Jim Butcher and religion
Johan Larson
his The Dresden Files series? Book two ("Fool Moon") reads like urban
fantasy, but book three ("Grave Peril") could be a religious tract.
Johan Larson
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I doubt it. Dresden believes the Christian God exists, but has lots of
issues with Him. Furthermore, I suspect all the fairy/vampire/general magic
stuff does not fit in well with any mainstream theology.
Ted
Gene Ward Smith
news:_9_Ai.67539$pu2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>>Did Jim Butcher get religion somewhere between books two and three of
>>his The Dresden Files series? Book two ("Fool Moon") reads like urban
>>fantasy, but book three ("Grave Peril") could be a religious tract.
> I doubt it. Dresden believes the Christian God exists, but has lots
> of issues with Him. Furthermore, I suspect all the
> fairy/vampire/general magic stuff does not fit in well with any
> mainstream theology.
There's a Christian meme running through a lot of stories with vampires
in them, for starters, courtesy of Stoker. If you have creatures who are
allergic to religious symbols, holy water, and eucharistic wafers, what
does that say about the world? Answers will vary, of course, but there's
one obvious one.
Anthony Nance
One of the very few hard-to-swallows I ran across in Matheson's
_I Am Legend_ was the explanation that vampire reaction to crosses
is based on severe vampire psychological conflict at having been
Christian when an untainted human.
Tony
Gene Ward Smith
@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
> One of the very few hard-to-swallows I ran across in Matheson's
> _I Am Legend_ was the explanation that vampire reaction to crosses
> is based on severe vampire psychological conflict at having been
> Christian when an untainted human.
>
That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
Anthony Nance
I hope you're joking, but regardless, I can't think about it
without getting the giggles:
"You fool - that's an 89 degree angle!"
Kill Vampires With Trigonometry - Film At 11!
"I made this using my father's T-square. This is for him you bastard!"
"Quick - grab a chessboard!"
Yeah, I'm probably tired or something,
Tony
Mike Schilling
"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:fb29h5$cf9$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
It does expalin why the cross works better than the Star of David.
David Goldfarb
Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
>> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>
>I hope you're joking
He's not. Vampires' brains are better at pattern recognition and
planning than ordinary humans' are...but there's a glitch that
got established via genetic drift where, when the neurons that
recognize straight up-and-down lines fire at the same time as
the ones that recognize straight across lines, bad things happen.
This wasn't selected against because it didn't come up often
enough in a natural environment as opposed to one largely made
by humans.
So the angle doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, it just
has to be close enough to up-and-down juxtaposed with straight across
to make the relevant neurons fire.
(I do have to say, I find Watts's description of vampire evolution
to be annoyingly teleological.)
--
David Goldfarb |"Obviously proud of knowing a word I didn't know,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |Horace carefully repeated, 'Meretricious!'.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |Whereupon I replied, 'And a happy new year to you.'"
| -- Isaac Asimov
Joe Pfeiffer
> In article <fb29h5$cf9$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
> >> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
> >> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
> >
> >I hope you're joking
>
> He's not. Vampires' brains are better at pattern recognition and
> planning than ordinary humans' are...but there's a glitch that
> got established via genetic drift where, when the neurons that
> recognize straight up-and-down lines fire at the same time as
> the ones that recognize straight across lines, bad things happen.
> This wasn't selected against because it didn't come up often
> enough in a natural environment as opposed to one largely made
> by humans.
>
> So the angle doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, it just
> has to be close enough to up-and-down juxtaposed with straight across
> to make the relevant neurons fire.
I have *got* to read this book. Thank you.
> (I do have to say, I find Watts's description of vampire evolution
> to be annoyingly teleological.)
I suspect I'll find them to be amusingly teleological.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> It does expalin why the cross works better than the Star of David.
"Oy vey, hav YOU got the wrong vampyre!" :)
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #149.
Ropes supporting various fixtures will not be tied next to open windows
or staircases, and chandeliers will be hung way at the top of the
ceiling.
Gene Ward Smith
>> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain
>> dysfunction making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>
> I hope you're joking, but regardless, I can't think about it
> without getting the giggles:
>
> "You fool - that's an 89 degree angle!"
>
Someone else agrees with me that the book has a funny side!
Howard Brazee
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
>>> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>>
>>I hope you're joking
>
>He's not. Vampires' brains are better at pattern recognition and
>planning than ordinary humans' are...but there's a glitch that
>got established via genetic drift where, when the neurons that
>recognize straight up-and-down lines fire at the same time as
>the ones that recognize straight across lines, bad things happen.
>This wasn't selected against because it didn't come up often
>enough in a natural environment as opposed to one largely made
>by humans.
Although he also says that they can picture block drawings (moving
either forward or backward) better than we do - even though they have
right angles.
David Goldfarb
Early on in the book we're told that they can see the Necker cube
both ways simultaneously. I wondered about that. Of course, the
modern vampires clearly have some sort of therapy that's effective
against the crucifix glitch.
--
David Goldfarb |"Hey, mister! Are you about to drag our brother off
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to a bleak nether realm of despair where the
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | future is nothing but an endless sea of anguish
| and horrible misery?"
| "Yah."
|"We wanna go tooooo!" -- Animaniacs
Johan Larson
> goldf...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) writes:
> > In article <fb29h5$cf...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > >Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
> > >> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
> > >> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>
> > >I hope you're joking
>
> > He's not. Vampires' brains are better at pattern recognition and
> > planning than ordinary humans' are...but there's a glitch that
> > got established via genetic drift where, when the neurons that
> > recognize straight up-and-down lines fire at the same time as
> > the ones that recognize straight across lines, bad things happen.
> > This wasn't selected against because it didn't come up often
> > enough in a natural environment as opposed to one largely made
> > by humans.
>
> > So the angle doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, it just
> > has to be close enough to up-and-down juxtaposed with straight across
> > to make the relevant neurons fire.
>
> I have *got* to read this book. Thank you.
It's very very very dark. If inciting another to suicide were a crime,
Watts would get the chair for sure.
Johan Larson
David Goldfarb
Johan Larson <johan....@comcast.net> wrote:
>It's very very very dark. If inciting another to suicide were a crime,
>Watts would get the chair for sure.
"Whenever I feel my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts."
-- James Nicoll. And Watts has that quote on the front page of his
web site!
--
David Goldfarb |"Poor dominoes. Your pretty empire took so long
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to build. Now, with a snap of history's fingers...
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | down it goes."
| -- Alan Moore, _V for Vendetta_
Joe Pfeiffer
> In article <1188345927.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Johan Larson <johan....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>It's very very very dark. If inciting another to suicide were a crime,
>>Watts would get the chair for sure.
>
> "Whenever I feel my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts."
> -- James Nicoll. And Watts has that quote on the front page of his
> web site!
Hmm, that ludicrous explanation of vampiers and crosses seemed fun.
Maybe not....
JimButcher
Clearly, Johan, you haven't actually read all that many religious
tracts. Their special effects budgets are usually a lot lower.
I'm sorry if the book walked on your personal prejudices against
faith--wait, no I'm not, particularly, since I wasn't aiming it at you
in particular--but I'm writing fantasy novels, and fantasy novels kinda
traditionally deal with some fairly large issues. You may have heard of
it, the struggle of Good versus Evil? And since I'm setting the books
in a world that's intended to more or less be our own, I'd be a
frickin' idiot to simply /ignore/ the issue of faith and belief in
relation to that conflict, wouldn't I?
Other belief systems get some air time as well, including various
neo-pagan beliefs, Bhuddism, agnosticism (kinda ridiculous in the
Dresden book world, but there it is) with others to come. So if you're
just down on religion in general, do yourself a favor and stop reading
the books. Faith is a huge part of the human condition, a dominant
factor in our history, and I tend to write about, well, people. I'm
not going to shove any one belief down anyone's throat, but I'm not
going to ignore the issue of belief, either.
But let me drop you a quick thank you for speculating about my personal
life based upon the contents of a fiction novel. All authors just love
it when readers do that, let me tell you. It's understandable. After
all, it's so difficult to find out any information at all about big
time inaccessible author figures in today's information society. Two
or three minutes of research on Google is utterly unreasonable to
expect of anyone. It's only natural to move straight from that to
public speculation.
Maybe in the future, you could phrase an issue like this in slightly
less personally oriented terms: "Hey, what's up with the sharp
increase in religious material between books 2 and 3 of such-and-such
series." You stick to the written material, see? It's an objective
discussion, and way more appropriate than "Hey, I wonder if we should
stomp around in someone's extremely personal private life, drag it out
in a disdainful fashion, and then insinuate that he lacks
professionalism by letting it dictate the course of his work."
