He’s the man who thinks some people are less than human. (I find that hard to forget or see past - looks like it’s just me though.)
So what were you reacting to? Seems to me you just dragged up a long-dead thread for no good reason. This is the internet. No one remembers anything for more than a week.
Colin, do you remember when you first joined the Ship, earlier this year? You wanted to know if you could ask us questions for research for your novel, and people were explaining that this is an online community, where we have open-ended discussion. And you said you had no experience of online community and no interest in open ended discussion.
Well, I have quite a bit of experience of various online communities, and people behave in a similar way to 'real life' communities. They get to know each other. Getting to know each other means observing and remembering what people say, how they treat people, what their views are, etc. Many people stay in online communities for years, and form friendships. They decide who they like and who they dislike, who they want to interact with and who they don't, just like in any group of people, and this is based on their observations of people. It changes over time because most people change and develop over time. Every new thing you say, people will process together with what they already have observed of you, and they build up a sense of who you are, and how/whether to interact with you.
Of course, most people don't remember the details of everything you've ever said, but if you say something that evokes an emotional reaction (especially if you say something that shocks or upsets people, and leads them to see you as a nasty person), people are going to remember - that sort of thing sticks in people's minds. I appreciate you say you don't have good emotional intelligence, but this aspect of human nature is something very basic that can be learnt in an intro to psychology class/book. I realise you've said you're not interested in developing your emotional intelligence, but learning the basics of psychology would actually help you become a better writer - it would give your characters more depth and complexity - in addition to making you less confused by people's reactions to you here.
I have had experience of an online community in the forums on the old Authonomy web site run by Harper Collins. What was new is the open-ended kind of discussion here and the length of time the community has been running.
It might be pertinent that having lived in some twenty towns cities and villages scattered across ten countries my experience of real-world communities has often been transient and some of my oldest friends are Facebook friends who I've never actually met.
If people dislike something I say they can ignore it and ignore me. I'm quite happy being ignored. What is odd is revisiting stuff and turning it over again.
I am actually quite good at creating characters, as proven by feedback (other than on here) to my writing.
Thank you for your thoughts, but really I am fine.
I am quite happy ignoring you, and plan to continue blissfully doing this from now on. However, this space in particular is one where denizens often choose not to ignore someone who behaves like a dickhead, which is what you've done. So, you can either ignore that, or accept it. Given how gratifying you are clearly finding all this attention, I am pretty sure what you are going to do, but claiming people should just ignore your douchebaggery is pretty disingenuous.
Dan Brown immediately springs to mind as a best-selling author whose books are really terribly written, all considerations of the subject matter aside.
I was going to offer 50 Shades of Grey as evidence of the same principle.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read said opus in full. I have read sufficient extracts on the web to conclude that the writing is terrible, however.)
50 Shades is crap, but some of the Amazon reviews are very entertaining.
The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
Narrator: He neither understood the hotel trade, nor Christianity.
That's my point. For the purposes of the thing I am writing I don't need to understand Christianity. All it needs to do is resemble what most people think Christianity is like.
But you see, that's the problem right there. If you get the surface right but the deeper stuff wrong, you'll basically annoy the hell out of the people who actually know what you're talking about, and the rest of the people learn nothing and gain nothing (except perhaps a passing few minutes of amusement) from your writing. Is that all you want? Because I only value and return to a writer if his/her books have more depth than a frogpond in August. Otherwise I feel cheated--I can never get those wasted minutes of my life back again. And yes, I'm talking about fiction.
Dan Brown immediately springs to mind as a best-selling author whose books are really terribly written, all considerations of the subject matter aside.
I was going to offer 50 Shades of Grey as evidence of the same principle.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read said opus in full. I have read sufficient extracts on the web to conclude that the writing is terrible, however.)
My sister once threw this book across the room and exclaimed, "Lamb Chopped, even you could write a better book than that!" Ah, happy days.
The piece I am working on is a farce full of ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations and about as realistic a depiction of real Christianity as Fawlty Towers is of the hotel trade so there's no need for great psychological depth.
Narrator: He neither understood the hotel trade, nor Christianity.
That's my point. For the purposes of the thing I am writing I don't need to understand Christianity. All it needs to do is resemble what most people think Christianity is like.
But you see, that's the problem right there. If you get the surface right but the deeper stuff wrong, you'll basically annoy the hell out of the people who actually know what you're talking about, and the rest of the people learn nothing and gain nothing (except perhaps a passing few minutes of amusement) from your writing. Is that all you want? Because I only value and return to a writer if his/her books have more depth than a frogpond in August. Otherwise I feel cheated--I can never get those wasted minutes of my life back again. And yes, I'm talking about fiction.
