|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 13, 2008 18:13:52 GMT -5
When C.S. Lewis wrote The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, it almost cost him his friendship with J.R.R. Tolkien, who (rightly) insisted that it made no sense for another world to have characters familiar only to our own. Now, Lewis did a nice "retcon" of this in The Magician's Nephew by having the first king and queen of Narnia coming from England. But that still doesn't explain the fact that everyone speaks English, and the populace of Narnia consists of a number of pagan gods and woodland creatures.
NOTE: This is not a complaint. I still think Lewis was the superior writer of the two, though Tolkien was far better at world-building. It's just an observation, and serves to illustrate my forthcoming point.
I started reading Thomas Williams' Seven Kingdoms Chronicles, and was stunned to see references to actual biblical events. Did this take place in an imaginary land, or not? It wasn't until the third book came out that it was clear that this was supposed to be some forgotten corner of the map, and nebulous time of history. I guess this has some precedence; in "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth," Lord Dunsany has an entirely fictive cast and setting, and (if memory serves), makes reference to Satan. Ummmm....
One of the best examples of Christian fantasy in recent memory is Karen Hancock's LEGENDS OF THE GUARDIAN KING. But even she couldn't refrain from having magical power-point presentations in her Terstmeets. Throughout a 99% perfect example of how to do Christian fantasy right, that was one of the few things that made me say, "Oh, come ON!"
I have not read Robin Hardy's books yet, but I have the first three on my shelf, and started to flip through them one day to see if I wanted to make them my next reading project. It seemed that they were set, like most fantasy, in a world far removed from Earth. Then I saw the name of Jesus in a very Christological context, and just about dropped the book in surprise. The same thing happened with another author (whose book I left in the bookstore). Lots of fantasy-sounding names, no geological similarities, and then, all of a sudden, a major plot point has to do with getting the Bible and the good news of Jesus out to the world.
The question is, which world is that, exactly? While I perfectly understand wanting to make Christ the center of our fiction, I do not understand why Christians do not have the imaginations to realize that if there are other worlds (or even supplemental worlds, if this one has no existence in their fictional realm), they would not have the same history, would not call God by the same name, and might (gasp!) even have some notable theological differences.
Now, in my own fiction, I have tried to remain true to the spirit of theological truth, though I have to admit that I have stepped into some gray areas (like suggesting that angelic beings might be redeemable, etc.). But while I am working on a messianic character (see the "female messiah" thread in Alternate History) I would never deign to try to "slip Jesus into the mix," as it were, by creating a whole new world that operates by its own rules and has its own history...except where it comes to Christ.
Why do you think this happens with some Christian authors? I understand that Lewis essentially wanted Narnia to be populated by "mythical" creatures, and it was simply expedient to have everyone speak English, etc. But is it laziness or lack of imagination to simply refer to Jesus and the Bible in your manufactured world, or are there some other motives? Are some Christian publishers pressuring the authors, afraid people won't get it if you don't make things explicit?
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on May 13, 2008 23:16:21 GMT -5
I mentioned before how wary I am about fictionalizing a story about Jesus. Some fear of potential heresy ingrained in me by my dad--and not one I'm eager to lose. But I'm even more leery about allegorizing Him. I think Lewis was incredibly brave to re-write Jesus as Aslan. I was actually very much relieved when I found out Paladin in Donita Paul's Dragon Keeper series was not her version of Jesus, but a physical manifestation of the body of Christ--the church.
It seems to me that if your world is fully fantasy with no relation at all with Earth, you can represent a Christ-character as allegory. If there's the potential that it is connected with Earth, with our reality, in some way, I think you have to go with Jesus. God came down as man and died once for all. I don't think He would have to die again for Martians. (Wait. That's what you were saying, isn't it?)
Maybe those fantasy writers are just as scared of allegorizing or re-writing Jesus as I am. Or of having the slightest chance of confusion about their own theology.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 14, 2008 0:04:55 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts.
Here's my rationale (borrowing much from Tolkien): The fantasy novel is an act of "sub-creation." Unless, as you say, this "secondary world" is somehow connected with Earth (as Narnia was), it must then follow its own rules, and be internally consistent. Otherwise you run the risk of limiting yourself, and insulting your readers' intelligence.
