John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2008-01-19 02:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Crystal Dragon Jesus
I am pleased beyond words that someone else not only noticed this phenomenon, but actually gave it a name:

Any fictional religion, such as those found in a Medieval European Fantasy, which possesses attributes stereotypically associated with Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism) -- such as priestly vestements, nuns and their habits, confessionals, the designs of houses of worship, and crosses -- but which centers on a deity other than the Christian God, like an animistic spirit or pagan-flavored god.

Much of the time, in order to finalize the separation, the deity worshipped is a goddess, as opposed to the male deity of most real-life religions. In these cases, they are usually just called "the Goddess". (This may be based off the common use by neopagan religions of this term to denote the main female deity.)
One example, particularly annoying to me, was of course the Religion of the Seven from GAME OF THRONES.
The Faith of the Seven, the predominant religion on the continent of Westeros in George R.R. Martin's A Song Of Ice And Fire series, is closely modeled after Roman Catholicism, complete with analogs to the Trinity (the Father, Mother, Warrior, Maid, Smith, Crone, and Stranger being aspects of the same deity), monastic orders, dormant military orders, and a Pope (the High Septon).
The reason why it annoys me, and has always (both before and after I joined the Christian religion) was the sheer sense of incoherence involved in the matter. Things in life, things in society, happen for a reason. Christianity developed out of the forms and laws and customs of Hellenized Jews, and so has Greek and Jewish elements in it, but all this was strained through the legal and moral percepts of Roman law and philosophy. The attributes stereotypically associated with "generic fantasy Middle Ages Church settings" are all Christian attributes because  THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A GENERIC MIDDLE AGES SETTING. The Middle Ages were Christian, not generic.

Specifically, they were the admixture of Northern barbarian cultural values mutating and being mutated by Italian and Greek civilization that they both admired and imitated and overran.

Knights are Christian. Heavy cavalry units from any other era and civilization simply are not knights, not the Paladin of Charlemagne, and simply do not have the other attributes of knighthood.

When Gary Gygax or George RR Martin attempt to construct a Faux Middle Ages setting, with castles and princesses and dragons and so on, but they don't want to offend anyone, so they want to leave the Christianity out of it, they also remove any reason for the institutions being and acting the way they do.

Tolkien came the closest to having a Faux Middle Ages that was actually medieval in feel and flavor, but the way he did it was by putting in place every element in his Middle Earth that had a parallel element in real earth, so the structure still made sense. Instead of the fall of the Roman Empire, we have the Fall of Numenor. Instead of the split of the empire East from West, we have the split of the Kingdom is Isildur, North from South. Instead of Constantinople, was have Minas Tirith. Instead of the paynims, we have the southrons, who look and act just like them. Instead of the Corsairs from north Africa, conquered Christian lands, we have the Corsairs of the Umbar, who once were Numenoreans, but then fell under the sway of the Dark Lord. Instead of the Turks, we have the Orcs.

But Tolkien carefully (almost unrealistically) removes any mention of religion from his world. We have a few references to Elbereth, the Star-kindler of the Elves, or to Eru, The One, and we can glean the names of the archangels from the SILMARILLION. But we do not see any services being held for soldier died on the battle field. There are no monkish or priestly orders, no chapels, no temples, no Sybil of Avernus and no Oracle of Delphi.

When I was reading GAME OF THRONES, the parallel between the crusading religion of the Seven and the "Old Ways" who carved faces into trees is a parallel to the relationship between growing Christianity and dying paganism in the post-Julian-the-Apostate days onward. But why does the religion of the Seven oppose other forms of worship? Why do they have priesthoods? In Rome and Athens, the priests were state functionaries who were usually members of royal or noble families, not a full-time profession involving oaths and special uniforms. There were no archibishops of Zeus and no Pope of Jupiter. Even the religion of the Mohammedans (which is as close to Christianity as you can get, once you remove the pessimism about man's estate, and the humanity of having a human god) did not have these Roman bureaucratic and militaristic hierarchic ideas.

My objection to such things is that they never seem to hang together, and they never seem to copy the real religious practices of other real religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism or the semireligious philosophy of Confucianism. That is because the Christians evolved something unique in history. Other religions have priests, and some oriental religions even have things like holy hermits who practice asceticism. The Roman genius for authority and organization (which has both its good and bad aspects) developed things like the Office of Pope and the canonical Holy Books. The holy books of other religions simply do not have the legal imprimateur of their established Church hierarchy, because there is no other institution like the Church. The closest parallel is to priestly families, as Levites among the Jews or Magi among the Zoroasterians, or a priestly caste, as Brahmins among the Hindu.

Its bogus. It is as bogus as shows that want to have Ninja, but don't want to take place in Japan, so they invent the Ninja of Arabia! or the Norse Ninja of Iceland! Yes, that ancient Viking assassin-clan that used magic and deception, and the rigorous training methods of Viking Buddhist monks, in the name of Odin!