So far as depicting Church going Christians, yes, that's all the depth I need. The main focus of the book is elsewhere. Plus I'm exaggerating everything for comic effect.
Father Ted is an immensely popular TV series about priests in Ireland but I don't suppose it has any depths so far as actual belief is concerned and it doesn't depict what priests actually do.
But speaking as a railway enthusiast with a decent bit of knowledge of the subject I know exactly what you mean about getting annoyed when things are wrong in historical dramas.
Father Ted is an immensely popular TV series about priests in Ireland but I don't suppose it has any depths so far as actual belief is concerned and it doesn't depict what priests actually do.
There is spiritual depth in all good comedy that depicts Christians. It is what gives the work authenticity. Rev is a good example. The heart comes from the fact his calling is real. There is spirituality in Father Ted. Ludicrous though the situations may be it is there
Father Ted is an immensely popular TV series about priests in Ireland but I don't suppose it has any depths so far as actual belief is concerned and it doesn't depict what priests actually do.
The stupid. It burns.
Okay. So are you saying that Father Ted does have depths regarding belief that I am unaware of and does depict what priests actually do? Or are you pointing out that asking Christians about their beliefs when I intend to exaggerate and misrepresent them to some degree for comic and or dramatic effect is unlikely to end well.
Oh dear Lord. Look, the reason Fawlty Towers is funny is the same reason that Father Ted is funny is the same reason Black Books or The Office is funny. It's because they're true. They're exaggerated, but they're still true. What you'd show us is a couple of guys in clerical collars hitting each other over the head with thuribles for half an hour. What Father Ted gave us was a depth and height and width to their world that goes far beyond a superficial prat-stick veneer, and Linehan and Mathews absolutely knew their stuff.
Look, I haven't watched the show. But what you absolutely need to get right is the Christian worldview and the attitudes, behaviors, concerns and sillinesses that flow out of that worldview.
Case in point. Suppose you show us a Christian just absolutely blazing away with hatred for someone else, maybe another churchgoer. Unmitigated, unabashed hatred. And you have this go on for years. And meanwhile, the individual shows no sense of uneasiness, no self-questioning of "Hey, should I take another look at this?" and so forth. No struggle. And meanwhile he/she goes on attending church weekly, holding various church offices, and so forth--and nobody IN the church says a word to him/her about it either.
Is that a possible scenario? Sure, because it is a human scenario, and churchgoers are human. Is it likely? Will it ring true to your readers? I doubt it. The whole "love your enemies, forgive those who sin against you" thing is so saturated into Christian culture that even those who don't obey it feel guilty about it, and attempt to tone down their bad behavior. The same is true for attitudes that despise the weak, the poor, the disabled, and the very old or young. Christ's care for those people is so engrained in the Christian worldview that your only two realistic options for a fictional churchgoer's attitude are either true love and care, or else hypocrisy. Nobody's going to stand up and "own it" when it comes to, er, Trump-like attitudes. Even the evangelicals who support him (God help us) are only able to do so by shutting their eyes tight, tight, tight and coming up with convoluted theories about Gentile (read: non-believing) rulers who are nevertheless chosen and used of God. They must come up with this foolishness--it's the only way they can reconcile supporting him with their worldview.
So you see that both virtues and foolishness flow out of the worldview. You can easily make a villainous Christian, but you must do it with the kind of villainy that is native to those circles. That usually means hypocrisy, not outright "I am what I am" evil. It means your characters are going to act and speak in a more conflicted way than non-Christians--because to be a Christian is to be pulled in two directions (at least) at once, and to feel the strain fairly often. And that conflict will be evident not only in villains, but in completely ordinary people--because we all have negative aspects.
What else? Well, there's a distinct strand of amateurishness about Christian churches in general, which flows directly from the Christian worldview--namely, that what is in the heart matters more than the surface, and that all people ought to be valued and not just those who are more valuable in the eyes of the world. Because we fuck up on a regular basis, those beliefs sometimes result in us making fools of ourselves, appointing unqualified people to do certain jobs, and accepting substandard work with a sigh because we feel guilty holding people to higher standards. See also, "Christian pop music."
Other stuff. If you want to write tragedy, for your own sake stay away from Christians. The Resurrection and everything that flows with it just destroys true tragedy among us. Nothing evil is ever permanent, and no loss is unredeemable. This fucks up any attempt to set a true, unrelieved tragedy among us, and forces Christian playwrights who wish to write tragedy to set them back in pagan times or the like. Otherwise the light keeps breaking in.
There are about a million other things, but I'll shut up about them now.
