Garren Jacobsen
Auror
Well I never expected that if the Spanish Inquisition.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Christianity and pseudo-Christianity in otherwise fantasy worlds
- Thread starter Feo Takahari
- Start date
Well I never expected that if the Spanish Inquisition.
That's because their chief weapon is surprise. Well, fear and surprise are their TWO chief weapons.
Last edited:
FifthView
Vala
The original comment about witches was my own and dealt specifically with writing a story, i.e., within the context of fantasy fiction:
Sometimes a story only needs the persecution, and a segue to some tiny, powerless sect within the church opposed to burning witches would only be a distraction, however fair and balanced.
The comment you referenced was a comment I made to X Equestris, who had said "Witch hunts didn't really take off until the tail end of the Middle Ages/ early Renaissance, and even then they've been over exaggerated in popular history." In other words, the conversation had leapt from a consideration of the story to a world-historical consideration. So when you responded to my comment about over-exaggeration, I thought you had read the rest of that comment; the very next line in particular was an attempt to move the discussion back to story-writing:
They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.
And, again, story scope is an issue. Not all stories are expansive, realist opuses, covering every region of a nation or countryside and including treatises on every variation in ideology and religious practices.
And, again, story scope is an issue. Not all stories are expansive, realist opuses, covering every region of a nation or countryside and including treatises on every variation in ideology and religious practices.
I would explain that first line by saying that falling back to world-historical fact-checking seemed to me an attempt to dismiss the utility of witch-burning, as an idea, for fleshing out a fantasy religion. Hey, if it didn't happen exactly that way in Earth history, it can't be used in a fantasy novel! (Fire-breathing dragons notwithstanding.)
Your comment quoting that first line also fell into line with the world-historical argument. So my comment to you was, again, an attempt to turn the conversation back to story telling and away from a debate over what actually happened, in its absolute entirety and utter truth, in Earth history.
But my comment was also something of a fishing expedition for clarity. I mean, me wanting clarity. Because we are talking about portrayals of pseudo-Christianity in fiction, specifically in fantasy fiction. So, what constitutes such an identifiable portrayal? How do we know that someone is attempting to portray Christianity, when only a handful of precepts and practices are used, intermixed with things that are entirely original or from other actual religions? If he is utilizing witch-burning, is the author slamming Christianity? Or can one incorporate some ideas, expand on them, alter them — indeed, veer from the world-historical fact — without intending or desiring for readers to read it as an anti-Christian text? After all, "pseudo-" means false, so isn't there an assumption that this is a "false Christianity" when we reference a pseudo-Christianity? People don't use the term "pseudo-Christianity" in their novels of course. But isn't there already the assumption that readers should not take the fictional religion for anything other than a fictional religion?
But then, how much correspondence to Christianity, historical or modern, needs to occur before one can even make the assumption that it's a "pseudo-Christianity."
So when, within this long conversation thread, people mention "negative portrayals of Christianity," what, exactly do they mean? What are those portrayals, what do they include?
Last edited:
X Equestris
Maester
Let me state that there was no attempt to dismiss witch hunts. My statement was to 1) to correct a factual inaccuracy (you specified medieval Christianity, and witch hunts were practically nonexistent in that era), and 2) note the fact that when witch hunts pop up in fiction, they're almost always exaggerated far beyond the events they are based on. Too often, writers use witch hunts as shorthand for "This religion is bad, m'kay.", much like dressing your bad guy all in black.
Here's some characteristics that set off alarm bells for "thinly veiled author tract" for me, aside from the aforementioned witch hunts. Not all of these are necessary, but the more a work hits, the more likely I am to put it away.
1. The clergy are all corrupt and/or hypocrites.
2. Any clergy that aren't corrupt and/ or hypocrites are fanatics
3. Any clergy that aren't corrupt, fanatical, or hypocrites are so far down the food chain that they might as well not exist.
4. Super patriarchal, to the point of woman hating.
5. Constantly wages holy wars on its totally innocent neighbors (often presented like a grossly oversimplified account of the Crusades)
6. Totally intolerant of any other way of thinking
7. Hates science and learning
8. Never does anything beneficial to the community
9. The common folk who follow the religion are all stupid
10. The religious organization knows what it preaches is false, but carries on anyway so it can exploit its loyal followers
11. Nobody at any level ever raises any objections with the way things are done
12. There are no sympathetic characters that follow the religion
13. If there is a sympathetic character that identifies with said religion, they don't actually follow its teachings in any meaningful way.
14. Nobody ever willingly converts to said religion: they're either forcibly converted or born into it.
I might have left a few out, but those are the ones that annoy me the most and start making me think the author has an axe to grind.
Myth WeaverUgh...getting into touchy issues here.
