needs to play fair with religions, that's all. Don't set up a fluffy-bunny Wiccan to stand for all of Wicca. Don't take every terrible scandal you can find about the Catholic Church and set that up as the whole faith.
> 
> Arguing is good--but good arguments and good critiques require fair play.
> 
> ...



I've been thinking about this quite a lot over the years. I'm of two seemingly conflicting opinions.

I'm of the opinion that there is no _inherent _sacredness in the world, and avoiding the criticism of religions or political groups - ANY human group because we want to respect the sacredness of it is exactly what allows atrocious acts to continue to be perpetuated in those groups. Religion by it's nature tends to keep old ideas and repeat old behaviors. The only way to modernize, that is, to clean the bathwater without throwing out the baby is to point out where it's dirty. The novel is a place where we should be able to criticize bad ideas, and satire has always been a most effective tool. It's impossible to easily point out the bad behavior of a group in the context where 90% of their other behaviors are reasonable and moral. How else to get people to think?

Then, there is my other opinion which is that the best way to create change is to engage in respectful dialogue, delivering criticism in a constructive way within the context of a complex social group that is more than the behavior that you view as problematic. I've spent a lot of time and effort blogging and warrioring on message boards about human rights, equality, and the modernization of religions, and I regret my youthful approaches. I'm wiser now, and realize that the best way to get people to change is to create a rapport, a trust, and establish a dialogue.

I think novels should be able to do both, though creating a dialogue with the reader is an interesting challenge, given the medium. Satire is much easier to achieve. 

If we're talking about fantasy, we can invent whatever pantheons or planes of existence we want. If we are taking on an existing mythology from a living religion with members who will have opinions, we can't avoid making certain statements or portrayals that _someone _may take offense to even if we did not intend it. That's why the old religions are safe for fictional use - all their followers are dead! 

(Maybe you have that one odd neighbor with the red beard who believes that Thor is making the thunder)


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jun 26, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I've been thinking about this quite a lot over the years. I'm of two seemingly conflicting opinions.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that there is no _inherent _sacredness in the world, and avoiding the criticism of religions or political groups - ANY human group because we want to respect the sacredness of it is exactly what allows atrocious acts to continue to be perpetuated in those groups. Religion by it's nature tends to keep old ideas and repeat old behaviors. The only way to modernize, that is, to clean the bathwater without throwing out the baby is to point out where it's dirty. The novel is a place where we should be able to criticize bad ideas, and satire has always been a most effective tool. It's impossible to easily point out the bad behavior of a group in the context where 90% of their other behaviors are reasonable and moral. How else to get people to think?
> 
> ...




I think we're largely in agreement, Scribble, but I want to make sure I'm understood: it's not a bad thing if you take a shot at religion in general or a particular religion. It's not a bad thing to offend someone. But I think that the rule of fairness has to be in play. 

Chaim Potek could write effectively about the issues involved in living in Ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox or Chasidic Jewish communities because he understood the good, the bad and the ugly about them. He left Orthodoxy and became a Conservative Jewish rabbi and commentator--but he remained insightful about the various forms of Orthodox Judaism for better or for worse. So when I read _The Chosen_ or _My Name is Asher Lev_, it has a real impact.

A recent book I read by a woman who fled an Ultra-Orthodox community, on the other hand, wasn't nearly as effective with those issues. The chip on her shoulder was just too huge, and I found her portrayal of the community flat and relentlessly negative. I have no doubt she earned the chip that weighs her down. And as a progressive Conservative Jew myself, I know I wouldn't last ten minutes in an Ultra-Orthodox community. But for me, her book didn't make its point, because it didn't help me understand that community and why so many flock to it. She needed to show its strengths as well as its flaws--even if she chose to castigate it for its flaws.

So how do you criticize that 10% of the religion that you see as a moral problem, while playing fair with the other 90%? Ultimately, I think you show it all--and trust your audience to pick out the good, the bad, and the ugly for themselves.

P.S. And when we create religions, I think we need to create them with the good, the bad and the ugly to make them resonate with what we all know in real life . . .


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2013)

This is a good point.

In my younger days, I only every considered the "utility" of religion, what is it "good for". It came home when I was in one debate where I was told "It isn't about being good, it's about being in a closer relationship with [deity]." 

That kind of thinking allows sweet grandmothers, dear aunts, and loving uncles perpetuate acts and beliefs that seem normal to them, because it's part of a tradition, but in a modern context are problematic. 

