• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Use of Biblical apocrypha in a Dark Fantasy novel.

C

Chessie

Guest
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

Archmage
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

Troubadour
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. :D) 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. :p
 

Scribble

Archmage
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 . . .

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)
 
Last edited:

Mara Edgerton

Troubadour
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)


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 . . .
 
Last edited:

Scribble

Archmage
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.
 
Last edited:

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
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.

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

Myth Weaver
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

Sage
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.
 
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

Banned
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

Archmage
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Dreamer
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.
 
Top