|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 29, 2011 17:37:36 GMT
The Evangelicals who started this scare believe that halloween is intrinsically evil however celebrated because it draws on pagan customs. By the same argument they shouldn't celebrate Christmas or easter (their Puritan ancestors were more consistent) nor should they wear wedding rings as that was originally a pagan custom.
|
|
|
Post by flynncreek on May 3, 2011 6:10:34 GMT
Right...and I've learned through life experiences that hiding from evil things and constantly trying to avoid every possible evil is just acting out of fear. The devil wants us to be afraid of him. You don't want to practice evil, but you also don't want to shelter yourself from it. Stand among it, but don't participate in it. That's why it is OK to celebrate Halloween just by having fun and NOT doing witchcraft.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 12, 2011 20:06:33 GMT
Here's a nice discussion from John C Wright's blog about the view that fantasy fiction which involves magic may lead people into the occult (Harry Potter is the prime target of this view). He acknowledges there is some risk but thinks it is greatly and even dangerously exaggerated. BTW in case anyone is wondering why a science fiction writer would encounter so many occultists and why the genre should overlap with fantasy, it should be noted that while there is a SF genre called "hard SF" which emphasises scientific plausibility and the scientific method, a lot of sf basically treats science as a form of magic - something inexplicable that gives you power to do extraordinary things - with the emphasis on power. ONe of the most active posters in the debate is an Irish Catholic blogger called Deiseach. I got the link from Mark Shea's blog and his post has some interesting additional debate markshea.blogspot.com/2011/08/forget-michael-obrien.html#idc-coverwww.scifiwright.com/2011/08/harry-potter-and-the-christian-magicians/#more-3898
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 8, 2014 22:42:51 GMT
The Scottish Catholic blogger Lazarus has some thoughts on this subject: cumlazaro.blogspot.ie/2014/10/halloween-and-is-spooky-good.htmlEXTRACT A mulling without any real conclusion. I go on reading horror stories and watching horror films, but sometimes with a slightly uneasy conscience. On balance, I'm rather in favour of Halloween and its popular celebrations provided that it's balanced by the proper celebration of All Saints' Day, All Souls' Day, and the remembrance of the dead in November. Spooky and a fascination for spiritual danger is probably as natural as a fascination with physical danger. It's the danger of a lack of a correcting balance from the theism of organized religion that leads to the problems. END
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 9, 2014 0:57:28 GMT
I've loved the horror genre all my life and never wasted a moment worrying I was flirting with the occult or any of the rest of it.
I must admit, though, that I've never been able to enjoy a story where somebody is damned or facing the danger of damnation, for instance, through putting a bet on with Satan-- even when I was an unbeliever the stakes were just too high for me to enjoy such a story, even knowing it was fiction.
On the other hand, I've always been queasy about how murder is packaged as entertainment in murder mysteries-- including the Father Brown stories.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 9, 2014 19:59:06 GMT
Detective fiction and its treatment of murder is actually quite a good parallel with horror. You have the dilemma of either trivialising serious matters (the "cozy" detective story with murder as a puzzle, horror as joke) or of indulging in nihilism. BTW one interesting argument I have seen put forward is that the "classical" detective story is at some level religious in that it implies an underlying divinely-sanctioned moral order with the detective as God's representative restoring the cosmic order which has been violated by the transgressors. (An interesting parallel would be the contrast between old-style film noir which implies that justice is done, even if this process is seen from the point of view of the transgressor, and neo-noir which generally implies that no-one is honest, everyone is corrupt and the winner is whoever can be most ruthless and corrupt.)
Another parallel, now that I think of it, would be the way in which vampire fiction has evolved towards being unequivocally on the side of the vampires.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 9, 2014 20:40:19 GMT
I'm watching (or half-watching) the TV series Lewis right now-- an Oxford murder mystery show, a spin off from Inspector Morse. One lead character, played by Laurence Fox, is a former seminarian who retains his faith. Religion and Catholicism are often mentioned on the show, and taken seriously. I don't know if Colin Dexter, the inventor of Inspector Morse, is a Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 12, 2014 8:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 12, 2014 19:59:13 GMT
One interesting counter-argument is that dark horror actually attracts people who are seeking for spiritual reality and are therefore potentially more open to grace than those who prefer to pretend that death doesn't exist. (This is BTW the justification Flannery O'Connor put forward for her Southern Gothic.) There is probably something in this, but I would think it can be taken too far.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 12, 2014 22:08:59 GMT
I think there is a lot of truth to that. The same applies to heavy metal. A huge amount of heavy metallers became born-again Christians; Dave Mustaine of Megadeth, Nicko McBrain of Iron Maiden, and Alice Cooper of, em, Alice Cooper. And all of these traded in demonic imagery.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 13, 2014 9:17:11 GMT
It's funny how some of this stuff is treated. I'm thinking of Goethe's Faust and two works influenced by it, Peadar Ó Laoghaire's Séadhna and Bulgakov's Master and Margarita. All three were influenced by native folk tradition in their respective countries/cultures (it's hard to define what Germany is in the context of Goethe). Even the story of Dr Faust appears in literature long before Goethe. Obviously, An tAthair Peadar's status as a priest (indeed, like his contemporary Patrick Augustine Sheehan, a canon of the Cloyne diocese) with theological training colours it, but Mikhail Bulgakov likewise came from a family of Orthodox priests, with his father and grandfather being professors of theology in Kiev.
Both Goethe's Mephistopheles and Bulgakov's Woland are to some extent comical figures (more so Mephistopheles). An tAthair Peadar's Fear Dubh is a lot more menancing and uglier. This probably displays influence of the culture and popular piety. You could argue that Mephistopheles or Woland are more insidious than the clearly evil Fear Dubh.
