religion in sci-fi/fantasy....

[preyer]

does this turn you off? do you try to incorporate it in your story? if so, do you instill your own beliefs or, if more appropriate, the beliefs of a system that's more likely to exist that may not be your own? do you use religion in a metaphoric/symbological way, or is it just there as a function of that society?

is putting heavy religion into your story playing with fire?

[Galoot]

Miller did it with A Canticle for Leibowitz and it worked out well.
Sagan did it with Contact and it worked out well.
Asimov did it with Foundation and it worked out well.

Those three roughly cover the spectrum from believer to skeptic to atheist, I think, and none of the books were overly preachy. I enjoyed them all. If the author isn't trying to shove his beliefs down my throat, pro or con, I can get into it.

Religion plays a huge role in much of SF, and it's usually an unflattering one. My pet theory is that this is a large part of why SF isn't considered mainstream. 90% of Americans call themselves religious or spiritual while only 10% would list their religion as "none." (1989) (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Religion) (I'm picking on America simply because it's the largest fiction market.) No wonder SF is considered marginal.

(When religion's role is not unflattering, as in Canticle, the book can become a major mainstream success.)

My own views on religion and the SF ghetto aside, if an author becomes too preachy--either way--it turns me off no matter what the genre. In my writing religion plays a background role if there's a reason to mention it, or none at all. But I wouldn't be adverse to writing a SF novel with religion as the central theme. Just not a preachy one.

[Galoot]

Oh, Heinlein strikes me as preachy. I don't think I'm alone, here...

[Pthom]

Religion plays a huge role in much of SF, and it's usually an unflattering one. My pet theory is that this is a large part of why SF isn't considered mainstream. 90% of Americans call themselves religious or spiritual while only 10% would list their religion as "none." (1989) (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Religion) (I'm picking on America simply because it's the largest fiction market.) No wonder SF is considered marginal.And maybe, it's just a way to handle bolognium (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4491)when nothing else seems to work quite as well . . .

[katiemac]

Religion is a huge aspect of my current WIP, and it's an entire subplot on its own. I didn't intend to incorporate it -- take the extra step to make it important -- but that's just how the story went.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think that any future society (or any alien society) that doesn't take religion into account is poorly developed. That doesn't mean that it has to be a major theme in every story, but you should know what the religions are like. (BTW, a world with only one religion is probably not very realistic either).

For instance, can you really have a character say: "Oh my God!" or "What the hell?" if there is no concept for either (as with an alien society) or if all religion died out (as in a future society). Can you refer to someone's "angelic" smile? Can you say, "Boy, that cake smells heavenly!"?

I believe that religion is inherent in human psychology, and there will always be religion of one sort or another. If that is true, then if your story deals with morality or ethics of any sort, the religions of the various characters MUST come into play.

So what if you want a completely atheistic world? Fine. Build one. But if it's human, you'd better have a good explanation for it because the vast majority of human societies have some sort of religion. If your society is alien, you better have some analog for religion for defining ethics and morality.

If you want a current model for how to handle religion in fiction, I'd look to Orson Scott Card. He is generally pro religion (Catholic), but it is handled so well that you hardly notice.

[Moondancer]

While aethists might not see it that way, Aetheism can be thought to be a religion depending on perspective. Religion is a word that denotes a belief system. Christianity as a whole is a religion with varying doctrines within the belief system. There is also Satanism, Buddhism, and so forth.


I believe that religion is inherent in human psychology, and there will always be religion of one sort or another. If that is true, then if your story deals with morality or ethics of any sort, the religions of the various characters MUST come into play.


I agree with this to a point. I think it would depend on the story whether religion need come into play at all. Some beliefs and actions can be explained without any emphasis on the religion behind them. If you try to include religion as a MUST, especially a particular religion, you may end up laboring your story unnecessarily. Still other stories will benefit from having religions heavily threaded through them.

[Roger J Carlson]

My point is not that every story MUST have religion in it. It is that you as the author MUST know what the religion(s) in your story is. If you don't, you don't really know how your characters think.

If the story is primarily about morality or ethics, then your characters' religious beliefs become pivotal and must be introduced. This is true even if it is a non-religious religion like Aetheism or Communism.

[clintl]

Miller did it with A Canticle for Leibowitz and it worked out well.
Sagan did it with Contact and it worked out well.
Asimov did it with Foundation and it worked out well.



To those, I would add Gene Wolfe and R. A. Lafferty as two writers who have on many occasions incorporated religion into their works very effectively.

[DaveKuzminski]

In some of my current works, there are several religions present that are there with only brief descriptions of their beliefs in order to better set apart the cultures of the worlds I created. It gives a potential point of conflict for me to use, should I need it, yet it also goes to show why some of the characters act in different ways in each story. All in all, it makes the overall worlds seem more realistic because those are worlds with business, labor, economics, politics, and religion, to list just a few. Those are no longer worlds with just black and white viewpoints. Instead, there are shades of gray and colors to contend with.

[Wandering Sensei]

Orson Scott Card is Mormon, I believe.

[Andrew Jameson]

And as for fantasy, I tend to find it a little odd when a fantasy novel (particularly the traditional Medieval-time-frame type) does not include some religion. It doesn't need to be central to the plot, but I would think that there ought to be some evidence of religion. Cathedral spires on the horizon. Shops closing one day in seven. Making a little burnt offering before setting out on a journey. Swearing by the Saints. Occasional feastdays. Whatever.

Religion is so important in real human societies -- especially when societies intermingle -- that its absence from fictional societies is noticable.

That said, I would think that emphasizing religion heavily into a story would be difficult. Not because it's religion, per se, but because religion is a complicated bit of world building. It isn't impossible to construct a plausible religion from whole cloth, of course, but it is easy to do it badly.

[Roger J Carlson]

Orson Scott Card is Mormon, I believe.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Card was Catholic. I have no idea what religious affiliation he has (if any). What I meant was that he has some sympathetic characters that are Catholic, and therefore his writing was pro-Catholic. (I was thinking of "Ender's Shadow".)

I should have left the parenthetical out altogether.

[Wandering Sensei]

I thought you meant Orson himself, not his characters. Just setting the record straight.

BTW, if you ever have a chance to hear Orson speak, do! He's great to listen to.

[mdin]

I agree with Jameson. Religion tends to be a huge factor in almost every society that has ever existed. Many, many fantasy novels completely ignore this. And even more throw in a token priest or monk just to imply religion exists in the world, but the main characters themselves won't have any particular faith. As a reader I'll happily buy a main character who doesn't address religion, but I have trouble swallowing a community devoid of it.