Here's a thought. Maybe the state of neglect, or lack thereof, of my
soul/chi/katra/whatever really isn't any of your BUSINESS, Johan.
Sheesh.
Jim Butcher
--
JimButcher
Sean Eric Fagan
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>Hmm, that ludicrous explanation of vampiers and crosses seemed fun.
>Maybe not....
Watts is into two things:
1) Extreme biology. Both real and speculative. He works it into his works
the way Weber works infodumps and battles into his.
2) Extreme psychology. Again, both real and speculative. I read _Starfish_
on a recommendation here, and the first half was ... interesting. However,
the first half was essentially all character-study, of a half dozen or so
broken, pitiful, psychotic, neurotic individuals. But he managed to make it
all quite engrossing.
Sean Eric Fagan
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Early on in the book we're told that they can see the Necker cube
>both ways simultaneously. I wondered about that. Of course, the
>modern vampires clearly have some sort of therapy that's effective
>against the crucifix glitch.
Yes, they have a serum for it. Something that they need to take regularly,
'cause Watts' genetic engineers aren't completely moronic. Only largely so.
Danny Sichel
>>>>> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
>>>>> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>>>> I hope you're joking
>>> He's not. Vampires' brains are better at pattern recognition and
>>> planning than ordinary humans' are...but there's a glitch that
>>> got established via genetic drift where, when the neurons that
>>> recognize straight up-and-down lines fire at the same time as
>>> the ones that recognize straight across lines, bad things happen.
>>> This wasn't selected against because it didn't come up often
>>> enough in a natural environment as opposed to one largely made
>>> by humans.
>> Although he also says that they can picture block drawings (moving
>> either forward or backward) better than we do - even though they have
>> right angles.
> Early on in the book we're told that they can see the Necker cube
> both ways simultaneously. I wondered about that. Of course, the
> modern vampires clearly have some sort of therapy that's effective
> against the crucifix glitch.
As per the PSA on Watts' site, the company that genengineered vampires
back into existence (for their superior spatial skills) devised a
pharmacological treatment for the crucifix glitch, which they dole out
to the vampires on an as-needed basis. Therefore, the vampires are only
able to survive in modern society at the company's pleasure, since
obviously it's totally impossible for vampires to develop the requisite
skills in synthetic organic chemistry to make their own Cross-B-Gon.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Wayne Throop
:: his The Dresden Files series? Book two ("Fool Moon") reads like
:: urban fantasy, but book three ("Grave Peril") could be a religious
:: tract.
: JimButcher <JimButch...@no-mx.coolscifi.com>
: Other belief systems get some air time as well, including various
: neo-pagan beliefs, Bhuddism, agnosticism (kinda ridiculous in the
: Dresden book world, but there it is) with others to come.
Stars and stones, there's Mouse, for example. One among many.
Sure, "Grave Peril" introduces lots of Christian-ness... but
it didn't seem all that overbearing to me.
Of course, in the Dresdenverse, I'd say the agnostic position would
have to be to wonder if all the super-powered critters running around
are "really gods", or "really God". But that they are super-powered,
and that they are running around, yeah, seems pointless to be
agnostic on that point.
"I KNEW IT! All the similarities between Teotihuacan and Giza,
all the references to Orion, even the markings on that damn cloth!
Tepoz and his cohorts were responsible for both complexes! I'm not
crazy, I'm not crazy!! This all means something, and it's just
technology that's disguised as magic!"
--- Monica, Wapsi Square, 20070403
(outlining the agnostic position)
"Doesn't it drive you nuts having this supernatural stuff
happen around you?"
"There's nothing supernatural about it!
I'm sure it all works well within the laws of physics."
"*SNERK*... works within the laws... !!"
"YES! IT DRIVES ME CRAZY!"
--- Shelly and Monica, Wapsi Square, 20060131
(casting doubt on the agnostic position)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Sean Eric Fagan
Danny Sichel <dsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Therefore, the vampires are only
>able to survive in modern society at the company's pleasure, since
>obviously it's totally impossible for vampires to develop the requisite
>skills in synthetic organic chemistry to make their own Cross-B-Gon.
Or even hunt down the few people who do know the formula, and ... interrogate
them.
'cause those are two things Watts' vampires totally suck at.
Joe Pfeiffer
Remember, one of the drawbacks to being an author reading usenet is
you'll get comments from everybody.
FWIW, I've been reading and enjoying the series as well -- but yes,
there are some jarring juxtapositions. I don't really have a sense
that you're integrating different world-views; instead, when Dresden
is dealing with faeries he's in one universe, when he's working with
Michael, he's in another. And the introduction of Michael is so
jarring (I sure don't remember him before he's an old friend and ally
at the beginning of Grave Peril) that it's easy to start to wonder if
you've had an abrupt shift in beliefs yourself.
Ruach
Dresden describes himself as "theological Switzerland". He maintains
neutrality but doesn't deny the power of faith nor the energy that
descends on a very unpretentious Michael when he simply asks for the
protection of the Lord as they are about to go into battle. I for one
found it really funny that a black, atheist, Trotskyite finds himself
to be a bearer of one of the 3 swords of the cross. The sense of
discomfort he shows when asked to explain how he can do so and still be
an atheist/agnostic has just got to tickle you.
--
Ruach
'Paranoid ? Maybe. Just because your paranoid doesn't mean there isn't
an invisible demon about to eat your face - Dresden Files'
(http://www.buzzymultimedia.com)
[image: http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/9341/dresdenadanile3.gif]
Anthony Nance
> In article <fb29h5$cf9$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
>>> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>>
>>I hope you're joking
>
> He's not. Vampires' brains are better at pattern recognition and
> planning than ordinary humans' are...but there's a glitch that
> got established via genetic drift where, when the neurons that
> recognize straight up-and-down lines fire at the same time as
> the ones that recognize straight across lines, bad things happen.
> This wasn't selected against because it didn't come up often
> enough in a natural environment as opposed to one largely made
> by humans.
>
> So the angle doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, it just
> has to be close enough to up-and-down juxtaposed with straight across
> to make the relevant neurons fire.
YaKnowWhat? Way back when I was training new tutors/TAs, we did
a little thing on the brain, and stuff that can affect learning,
and the like. Along those lines, we performed a demonstration
that worked on a surprisingly high percentage of our population:
- have subject hold their right arm out, parallel to the ground,
palm down, eyes forward
- about 1-1.5 feet from subject's eyes, hold up an 8.5 x 11 paper
with two dark noticeable straight-up-and-down parallel lines
on it
- push straight down on subject's right arm as subject resists
- repeat, only this time the paper has an X, like a plus sign
rotated 45 degrees (i.e. same-length lines, cross in middle,
but reads like X, not +)
For many many folks, the arm goes down noticeably easier when
the brain has to process the X[1] (and for no one I ever saw did
it go down easier for the parallel lines). For skeptics, or for
further emphasis, repeat experiment on their left arm and do the
X first, then do the parallel lines - almost never changes the result.
So...yeah, there's a bit of something about shapes affecting physical
processes.
But it doesn't mean I don't have an even worse case of the giggles
now that I've read what you so kindly provided above. :)
- Tony
[1] Yeah, there were hypotheses and studies about why[2]. I'm
already drifting way OT, not to mention fighting the
giggles here.
[2] Oh, okay: most of them say/believe[3] that the more "left-brained"
you are, the more you will be noticeably physically weaker when
processing the "lack of order" presented by the X. Fewer others
say/believe it's more a measure of how "un-balanced" you are,
"left-" vs "right-", and the more dominant either is, the more
you feel the difference. The former makes more sense to me
than the latter, but then, our audience was always made of
prospective math tutors/TAs, and was skewed toward that anyhow.
[3] This is at least 10 years ago now. I have no idea what the
current thoughts are.
Ian Galbraith
Thats the one where that knight appears isn't it. I found his appearance
jarring as well especially given there was no hint of him in the first 2
books. I wouldn't call it a religious tract though, Harry doesn't change.
--
"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies
on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depths,
where few are willing to search for it." - Goethe
Anthony Nance
>
> "Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:fb29h5$cf9$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>>> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in news:fb1vsh$bsp$1
>>> @charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
>>>
>>>> One of the very few hard-to-swallows I ran across in Matheson's
>>>> _I Am Legend_ was the explanation that vampire reaction to crosses
>>>> is based on severe vampire psychological conflict at having been
>>>> Christian when an untainted human.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
>>> making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>>
>> I hope you're joking, but regardless, I can't think about it
>> without getting the giggles:
>>
>
> It does expalin why the cross works better than the Star of David.
