tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26974492.post3565075029800032434..comments2024-03-29T09:09:33.450-04:00Comments on alien romances: Religion In Science Fiction RomanceRowena Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11839386556697211986noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26974492.post-82884170075412378492010-01-27T10:58:15.950-05:002010-01-27T10:58:15.950-05:00rixshep:
Thank you for the compliment.
One obj...rixshep:<br /><br />Thank you for the compliment. <br /><br />One objective of my non-fiction writing style (even fiction come to that) is to create in the reader's mind those "with one exception" moments.<br /><br />The point is to engage the thinking process. <br /><br />My theory is that the more people we have actually thinking, the more likely humanity is to figure out some solutions that work. <br /><br />As for modern times being peppered with bloodshed created by "atheists" -- I agree, but I did try to make the point that atheists (and even agnostics) have their "Religion" vacuole filled by a "philosophy" they call atheism or whatever.<br /><br />Then the emotional structure of basic humanity just expresses that philosophy with the same vehemence and neither-left-nor-right focused purpose that drives the really beautiful Souls adhering to this or that religion, and the religious nuts.<br /><br />The vehemence with which we perpetrate our philosophies is the same across the spectrum. The philosophies vary. The question is does the content of the philosophy make such a really big difference? (I think it does, but that's a question worldbuilders have to answer in each world they build.)<br /><br />Oh! I didn't see your tweet on this episode of Sanctuary! Wish I had. I had stared at the screen the whole time with the horrified fascination expecting "calculate pi" also! <br /><br />I actually like the way the old scifi channel let shows play the fan-in-group-joke game, and I'm hoping syfy will continue that tradition. <br /><br />And my point of course is that it isn't necessary to agree with any worldview demonstrated in a built world -- in fact, in many cases the whole point is to disagree with the build world's worldview, but to suddenly discover while articulating your disagreement that you have reasons to disagree that you, yourself, didn't know about until you opened your mouth.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />there is a concept of the human psyche or soul consisting of mind, will and emotions. We saw this reflected in Spock, Kirk and McCoy respectively.<br />---<br />Yes, and that view predates Christian thought by a few thousand years, too. It's the core of the Kaballah, and Astrology, and articulated by modern scholars as archetypes. <br /><br />For that reason (that it turns up in every ancient culture, and is still clearly visible today even in international politics and every kindergarten play yard), I accept it as an operational theory and find it quite easy to apply.<br /><br />You stated it very well, too. Thank you.<br /><br />Oh, and Gene Roddenberry did that with Kirk, Spock and McCoy on purpose. <br /><br />And I think you're right about modern Horror. It deserves a whole discourse all its own! <br /><br />Jacqueline Lichtenberg<br />http://jacquelinelichtenberg.comJacqueline Lichtenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613040740264804278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26974492.post-76216154974180406452010-01-26T23:30:23.698-05:002010-01-26T23:30:23.698-05:00Nicely presented! And thanks for referencing me!
...Nicely presented! And thanks for referencing me!<br /><br />I agree with much of what you say, with a few exceptions. Most assume war and suffering came mainly from religion. But in modern times, the terrible purges and holocausts were done by atheistic regimes. Also, few ever look at the good done by religion over the millennia. Most modern American universities and hospitals came out of Christianity here. The Hippocratic oath and centers of healing were begun by religion. Many charities and aid programs that existed over time came from various religious sources. Someone should investigate that sort of list sometime.<br /><br />But this blog is about science fiction and fantasy, especially Sanctuary on Syfy. I do have a few comments on that! <br /><br />While I disagree with Sanctuary's worldview, your analysis of it is quite accurate. Chris Heyerdal, btw, is a fascinating actor! He has many short Lovecraft stories on youtube that are well worth checking out.<br /><br />I am glad I'm not the only one who recognized Star Trek's Jack the Ripper mythos. I actually put out a tweet after the episode, that I half expected someone to tell the computer system in the Sanctuary lab to calculate pi!<br /><br />About symbolism in science fiction and fantasy, I recommend "Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth" by Bradley Birzer, on the meanings in Lord of the Rings.<br /><br />I like your ideas on how character and world-building draw people into stories. I would add a couple of other attractors.<br /><br />Sometimes people are drawn in due to what may be strictly real world. People relate to situations they identify with in their own actual experiences, here in the ho-hum, mundane world, as well as an escapist one.<br /><br />Here is one common element in LOTR, Harry Potter and Star Trek (and other great works):<br /><br />In one popular Christian understanding of human nature (which I happen to agree with, but that's beside the point. Don't let it put you or anyone else off. ;-), there is a concept of the human psyche or soul consisting of mind, will and emotions. We saw this reflected in Spock, Kirk and McCoy respectively. The will/Kirk takes information from the mind/Spock and emotions/McCoy, and with them, decides on courses of action. People instinctively recognize that struggle within themselves, which pulls them into the drama and by-play of the characters.<br /><br />It is in the Harry Potter stories with Hermione, Harry and Ron as mind, will and emotions. And in Lord of the Rings, we have Sam, Frodo and then Merri and Pippin.<br /><br />Wherever this triumvirate is accurately played out in the arts, it is instinctively understood, even if on a subconscious level, hooking the patron's interest. <br /><br />Another aspect of the real world that catches people instinctively, and engages them powerfully, is in horror. I mean "real or classical" horror (as understood by Alfred Hitchcock) vs. modern horror, which is simply shock treatment. Most modern horror stimulates only because of a shock effect. It doesn't stay with you. It is not real. But that which could actually happen is what grips you. Again, in Christian thought, the idea is that we live in a fallen world. Bad things really can happen to good people. Much of modern horror is only scary at the moment, but doesn't stay with you, since it just can't happen. How many are scared today by re-watching the original "Alien"?<br /><br />Even in a fantasy or sf setting, knowing some aspect of the horror element could exist in the real world makes it much more effective.<br /><br />Contrast "Alien" with Hitchcock's "The Birds". We don't know they COULDN'T attack us. Years after watching that film once, many still get cold chills when walking by a large flock of resting birds! These same people can watch "Alien" again and again but never find the same thrill once it is over and they are back in the real world.<br /><br />Well, that is most of what I had to say. Thanks again for the very stimulating read! Great stuff!<br /><br />Rixshep / Rick Shepherdrixshephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16995810401972063199noreply@blogger.com