I am not a religous person, but the worlds I work with tend to completely revolve around their faith. Even those who aren't religious have difficulty avoiding it, which is how it is in real life.

[preyer]

i'm sure this has changed, but it seems to me that most alien species come from a one-world religion, if it's mentioned at all. that's always stood out to me as being unrealistic because it strongly implies that there's also a one-world culture. it rather seems one-dimensional world-building. worse is that all aliens have 'grown up' to the point where religion is a laughable concept. it might work for an hour-long episode, but a book i hold to a higher standard.

i especially like the comment about how easy it is to screw religion up. there's always something about it that goes unaddressed as far as the reader is concerned, eh? at least that's the risk you run. i've found that writing religious-based stories it sometimes has a snowballs effect in that the religious angle begins to overwhelm the commentary i began with.

[Andrew Jameson]

There was a thread here a while ago on using invented languages in novels -- a popular meme in fantasy, I think, because Tolkien did it. My feeling, and I daresay the concensus of the posters in the thread, was that inventing a language that rang true was awfully difficult. Humans are attuned to language, and languages have evolved over thousands of years, so trying to invent a language by oneself in a couple months is a formidable task. The most successful uses of fictional languages I've seen -- the ones that ring the most true -- are languages that closely mimic real languages. Latin. Japanese. Russian. And usually those languages are used sparingly.

I am, of course, drawing a parallel here between languages and religion. Religions, too, have evolved over a long period of time, and tend to be integrated into society in ways that readers recognize. THat make sense in their world view. And I think that the most successful uses of fictional religions I've seen -- the ones that ring the most true -- are religions that closely mimic real religions. Christianity. Islam. Bhuddism. And usually those religions are used sparingly in the novel.

[Roger J Carlson]

Remember the Babylon 5 episode where each of the races were supposed to put on a demonstration of their religious practices? Each world had one dominant religion, but Earth had this long string of different ones. The implication is that we were unusual in the universe for that, but how realisitic is that?

It's really just lazy writers. After all, you don't have to define the theology of each. How much do you know about all the religions of the world? If you're like me, just a little bit.

Catholic and Protestant are essentially the same religion, but can't get along for some reason. Christianity is an offshoot of Judiasm. Islam is a monotheistic religion from the same roots as Judiasm but split a loooong time back. Buddasim is a non-religion religion -- more of a philosophy than a religion. Hindu has a god for everything and in everything. Each of these religions have various sects that have essentially the same beliefs but hate each other nonetheless. Some believe in eternal after-life (though different kinds) and some believe in re-incarnation.

That's really all you need to know to create a realistic religious system in your novel. Hint at the differences and have your characters behave in accordance. You might concentrate on one religion (most regions have a major religion), but at the very least, admit the existance of others. You should also consider having characters who are athestic. There will always be people who believe in nothing but themselves.

[preyer]

also a thing to consider is that there are also 'fundamentalists', which seems to be the extreme. therein lies your terrorists and crusaders and inquisitioners and people who refuse medical treatment (okay, i'm sure my definition of 'fundamentalists' is off-base for anyone who cares to correct my ignorance). the point is there are extremists and people who take a religion literally or view it as more allegorical and open to interpretation. how can you explain snake-handlers?

that's another good pick: buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. you're right, too, when you say that in a complex society, it seems like lazy writing to have only a single religion. i'm not saying it's implausible, but it borders that considering a lot of alien characters presented have so many human traits. when basically a human character is presented, the only difference being they've got funny faces, there seems to be a lot of over-simplification involved in their fictional culture. and it's funny when you've got alien races you watch on a t.v. show for five years and in the end really don't know that much about their society beyond a few rather generic episodes that basically scratches the surface of a single aspect of their society. i think delving into these societies just a little deeper has been star trek's major boon.

true, i don't need a detailed history lesson, but it would be nice to see an orc craft a crude shrine and pray in the woods before a battle to illustrate that there's a culture there, too, that's not simply killing and avarice. in our own history, religion has been the major impetus for a lot if not most of world events (and still is, i guess). religion dictates thoughts and action, so to remove that incredible influence leaves something lacking to me. especially in fantasy, i think religion for the characters has been very downplayed more often than not. certainly, i find frodo hard to connect with because of his asexual, agnostic-seeming stance (though you could argue frodo is queerer than a three dollar bill, that aspect isn't overt, i think).

without a religious stance and no sexual attitude, man, what the hell do you base a character on, anyway? lol. 'uh, psychology.' hardly. you might get lucky with a character without religion or sex, but that's all it would be, luck. 'uh, philosophy.' oh, and sex and religion doesn't strike at the heart of a philosophy? sex/religion are basic character foundations, so why do people so often ignore these? oh, yeah-- they write boring, unrealistic characters who rely on setting more than story.

try this as a pick-up line: 'hey, baby, i have no religious stance nor do i have any discernable sexual proclivities. wanna, ya know, get a vanilla milkshake?' yeah, you're probably not going to get a lot of action with that. so, how is it characters are able to accomplish their goals? 'uh, determination.' determination based on what? you can't have a good character determined for determination's sake. 'jake steel was determined to be a starship captain.' okay, why? 'just cuz' don't fly over the course of four-hundred pages.

religion, too, is so important because it's usually the basis of a character's philosophy. aetheist or agnostic connotes certain character traits to me. so, if old jake is determined to be captain from an aetheistic standpoint, now you're starting to build a character's framework. as long as the details don't contradict that attitude (giving enough room for character growth), that's probably a good start. if he's rather a womanizer, or not, hey, that's almost a character.

i say all this and can prove myself a fool (or more so, heh heh) by looking at some otherwise great characters which are sometimes hard to pin down. captain kirk, i'm looking at you. a womanizing star captain with somewhat shady methods of operation. i don't think it's ever been satisfactorily settles what religion, if any, kirk belongs to. indeed, he seems very self-serving much of the time. sure, he's basically a good guy, but you also know the only reason he isn't banging every yoeman who saunters by with a four-inch thick clipboard is because he'd be thrown out of starfleet faster than he could say, 'but that green woman came on to *me*!' yeah, sure she did, kirk, sure she did.

i don't think kirk has much of a religious sense to him. certainly there's an arrogance attached with hot-shot commanders, and with so much power over people's lives there may be a self-worshipping attitude, so maybe his apparent agnostic leanings work best for that character. he knows he's not a god, but, damnit, he probably has had to go through a spell where he thought he was pretty close to it.

maybe that's good characterization after all. at least in kirk's case there's an implication there that some things i've read and seen lack terribly. as a reader, it's helps me develop a sense of the character without being told (which is a good thing, right?) if these major aspects are alluded to. without allusions, where's the character?