The impact of a two-dimensional villain perpetuating behavior X isn't shocking. When a family member commits X, and everyone looks on in agreement or turns a blind eye, that is far more disconcerting. Showing good people doing questionable things and then making dinner is a more powerful way to offer a critique.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jun 26, 2013)

Scribble said:


> This is a good point.
> 
> In my younger days, I only every considered the "utility" of religion, what is it "good for". It came home when I was in one debate where I was told "It isn't about being good, it's about being in a closer relationship with [deity]."
> 
> ...



You very much put me in mind of Shirley Jackson's _The Lottery_. The Lottery - Full Text - English  (This isn't the best copy of the story, but it's the only one I could track down.)  It's an excellent example of basically good people doing very questionable things for what they believe is the greater good, or at least because it's the way "things have always been done."  There is a very telling line towards the end that did not make it into the version I linked, where an old man is complaining that neighboring towns no longer hold lotteries anymore, and that just ain't right.


----------



## Ireth (Jun 26, 2013)

A. E. Lowan said:


> You very much put me in mind of Shirley Jackson's _The Lottery_. The Lottery - Full Text - English  (This isn't the best copy of the story, but it's the only one I could track down.)  It's an excellent example of basically good people doing very questionable things for what they believe is the greater good, or at least because it's the way "things have always been done."



That reminds me very much of the movie _Hot Fuzz_. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.


----------



## Weaver (Jun 27, 2013)

Ireth said:


> That reminds me very much of the movie _Hot Fuzz_. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.



"...the greater good."



I love that movie.  And yeah, I thought of that, too, when I saw "the greater good" in A. E. Lowan's post.


----------



## Pat Harris (Jul 4, 2013)

Actually, I'd be cautious about naming characters after people in THE Book if you're going to have them doing questionable things. I wouldn't worry so much about what people think, but I would concern myself with what THE Author of THE Book thinks - if you "get my drift." Just a suggestion.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jul 4, 2013)

It is rather ironic that the consensus on this message board is that political correctness is bad and that we shouldn't worry about offending people, because MS is nothing if not the most politically correct forum I have ever posted in. You practically can't talk about any topic that could potentially upset someone here. Don't get me wrong, I understand the admins want a civil atmosphere where everyone feels welcome, but it nonetheless seems a little hypocritical to decry political correctness in this community of all places.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 4, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> It is rather ironic that the consensus on this message board is that political correctness is bad and that we shouldn't worry about offending people, because MS is nothing if not the most politically correct forum I have ever posted in. You practically can't talk about any topic that could potentially upset someone here. Don't get me wrong, I understand the admins want a civil atmosphere where everyone feels welcome, but it nonetheless seems a little hypocritical to decry political correctness in this community of all places.



There is this idea that has infected western culture, this idea that people have a *right* to not be offended. This is the basis for social evil. It sets us up to the idea that we have the *right* to remove people with ideas we don't like.

At the same time, there's nothing trickier than being honest without upsetting people. Lies are the glue of polite society. 

I've been here just a little while, and I haven't seen any of that yet - but as a long time board moderator for another site, I know a flame war is always just around the corner. For every opinion expressed, there is always one person who will raise it as a level 10 offense. I have sympathy with the moderator. It isn't always easy to sort these things out except to keep an even hand. The job is to maintain peace, not to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Sometimes you just need to shut down a discussion when it starts getting hot. 

Time and place. There are some ideas expressed in this thread that I think are ridiculous, but I'll go to reddit to argue cosmology. I'll come here to talk writing fiction.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 4, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> It is rather ironic that the consensus on this message board is that political correctness is bad and that we shouldn't worry about offending people, because MS is nothing if not the most politically correct forum I have ever posted in. You practically can't talk about any topic that could potentially upset someone here. Don't get me wrong, I understand the admins want a civil atmosphere where everyone feels welcome, but it nonetheless seems a little hypocritical to decry political correctness in this community of all places.



Actually, you can talk about any topic here with the exception of contemporary politics, which is forbidden. The discussions just have to be reasonable and conducted with civility, and in a manner that is in keeping with the family friendly nature of the site.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 4, 2013)

My book series revolves is based on Christian and Greek mythology. I took the elements and combined them without naming new gods, I just barrowed what I needed if that makes sense.


----------

