Can religions like Islam or Hinduism be represented respectfully in a fictionalized/fantastical Earth?
I asked this question in World-Building but it seems better fit for Writing.
I ask for a few reasons. Despite the specific arguments against speculative fiction within Quranic tradition and protests by other Abrahamic traditions and Hindus against certain franchises, I've noted:
- Accounts of cultures, especially in the medieval period, undermining doctrine by relying on talismans or superstitions possibly at odds with theological tradition.
- Modern Muslims, Jews, Buddhists asking for and expecting representation in fantasy and sci-fi.
- The suggestion that creating a fictional religion based on a real religion isn't any better than leaving people out entirely, because it creates a superficial proxy to which the writer has no responsibility to portray accurately or fairly.
I've looked into how religious people who enjoy speculative fiction think about this, and I'm trying to find experts on the subject willing to answer my questions, but I'd like as many perspectives on this as possible.
In the past, firebirds, djinni, spirits, angels, demons, basilisks, witchcraft, dragons, etc were generally accepted to be actualities of the world often reinforced by religious belief, and even now, people tend toward a belief in the preternatural where spirits, angels/demons, practical magic, chakras, etc are concerned.
In western liberal society, even though adherents to religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism often voice opposition to how magic/fantasy elements and their faith are depicted in fiction (His Dark Materials comes to mind), it's generally not out of the question for Christian/Jewish characters to appear in speculative fiction. Conversely, in Islamic societies, genre fiction is often thought of as a force opposed to Quranic truth, and fiction featuring Hinduism is frequently ardently pro-Hinduism.
My understanding is that religious doctrine usually explicitly describes magic/witchcraft and spirits/demons as physical actualities within dogma, so it's blasphemous to depict those things as physical actualities outside of dogma. So is it possible to respectfully write a culture that believes in the divinity of Trimurti or the Abrahamic God according to Islam in a world where wizards can perform feats otherwise only achievable through God, or in which elves are physically superior to humans?
I want to stress the difference between coexistence and tolerance. Of course not even a fictional Muslim society would abide witchcraft within its borders; my question is more about whether it's antagonistic to religious belief to feature a sorcerer capable of staving off an army of devout Muslim warriors, or a dragon whose knowledge surpasses that of any Brahman, or a magically-inclined elf child as the sympathetic victim of Abrahamic witchhunters?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/35036. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
The objection I think most people of faith have to their depiction in works of literature is not so much the author's lack of respect but the sheer ignorance of many writers about what people actually believe. I think this is true irrespective of genre.
As a Catholic, I can tell you that the Catholicism I believe in has very little in common with the Catholicism that critics and even disinterested writers attempting to create respectful characters don't believe in. The comic book Catholicism typically found in TV, movies, and novels, has little in common with the faith professed or the lives lived by actual Catholics.
The objection, therefore, is not, "you portrayed my religion in your story and that is blasphemous", but "the religion you portrayed in your book and named after my religion is actually nothing like my religion". This is not so much a matter of blasphemy as a matter of slander: you are misrepresenting the beliefs and practices of a faith you don't understand.
For people not brought up in any faith, there is a tendency to regard religions as a kind of mythological add on to the set of attitudes about the world that were part of how they were brought up and which they assume to be universal. The real differences are much more profound (though, of course, not every adherent of every religion is grounded equally firmly or deeply in their faith).
The Catholic world view, for instance, starts with some very fundamental beliefs about the nature of the universe (what it is, what it is for) and the nature of human beings and human life (what they are, what they are for) which colors everything you see and do. Catholic thought, therefore, does not see itself as an overlay on top of materialistic rationalism. Rather, it sees human rationality as arising out of the nature of man's relationship with God. It does not see faith as a departure from or rejection of rationality, therefore, but rather sees faith as the justification for the claim to rationality. Religion, in other words, is not an add on, it is a ground of knowing on which all the ordinary things of life rest.
I point this out not to preach, but to make the point that religion goes much deeper than people of no religious faith or upbringing imagine that it does, which makes it much harder than it might appear to create a religious character that truly reflects what people of that (or any) faith recognize themselves to be. However respectful the author intends to be and thinks they are being, they end up creating a caricature because they simply don't get what it really means to belong to a religious tradition. Even when they portray lax members of a faith, they tend to get wrong which things people are lax about and which things they are not.
There are certainly faiths that regard certain names, objects, etc as inherently sacred and therefore hold that they demand special treatment, such as freedom from insult or criticism, or even freedom from depiction or naming. Some will regard such restrictions as incumbent on the faithful, and some as incumbent on all people. But this is part of that particular faith's view of the relationship between God and man. There can be no blanket definition of what constitutes blasphemy. It depends on each faith's concept of the sacred and the duties due to sacred things.
Write what you know remains good advice, therefore. If you want to be respectful, and you don't want a character to come across as a caricature, be very careful about introducing a character of a faith you do not understand well.
Now, having said that, I will also say that it is the novelist's right and responsibility to write what they see. They have an artistic responsibility to be diligent and thorough in making sure they see accurately and perceptively, because a false portrait is a bad portrait. But they are under no obligation to refrain from writing about what they see just because they are not a part of it.
It is entirely legitimate to say that what is seen from the outside often reveals something true that was not perceived from the inside. When the artist accomplishes that, those on the inside, if they are honest, will admit it and admire it and be grateful for the clarity they have been given about themselves.
Artists should look outward and should portray what they see without fear or favor (and without an axe to grind). But their responsibility as artists (if nothing else) obliges them to look deeply and not to merely repeat superficial or stereotypical portraits for the sake of a plot point or a bit of color.
0 comment threads
I'm going to say no, but do it anyway. Which may be confusing, but let me explain.
Religious groups are diverse, and you won't be able to represent that diversity in your book, because you will only have so many characters who will belong to each group. We are all slaves to subjective biases, like 'What you see is all there is' (WYSIATI). Our perspective is limited to the obvious.
As you are no doubt aware, most are quite precious about their beliefs. But they are precious only about a specific interpretation of an ideology. Usually other interpretations are regarded as heresy, though for the most part this doesn't apply to Hinduism. A Sunni may not care too much if a Shia is portrayed negatively, just as a Catholic may not be too concerned if a Protestant is portrayed negatively. Importantly, you are unlikely to create a character who matches any given individual's subjective bias.
Therefore, you can create many reasonable characters, and yet will be harshly criticised. If a negative character is Muslim, you're a bigot. If a positive character is Muslim, you're an apologist. If you have two Muslim character, one good and one bad, you'll be accused of tokenism because their being Muslim will be regarded as insufficiently fundamental to their character; you just made them Muslim as a multicultural afterthought.
The only way to create an authentic character is good research. For example; to start on Hinduism, I might advise reading Shashi Tharoor's 'Why I am a Hindu' which discusses the history of Hinduism and contemporary Hindu politics (the author being a liberal Hindu disapproves of Hindu nationalism). Then you could go further, reading Hindu texts (Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads), investigating Hindu demographics, history, music, cuisine, religious leaders, etc.
With such knowledge you will be able to construct a character whose motivations are believably grounded in a specific culture. The real test of course will be whether someone from that group can recognise your fictional character as one of their own. Approval isn't really the point; if you write a Hindu nationalist, a liberal Hindu reader will disapprove of their world view, but they should be able to recognise whether this character is authentic or not.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46877. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads