Is it controversial having a demon being and angel being mate?

[Graham J. Darling]

I'd argue exactly the same about elements recognizably out of Hinduism, Norse mythology or traditional Native American folklore, whether anyone alive believes in them or not. Anansi in his base form has 8 legs, not 6. Even a fiction author has a professional responsibility to get things right about other people's worlds.

 

[pmmg]

Yeeeeeeeeah.... I'm going to go ahead and say you're in the minority for thinking that.

Really?

I mean...so what?

Certainly on this site, I would be in the minority. Artistic types dont tend to align with traditional world views or be strongly religious. In fact, most artistic types are at odds with such things. And so I would never expect to be in the majority of an opinion on a writers site. Is this to say, because you are not the majority, therefore we can discount you? I have something to say about that. You could have used that space to make an argument, but instead you want me to feel like I am too alone in my view to give it credit? Honestly, you should appreciate my differing view, cause I represent the other half that gets little exposure on artistic leaning sites, and am far more likely to say things that would not come from the same schools of thought as other writers. You dont have to embrace it.

I dont care if the OP'er writes his story this way or not. I made only an appeal that when one approaches things like angels, they consider their place in the source material they come from. That he wont, or that many dont, is not a strike against that. Its just presenting things in a way that is not matched well to the source that spawned them, and adds to the pile of stuff that would have me put an asterisk by its portrayal.

I am sure readers, if they want to, can see the difference. People have been portraying angels and demons differently for many years. So this will be nothing new. You say 'bad ass', I'd say something different. But I wont cause the OP'er does not need to be shot down, just made aware.

I hope you dont mind, but I will keep posting things the majority dont accept.

 

[Devor]

Controversy can arise on technical grounds as much as ethical or aesthetic ones...

Honestly, if all the technical details of an angel were accurate (and I haven't seen it happen yet), I'd be more likely to find it controversial because it kind of proves that the author is setting out to make a statement about the Bible. As a reader it's easy to go in knowing that most of the time the writer doesn't know or care anything about the theological aspects, so it's easy to let it go and get into the story.

Also, as a Catholic, I find Aquinas's depictions of angels to be debatable at best, which raises questions about even the idea of a set accurate portrayal.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think a solid example of taking something far away from its origin within literature with wide success has to be vampires. To my understanding the vampire has existed as a kind of evil entity that goes all the way back to ancient times and spans many cultures, but when Bram Stoker put pen to paper was he worried about whether his version of a vampire would be taking the concept out of context to the detriment of the reader? No. The same could be said for whoever wrote the Twilight books in a modern day context.

 

[Graham J. Darling]

On the contrary, whatever the author did or did not worry about, I would've picked Stoker's Dracula as an example of mining of myth and legend done right, for that literary character's powers, limitations and cruel character are quite consistent with major streams of Eastern European folklore--such as erupted in mass panic in the 18th century--in a way that Twilight's smitten and ethical Edward Cullen is not. And I think the same of the Buffyverse vampires, by and large, including the intriguing Angel, who's capable of love and moral anguish only for having been uniquely cursed with a soul.

 

[Devor]

I would've picked Stoker's Dracula as an example of mining of myth and legend done right, for that literary character's powers, limitations and cruel character are quite consistent with major streams of Eastern European folklore--

Stoker’s Dracula passed as human and could often be charming. Vampires before that were monsters. Stoker was the first to make them sexy. There was even a whole romance arc thing.

Sure, people have taken that so much farther since then, but it did start with him.

 

[Graham J. Darling]

Dracula wouldn't be the first apparent human who was in fact a whitewashed tomb, in which superficial beauty concealed the stench of the ravenous grave. Even in English literature, Dracula (1897) was long preceded by the equally alluring and destructive Lord Ruthven of Polidori's "The Vampyre" (1819), product of the same contest that gave birth to Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" (1818). Number 363 in the Aarne-Thompson-Uther catalogue of folklore "tropes" has a young bride discover that her apparently polite, handsome and wealthy new husband has disturbing dietary requirements, which result in the deaths of many in her family and ultimately herself; see also Ralston "Russian Folk-tales" 1878, pp. 24-31. And in Philostrates's "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" (c. 200 AD), the Van Helsing figure saves a young man from the blandishments of a seemingly rich and beautiful woman who is revealed to be of those beings who decoy with the delights of Aphrodite those whom they mean to devour in their feasts, "for it was her habit to feed upon young and beautiful bodies, because their blood is pure and strong."

 

[Prince of Spires]

The thing with humans in general is that we're very, very bad at coming up with new ideas. If you look at allmost all inventions or works of art or whatever, you'll find that they are very rarely something completely new.

In contrast, humans excel at combining 2 separate ideas to form something new, and at extrapolating an existing idea and expanding upon it.

Just look at Tolkien. He generously borrowed from Finnish and other mythologies, combining those tales and shaping them into something (for that time) modern. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, taking existing stuff and changing and adapting it is nothing new. Stories about angels existed before christianity did, and they were different again from what you find in the bible. Does that then mean that the bible should come with a disclaimer about them, pointing people at the original stories about angels? Or do we just accept that stories change over time, and that no one group can claim ownership of a mythical being that has been featured in stories for thousands of years?

For a more modern example, look at Thor. The Marvel Thor is very, very different from the original Norse one. I haven't really seen anyone complain about that fact. It's just a modern interpretation of an old tale. Nothing wrong with that.

As for angels, I very much doubt anyone has done some serious research on Angels in the sense that they examined one up close and asked it any questions. I've never heard about a scientific work of someone who disected an angel for instance. Claiming to know what it feels or how its body functions or even if they're really immortal just feels silly.

