The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart

Nice suggestion - and my son just got a telescope. My children awe me, as to them everything is new and magical. However, sometimes their behavior has me reconsidering the doctrine of 'original sin'...

[littlemanpoet]

It has been said (I forget who by) that the doctrine of "original sin" is the most empirically supported: observe your children; read the daily paper; etc.

[littlemanpoet]

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell',

- davem

But would it necessarily break the spell? ....as in an if-then cause and effect? It seems to me it would depend on how the things was brought off. Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world. Let us suppose that emblems of religion are explored as they funciton both in the primary and secondary worlds. Does this break the spell? Or rather, does it weave a different kind of enchantment? I think it may do the latter, if brought off well. Now, this does not account for reader taste. If, say, a christian emblem is used, and an atheist simply cannot abide it, then it's not going to work for that atheist. But what if the chrisitan emblem is brought off well and the atheist is open minded enough to appreciate the art as presented, to see where it leads? Am I dreaming up impossibilities, or is it not a matter of expertise in terms of the art?

& two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

- davem

Now, this one seems a little easier to answer than the former. Assuming an expertly done work of fiction,, it seems to me that the use of religious emblems from the primary world is no more (and no less) prone to mis-allegorization than is LotR. I have read much of Stephen Lawhead, especially his Arthurian series. It is, I admit, hit or miss in terms of craft, but the better crafted the work is, the more it seems to me that Lawhead has done admirably. I am more convinced of this after having read Leonard Tolstoy's In Search of Merlin, the knowledge of which Lawhead has apparently made great use of in his Merlin, which I think may be the best of the series. Lawhead's Albion series is better than his Arthur series, and it is even more clearly theist (if not christian) than his Arthur series. It is, by the way, a "transitional" fantasy, whereas the Arthur series is "in the deeps of time" as it were, and is thus an "over there" fantasy (there's a better word but I can't think of it right now).

I don't for a minute believe that I've proven anything with the above "devil's advocate" answers, but I wanted to raise the remonstrations since everybody seems to be agreed that primary world religious emblems don't belong in fantasy.

[Lalwendë]

Something just occurred to me about religion and fantasy. What about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? This is obviously full of religious elements, and features major figures from Christianity, including archangels and God. There is even a representation of the papacy in the form of the magisterium. The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

I'm not sure if I can think of what this means, but I thought it was worth bringing into the discussion. Of course, some might argue that HDM is not even fantasy (I would argue that it is). But taking the position that it is fantasy, does the inclusion of so many icons actually work? And does the omission of overt use of the symbol of the cross make it work?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world.

It could work if a Christian from this world entered a non-Christian secondary world. But the secondary world would have to retain its autonomy, & not serve merely to promote the author's Christianity, by having all the characters of the secondary world come to see the 'error of their ways' & convert. The central character's religion could be explored in perhaps profound ways, & maybe his faith would be deepened by his experiences there, but the inhabitants of the secondary world, not living in a world that had known the Incarnation (though perhaps having had some other kind of divine intervention) could not believably 'convert' to a religion which had developed in another 'reality'. Primary & secondary realities would follow their own rules & have their own paths. Otherwise the Secondary reality would become in the end no more than a poor copy of the primary.

This is what occurs in Lawhead's Song of Albion trilogy. The 'Ancient Britain' Lawhead gives us is deeply innaccurate. The ancient Celts were not monothiests but polytheists, & their supreme deity was the Goddess Don or Danu. Basically, Lawhead attempts to present a real cultural/historical period as being something we know it wasn't. My experience all through reading this work was that it was 'wrong' - ie, that Lawhead was lying to me, & lies will break the spell of faerie more effectively than the appearance of primary world religious images would.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

The absence of the Cross (specifically what it symbolises) is one of the greatest failings of HDM. Pullman plays us false in presenting the work as an attack on 'organised religion' (by which he of course means Christianity) but fails to grapple with the central & supremely profound 'symbol' of that religion - the Cross.

Nowhere in Pullman's universes is the idea of the Incarnation of God dealt with. His 'God' is an external being who never got his hands dirty, or suffered with His children. The Cross is the great symbol of divine love & suffering. Pullman actually creates a false god, an 'Aunt Sally' & proceeds to throw stones at it. The core of Christianity is never presented, let alone dealt with. The Incarnation of God is the one thing, the one idea, that has to be confronted in a work like HDM if it is to claim any validity as Art. Pullman fails to deal with, or rather he runs away from, the blood & the pain & the dirt. Tolkien doesn't, neither does Lewis (nor does Lawhead for all his proselytising).

Now, this is not a matter of whether the Christian story is literally true - the parables of the Prodigal Son & the Good Samaritan are true despite the fact that they are not accounts of actual events in early first centruy Palestine. What Pullman fails to confront & therefore the reason his work fails to grip & hold the reader on the deepest & most profound level, is the idea of the Incarnation. What he does is pretend the idea, not just the event itself never was.
He simply picks out the aspects of Christianity that he can easily trash & proceeds to do so while at the same time pretending (to us & possibly also to himself) that the aspects of Christianity he cannot so trash do not exist. Worst of both worlds, if you like...

[bilbo_baggins]

To add a brief comment to this interesting thread...

You could say that Tolkien's work, mainly the LoTR deal with the Universal religion. It presents, in a manner most persuasive, that the characters must win the battle for the sake of good, which is being trampled on. Whether Tolkien, I, or anyone reading this post believes that one particular religion is the Universal Religion is not a matter that is supposed to be discussed. But the need for it is almost the whole premise from which Tolkien draws his eucatastrophic fantasy. (The other part is wrapping up the mystery of the special ring Bilbo found in tH)

This need for man to have a good side to fight for, and a bad side to possibly succumb to, is the plot of LoTR.

"Yes. It's sad in some ways, but for me this is where the data points."
-alatar

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

Sorry about jumping a few tracks there.

That's all

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

The theory that the 'theory of science' is correct is open to debate, and scientists continually question whether they are fooling themselves. As humans it's hard/impossible to be 100% objective or remove oneself from the environment/nature to truly observe a thing. As stated, Heisenberg (and Einstein) knew this.

Being a scientist/skeptic makes you a bit suspicious and you start questioning everything.

It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' Purported evidence is anecdotal, untestable and unreliable. There are just places you don't go, don't ponder, etc. One might say that having incontrovertible evidence would take away the need for faith, but I would counter that if my eternal existance hinged on that evidence then a benevolent Creator would be a little more forgiving and obvious.

At least Tolkien's 'religion' makes sense to me.

Yes, it's true that I have faith in science. When I want to know the date of the next solar eclipse, I consult NASA, not entrails. If NASA is using entrails, that's fine as long as they are 100% accurate (with error rate).

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

Thanks for your thoughts.