Decisions, decisions

[chris_gerrib]

This may be another "go get a cup of coffee" post, so please bear with me. There are several apparently unrelated things I've been interested in exploring.

1) Religious fundamentalism. I'm very much a middle-of-the-road person politically (which puts me well to the right of the typical Making Light commenter), and I've always been that way. People who think they have a direct line to God (in particular) or All The Answers (in general) scare the piss out of me. Because if one Has All The Answers, debate, discussion or moderation with those that don't (like me) is not tolerated. For an example of that kind of faith, see these folks. A corollary to this is a strong tendency by the adherents of the Faith to confuse the map for the terrain.

2) Walling yourself off from evil. I really liked M. Night Shyamalan's movie The Village. It was critically panned, largely because people were expecting a twist ending and Adrien Brody thought he was playing the heavy in a Batman flick*, but I liked the concept. Basically, the adult Villagers wall themselves off from evil society, only to discover that one of their own becomes evil.

3) The Elizabeth Smart case. Basically, a religious nut (see point #1) kidnaps a 14-year-old girl and holds her for nine months. What's weird is that the girl is allowed to walk the streets, go to parties, etc., and even tries to convince the police that she's not the girl they're looking for. I really do not want to blame the victim, but I suspect that the typical 14-year-old would have responded differently. The difference? Religion.

So, I incorporated all of these factors in my novel Escape from New Deseret. The query letter for this novel was discussed in yesterday's post. I'm wondering if it's too much stuff in one sock, and if not, how do I sell it?



*Which is to say, just a little over-acting.

Comments

[jeff-duntemann.livejournal.com]

It's not too much stuff in one sock at all, and the topic is well worth exploring in depth. Too many SF writers feel that religion has no place in the future and hence in SF (I was told that repeatedly in the 1970s: Religion will be at best vestigial by 2000, heh...) and thus miss some of the deepest and strangest roots of human thought and feeling.

Religion is older than reason, and most religious feelings are primal, by which I mean governed by our evolutionary heritage more than by our culture. Culture can swamp individuals with weak God-genes, but where the God-gene is strong, well, it reinforces a related primal phenomenon, tribalism. The God-gene gives the tribe a reason to fight other tribes, by making the stakes infinite and the governing authority all-powerful. Those religions gaining adherents the fastest today are those with strong tribal machinery.

Rich material for fiction. Go for it--and apologize to no one, even those who will doubtless say, "I'm offended by this." Taking offense is an offensive strategy, in the other sense of offense, heh.

Elizabeth Smart

[(Anonymous)]

Elizabeth wasn't "allowed" to do anything. Her kidnappers dragged her around town and to ONE party(not several)while making her wear a disguise. Just because they used religion as an excuse to be kidnappers/rapists does not make religion a reason. Brian Mitchell was a psychotic sex offender long before he started using religion as an excuse for being one. He repeatedly raped and abused her in every way, threatened to kill her and her family, and told her he had associates watching her family and that if she tried anything her family would be killed. She's not psychic-she had no idea that he was lying to her. What if he hadn't been lying? As for the way she responded, have you heard of Stockholm Syndrome? I'm pretty sure that the typical 14-year-old girl who'd been repeatedly raped, abused, threatened with death and the deaths of her family, neglected and tied up would have responded the same way Elizabeth did. She was held hostage for nine months. Anyone who's ever been a hostage can tell you what it's like. Religion has nothing to do with how a hostage responds to her captor or to the police.

Re: Elizabeth Smart

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

There have been other kidnapped kids who were apparently brainwashed into staying with their captors - a boy in Ohio comes to mind.

My point was that her response (and the boy's) was not what we would commonly expect. I have in fact heard of Stockholm Syndrome. I've also heard of POWs, jailed inmates, the Warsaw ghetto, and all sorts of other folks who resisted unto death. My interest, from a fictional perspective, is why some people do resist and others don't.

Re: Elizabeth Smart

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

I read a book recently that gave me a new outlook on that sort of thing. Trauma and Recovery, I forget the author. (Yes, I read it for research.) It seems to come down to how strong your sense of personal identity is, because captivity generally destroys that. (Rape does that, but it seems that captivity is actually far harder to take.) It's an interesting book, if you're thinking of researching in that direction. Quite readable as well. jim_hines also said he'd read it.

Re: Elizabeth Smart

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Well, Elizabeth Smart may not have been the most appropriate character model. In the book, the character is more like the 14-year-old forced by the Fundies to marry her 19-year-old cousin. (What Warren Jeffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs) was convicted of.)

Re: Elizabeth Smart

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

Ah, makes sense....