Bogus as a three dollar bill. When the Gary Gygax of AD 4008 decides to make a 'Generic' pre-atomic war role playing game, the setting will always be the 'generic' federated republic composed of 50 smaller states who broke from the ethnic and monarchic ancient regimes of the Old World: these Genericans will always have Nine Supreme Judges robed in place, and a Senate like the senate of Rome, and a House of Representatives, modeled on the House of Commons in Britain ... BUT ... so as not to offend anyone, there will be no Supreme Executive officer of the Republic, indeed, no executive branch at all. There will never once be mentioned a man named George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. But every Generic nation set in the generic Twentieth Century will have a written constitutions. And they will always used the Bald Eagle as their symbol -- but let us never mention That Nation, lest someone in 4008 be offended.

Well, all you guys writing Generic Middle Ages, I hate to tell you, but --- only Christendom ever had a "Middle Ages" between the fall of Christian Rome and the rise of the powerful Christian Monarchies of the Renaissance. And even those monarchs were not like the leaders of other nations in Asia and Africa, because their theory of kingship was based on the sacrament of coronation, the anointing, and based on the idea of a law above even the law of kings, and other ideas that have their roots in Charlemagne, and in the Holy Roman Empire. A sultan is not a king, Rex, regis, and neither is a Tenno nor a Shogun. Kingship is different. There are periods in history when other empires rose and fell, but no example in any history of any continent, except Europe, of an empire that fell, whose culture and religion was preserved by the barbarians who overran it, and who erected the same empire again over and over: Caesar was born again as Czars and Kaisers: and the Senate was seated again in the Capitol, except on Capitol hill in Washington, not on the Capitoline hill in Rome. The Roman Empire did not fully die until Napoleon.The Roman Republic lives on in America, even if Roman virtue, once ours, is now gone.

So -- Dragon Crystal Jesus is a fine word to capture my annoyance with That Religion Whom None Dare Name, and they worship a lawful-good henotheistic deity named Generic.


This is also why the abbreviation C.E. ("Common Era") in place of A.D. bothers me. The faux people are trying to use a faux calendar system without actually giving credit to the Church That None Dare Name. It is merely a slap in the face of Christians, an insolent attempt to take their calendar without admitting you are taking something not yours. Who was born on the year 1 C.E. from which you date your years, oh ye people who follow the Common Era? Who was born then? Dragon Crystal Jesus?

Yes, a useful term.



(Read 84 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]jordan179
2008-01-19 04:35 pm UTC (link)
I've seen a couple of examples of Solar Monotheism in fantasy settings. Harry's Turtledove's Videssos series, for example, has the god Phos as the analogue of the Christian God. But his world is a very close echo of the Byzantine Empire.

Videssos is a particularly interesting world, from a cultural and theological perspective, because he mixes and matches cultures and religions. Videssos is an alternate "Byzantine Empire," but its religion of Phos-worship is modelled after Zoroastrianism (historically Persian). Old Makuran is an alternate "Persian Empire," but its religion of the God and the Four Companions is roughly Islamic (historically Arab) or Christian (historically Byzantine). And New Makuran, which effectively worships Skotos, is modelled after the Arab Empire, but its religion is basically Satanic.

There is a definite tragic feel of "two worthy Empires" in the fights between Videssos and Old Makuran -- both are honorable and noble civilizations; while New Makuran is basically the Evil Empire.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jordan179
2008-01-19 04:37 pm UTC (link)
Speaking of which, when you read real Early Byzantine history, isn't there a painful "if only," in that if the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Empire had known what hell was going to come boiling out of the Arab deserts, they might have done better to join forces instead of to fight their long, bloody, and ultimately pointless series of border wars? The weaknesses those wars produced were part of the reason why the Muslims were able to gain their initial foothold outside of Arabia.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Empires always think they will endure
[info]deiseach
2008-01-19 07:12 pm UTC (link)
Roman, British, Chinese or Byzantine - they always think that power will remain in their hands and that the political situation of today will be the same tomorrow.

It's the same way the intricate network of alliances and intrigues that was spun around the Balkan States ended up dragging Europe into a world war - the empires never envisaged such a possibility when jockeying for positions of influence, but there you go. Back in secondary school, that was the fascinating thing about history classes: seeing (with the benefit of hindsight) how carefully and thoroughly the Powers wound themselves in the threads that would bind them to open warfare and bring the whole world into conflict.

At any one moment in the long dance, you would imagine that someone would have said "Wait a moment - you do realise what we are agreeing to, don't you?" But nobody either believed it would actually come to that, or that anyone would take them on (our navy is the best!/our land forces are unbeatable!/our territory is so vast!), or if it did come to war, that they could conceivably be beaten.

And so it goes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Empires always think they will endure
[info]mr_feathertop
2008-01-21 08:33 pm UTC (link)
Good point. This is also a good argument for not rewriting the rules. Stick with what put you on top!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jstenberg
2008-01-19 04:39 pm UTC (link)
It has been a long time since I read the Videssos cycle, but I remember that there are analogues to various Christian heresies in the worship of Phos. The orthodox say that Phos will be triumphant, others say that the two are equally balanced (basically Manichaeans), others say that it is uncertain but that a believer has to bet that good will win, and so on. Not exactly like the various -isms that have bedeviled the Church, but broadly similar.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Read 84 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…