About God bashing in animes...

[Wallachia]

Yeah, true. Not to offend all anime loving people out there (cause I love it too) but I don't really give anime alot of grace because alot of them are very bad in quality (story writing, etc) when compared to other forms of media. Hindsight is 20-20, but as I said before, you don't always have the time to sift through alot of these stories throughly.

It's the same with anything, really. There are plenty of movies, books, and tv shows that are pretty bad, but there's also good stuff.

[Darth_Kirby]

Exactly. What people have been trying to tell you here is that you are missing a genuinously good anime because a first, mistaken impression. Indeed, there are hundreds of worthless series]

true, but often the views of the author are portrayed through their characters to start out as he did in FMA was not particularly wise. Just from a literature standpoint. It made sound like this was going to be the entire theme for the show. Who knows, maybe I was right in a round-about way considering how people say he toyed with the whole "is God real" idea. Also, there a tons of series that are well liked by others, but not by me for reasons of taste.

It's the same with anything, really. There are plenty of movies, books, and tv shows that are pretty bad, but there's also good stuff.

This is very true, and I use the same methods to weed out which books I want to read as I do with manga.

[Radical Dreamer]

true, but often the views of the author are portrayed through their characters to start out as he did in FMA was not particularly wise. Just from a literature standpoint.

I don't want to drag this out any further and make it more of a "thing" than it already is, but actually, from a literary standpoint, this isn't exactly true. XD Yes, authors' belief systems will often show through their work, but just because one character holds a certain viewpoint absolutely does not mean the author holds the same view. Given the fact that most critically acclaimed literature will have dynamic characters whose beliefs and personalities change and/or develop over the course of the story, I wouldn't say it's a mistake to have an atheistic character featured in the first few chapters/episodes of a story. If FMA were widely known as a badly written series, then maybe so, but the fact is that it's a very well written series, so most people can expect (via reviews and word of mouth) that some excellent character development will take place, even if they don't like the characters at the beginning. XD

EDIT: Also, I'm not trying to like, persuade you into reading FMA if you don't want to or anything. XD I'm just using that as an example, since it's the main series discussed in this conversation, to not judge a book by its cover or its first chapter. XD

[ADXC]

I don't want to drag this out any further and make it more of a "thing" than it already is, but actually, from a literary standpoint, this isn't exactly true. XD Yes, authors' belief systems will often show through their work, but just because one character holds a certain viewpoint absolutely does not mean the author holds the same view. Given the fact that most critically acclaimed literature will have dynamic characters whose beliefs and personalities change and/or develop over the course of the story, I wouldn't say it's a mistake to have an atheistic character featured in the first few chapters/episodes of a story. If FMA were widely known as a badly written series, then maybe so, but the fact is that it's a very well written series, so most people can expect (via reviews and word of mouth) that some excellent character development will take place, even if they don't like the characters at the beginning. XD

This.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkdrau0EzYQ XD

[Darth_Kirby]

I don't want to drag this out any further and make it more of a "thing" than it already is, but actually, from a literary standpoint, this isn't exactly true. XD Yes, authors' belief systems will often show through their work, but just because one character holds a certain viewpoint absolutely does not mean the author holds the same view. Given the fact that most critically acclaimed literature will have dynamic characters whose beliefs and personalities change and/or develop over the course of the story, I wouldn't say it's a mistake to have an atheistic character featured in the first few chapters/episodes of a story. If FMA were widely known as a badly written series, then maybe so, but the fact is that it's a very well written series, so most people can expect (via reviews and word of mouth) that some excellent character development will take place, even if they don't like the characters at the beginning. XD

EDIT: Also, I'm not trying to like, persuade you into reading FMA if you don't want to or anything. XD I'm just using that as an example, since it's the main series discussed in this conversation, to not judge a book by its cover or its first chapter. XD

Points taken.

This.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkdrau0EzYQ XD

lol Geez, merciless ADXC!!

[ADXC]

That's how I roll.

[Maokun]

true, but often the views of the author are portrayed through their characters to start out as he did in FMA was not particularly wise. Just from a literature standpoint. It made sound like this was going to be the entire theme for the show. Who knows, maybe I was right in a round-about way considering how people say he toyed with the whole "is God real" idea. Also, there a tons of series that are well liked by others, but not by me for reasons of taste.