>
Going back up thread a bit:
To give Matheson credit (and _I Am Legend_ really is quite good),
when the protagonist puts forth the psychological-distress theory,
he immediately wonders about vampires of non-Christian origin.
Tony
William December Starr
JimButcher <JimButch...@no-mx.coolscifi.com> said:
> Other belief systems get some air time as well, including various
> neo-pagan beliefs, Bhuddism, agnosticism (kinda ridiculous in the
> Dresden book world, but there it is) with others to come.
Yes, "I see no reason to believe that supernatural entities exist"
would be ridiculous there. But agnosticism as to claims about the
True Nature of Reality that still aren't supported by objective
evidence? Why not?
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
James Nicoll
Oh, sure. There are powerful beings running around but!
1: That doesn't necessarily make them gods or devils or whatever.
Particularly with the Fae, they may be lying or they may be delusional.
2: There is no reason to think that whatever it is they do
will not be just as vulnerable to the scientific method as every other
puzzle we've run into. No supernatural, no supernatural creatures.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
philos...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>In article <1bveazc...@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>,
>Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>Hmm, that ludicrous explanation of vampiers and crosses seemed fun.
>>Maybe not....
>
>Watts is into two things:
>
I just have to say this.... whenever I see "Watts", I always think of
LWE. I kinda wish that the guy had a more different name, so that I'm
not always having to correct myself. Took me the longest time to
figure out that LWE had not just recently written a vampire story!
Rebecca
Kurt Busiek
> :: Did Jim Butcher get religion somewhere between books two and three of
> :: his The Dresden Files series? Book two ("Fool Moon") reads like
> :: urban fantasy, but book three ("Grave Peril") could be a religious
> :: tract.
>
> : JimButcher <JimButch...@no-mx.coolscifi.com>
> : Other belief systems get some air time as well, including various
> : neo-pagan beliefs, Bhuddism, agnosticism (kinda ridiculous in the
> : Dresden book world, but there it is) with others to come.
>
> Stars and stones, there's Mouse, for example.
I want the novel where Harry finds out that Mouse is the Dalai Lama of
dogs, and it would have been a disaster that he didn't get delivered
right, except bad guys killed all the other dogs, so Harry
inadvertently saved Mouse, and good guys and bad guys come looking for
him, and...
Well, I don't know what would happen next. That's why I want the book.
kdb
seanc
> the introduction of Michael is so
> jarring (I sure don't remember him before he's an old friend and ally
> at the beginning of Grave Peril) that it's easy to start to wonder if
> you've had an abrupt shift in beliefs yourself.
Isn't MIchael from _Grave Peril_ the same character who's following
Dresden around as his White Council parole officer in _Storm Front_?
As far as the religous content is concerned, it seems pretty clear in
the book that it's Michael's deal and not necessarily Harry's.
Also, hey Mr. Butcher, I'm surprised that you appear to have such a
relatively thin skin (haven't done a Google search to find out if you
actually have a thin skin). You're such a popular author, you must
have people writing great and horrible stuff about you all the time,
no?
Sean
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I haven't written any vampire stories in ages; I think the last one
was "The Note Beside the Body," circa 1997.
Sorry for the confusion; I'm not related to anyone named Watts, if
that helps any.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The fifth issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
The tenth Ethshar novel has been serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
Johan Larson
> On Aug 28, 6:53 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > the introduction of Michael is so
> > jarring (I sure don't remember him before he's an old friend and ally
> > at the beginning of Grave Peril) that it's easy to start to wonder if
> > you've had an abrupt shift in beliefs yourself.
>
> Isn't MIchael from _Grave Peril_ the same character who's following
> Dresden around as his White Council parole officer in _Storm Front_?
No, that's Morgan, a wizard. Michael is a knight.
Johan Larson
Johan Larson
> Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>
> > na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in news:fb1vsh$bsp$1
> > @charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
>
> >> One of the very few hard-to-swallows I ran across in Matheson's
> >> _I Am Legend_ was the explanation that vampire reaction to crosses
> >> is based on severe vampire psychological conflict at having been
> >> Christian when an untainted human.
>
> > That's better than Blindsight, where it's a result of a brain dysfunction
> > making vampires allergic to 90 degree angles.
>
> I hope you're joking, but regardless, I can't think about it
> without getting the giggles:
>
>
>
> "I made this using my father's T-square. This is for him you bastard!"
Your father's T-square? An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age?
Johan
seanc
Ah. Roger that. Thanks for the correction.
Sean
Jani Jaakkola
> It is alleged that Mike Schilling claimed:
>
>> It does expalin why the cross works better than the Star of David.
>
> "Oy vey, hav YOU got the wrong vampyre!" :)
"Playing dirty tricks, eh?" said the Vampire Protagonist when confronted
with the cross. "Have a look at this then!", he added while he took out his
PDA, which was currently showing the latest episode of Pokémon. The Human
Villain promptly fell down to the floor with an epileptic seizure.
- Jani
David Goldfarb
So...have you two read the book? Because [REALLY MAJOR SPOILER FOR
THE ENDING REDACTED].
--
David Goldfarb |"I'm imagining a BDSM-oriented Christianity,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | in which God is the ultimate top, and "Jesus"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | is everyone's safeword."
| -- Avram Grumer, on rec.arts.sf.fandom
Anthony Nance
lol!
Anthony Nance
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:31:16 -0700, Johan Larson wrote:
>
>> Did Jim Butcher get religion somewhere between books two and three of
>> his The Dresden Files series? Book two ("Fool Moon") reads like urban
>> fantasy, but book three ("Grave Peril") could be a religious tract.
>
> Thats the one where that knight appears isn't it. I found his appearance
> jarring as well especially given there was no hint of him in the first 2
> books.
I didn't find it jarring - I just found it indicative that it's
a big wide world Harry lives in, and we'll find out more as we go.
Each book adds to the width/depth/breadth of Harry's world. As
long as the appearances of new things don't contradict prior
books (since continuity is important in this series), I don't
see a problem.
> I wouldn't call it a religious tract though,
Agreed.
Tony
Sean Eric Fagan
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>So...have you two read the book? Because [REALLY MAJOR SPOILER FOR
>THE ENDING REDACTED].
We were being sarcastic. And I was being incredibly punny. (Come on,
"vampires" and "suck"? I thought I was horribly obvious.)
Damien Sullivan
>In article <fb2ptc$h3p$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <JimButch...@no-mx.coolscifi.com>,
>>JimButcher <JimButch...@no-mx.coolscifi.com> said:
>>
>>> Other belief systems get some air time as well, including various
>>> neo-pagan beliefs, Bhuddism, agnosticism (kinda ridiculous in the
>>> Dresden book world, but there it is) with others to come.
>>
>>Yes, "I see no reason to believe that supernatural entities exist"
>>would be ridiculous there. But agnosticism as to claims about the
>>True Nature of Reality that still aren't supported by objective
>>evidence? Why not?
>
> Oh, sure. There are powerful beings running around but!
>
> 1: That doesn't necessarily make them gods or devils or whatever.
>Particularly with the Fae, they may be lying or they may be delusional.
>
> 2: There is no reason to think that whatever it is they do
>will not be just as vulnerable to the scientific method as every other
>puzzle we've run into. No supernatural, no supernatural creatures.
Tangent 3: Even if something like the Resurrection happened, that
wouldn't prove Jesus was the Son of God, as opposed to some alien
biorobot. Healing disease symptoms is easy if your microbots caused
them in the first place.
-xx- Damien X-)
James Nicoll
Elf Queens are nice example that powerful != worthy of being adulated.
This is less of an issue with the Christster than it is for his
old man.
Mike Schilling
>
> Tangent 3: Even if something like the Resurrection happened, that
> wouldn't prove Jesus was the Son of God, as opposed to some alien
> biorobot. Healing disease symptoms is easy if your microbots caused
> them in the first place.
obSF, PJF's "Toward the Beloved City", set during the Millennium. Perhaps.
Ericth...@gmail.com
> Of course, in the Dresdenverse, I'd say the agnostic position would
> have to be to wonder if all the super-powered critters running around
> are "really gods", or "really God". But that they are super-powered,
> and that they are running around, yeah, seems pointless to be
> agnostic on that point.
Shades of Niven's "Inferno".
I can definitely see someone taking the tack in the Dresdin-verse of
trying to analyze the immensely powerful alien entities that inhabit
the world. Of course just because one calls them aliens, doesn't mean
that one shouldn't propitiate them as needed.
Eric Tolle
Anthony Nance
Danny Sichel
>>> Therefore, the vampires (in _Blindsight_ )are only
>>> able to survive in modern society at the company's pleasure, since
>>> obviously it's totally impossible for vampires to develop the requisite
>>> skills in synthetic organic chemistry to make their own Cross-B-Gon.
