Favourite fictional descriptions of religion?

I have three or four suggestions to make, but would anyone care to start this off?

Try Fr Rolfe's evocation of meditation and prayer, especially what we latter-day types might call the mantra "Deus meus et omnia". Or the death-scene toward the conclusion of Lucy Beckett's THE TIME BEFORE YOU DIE. Let me also put in a good word for the poets, especially Christopher Smart. Also, quite immodestly, the crematory scene in my own HARMONY JUNCTION. But to my way of thinking, there's nothing that can touch the REVELATION to Saint John of Patmos. Or are you thinking nore narrowly of liturgies, or characteristic situations? Interesting topic: let's keep it going. -- Goddard

A J Cronin's The Keys of the Kingdom and Morris West's The Shoes of the Fisherman.

And of course Fr Ted.

Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose -- highly evocative of late 13th-century monasticism, with the excellence of exploring the debates over apostolic poverty, all while spinning one darn good mystery yearn.

John beat me to it.

DRINK! ARSE! FECK IT!

Quintessential. Not that Father Dougal or Bishop Brennan are any less representative.

In literachur, The monk.

In addition to the quotes from the OT referenced in #4:
The Genesis version of Creation, for the mythology, and for the humour generated in discussion.
Noah and his Ark, as the inspiration for all those wonderful children's toys.
Jonah and the Whale, for shear audacity, and for inspiring those lines of Gershwin's:
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo' he made his home in
Dat fish's abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.

>7 LolaWalser: One of the things I love about Fr Ted is that all those characters are real. I know priests, nuns, bishops, housekeepers who are just like that (or, if there is not a real individual who has all those characteristics, they are at least a composite of real characteristics).

Gore Vidal's Messiah.

I appreciate the fictional religions created by Kurt Vonnegut, Bokononism (Cat's Cradle) and Church of Jesus Christ the Kidnapped (Slapstick), for instance.

The deliciously irreverent and humorous works of Douglas Adams, especially the depictions of Thor, Odin, and other Nordic deities in The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

Sterling Lanier's post-nuclear/apocalyptic novels Hiero's Journey and The Unforsaken Hiero. (Lead character is the post-Catholic, telepathic Per Hiero Desteen, "Secondary Priest-Exorcist, Primary Rover, and Senior Killman.")

Some of the characters in James Clavell's Shogun, such as Brother Michael (Jesuit novitiate); Lady Yodoko (Buddhist nun); and Uraga/Joseph (ex-Christian). (With nods also to Jesuits Father Alvito and Father dell'Acqua, even though they are, in a way, villains, despite good intentions.)

For laughs, the various mad cultists, etc., in some of H.P. Lovecraft's stories, because somehow they view ushering in Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, or other monstrosities into our dimension as a good thing. :D

(edited) Oops, forgot one -- Aratak, the huge, laid-back saurian philosopher, in Marion Zimmer Bradley's Hunters of the Red Moon.

Mel Brooks had numerous choice bits in The History of the World, Part 1. But the best is probably the scene with the Spanish Inquisition.

Cain by José Saramago. And I've just started Lazarus is Dead by Richard Beard.

Stranger in a Strange Land (original edition, not the revised "unexpurgated" one)

Also: The High Place by James Branch Cabell. The dilemmas of the pagan-priest-cum-Christian-saint Hoprig are hilarious throughout, and the interview between Janicot (Satan/Pan) and the Archangel Michael is terrific.

I love the Ramayana.

16: I see your touchstone points to William Buck's retelling. It is worth comparing to Rajagopalachari's. Both beautiful but very different.

I'm going to add, Siddhartha and The Near and the Far.

> 17. As it turns out, I have a copy of Rajagopalachari's translation at my side. It's worked its way to the top of my TBR pile. Now, with your recommendation, I've bumped it up again to the very top. Thanks.

Well, this looks like it's given me some suggestions to return to later.

For what it's worth, I'll add one suggestion:
The Embedding by Ian Watson

I too wanted to suggest Stranger in a Strange Land, though I don't know the difference between versions. The uncut version seemed fine to me. As long as you don't make the all too common error of mistaking fiction for non-fiction...

#19: I don't know if it was the uncut version or not, but the ending made me sick to my stomach. But maybe the point was to remind us of that other religious cult that delights watching footage of their saviour in a snuff film.

Two of my favourite children's fantasy novels are based around imagined (pagan) religions: Divide and Rule by Jan Mark, in which an unbeliever is chosen for the ritual role of Shepherd for the year and discovers the web of control and deceit behind the cult; and The Blue Hawk by Peter Dickinson, in which a young acolyte subverts the system.

The Satanic Verses. Brilliant, but another case of the common error of mistaking fiction for non-fiction, or vice versa, not least by its author.

I really struggled with The Satanic Verses. The scene in the police van should be obligatory reading, and "the crossing of the Arabian Sea" was rather clever, but for much of the stuff that happened in that desert city, I wished I was reading a factual account instead. It seems to me too important a topic to wish to be left in such a state of ambiguity about.

I wonder though if a factual account is possible. We may say that the verses of the Koran are the product of Mohammad's individual creative talents, education and experience because that is how we think of ourselves and our world in our times and culture. In 7th century Mecca, we might describe exactly the same thing as the inspirations of the angel Gibreel. I don't see the former as any more factual or fictional than the later.

Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Chalion
Sherri Tepper's Grass

>24 marq: I must say that I assumed Rushdie was basing himself on more than the Quran. Maybe not... At any rate, any such extra-Quranic details extant is what I think might be useful to learn. Maybe someday I'll read Ibn Warraq or someone.