In regard to Hibernicus' point about evil drawing interest in the supernatural is amplified by the manner in which Master and Margarita made its appearance in the Soviet Union in 1966 in Krushchev's thaw after having been locked in drawer for twenty-five years. For many people who grew up in the USSR and were educated to be non-religious, reading this work was their first encounter with Christian subject matter (however Bulgakov distorted it, for a variety of motivations). In many of these cases it led to more profound study followed by adult baptism. I know Russians who would point at reading this book as the first point in their conversion. Bulgakov intended to protest at the Soviet state's religious persecution - but I don't think this is what he envisaged. No doubt, he has earned the reward due.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 14, 2014 19:43:11 GMT
One book I would like to write something on sometime is James Hogg's MEMOIRS AND CONFESSIONS OF A JUSTIFIED SINNER, an early nineteenth-century novel about a Scottish Calvinist who is lured by the Devil (quoting scripture) into the belief that as he is predestined to salvation he can commit all sorts of crimes, nominally for the sake of God but really for his own self-interest. Its central lesson is not confined to Calvinists, and I have often thought it applies quite well to the Northern IReland Troubles (there is a novel by Maurice LEitch based on it in which the central character is based on Ian Paisley in his earlier career). One difference between it and a lot of later Gothic Dark fiction - the sort which implies that the devil is all-powerful while God is silent, impotent, non-existent or evil - is that Hogg includes several incidents in which heaven intervenes - with various degrees of explicitness - to offer opportunities for salvation to the protagonist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 19:07:34 GMT
What I see in Horror is an exaggerated depiction of the world; specifically evil. Like many people, I too am attracted to certain things about the Horror genre. One thing I will say is that I never liked Horror films that have "bad" endings; that is, stories where the monster or villain kills everyone. They always feel pointless. It makes me wonder why I bothered watching something that had no proper end result. To me, Horrors can be just another way of depicting Good vs Evil. However, whereas the Fantasy genre might show this struggle in a slightly more glorious and epic light, the Horror genre I think appeals to people more because it is, in a sense, more realistic. It can be brutal, terrifying, and dark - a much more realistic depiction of evil in our world than something you would probably see in a Fantasy or Sci-Fi film. In regards to Horrors that are more on the spiritual side, I would put this down to people that crave something greater than just physical existence. Of course, this opens the way to misplaced spirituality. It can draw people to many occultic religions, especially those that emphasize personal power that can be gained by doing something that is claimed to have roots in some ancient pagan or witch-religion. That's where the real problem lies.
It probably doesn't help that many Horror films that have good Catholic characters in them will usually try to cut the characters ties from the Church in some way. Especially if the character is a member of the clergy. For example, there's a new Horror film called "Deliver Us From Evil". It is about a cop and priest who team up to solve crimes that are believed to be demonic in nature. From what I have heard, the priest is in fact a "rogue priest". This is a trend I've noticed a bit lately. Hollywood doesn't seem quite willing to cut ties with the romantic imagery of an official member of the clergy fighting against demonic forces - let's face it, having some ordinary Joe fight a demon isn't really as exciting - yet at the same time, possibly portraying the Catholic Church in a good light in this day and age is a bit on the risky side. So, go 50:50 and settle for a priest who is a "rogue", or who has become "disillusioned" with the Church, or perhaps just had no choice but to go against the wishes of the Church for the good of mankind. Another film that did this was "Priest", which is about a "rogue" Priest who has no choice but to disobey the Church in order to save his niece (though this film is more an Action-Horro-SciFi from what I've seen). Or how about the film Legion, which really takes it to the extreme. This time, instead of a priest and the Church, it's St. Michael and God himself. St Michael must disobey God in order to save mankind from God's wrath. In the end, God apparently finds St. Michaels actions so noble that he agrees that mankind should be spared.
The point I am making is that Hollywood still has an attraction to the idea of the Holy vs the Diabolic, but it can't quite bring itself to be completely friendly to the idea either. This usually leads to disappointment all around. Religious people aren't happy with the watering-down, non-religious aren't happy that it's religious at all. That's not to say that the Church is never portrayed positively. The film The Rite, based on the book, was naturally a positive portrayal of the Church. There was also a tv series some years ago about exorcism, with the main character being a Catholic priest. I can't remember the name of it now, but the priest was played by a man who is now the lead character in the crime series Inspector George Gently.
I would also argue that how Catholicism is portrayed in film can affect how people take pride in their beliefs. I imagine it's the same with other beliefs (or non-beliefs). Even if something is done in a fantasy setting, for example, if a Catholic character is portrayed properly, it can give a sense of pride. At least that's my experience. I talked to Maolsheachlann about this before, but in the last Pirates of the Caribbean film (I know, I know) there's a religious Catholic character in the form of the Spanish Captain. He's only in it at the end, but he in no way hesitates to show that he is a very religious character. He is also portrayed as a noble man. He shows admiration for the bravery of a man he kills, and while the other factions in the film are after something called the Fountain of Youth for selfish reasons, the Captain merely seeks to destroy it as he sees it as a challenge to the power of God.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2014 21:53:50 GMT
One problem with many of these portrayals is that Catholicism is being portrayed as a sort of superior magic and the rituals as weapons of power rather than as rooted in ultimate reality. I suspect some of this is unconsciously rooted in the origins of the Anglo-American Gothic; images of small groups of aristocratic witches secretly practising the pagan "old religion" in their big house owe something to Protestant suspicions of surviving recusant households and THEIR "old religion" in C18 England. I have heard the central concept of Gothic described at being "something that should be dead is alive", and deriving from Protestant fascination with why Catholicism had not completely disappeared after the Reformation.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2014 22:33:25 GMT
Well, isn't there a danger of holding such portrayals up to an excessively high standard, though?
|
|