[mdin]

I like this thread so much, I went through and gave positive rep points to everyone who's posted in it.

***

Just like in real life there are tons of people with Captain-Kirk-like attitudes and lifestyles who also claim to be hardcore <Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, etc.> Their actions clearly are in conflict with their religious beliefs. I've always found that fascinating, but you rarely see that explored except in religious novels, which I don't like to read very much. A good exception is The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. Anyone here read it? It was pretty slow at times, but I really enjoyed the book as a whole.

[Moondancer]

Preyer

I'm afraid I'm a little confused with your last post.
Second paragraph, you state that "buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy". Further in another paragraph you state: "religion, too, is so important because it's usually the basis of a character's philosophy". At other points you mention character beliefs, psychology, atheism, agnosticism, and culture.

Would you care to clarify? I'm not challenging anything, mind. I would hate to draw any kind of conclusions from your post without completely understanding.

[SeanDSchaffer]

I personally think a little bit of religion in Fantasy is a good thing. I believe people are religious by nature and to take away religion entirely would be somewhat of an unrealistic venture.

As to the question in the first post about what religion I would personally write into my own work, I generally use my own beliefs in my work, if for no other reason than that I know my own personal faith and religion better than I know anyone else's.

Just my own personal take on this issue.

[preyer]

moon, i hope this clarifies things: i have my opinions as to what creates a good character, a few of the major ones being sexual attitude and religion. those don't have to be shown outright, per se, but writers allude to, or at least should, i think, to these things by character actions/thoughts/conversations. i think often writers don't really know these things about their characters themselves until situations unfold, but good characters to me still aren't ambiguous by the end of a trilogy. in other words, i should have enough clues to piece together a character as a believable person (or alien, ghost, whatever). (as an aside, this is probably a large reason why i hate children characters, because they always tend to have it all figured out or have not one challengable opinion.)

like it was said, buddhism, as far as my research has borne out, is a non-religion religion. philosophy and religion go hand in hand (i'm deliberately leaving psychology, social pressure, and medical conditions out of the mix as i feel these tend to be the results from phil. and rel.), but there's a noticable difference. generally, most people's religion is given to them and that's what they grow up with. (i like saying no one ever woke up in salt lake city one morning and said, 'you know what, i think i'm a muslim!') since religion is by-and-large a part of growing up, philosophy stems from that upbringing. so, in a mundane case, a child is taught religion, and having that almost inbred basis (show me where you can escape a society'ss dominant religion), your philosophy is greatly influenced by that. of course, that's a general statement, but the 'well, i know 50 people who proves that's not true' doesn't impress me.

my personal philosophy is based on what i consider to be fact because i don't have a religion to tell me how to think. so, i'm often proven wrong (albeit i admit it's not easy getting me to that point, lol). but i'm an uninteresting character, truth be told (good thing i'm still good-looking). it's worth noting (at least i believe this to be true) that there's quite a bit of difference between faith-based 'truths' which can't be verified as opposed to factually-based philosophical opinion. the two compliment each other in a character, no (i'd say there's also an inherent conflict)? if i don't have a strongish sense of either, nor of sex, i get bored with that character.

plenty of folk think scientists are aetheist. not true. surveys say the majority of them have a faith. likewise, while i think most people consider philosophers as people trying to reason their way into aetheism, that's not true, either: most philosophers, i dare say, would claim philosophy brings them *closer* to their god (or so i've read by some philosopher over the years).

if there's a religion in a person's life, a religion the person actually believes in and follows, everything else is a trickle down effect, eh? religion dictates sexual practice and beliefs. sexual freedom or repression affects a person's personality (which like philosophy and religion, personality and psychology i think are one another's best friend and worst enemy). how a person spends his time and spends his money is greatly dictated by religion.

so, if i know a character is a devout catholic, i know a lot about that character. if you want to have him banging every secretary in his corner office, you can't call him devout. that's not just an exception of the character's beliefs, it's really a contradiction of the writer themselves, not of the character. 'devout, except for...' would be okay, but to denote a character as one thing and start picking him apart without foreshadowing or any basis for doing so is bad writing to me. conflicted characters are great as are characters who go against their normal ways of being-- those things just need to be justified.

i hope that helps, moon. :) i'm rather unclear as to what you're unclear about, though, lol.

that's an excellent line: 'i believe people are religious by nature....' are they? are people more 'religious by nature' a thousand years ago as opposed to a modern culture? and has that 'nature' been forced upon people, creating a false culture people otherwise wouldn't have considered were the concept of gods and religion not taught to the in the first place? were i completely ignorant of religion, i'd eventually wonder what a church is and why there are five of them in my neighbourhood. were i raised on an island totally without any concept of any religion, i wonder if i'd ever think there was a higher power without being told. you've pricked an excellent vein there, my friend. kudos. in that situation, i wonder what priorities i'd give my character. would sex become an overwhelming factor sans anything other than a safety issue? why do we not screw around on our wives, just because we promised her and God we wouldn't? why is it when a guy screws around, he's a dog, yet when a woman does it, it's usually a case of her 'not getting the attention/emotional support she needs at home'? lol. i just threw those last sentences in there. :)

[Moondancer]

It just seemed a bit contradictory is all... at one point you talked about buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion then further along it was as if you were stating that a religion is born of an individual's philosophy.

My own take on religion is rather simplistic: Culture + Philosophy = Religion. Granted that can cover a whole lot of ground in logically following it through to some sort of conclusion but it's starts with this basic principle.

As fas as the island concept, I believe a person would think there is a higher power. Man knows himself to be an imperfect being yet the world moves on in an organized way in spite of him. Since he has no hand in this movement he will attribute it to something outside himself. Thus a religion is born. He has to have some way to explain the world that makes sense to him.

[fallenangelwriter]

The Sparrow was a very disturbingly good book.

[Roger J Carlson]

Their actions clearly are in conflict with their religious beliefs. I've always found that fascinating, but you rarely see that explored except in religious novels, which I don't like to read very much.

Religion as a central theme is not done very often in SF. (By this, I meant it it central to the story, not just part of the world.) Poul Anderson did it a few times. I'm thinking of "The Problem of Pain", "Superstition", and "Operation Chaos." There are others, but I don't have my library here.