I know this is TL;DR, but I'm hoping you can get a sense of WHY you should not attempt to write Christian characters with a knowledge that comes wholly from the outside. You just aren't going to get the laughs, unless all your readers are as uninformed as you are. It's like a guy I know who thought he could write chicklit because he'd read a bit and was familiar with the formulas. His book was a disaster, and it didn't sell (unlike his other titles). The problem was clear: his main character was a woman, and he had written her with none of the characteristics that real live women have. (Before you-all jump on me, I'm thinking of things like at least a passing concern for her own safety--I never saw a woman who so blithely walked through dangerous situations like she did, with never a thought of rape or murder or "Who the hell is that in my apartment?")
Oh dear Lord. Look, the reason Fawlty Towers is funny is the same reason that Father Ted is funny is the same reason Black Books or The Office is funny. It's because they're true. They're exaggerated, but they're still true. What you'd show us is a couple of guys in clerical collars hitting each other over the head with thuribles for half an hour. What Father Ted gave us was a depth and height and width to their world that goes far beyond a superficial prat-stick veneer, and Linehan and Mathews absolutely knew their stuff.
Look, I haven't watched the show. But what you absolutely need to get right is the Christian worldview and the attitudes, behaviors, concerns and sillinesses that flow out of that worldview.
Case in point. Suppose you show us a Christian just absolutely blazing away with hatred for someone else, maybe another churchgoer. Unmitigated, unabashed hatred. And you have this go on for years. And meanwhile, the individual shows no sense of uneasiness, no self-questioning of "Hey, should I take another look at this?" and so forth. No struggle. And meanwhile he/she goes on attending church weekly, holding various church offices, and so forth--and nobody IN the church says a word to him/her about it either.
Is that a possible scenario? Sure, because it is a human scenario, and churchgoers are human. Is it likely? Will it ring true to your readers? I doubt it. The whole "love your enemies, forgive those who sin against you" thing is so saturated into Christian culture that even those who don't obey it feel guilty about it, and attempt to tone down their bad behavior. The same is true for attitudes that despise the weak, the poor, the disabled, and the very old or young. Christ's care for those people is so engrained in the Christian worldview that your only two realistic options for a fictional churchgoer's attitude are either true love and care, or else hypocrisy. Nobody's going to stand up and "own it" when it comes to, er, Trump-like attitudes. Even the evangelicals who support him (God help us) are only able to do so by shutting their eyes tight, tight, tight and coming up with convoluted theories about Gentile (read: non-believing) rulers who are nevertheless chosen and used of God. They must come up with this foolishness--it's the only way they can reconcile supporting him with their worldview.
So you see that both virtues and foolishness flow out of the worldview. You can easily make a villainous Christian, but you must do it with the kind of villainy that is native to those circles. That usually means hypocrisy, not outright "I am what I am" evil. It means your characters are going to act and speak in a more conflicted way than non-Christians--because to be a Christian is to be pulled in two directions (at least) at once, and to feel the strain fairly often. And that conflict will be evident not only in villains, but in completely ordinary people--because we all have negative aspects.
What else? Well, there's a distinct strand of amateurishness about Christian churches in general, which flows directly from the Christian worldview--namely, that what is in the heart matters more than the surface, and that all people ought to be valued and not just those who are more valuable in the eyes of the world. Because we fuck up on a regular basis, those beliefs sometimes result in us making fools of ourselves, appointing unqualified people to do certain jobs, and accepting substandard work with a sigh because we feel guilty holding people to higher standards. See also, "Christian pop music."
Other stuff. If you want to write tragedy, for your own sake stay away from Christians. The Resurrection and everything that flows with it just destroys true tragedy among us. Nothing evil is ever permanent, and no loss is unredeemable. This fucks up any attempt to set a true, unrelieved tragedy among us, and forces Christian playwrights who wish to write tragedy to set them back in pagan times or the like. Otherwise the light keeps breaking in.
There are about a million other things, but I'll shut up about them now.
I know this is TL;DR, but I'm hoping you can get a sense of WHY you should not attempt to write Christian characters with a knowledge that comes wholly from the outside. You just aren't going to get the laughs, unless all your readers are as uninformed as you are. It's like a guy I know who thought he could write chicklit because he'd read a bit and was familiar with the formulas. His book was a disaster, and it didn't sell (unlike his other titles). The problem was clear: his main character was a woman, and he had written her with none of the characteristics that real live women have. (Before you-all jump on me, I'm thinking of things like at least a passing concern for her own safety--I never saw a woman who so blithely walked through dangerous situations like she did, with never a thought of rape or murder or "Who the hell is that in my apartment?")
Thank you for your comment which I read in full. Most of your scenarios are not what I am depicting. The amateurism I am aware of and have incorporated. Incidentally, the same amateurism exists in am-dram. The hypocrisy I am fully aware of.