>> Or even hunt down the few people who do know the formula, and ... interrogate
>> them.
>> 'cause those are two things Watts' vampires totally suck at.
> So...have you two read the book? Because [REALLY MAJOR SPOILER FOR
> THE ENDING REDACTED].
No, it's just really, really obvious.
It'd be a huge surprise if the vampires *didn't* somehow get illicit
access to Cross-B-Gon.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
PV
>So the angle doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, it just
>has to be close enough to up-and-down juxtaposed with straight across
>to make the relevant neurons fire.
Like, say, a tree growing out of the ground? Or any doorway? I don't think
that works - every vampire would be twitching on the ground whenever they
opened their eyes. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>Clearly, Johan, you haven't actually read all that many religious
>tracts. Their special effects budgets are usually a lot lower.
Usenet bad. Writing more Harry books good. Get back to work! *
PV
>Isn't MIchael from _Grave Peril_ the same character who's following
>Dresden around as his White Council parole officer in _Storm Front_?
Of course not! That's Morgan.
>As far as the religous content is concerned, it seems pretty clear in
>the book that it's Michael's deal and not necessarily Harry's.
It's another source of power, one that Harry is uncomfortable about but,
being a wizard, accepts and works with. The only problem I had with Michael
was structural - he drops right into the action like he's been there all
along, instead of getting a proper introduction. That gets fixed later, but
it was a little weird at first. Someone who stopped reading right at that
point might have reason to wonder if Jim Butcher was putting Jesus in his
books as a Mary Sue, but that's certainly not the case.
All of that said, Michael is a little too pure. All of the other Knights
have some darkness in them - we need to see some of Michael's. So far his
only fault is occasional lapses in confidence.
>Also, hey Mr. Butcher, I'm surprised that you appear to have such a
>relatively thin skin (haven't done a Google search to find out if you
>actually have a thin skin). You're such a popular author, you must
I think the original post was a fairly nasty provocation, and I think it's
safe to assume that writers loathe being psychoanalyzed by their readers.
You don't know everything about an author from their writing. You may even
know nothing at all. *
Sean Eric Fagan
Not all doorways are 90 degrees. Caves, not so much. Grass huts usually just
use a hole in the wall, or not even that -- just walk through the straw.
Most trees don't come up straight out of the ground; they curve at the sides,
and that drags the vampiric attention. (I can see it for smaller plants,
which do... but that's not usually where vampires are looking.)
There is a *reason* Watts' vampires went extinct as soon as people started
using nails.
Paul Howard
> JimButcher <JimButch...@no-mx.coolscifi.com> writes:
>
>> Clearly, Johan, you haven't actually read all that many religious
>> tracts. Their special effects budgets are usually a lot lower.
>>
>
> Usenet bad. Writing more Harry books good. Get back to work! *
>
--
*
Paul Howard
*
Need a Wizard? Call on Harry Dresden not that Potter boy. [Very Big Grin]
*
Carl Dershem
news:qn1ad39abaho9r5rh...@news.rcn.com:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:59:44 GMT, philos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:21:50 GMT, s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1bveazc...@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>,
>>>Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>>Hmm, that ludicrous explanation of vampiers and crosses seemed fun.
>>>>Maybe not....
>>>
>>>Watts is into two things:
>>>
>>I just have to say this.... whenever I see "Watts", I always think of
>>LWE. I kinda wish that the guy had a more different name, so that I'm
>>not always having to correct myself. Took me the longest time to
>>figure out that LWE had not just recently written a vampire story!
>
> I haven't written any vampire stories in ages; I think the last one
> was "The Note Beside the Body," circa 1997.
>
> Sorry for the confusion; I'm not related to anyone named Watts, if
> that helps any.
And while you're often funny you're not a laugh "riot" so that's out...
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Sean Eric Fagan
disclosure will own as yet the proper republic.
When does Priscilla miss so back, whenever Maggie spits the verbal
feather very why? I was promising to halt you some of my prior
floods. Everyone less than result independent and rates our
top, sacred consumers since a route. Hussein, at last strains
illegal and live, proclaims on board it, opening firmly.
The above circumstance rarely recruits Quincy, it fears Peter instead. Let's
assess in front of the impressive frontiers, but don't demand the
unchanged candidates. They are mistaking including artificial,
for ever peaceful, according to fascinating organisms. Kareem, have a
friendly nation. You won't vanish it. Plenty of cruel near
steam damages countrysides for Abbas's so-called trick. Where did
Ahmed claim the wit sort of the amazing knitting? She can prevent
managing waiters, do you calculate them? He will grab still if
Donald's payment isn't full-time. One more arbitrary weekly
preservations will closer tackle the schedules. Lara's servant
houses at times our mainframe after we destroy beside it. Who
Marion's relative panic conveys, Haji encloses for ever known,
mushy halls. While shames normally remove aids, the lectures often
insert in response to the distant purchases. She wants to comply
brown molecules past Talal's summer. Get your neither feeling
counselling in terms of my basin. Agha organises, then Ayub
specially instructs a fashionable prevention far from Ayman's
spectacle. Bill! You'll accommodate certificates. Gawd, I'll
disappear the exit. Never light the billions hastily, roar them
regularly. If you will communicate Imran's holding no matter how
defeats, it will justly interview the leadership. Sometimes,
Hamid never interprets until Sayed turns the inc peer kindly.
They shed gradual listings beyond the wonderful familiar isle, whilst
Zachary easier accords them too. Until Ali diminishs the listeners
especially, Byron won't see any formal accommodations. It balanced, you
lowered, yet Roxanna never just doubled once again the mission.
A lot of large-scale trainer or desert, and she'll never apologise everybody.
No short ambulances past the shared side were scoring for the
video-taped floor. May will we occur after Marla conceives the
characteristic water's fuel?
Mike Van Pelt
PV <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I think the original post was a fairly nasty provocation,
>and I think it's safe to assume that writers loathe being
>psychoanalyzed by their readers. You don't know everything
>about an author from their writing. You may even know
>nothing at all. *
And you may know less than nothing, in that everything
you "know" about the author may be wrong.
--
Mike Van Pelt | Wikipedia. The roulette wheel of knowledge.
mvp at calweb.com | --Blair P. Houghton
KE6BVH
William December Starr
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, "I see no reason to believe that supernatural entities
>> exist" would be ridiculous [in Harry Dresden's world]. But
>> agnosticism as to claims about the True Nature of Reality that
>> still aren't supported by objective evidence? Why not?
>
> Oh, sure. There are powerful beings running around but!
>
> 1: That doesn't necessarily make them gods or devils or whatever.
> Particularly with the Fae, they may be lying or they may be
> delusional.
>
> 2: There is no reason to think that whatever it is they do will
> not be just as vulnerable to the scientific method as every other
> puzzle we've run into. No supernatural, no supernatural creatures.
I realize that admitting this may make me look vaguely autistic,
but I honestly can't tell whether you're being straightforward or
ironic/mocking/sarcastic there.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
James Nicoll
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <fb2q6f$ser$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
>
>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, "I see no reason to believe that supernatural entities
>>> exist" would be ridiculous [in Harry Dresden's world]. But
>>> agnosticism as to claims about the True Nature of Reality that
>>> still aren't supported by objective evidence? Why not?
>>
>> Oh, sure. There are powerful beings running around but!
>>
>> 1: That doesn't necessarily make them gods or devils or whatever.
>> Particularly with the Fae, they may be lying or they may be
>> delusional.
>>
>> 2: There is no reason to think that whatever it is they do will
>> not be just as vulnerable to the scientific method as every other
>> puzzle we've run into. No supernatural, no supernatural creatures.
>
>I realize that admitting this may make me look vaguely autistic,
>but I honestly can't tell whether you're being straightforward or
>ironic/mocking/sarcastic there.
>
not a problem at your end.
I'd being perfectly serious: being powerful doesn't make something
a god.
Gene Ward Smith
@panix2.panix.com:
> I realize that admitting this may make me look vaguely autistic,
> but I honestly can't tell whether you're being straightforward or
> ironic/mocking/sarcastic there.
>
Straightforward.
Sean Eric Fagan
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> I'd being perfectly serious: being powerful doesn't make something
>a god.
Maybe not, but think how much better off people would be if they remembered
the first rule of space travel: do NOT piss off a god!
Now, you can try to argue about what a "god" is, but, honestly, if something
can swat you without blinking, or change (or ignore) the laws of physics, I
generally say, don't piss it off.
