Writing and belief: a stray realisation

[la_marquise]

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, glass_mountain's Children of the Shaman, 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.

Comments

[pennski.livejournal.com]

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.

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

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'?

[desperance.livejournal.com]

(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]

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.

[bugshaw.livejournal.com]

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?

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

I think we don't necessarily consciously choose what our subconscious has decided to wrestle with.

[desperance.livejournal.com]

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.

[ms-cataclysm.livejournal.com]

Would the J W starships have to travel in pairs ?

[athenais.livejournal.com]

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.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

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 ?

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

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!)

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

That was a key point in my story "The Monsters We Defy", in which it turned out that yes, the natives were right, and if you operate on the sick child a demon will show up and kill you.

[uk-sef.livejournal.com]

It's an inevitability of you writing fantasy rather than science fiction (or even factual stuff!). You know it isn't real and that others will know it isn't real; so you cope with that by writing in characters who find out that it *is* real.

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

In fiction, if there is magic or other woo-woo, then I take it as part of the fictional universe, which is not my own. That's...all there is to it, really. I think this theme is just your preferred way (since you write fantasy) of illustrating the classic theme in fiction of people finding out that their world is bigger than they thought it was. I cannot quite see Thiercelin as Huck Finn, but it's much the same sort of thing.

In real life, if a phenomenon is sharing the universe with me, perceptible to my (non-malfunctioning) senses, then I'd take it as being as much part of the natural world as I am. Or to put it in non-rational terms: an entity perceptible to me is an entity on the same wheel as I am. The appearance of an unexplainable phenomenon would not "prove" that whatever religion is an accurate representation of the universe or that there is such a thing as the "supernatural". It would just show that something exists. And if something exists, then why is it not as natural as anything else?

As a side issue, I've noticed that the English-language debate about faith (a term of art in itself) and rationality is perhaps inevitably usually conducted entirely within the rigid mental paradigms imposed by monocultural monotheism. I won't bang on about this, but will merely point it out and remark that as usual, it's not that binary.

Also, I am that I am and require no justification for my existence.