I initially approached The Ship because I wanted to find out more about Christian belief in order to depict them with greater depth and was rebuffed.
I am now being criticised for not depicting Christians accurately.
I am now going to research Christians by binge watching The Vicar Of Dibley.
I am now going to research Christians by binge watching The Vicar Of Dibley.
I'm assuming you think this is a sarcastic answer, but like in oh so many things, you are wrong. The Vicar of Dibley is utterly rooted in village church life - and again Curtis and Mayhew-Archer (co-writer of Old Harry's Game, which I think you admire) know their ecclesial politics and folk faith extraordinarily well. Watching the VoD is pretty much the best thing you can do, although whether you have the wit to appreciate just why it's funny is a different matter.
Look, I haven't watched the show. But what you absolutely need to get right is the Christian worldview and the attitudes, behaviors, concerns and sillinesses that flow out of that worldview.
Case in point. Suppose you show us a Christian just absolutely blazing away with hatred for someone else, maybe another churchgoer. Unmitigated, unabashed hatred. And you have this go on for years. And meanwhile, the individual shows no sense of uneasiness, no self-questioning of "Hey, should I take another look at this?" and so forth. No struggle. And meanwhile he/she goes on attending church weekly, holding various church offices, and so forth--and nobody IN the church says a word to him/her about it either.
Is that a possible scenario? Sure, because it is a human scenario, and churchgoers are human. Is it likely? Will it ring true to your readers? I doubt it. The whole "love your enemies, forgive those who sin against you" thing is so saturated into Christian culture that even those who don't obey it feel guilty about it, and attempt to tone down their bad behavior. The same is true for attitudes that despise the weak, the poor, the disabled, and the very old or young. Christ's care for those people is so engrained in the Christian worldview that your only two realistic options for a fictional churchgoer's attitude are either true love and care, or else hypocrisy. Nobody's going to stand up and "own it" when it comes to, er, Trump-like attitudes. Even the evangelicals who support him (God help us) are only able to do so by shutting their eyes tight, tight, tight and coming up with convoluted theories about Gentile (read: non-believing) rulers who are nevertheless chosen and used of God. They must come up with this foolishness--it's the only way they can reconcile supporting him with their worldview.
So you see that both virtues and foolishness flow out of the worldview. You can easily make a villainous Christian, but you must do it with the kind of villainy that is native to those circles. That usually means hypocrisy, not outright "I am what I am" evil. It means your characters are going to act and speak in a more conflicted way than non-Christians--because to be a Christian is to be pulled in two directions (at least) at once, and to feel the strain fairly often. And that conflict will be evident not only in villains, but in completely ordinary people--because we all have negative aspects.
What else? Well, there's a distinct strand of amateurishness about Christian churches in general, which flows directly from the Christian worldview--namely, that what is in the heart matters more than the surface, and that all people ought to be valued and not just those who are more valuable in the eyes of the world. Because we fuck up on a regular basis, those beliefs sometimes result in us making fools of ourselves, appointing unqualified people to do certain jobs, and accepting substandard work with a sigh because we feel guilty holding people to higher standards. See also, "Christian pop music."
Other stuff. If you want to write tragedy, for your own sake stay away from Christians. The Resurrection and everything that flows with it just destroys true tragedy among us. Nothing evil is ever permanent, and no loss is unredeemable. This fucks up any attempt to set a true, unrelieved tragedy among us, and forces Christian playwrights who wish to write tragedy to set them back in pagan times or the like. Otherwise the light keeps breaking in.
There are about a million other things, but I'll shut up about them now.
I know this is TL;DR, but I'm hoping you can get a sense of WHY you should not attempt to write Christian characters with a knowledge that comes wholly from the outside. You just aren't going to get the laughs, unless all your readers are as uninformed as you are. It's like a guy I know who thought he could write chicklit because he'd read a bit and was familiar with the formulas. His book was a disaster, and it didn't sell (unlike his other titles). The problem was clear: his main character was a woman, and he had written her with none of the characteristics that real live women have. (Before you-all jump on me, I'm thinking of things like at least a passing concern for her own safety--I never saw a woman who so blithely walked through dangerous situations like she did, with never a thought of rape or murder or "Who the hell is that in my apartment?")
Thank you for your comment which I read in full. Most of your scenarios are not what I am depicting. The amateurism I am aware of and have incorporated. Incidentally, the same amateurism exists in am-dram. The hypocrisy I am fully aware of.
I initially approached The Ship because I wanted to find out more about Christian belief in order to depict them with greater depth and was rebuffed.
I am now being criticised for not depicting Christians accurately.
I am now going to research Christians by binge watching The Vicar Of Dibley.