 

[Finchbearer]

So Bram Stoker’s work is ipso facto okay because…what? It’s more intellectual than modern retellings?? Not sure what the argument is here. All I’m trying to say is that it’s no new thing to take an old mythology and use it in modern fiction. I don’t think it’s even just reinventing the wheel, I see it as adding to an already rich culture that we have created.

 

[Graham J. Darling]

Stoker's Dracula was a good adaptation because it at least addresses what most people thought about vampires who thought about vampires at all, whether as storybook figures or something more. What most people thought or think about angels, good or bad, doesn't generally include them having babies with each other. Indeed, any author who wants to relate their own romancing version to the biblical one -- as opposed to a fantasy universe where a different kind of being happens to have the same name -- is faced with such passages in the source material as "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:30, NIV)

People do serious research on black holes without ever having come close to one, or dissecting one in the lab. People study mathematical or philosophical concepts that have no physical existence at all. Every field of knowledge or speculation has its own methods, and shouldn't be faulted for doing the best it can with what it has.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Stoker's Dracula was a good adaptation because it at least addresses what most people thought about vampires who thought about vampires at all, whether as storybook figures or something more.

It would be interesting to compare what most people in England knew at that time about vampires and the actual original eastern european legends. Also, today there are probably whole groups of people for who everything they know about vampires comes from either Buffy the vampire slayer or from Twilight. Both of those will have a larger audience in certain parts of the population than either Dracula or the original vampires. Does that then mean that Dracula was actually wrong?

What most people thought or think about angels, good or bad, doesn't generally include them having babies with each other.

Perhaps one should take a poll first before such a declaration? And even then, that would be a fallacious argument ("argumentum ad populem" = "appeal to the people"), because a minority opinion can still be right...

Just saying, there's a whole subgenre in romance which features plenty of demons and angels having intercourse, falling in love and having babies.

In this whole discussion I agree with Finchbearer. As I said before, it's human to take what has been done in the past and to then expand upon it with your own ideas. The OP never mentioned the bible or wanting to remain close to the depiction of either angels or demons in it. I don't think their exact nature in it plays much of a role in the discussion.

 

[Amabaie]

If they could be buddies in Good Omens - love that show! - why not mating, too. Oh, the stories that event could spin!

 

[Graham J. Darling]

It would be interesting to compare what most people in England knew at that time about vampires and the actual original eastern european legends. Also, today there are probably whole groups of people for who everything they know about vampires comes from either Buffy the vampire slayer or from Twilight. Both of those will have a larger audience in certain parts of the population than either Dracula or the original vampires. Does that then mean that Dracula was actually wrong?

Like I said, I think Buffy fit Dracula and classic vampire lore where Twilight did not. Look, if you were writing an urban fantasy where your human characters realized they'd be facing a "real" undead bloodsucker, and you gave them a chance to prepare themselves with one book, wouldn't you or your readers even today expect them to choose "Dracula" over "Twilight"?

Perhaps one should take a poll first before such a declaration? And even then, that would be a fallacious argument ("argumentum ad populem" = "appeal to the people"), because a minority opinion can still be right...

Heh, good one. But back there we were talking about statements ("Because he used the word angel" etc) whose truth or falsehood don't depend on how many people agree or disagree with them, and just now I was specifying the definition I was working from (and the first one at angel - Wiktionary still begins "1. An incorporeal" etc etc: what I'm pretty sure "most people" still understand from the term, not "most readers of supernatural romance"). But perhaps I could've been clearer.

The OP never mentioned the bible or wanting to remain close to the depiction of either angels or demons in it. I don't think their exact nature in it plays much of a role in the discussion.

Like I've said before, the OP's subject was whether the concept would be "controversial", and I think we've shown it is. Some people object to the redefinition of words to fit commercial or political purposes as burying the original concepts and the cultures that held them, and some are fine with that if it fits their own ends. Some like "hard" fantasy or SF that looks beyond its own community for inspiration, and some don't care about the larger world outside the (sub- or sub-sub-) genre that entertains them.

 

[Finchbearer]

I need to watch Good Omens. I also need to read some Neil Gaiman.

 

[Luís Santana]

If two presentations of good and evil end up working together and are capable of producing an offspring, who inherits both magics, will this rise some issues?

Yinyang (evil/good) produces both magics, say, the middle way. Issue is IMO about the same as e.g., Taoism and Buddhism.

 

[MagicFame1500]

I'll try my best to avoid any controversy, I know this is going to end in some hardships, but what can I do?

..

 

[Graham J. Darling]

All that said, controversy can be good--gets people talkin', gets people thinkin', even gets people readin'...

 

[Prince of Spires]

I'll try my best to avoid any controversy, I know this is going to end in some hardships, but what can I do?

..

Just write the book. The only time people will find controversy, and will complain about it is if you're wildly successful. And then it's just part of the game. Harry Potter was controversial when it was released (some groups considered that it promoted witchcraft and advocated for bans). The same can probably be said for allmost all popular books. Gather enough readers and someone will find something to complain about.

But before then, just write the book. No one cares about what you put down on paper before you publish it. So just write the book.

 

[Queshire]

I don't agree with the level of disregard that some posters seem to advocate, but I do agree that in the end you need to be confident in your own creation.

 

[pmmg]

I'll try my best to avoid any controversy, I know this is going to end in some hardships, but what can I do?

..

This, to me is more concerning than the topic. This is a poor ambition. While i might appreciate an effort to get it right, you cant live afraid to have controversy. Ppl get upset and so what? Writing is a full contact sport. You should be not be afraid to challenge beliefs. You cant get ppl to even agree what color the sky is.

A book that avoids controversy has nothing to say. And one who pursues that has given up part of their own spirit to pursue an unworthy goal. Be you first.

This is why i will avoid this thread. You put too much weight in this poor notion that it matters if i dont like it.

Controversy is good. It will help sell your books. Good luck with it.