la_marquise: (Default)
la_marquise ([personal profile] la_marquise) wrote2009-09-30 05:27 pm

Writing and belief: a stray realisation

I've just realised that a key theme in my writing -- apart from water, which literally gets everywhere -- is rationalists and non-believers discovering that the irrational and the weird are real and can affect them.
I have no idea why. I'm not particularly religious/spiritual in the formal sense (though I may be superstitious and I do talk to saints and trees on occasion. Also to the late and loved Caspian cat). I wasn't brought up with any kind of faith. But it's there in Living with Ghosts, particularly through the characters of Thiercelin and Joyain. It's in quite a few of my short stories ('The Whale's Daughter, certainly; 'Coldrush'; 'Clocks'; to some extent in 'Seabourne') and in the various sections of the ongoing, unfinished Gaheris saga.
What's this about? Should I be worried? Is this a sign of Dangerous Fluffiness or WooWoo, a weake girly non-science-yness? Or is it an artefact of a background in, amongst the history, social anthropology, which leads me always to look at the stories cultures tell about themselves, their origins and their environment. I tend to find fantasy novels which either lack reference to beliefs of any kind, or import default cardboard ones, very unsatisfactory. (And somewhere someone must have written a story about J******h's W******s in their mission starship, banging on the doors of new colony worlds.) I tend to be much more convinced by books where the author has clearly thought through how and what peoples believe -- Violette Malan's The Sleeping God, [livejournal.com profile] glass_mountain's Children of the Shaman, [livejournal.com profile] freda_writes's Dark Cathedral, to list a few. It's about world-building and depth and texture.
And yet, none of that explains this writing tic I seem to have, this 'more things in heaven and earth' -ishness that I seem to be returning to, over and over.

[identity profile] pennski.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 04:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Interesting! Depth is very important to you and the fact that we are motivated by more than the mundane and practical is something that *should* be in lots of fiction.

Bother - brain is incoherent - hope this makes sense.

[identity profile] a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 04:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Don't know that I can explain it, but it's one of the things I like about your writing. But here's a thought -- can you have sensawunda without 'more things in heaven and earth'?

[identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:08 pm (UTC)(link)
(And somewhere someone must have written a story about J******h's W******s in their mission starship, banging on the doors of new colony worlds.)

I did very briefly interpret this as "Jonah's Whalers", and am now much taken with the notion of interplanetary whales, and the men who hunt them, and cutting them open to find living creatures within, transporting themselves between the stars...
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2009-09-30 05:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Could it be that you wish there was more on heaven and earth...?

I mean, I'm strongly agnostic, and functionally an atheist, but I think it would be great (in some ways) if the world was magical.

[identity profile] woolymonkey.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Exactly what I thought. A kind of wishing for magical stuff that has actual supporting evidence, because then it would be ok to believe in it in a good, rational scientific way.
I have a reading tic for stories where people encounter weird supernatural stuff and just get on and deal with it in a very pragmatic, practical way.

[identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Hmm. And here, rationalists and non-believers can still enjoy ghost stories and be affected by them. Not in a way that changes their beliefs, but thinking on it, what would it take to do that? And is that something (one of many things) you explore with your characters, finding their tipping point?

[identity profile] anef.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:33 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it would be great. I think it would be horrid and scary.

[identity profile] kateelliott.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:38 pm (UTC)(link)
I think we don't necessarily consciously choose what our subconscious has decided to wrestle with.

[identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Isn't this inherent in the whole fantasy concept? You start writing about a world wherein magic of some kind does exist; worldbuilding demands also that faith exists; at some point, you are going to wonder whether or not that faith is based on something more than wishful thinking. Where dragons are real, why would the gods not be?

And if you have unbelievers, there are better things to do than shun them. They can't be let walk blindly through the novel, where veils exist to be dropped and epiphanies enacted.

[identity profile] ms-cataclysm.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Would the J W starships have to travel in pairs ?