I fully understand being reluctant to take on a fictional representation of Jesus. (I wrestled for a long time with the notion of doing anything remotely messianic in my story, until I realized that it was simply the only way to go, given the set-up. Even now, I fear it may have been too ambitious.) But ... here's the thing: Every representation of Jesus in a novel is fictional by definition. I think that Aslan is about as good a representation you can get in fantasy, but even a historical novel purporting to ascribe motivation, deeper characterization, even other words to Jesus runs that same risk of heresy, or at least bad theology. (It's the reason the gnostic gospels were preached against ... they were fictionalizing Christ, but purporting to be telling the truth.) More to the point, it's simply not Jesus any more than someone called Sejus or Aslan or Tersius or whatever. Granted, some will come closer to the truth than others (I'll take Passion of the Christ over The Last Temptation of Christ anyday), but that doesn't mean that they are any less fictionalized accounts.
There are ways around this. You can have "Christ-types" who are not meant to be Jesus in another form, but more symbolic of him and his attributes. Or you can have a fully fictional version (a la Aslan). But to merely fall back to using Jesus in his historical earthly context when you're creating a world that has not heard of him seems like laziness to me.
Vaporwolf did a fascinating take on this idea in the Anomalous Readings section ("Forms of Destiny"--may be the best I've seen in recent memory). And much as I complain about Auralia's Colors (read my review on Amazon), I thought Overstreet's scene with the Keeper was stunning in its originality and symbolism. And he didn't have to spoon-feed it, either. That one chapter was truly brilliant.
You make a valid point that a world connected with ours in some way would not need a second death and resurrection. But in what way do we define "connection?" Martians might well be saved by Jesus coming to Earth, but they would have to hear about it somehow first. Perhaps I should clearly delineate the kinds of fantasy I have in mind.
1. Complete sub-creation or secondary world: Like Kathy Tyers, who makes it clear in the beginning of her Firebird books that Earth doesn't exist in her universe. Most epic fantasy novels follow this rule, as well. Terry Brooks' Shannara is different, as it is really a far-future Earth (hope that's not a spoiler for anyone here).
2. Fairy tale: I hesitate to use this term; as Tolkien says, these are hard to define. But typically they start in familiar territory that happens to border magical lands. Narnia, any number of George MacDonald stories, etc. all fall into this category. Here, using the name of Jesus makes sense.
3. Futuristic or space travel stories: In these, like the fairy tale, there is some grounding in reality (even if it's in the distant past), but the difference is that one can travel from planet to planet. The worlds are hypothetical and wholly fictional, and they would certainly not mirror Earth's history unless you're writing a bad piece of fifties sci-fi. Since the Bible is God's story of his relationship with us, one would have to assume that God would either visit them in another way, or that the gospel would have to be brought by and through Man.
I think that the main point of being Christians writing fiction is that we can illuminate truths with our writing. This does not require historical accuracy (which is dumped the moment you bring Jesus into a world that could not have heard of him), but rather spiritual insight.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on May 14, 2008 0:40:31 GMT -5
Question on your number 3 on distant future or space travel stories. You say that these worlds would "certainly not mirror Earth's history . . ." Why not? We see unconnected but parallel development of various things in the history of our own world and its cultures. Why not on a galaxy wide scale or greater? And why would that make it bad sci fi? Is Stargate bad sci fi? Surprising that would be, seeing as how it's done well for 10 seasons plus a spin-off. It's all about parallel development of cultures on other planets. I also recall one of my favorite episodes of the original Star Trek series, wherein the away team discovers Rome as it was in the first century, except with 20th century technology and weapons. They spoke, therein, of the Son, as well. In-fact, one of the main characters among the locals was a worshiper of the Son who was pressed into gladiatorial battle against Kirk, as I recall, though his faith demanded that he not hurt the captain.
So, are these stories bad sci fi, or am I misunderstanding you, or what?
|
|
|
Post by rwley on May 14, 2008 10:10:18 GMT -5
Two books you might want to read; Anne Perry has written two fantasies called "Tathea" and "Children of Armageddon". Neither is classified as Christian fantasy, but both have a strong Christian theme. I won't give anything away, because you really have to let the story tell itself, but read in order they are, I think, excellent. They are not parallels of our human Christian history, and the main character recognizes that the "sacrifice" took place somewhere other than her world.