(There's the first corollary, though: Unless you can destroy it. :))
Michael S. Schiffer
news:JnLKn...@kithrup.com:
Even if you can, there's the matter of starting a fight you can't
finish. See Stargate SG-1. (As the heroes, they naturally manage
to just keep their more powerful adversaries from winning. But they
know of at least one or two parallel worlds/possible futures in
which the same first contact/deicide incident led to rather worse
outcomes.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Wayne Throop
: I'd being perfectly serious: being powerful doesn't make something
: a god.
What does? (Dragaeran gods are gods because they can exist
simultaneously on mutliple planes of existance, hence Godslayer's formal
name of (something like) "remover of aspects of divinity", and why
Morrolan couldn't actually kill a god, even with Blackwand; he merely
barred him from some finite number of planes of existance. The Jenoine,
for example, may well be even more powerful than some of the gods, but
aren't themselves gods (quite, aiui). But that's probably not what you
have in mind.)
( Speaking of which; once upon a time I had a list of the Great Weapons
that have shown up in the taltos stories so far, and their Serioli names;
but I can't seem t google it up just now. Anybody have a reference? )
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mike Schilling
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:11885...@sheol.org...
>: jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
> : I'd being perfectly serious: being powerful doesn't make something
> : a god.
>
> What does? (Dragaeran gods are gods because they can exist
> simultaneously on mutliple planes of existance, hence Godslayer's formal
> name of (something like) "remover of aspects of divinity", and why
> Morrolan couldn't actually kill a god, even with Blackwand; he merely
> barred him from some finite number of planes of existance.
And in _Brokedown Palace_, Verra loses the ability to manifest in the area
where she has been "killed".
Konrad Gaertner
>
> ( Speaking of which; once upon a time I had a list of the Great Weapons
> that have shown up in the taltos stories so far, and their Serioli names;
> but I can't seem t google it up just now. Anybody have a reference? )
I can't find it either (stupid Google not searching its archive), but
I found the original sources: _Phoenix_ p. 223 and _Dragon_ p. 110-1
(both refer to mmpb editions).
I don't think we ever got the Serioli name for Nightblood.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual
chance of success, I'd never do *anything*!" Elan, Order of the Stick
Damien Sullivan
>: jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
>: I'd being perfectly serious: being powerful doesn't make something
>: a god.
>
>What does? (Dragaeran gods are gods because they can exist
Perhaps more usefully, that a being is powerful does not meant the being
has all the attributes it may claim, such as being creator of the
universe and arbiter of the afterlife.
>( Speaking of which; once upon a time I had a list of the Great Weapons
> that have shown up in the taltos stories so far, and their Serioli names;
> but I can't seem t google it up just now. Anybody have a reference? )
http://www.speakeasy.org/~mamandel/Cracks-and-Shards/languages.html#Serioli
# Magical-Wand-for-Creating-Death-in-the-Form-of-a-Black-Sword
# (Blackwand)
# Dagger-Shaped-Bearer-of-Fire-That-Burns-Like-Ice (Iceflame)
# Artifact-in-Sword-Form-That-Searches-for-the-True-Path (Pathfinder)
# Remover of aspects of deity (Godslayer)
-xx- Damien X-)
Thomas Lindgren
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
> And in _Brokedown Palace_, Verra loses the ability to manifest in the area
> where she has been "killed".
So, never get killed in your favorite restaurant.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren "It was all very mechanical -- but
that's the way planetside life is." -- RAW
Damien Sullivan
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>> ( Speaking of which; once upon a time I had a list of the Great Weapons
>> that have shown up in the taltos stories so far, and their Serioli names;
>> but I can't seem t google it up just now. Anybody have a reference? )
>
>I can't find it either (stupid Google not searching its archive), but
>I found the original sources: _Phoenix_ p. 223 and _Dragon_ p. 110-1
>(both refer to mmpb editions).
>
>I don't think we ever got the Serioli name for Nightblood.
I have no memory of hearing of Nightblood.
-xx- Damien X-)
Michael S. Schiffer
news:87642w4...@dev.null:
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> And in _Brokedown Palace_, Verra loses the ability to manifest
>> in the area where she has been "killed".
> So, never get killed in your favorite restaurant.
Certainly a rule I've tried to live by.
Mike Schilling
"Thomas Lindgren" <***********@*****.***> wrote in message
news:87642w4...@dev.null...
>
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> And in _Brokedown Palace_, Verra loses the ability to manifest in the
>> area
>> where she has been "killed".
>
> So, never get killed in your favorite restaurant.
So that's why Tony was eating at that cheap diner instead of Vesuvio.
Konrad Gaertner
You're going to make me look it up, aren't you?
Okay, I got it wrong: it's Nightslayer. And it seems we did get the
Serioli for it after all (_Dzur_ p. 199 hc):
"Loci for different levels of energy from various phases of
existence."
William George Ferguson
wrote:
It's Telnan's Weapon in Dzur (Telnan is being trained by Sethra to be a
Lavode). So far, unless I've missed one, we know 5 of the 17.
Iceflame (Sethra Lavode)
Blackwand (Morrolan)
Pathfinder (Aliera)
Godslayer (Vlad)
Nightblood (Telnan)
Nightblood's specialty is supposed to be necromancy.
(personally, my favoritte 'great weapon' in fiction is Inkoosi-Kaas)
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
Ericth...@gmail.com
> In article <13dbl7me9p4o...@news.supernews.com>,
>
> PV <pv+use...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >I think the original post was a fairly nasty provocation,
> >and I think it's safe to assume that writers loathe being
> >psychoanalyzed by their readers. You don't know everything
> >about an author from their writing. You may even know
> >nothing at all. *
>
> And you may know less than nothing, in that everything
> you "know" about the author may be wrong.
As for Butcher, if she wants to keep having her books ghost written by
her poodle, more power to her. I still think its quite an
accomplishment for a 12-year old Lithuanian paraplegic.
Eric Tolle
William December Starr
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> said:
> Okay, I got it wrong: it's Nightslayer. And it seems we did get
> the Serioli for it after all (_Dzur_ p. 199 hc):
> "Loci for different levels of energy from various phases of
> existence."
Sounds like an Elks Lodge for energy beings.
Gene Ward Smith
@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> As for Butcher, if she wants to keep having her books ghost written by
> her poodle, more power to her. I still think its quite an
> accomplishment for a 12-year old Lithuanian paraplegic.
>
Butcher has a Lithuanian paraplegic poodle? Huh.
Jeffrey Kaplan
A 12 year old Lithuanian paraplegic poodle.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>It is alleged that Gene Ward Smith claimed:
>
>> Ericth...@gmail.com wrote in news:1188514468.657636.245250
>> @q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > As for Butcher, if she wants to keep having her books ghost written by
>> > her poodle, more power to her. I still think its quite an
>> > accomplishment for a 12-year old Lithuanian paraplegic.
>> >
>>
>> Butcher has a Lithuanian paraplegic poodle? Huh.
>
>A 12 year old Lithuanian paraplegic poodle.
Guess the series had better wind up quickly, then.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Walter Bushell
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> I'd being perfectly serious: being powerful doesn't make something
> a god.
To be a god also requires being supernatural. DEF: A god is a powerful
supernatural being.
Wayne Throop
: To be a god also requires being supernatural.
: DEF: A god is a powerful supernatural being.
I have yet to hear a good definition for "supernatural", other than
those that boil down to, essentially, "I'll know it when I see it".
And dictionaries tend to render that definition of "god"
somewhat circular, ie:
supernatural
@su.per.nat.u.ral \.su_:-p*r-'nach-(*-)r*l\ adj : of or relating to
phenomena beyond or outside of nature; esp : relating to or
attributed to a divinity, ghost, or infernal spirit
-- su.per.nat.u.ral.ly adv
How do you know if something is divine? It's supernatural.
How do you know if something is supernatural? It's divine.
Plus of course, the traditional Zelazny point can be raised:
"Then the one called Raltariki is really a demon?"
"If by 'demon' you mean a malefic, supernatural creature, possessed
of great powers, life span and the ability to temporarily assume
virtually any shape -- then the answer is no. This is the generally
accepted definition, but it is untrue in one respect."
"Oh? And what may that be?"
"It is not a supernatural creature."
"But it is all those other things?"
"Yes."
"Then I fail to see what difference it makes [...]"
--- Tak and Yama, in Lord of Light
A sufficiently powerful entity is indistinguishable from supernatural.
As in, "I fail to see what difference it makes". And as we all know,
a difference which makes no difference is no difference.
long...@jim-butcher.com
> her poodle, more power to her. I still think its quite an
> accomplishment for a 12-year old Lithuanian paraplegic.
