Martyn Stanley's Blog - Posts Tagged "religion"
The Deathsworn Arc Divides Opinion
I was a little saddened today after having received a fairly cutting review of both of my Deathsworn Arc books currently available.
A 'Michelle' reviewed book 1 here:-
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And book 2 here:-
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Her review of book 1 reads as follows:-
"As conventional as fantasy gets but not unenjoyable. The tropes are familiar but not grating. There is a thing or two that is unique enough and the relationships feel surprisingly candid. Not sorry I spent the time to read it but won't be memorable."
I can't really complain about this. The points of interest in book 1 are:-
1. Brael's 'Truth'
2. Vashni and Korhan's interactions
3. The Heartstones
Yes, there's a bit of moral philosophy, some world-building and some explanation of magic and 'whispering'. I don't really see any of these things as strikingly unique but that wasn't my intention. I really wanted to establish the characters as a group of strangers thrown together, getting to know each other as the quest unfolds. I also wanted to establish the characters as having a pragmatic approach to life and morality - though from different angles.
I suppose, I could say this review is indicative of how I see 'The Deathsworn Arc' I see 'The Last Dragon Slayer' as the tip of the iceberg, just bobbing visibly above the water. The meat of the thing is still largely in my head and somewhat hidden. It's only really in books 2, 3 and 4 that you start to peer beneath the waves and see the shape of the thing.
This brings me to Michelle's review of book 2:-
"Misery. Layers and layers of misery. The team moves from one horror to another all the while losing their religion. I hated this book and am sorry to have spent the time to read it."
This is pretty cutting, I can't feel too bad about this though, because this is precisely what I was aiming for in book 2. It's a dark book, there's a great deal more danger and peril in 'The Verkreath Horror'. The loss of faith is important. It's made more poignant by the horrors the companions face in the warren. Despite the groups losses in book 1, they emerged triumphant and perhaps feeling a little invincible. They are not, they are all extraordinary warriors, but they are vulnerable. I needed to portray this in book 2, to increase the impact of 'The Truth' Michelle hated it, but it's a book which is supposed to be a rocky ride. I suppose I'm even trying to evoke some sympathy for the companions in the reader. They don't have a great time. Even at the end, the future looks grimmer than it would otherwise have, given the revelation of 'The Truth'.
I hate to say it but Michelle has understood the book fully and has captured the spirit of the book very well. It's powerful, it's a strong book - but it's not a fluffy fairies, happy land tale.
So where does the story go in book 3? Do things get better for the companions?
Maybe, maybe a bit. None of them easily comes to term with 'The Truth' they perhaps don't entirely believe it. When they eventually make it to Cormaroth, they have a new companion, who reinforces their belief in the 'The Truth'. The religious establishment in Cormaroth - the Isharian church will obviously NOT like 'The Truth' and will seek to suppress it. Korhan and Vashni's relationship will develop, Vashni's, Votrex's, and Saul's pasts will be explained more thoroughly. A theme which begins to come into play is the theme of religious oppression and the evil that men will do in the name of religion.
So how does this stand? Who is not going to like the series? If you are a devout, fundamentalist Christian or Jihadist, Extremist Muslim, or Scientologist or Hard-line Jew, you are not going to enjoy Deathsworn Arc. I am being honest here, I didn't write the books to offend you, but I didn't write them for your enjoyment. I write them for free-thinkers, skeptics, agnostics, people with an interest in theology as a phenomenon, rather than as a fact and a way of life.
Torea is NOT our world. Yes, the Isharian Church, the Savti, Orion, Avanti, Lucian the Deceiver and the dwarfish god Etheron have their parallels in our world. Yes the people of Torea would like to take their seat in Kirkfell after death, and fear Avanti and the spectres of the abyss. But Torea is Torea and Earth is Earth. I am interested in religion, but I'm atheist, I'm atheist through and through. If I was shown convincing, repeatable, observable and measurable evidence that there was a god, I might choose to believe. As a rational person I find the web of religions and gods throughout human history to be perplexing - how can any person decide their religion is the true one religion? And all the others are made up?
Why would a supreme being capable of creating reality itself, be really interested in how a bunch of hair-less, semi-aquatic apes on one tiny planet, in one tiny solar system, of one tiny galaxy in possibly a multitude of universes spend their time?
I can't rationalize it, anyway I look at it, creationism in any religion makes no sense at all. If you are creationist, I invite you give 'The Deathsworn Arc' a miss, because you won't enjoy it.
A 'Michelle' reviewed book 1 here:-
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And book 2 here:-
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Her review of book 1 reads as follows:-
"As conventional as fantasy gets but not unenjoyable. The tropes are familiar but not grating. There is a thing or two that is unique enough and the relationships feel surprisingly candid. Not sorry I spent the time to read it but won't be memorable."
