Sci-Fi & Fantasy Girlz discussion

Since we've been having a discussion of religion world building in fantasy in another thread maybe its a worthy topic on its own.

Who has done it well? Who hasn't?

Any thoughts?

I do enjoy what Tolkien did, though I felt he could have written it into the LOTR series more. But anyone who's read the Silmarillion gets a full rundown of Gods and legends that he created for Middle Earth very well. It all began with Eru Iluvatar, the father of the Ainur (Gods), who created Arda (the world) and all the races.

The most powerful of Iluvatar's children, Melkor, chose to defy him out of jealousy and a desire to be the most powerful (echoes of Lucifer) and began perverting his creations. This began with Melkor seeking to create his own wills and forms, and change the music of the Ainur - which was essentially a metaphor for creation itself.

Whereas Iluvatar was the father of creation and thus the principle author of the music (which was sweet and melodious), Melkor introduced themes of his own which were aggressive and darker. However, Iluvatar humbled him by showing how the music would simply incorporate his influences to create the music of the world, a more complete harmony that would characterize all creation.

Naturally, Melkor didn't stay humbled for long and eventually defied Iluvatar and the Ainur to travel to Middle Earth, where he sought to make his own creations by perverting those of the others. This included him taking some of the original inhabitants (the Elves) and turning them into Uruks. In time, he would be defeated by a coalition of Ainur and Elves, and the battle marked the end of the First Age. He was then cast into the Void, leaving his legacy of destruction and wrath to be carried on by Sauron - a lesser god (Maia) who turned to darkness.

But despite his destructive influence, his acts would come to shape Middle Earth as it was known by the time of the Third Age. This was what Iluvatar previewed with the lesson about the music of creation, and its a theme that keeps coming up throughout the series. Basically, good and evil are two forces that are in constant opposition, and it is this conflict that shapes the world and moves time forward.

That's the basics of it, anyway. The detailed version is WAAAAY longer ;)

The thing about LOTR's religion, however, is that it actually is not there. The common people mostly don't do anything religious. There are no churches to Iluvatar, no rites, no festivals, no nothing. The only people who seem to know much about it is the Elves (it is Elvish lore). The only people who have any practical power day-to-day are the Wizards.
Sounds a lot like the Church of England, eh? I wonder how much that actually reflects what religion was in Tolkien's culture and time.

What mostly happens in fantasy is that magic is bestowed by gods, and therefore the religion is more or less tied into the magical system. CURSE OF CHALION does it this way very well.
The more annoying variant is when the religion is tied into the government or military machine. That's when you get these warrior priest cults.

Brenda wrote: "What mostly happens in fantasy is that magic is bestowed by gods, and therefore the religion is more or less tied into the magical system."

I haven't seen as much of that. Though sometimes, in works where you can hear dice rolling. . . .

There is another fantasy I read recently. The God creator Parfir connects the world of Basawar with Nayeshi (or in other words Earth). His reincarnation as the destroyer of worlds the Rifter gets sent to Earth so he can't damage his world. On Earth the Rifter has no powers.

The religion on Basawar is based on training those who have potential to open the gates between the worlds. The chosen one with most control over crossing the white space between the worlds will look after the Rifter until he/she is necessary to summon to Basawar to destroy its enemies. The whole premise is that the religious order with the power to summon the Rifter also holds power over the people (if they summon the Rifter they can destroy an entire land in minutes).

That's just the surface of the story and I don't want to spoil but it does a great job outlining the religion, abuse of power, etc. (way better explanation than mine). I was really impressed especially since I found this story under the m/m romance genre (very atypical since its an awesome fantasy first and the romance is way secondary).

Also, the magic is built on the connection with the planet. And similarly to the white space between the worlds, some can access the gray space where there is an absence of connection with the planet. The gray space seems to be linked to the white space (first you have to learn to walk the gray space before walking through the white space).

Can I interrupt to gripe about how often epic fantasy includes Generic High Medieval / Renaissance Roman Catholicism, lightly edited? I even have a tag for "why-is-it-always-catholicism".

Text wrote: "Can I interrupt to gripe about how often epic fantasy includes Generic High Medieval / Renaissance Roman Catholicism, lightly edited? I even have a tag for "why-is-it-always-catholicism"."

