On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:39:57 GMT, MartinRJCarpenter <maujv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>In message <8v0rs1d6311cnotj1ir6lp5cvs84aku6u5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> William Marnoch <william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> I stumbled across something on-topic on the Interweb, so I though I
>> may as well post it here, since we have been a bit starved of on-topic
>> conversation in recent years.
>>
>> On another forum someone posted a link to some reviews herely:
>> http://www.christianfantasy.net/eddings.html
(actually they linked to
>> the Terry Goodkind page, as there is some amusingly over-the-top
>> criticism). Out of curiosity, I looked to see what they thought of
>> David Eddings' works. It does seem slightly incongruous to see them
>> rate his work as 'dangerous'.
>
>It certainly does :)
>I think you have to imagine a kind of mindset which is trying to train
other
>people to believe uncritically in a number of things. Hence exposing them
to
>any kind of different ideas has to be avoided where possible.
>
>Which is an attitute I personally find pretty repulsive but there you are
:)
>I guess they must justify it to themselves as saving the other people.
>
>Anyone who's worried about Eddings subverting peoples religous beliefs
really
>can't be too confident of how convincing their religion is.
Looking elsewhere on the site, I noticed this quote
"But it's more than that when he constantly attacks God, His power and
existence. Therefore, although his books (the first three in the
trilogy in particular), are heartily recommended, I beg you to keep
your thinking cap on and perhaps something solidly Christian by your
bedside to read as a remedy after each novel."
The work of fiction that is so dangerous, so subversive that even the
strongest faith needs careful thought and regular doses of more godly
reading to survive the hideous atheism is that legendarily dangerous
text....
The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
Idiots.
I suspect when Douglas Adams was writing jokes about religion this was
exactly the sort of thing inspiring him to satirise it.
>> I'm not sure I agree that DE was intending to be subversive, and I
>
>I'm sure he wasn't. It might be interesting to try and work out if there
is
>any social commentary in the books but frankly that's very likely taking
them
>rather more seriously than the author did :)
I think there's certainly some social commentary in "The Losers" but I
can't think of all that much social commentary in his fantasy books.
The Elene Church is sufficiently similar to Christianity that there's
probably some commentary there (and if there is then it wouldn't be
particularly complimentary of the Church), but it is fairly minor.
>> think the reviewers are forgetting that the books are set in the
>> (pseudo-) Middle Ages. Those were often pretty nasty times where the
>> rule of law was only intermittently enforced. Setting a series in such
>> a world where some of the characters were nobles, politicians,
>> military leaders and so on and not have a high pro****tion of them
>> acting in ways we might consider reprehensible would be unrealistic
>> and trying to apply too much modern morality to condemn all their
>> actions would be absurd.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>My first thought was that taking any kind of morality from a light
hearted
>fantasy book is past absurd.
I suppose they're used to taking morality from books ;)
(although the Bible isn't exactly light-hearted and I'm sure they
wouldn't classify it as Fantasy even if some of us would).
>My next thought is that these people are doing much of this as a result
of a
>*direct* (personal in several cases) order(s) from gods/prophecies which
is
>the kind of thing you might expect religous fundamentalists to like :)
>(The old testament has enough smiting in it to keep anyone happy.).
I think they only like it if the gods are compatible with their
worldview and the orders agree with what they're expecting to hear.
>Anyhow they're doing all of these things to heal the universe which
strikes
>me as a pretty much overriding moral imperative in context! It's also all
>quite Greek in some ways - in the end there isn't a lot of free will
involved
>.
>
>Finally modern morality was not designed to be applied in a world with
gods &
>demons walking around on a regular basis, people living more or less
forever
>etc :)
>
>I wonder what they'd make of something like Thomas Covenant ;) (or the
>Mistwraith books.).
Surprisingly they seem to be happier with it than they are with
Eddings, which seems a bit odd.
I'm wondering what they'd think of George R.R. Martin...
--
William Marnoch
william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film and Book reviews
|