Wouldn’t the best way to research Christians be by reading some of the copious amounts of literature Christians have produced and maybe attending a couple different churches?
I am now going to research Christians by binge watching The Vicar Of Dibley.
I'm assuming you think this is a sarcastic answer, but like in oh so many things, you are wrong. The Vicar of Dibley is utterly rooted in village church life - and again Curtis and Mayhew-Archer (co-writer of Old Harry's Game, which I think you admire) know their ecclesial politics and folk faith extraordinarily well. Watching the VoD is pretty much the best thing you can do, although whether you have the wit to appreciate just why it's funny is a different matter.
Actually, not being sarcastic at all and it's something I should have already done.
The only reasons I haven't is (a) it's a bit saccharine for my taste (b) I have a soft spot for the lovely and late-lamented Emma Chambers (c) it's not available online (at least not for free) but I have now ordered the DVDs from my local library.
If you're implying that I won't get all the jokes because I'm not a Christian, then I entirely agree with you.
Look, I haven't watched the show. But what you absolutely need to get right is the Christian worldview and the attitudes, behaviors, concerns and sillinesses that flow out of that worldview.
Absolutely is and exaggeration. One does generally need some knowledge and accuracy, but the level necessary depends on the audience. We could do a writers workshop and get into examples and that would be fun, but this is Colin Smith's thread and I'm not sure he'd be able to participate.
Absolutely is and exaggeration. One does generally need some knowledge and accuracy, but the level necessary depends on the audience. We could do a writers workshop and get into examples and that would be fun, but this is Colin Smith's thread and I'm not sure he'd be able to participate.
If I am able to participate in such a group then I would love to take part in it.
You are right that the level of accuracy needed depends on the intended audience/readership and I'd also add that the writer has no duty to accurately represent anything as the primary purpose of any work of fiction is to entertain the intended readership, whatever that may be.
Research, as you probably know, serves two main purposes when writing fiction. It grounds the fiction in a recognisable reality (that applies even when the reality is an invented one like Westeros or Middle earth) and it provides material for the imagination to work with. What you're after isn't accuracy or truth, but verisimilitude.
You can do that, yes. But really--have you no internal drive for quality? Most authors I know would rather do a good popular job than one that is merely popular. Because it's their creation, dontchaknow, and they want it to be as good as it possibly can.
But to give the appearance of truth to an untrue thing, one needs to have a good understanding of what true feels like. And we are back to awareness.
Or you can simply confirm the assumptions of your reader.
For example, almost all crime drama on TV and in literature bears little relation to what the police actually do.
First, understanding the assumptions of your reader is awareness.
And your point is inaccurate besides that anyway. They are distortions, yes. But they are connected to what law enforcement does. One would need to go show by show, but sometimes police is a framework for drama, so accuracy is not the point.
When procedure is a point it needs to be internally consistent and that, again, is back to awareness.
Clearly this is a man who never picked up a Barbara Cartland novel.
AFF
Cartland is an excellent example of what I mean. Wrote over 700 titles and sold over a billion copies, according to wiki.
I'm sure I would loathe every minute if I tried to read one but she was undeniable a good writer for those who wish to read her books.
Oh yes, qualify your statement now. LOL.
You've only succeeded in confirming my suspicions that success in writing, as far as you're concerned, is in sales numbers. Any writer who brings in the bucks must be a good writer and a successful one because hey, look at their bank account.
Forty million idiots with a buck to throw at you can't possibly be wrong. De gustibus non es disputandum.
You can do that, yes. But really--have you no internal drive for quality? Most authors I know would rather do a good popular job than one that is merely popular. Because it's their creation, dontchaknow, and they want it to be as good as it possibly can.
This strikes me as overly simplistic and an extension of the art vs commercialisation argument.
Most creatives I know want some combination of both and are often not consistent between projects. Eating and paying bills are things. As are creative integrity and ego.
And, again, we wander into complexities that are likely beyond our hero's likely comprehension.
Other stuff. If you want to write tragedy, for your own sake stay away from Christians. The Resurrection and everything that flows with it just destroys true tragedy among us. Nothing evil is ever permanent, and no loss is unredeemable. This fucks up any attempt to set a true, unrelieved tragedy among us, and forces Christian playwrights who wish to write tragedy to set them back in pagan times or the like. Otherwise the light keeps breaking in.
[unHellish comment] I love the Ship. [/unHellish comment]
Police dramas aren't aimed at an audience of police. They might well roll their eyes and say "This is stupid, this is nothing like we do." And if your audience contains no Christians, then fucking up the verisimilitude vis-a-vis their lived faith doesn't matter. If one wants to sell books to Christians (or ex-Christians who will know what the faith is like from the inside also) as well as everybody not in that faith, then it does.