Fantasy is a little more open to religion as a theme. The "Camber" series is one. C. S. Friedman's "Cold Fire Trilogy" is another. Can anyone think of others?

BTW, Here is an webpage (with links to others) that you might find interesting:
http://www.winternet.com/~gmcdavid/html_dir/rel-sf.html

[Andrew Jameson]

Christopher Stasheff's series (of... six books?) that starts with Her Majesty's Wizard deals explicitly with God and the Devil. I seem to recall reading an afterword by Stasheff where he explains that he set out specifically to construct a world where God and the Church were as centrally important as they really were in Medieval Europe. In fact, it's pretty clear that Stasheff based his world specifically on Medieval Europe and Christianity -- or at least a modern interpretation of Medieval Europe.

It's been a while since I read it, but it strikes me that, even though God is central to the plot, the religion in the books is kind of a two-dimensional Good versus Evil as opposed to a well-formed theology. Still, I quite enjoyed the first couple books of the series (although later books become so formulaic as to be almost unreadable), and the inclusion of religion does seem more natural than its exclusion.

[Nateskate]

Very interesting topic. Whether people realize it, most fantasy is quasi-spiritual at the core. There are four basic approaches to religion. Monotheistic, polytheistic, philosophical (includes agnostic) and wickan-warlocks/wizards/shamans

If you look at almost all fantasy, meaning of life is somehow tied to storyline. Even in star trek, you are looking for meaning in life and understanding.

The question though is this, are you overtly trying to preach/teach/ influence soicety with your books, or entertain. Contrary to popular belief, some of the pioneers of fantasy lit were more pro-active, hoping their lampoons of real life situations would influence society. That is soft-core preaching. Hardcore is slapping you in the face. Luke Skywalker's "Force" is essentially Hindu/Buddhist. So, what seems non-religious may in fact be deeply religious.

My question is this, if you are a deeply spiritual person, how much of your faith is in your story? How is it in your story? Would someone know it to see it? Do you feel you have to preach through your story?

Tolkien was a deeply spiritual person. Yet, he never saw LOTR as a vehicle to preach. Nor, did he actually (in the beginning) intend it to be entertainment, except to himself and his friends. In a sense, he would have been preaching to the choir, given that most of his friends had similar views.

One of the hardest things I did, and it wasn't by intention, was to create a "Creation account". I didn't want to at first, and again, in my fantasy, I didn't want it to come off as preachy/spiritual, and so, there was never an intention to define God. I tried so many different ways to start my story, and eventually I caved in, and now there is a mythical creation account.

Technically, if you have defined "rules" in your Universe, at some point you run into a quagmire that you have to explain, "Who made the rules?"

In my story, one of the core points is that beings from two realms are in a war, and it would be the equivalent of good humans/bad humans interacting with good etheriel beings and bad etheriel beings. Ignorance isn't bliss, and so the quest is to gain the advantage through understanding how and why things operate. Yes, you could just leave an inference that a God exists somewhere, or you can give him a name, as Tolkien gave "Eru" Yet, although Tolkien admits Eru was a force in the world, it was always inferred, and never overt.

During the Middle Earth -Hobbit years, he also implied that Eru/Illuvatar worship wasn't actively practiced by most Hobbits.

[Pthom]

I have just started reading Kushiel's Dart (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765342987/ref=ase_jacqucareysde-20/103-2473985-0767843?v=glance&s=books) by Jacqueline Carey--a first for me; generally, I restrict my reading to hard science fiction--within the first ten chapters, she's begun weaving a most complex thread of an imaginary society, its politics, philosophy and religion--and sex--in a manner I've not seen done in quite this way previously.

The disparate religions, politics (ie: governments), and mores of imaginary cultures (read: those we make up as part of our fictions), can be over-simplified, such as Star Wars or Star Trek or even Dune and Babylon 5, or they can be, as Carey is showing me and as I am attempting in my own WIP, so complex as to be darned near impossible. LOL

[SeanDSchaffer]

Religion as a central theme is not done very often in SF. (By this, I meant it it central to the story, not just part of the world.) Poul Anderson did it a few times. I'm thinking of "The Problem of Pain", "Superstition", and "Operation Chaos." There are others, but I don't have my library here.

Fantasy is a little more open to religion as a theme. The "Camber" series is one. C. S. Friedman's "Cold Fire Trilogy" is another. Can anyone think of others?

BTW, Here is an webpage (with links to others) that you might find interesting:
http://www.winternet.com/~gmcdavid/html_dir/rel-sf.html


I'd have to agree with Roger on the issue of Religion in Sci-fi. I don't see an awful lot of it. Philosophy, yes, but not a huge amount of actual religion.

Roger, you asked if anyone knew of good Fantasy books with religion as a central theme, other than the ones you've already listed. If I'm not mistaken, The Chronicles of Narnia series by C. S. Lewis was a great Fantasy series that used religion as a central theme. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in fact very closely parallels the Biblical New Testament, except in an animalistic form that is still highly appealing today.

And if I remember correctly, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy had a somewhat religious theme to it, as well, also borrowing from the New Testament stories to some small degree.

A note about sci-fi, though: I do see a little bit of religion in the new sci-fi TV series remake of Battlestar Galactica, a lot more than I saw in the original series. In the new version, the Cylons are the ones quietly preaching their version of God while the humans in the story seem to be the 'lost sheep,' if I may use that term. But I still agree with you that sci-fi generally isn't as open to religious themes as is Fantasy.

Again, just another two cents on my part.

[victoriastrauss]

Fantasy is a little more open to religion as a theme. The "Camber" series is one. C. S. Friedman's "Cold Fire Trilogy" is another. Can anyone think of others?My most recent book, The Burning Land, has religion as a central theme. The religion is my own invention, designed to echo but not to duplicate various existing world religions. I was interested in examining issues that (in my view) are central to most religions--faith, doubt, heresy, the difficulty of interpreting revelation, the tension between faith and the institutional structures that grow up around it--and I wanted to do it in a way that wasn't lumbered by the baggage of association and expectation that readers might bring to an examination of these issues in a specific religious context.

For me, this is one of the great strengths of fantasy--it lets you focus a sharper light on universal issues by transferring them out of their normal context.

I am probably one of the least spiritual people you might ever meet. Religion (my major in college) fascinates me not because I want to preach my own faith or explore my spiritual dimension or any of those personal things, but as a uniquely fascinating and endlessly complex window into human history and the human psyche.