Still, from my own reading most of two decades ago...the Catholic Church had a long list of theological enemies from its inception. (Parts of Acts and Paul's letters get into faction fights.) Up until around AD 300, what is now the Catholic Church was a large minority faction within the ranks of those who considered themselves 'Christian' - with most of the others being Gnostics of one stripe or another. Early Church fathers wrote lengthy diatribes against the Gnostics, with one of the chief charges being these sects made free use of magic. (To my mind, most of these early Church Fathers also come across as first class control freaks, insisting on absolute obedience to the hierarchy in all aspects of life, though others may dispute that).
In the middle ages, the Catholic Church did stamp down very hard on deviant groups. The most appalling of these crackdowns was against the Cathar, centered in what is now France. That led directly to the 'Fourth Crusade,' a campaign of military extermination. It's also where we get the phrase 'kill them all, as God knows his own.' (Massacring a town with an uncertain number of Cathar.) There was also a tendency during this period for Popes to view themselves as kings or emperors in their own right - and some of these pope kings were major league disgraces, along with most of the ranking bishops. We get the word 'porn,' from the term 'pornocracy' which was applied to an especially decadent stretch here.
May be debatable how many witches the Spanish Inquisition killed, but they did engage in massive, heavy duty persecution of Jews and Moslems. Forced conversions, entire populaces displaced.
Protestantism...also a bloody mess. The 'Thirty Years War,' an especially nasty conflict had part of its roots in the rift between Protestantism and Catholicism. And Luther, who set the whole Protestant thing in motion, had a pretty serious hatred of the peasantry going on.
The secret societies that gave us Free Masonry got started about the same time as the Thirty Years War, and were condemned from the outset by the Catholic Hierarchy. These groups had a reputation for alchemy, which was considered a type of magic in those days. (In actuality, they laid the groundwork for modern science.)
Still, from my own reading most of two decades ago...the Catholic Church had a long list of theological enemies from its inception. (Parts of Acts and Paul's letters get into faction fights.) Up until around AD 300, what is now the Catholic Church was a large minority faction within the ranks of those who considered themselves 'Christian' - with most of the others being Gnostics of one stripe or another. Early Church fathers wrote lengthy diatribes against the Gnostics, with one of the chief charges being these sects made free use of magic. (To my mind, most of these early Church Fathers also come across as first class control freaks, insisting on absolute obedience to the hierarchy in all aspects of life, though others may dispute that).
In the middle ages, the Catholic Church did stamp down very hard on deviant groups. The most appalling of these crackdowns was against the Cathar, centered in what is now France. That led directly to the 'Fourth Crusade,' a campaign of military extermination. It's also where we get the phrase 'kill them all, as God knows his own.' (Massacring a town with an uncertain number of Cathar.) There was also a tendency during this period for Popes to view themselves as kings or emperors in their own right - and some of these pope kings were major league disgraces, along with most of the ranking bishops. We get the word 'porn,' from the term 'pornocracy' which was applied to an especially decadent stretch here.
May be debatable how many witches the Spanish Inquisition killed, but they did engage in massive, heavy duty persecution of Jews and Moslems. Forced conversions, entire populaces displaced.
Protestantism...also a bloody mess. The 'Thirty Years War,' an especially nasty conflict had part of its roots in the rift between Protestantism and Catholicism. And Luther, who set the whole Protestant thing in motion, had a pretty serious hatred of the peasantry going on.
The secret societies that gave us Free Masonry got started about the same time as the Thirty Years War, and were condemned from the outset by the Catholic Hierarchy. These groups had a reputation for alchemy, which was considered a type of magic in those days. (In actuality, they laid the groundwork for modern science.)
X Equestris
Maester
The Fourth Crusade ended up attacking Constantinople because of a messy series of events. You're thinking of the Albigensian Crusade.
Like I said, it has been most of twenty years since I last looked into this stuff.
But even back then, I remember being
1 - appalled at the corrupt and horrible things done by allegedly pious folk; and
2 - thinking there was a lot of potential story material here. (I did snatch bits and pieces for use in world building, and an appropriate fantasy work set in my world is on the 'someday' list.) I mean, some of what transpired was so freaking weird you probably couldn't use it in a conventionally published novel today - like the pope who had his predecessors body dug up and put on trial.
You need only look at the current thread for at least a partial answer. Taking Christianity head-on is likely to stir up a wide range of reactions, many of which you as the author may not intend or want. It's a perilous path; are you sure you want to tread it?
Wouldn't the Perelandra series qualify as a fantasy tale in which Christianity is favorably portrayed? Though, I would rather say it was intelligently explored. But I agree with the broader point--Christianity or even monotheism rarely comes off well in fantasy tales, where it appears at all.
I'm not sure this is particularly significant. In earlier times, fantasy tales were heavily influenced by Romanticism, so we got a strong dose of natural religions, animism and polytheism. Not so much, I think, because of any theological positioning so much as because those forms were exotic and were thought of as folkloric. More modern treatments merely reflect our current cultural milieu. Also, fwiw, I don't find fantasy stories tackle real-world subjects in general. How many do a good job with economics, for example? Or have political systems that actually make sense? Some, but not many.