Probably because the protestants never did it as loudly, brutally, and wealth-flauntingly as the Catholics. You've get secluded, celibate, and secretive monks. And the local friars and priests which are no better than country peasants. High Cardinals and Popes ruling from up high and rich as heck. Flamboyantly and richly decorated buildings. Rumors of secret societies and conspiracies. Witch burnings. Inquisition. The Crusades and other wars. Political drama. At least no other Western religion did it quite like the Catholics especially during the medieval times which these fantasies are based on.

the deryni series are well done. https://www.goodreads.com/series/4916...

there catholic based.

Also if you really want a warrior priesthood the Knights Templar are nice.

Text wrote: "Can I interrupt to gripe about how often epic fantasy includes Generic High Medieval / Renaissance Roman Catholicism, lightly edited? I even have a tag for "why-is-it-always-catholicism"."

You mean besides its being a pseudo-medieval setting, so your realistic choices are Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Though since they frequently seem to think you can plug and chug with any random gods into the structure, those authors can't appeal much to realism.

Anybody got any thoughts on Tolkien or Martin's religious creations? I ask because, despite having read the ASOIAF series, I am a little vague on some of the details of Martin's religions, such as the Children of the Forest and their "Old Gods".

On Martin's failings in religion I can hold forth for a LONG time.

The first and most important of which is that religion in such a society would not be a hobby. Perhaps you could worship whatever gods you pleased provided that you did all the proper public rituals, but failure to do that would mean serious trouble. You were offending the gods.

Not to mention in a genuine polytheistic society, you limited which gods you worshiped only by your interest in their spheres. Perhaps a hill-dwelling peasant woman would not worship the sea god or the god of sovereignty -- presuming these gods did not double as say, the god of earthquakes or the god of rain -- but she would perform the proper rites for every god who might affect her, from the nymph of the local spring to god of harvest.

Hmm. Another religion that was obviously inspired by catholicism is the one in the video game series 'Dragon Age'. You get your one god ('The Maker') and something that tethers him to the humans (his 'wive', Andraste - which is, funny enough, also the name of a celtic goddess) and of course an order which tries to enforce 'The Maker's' will.
A DLC for the second game suggests that there's actually something to the story how the so called 'darkspawn' (they're a bit like zombies, only that they're not undead) came into the world: (view spoiler)[the end boss in 'Legacy' is one of those Tevinter Magisters who tried entering the Maker's golden palace in the 'void' (a dream world), which ended up gettig corrupted by said guys, effectively creating the darkspawn (hide spoiler)]
Apart from the fact that Andraste's ashes exist (and they do some magicky thing, apparently) there's not much proof if their god actually really exists or not.

And then there's my favourite series: Nightrunner
You get a system there with four gods which are 'dual gods' - it's generally accepted that these gods have both genders or neither - they also stand for seemingly contrary things. For example: Illior the 'Lightbringer' is the god of magic, wisdom, you get the idea - but also of madness, trickery, lies, etc. Illior's oracle is usually a 'mad' person.
You get characters swearing by the names of the gods, seekig advice in their temples, making offerings, that sort of stuff. Also fun: Only priests of Dalna can have some special healing magic.
For some reason the Aurenfaie ('our elves are different' trope enforced here) only believe in Illior, but not in the other gods. Well, their creation myth is basically that the blood of a gigantic dragon fell down onto their land and their people were suddenly there.
The way the gods sometimes influence the story suggests that they exist. (In the Tamir Triad the god Illior pretty much enforces his rule that only a female ruler can save the country ... by sending horrible plagues when a male ruler is on the throne.)

Since I can't shut up about Guild Wars:
Only the humans have 'gods' (a freaking load of them) and they get race-specific skills (like 'Prayer to Lyssa', 'Hounds of Balthazar' - useful stuff). From what I know, at the end of the first game it turns out that the gods are real but they don't feel like doing much. You can also meet a reaper of Grenth (the god of death) in your personal story. The other races do their own thing. Charr tell you in their introduction video that they killed their gods with machines of war (they used to be ruled by fire shamans), asura believe in the 'Eternal Alchemy', which is basically some sort of magic system (you can actually see what it looks like in the current living story), sylvari are a young folk and only believe in their mother tree which they can visit whenever they want (so they're actually atheists), norn believe in the spirits of the wild, which they have a connection to (since you can see wolf's spirit on top of his altar I assume that they're real, also a neat norn skill is that they can turn into a 'were' form of their totem spirit, which simply means you can become a werewolf if you chose wolf, a werebear if you chose bear, etc).
As far as video games go ... well, this is a MMO. You get some totem spirit stuff in the norn personal story, but nothing about the human gods in their story. Asura are a people who use their technologicy with magic so the Eternal Alchemy is pretty much a magic concept, not a religion.
The most you get during normal gameplay are 'flavour texts' (things that player characters and npcs randomly say) with racial background.
It's at least nice that none of these 'religions' are monotheist. (Like I said, the Eternal Alchemy = not actually a religion.)