I can't really complain about this. The points of interest in book 1 are:-
1. Brael's 'Truth'
2. Vashni and Korhan's interactions
3. The Heartstones
Yes, there's a bit of moral philosophy, some world-building and some explanation of magic and 'whispering'. I don't really see any of these things as strikingly unique but that wasn't my intention. I really wanted to establish the characters as a group of strangers thrown together, getting to know each other as the quest unfolds. I also wanted to establish the characters as having a pragmatic approach to life and morality - though from different angles.
I suppose, I could say this review is indicative of how I see 'The Deathsworn Arc' I see 'The Last Dragon Slayer' as the tip of the iceberg, just bobbing visibly above the water. The meat of the thing is still largely in my head and somewhat hidden. It's only really in books 2, 3 and 4 that you start to peer beneath the waves and see the shape of the thing.
This brings me to Michelle's review of book 2:-
"Misery. Layers and layers of misery. The team moves from one horror to another all the while losing their religion. I hated this book and am sorry to have spent the time to read it."
This is pretty cutting, I can't feel too bad about this though, because this is precisely what I was aiming for in book 2. It's a dark book, there's a great deal more danger and peril in 'The Verkreath Horror'. The loss of faith is important. It's made more poignant by the horrors the companions face in the warren. Despite the groups losses in book 1, they emerged triumphant and perhaps feeling a little invincible. They are not, they are all extraordinary warriors, but they are vulnerable. I needed to portray this in book 2, to increase the impact of 'The Truth' Michelle hated it, but it's a book which is supposed to be a rocky ride. I suppose I'm even trying to evoke some sympathy for the companions in the reader. They don't have a great time. Even at the end, the future looks grimmer than it would otherwise have, given the revelation of 'The Truth'.
I hate to say it but Michelle has understood the book fully and has captured the spirit of the book very well. It's powerful, it's a strong book - but it's not a fluffy fairies, happy land tale.
So where does the story go in book 3? Do things get better for the companions?
Maybe, maybe a bit. None of them easily comes to term with 'The Truth' they perhaps don't entirely believe it. When they eventually make it to Cormaroth, they have a new companion, who reinforces their belief in the 'The Truth'. The religious establishment in Cormaroth - the Isharian church will obviously NOT like 'The Truth' and will seek to suppress it. Korhan and Vashni's relationship will develop, Vashni's, Votrex's, and Saul's pasts will be explained more thoroughly. A theme which begins to come into play is the theme of religious oppression and the evil that men will do in the name of religion.
So how does this stand? Who is not going to like the series? If you are a devout, fundamentalist Christian or Jihadist, Extremist Muslim, or Scientologist or Hard-line Jew, you are not going to enjoy Deathsworn Arc. I am being honest here, I didn't write the books to offend you, but I didn't write them for your enjoyment. I write them for free-thinkers, skeptics, agnostics, people with an interest in theology as a phenomenon, rather than as a fact and a way of life.
Torea is NOT our world. Yes, the Isharian Church, the Savti, Orion, Avanti, Lucian the Deceiver and the dwarfish god Etheron have their parallels in our world. Yes the people of Torea would like to take their seat in Kirkfell after death, and fear Avanti and the spectres of the abyss. But Torea is Torea and Earth is Earth. I am interested in religion, but I'm atheist, I'm atheist through and through. If I was shown convincing, repeatable, observable and measurable evidence that there was a god, I might choose to believe. As a rational person I find the web of religions and gods throughout human history to be perplexing - how can any person decide their religion is the true one religion? And all the others are made up?
Why would a supreme being capable of creating reality itself, be really interested in how a bunch of hair-less, semi-aquatic apes on one tiny planet, in one tiny solar system, of one tiny galaxy in possibly a multitude of universes spend their time?
I can't rationalize it, anyway I look at it, creationism in any religion makes no sense at all. If you are creationist, I invite you give 'The Deathsworn Arc' a miss, because you won't enjoy it.
Brael Truthseeker is the Richard Dawkins of Fantasy Fiction.
'Brael Truthseeker is the Richard Dawkins of Fantasy Fiction.'
This thought occurred to me yesterday. Richard Dawkins is very much a Brael Truthseeker of House Krazic. An odd thought you might think, and it wasn't intentional - but I think there are real parallels between the author and biologist and the fictional character.
Let me explain; I was introduced to Richard Dawkins through his book The God Delusion. I bought in at Manchester or Birmingham air port on a whim, whilst waiting in the departure lounge. I read it and really enjoyed it, I'd been questioning my vague beliefs and leaning towards atheism for a while. Reading the book felt like a pat on the back with a reassuring 'You're right' whispered in the ear by professor Dawkins. Well, maybe a shout in the ear - the book has some definite hatred and criticism of religions. It's filled with angst and vitriol for theism in general. The tone of the book really left me thinking, 'Wow! Dawkins really hates religion! I wonder where all that angst came from!?'