In fact, from a literary standpoint, it is a GOOD thing to flesh your characters in believable ways of thinking from the beginning. That's not God bashing, that's having a character who thinks like lots of real people do. Yeah, his views might be contrary to yours, but that doesn't mean he's a worthless person/character or that the author is pushing an agenda rather than telling a story.

Again: this is a fictional story in a fictional setting, in a fictional universe. If the creator of this universe decided it has no God, then, by jolly, our atheistic hero is right in despising superstitious behavior, without it necessarily standing as criticism of the same behavior in real life (even if the author shares those beliefs.)

As Radical Dreamer said, it's not like I'm trying to persuade you to watch this specific series. I'm just using it as an example of how your reasoning is flawed. (This is not to say that if you really feel uncomfortable with it you should force it onto yourself, obviously.)

[Darth_Kirby]

In fact, from a literary standpoint, it is a GOOD thing to flesh your characters in believable ways of thinking from the beginning. That's not God bashing, that's having a character who thinks like lots of real people do. Yeah, his views might be contrary to yours, but that doesn't mean he's a worthless person/character or that the author is pushing an agenda rather than telling a story.

Again: this is a fictional story in a fictional setting, in a fictional universe. If the creator of this universe decided it has no God, then, by jolly, our atheistic hero is right in despising superstitious behavior, without it necessarily standing as criticism of the same behavior in real life (even if the author shares those beliefs.)

As Radical Dreamer said, it's not like I'm trying to persuade you to watch this specific series. I'm just using it as an example of how your reasoning is flawed. (This is not to say that if you really feel uncomfortable with it you should force it onto yourself, obviously.)

La sigh. This is well known to me. If I thought that this is was the case I wouldn't have stopped watching it. Sometimes Maokun it's not so much what you say, but how you say it. (refering to how the author chose to convey the characters beliefs)

[Atria35]

^ I have to admit, Darth, that sort of confuses me, since (in FMA, at least), the main was pretty clear on why he didn't believe in God. I mean, it was blunt and harsh, but the reason he was saying it like that was because he had been deeply hurt (and was still deeply hurting, IMO) by what gave him reason to not believe.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I really struggle to see why you have no problem with Death Note but Fullmetal Alchemist gives you reason to pause.

[Darth_Kirby]

I really struggle to see why you have no problem with Death Note but Fullmetal Alchemist gives you reason to pause.

It's not so much that FMA gave me pause as much as I felt that it started out somewhat stereotypically. Also Atria, I never really got that deep into the show to know the more deeper reasons why the main character did not believe in God.

Edit: As a final note, I get the point that you guys are all getting to, but I'm sure you're just as guilty of passing by a good series at times because the first few episodes/chapters didn't captivate you.

[Atria35]

^ Oh. ...Ooops! xD *forgot how things went*

I've seen a lot of anime, and FMA never seemed stereotypical. I might have to check out those other anime you mentioned as not liking to see if I can see what you're getting at.

[Darth_Kirby]

^ Oh. ...Ooops! xD *forgot how things went*

I've seen a lot of anime, and FMA never seemed stereotypical. I might have to check out those other anime you mentioned as not liking to see if I can see what you're getting at.

lol well that's the thing. I liked those other specific shows I mentioned. It just got annoying that they bashed the concept of religion with little actual connection to the storyline. I read Magical x Miracle all the way through, +C Sword and Cornett I quit reading about midway, because it became clear that it was going with the "religion = racism" theme.

[Atria35]

Ah. Then I can see what you're saying.

Well, rest assured, things do change in FMA. In fact, the a lot of the bad guys are the ones that are the most scientific

[Darth_Kirby]

Ah. Then I can see what you're saying.

Well, rest assured, things do change in FMA. In fact, the a lot of the bad guys are the ones that are the most scientific

lol ok, I hope this resolves any debating spirit that people have on this threat. ^.^ lol

[Maokun]

Agreed, I'll let the matter rest, then.

Now I want to take the chance to extrapolate on something that I said before and that I think it's quite interesting. I previously said that if an author creates a godless universe, atheistic characters in that universe can be correctly established as being in the right. However, this is only true in a basic narrative sense, as a bit of applied thinking will reveal that that universe actually has a god, which is the author.