- Victoria

[whitehound]

Sheri S. Tepper's Grass is another SF novel which deals with religion as a central theme. On the whole I find her an irritatingly preachy writer, but Grass is a subtle tour de force.

My main personal objection to McCaffrey's Pern series is that although she has developed her imagined world in great detail there are *no* religions. I just didn't believe it, in any sizeable and well-established human society. See on the other hand the numerous religious schisms in CJ Cherryth's Angel with a Sword.

Comments about the sloppy presentation of alien societies as monocultures reminded me of my favourite Trek-based filk-song, and my favourite Poul Anderson moment.

[Filk if you don't already know it is SF-based folk-song.]

The filk is about Scotty from original Trek and begins "I was born in Inverness on the second day of spring." I found that wonderfully refreshing as set against all those stories which just portray humans as "from Earth" or at best "from Africa" or whatever. Human nature doesn't change that much, and I'm sure that in the future people will still think of themselves as being from a particular town or, as in the case of CJ Cherryth's Merchanter series, from a particular ship.

And the Poul Anderson moment? A little cat-like alien called Chee-Lan, from a species called Cynthians, is delighted to find that a hotel they are staying at provides a home-like environment for her species- them complains because they've booked her into the wrong continent and the heating and humidity are far too high. And she assures her human captain that the Cynthian books which she is reading in her hotel room are works of philisophy and theology - but they are in fact trashy Cynthian "sex and shopping" novels in plain covers.

[preyer]

'My own take on religion is rather simplistic: Culture + Philosophy = Religion.' i think that's an excellent way of putting it and i agree 100% were we talking about *new* religions. after almost two-thousand years of christianity, for example, it's a case of religion dictating how your culture and philosophy is shaped. were i to start a new religion today, it would naturally be based on my philosophy and how i think people ought to be. a thousand years from now, 'preyerism' would be dictating how you should behave, act, eat, think, watch on your holographic wristwatch, etc..

damnit, i wish i remember titles better. i read one book several years ago which turned out to be one of a series of christian fantasy books. the problem was the marketing didn't do an adequate enough job of conveying that, which i honestly had a problem with. here's why: i picked this book up unaware that there would be a message contained therein. i knew it was about God and battling the devil, though it being mixed in with less preachy books on the shelves, i thought it would be a good story. and for the first part of the book, i thought things were progressing okay, not great, but, hey, i was already into it, might as well knock it off at that point. still, i was getting a little squeamish: the inferences were getting more and more distinct. still being subtle, i ploughed onwards.

then, it went off the cliff and became this very pro-christian thing, a practical diatribe of preaching that fell just short of advertisements for 10% off your first tithe. the message at first was very subtle, but it came through loud and clear the more you read. in essence, i felt as if i'd read an extended tract and was, i admit, rather offended by the perceived trickery. wish i could remember the name of it.

it's sounds pretty bad to say, but i'm very wary of anyone who's a big-time christian writing a fantasy. i'd be more apt to be watching for subtle ways to get me to 'turn christian' than i would be enjoying the book. i'm the kind of person who automatically fights anything i view as trying to control my thoughts. i assume if oral roberts writes a fantasy, it's going to be pretty preachy. i also felt that that book was most definitely not christian -- christians, i feel, wouldn't stoop to that level of deception to get their word out. i'd much rather it be preachy from the start so i can put it down. i finished the book with a smile on my face, more as a result of having caught onto what was going on with the author's intent more than it being a good book.

books that have religion who say, 'this is their religion and what they believe in' is definitely fine. as long as you're not looking for converts.

should i even mention l. ron hubbard here? lol.

[Moondancer]

'My own take on religion is rather simplistic: Culture + Philosophy = Religion.' i think that's an excellent way of putting it and i agree 100% were we talking about *new* religions. after almost two-thousand years of christianity, for example, it's a case of religion dictating how your culture and philosophy is shaped. were i to start a new religion today, it would naturally be based on my philosophy and how i think people ought to be. a thousand years from now, 'preyerism' would be dictating how you should behave, act, eat, think, watch on your holographic wristwatch, etc..




I don't necessarily hold that it's for *new* religions. Perhaps established religions have survived as long as they have because they adapt and modify the *philosophy* of the religion to fit people's needs? Some changes can be so small and subtle that their effect by themselves aren't noticed but over time there are significant net changes.

I suppose an example would be the Catholic religion. Can you honestly say that it is the same now as in the Middle Ages, for instance?

Now, I'm by no means an expert and really know only the most superficial facts about any religion, but history shows us changes, if nothing else does. Every religion ever established has had segments split off and create new religions all throughout history. The protestant religions were splinters of dissenters within the Catholic religion.

Every religion that has been established can be pointed to and shown where there are other established religions that have sprung from it. If I were more knowledgable I would almost say that even with long established religions, they are not practiced universally the same from culture to culture. It's not something I've researched but have theorized from bits and pieces of info picked up here and there. So I could be way wrong, lol.

[Roger J Carlson]

For me, this is one of the great strengths of fantasy--it lets you focus a sharper light on universal issues by transferring them out of their normal context.


I agree, but I'll take it even farther. Fantasy allows you to explore concepts like honor, duty, faith, and self-sacrifice -- concepts that are anathema to cynical mainstream literature. There is something very satisfying about a hero that sacrifices himself for the good of others. You don't see that much in mainstream fiction.

You also don't see it as much in SF anymore (other than in military SF ala Weber). I think that's why SF has declined while fantasy has stayed strong.

[Roger J Carlson]

it's sounds pretty bad to say, but i'm very wary of anyone who's a big-time christian writing a fantasy.
The problem with "Christian fantasy" or "Christian SF" is how restricted it is. You are not allowed to ask "what-if" because that would be straying from established doctrine. The "Left Behind" series is a good case in point. While the tale is definitely fiction, the concept behind it is pure Evangelical Christian doctine (known as Pre-Tribulation Rapture). Tim LaHaye is a well respected Christian writer and speaker and his involvement in the book gives it respectibility in the eyes of the Christian community.

Now, I'm not saying this is bad. Millions of people have read an enjoyed these books and it reinforces their faith. But sometimes an issue can be explored better by taking an opposite stance. I think of Dante's proud Satan in Paradise Lost. It allows you to think about your faith in new ways. But by established doctrine this would be heresy.

