Lila, I have to agree with Littlemanpoet, write the new version, it's probably coming out of a deeper place. I do favor keeping parallel versions of a story if you can still see 'em. I have a symbolic, parody, and fantasy version of the story I'm working on now, but the fantasy version is the main one, it's like a vacuum cleaner hoovering up every story I've worked on for the past year.
Saxony Tarn, Poetry-- story kicks off with a great, lovely, wicked ballad. Looking forward to more poetry as I read the next chapters.
Women and men: Sad but true. I think, though that just as people become more compelling as you get to know them, you can write a physically plain or undefined character so that they become attractive. One of my heroines calls herself a 'shapeless crone' -- she's given to extreme pronouncements. She's actually a fairly hale 63 year old with a fierce personality, which is lucky, considering what she'll have to go through to rescue her lover. I think she's the most attractive character in the story. Of course, I'm a woman, so I would, wouldn't I?
Whoa! That Left Behind series is scary-- I looked at a gruesome murder in a middle book and gave up the idea of reading it. I loved your friend's summation of the series, Naaramare.
Phillip Pullman's series is wonderful, very well written. As it's set in an alternate world, I cling to the hope that it's an alternate God he's tackling, but I know Pullman did say it was intended to be a Narnia for athiests. On the other hand, I can think of a few authors who set out to write simple stories to instill morality into youth and ended up with something far more than they intended. The fact is, the best material in Pullman is the less didactic material where he just follows the story and characters and invents like wild. There's nothing noticably didactic about the Armored Bears. Whatever he thought he was taking aim at, he hit abuse of authority far more accurately than God.
Religion: I'm more interested in the classic mistakes and strengths of each and all religions than pitting one against the other. The key to a reasonable religious discussion is remaining alive to the difference between the wish to share and the will to power over others. There are always some who don't understand that distinction. What I find ironic is when those who have the most hard-driving will to power over others rant about the dangers of power-lust! That's what's wonderful about Tolkien, he truly did not lust for power over others. That does wonders for his story.
I see a lot of classic mistakes, that occur almost identically across very different religions-- there are similar traps that new believers fall into, similar traps that fervent believers fall into, they can all recognize the phenomenon in rival religions but it's a rare insight to recognize the same trap in your own faith. Of course, as religions are profoundly different, the heart of each religion does not compare, but the mistakes, particularly the new-faith mistakes and the political/organizational-faith mistakes can be compared. I guess I'm saying that all true faiths are distinct, but of the false faiths, there are only a few types. (I'm using 'true' in the sense of 'true to a faith's own aspirations.)
I've got a story about a character who rattles back and forth opportunistically between christian and pagan, viewing the faiths as competing patrons of luck, making the same mistake in each, thinking the right religion will bring control of her fate, which she's desperate to change. Sam's comment about Lorien sums her up:
Quote:
|
It strikes me that folk takes their peril with them into Lorien, and finds it there because they've brought it.
|
[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]