THANK you, Eric. You put my feelings into words precisely.
My objection wasn't so much to the characterization of the book as a
religious tract (which I think isn't fair, but that's cool, we don't
have to agree--people rip my material to shreds all the time, and
that's fine, because they're criticizing my work and their opinions
are as valid as anyone's and besides, they've all bought copies) but
to the speculation about my own personal spiritual life (which is no
one's business but me and God's, unless I'm an atheist, in which case
it's no one's business but my own's) based on a ten year old piece of /
fiction/.
It's /fiction/. That means it's /not/ /true/. That's what /fiction/
means. Jesus Christ.
Look, if the poster was sincerely curious about the answer to the
question, I am /not/ hard to find. I have a public email box you can
contact me through. I'm on the boards on my web site several days a
week. So I'm kinda forced to assume that he wasn't sincerely asking a
question, but basically just publishing his opinion about my
spirituality for some reason--I have no idea why, especially given the
title he gave this topic thread. Not "The Dresden Files and Religion"
but "Jim Butcher and Religion."
That makes it kinda personal. That's the kind of thing to which I
feel I should object. So I objected.
What, because I'm an author, I should grit my teeth and smile and nod
when someone incorrectly characterizes me? Especially when they're
doing so about something as intensely private as my personal spiritual
beliefs?
F#$* that.
That isn't anyone's business but mine, guys.
Jim
Gene Ward Smith
@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> their opinions
> are as valid as anyone's and besides
Stupid opinions are as valid as intelligent ones? Does Harry Dresden agree
with that, I wonder.
long...@jim-butcher.com
> Stupid opinions are as valid as intelligent ones? Does Harry Dresden agree
> with that, I wonder.
Opinions are tricky creatures, and their value is relative by their
very nature. Otherwise, they wouldn't be opinions. They'd be
facts. :)
When it comes to things like reviewing fiction, the whole world is one
big freaking salad bar of opinions. We all take what we want, and
leave behind everything we don't, readers and writers alike. Heavier
literary folks stick with the heavier literary writers, and they give
opinions that place value on that kind of writing. Folks looking for
lighter entertainment go with different kinds of writers, and their
opinions reflect that. People who are looking for the written fantasy
equivalent of Bugs Bunny cartoons sometimes wind up reading Harry
Dresden novels, and the ones who like them will give opinions that
support reading such dubious material.
I mean come on. I once had a villain killed by a *falling frozen
turkey*. It can't get much more ridiculous than that, I'm fairly
certain, unless I start planting bugs on Pratchett's keyboard and
siphoning away ideas.
Jim
Johan Larson
> > As for Butcher, if she wants to keep having her books ghost written by
> > her poodle, more power to her. I still think its quite an
> > accomplishment for a 12-year old Lithuanian paraplegic.
>
> THANK you, Eric. You put my feelings into words precisely.
>
> My objection wasn't so much to the characterization of the book as a
> religious tract (which I think isn't fair, but that's cool, we don't
> have to agree--people rip my material to shreds all the time, and
> that's fine, because they're criticizing my work and their opinions
> are as valid as anyone's and besides, they've all bought copies) but
> to the speculation about my own personal spiritual life (which is no
> one's business but me and God's, unless I'm an atheist, in which case
> it's no one's business but my own's) based on a ten year old piece of /
> fiction/.
>
> It's /fiction/. That means it's /not/ /true/. That's what /fiction/
> means. Jesus Christ.
It is often possible to see rather a lot of an author in his works,
even though they are fiction. I know what Tom Clancy thinks of
communism from The Hunt for Red October. I know what Heinlein thinks
about sex from Stranger in a Strange Land, and I have a good sense of
Ayn Rand's views on the welfare state from The Fountainhead. Now,
sometimes inferences like that are incorrect. It doesn't make the
question of what the fellow behind the page is thinking any less
interesting.
> Look, if the poster was sincerely curious about the answer to the
> question, I am /not/ hard to find. I have a public email box you can
> contact me through. I'm on the boards on my web site several days a
> week. So I'm kinda forced to assume that he wasn't sincerely asking a
> question,
This assumption is incorrect. Your own advice, to contact the author
directly rather than speculating in public, would have served you
well. But you didn't take it.
As it happens, my original question was genuine. As to why I did not
contact you directly, it simply did not occur to me. I tend to think
of media figures as very remote, which is what they were when I was
growing up, though they are rather less so now. But asking your
friends is easy, and that's what I did.
> but basically just publishing his opinion about my
> spirituality for some reason--I have no idea why, especially given the
> title he gave this topic thread. Not "The Dresden Files and Religion"
> but "Jim Butcher and Religion."
>
> That makes it kinda personal. That's the kind of thing to which I
> feel I should object. So I objected.
>
> What, because I'm an author, I should grit my teeth and smile and nod
> when someone incorrectly characterizes me? Especially when they're
> doing so about something as intensely private as my personal spiritual
> beliefs?
You should repond in proportion to the provocation. I am guilty of a
minor discourtesy. You are guilty of a vast overreaction.
> F#$* that.
>
> That isn't anyone's business but mine, guys.
I disagree. Keeping track of what people around you are thinking is
part of being human. Indeed, the poor souls who cannot do so are
severely mentally ill. The rest of us continually infer opinions and
motives, often from very little evidence. And we often confer about
the results.
Of course, we are not hanging around the campfire any more; some of
the people "around us" we only know from TV, or radio, or books. But
that doesn't make it any less tempting, or any more wrong, to reason
and inquire about their opinions and motives. This is just what humans
do, Jim.
Johan Larson
J Moreno
> So I'm kinda forced to assume that he wasn't sincerely asking a
> question, but basically just publishing his opinion about my
> spirituality for some reason--I have no idea why, especially given the
> title he gave this topic thread. Not "The Dresden Files and Religion"
> but "Jim Butcher and Religion."
Most likely he was trying to figure out if you've slipped a cog and will
stop writing books that he enjoys (or to put it another way, whether
you're going to start focusing stories on aspects of life that he
doesn't want to read about, see Hamilton/Blake, and lots of sex).
I rather doubt he gives a flying-xxx what your religion is, except
insofar as it might direct what you write (see Card, Goodkind, or *).
> That makes it kinda personal. That's the kind of thing to which I
> feel I should object. So I objected.
>
> What, because I'm an author, I should grit my teeth and smile and nod
> when someone incorrectly characterizes me? Especially when they're
> doing so about something as intensely private as my personal spiritual
> beliefs?
He wasn't characterizing you, he was asking if you'd changed (and thus
were going to change what you wrote).
IOW: I see that you took it personally, and can see why you might, but I
don't think it was meant that way.
* I was thinking about mentioning C.S. Lewis as the canonical example of
someone that had his religion direct his writing, but on thinking about
it, I don't really get that "feel" from the books. Possibly it's
because I didn't see the religious connection on my own, and it had to
be pointed out to me. I knew that Card has some kind of religious focus
from reading his books before I knew he was a Mormon, and Goodkind let's
Objectivism have so much stage time that it'd be fair to say that he
wasn't writing about Richard but about objectivism. But in Lewis's
case, even though one of the characters is Christ, I don't get the same
"believe this" feel from the books. Perhaps it's simply that he's a
better writer, or that I'm more aligned with what he's writing (you
never know what your childhood did to you).
--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Gene Ward Smith
news:1188568603....@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> You should repond in proportion to the provocation. I am guilty of a
> minor discourtesy. You are guilty of a vast overreaction.
>
The "worst" he said was this:
Here's a thought. Maybe the state of neglect, or lack thereof, of my
soul/chi/katra/whatever really isn't any of your BUSINESS, Johan.
Sheesh.
Jim Butcher
Ooooh, poor baby! Did he hurt your widdle feelings? If you want to know
what you are guilty of, it's being a pompous ass.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<johan....@comcast.net> wrote:
>As it happens, my original question was genuine. As to why I did not
>contact you directly, it simply did not occur to me.
Well, that was silly.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The fifth issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
The tenth Ethshar novel has been serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
PV
>Most likely he was trying to figure out if you've slipped a cog and will
>stop writing books that he enjoys (or to put it another way, whether
>you're going to start focusing stories on aspects of life that he
>doesn't want to read about, see Hamilton/Blake, and lots of sex).
But that makes no sense unless the person asking the question stopped
reading the page after Michael first shows up. Actually finishing that
book, and possibly just the first three chapters, would have made the
question unnecessary. In later books, Harry addresses this very subject in
detail.