[victoriastrauss]

I agree, but I'll take it even farther. Fantasy allows you to explore concepts like honor, duty, faith, and self-sacrifice -- concepts that are anathema to cynical mainstream literature.A lot of traditional and popular epic fantasy, yes. But there's also a strong trend in modern fantasy away from this sort of thing, and toward more mainstream explorations of shades of gray. Frankly, that interests me (both as a reader and a writer) much more than the archetypal hero's journey.

- Victoria

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Sheri S. Tepper's Grass is another SF novel which deals with religion as a central theme. On the whole I find her an irritatingly preachy writer, but Grass is a subtle tour de force.My husband, who also finds Tepper irredeemably preachy, actually liked Grass. I don't disagree with him about her preachiness, but a good plot and worldbuilding experiment along with a lovely narrative style will keep me turning pages in spite of that. That said, I find the nutbar content of her dystopias to be steadily growing. I keep rereading Shadow's Fall and suffering from mixed reactions--I want make sense of the ending and see those characters safely home, but I want to throw the darn thing against the wall.

On another subject: I was taught that Buddhism, in its original form, is a non-theistic religion. My impression is that those who think Buddhism isn't a religion would also find the term "non-theistic religion" contradictory. But it's also my experience that many people define "religion" only in terms of their own: if they believe in a God, then they don't consider a non-theistic belief set religious. If they bury their dead, they'll say a culture that doesn't bury its dead mustn't believe in an afterlife or have a religion. We humans can be very narrow minded at times.

I really appreciate a fantasy that strives to establish fantasy religions that do not bear these kinds of similarities to the author's own religion. It shows a refreshing openness to the concept that intelligence, morality, valid world-views, etc. don't have to come wrapped in a familiar package.

(And don't get me started on the idea that morality has to have a theistic foundation... Rrowr, pet peeve sticking its claws out the cage!)

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

The "Left Behind" series is a good case in point. While the tale is definitely fiction, the concept behind it is pure Evangelical Christian doctine (known as Pre-Tribulation Rapture). Tim LaHaye is a well respected Christian writer and speaker and his involvement in the book gives it respectibility in the eyes of the Christian community.That depends on which Christian you ask. (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/left_behind/index.html)

Peace is a pretty major theme in the Bible.

But none of this matters to the prophecy nuts who are convinced that the Antichrist will be a man of peace. And since they believe that the most important thing for Christians to do is to be on the lookout against the Antichrist, and vigilantly opposed to his evil ways, they believe that Christians must oppose anyone who speaks of, pursues, or tries to make, peace.

This is one of the most astonishing and dangerous aspects of the popularity of the End Times heresies promoted by people like LaHaye and Jenkins. It is one of this biggest reasons why this matters -- deeply, truly, seriously matters.

Tens of millions of copies of the Left Behind books have been sold. That doesn't just mean that tens of millions of our fellow citizens have horrible taste in literature. It also means they are being taught to oppose -- to condemn as immoral and ungodly -- any effort that goes under the name "peacemaking."I would also submit that Premillenial Dispensationalism (PMD) is not inherent to all Evangelical shades of Christianity.

[Roger J Carlson]

A lot of traditional and popular epic fantasy, yes. But there's also a strong trend in modern fantasy away from this sort of thing, and toward more mainstream explorations of shades of gray. Frankly, that interests me (both as a reader and a writer) much more than the archetypal hero's journey.

- Victoria
If that's true, then I'm afraid we will start to see the decline of fantasy as well. Fantasy is the last bastion of adventure fiction. The 70's began the decline of SF with the advent of the New Wave authors who were more interested in mainstream explorations.

The result? Look at your local bookstore in the SF/Fantasy section. How much is current SF (ie, NOT Heinlein, Asimov, etc) and how much is current fantasy? Fantasy far out-weighs SF. Why? My belief it is because (aside from military SF by the likes of Drake and Weber) Science Fiction has largely abandoned adventure.

Now I'm not saying that all fantasy needs to be a re-telling of Tolkien. Heavens no! There's been 40 years of that. Nor do they all have to be "hero's journeys."

Why not have a fantasy espionage story? Or a fantasy mystery? Or even a fantasy that involves space travel? Fantasy doesn't have to be stuck in Medieval England where every scene looks like a Xena re-run. Still, that doesn't mean they have to be the cynical, sardonic, ever-so-sophisticated muck that the mainstream press puts out.

Here's a description of a book just sold this month: "a humorous and subversive debut about disillusionment, alienation, and one man's desperate fight to assign absolutely no meaning to modern life." (source: PublishersMarketplace.com) Is this what we want fantasy to become?

Victoria, we may not even be in disagreement. I too want fantasy to become more than two dimensional. Shades of gray? Certainly! Depth of meaning? Of course! But let's not in the process lose what has made fantasy so popular in the first place. Let's not lose the sense of adventure.

[MacAllister]

I too want fantasy to become more than two dimensional. Shades of gray? Certainly! Depth of meaning? Of course! But let's not in the process lose what has made fantasy so popular in the first place. Let's not lose the sense of adventure.

Ah, but I think it IS, Roger. How much recent fantasy are you reading? There are a number of really terrific authors (including our own Victoria Strauss) publishing what I think of as fantasy for grown ups: shades of gray, without abandoning the genre conventions that, as readers, we expect and cherish.

[DaveKuzminski]

Although it might be good to have a strong idea of what the religion would look like that you create for a fantasy, you don't have to have all of it worked out beforehand. Many people can't even explain much more than some very basic premises about their own real religion they belong to. So, why should you have to have it completely laid out? Just address those issues that come up within the story. That will keep you on the story rather than in an endless info dump that might turn off most readers.

Also, many real religions have one or more conflicts within their own teachings. We might tend to call those exceptions to the rule. For instance, it's wrong to take a life, but we'll let you kill infidels. I'm bringing up this because it could be used to make a fantasy religion more realistic if it has some unclear elements, especially if those are matters you can exploit for further conflict in your story.

One more advantage of not giving out everything is that it gives you some wiggle room later on when you might need it.

By the way, if you find yourself doing a series within the same fantasy world, you should set aside an info file on the finer points that you do establish for your fantasy world's religions so that you won't contradict yourself at the wrong moment. Believe me, I couldn't keep track of what's going on in some of my writing without such files. For a series I'm writing, the info file is broken into categories such as Characters, Businesses, Places, Ecology, and so forth. Within each category, I keep the lists alphabetized so I can find things quickly. Yes, I also cross reference some of the lists by mentioning what business a character works for in the character list or what main characters can be found in the business and where it's located within the business list.

