Opinions on an idea for a political issue novel disguised as fantasy

[Awakened Victim]

So, as the title says, I am looking for feedback about an idea that I have brewing for a new project. One of the main points of this story is to speak against the 1%ers who are having their way with the planet to line their pockets to everyone else's detriment. Okay, now onto the plot.

So in this universe there is a pantheon of newly "born" gods that want to start putting their godly powers to use. So, they decide to create a world and try their hand at the whole god thing. (lax paraphrasing) Well, each god has their role in creating this world and its inhabitants. One god was responsible for the creation of intelligent life. For now we will just call him Bob. Bob made humans, and as the creator of the human race, he loved them dearly.

This world went on for a time. Everything went as it should and life prospered. At one point though, Bob noticed that the other gods were careless about whether or not their "world-meddling" affected humans. Usually the others didn't pay any mind to human lives lost while they saw to the desires of their domain, and that infuriated Bob. So Bob asked somewhat nicely for them to be mindful of their actions and to respect his humans. The other gods said that the humans were encroaching on their domain, so what was the harm in a small amount of collateral damage? Bob tried again to get the other gods to see reason and failed. After that, he left them.

After Bob left, the other gods had no more reservations about being careful around humans. Their powers and mortal minions were unleashed upon the world. Bob decided it was time for him to actively protect the humans that he was so very fond of. In an act of defiance, Bob began planning a way to ensure the protection of his people. He chose to be born into a human body and protect them as one of their own without knowing he was a god. After informing one of his priests of his plan and giving him instructions of how to find and guide him, Bob set his plan into motion.

He lived through his life, leading people into self-protecting and sufficient societies. He led them away from the other gods and their domains. After a lifetime of leading his people, Bob died and awoke as a god again. He watched for a while while his labors bore fruit and decided he needed to keep guiding humanity. Bob lived several lives as a human, each life furthered his plans just a bit more. Well, as would happen, one of the other gods finds out and, in cahoots with the others, decides to try and stop him. During one of his lives, the gods appeared to Bob in his mortal form and informed him of who he really was.

As the other gods had hoped, this rebirth cycle had been broken, but not in the way they had wanted. Bob regained all of his powers, but none of his memories. After this was confirmed by his priests, Bob decided to wage war and take down the other gods, seeing this as the only way to save humanity.



Any feedback is greatly appreciated! I will try to answer question as soon as I can.
Thanks!

 

[CupofJoe]

It's an interesting concept.
I know that this is a précis so not all the details are there but just at a quick reading I see it more as an allegory of the Abrahamic faiths... and the roles of Prophets/chosen ones within them.
I don't get the 1%er thing... for that I think you'd need a human point of view. Someone looking at the gods meddling/playing and seeing how they don't really care about what happens on earth as long as their little bit of creation is doing okay.
If you wanted to turn it on its head, you could have the other gods try to stop Bob and his highly destructive and voracious humans [I take it the humans in your story are a lot like us?] from taking over everything...

 

[JRFLynn]

It does sound familiar, hehe, the rebirth cycle is intriguing. Something I would suggest, to heighten the action, is to have the antagonist gods do the exact same thing. Maybe they have a way of maintaining awareness of their godhood, so each cycle these gods in mortal form try to kill Bob or destroy his people...in the shape or form of monsters, wizards, warlords, whatever.

Since they're gods, it may be a good idea to have some kind of hamper on their power. Maybe they can't directly wipe out the humans in their god-form, so that is why they need to become human/whatever to further their own plans as well. This could easily expand into a whole series of god vs god action, though it would be interesting to see how Bob eventually stops them for good.

 

[Awakened Victim]

Thanks for the feedback. I realize now that this probably should have been put in the suggestion and feedback forum, but oh well.

Interesting thought about turning it on its head. I honestly haven't thought about it from that point of view. What would you think of having the story told both from Bob's perspective and the other god's as well? Might prove interesting depending on whose side you feel you can identify with more at the climactic point.

As for making the other gods follow suit in the human form thing, I feel like I will take that and mold it a little bit into another idea. But I am at work and I will post more when I have time.

Thanks again!

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

When you said political issue novel disguised as a fantasy I thought Animal Farm. What you're writing isn't that. Nor is it a review of the one percenters. It's a swipe - or at least it looks like a swipe - at Christianity (presumably with Islam and Mormonism thrown in).

Whatever your goals about writing this piece you should be open about what you're writing.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

The problem with writing something like this is that you may create a strawman for the opposing side. This is a problem because it insults the readers intelligence, makes the book feel flat, and comes off as nothing more than a soap box. One book that really emphasized this for me was Eragon, want to say the second book. There Paolini made his MC and the all powerful and near perfect elves atheists and vegetarians. This showed, I think, his preference for at the least agnosticism. He didn't fully flesh out the idea of there even being the potential for a god. Sure he had the spirit thing in Brisingr but he quickly disclaimed that as not being a god. That left me feeling cheated and insulted. I would bet it left a lot of people feeling cheated and insulted. Don't do that.

To sum up if you want to do this present both sides with their strongest arguments, and I don't mean what you think are I mean their legitimate best reasons for why they do what they do.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I'd be less worried about presenting arguments here. A lot of people write books that present religious and political arguments and others write fantasy equivalents to do the same. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land springs to mind, or Ayn Rand's work. These works present an idea or a thought, mask it in the trappings of a fantasy like plot and put it out there. They aren't about debating the issues and there is no need for them to be.

I'd be more worried about the soap box issue where people move from story telling in an enjoyable read to preaching, and Heinlein and Rand both have been guilty of that.

But my main concern is springing a book upon people as one thing and then have them run head first into a political or religious ideology that they simply aren't expecting. It can really derail a read.

Now with Animal Farm, Catch 22, Farenheight 451 etc, this doesn't happen. These books are not meant to be read as fantasy, war or sci fi stories respectively. The reader knows early on what the book is about and the message it's preaching as part of its story. It comes as no shock. With the OP however, his plot comes across as an almost direct, in your face attack on an institution thinly disguised as a fantasy read. Readers will be shocked if they read that. Many would be upset.

In my case I would prefer to read Dawkins than this, and I have no respect for Dawkins as a philosopher. He is shallow, constantly battling strawmen, and embarrasses himself as a respectable evolutionary biologist. But at least what he writes is honest. You are left in no doubt as to his opinions and his work is not disguised in any way.

Cheers, Greg.