I think was an atheist before I read The God Delusion but it confirmed me I think. Science of the Discworld and other science books helped of course - the difference with The God Delusion was that it said, 'It's okay to be an atheist.' and it said, 'Don't give special privileges to religious beliefs. If they are ridiculous, treat them so - even if they are labeled 'religious'.
Having gained an interest in science and having confirmed my atheism. I decided to look into Dawkins earlier work. I was actually bought as a gift 'The Selfish Gene' one Christmas and read it cover to cover in a very short time. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but it was not what I was expecting.
In The Selfish Gene there was literally no mention of atheism or anti-theism at all. Certainly not with any intent. It was more a succinct and carefully crafted argument that evolution and natural selection were being examined from the wrong perspective, and that we should treat genes as the entities vying for survival using creatures, or organism's as survival machines. I can see why it raised eyebrows upon it's release. I think it was a new way of thinking. Dawkin's examples of evolutionary stable states within a population were fascinating and they made a compelling argument for how morality could come about in the absence of religion. The examples of altruistic behavior in non-human species reinforced this.
The actual part of the book which I think caused offense was probably the section on the 'god meme'. It's a tiny part of the book, but one which theists might find offensive. I don't recall any intense hatred of religion written in it, but more a matter-of-fact discussion on how the 'god meme' evolved and propagated.
I actually think if theists has ignored The Selfish Gene and just not mentioned it, Dawkin's wouldn't have become the figurehead for atheism which he became. When you read The God Delusion it's filled by a large chunk with rebuttals for theists attacks on his earlier work. If they'd ignored The Selfish Gene then he wouldn't have had the ammunition to write The God Delusion! I don't know about The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design I haven't read it yet - it's on my to read list, but I suspect it only exists because theists threw their arms up at The Selfish Gene
I love that we can make fun of religion. It feels liberating to think that religious beliefs can be ridiculed. This is my favorite song mocking religion:-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendly...
So Dawkins, was an accidental anti-theist in my view. I may be wrong, but I don't see a lot of anti-religion vitriol in The Selfish Gene.
The same is true of Brael Truthseeker. In The Last Dragon Slayer he's been left cursed unable to talk about 'The Truth'. He's really portrayed as a character who society turned on because he discovered something society didn't like.
In The Verkreath Horror his curse is partially removed, allowing him to explain why he was cursed. In the story, Brael was able to do something which in reality we can't really do - disprove the existence of god. In a world where people took the existence of a god and an afterlife for granted, this has massive ramifications and none of the characters truly want to accept it. Their attitudes to death, morality and sense of purpose change through this revelation. It's a dangerous truth.
In The Blood Queen Brael makes his way to civilization. The church obviously knows about his 'Truth' and the effects it had on gravian society - hence the desire to shut him up. They stand to lose a lot, if Brael can disprove the existence of god - their livelihood, their status, and more. There is a real fear, rallying soldiers to battle is easy when telling them a glorious death in battle guarantees them a place in paradise.
The effects of 'The Truth' are potentially huge. What would happen in our world - if we could prove without a shadow of any doubt, that there was no god, no allah, no vishnu, no zeus, no odin...
I think the world would go through a difficult time. In the 1980's you might have thought the influence of religion was diminishing, but as in Torea, when religion and faith is under attack - it fights back, so does religion in out world. As science answers more and more questions, leaving less room for god - religion fights back.
I think it's fighting for it's very existence at the moment, the scary thing is, it appears to be winning. Western, rational muslims being radicalized and heading to join Isis in creating an Islamic State or Caliphate - how can this happen? Living in a society with checks and balances, justice and equality, with a welfare state and a policy of tolerance and inclusion - to live in a state where medieval rules apply and people are governed by barbarism and violence? How can people want this? It makes no sense to me, I don't see any mention of Isis supporters of the female gender. That isn't surprising, it would be more surprising if you did - it would infer women would want to exist as second class citizens, volunteer to undergo FGM and accept living their lives under a shroud.
Religion is fighting back and fighting back hard. I fear for the world, that's partly why I wrote 'The Deathsworn Arc' it's a way of expressing my fear and appealing for a more secular, rational and reasonable world, where people are able to live their lives, free from the shackles of religious oppression.
We should be thankful to the Brael Truthseekers and Richard Dawkins of this world, people are willing to fight for a better, secular world - based on reason and logic, rather than fear and superstition.
This thought occurred to me yesterday. Richard Dawkins is very much a Brael Truthseeker of House Krazic. An odd thought you might think, and it wasn't intentional - but I think there are real parallels between the author and biologist and the fictional character.