[Moondancer]

You also have to think in terms of what defines the genre. Regardless if your setting is the modern world or centuries into the future, if those defining elements are missing it's no longer fantasy but something else.

If you use fantasy as a generic term, every novel ever published/printed would fall into the genre.

[Roger J Carlson]

That depends on which Christian you ask. (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/left_behind/index.html)

I would also submit that Premillenial Dispensationalism (PMD) is not inherent to all Evangelical shades of Christianity.

Sorry, I didn't really mean to imply that it was. However, my point is that if I tried to write "Christian SF" where the Rapture was really a trick of Satan, it would never be published by a Christian publisher even though it is a perfectly good "what-if".

[MacAllister]

if I tried to write "Christian SF" where the Rapture was really a trick of Satan, it would never be published by a Christian publisher even though it is a perfectly good "what-if". heh--what a cool idea, though...

Piers Anthony played with the idea of Satan in his Incarnations of Immortality books, several years ago. I'm not an Anthony fan, but the idea was fun: the concept of "Satan" as an office, rather than as an actual individual--and so over the span of human time, Satan is several different people.

[Roger J Carlson]

You also have to think in terms of what defines the genre. Regardless if your setting is the modern world or centuries into the future, if those defining elements are missing it's no longer fantasy but something else.

If you use fantasy as a generic term, every novel ever published/printed would fall into the genre.

Moondancer, I think this is a question that deserves its own thread, so I've started one.

[Betty W01]

For those of you who'd like to read Orson Scott Card's POV on this topic, he wrote an interesting foreword for the book Future on Fire (best science fiction of the 1980s, vol. 1, Tor, 90).


And not all evangelicals agree with Jenkins/LaHaye's POV, either. I know I don't. I think the Anti-Christ will preach peace, but will actually war (by persecution) against anyone who disagrees with him (or her) in any way. Sort of political correctness gone amuck, or the Holocaust all over again, only for ideas and not racial identity. You can already see hints of it in the US, where some people claim anyone who says that homosexuality is a sin is committing a hate crime against homosexuals.

Ummm, no, not unless they're also dragging someone down the street behind their truck or writing vile insults on someone's house. I can disagree with someone's POV on homosexuality (whther they're practicing it or just preaching acceptance of it as an alternate - or godly, in some cases -lifestyle) without hating them. I have good friends who are homosexual. They know where I stand, I know where they stand, and no hate is being expressed in either direction.

This is an interesting thread....

[Galoot]

Just for the record, some of my best friends are the Anti-Christ. I don't judge.

[Moondancer]

Just for the record, some of my best friends are the Anti-Christ. I don't judge.

Does it take all of them to make a collective Anti-Christ or they all claim to be but only one is? ;)

[preyer]

md, sure, religion adapts. that's an excellent point, too. i think it happens by overwhelming pressure and in light of technological advances and, well, competing religions. catholocism is changing, but not because it wants to by any means, i think. you're definitely right in saying culture has weight, but like i said, it has to be extremely strong to even influence change. unless, of course, you're the pope, head guru, grand poomba, whatever. in the case of catholics, much of its codification is derived from whatever the presiding pope thinks things should be as much as opinion bolstered by scripture.

basically, the little guy *can* make a difference... but it helps if there are a few million other little guys backing you up. rather like if i sued general motors: well, i might win and it's no big deal, really. a class action lawsuit, on the other hand, and you'd see a policy change. in these terms, i think you we can be supplanting 'religion' with 'government' and still keep the spirit of the discussion the same.

a side gripe: i never seem to be told what the fantasy characters actually do for a living. how does frodo make a living? sam is a gardener, but does it say what frodo does? that sometimes irks me when a character's basic lives aren't illustrated in any real way.

[Moondancer]

a side gripe: i never seem to be told what the fantasy characters actually do for a living. how does frodo make a living? sam is a gardener, but does it say what frodo does? that sometimes irks me when a character's basic lives aren't illustrated in any real way.

I always assumed he was independently wealthy.

[Galoot]

Bilbo was certainly rolling in it. Aside from his jewelry, he didn't seem to have anything against sharing the wealth.

[Jamesaritchie]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Card was Catholic. I have no idea what religious affiliation he has (if any). What I meant was that he has some sympathetic characters that are Catholic, and therefore his writing was pro-Catholic. (I was thinking of "Ender's Shadow".)

I should have left the parenthetical out altogether.

I don't know about pro-catholic, though it may sound that way. Card is a dedicated Mormon, so he has much in common with Catholics, but also many things that are not at in step with catholic beliefs.

On religion in general, I doubt there's ever been a culture that didn't have religious beliefs. If there was, I've never heard of it. Leaving religion out of fantasy is on par with leaving common people and industry out of fantasy. Religion certainly doesn't have to be central, and it can be one you make up from whole cloth, but there should, I think, be evidence that religion does exist.

[victoriastrauss]

Card is a dedicated Mormon, so he has much in common with Catholics, but also many things that are not at in step with catholic beliefs.Card's writing has very clear LDS content, though it's not stated as such--the Alvin Maker series and the Memory of Earth books both hinge on LDS concepts. The one book in which he's explict about Mormonism is Lost Boys--a really interesting book not for its supernatural mystery (which IMO doesn't really come off) but as a fascinating portrait of a devout Mormon family living in a non-Mormon world.

- Victoria

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

However, my point is that if I tried to write "Christian SF" where the Rapture was really a trick of Satan, it would never be published by a Christian publisher even though it is a perfectly good "what-if".Aauugh! Get out of my head! That idea was mine, dammit, MINE! ...I just haven't written it down yet.

Hee hee.

[Roger J Carlson]

Aauugh! Get out of my head! That idea was mine, dammit, MINE! ...I just haven't written it down yet.

Hee hee.

LOL. It's all yours! Just don't send it to Zondervans. Oh, and do read Job: A Comedy of Justice by Heinlein before you do.

[whitehound]

Has Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (in which a mix-up in the maternity ward results in the anti-Christ being raised in a rural English working-class luke-warmly Christian family, until his human upbringing outweighs his demonic make-up and he decides he likes the world just the way it is and cancels Armageddon) been published in the US, or did the religious lobby kill it off?

[victoriastrauss]

Has Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (in which a mix-up in the maternity ward results in the anti-Christ being raised in a rural English working-class luke-warmly Christian family, until his human upbringing outweighs his demonic make-up and he decides he likes the world just the way it is and cancels Armageddon) been published in the US, or did the religious lobby kill it off?I LOVED that book. Too hilarious. Yes, it got US publication, because I remember checking it out of the library. But that was a number of years ago--dunno if it's still in print.