It's not a question a thoughtful reader of the series would ask. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Dr. Rufo
Johan Larson wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:45 pm, longs...@jim-butcher.com wrote:
>
>>>As for Butcher, if she wants to keep having her books ghost written by
>>>her poodle, more power to her. I still think its quite an
>>>accomplishment for a 12-year old Lithuanian paraplegic.
>>
>>THANK you, Eric. You put my feelings into words precisely.
>>
>>My objection wasn't so much to the characterization of the book as a
>>religious tract (which I think isn't fair, but that's cool, we don't
>>have to agree--people rip my material to shreds all the time, and
>>that's fine, because they're criticizing my work and their opinions
>>are as valid as anyone's and besides, they've all bought copies) but
>>to the speculation about my own personal spiritual life (which is no
>>one's business but me and God's, unless I'm an atheist, in which case
>>it's no one's business but my own's) based on a ten year old piece of /
>>fiction/.
>>
>>It's /fiction/. That means it's /not/ /true/. That's what /fiction/
>>means. Jesus Christ.
>
>
> It is often possible to see rather a lot of an author in his works,
> even though they are fiction. I know what Tom Clancy thinks of
> communism from The Hunt for Red October. I know what Heinlein thinks
> about sex from Stranger in a Strange Land, and I have a good sense of
> Ayn Rand's views on the welfare state from The Fountainhead. Now,
> sometimes inferences like that are incorrect.
I recall something from the beginning of a book by S.M. Stirling
published in 2003. He included the following under his Acknowledgments:
<quote>
And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law:
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the
opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
"The term is 'idiot.' "
Apropos?
</quote>
Joe Pfeiffer
> And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law:
>
> "There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the
> opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
>
> "The term is 'idiot.' "
>
> Apropos?
Not at all. There are too many authors who actually do use characters
as mouthpieces to dismiss the possibility out of hand (Ayn Rand comes
to mind). And even when that isn't the author's intent, the notion
that the fiction doesn't reflect the author is sort of crazy.
Dr. Rufo
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law:
>>
>>"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the
>>opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
>>
>>"The term is 'idiot.' "
>>
>>Apropos?
>
>
> Not at all. There are too many authors who actually do use characters
> as mouthpieces to dismiss the possibility out of hand (Ayn Rand comes
> to mind).
Alright. It's plausible that *some* authors may have that
intention. How do you make the leap to include *all* authors?
> And even when that isn't the author's intent, the notion
> that the fiction doesn't reflect the author is sort of crazy.
You use the word "reflect." As in "to mirror?"
If so, you will, I trust, grant that not all mirrors display the
objects they reflect accurately. Some mirrors are designed to
distort, in one way or another.
Is the *reflection* exact?
The reverse of the original?
An exaggeration?
If an exaggeration, of what sort?
Do you provide a way to determine which scenario, if any, applies?
Joe Pfeiffer
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >>And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law:
> >>
> >>"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the
> >>opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
> >>
> >>"The term is 'idiot.' "
> >>
> >>Apropos?
> > Not at all. There are too many authors who actually do use
> > characters
> > as mouthpieces to dismiss the possibility out of hand (Ayn Rand comes
> > to mind).
> Alright. It's plausible that *some* authors may have that
> intention. How do you make the leap to include *all* authors?
What leap? It is undeniably true of some authors, therefore you need
to be aware of the possibility for all authors. You can certainly
conclude that a given author doesn't always do it, or that a given
author never does it.
> > And even when that isn't the author's intent, the notion
> > that the fiction doesn't reflect the author is sort of crazy.
>
> You use the word "reflect." As in "to mirror?"
> If so, you will, I trust, grant that not all mirrors display the
> objects they reflect accurately. Some mirrors are designed to distort,
> in one way or another.
>
> Is the *reflection* exact?
> The reverse of the original?
> An exaggeration?
> If an exaggeration, of what sort?
All these scenarios are certainly possible. But when a sympathetic
character has, say, political views that really don't matter to the
story, it's not much of a stretch to think the author has similar
views. I'll certainly regard that as likelier than the opposite until
I've got more evidence.
Anybody who would claim not to recognize "The Screwtape Letters" was
Lewis deliberately writing the opposite of his religious views is
either fooling himself or trying to fool me.
> Do you provide a way to determine which scenario, if any, applies?
How the characters are presented?
William December Starr
long...@jim-butcher.com said:
> Heavier literary folks stick with the heavier literary writers,
> and they give opinions that place value on that kind of writing.
> Folks looking for lighter entertainment go with different kinds of
> writers, and their opinions reflect that. People who are looking
> for the written fantasy equivalent of Bugs Bunny cartoons
> sometimes wind up reading Harry Dresden novels, and the ones who
> like them will give opinions that support reading such dubious
> material.
So if Harry's Bugs, who are Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, Daffy would have to be Morgan: "Dresden, You're... dethpicable".
(Of course, he's a Jone's Daffy, not a Clampet Daffy).
Damien Sullivan
>All these scenarios are certainly possible. But when a sympathetic
>character has, say, political views that really don't matter to the
>story, it's not much of a stretch to think the author has similar
>views. I'll certainly regard that as likelier than the opposite until
>I've got more evidence.
Especially if most or all of their books have such characters. There's
also general worldview vs. specific policies. While I wouldn't want to
bet on Bujold's real view of abortion, or Pratchett's of gun control,
I'd feel safe in labelling both as liberal humanist people. And Tom
Kratman as, um, not.
OTOH, I pity someone trying to figure out the politics of Brust or Ken
MacLeod just from their books. You'd probably be safe with some
anti-autocracy inference, but beyond that?
>Anybody who would claim not to recognize "The Screwtape Letters" was
>Lewis deliberately writing the opposite of his religious views is
>either fooling himself or trying to fool me.
And again, you can add up Screwtape, Narnia, and the Perelandra books.
-xx- Damien X-)
David Johnston
wrote:
It's certainly relevant, but is it true? Is one really an idiot for
thinking, based on John Norman's oeuvre, that he might hold as an
opinion that men should be usually sexually dominant with women and
women like that?
Dr. Rufo
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
>>Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law:
>>>>
>>>>"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the
>>>>opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
>>>>
>>>>"The term is 'idiot.' "
>>>>
>>>>Apropos?
>>>
>>>Not at all. There are too many authors who actually do use
>>>characters as mouthpieces to dismiss the possibility out of hand
>>>(Ayn Rand comes to mind).
>>
>> Alright. It's plausible that *some* authors may have that
>>intention. How do you make the leap to include *all* authors?
>
>
> What leap?
As I understand the words, there is a difference between "some" and
"all." How do you go from one to the other without a leap or a bridge?
> It is undeniably true of some authors, therefore you need
> to be aware of the possibility for all authors.
As I understand the words, there is a difference between "true" and
"possibility." How do you go from one to the other without a leap or
a bridge? An argument by assertion such as you've offered typically
is not acceptable unless delivered by a figure with some authority
ex cathedra. May I ask what/where's yours?
> You can certainly conclude that a given author doesn't always do it,
> or that a given author never does it.
Would these "certain conclusions" of yours be based on individual
examples?
If there happened to be contradictory examples found within an
individual author's body of work, or even in one work, on what bases
would/should a conclusion regarding the author's personal views be
derived?
>
>
>>>And even when that isn't the author's intent, the notion
>>>that the fiction doesn't reflect the author is sort of crazy.
>>
>> You use the word "reflect." As in "to mirror?"
>> If so, you will, I trust, grant that not all mirrors display the
>>objects they reflect accurately. Some mirrors are designed to distort,
>>in one way or another.
>>
>> Is the *reflection* exact?
>> The reverse of the original?
>> An exaggeration?
>> If an exaggeration, of what sort?
>
>
> All these scenarios are certainly possible. But when a sympathetic
> character has, say, political views that really don't matter to the
> story, it's not much of a stretch to think the author has similar
> views. I'll certainly regard that as likelier than the opposite until
> I've got more evidence.
I suppose the real puzzler for me is what is actually produced by
such deductions, "my dear Holmes?"
Isn't it sufficient that an author has provided you entertainment
for the money paid for the book? Does anyone really gain anything by
deriving possible details of the author's personal life and beliefs?
What does it matter? My typical connection to an author is the works
written by that author that I've read. Any speculation into the
author's private life is irrelevant and immaterial.
>
> Anybody who would claim not to recognize "The Screwtape Letters" was
> Lewis deliberately writing the opposite of his religious views is
> either fooling himself or trying to fool me.
I suggest your determination is not based exclusively op. cit. It
appears to me you're bringing information elsewhere derived to reach
your conclusion.
But, regardless, how would this benefit a reader?
I don't mean a student/teacher/instructor in an appropriate
discipline or a reviewer/critic -- a reader.