So, I am untroubled by how fantasy handles religion.
I'm not sure this is particularly significant. In earlier times, fantasy tales were heavily influenced by Romanticism, so we got a strong dose of natural religions, animism and polytheism. Not so much, I think, because of any theological positioning so much as because those forms were exotic and were thought of as folkloric. More modern treatments merely reflect our current cultural milieu. Also, fwiw, I don't find fantasy stories tackle real-world subjects in general. How many do a good job with economics, for example? Or have political systems that actually make sense? Some, but not many.
So, I am untroubled by how fantasy handles religion.
Mindfire
Istar
Fear, surprise, AND an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!
Mythopoet
Auror
You forgot ruthless efficiency! And nice red coats.
Russ
Istar
Actually the Spanish Inquisition was a much more local issue with deep connections to the secular rulers of the country and the very specific history of the reconquista. The relationship between the Papacy and the Spanish inquisition was always troubled with the Pope often writing and directing bishops to curtail and moderate the inquisition and Spanish royalty pushing the reverse.
In fact one Pope wrote a letter that stated as follows:
And King Ferdinand in response accused the Pope of having been bribed by secret Jews and openly defied the Popes directions to moderate the inquisition in Spain.
There are many, many further examples, but you get the idea.
Mindfire
Istar
...Dude. I was quoting a Monty Python sketch. It's not that deep.
Russ
Istar
Good education is never wasted even in a moment of humour.
Or is there a story scope issue here?
Last edited:
Mindfire
Istar
Never mind, then.
FifthView
Vala
For me, there are two separate issues:
- What features lead to the identification of a fictional religion with Christianity, or suggest it was modeled on Christianity?
- What are the negative features of that religion that are offensive or annoying or simply oversimplified/cliché?
For me, the list you gave covers #2. But those features could be used to describe the negative portrayal of any fictional religion and don't for me cover #1. They don't suggest to me that the religion was modeled on Christianity, at least not well enough to be an obvious portrayal of a pseudo-Christianity.
The things that trigger the identification for me are:
- Physical infrastructure: monasteries/abbeys/priories, churches, cathedrals —particularly if these actual words are used.
- Institutional organization: hierarchy, with a single person at the head of the organization and many levels between him and the lowest level official. Again, this is especially the case when specific words are used: pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, vicar.
- Some features of ritual: Communal praying, on knees; singing hymns, use of incense, lighting candles, etc. Many of these things can be imagined outside a Christian religion; so, when used in context with some of the above institutional features.
- Some tenets: Atonement for sin, asceticism or moderation of desires (vs. licentious sex, liquor use, gluttony, greed, etc.), heaven/hell as reward or punishment in the afterlife, the Church alone has God's ear or is the final interpreter and judge of textual meaning. There may be others. Again, these things can be imagined for other religions; so, these in combination with some of the above points.
Not all of these would need to be present. I may have missed some things, also.
Those are the major signals, for me. I do vaguely recall one novel that mentioned a "savior god" who died to save his people. I don't remember a cross being used as a religious symbol in anything I've read that wasn't explicitly referencing Christianity. These would be additional signals, if used.
When I've read novels that heavily featured the above things, the most common negative portrayals seem to be your #1-#3, i.e., corrupt and/or fanatical officials. #6, intolerance of other beliefs, is also common.
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
Russ
Istar
Could that be the Rabbit of Caerbannong perchance?
Last edited by a moderator:
X Equestris
Maester
Yeah, I was only seeking to answer number two with the list.
I think we did get a little sidetracked here.
When I mentioned that religions often felt "monotone," I wasn't limiting that statement to "negative" portrayals or to "pseudo-Christian" portrayals. To me, I think religions are often used to provide that "stark contrast" between two cultures or between an individual and the rest of the culture. It's often painted in broad rough strokes like a highlighter. It's a short-hand way of creating a generational divide, or an ethnic divide, or as a foil to the "old magics." Religion is usually given that limited purpose in the story and very seldom feels flushed out or developed.
I think there are better ways to do that . . . . like developing the relationship between the characters or cultures beyond that stark contrast.
When I mentioned that religions often felt "monotone," I wasn't limiting that statement to "negative" portrayals or to "pseudo-Christian" portrayals. To me, I think religions are often used to provide that "stark contrast" between two cultures or between an individual and the rest of the culture. It's often painted in broad rough strokes like a highlighter. It's a short-hand way of creating a generational divide, or an ethnic divide, or as a foil to the "old magics." Religion is usually given that limited purpose in the story and very seldom feels flushed out or developed.
I think there are better ways to do that . . . . like developing the relationship between the characters or cultures beyond that stark contrast.
