Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35053
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35053
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 13