Following this, I submit the notion that it's impossible to create a fictional character that's rightly atheistic. The best it can be done is an universe whose god hides him/herself totally from perception, while still remaining in absolute control of everyone's fate.

This is potentially hilarious when the author is using a story to thinly veil an atheistic agenda (The Golden Compass jumps to mind) as he or she creates characters that heroically battle religion... While being merely the puppets of a higher being, who also created that very religion as an evil caricature that must be righteously antagonized. Doing so, the author not only ironically establishes himself as god of that universe, but also as a much worse god than he believes God (if he existed in his own views) to be.

[Nate]

a bit of applied thinking will reveal that that universe actually has a god, which is the author.

Meta-thinking is pointless, and no, the author is not the god of the universe unless s/he sets him/herself up to be. Besides, you wanna go that route, does that make the author the god of a Christian fictional story? If so, then that would mean that there is a god other than God, and who is the true mastermind of the universe, who can make even God bend to their whims. This would make anyone who tries to write a Christian fictional story a blasphemer.

And that would be pretty ridiculous to say, so therefore, the author is not "god" of any sort, and even merely writing "This exists" does not mean that the author created it. If I write "Abraham Lincoln was the President," that does not mean I created Abraham Lincoln, I am merely stating a fact about history as an impartial observer...which is what authors do, in a way. Thus, there can absolutely be rightly atheistic characters.

Come on. Meta-thinking is fun sometimes when you're playing Munchkin, but taking it seriously?

[Darth_Kirby]

Meta-thinking is pointless, and no, the author is not the god of the universe unless s/he sets him/herself up to be. Besides, you wanna go that route, does that make the author the god of a Christian fictional story? If so, then that would mean that there is a god other than God, and who is the true mastermind of the universe, who can make even God bend to their whims. This would make anyone who tries to write a Christian fictional story a blasphemer.

And that would be pretty ridiculous to say, so therefore, the author is not "god" of any sort, and even merely writing "This exists" does not mean that the author created it. If I write "Abraham Lincoln was the President," that does not mean I created Abraham Lincoln, I am merely stating a fact about history as an impartial observer...which is what authors do, in a way. Thus, there can absolutely be rightly atheistic characters.

Come on. Meta-thinking is fun sometimes when you're playing Munchkin, but taking it seriously?

They're a little more than observers Nate. Authors create the story. They dictate where it heads and what the individuals in it will do. In that sense Maokun is right. They are the gods of their little universes. Their story can't defy them in anyway. They have complete power over the story.

He's mentioning an irony mostly, about how someone, through an intelligently created work, tries to claim that nothing is created intelligently. Just because an author has complete control over his story doesn't mean he's a literal god, and any "god" that the author created isn't really a god. I think you were meta-thinking into his post too much. ^.^ lol

[Nate]

They're a little more than observers Nate. Authors create the story. They dictate where it heads and what the individuals in it will do.

This isn't exactly true, if you talk to authors who have actually written books. They will often explain how characters seem to take on a life of their own outside of what the author thinks. I have heard authors say that they were writing a story, and a character did something, and the author's response was "I didn't know they were going to do that."

It may not seem like it makes a lot of sense, but it's how writing works. Often times, the characters and story will defy the author's plans for it. What kind of god could be thwarted by their own creations?

This doesn't even take into account publishing companies who will often tell the author "Don't put this in your story" or "Hey, why don't you write a part where this happens?" What kind of god answers to other people and is forced to obey their whims? The whole thing is just nonsense.

He's mentioning an irony mostly, about how someone, through an intelligently created work, tries to claim that nothing is created intelligently. Just because an author has complete control over his story doesn't mean he's a literal god, and any "god" that the author created isn't really a god.

That's not what he said though. He said that there can never be a "correct" atheist in fictional stories because the author is the god of that universe, thus meaning the atheist is incorrect that there are no higher powers. He even uses The Golden Compass as an example and says "This story is funny because Pullman is god and he is making the characters do this stuff and that makes him worse than God because he is forcing them to do all this."

Which is total bunk. Again, the author is not the god of the universe they create, and any attempt to say that you can't have a godless fictional universe because it automatically has a god (the author) is ridiculous. It's meta-thinking, as well as being entirely incorrect.

