What does everyone think about "filling in the gaps" in mythology-based fiction, especially with a mythology that is used as the basis of a modern religious tradition?Is it ok to depict dwarves in a way similar to the ways modern-day Northern tradition pagans depict them? (See http://www.northernshamanism.org/shamanic-techniques/journeying/races-of... Description of Dwarves from ) Is it right for me to do this to someone's religious beliefs, especially when I don't know anyone who follows these beliefs personally to ask, "Hey, would you be offended if you read this?" (I know of them, though).
That is the most convoluted, self-referential, venous mess of a question I think I've ever seen. Well done!
The answer is 42.
No.
It's writing, so don't be afraid to write what you want. If you rewrite religion, and people get offended, that's their problem. Take the Last Temptation of Christ, the Life of Brian, even the Da Vinci Code.
Tell the story of Jesus and Santa Claus teaming up to defeat Rasputin after he escapes from Hell and goes on the rampage with Hades' disobedient son, if that is the story you want to tell.
Arwen reminds me of Ffport, just more succinct.
What would the size of the religion have to do with it?
So it's even less of an issue.
Didn't Thor and the Avengers completely butcher Norse mythology? No problems there. I can think of hundreds of books and films that use pagan elements in their stories, rewriting the religions, completely altering them.
its not an issue, just go for it. Run with it. Then post a chapter in the workshop or show it to someone you trust if you're worried.
Best of luck.
Live and Let Die was hardly accurate Voodoo. No one got upset. The Craft was far from accurate Wiccan. Again, no complaints. The Da Vinci Code was wrong on so many levels, including all the Goddess worship and pagan symbolism. Again, no public outcry.
if you want to get it right, do research. If you don't mind, make it up. Personally I couldn't care less. If it's a good story it doesn't matter.
All this, however, is a moot point, as ultimately it is up to you.
Any "major" religion is not monolithic, meaning there is already disagreement on what it all means.
Arwen reminds me of Ffport, just more succinct.
No, Fport's threads are one big joke. This, I feel, is more serious.
You're right about succinct though.
Also, mythology and religion are not the same.
I am doing research, as I want to get at least the mythology right, althouvgh take some poetic license with it.
So what's the question?
Everything is wide open! You can write what you want about who you want doing what you want. No one is keeping score. If you want to write it, do it!
What is a POC woman?
So what's the question?
Yeah.
You've already answered it. Some people might think so, but many people would not.
"Cultural appropriation" (probably) isn't "an issue." One would really have to be more specific for that to mean very much.
If you wrote totally inaccurate invective swill about how the Maori were the worst people ever to walk the earth, and then made up stuff they supposedly believed in order to prove your point, it'd likely be more of an issue than if you said Dwarves were of a slightly different sort of magical being than what some people have believed.
EVERYTHING is fine but EVERYTHING has the possiblity of causing reprecussions for you. That's pretty much for you to figure out. Ask people who you think may be offended by it rather than us.
Wow, I didn't think anyone would have such worries at this point in time. If movies haven't done it, at the very least games have done all they wanted with as many mythologies as they could get their hands on. I'm sure there are a few grumbling purists out there but no one is going to sue you.
No. It's not cultural appropriation.
Cultural appropriation is much different fucking different from what you're talking about. Cultural appropriation is turning something from a different culture into a watered-down, whitewashed version of the original. It's yinyang tattoos on suburban white girls who think it means "balance, man." It's kids making American Indian headdresses in class and decorating them with swastikas because they've heard that the swastika is used as a Jain symbol and hear the word "Indian" attached and automatically relate it to American Indians.
What you're doing is writing alternative versions of myths. Ninian Smart defines the mythological dimension of religion as para-historical, which means that it's fucking fiction. You're rewriting fiction. Big deal. I'm converting to Judaism and one thing I've discovered as I studied is that most Jews regard the Bible as a sort of fiction. It's still holy, but it's fucking fiction. No (smart) person will be offended by that.
That's a far cry from bastardizing a symbol because of ignorance.
And are you really saying that people consider Christianity fair game because there are so many of them and don't look at other religions the same way because they're unpopular? You have that so fucking backwards.
There's a reason people get outraged when Mohammed is regarded as a drunk child-molester and Jesus is portrayed as gay when no one says a word when The Craft turns paganism into hot girls casting spells. Power is in numbers and no one cares if you offend a fringe group.
(PS: There's an edit button for your first post above your title on the top left. And why would you being of color matter in this situation?)
The Craft was a good movie. Fairuza Balk rrrwwwar
Most written sources originate from the "high mythology" era, but many of the creatures and characters from this period were already featured in Scandinavian and European folklore, and was likely influenced by myth from other parts of the world as well.
So, dwarves - as depicted in Snorre's work - would be the version that was popular at the time, but far from the only version to have existed. When Christianity pushed mythology to the side, these creatures lived on in folklore, but the mythos became heavily influenced by Christianity, speeding up the natural evolution of such lore. In this way, religion, mythology and folklore have often converged, but sadly, very few written sources dealing with folklore post-Christianity have survived.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's probably a full trilogy's worth of tales on the life of Andvari scattered around Scandinavia and beyond, and they've all been influenced by whatever context they took form in. Loki for example, now worshiped by adoring fan girls as the troubled God of Mischief, was - in his original forms - rather perverted by today's standards. Arguably, many of the qualities projected onto Norse Gods in modern times are a reflection Christian values and morals having been incorporated into their myths.