And the sly monks in the 4th Century that invented the Bible.
I'd say the vaaaaaast majority of monks in the 4th century were hiding in caves in Palestine and the Nitrian desert of Egypt. The canon of Christian scripture was invented by bishops in centers of power. The drafty monastery with cowled monks hunched over illuminated manuscripts came a good bit later.
Police dramas aren't aimed at an audience of police.
Sure, they're not. But most of us, no matter how benignly, have interacted with the real-life police at some point, and we read the news and know some of the most commonly broken laws and their judicial consequences. So if they stray too far from what's possible, then the book hits the wall.
And most of the crime writers I know are absolute sticklers for procedure. They might allow themselves a handwave on the length of time it takes for something to happen/results to come back, but they wear their accuracy as a badge of honour.
Police dramas aren't aimed at an audience of police.
Sure, they're not. But most of us, no matter how benignly, have interacted with the real-life police at some point, and we read the news and know some of the most commonly broken laws and their judicial consequences. So if they stray too far from what's possible, then the book hits the wall.
And most of the crime writers I know are absolute sticklers for procedure. They might allow themselves a handwave on the length of time it takes for something to happen/results to come back, but they wear their accuracy as a badge of honour.
We know different people. On the screen, large or small, there is more inaccuracy than accuracy when it comes to behaviour and procedure. Well, I haven't sat and done the spreadsheet, but there is inaccuracy galore.
The forensics people I've dealt with can talk for some time about just how wrongly things are depicted. As could the police.
Books are a more mixed bag, IME.
Police dramas aren't aimed at an audience of police.
Sure, they're not. But most of us, no matter how benignly, have interacted with the real-life police at some point, and we read the news and know some of the most commonly broken laws and their judicial consequences. So if they stray too far from what's possible, then the book hits the wall.
And most of the crime writers I know are absolute sticklers for procedure. They might allow themselves a handwave on the length of time it takes for something to happen/results to come back, but they wear their accuracy as a badge of honour.
Yes, this is my experience.
And it's not safe to judge a writer's performance by what finally hits the screen. Others get a say on that--sometimes an overwhelming say.
Other stuff. If you want to write tragedy, for your own sake stay away from Christians. The Resurrection and everything that flows with it just destroys true tragedy among us. Nothing evil is ever permanent, and no loss is unredeemable. This fucks up any attempt to set a true, unrelieved tragedy among us, and forces Christian playwrights who wish to write tragedy to set them back in pagan times or the like. Otherwise the light keeps breaking in.
[unHellish comment] I love the Ship. [/unHellish comment]
You know, something related to this came up when my son was trying to write fiction and briefly proposed making God a character in it. I had to discourage him, as God (the God I know, anyway) has the same sort of disruptive quality that a blast of sunshine through the window has on somebody's screened presentation. Just whites it out, unless you are damned careful and fortunate. I think this is why Lewis, for instance, has Aslan off screen so much--and why so many books and movies that include Jesus as a speaking, acting character run into trouble (or else stylize him).
Milton tried it. Even he couldn't pull it off IMHO. Paradise Regained basically sucks from that viewpoint. Better to frame your story in such a way that you don't need to drag such a disruptive character in at all.
Tangent. The Vicar of Dibley was based on one of the first women priests in the CoE, a friend of mine. The writers, and sometimes Dawn French, sat at the back of several of her services to get information. At times French says things in the same way my friend would.
Comments
I am quite happy ignoring you, and plan to continue blissfully doing this from now on. However, this space in particular is one where denizens often choose not to ignore someone who behaves like a dickhead, which is what you've done. So, you can either ignore that, or accept it. Given how gratifying you are clearly finding all this attention, I am pretty sure what you are going to do, but claiming people should just ignore your douchebaggery is pretty disingenuous.
Clearly this is a man who never picked up a Barbara Cartland novel.
AFF
Or had the pained experience of reading Instagram poetry. The horror, the horror, but oh so successful.
And, one has to admit, @Colin Smith probably does aspire to be as good with words as Donald Trump. #covfefe
Though I doubt the lack helps in that regard either.
50 Shades is crap, but some of the Amazon reviews are very entertaining.
But you see, that's the problem right there. If you get the surface right but the deeper stuff wrong, you'll basically annoy the hell out of the people who actually know what you're talking about, and the rest of the people learn nothing and gain nothing (except perhaps a passing few minutes of amusement) from your writing. Is that all you want? Because I only value and return to a writer if his/her books have more depth than a frogpond in August. Otherwise I feel cheated--I can never get those wasted minutes of my life back again. And yes, I'm talking about fiction.