SORRY ABOUT THIS TEXT WALL

Mary wrote: "On Martin's failings in religion I can hold forth for a LONG time.

The first and most important of which is that religion in such a society would not be a hobby. Perhaps you could worship whateve..."

I'm sorry, you're saying that Martin portrayed religious devotion as a hobby? I fail to see how that works. I felt that he did a very good job of showing how various religions permeated Westerosi society and how people expressed their devotion. And it was not so much that they were polytheistic, as they were a land of many faiths due to the diversity of their landscape and cultures, not to mention the many people who had colonized the land over the ages.

For instance, the Old Gods of the North were animistic, which the people of the North adopted from the Children of the Forest. These they worshiped through their respect for the Weirwood trees, the way they would carve faces into them, and swore their oaths of allegiances in front of them. Meanwhile, the people of the south had been shaped by the religion of the invading Andals - the Faith of the Seven.

This faith is clearly allegorical to Catholicism given that it worships a single god with mutiple aspects (i.e. the Holy Trinity). Also in how it is a very powerful institution with its own coffers (as evidenced by the Iron Thrones debts to it), its own system of justice, and even its own army of a sort - the Faith Militant. And then there's the people of the Iron Isles who maintain their belief in the "drowned God", and the rites for this were quite strict and severe (as they showed in book IV).

As for the Red God R'hllor, that's a pretty clear allegory right there. A monotheistic faith from the east that believes that the world exists as a constant struggle between light and dark, good and evil, ice and fire (clear echoes of Zoroastrianism). The way they worshiped was at turns very mystical and severe, with gazing into fires to get glimpses of the future, to sacrificing people by burning them alive.

This is just my opinion, but nothing about this seemed particularly hobbyesque, nor did it fail in any way in drawing comparisons to real-life systems of faith during the Middle Ages. What made you feel this way about the series?

Mary wrote: "Though since they frequently seem to think you can plug and chug with any random gods into the structure, those authors can't appeal much to realism .."

Yes, this right there is what bugs me. I suppose it's really just symptomatic of the recycled Europe problem, and there's no doubt that any massively powerful bureaucracy is likely to develop political and moral decay (and decorate their spaces extravagantly), but come on - the Roman Catholic Church was hardly inevitable, and these imaginary worlds are supposed to have different histories.

Why not a bunch of independent national churches that don't get along at all? You know, like actually happened from time to time in real European history (remember the time when there were four popes supported by four different governments?).

I suppose this thing annoys me so much because I'm really interested in religion and history. :sigh: Don't mind me, I'll just sit in the corner here and grumble ...

Matthew wrote: I'm sorry, you're saying that Martin portrayed religious devotion as a hobby? I fail to see how that works. I felt that he did a very good job of showing how various religions permeated Westerosi society and how people expressed their devotion"

And that's what makes it a hobby. In that sort of set-up, different religions are not just worshiping different gods -- they are a menace to public order. That everyone is happy with character picking and choosing which gods to devote themselves to means it's a hobby.

The other thing that frequently bothers me is how religion is something applied to the outside -- like the cherry sauce poured on top of a cheesecake. This is poor worldbuilding. Consider how Catholicism permeated European culture -- all the music of Bach, all Dante, all architecture, all painting. Consider how you can look at ancient sculpture in India and immediately tell if the sculptor was a Buddhist or not. Religion is not cherries on top of the cheesecake. It is more like the chocolate, melted and baked in and permeating the whole thing.

Indeed, there are two types of religions. . . .

excuse me while I scamper off to my LJ to cut and paste

At which point I bring up that there are two kinds of religions. One is the kind that is so thoroughly inter-meshed with its society that its practitioners are not aware of it as a religion. Shinto and Hinduism are two of these. It is worth noting that neither of those had a name until Buddhism came along for people to become aware of the contrast. These tend to be highly syncretistic, dragging in all sorts of gods and other elements, the more the merrier. If you go for this, religion is not something your characters will be aware of as a concept; they are not in the habit of abstracting it out from life. Furthermore, it will not have a history from the eyes of the believers, except in unimportant details. The central core of it is that this is what has always been done. (Judicious examination of religious texts finds this belief is often -- less than justified.)