[identity profile] athenais.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 05:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I like books where the world has both faith and rationalism present; this seems to me a more balanced type of world building than wholly one or the other.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2009-09-30 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I would definitely read that!

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2009-09-30 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think you can, no. But the cool kids do it with science.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2009-09-30 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Possibly, yes. I am engaged in a perpetual discussion with myself about what and how much I believe, so it makes sense that it would spill over.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2009-09-30 06:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I think so, yes!

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ 2009-09-30 06:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeees... but I avoid magic as much as possible, and when it crops up, it ends to relate to the religion/irrational rather than standing alone.

[identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 06:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Indeed. I am currently intrigued by the notion of fantasy-without-magic, and keep writing it in spurts and dribbles. But where there is anything irrational, I think it is the duty of the novelist to fling it in the face of the unbeliever: as being so much more interesting generally than the other thing. Except where a believer is suddenly brought face to face with the actuality of his own belief, which is something else I am currently exploring...

[identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 06:44 pm (UTC)(link)
And be soberly suited, and polite. For whatever that means in starships - largely the opposite of Iain M Banks's...

[identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 06:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Indeed - except that where faith can be demonstrated true, then rationalism finds itself suddenly on shaky ground...

[identity profile] rysmiel.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 06:58 pm (UTC)(link)
With my lifelong SF and fantasy reader hat on, I say yes, I think so; with my professional scientist on, I add that the sensawunda inherent in the cooler edges of the purely rational aspects of the world we live in are sufficient to my finding this a thing worth doing with my life.

With my aspiring writer hat on, if it will balance atop the other two, I note that, while magic-as-science has been done well a few times, magic-as-science that feels the same sort of exciting and awe-inspiring as real cutting edge science is rare enough that I gave up and am closing on 70,000 words into doing it myself, though that particular project is back-burnered right now.

[identity profile] rysmiel.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 07:02 pm (UTC)(link)
The question this suggests to me, fwiw, is whether what matters is the actual irrationality/weirdness of whatever is doing the confronting, or the nature of the confrontation ?

OK, that's not as clear as I hoped, so to put it another way; if the weirdness being confronted is actually following a rationally explicable paradigm of its own, but in ways that the person in question has absolutely no idea of and experiences as entirely weird and irrational, does that feel to have the same sort of weight to you ?

[identity profile] a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 07:22 pm (UTC)(link)
to me, one of the things about science is that it explains things. And the things that science can't explain? those are the 'more things in (isn't there a 'your' in there somewhere?) heaven and earth' parts. I mean, I know that the biologists can explain all kinds of things about how my body works. I know that they can explain 'why' in the sense of the mechanics, or even give sensible reasons for some things, e.g., the 'fight or flight' response and its connection to adrenaline bursts. But get to the questions of *why* why, like why four fingers, or such variation in human bodies, when cows and pigeons are pretty much the same? I'm not entirely sure science can give truly satisfactory answers.

[identity profile] athenais.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 07:58 pm (UTC)(link)
True; I was thinking of the religious scientists I know. They're completely comfortable with both scientific rigor, the theory of evolution and the existence of (faith in) God. I suppose the opposite might not work as well.

[identity profile] lil-shepherd.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 08:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Not necessary. At least, I have never found it so. Magic can be treated as a form of science.

[identity profile] lil-shepherd.livejournal.com 2009-09-30 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't believe magic exists, but I can read and write about it. Same with faith or gods.

I am a militant atheist, but one of my favourite fantasy novels is Lilith.

I have never climbed a mountain in my life, yet, somehow or other, my characters often find themselves halfway up one - so much so that it has been remarked on far too often.

I am interested in magic that is not about gods or faith, but that is another form of science - or rather, about magic treated scientifically. (I hate to say this, but Orson Scott Card's Alvin books do this while at the same time retelling the Mormon experience. Books can do more than one thing at once!)

Page 1 of 3