I don't know if anyone else has read these, but I happen to be a big fan of Anne Perry from her other genre which is Victorian murder mystery, and very well done. She also has a four book series that takes place during WWI which is also excellent.
I would be interested to see what others think of her fantasies.
Robi
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 14, 2008 12:08:57 GMT -5
Mongoose,
I might qualify your "unconnected but parallel development" to "seemingly unconnected but parallel development." As someone who has come at history from a biblical worldview and studied the more esoteric subjects (like "OOParts" and the fossil record--I have a degree in Paleontology--and the place that myths and legends may hold in a historical context), I don't buy for an instant that these parallel developments are really unconnected. Some interesting cases of this:
1. Chinese pictograms that seem to echo Hebrew scripture 2. Chinese rites that echo Hebrew rites 3. Cultures across the world that deal with remarkably similar demigod/titan/nephilim themes 4. Dragon legends across the world (have to get in a plug for my YEC position) 5. Writing and civilization appearing fully developed and virtually spontaneously in the archeological record
I'm getting off subject. The list goes on, but I believe that if we're going to use an Earth parallel for the basis of our Sci-fi rules, then we should probably have some understanding of how these things really happened.
The history of civilization could be called one big Gossip Game. You know how the game is played; you whisper something in the ear of one person, they whisper it in the ear of the next, and so on, so by the time twenty or so people have passed on the message, it only vaguely resembles the original message. This is what happened after the post-Flood dispersion (Babel, and the Peleg-era "dividing" of the Earth (thought by most to be territorial demarcation, though there are some other theories). You have a series of real events that then get passed down from generation to generation, and as the original people died off, the successors had to make do with what they've been told. (Scintor has a pretty good theory about this, but I'll let him get into that himself if he wants to.) You have seen within our own society how quickly definitions change, etc., but America has a single language (or did), regardless of culture. That had to do with the fact that it was cemented in writing. Language changes quite rapidly when it is not curtailed by writing. And if that is the case, how much more so is history warped by the oral tradition? (Yes, I am aware that the oral tradition can also be quite precise, but as someone studying the atomic clocks once said, there's a difference between precise and accurate.) Yes, there are similarities between cultures. It's because they all sprang from the same root source.
Regarding "bad sci-fi": I was thinking of the multiple cheesy fifties movies that dealt with planets exactly like ours, but on the other side of the sun, and mirror-image. That sort of thing. The sort of "why bother?" spec-fic.
The question of whether Stargate or Star Trek make for bad sci-fi is one that I almost hesitate to answer (the debate between "popular" and "good" is not really something I care to engage in this forum). My first response is, "Yes, absolutely, but they're so fun..."
Stargate has the problem with everyone speaking English, no matter what planet they visit (at least the film got this right). Star Trek circumvents this with the universal translator. Both are merely being expedient (they don't want the SG1 team or the crew of the Enterprise to have to spend each and every episode learning a new language). Neither is being realistic.
Now something I might add is that I was originally speaking of novels. I realize just as well as anyone that you have to bend the rules for television. Had Stargate or Star Trek originally been novels, I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that they would not have used those conventions.
You have to bear in mind, though, that even given the language thing, Stargate at least qualifies as being connected with Earth, as all of these civilizations are supposed to have sprung from us or influenced us. At least, that's the premise as I understand it. So while the cultures may be parallel, they are also connected at some time in the past. (I have utilized a similar for my own novel, but tried to make it a little more realistic. So I really can't criticize Stargate too much, lest I be forced to remove the beam from mine own eye. But when my characters move from world to world, the first thing they have to do is learn the language.)
There are certain conventions that sci-fi simply must use in order to tell stories that aren't all like 2001 or Sunshine. The first of which is the assumption that anyone could actually survive on another planet (i.e., that it would have Earth-like conventions in the first place). The odds of this are, pardon the pun, astronomical, but without it, we don't have a rollicking adventure story. We have "serious" sci-fi that bores as much as it enlightens. There are some exceptions to this; Randy Ingermanson and John Olsen take us to Mars, and there's never a dull moment. But they'll never be writing for Stargate or Star Trek; they have too much scientific integrity.