. . . .

And then there are the other kind, that are forming in contrast with another religion, whether the first type or another of this one. Obviously, since this will require reject of some views -- to make a difference -- it has less tendency to slop about and drag in all sorts of things. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism are three such. Monotheism tends to be this kind. If for whatever reason, you want philosophy in your religion, to, say, have it center on the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, it probably wants to be this one. It does not mean that it has to keep a rival about; such religions can triumph. However, it will have a history. It will be aware of a founding, and probably of the times of darkness before the light of truth became known.

(glad I didn't retype all that 0:)

Mary wrote: "Matthew wrote: I'm sorry, you're saying that Martin portrayed religious devotion as a hobby? I fail to see how that works. I felt that he did a very good job of showing how various religions permea..."

Still not seeing how that works. What you describe, about picking and choosing, is precisely what people did and still do with Catholicism, which is what the Faith of the Seven most closely resembles. The same holds true of popular Hinduism, a polytheistic religion where people are free to select which deities they choose to worship. It's also true of medieval China and Japan, where people borrowed from multiple faiths and creeds (i.e. Buddhism, ancestor worship, Taoism and Confucianism) in order to find their way through daily life.

Again, I would describe what Martin does here as a very accurate allegorical portrayal, not a failure.

You're confusing picking and choosing which devotions you practice with doing the same with your religion, which is a different kettle of fish.

Mary wrote: "You're confusing picking and choosing which devotions you practice with doing the same with your religion, which is a different kettle of fish."

I don't see that I am, because that's not what's happening in the story either. People follow the faiths of their ancestors which is bound by geography and history, they don't pick and choose. The South follows the Andals' Faith of the Seven, the North by their preferred "Old Gods" worship, and Ironmen worship their ancestral Drowned God. There are no indications of people choosing based on personal preference.

Sure they do. When the boys take their oath, they are asked what they choose to swear by.

Mary wrote: "Sure they do. When the boys take their oath, they are asked what they choose to swear by."

At the Wall you mean? Sure, but they do so based on where they are from - i.e. the North of the South. This is reflective of the cultural divide that's in place in Westeros; it's not based on preference or personal choice.

Matthew wrote: "Mary wrote: "Sure they do. When the boys take their oath, they are asked what they choose to swear by."

At the Wall you mean? Sure, but they do so based on where they are from - i.e. the North of..."

Then he wouldn't need to ask. He knows where they came from.

Another pet peeve of mine is writers that start with a creation myth. A lot of religions don't really have one, and others really deemphasize it, so they are blocking themselves in from the start.

Alicja wrote: "Since we've been having a discussion of religion world building in fantasy in another thread maybe its a worthy topic on its own.

Who has done it well? Who hasn't?

Any thoughts?"

N. K. Jemisin leaps to mind. The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms is pretty definitively about gods/religion/creation. Since the gods are proximate and (view spoiler)[enslaved (hide spoiler)], they aren't exactly worshiped in the standard sense, though that aspect of godhood and culture does appear in a non-traditional way.

The other one I think needs to get mentioned is Watership Down by Richard Adams. Bunny theology is a tough concept to get into readers' heads without more than a few raised eyebrows, but he manages to pull off a whole travel/adventure story from the rabbit perspective, and religion is a prominent feature of making that believable.

Oh, WATERSHIP is just delightful. And shows you how a religion should be constructed -- meeting the needs of the characters, rooted in their nature and culture. Although the Prince with a Thousand Enemies skates more towards folklore, which I think is what Adams was actually drawing on. Certainly the bunnies have no rites, no religious practices, no daily observances.

I just started reading Thief's Covenant (and I mean just the intro so far) but there is a cult worshipping a god (a non approved god apparently because 147 of them are approved) and he actually exists communicating with the main character. Not sure where she will be taking this but an interesting start.

Communicating with the god is always dangerous, because it brings the god onstage.

Really, folks, if you try this, be fully warned that it's as dangerous as bringing a character onstage and announcing he's wise. It is an awful chance to expose the depths of your shallowness.

Another bunch of books that do a nonChristian religion really well? THE KING MUST DIE, by Mary Renault, and her other works. She totally grasps pagan worship, and the gods appear in exactly the right way.

Mary wrote: "Communicating with the god is always dangerous, because it brings the god onstage.

Really, folks, if you try this, be fully warned that it's as dangerous as bringing a character onstage and announ..."