If you want your Andvari to have a family, fine, you'll likely find support for that. But the same would probably hold if you wanted him to have an incestuous relationship with his mother who just happens to be a squirrel. The difference being that such liaisons are mostly frowned upon today, and would likely alienate your readers.
Cultural appropriation is much different fucking different from what you're talking about. Cultural appropriation is turning something from a different culture into a watered-down, whitewashed version of the original. It's yinyang tattoos on suburban white girls who think it means "balance, man." It's kids making American Indian headdresses in class and decorating them with swastikas because they've heard that the swastika is used as a Jain symbol and hear the word "Indian" attached and automatically relate it to American Indians.
What you're doing is writing alternative versions of myths. Ninian Smart defines the mythological dimension of religion as para-historical, which means that it's fucking fiction. You're rewriting fiction. Big deal. I'm converting to Judaism and one thing I've discovered as I studied is that most Jews regard the Bible as a sort of fiction. It's still holy, but it's fucking fiction. No (smart) person will be offended by that.
You can be as aggressive as you like, but it will work better if you stay consistently constructive or consistently inept. No (smart) person will be persuaded by mere vitriol disguised as correction.
"Para-historical" doesn't just mean it's fiction. You are not simplifying this for the sake of explaining what para-historical means, you're trying to make a cheap point. Which makes me prick up my ears. Yes, para-historical would, at bottom, imply something outside of what actually happened, and therefore we might call it fiction. But that's so far from the point of using terms like para-historical that it's misleading of you to boil it down to that. "Ninian Smart defines the mythological dimension of religion as para-historical, which means that it's fucking fiction" is bad argumentation, and it steers you toward not having to address any issues already raised. If you're going to bring up history in this way, you will also be bringing up how history is created, how we determine what counts as history, and how historical truths are transmitted over time. All of that is more complicated than just saying "it's fucking fiction" and it's also more interesting. What's more, it's relevant, difficult, and you do it no justice.
And are you really saying that people consider Christianity fair game because there are so many of them and don't look at other religions the same way because they're unpopular? You have that so fucking backwards.
There's a reason people get outraged when Mohammed is regarded as a drunk child-molester and Jesus is portrayed as gay when no one says a word when The Craft turns paganism into hot girls casting spells. Power is in numbers and no one cares if you offend a fringe group.
Not that such comments suggest you are way ahead of the cuve here. The unmitigated aggression here is baffling. I'll grant that I don't fully understand the questions that have been asked in this thread, but they don't warrant this kind of undergraduate-level smarminess. Yes, that's what it feels like.
Who is "people" in "people get outraged when Mohammend is regarded as a drunk child-molester"? All the Muslims, that heterogenous group? And the people upset about Jesus being potrayed as gay? Do you mean "the Christians"? Have you ever watched a documentary, any documentary, about Scientology? Would you say nobody cares about how that fringe group reacts to being offended? Did nobobdy say a word about the Craft, either about its Pagan content or its sexism? Rhetoric best serves a strong argument.
You go from hating on a guy for asking mildly reductive questions to giving us all sorts of more reductive, essentialist comments disguised as "Duh!"-worthy, can'tbelieveIevenhavetosaythis-saturated nonsense.
I'm not necessarily interested in having a long back-and-forth about this, because I think it's clear what kind of conversation is possible here. But I'll check back and reply if you feel I'm wrong or unfair.
Remember that one bitch Robin Tunney? She was hot. I think she's dead now. Or is that just her career?
She's on the Mentalist. (Or was.)
Yeah.
I mean, it probably pays better than The Craft did. (Actually, I don't have any idea.)
@JGB She's that creepy sort of hot. I like it.
@Phil That was the most long-winded attack on semantics that I've ever seen. How's that doctorate going?
If only it had been mere semantics.
I think one distinction that's important is between active religions and mythology. Of course any member of an active religion will get offended by something that (to the eyes of that religion) is a distortion. Some get more offended than others. But I doubt there's an active form of pagan religion (though I don't know enough about current pagan religions) that really worships dwarves, right now. Is there? And are they so easy to offend, if there is such a group, that they'd find out where you live and all that?
If we're talking about stories, myths, then yes, there are purists who want "accuracy" based on the oldest stories that there are. Vampire fans will cringe when you make a vampire be able to go sunbathing. Were purists offended that the Twilight "truth" about why vampire hide during the day is that they're so beautiful? I'm sure. But should you worry if you're the one who came up with that new way to look at it? NO.
A woman? I would never stand up for a woman. I take everything back.
Sorry, I don't know what names mean.
Just occurred to me. Arwen, are you Liv Tyler? That would be completely awesome.
You seem a little different to the average Australian. ;)
I had an Australian girlfriend in 2006. Last night for whatever reason I dreamed an old friend of mine had announced his engagement to her. Then there were some scenes in a warehouse.
Life as me.
^^ Now I understand why you think us Australians are odd. Weird dream. At least you're getting action with my cousin in mine. I'm yet to erase that scene from my memory, sadly.
@Arwen - I would dare say norse mythology is not on the usual Australian's radar. I meant to say that before, went back to working and clean forgot to mention it.
@Jess
Don't try to erase the memory.
Join the memory.
@Phil Sorry, I skimmed most of your post after seeing that my definition of para-historical "pricked up your ears."
@Arwen Isn't Greek mythology pretty impossible to avoid, though? It was taught in elementary schools and shit here. I really have trouble believing anyone would get pissed if we messed with Greek mythology, so why would people get pissed if you messed with Norse mythology, which even less people have a knowledge of?