I do confess a certain dislike for alternate reality stories. That doesn't mean they aren't good sci-fi/fantasy/whatever, just that I don't happen to prefer them. But there are some that strike my interest. Shane Johnson's Ice, for example, and the upcoming MLP release, Summa Elvetica (which is simply such a cool concept that I couldn't dislike it if I tried). I haven't read the Naomi Novik quartet, but it looks fascinating. Overall, though, I tend to think that history is blurred enough without convoluting it.
The thing that you have to remember, though, is that a number of those alternative realities visited in such things as Star Trek, etc., were simply budget-saving ideas. I won't say that no good story ever came from an effort to save money, but I will say that it's not always the best way to start.
Robi, I had no idea Anne Perry wrote stories like this. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm going to check those out forthwith.
Incidentally, did you see my last post to your "How far can you run" thread?
|
|
|
Post by rwley on May 14, 2008 13:43:09 GMT -5
Yes, but I haven't had a chance to do much about following up yet. Thanks for the links.
I really like Anne Perry. I think I've read all of her stuff, no matter what genre it is.
I love the public library and interlibrary loan. Otherwise, I'd be living in my car and trying to find a place to put all those books!! RWL
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on May 14, 2008 15:43:47 GMT -5
A common theme throughout this forum, since its begining, has been, "What can we get published, and by whom?" That being of interest here, I think the relevant question isn't so much, "Is this good sci-fi/fantasy/whatever" and not so much "Does this tell the story the way it happened, or would have happened, given the premises," but rather is "Will this sell to the publishers?"
So, if, as appears to be the case, everyone speaking english and writing in a language that the main character(s) can read, sells, or other parallel developments sell, then there's no problem putting them in our own works, right? The whole thing about its being un-creative or lazy sounds like elitism to me, though I'm sure the motivation is the pursuit of excellence in the quality of our writing. But what's the point in writing a technically superior novel, if it won't sell, and if people won't enjoy it or get the point? I'm of the persuasion that what we write is "good," if it achieves our ends without causing greater harm than failure to achieve our ends would cause. So, if Stargate, Star Trek, or even 50s sci fi movies tell a story that people enjoy, and make the point that the writers wanted to make, effectively, then I figure the writers should be happy with their work. I would be happy to do likewise.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 14, 2008 17:16:38 GMT -5
Well, the point of this particular thread was really more about the nature of the phenomenon than it was the marketability of the tactic. But what you said does follow up on one of my original questions, which was, is this something the publishers are asking for, or is it a quirk of the authors?
I'm not trying to sound elitist by any means, and I certainly don't mean to offend if anyone has used this technique. To me, it goes more to the heart of a credible story. While people are willing to make concessions for a well-told story, there are still plot holes and logical fallacies that will make readers stumble. At least, speaking for myself, I have to say that it causes a kind of disorientation. "Where am I? I thought I was in another world, but now it seems it borders Jerusalem...."
Tolkien said that he really wanted to write the Lord of the Rings in Elvish (gah!). Obviously, that would have been something that pleased him, but I guarantee it wouldn't have sold more than about five copies. He knew, at least, that he was writing for an English-speaking audience, and that "concession to marketability" was one that any author would have made. That having been said, he created a world with enough diversity that several languages existed within its own context, and that was just one little corner of it. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should all be mini-Tolkiens. But I do think that there's no need to sacrifice marketability for integrity. LOTR shows that you can have a world with depth (indeed, more depth than most secondary worlds to date) and not resort to cheap tricks or fall back to modern reference points.
I almost feel that this has veered somewhat off-topic (my fault). I really just wanted some thoughts on why this was done. However, it has definitely been enlightening to see why it might be acceptable to some.
Your point about telling a story that is good enough (in the sense that it does what the author intended) is well-taken. Not everyone need try to tell the same type of story. I am a man of strong opinions (in case that wasn't self-evident by now), but people are always welcome to their own. It's simply my belief that by mixing the historical Jesus in with a purely fantastic story (bear in mind that I posted this in the fantasy forum for a reason; I really hadn't intended to drag sci-fi into the mix), one runs the risk of coming off 1) preachy, and 2) obvious.