As I said, not that far in yet but he seems like one of those ancient Greek/Roman gods, a bit mischievous with his own agenda... not the all-wise Abrahamic tradition god. If you look at the Greek/Roman myths, the gods were far from being wise or perfect, they were as vindictive and mischievous and human as any human in emotions and action but just with power.

Brenda wrote: "Another bunch of books that do a nonChristian religion really well? THE KING MUST DIE, by Mary Renault, and her other works. She totally grasps pagan worship, and the gods appear in exactly the rig..."

Mary Renault is one of my favorite all time authors. I haven't read The King Must Die since high school. It may be time for a re-read.

Alicja wrote: "If you look at the Greek/Roman myths, the gods were far from being wise or perfect, they were as vindictive and mischievous and human as any human in emotions and action but just with power. "

Depends on where you look in the myths. In actually bona-fide religion, you get a lot more serious treatment. Witness Aristotle's discussion of what a priestess told her son: not to go into politics because there, if you tell the truth, men will hate you, and if you tell lies, the gods will hate you. Plato takes it for granted that the ideal city will censor many myths as so much slander.

And even if you take the myths at their most egregious, they seldom rise to the silliness that modern fantasy imputes to gods. (Really, folks, showing your gods are worse than your human characters requires that you at least make it minimally difficult for your human characters to do so.)

Some people can pull 'em off. Soldier of the Mist by Gene Wolfe. The irony there is that there are enough clues to make it entirely possible that they are, in reality, hallucinations that our brain-damaged hero is suffering.

Of course, Mary Renault has the advantage of having both the society and the religion handed to her. Many fantasy writer go awry when they try to shackle together wildly divergent society and religion.

Wiser to determine what sort of society your story dictates and work back from that to the religion -- even if the end products "shows" the gods decreeing the religion and structuring the society. Ancestor worship from a society with powerful family ties; religious rites by blood inheritance for a society of castes; etc.

Mary wrote: "Alicja wrote: "If you look at the Greek/Roman myths, the gods were far from being wise or perfect, they were as vindictive and mischievous and human as any human in emotions and action but just wit..."

I don't know... all religions seem serious to the followers no matter how ridiculous or silly they are from the outside. And believers never see the violence, pettiness, jealousy, etc. as much as a non-believer in that religion. Many gods in stories are worse than most humans, even the Abrahamic god has done so many atrocious things (think genocide, child murder, etc.). I honestly don't see much of a difference between most of these fantastical religions and real religions except that when it comes to real religions someone out there at some point actually believed it (both in their ridiculous, silly, cruel glory of the basest of human behaviors and desires).

Demonizing real-world religions is no way to judge how accurate fictional portrayals are.

Mary wrote: "Demonizing real-world religions is no way to judge how accurate fictional portrayals are."

I wasn't demonizing real-world religions, just comparing fictitious ones from fantasy to those deemed real in reality.

You said, "And even if you take the myths at their most egregious, they seldom rise to the silliness that modern fantasy imputes to gods."

I was responding that there is as much silliness in religions in reality as there if in much of fantasy and gave examples.

You also made a point about us making the ancient religions sillier than they would have been by those that took them seriously. And its true, any outsider sees a religion as sillier than any believer does. That's just reality.

I may have missed your point when writing my answering posts, and I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

You were not comparing them to real world religions, you were demonizing real world religions and then comparing the results to fictional religions.

Mary wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Mary wrote: "Sure they do. When the boys take their oath, they are asked what they choose to swear by."

At the Wall you mean? Sure, but they do so based on where they are from - i..."

Assuming that's true, all that proves is that the Nights Watch is accommodating and lets people choose. And if that's the only example of people picking and choosing, then the argument seems pretty thin.

Brenda wrote: "Although the Prince with a Thousand Enemies skates more towards folklore, which I think is what Adams was actually drawing on. Certainly the bunnies have no rites, no religious practices, no daily observances."

I'm sure they'll start working on little bunny temples and little bunny popes eventually....

In addition to the role of folklore, I think what Adams gives us too is a really sensible and workable example of the origin of myth. The exploits of Hazel in particular are later retold with the god as the protagonist. So, start off with a creation myth and everything develops from an ancestor/paternal worship/legend process to "organically" create a meta-doctrine. In this case, "rabbits need tricks" which leads to a moral structure: smart is better than strong.

From there, of course, the ideas become an -ism as they are inevitably corrupted into a power structure/hierarchy. Adams' rabbits have got that far in some ways.... Cowslip's warren of death comes to mind.