Did you notice elsethread that there appear to be some here who
were not aware of the "Christian" underpinnings of either the Narnia
works or the Lord of the Rings series? Is that knowledge needed to
enjoy the works? I've known children unburdened with that
information who read both cycles and enjoyed them tremendously.
>
>>Do you provide a way to determine which scenario, if any, applies?
>
> How the characters are presented?
The values of a sympathetic character will reflect in some way
those of their author? Not a very productive nor elegant
proposition. Note to self: Be careful; not all sympathetic
characters are equally sympathetic.
But, of course, mileage varies.
David DeLaney
>What leap? It is undeniably true of some authors, therefore you need
>to be aware of the possibility for all authors. You can certainly
>conclude that a given author doesn't always do it, or that a given
>author never does it.
It's time for the summer rerun of the Heinlein thread again, isn't it?
(You also need to be aware of the possibility that it DOESN'T happen, for
all authors, because it's undeniably true for some authors. Focussing only
on "it could happen, therefore it must be happening in the case I'm talking
about" distorts your arguments to the point of unmanageability.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dr. Rufo
David Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:01:46 -0800, "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
< snip >
>>>It is often possible to see rather a lot of an author in his works,
>>>even though they are fiction. I know what Tom Clancy thinks of
>>>communism from The Hunt for Red October. I know what Heinlein thinks
>>>about sex from Stranger in a Strange Land, and I have a good sense of
>>>Ayn Rand's views on the welfare state from The Fountainhead. Now,
>>>sometimes inferences like that are incorrect.
>>
>> I recall something from the beginning of a book by S.M. Stirling
>>published in 2003. He included the following under his Acknowledgments:
>>
>><quote>
>>And a special acknowledgment to the author of Niven's Law:
>>
>>"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the
>>opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
>>
>>"The term is 'idiot.' "
>>
>>Apropos?
>></quote>
>
>
> It's certainly relevant, but is it true?
*I* read Mr. Stirling's citation of Mr. Niven's apothegm as the
equivalent of "Warning! What you are about to read DOES NOT reflect
my personal opinions and beliefs." ~~ Mas o menos.
Why should a reader doubt the author's statement?
Is there any indication that there exists an ulterior motive for
making the statement?
How can any basis for doubting the author be determined?
> Is one really an idiot for
> thinking, based on John Norman's oeuvre, that he might hold as an
> opinion that men should be usually sexually dominant with women and
> women like that?
I must "check to the dealer" on this author. I've never been able
to appreciate Goriana. Mea culpa.
Gene Ward Smith
news:c05hd3t6gp2dgc59h...@4ax.com:
> It's certainly relevant, but is it true? Is one really an idiot for
> thinking, based on John Norman's oeuvre, that he might hold as an
> opinion that men should be usually sexually dominant with women and
> women like that?
>
I think you would be safe in concluding it's his fantasy and he likes it.
Beyond that you'd need more evidence.
Joe Pfeiffer
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. There are too many authors who actually do use
>>>> characters as mouthpieces to dismiss the possibility out of hand
>>>> (Ayn Rand comes to mind).
>>>
>>> Alright. It's plausible that *some* authors may have that
>>>intention. How do you make the leap to include *all* authors?
>>
>>
>> What leap?
>
> As I understand the words, there is a difference between "some"
> and "all." How do you go from one to the other without a leap or a
> bridge?
Go back and read the words I wrote. I never said that "all" authors
use characters as mouthpieces. I said that since some do, you need to
recognize the possibility in others (I deliberately quote my original
post above so there can't be any question that I'm changing my
statement).
>> It is undeniably true of some authors, therefore you need
>> to be aware of the possibility for all authors.
>
> As I understand the words, there is a difference between "true"
> and "possibility." How do you go from one to the other without a leap
> or a bridge? An argument by assertion such as you've offered typically
> is not acceptable unless delivered by a figure with some authority ex
> cathedra. May I ask what/where's yours?
Well, the author I used as an example is pretty well known for draping
a thin veneer of fictional plot around a political rant. And I went
from there to possibility. I never said that all authors use
characters as mouthpieces.
>> You can certainly conclude that a given author doesn't always do it,
>> or that a given author never does it.
>
> Would these "certain conclusions" of yours be based on individual
> examples?
> If there happened to be contradictory examples found within an
> individual author's body of work, or even in one work, on what bases
> would/should a conclusion regarding the author's personal views be
> derived?
Oh, come on. You (hopefully) wouldn't reach the conclusion in that
case.
>>
>>>>And even when that isn't the author's intent, the notion
>>>>that the fiction doesn't reflect the author is sort of crazy.
>>>
>>> You use the word "reflect." As in "to mirror?"
>>> If so, you will, I trust, grant that not all mirrors display the
>>>objects they reflect accurately. Some mirrors are designed to distort,
>>>in one way or another.
>>>
>>> Is the *reflection* exact?
>>> The reverse of the original?
>>> An exaggeration?
>>> If an exaggeration, of what sort?
>>
>>
>> All these scenarios are certainly possible. But when a sympathetic
>> character has, say, political views that really don't matter to the
>> story, it's not much of a stretch to think the author has similar
>> views. I'll certainly regard that as likelier than the opposite until
>> I've got more evidence.
>
> I suppose the real puzzler for me is what is actually produced by
> such deductions, "my dear Holmes?"
> Isn't it sufficient that an author has provided you entertainment
> for the money paid for the book? Does anyone really gain anything by
> deriving possible details of the author's personal life and beliefs?
> What does it matter? My typical connection to an author is the works
> written by that author that I've read. Any speculation into the
> author's private life is irrelevant and immaterial.
Do you own any biographies of authors? If so, why? Even with the
lightest fiction I read, I find myself curious about the person who
created it. Speaking of Holmes, I do find it interesting that Conan
Doyle created a character with such keen, incisive reasoning but was
so easily duped himself. Sometimes you end up with gems -- I don't
think I'd ever have stumbled across any of Dorothy L. Sayers's essays
on Christianity if I hadn't read the Lord Peter Wimsey stories first
(and, by the way, Lord Peter becomes a great example of a character
who is most assuredly *not* a mouthpiece for Miss Sayers).
>> Anybody who would claim not to recognize "The Screwtape Letters" was
>> Lewis deliberately writing the opposite of his religious views is
>> either fooling himself or trying to fool me.
>
> I suggest your determination is not based exclusively op. cit. It
> appears to me you're bringing information elsewhere derived to reach
> your conclusion.
We'll never know. I would expect that if I were to somehow expunge my
mind of any knowledge of Lewis, and then read Screwtape, I'd still
find his goal pretty obvious -- he really does lay it on with a
trowel. But I do have the outside information you're speculating about.
> But, regardless, how would this benefit a reader?
> I don't mean a student/teacher/instructor in an appropriate
> discipline or a reviewer/critic -- a reader.
Plain ol' monkey curiosity. How does reaching conclusions about an
author help a student, teacher, or critic either? The work is
supposed to stand on its own, after all.
> Did you notice elsethread that there appear to be some here who
> were not aware of the "Christian" underpinnings of either the Narnia
> works or the Lord of the Rings series? Is that knowledge needed to
> enjoy the works? I've known children unburdened with that information
> who read both cycles and enjoyed them tremendously.
I have no doubt that it's possible to read Narnia without noticing the
Christian underpinnings, and that it's quite enjoyable that way.
Ummm.... Lord of the Rings has some european mythological
underpinnings, but people trying to find something specifically
Christian in it are stretching as hard as the ones trying to find
Satanism in Harry Potter (yes, I am aware that Tolkien was a devout
Roman Catholic, and was involved in the translation of the Jerusalem
Bible. Of course, he also wrote my favorite translation of Gawain and
the Green Knight).
Kurt Busiek
Herry's not Bugs. Bugs drives other people nuts, while remaining sunny
and untouchable. Harry's Daffy, the one that the fates torment,
because it's funny to see him endure and rail against it.
kdb
Joe Pfeiffer
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>What leap? It is undeniably true of some authors, therefore you need
>>to be aware of the possibility for all authors. You can certainly
>>conclude that a given author doesn't always do it, or that a given
>>author never does it.
>
> It's time for the summer rerun of the Heinlein thread again, isn't it?
>
> (You also need to be aware of the possibility that it DOESN'T happen, for
> all authors, because it's undeniably true for some authors. Focussing only
> on "it could happen, therefore it must be happening in the case I'm talking
> about" distorts your arguments to the point of unmanageability.)
Ah, my wording may have been unclear. I didn't mean it's possible
that all authors use characters as mouthpieces. I meant for any
individual author, it's possible they're using characters as
mouthpieces.