[Darth_Kirby]

This isn't exactly true, if you talk to authors who have actually written books. They will often explain how characters seem to take on a life of their own outside of what the author thinks. I have heard authors say that they were writing a story, and a character did something, and the author's response was "I didn't know they were going to do that."

It may not seem like it makes a lot of sense, but it's how writing works. Often times, the characters and story will defy the author's plans for it. What kind of god could be thwarted by their own creations?

This doesn't even take into account publishing companies who will often tell the author "Don't put this in your story" or "Hey, why don't you write a part where this happens?" What kind of god answers to other people and is forced to obey their whims? The whole thing is just nonsense.

As a writer who's had this happen to me before (characters acting in their own right) I don't think you fully understand what they mean. They say that because they create a character and a plot. Sometimes the character's personality leads the author to passages that he didn't originally think of because he was following the character's personality and not the script. In the end though, the author still writes the passage and has the absolute say about what goes in and what doesn't. Also, the editors are just extra authors really. You're taking the "authors are gods of their stories" analogy way too literally.

That's not what he said though. He said that there can never be a "correct" atheist in fictional stories because the author is the god of that universe, thus meaning the atheist is incorrect that there are no higher powers. He even uses The Golden Compass as an example and says "This story is funny because Pullman is god and he is making the characters do this stuff and that makes him worse than God because he is forcing them to do all this."

Which is total bunk. Again, the author is not the god of the universe they create, and any attempt to say that you can't have a godless fictional universe because it automatically has a god (the author) is ridiculous. It's meta-thinking, as well as being entirely incorrect.

People don't always state things in so many words. Just because he didn't spell it out, doesn't mean that wasn't what he meant. You gotta read his post from his perspective. And aren't you meta-thinking too? This whole conversation is meta-thinking. lol Meta-thinking isn't bad so much as it can give you a headache. But that's just me though. After all, isn't meta-thinking just thinking about thinking?

Edit: But I think we've strayed from the main point of the tread. Won't they lock it if we don't stay on topic?

[Maokun]

You're taking the "authors are gods of their stories" analogy way too literally.

This. Thank you.

Nate: I'm not saying that authors believe themselves to be gods or act like so or even that the idea crosses their minds as they sit down to create their worlds while twirling their long, white beards with power-tripping delight. I'm saying that technically they are the gods of those worlds. I.e. Beings from outside that universe, capable of creating the whole cosmos, down to the physical appearance and personality traits of certain people. They have absolute power to drive the destiny of the characters and even when they seem to take a life of their own (a phenomen I know well as I write too, and deserves to be discussed apart as an interest shadow of "free will",) in the end, whatever happens to them will come from the mind of the creator (or at least his approval, if they are other minds intervening as you suggest.)

Also, you suggest that such idea, applied to Christian stories, would result in heresy, thereby invalidating the whole hypothesis. First, allow me to remind you we are talking of fictional narrative here. Therefore, why yes, the God in this stories is fictional being (albeit based in the real God to the best of the author's understanding,) and as such, the authors can be the gods of their fictional worlds in which there exists a fictional representation of God (who, unarguably acts according to the wishes of the author(s.)) Since it's a fictional depiction, there's no heresy to speak of, though I myself feel in no hurry to include God as a character in my own stories, for "who has known the mind of The Lord?"

As for Pulman and the Golden Compass: We have here an author that depicts "God" as a power-hungry, half-crazed old man, who for the sake of his schemes, manipulates events and people and who is ultimately defeated by the very human virtues he so sorely lacks. The message of the author is here quite transparent: "if God exists, he's not worthy of anything more than derision or pity." The irony rests in that he, being the creator of this world, was the one who assigned amorality and insanity to the false god of his world while befitting his atheistic heroes with all the moral virtues that triumphed in the end... but theirs is a morality that comes from the mind of their creator, against which they cannot possible rebel! They were, indeed, manipulated by their creator to play but a comedy which served of vehicle for his political views! It is an irony, not unlike that of Spore (the game,) which purtends to be a metaphor of evolution as opposed to creationism, while not realizing that natural selection and evolution inside the game can only occur on the possibilities established by the programmers, guided by parameters set by the player, who ends acting as a surrogate god!

[Gojira]

The worst I've seen was more blasphemous than anything. I have yet to come across one with an anti-Christianity stance.