- Victoria

[Jamesaritchie]

Card's writing has very clear LDS content, though it's not stated as such--the Alvin Maker series and the Memory of Earth books both hinge on LDS concepts. The one book in which he's explict about Mormonism is Lost Boys--a really interesting book not for its supernatural mystery (which IMO doesn't really come off) but as a fascinating portrait of a devout Mormon family living in a non-Mormon world.

- Victoria

"Lost Boys" is one of the few Card works I haven't read, but, yes, the Alvin Maker books clearly hinge on LDS concepts. I really need to pick up "Lost Boys." I read Card's explanation of how the book came about, and found it very interesting.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

I LOVED that book. Too hilarious. Yes, it got US publication, because I remember checking it out of the library. But that was a number of years ago--dunno if it's still in print.I'm fairly certain it is. I see it in the local bookstores all the time.

The thing I keep wondering is whether it's actually going to be a movie someday. They had Terry Gilliam on board to direct it some time ago, but I think he must have thrown up his hands in despair since.

(Neil Gaiman hasn't mentioned it on his blog for a while now, AFAIK.)

[preyer]

okay, what does afaik mean? i've seen that a couple of times now....

[Roger J Carlson]

okay, what does afaik mean? i've seen that a couple of times now....
As Far As I Know. For more, check here: http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/acronyms.php

[whitehound]

And afair means As Far as I Remember.

[preyer]

ah, good deal. thanks. :) that's something that may have been around forever, but i've not seen it before, and this currently is the only message board i do, so i'm not getting a lot of influences outside here. (the weather's getting nicer and after winter i start to get burned out on MB's for a while, so here shortly, probably after these discussions wind down and i can't think of new topics, i'll start popping in less frequently, at least for a little bit. give y'all a break, lol.)

[MadScientistMatt]

Has Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (in which a mix-up in the maternity ward results in the anti-Christ being raised in a rural English working-class luke-warmly Christian family, until his human upbringing outweighs his demonic make-up and he decides he likes the world just the way it is and cancels Armageddon) been published in the US, or did the religious lobby kill it off?

I'm pretty sure it is still in print. I've seen several different editions of it. And as a "sort of fundementalist" Christian, I still thought it was a very funny and thought-provoking book which made several excellent points about the nature of good and evil.

A good author can still pull off some very creative Christian fiction without being accused of being a heretic. C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce are two examples of unusual "what-if" Christian fiction. The latter is intentionally outside of normal Christian teachings to answer a central question about normal Christian teachings.

[Nateskate]

It all depends on what you consider "religious". Star Wars is very religious. It just doesn't sound preachy, because good and evil is not dictated by "The Force." It turns the "force" into a quasi power source, but the basic veiled inferences are clearly hindu in nature. And you have a variation of Cosmic Consciousness...etc.

Few actually think of Camelot in religious terms, but it is filled with religious illusion, where you have mixtures of a variety of beliefs.

Neo-paganism is a religion, it borrows on many ancient religions that were embraced by entire cultures at one time, and so many books borrow on this theme.

I think people get confused, because unless you have a deity issuing orders, and a spiritual law, some people think of it as not being inately religious.

Lord of the Rings is deeply religious, although the trilogy itself does not promote any religion. However, the story begins in the Silmarillion with a blend of Genesis, with a creation account, virtual flood story destroying Numinor...etc. However, Tolkien blends in so much Norse/Greek mythology, as well as English Lore, that it doesn't seem to be overtly religious in nature, despite some inferences. In a sense, you see Illuvatar (God) in the beginning. He gets the ball rolling. And if you read Lost Tales, about the Sacred Fire...etc, you see that the hand of Eru/Illuvatar still at work behind the scenes, although by the time of LOTR, you see a rather non-spiritual people. But it's all a part of the mythological framework.
Then you look at Dune with prophecies and a messianic figure. Even the Matrix has a Messianic figure and Prophecies. That all stems from religion.

[Barb]

One of the first Fantasy books that I read was Duncton Wood (and its sequels), one of the first SF books Dune. That must have influenced me big time, because I still like books with religious themes and religion plays a big part in my writing.

The SF draft I am rewriting has, besides humans, two alien races and three different religions with one of them consisting of several "confessions". Worldbuilding them to suit their culture was a bit of a nightmare, but it did wonders for plot, characters and themes.

[whitehound]

Sounds interesting. You'd probably enjoy Angel With the Sword by CJ Cherryth.

[RhiannonKelley]

I don't think so. There are many scifi/fantasy books that have something to do with some sort of religion, whether said religion really exist or not. Dune if full of religion, so is the Kushiel series, the Great Alta books have religion and the list goes on.

[Silverhand]

Religion is HUGE in my book. The only reason I wrote the damn thing, is because my wifes mother felt the need to attack the fact that I myself am an agnostic.


So what did I do? #1 - There are 13 gods in my world. However, since worshipping God is a personal choice and relationship...EVERYONE views their god as The One God.

#2 - I centered truth and reality around the concept that: If free-will stems from God, and free-will is a random occurrence, IF God has free-will the future does not exist. Why? Because God has no way of knowing what he will and will not do. This anything that occurs might be affected by his own random choices. :)

#3 - With that concept in mind, truth and reality do not exist, only possibilities that stem from the gods making random choices that change all plausibe circumstances.

#4 - I talk alot of theology and philosophy with my main character. However, the philospher IS God. Thus, I have God talking about his own limtations / omnipotence to a mortal.

#5 - I made the main character a paladin, or warrior of god. This way, no one can say I am using my personal preferrence to tell the story.

What did this cause? :) I made my wife and her mother cry...they think I am a bad Christian and that I hate God. THEN, I handed it to a pair pastors, who thought it portrayed how EVERY Christian should act...and said it might be one of the greatest Christian Fantasies they had ever read. Thirdly, I gave it to a few atheists who thought it was preachy in favor of god, but loved how I disputed him. Finally, I brought them all together and it was a night of great arguments and discussions. heheh

Anyways, I just had to share this story, as I cant exactly tell anyone I know WHY I wrote it. That would only anger the wifes mother further. :)

[Niesta]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned McMaster-Bujold's The Curse of Chalion (and sequels). That's some of the best thought-out fantasy theology I've read in a long time. I'm an atheist myself, but found it moving (in the first one more than the sequels).