My sister once threw this book across the room and exclaimed, "Lamb Chopped, even you could write a better book than that!" Ah, happy days.
I am in a facebook group where you post articles about Australian politics but can only comment in haiku. It is quite amusing.
Cartland is an excellent example of what I mean. Wrote over 700 titles and sold over a billion copies, according to wiki.
I'm sure I would loathe every minute if I tried to read one but she was undeniable a good writer for those who wish to read her books.
So far as depicting Church going Christians, yes, that's all the depth I need. The main focus of the book is elsewhere. Plus I'm exaggerating everything for comic effect.
Father Ted is an immensely popular TV series about priests in Ireland but I don't suppose it has any depths so far as actual belief is concerned and it doesn't depict what priests actually do.
But speaking as a railway enthusiast with a decent bit of knowledge of the subject I know exactly what you mean about getting annoyed when things are wrong in historical dramas.
The stupid. It burns.
Okay. So are you saying that Father Ted does have depths regarding belief that I am unaware of and does depict what priests actually do? Or are you pointing out that asking Christians about their beliefs when I intend to exaggerate and misrepresent them to some degree for comic and or dramatic effect is unlikely to end well.
Case in point. Suppose you show us a Christian just absolutely blazing away with hatred for someone else, maybe another churchgoer. Unmitigated, unabashed hatred. And you have this go on for years. And meanwhile, the individual shows no sense of uneasiness, no self-questioning of "Hey, should I take another look at this?" and so forth. No struggle. And meanwhile he/she goes on attending church weekly, holding various church offices, and so forth--and nobody IN the church says a word to him/her about it either.
Is that a possible scenario? Sure, because it is a human scenario, and churchgoers are human. Is it likely? Will it ring true to your readers? I doubt it. The whole "love your enemies, forgive those who sin against you" thing is so saturated into Christian culture that even those who don't obey it feel guilty about it, and attempt to tone down their bad behavior. The same is true for attitudes that despise the weak, the poor, the disabled, and the very old or young. Christ's care for those people is so engrained in the Christian worldview that your only two realistic options for a fictional churchgoer's attitude are either true love and care, or else hypocrisy. Nobody's going to stand up and "own it" when it comes to, er, Trump-like attitudes. Even the evangelicals who support him (God help us) are only able to do so by shutting their eyes tight, tight, tight and coming up with convoluted theories about Gentile (read: non-believing) rulers who are nevertheless chosen and used of God. They must come up with this foolishness--it's the only way they can reconcile supporting him with their worldview.
So you see that both virtues and foolishness flow out of the worldview. You can easily make a villainous Christian, but you must do it with the kind of villainy that is native to those circles. That usually means hypocrisy, not outright "I am what I am" evil. It means your characters are going to act and speak in a more conflicted way than non-Christians--because to be a Christian is to be pulled in two directions (at least) at once, and to feel the strain fairly often. And that conflict will be evident not only in villains, but in completely ordinary people--because we all have negative aspects.
What else? Well, there's a distinct strand of amateurishness about Christian churches in general, which flows directly from the Christian worldview--namely, that what is in the heart matters more than the surface, and that all people ought to be valued and not just those who are more valuable in the eyes of the world. Because we fuck up on a regular basis, those beliefs sometimes result in us making fools of ourselves, appointing unqualified people to do certain jobs, and accepting substandard work with a sigh because we feel guilty holding people to higher standards. See also, "Christian pop music."
Other stuff. If you want to write tragedy, for your own sake stay away from Christians. The Resurrection and everything that flows with it just destroys true tragedy among us. Nothing evil is ever permanent, and no loss is unredeemable. This fucks up any attempt to set a true, unrelieved tragedy among us, and forces Christian playwrights who wish to write tragedy to set them back in pagan times or the like. Otherwise the light keeps breaking in.
There are about a million other things, but I'll shut up about them now.
I know this is TL;DR, but I'm hoping you can get a sense of WHY you should not attempt to write Christian characters with a knowledge that comes wholly from the outside. You just aren't going to get the laughs, unless all your readers are as uninformed as you are. It's like a guy I know who thought he could write chicklit because he'd read a bit and was familiar with the formulas. His book was a disaster, and it didn't sell (unlike his other titles). The problem was clear: his main character was a woman, and he had written her with none of the characteristics that real live women have. (Before you-all jump on me, I'm thinking of things like at least a passing concern for her own safety--I never saw a woman who so blithely walked through dangerous situations like she did, with never a thought of rape or murder or "Who the hell is that in my apartment?")
This.
Thank you for your comment which I read in full. Most of your scenarios are not what I am depicting. The amateurism I am aware of and have incorporated. Incidentally, the same amateurism exists in am-dram. The hypocrisy I am fully aware of.