Plus, we have to remember that Fiver is a sort of shaman/oracle. His sensitivity--and accuracy--gives validity to the whole concept of a spirit world.

Mary wrote: "You were not comparing them to real world religions, you were demonizing real world religions and then comparing the results to fictional religions."

I guess I am just not seeing the same thing you are. All I am saying is that both are as silly, and both feature gods that span the range of emotions and behaviors as a reflection of humanity, which I took to its most egregious since that is what you mentioned in your post. And saying that gods behave badly such as Zeus raping is not demonizing, but stating facts (rape=bad). In most human religions gods behave badly (and it doesn't mean that they can't behave good as well).

Mary wrote: "You were not comparing them to real world religions, you were demonizing real world religions and then comparing the results to fictional religions."

In order to compare them to real world religions, the sillier, morbid and more violent aspects need to be raised. This isn't demonizing, its showing how real religions work, warts and all.

Does he? Remember that even in WATERSHIP's world there are skeptics. Back in the home warren the wise old leader points out that rabbits with 'insight' are often working it -- finding a way to power in spite of their physical weakness/disabilities. They are, in his opinion, troublemakers, and can usually be ignored. Only rarely are their visions really important, and on average the wise leader pays them no mind.

Alicja wrote: "I honestly don't see much of a difference between most of these fantastical religions and real religions except that when it comes to real religions someone out there at some point actually believed it (both in their ridiculous, silly, cruel glory of the basest of human behaviors and desires)."

Sara Silverman does an interesting/amusing bit about Scientology in which she points out that "new" religions are only weird because of their comparative newness. Essentially, if Moses said something millenia ago then it has the ring of veneration. If "Ron" said it forty years ago then it lacks gravitas. We know Ron. Ron was a pill-popping, thin-haired fat guy with jowls and a lousy writing career. We have pictures of the guy. Jesus would have a lot less appeal if folks got a look at his high school yearbook photo.

Familiarity may not really breed contempt, but it does breed comprehension, and there needs to be an element of detachment for humans to really "believe" in something. That is, we can't "believe" in something that is really known because then it loses its mystical element and becomes fact rather than faith. In the same way that it's hard to take seriously anyone once you've seen their prom pictures, mysticism is directly tied to secrecy, or--if one prefers--ignorance.

I bring that up because one of the dangers of creating a religion in fiction is to reveal too much of it. The dreaded "info dump" is bad when it comes to the history and politics of a world building effort, but it's disastrous in the theological aspect. When writing about a faith, one has to keep more unrevealed than revealed. Otherwise, it becomes a kind of mummer's play.

Gary wrote: "Alicja wrote: "I honestly don't see much of a difference between most of these fantastical religions and real religions except that when it comes to real religions someone out there at some point a..."

Yes, time and history certainly do have a way of smoothing the edges off revelation. What began as a cult within Judaism that welcomed the end of days becomes a worldwide faith committed to the belief that they will be the first to be saved when the world really does end and God comes knocking.

To quote Reverend Lovejoy: "Y'ever sat down and read this thing [the Bible]? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom!"

Matthew wrote: "In order to compare them to real world religions, the sillier, morbid and more violent aspects need to be raised. This isn't demonizing, its showing how real religions work, warts and all."

That is wishful thinking on your part. It's demonizing.

Alicja wrote: "I guess I am just not seeing the same thing you are. All I am saying is that both are as silly,"

That is a profoundly silly thing to say. That you can not see it means you can't really address the point.

Alicja wrote: "You also made a point about us making the ancient religions sillier than they would have been by those that took them seriously. And its true, any outsider sees a religion as sillier than any believer does. That's just reality. "

And STOP attributing things to me that I never said.

Mary wrote: "Matthew wrote: "In order to compare them to real world religions, the sillier, morbid and more violent aspects need to be raised. This isn't demonizing, its showing how real religions work, warts a..."

"Wishful thinking?" How? The Abrahamic faiths do call for genocide against the enemies of Israel in the old Testament. Deuteronomy does look kindly on the massacring of civilians in times of war. Classic Greco-Roman mythology does contain multiple examples or rape, murder and incest as normal aspects of the God's behavior. And the gods of war in the Hindu, Greek, Roman, and Norse pantheons all encourage chaos and violence and thrive on suffering.

As such, comparing the religions of LOTR and ASOIAF for having the same elements is not "demonizing". It's an apt comparison, and Alijca isn't making moral judgments, just showing the similarities. Why you would choose to get offended by that is beyond me.