Let me explain; I was introduced to Richard Dawkins through his book The God Delusion. I bought in at Manchester or Birmingham air port on a whim, whilst waiting in the departure lounge. I read it and really enjoyed it, I'd been questioning my vague beliefs and leaning towards atheism for a while. Reading the book felt like a pat on the back with a reassuring 'You're right' whispered in the ear by professor Dawkins. Well, maybe a shout in the ear - the book has some definite hatred and criticism of religions. It's filled with angst and vitriol for theism in general. The tone of the book really left me thinking, 'Wow! Dawkins really hates religion! I wonder where all that angst came from!?'
I think was an atheist before I read The God Delusion but it confirmed me I think. Science of the Discworld and other science books helped of course - the difference with The God Delusion was that it said, 'It's okay to be an atheist.' and it said, 'Don't give special privileges to religious beliefs. If they are ridiculous, treat them so - even if they are labeled 'religious'.
Having gained an interest in science and having confirmed my atheism. I decided to look into Dawkins earlier work. I was actually bought as a gift 'The Selfish Gene' one Christmas and read it cover to cover in a very short time. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but it was not what I was expecting.
In The Selfish Gene there was literally no mention of atheism or anti-theism at all. Certainly not with any intent. It was more a succinct and carefully crafted argument that evolution and natural selection were being examined from the wrong perspective, and that we should treat genes as the entities vying for survival using creatures, or organism's as survival machines. I can see why it raised eyebrows upon it's release. I think it was a new way of thinking. Dawkin's examples of evolutionary stable states within a population were fascinating and they made a compelling argument for how morality could come about in the absence of religion. The examples of altruistic behavior in non-human species reinforced this.
The actual part of the book which I think caused offense was probably the section on the 'god meme'. It's a tiny part of the book, but one which theists might find offensive. I don't recall any intense hatred of religion written in it, but more a matter-of-fact discussion on how the 'god meme' evolved and propagated.
I actually think if theists has ignored The Selfish Gene and just not mentioned it, Dawkin's wouldn't have become the figurehead for atheism which he became. When you read The God Delusion it's filled by a large chunk with rebuttals for theists attacks on his earlier work. If they'd ignored The Selfish Gene then he wouldn't have had the ammunition to write The God Delusion! I don't know about The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design I haven't read it yet - it's on my to read list, but I suspect it only exists because theists threw their arms up at The Selfish Gene
I love that we can make fun of religion. It feels liberating to think that religious beliefs can be ridiculed. This is my favorite song mocking religion:-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendly...
So Dawkins, was an accidental anti-theist in my view. I may be wrong, but I don't see a lot of anti-religion vitriol in The Selfish Gene.
The same is true of Brael Truthseeker. In The Last Dragon Slayer he's been left cursed unable to talk about 'The Truth'. He's really portrayed as a character who society turned on because he discovered something society didn't like.
In The Verkreath Horror his curse is partially removed, allowing him to explain why he was cursed. In the story, Brael was able to do something which in reality we can't really do - disprove the existence of god. In a world where people took the existence of a god and an afterlife for granted, this has massive ramifications and none of the characters truly want to accept it. Their attitudes to death, morality and sense of purpose change through this revelation. It's a dangerous truth.
In The Blood Queen Brael makes his way to civilization. The church obviously knows about his 'Truth' and the effects it had on gravian society - hence the desire to shut him up. They stand to lose a lot, if Brael can disprove the existence of god - their livelihood, their status, and more. There is a real fear, rallying soldiers to battle is easy when telling them a glorious death in battle guarantees them a place in paradise.
The effects of 'The Truth' are potentially huge. What would happen in our world - if we could prove without a shadow of any doubt, that there was no god, no allah, no vishnu, no zeus, no odin...
I think the world would go through a difficult time. In the 1980's you might have thought the influence of religion was diminishing, but as in Torea, when religion and faith is under attack - it fights back, so does religion in out world. As science answers more and more questions, leaving less room for god - religion fights back.
I think it's fighting for it's very existence at the moment, the scary thing is, it appears to be winning. Western, rational muslims being radicalized and heading to join Isis in creating an Islamic State or Caliphate - how can this happen? Living in a society with checks and balances, justice and equality, with a welfare state and a policy of tolerance and inclusion - to live in a state where medieval rules apply and people are governed by barbarism and violence? How can people want this? It makes no sense to me, I don't see any mention of Isis supporters of the female gender. That isn't surprising, it would be more surprising if you did - it would infer women would want to exist as second class citizens, volunteer to undergo FGM and accept living their lives under a shroud.
Religion is fighting back and fighting back hard. I fear for the world, that's partly why I wrote 'The Deathsworn Arc' it's a way of expressing my fear and appealing for a more secular, rational and reasonable world, where people are able to live their lives, free from the shackles of religious oppression.
We should be thankful to the Brael Truthseekers and Richard Dawkins of this world, people are willing to fight for a better, secular world - based on reason and logic, rather than fear and superstition.