I initially approached The Ship because I wanted to find out more about Christian belief in order to depict them with greater depth and was rebuffed.
I am now being criticised for not depicting Christians accurately.
I am now going to research Christians by binge watching The Vicar Of Dibley.
I'm assuming you think this is a sarcastic answer, but like in oh so many things, you are wrong. The Vicar of Dibley is utterly rooted in village church life - and again Curtis and Mayhew-Archer (co-writer of Old Harry's Game, which I think you admire) know their ecclesial politics and folk faith extraordinarily well. Watching the VoD is pretty much the best thing you can do, although whether you have the wit to appreciate just why it's funny is a different matter.
Wouldn’t the best way to research Christians be by reading some of the copious amounts of literature Christians have produced and maybe attending a couple different churches?
Actually, not being sarcastic at all and it's something I should have already done.
The only reasons I haven't is (a) it's a bit saccharine for my taste (b) I have a soft spot for the lovely and late-lamented Emma Chambers (c) it's not available online (at least not for free) but I have now ordered the DVDs from my local library.
If you're implying that I won't get all the jokes because I'm not a Christian, then I entirely agree with you.
<-- Point--
.......Colin.......
I'm implying you won't understand that it's funny because of how true it is. And given everything you've said so far, I think I'll be right.
It is your lack awareness that is the problem. For this, and other, subjects.
If I am able to participate in such a group then I would love to take part in it.
You are right that the level of accuracy needed depends on the intended audience/readership and I'd also add that the writer has no duty to accurately represent anything as the primary purpose of any work of fiction is to entertain the intended readership, whatever that may be.
Research, as you probably know, serves two main purposes when writing fiction. It grounds the fiction in a recognisable reality (that applies even when the reality is an invented one like Westeros or Middle earth) and it provides material for the imagination to work with. What you're after isn't accuracy or truth, but verisimilitude.
Or you can simply confirm the assumptions of your reader.
For example, almost all crime drama on TV and in literature bears little relation to what the police actually do. And yet it's popular.
And your point is inaccurate besides that anyway. They are distortions, yes. But they are connected to what law enforcement does. One would need to go show by show, but sometimes police is a framework for drama, so accuracy is not the point.
When procedure is a point it needs to be internally consistent and that, again, is back to awareness.
Oh yes, qualify your statement now. LOL.
You've only succeeded in confirming my suspicions that success in writing, as far as you're concerned, is in sales numbers. Any writer who brings in the bucks must be a good writer and a successful one because hey, look at their bank account.
Forty million idiots with a buck to throw at you can't possibly be wrong. De gustibus non es disputandum.
AFF
Most creatives I know want some combination of both and are often not consistent between projects. Eating and paying bills are things. As are creative integrity and ego.
And, again, we wander into complexities that are likely beyond our hero's likely comprehension.
Awkwardly, that totally worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
And Joseph Smith.
And the sly monks in the 4th Century that invented the Bible.
[unHellish comment] I love the Ship. [/unHellish comment]
I'd say the vaaaaaast majority of monks in the 4th century were hiding in caves in Palestine and the Nitrian desert of Egypt. The canon of Christian scripture was invented by bishops in centers of power. The drafty monastery with cowled monks hunched over illuminated manuscripts came a good bit later.
Sure, they're not. But most of us, no matter how benignly, have interacted with the real-life police at some point, and we read the news and know some of the most commonly broken laws and their judicial consequences. So if they stray too far from what's possible, then the book hits the wall.
And most of the crime writers I know are absolute sticklers for procedure. They might allow themselves a handwave on the length of time it takes for something to happen/results to come back, but they wear their accuracy as a badge of honour.
The forensics people I've dealt with can talk for some time about just how wrongly things are depicted. As could the police.
Books are a more mixed bag, IME.
Yes, this is my experience.
And it's not safe to judge a writer's performance by what finally hits the screen. Others get a say on that--sometimes an overwhelming say.
You know, something related to this came up when my son was trying to write fiction and briefly proposed making God a character in it. I had to discourage him, as God (the God I know, anyway) has the same sort of disruptive quality that a blast of sunshine through the window has on somebody's screened presentation. Just whites it out, unless you are damned careful and fortunate. I think this is why Lewis, for instance, has Aslan off screen so much--and why so many books and movies that include Jesus as a speaking, acting character run into trouble (or else stylize him).
Milton tried it. Even he couldn't pull it off IMHO. Paradise Regained basically sucks from that viewpoint. Better to frame your story in such a way that you don't need to drag such a disruptive character in at all.
I challenge the assertion that any of Kipling’s stories successfully pull anything off.