But more importantly probably, is what you are saying about Mohammed vs us. Because what you're saying is that 1.57 billion people on this planet value rather highly a book that they haven't a hope of understanding?

Yes, I think they haven't a hope of understanding it in the way it was understood in the 7th century, but that doesn't invalidate the way they understand it now. I think Rushdie was clever to put the whole "Mahound" story as a modern person's dream which somehow avoids the criticism of cultural anachronism.

I think texts like Ramayana avoid the distraction of being taken as non-fiction by their implausibility (mult-headed demon kings, monkey and bear armies etc.) allowing the spiritual truth to be transmitted more clearly.

I don't think it can be said though that Christians and Moslems read their scriptures in the same way as they would read non-fiction.

Monkey based on Chinese folk religion and The Golden Ass by the North African Platonist Lucius Apuleius Africanus.

#28: I think that's an unsafe assumption to make if you weren't brought up within the Hindu culture. While the Abrahamic religions don't have very many talking animals, I doubt their conception of what demons look like are much less plausible than their Hindu counterparts, not to mention other Abrahamic absurdities. But if there is any case to be made about the Hindu tradition being more spiritually sophisticated, I think that would have more to do with their historical lack of a centralized religious authority deciding what's canon and expurgating what is not. Even Islam has its sectarian issues whereas with Hinduism the most popular version of the Ramayana is the Tamil retelling even outside of Tamil Nadu (the original Sanskrit version by Valmiki is considered more dry and archaic).

I like the definition given by Ambrose Bierce:

Religion
n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. “What is your religion my son?” inquired the Archbishop of Rheims. “Pardon, monseigneur,” replied Rochebriant; “I am ashamed of it.” “Then why do you not become an atheist?” “Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism.” “In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants.”

Though his definition of religion is false. The purpose of religion is not to explain. Sacred texts are not text books. Whether they are non-fiction or fiction or not particularly relevant.

Those are wonderful books which I read long ago and loved. The Devil's Advocate is also a fascinating read.

In rebus 31 & 32. Thank you, marq, for that post. After offering some suggestions early in this thread, in good faith (pardon the near-pun), I have been saddened (but not particularly surprised) to see it fray down into a kind of food-fight.

>27 marq: Hmmm

That was somehow not quite the aspect of the issue that I was thinking of...

Are those 1.57 billion people aware of the fact that they don't understand "it in the way it was understood in the 7th century"? Or are they led to believe, as I'm sure we're all aware that many christians are, that they are living the true, authentic, uncorrupted, early-days version of Islam?

>32 marq:
Though his definition of religion is false.

Bierce was being satirical.

The purpose of religion is not to explain.

That depends on who you ask.

Sacred texts are not text books.

Ditto. Indeed many households in the US are using them for exactly that.

Whether they are non-fiction or fiction or not particularly relevant.

I couldn't disagree more.

>32 marq:
The purpose of religion is not to explain.
========
Please expain.

I think we are heading towards one of these impenetrable barrier questions.

The only place that explanations exist is in the minds of individuals.

36: Ditto. Indeed many households in the US are using them for exactly that.

Actually I doubt it. Even in the most literalist fundamentalist household, if they read the story in the Bible of Jonah and the Whale, do you think they will be discussing what species of whale inhabit the Mediterranean, the diameters of their throats and the plausibility of a person being swallowed and surviving inside, or do you think they will be discussing the call to a spiritual life, to living to one's potential and the consequences of fear?

>38 marq: What they hope to learn is a different question. That they attempt to use their sacred texts for learning is a fact.

True, and learning has many dimensions. Some of the greatest learning comes from reading fiction.

In re #40. Yepp. But not nearly often enough. Look at the discussions here on LT, which we might (perhaps naively) hope to represent at-least a cultural average, or maybe more. Most of the posts I check represent a pathetic addiction to mind-candy of the worst sort. Makes religion look good by comparison -- or almost. What fiction and "sacred texts" have in common is the mixture of stimulating imagination with the imposition of another person's dreams. At-least with a bottle of wine you can dream your own dreams. marq, you and I could have some dandy discussions, preferably over a good vintage. Peace to all who post here. -- Goddard

41: Yes indeed, a glass of wine with you sir! (I see you have some Patrick O'Brians).

35: I am reading Wassily Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art. He writes It is impossible for us to live and feel, as did the ancient Greeks. He could also have said that it is impossible for us to think, as did the ancient Greeks.

If I am a warrior on my chariot before the walls of Troy. It suddenly occurs to me that of I drive my chariot down the beach a little way where there is a stream lined by a few trees, I can drive up and attack from a surprising direction. Of course "it suddenly occurs to me", "I though of it", "I exercised my innate talent for strategic thinking" are not something Homer would ever had said. It was the goddess Athena that put the thought into my head. It was Aphrodite that made Helen fall in love with Paris and it was the Muses that made Homer write the story.

When we read Homer, are we open to the way Homer thought? Is it possible for us not translate what he wrote in terms of our contemporary individualism? Do we assert that "it suddenly occurred to me" is more accurate than "the Goddess put the idea into my head"?

In re #43. marq, your final paragraph is a brilliant envoi to some splendid reasoning. As to Kandinsky's dictum, I am reminded to a line my sainted Mother used to vouchsafe frequently: ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE FALSE, INCLUDING THIS ONE. Cheers, -- Goddard