Perhaps I should couch this in different terms: How would putting a little extra thought and effort into a novel harm its marketability?
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on May 14, 2008 21:41:08 GMT -5
I, too, took it off topic with my question about your statement about Sci Fi. But I do take what I think is your main point, about the "wrongness" of mixing cultures and histories of places that would not, plausibly, have been mixed. I can't say I've seen this happen outside of the two stories that I mentioned, and the Chronicles of Narnia, but I do suspect I'd be uncomfortable reading it if it did. If, for instance, Tersius had been crucified (Karen Hancock's Guardian King series), it would have given me pause for a moment. Likewise if one of Stephen Lawhead's characters in the Scottish Netherworld had stated that the "Swift Sure Hand" was also called the Holy Spirit of God. I do appreciate continuity, as long as we don't stress overly much about it.
My solution to the language thing: Have at least one character who already knows a language spoken by most people in a region (there's the common tongue, in Middle Earth, and most people in Central Asia know Russian, and many of them know Turkish as well. Latin American people can at least understand some Spanish spoken by others, even if its a different dialect, etc.) Or you want a linguist on the team, like Daniel Jackson, as you pointed out, in the Stargate Movie. He had a basic knowledge of the ancient Egyptian, as I recall, but didn't know how the words were pronounced, and he learned it quickly. The TV series states that he spends most of his time back at base translating various things, and has learned, over time, to understand the language spoken by most of the Jaffa. So, though the people transplanted to these other planets would have no excuse to speak English, nor would most of the Jaffa or Gua'uld, at least I thought they did a good job with Daniel. :-P
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on May 14, 2008 23:30:22 GMT -5
I like how Dr. Who handles the language thing. The ship is telepathic and translates for anyone who has been inside.
Unless, of course, the language is pre-time lord. Or the Doctor is unconscious.
Then again, the babelfish is another favorite.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 15, 2008 0:01:46 GMT -5
In my own series, I have a "trade language" (not unlike Greek in the time of Christ), so most of the worlds that have contact with each other know this trade language. But the others have to learn it if they aren't part of the "mainstream" worlds. In the second novel, a fun secondary character sprang to mind strictly because of the need for someone who could translate. So limitations can definitely force creativity.
Incidentally, Mongoose, I have not watched more than the first season of Stargate, so I cannot really speak of it in a fully-educated context.
"Ford ... what's this fish doing in my ear?"
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 21, 2008 1:18:03 GMT -5
And speaking of fish....
I just picked up LEGEND OF THE FIREFISH (off the shelf; haven't had the money to purchase books lately). And it looks as though that author does the same thing (Christians, so-called, in what seems to be a wholly imaginary world). I guess I'll have to read it to see if I'm accusing unfairly. But honestly....
|
|
|
Post by Spokane Flyboy on May 27, 2008 19:08:29 GMT -5
Going with what Divides said, that always got me about sci-fi. I did not mind the universal translator, but when used, for goodness sakes it should look like a dubbed Godzilla movie. Have it obvious that the alien is not speaking in English. Start Trek has always been bad about this and I personally would have had the actors speak a created language and have his voice dubbed over for an otherworldly sound. The game Freespace did this with the Vasudans and it sounded not only neat, but seemed more plausible. Though they wore what was basically a voxbox around their throat like a smoker who lost their voice would use. You could hear the Vasudan speaking in it's on language and a synthesized English voice over it.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on May 29, 2008 22:02:05 GMT -5
I think that's a great idea, Flyboy. George Lucas did this better, in having creatures speak other languages. (Of course, the irony is that most of the humans seem to understand a number of them regardless of the appropriateness of the context, but he did the Huttese thing very well in The Phantom Menace. Some minor scenes in Attack of the Clones and Return of the Sith would have made more sense if Basic had been used, but I'm sure that was his way of broadening the galaxy.)
I think that it would behoove the creators of Star Trek to listen to your advice. Talk about a willing suspension of disbelief....
|
|