Margaret Atwood

[Kylara]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I wrote a coursework piece on THT, 1984 and Brave New World which was fun. THT is very much a book that requires reading more than once. The entire premise is in the ending. You need to look at it in regards to self-reflexivity - it is a novel that knows it is a novel and has been constructed and tells you this throughout. This is not something that readers come across much and this is what makes it so incredible - it gets away with saying "I might be making this up, or I might not, or it could be a bit of both. You have to decide".
It really helps looking at it in context with other dystopian controlled population novels like 1984 and BNW, purely because a lot more is controlled than you think.
In regards to the film. I watched it for the coursework and it really is quite bad. I mean they tried, and it is probably worth watching, but it really isn't brilliant.
It is a story about oppression, but like BNW an oppression continued by those who are oppressed but like 1984 they have little way (due to how the world is run) to actively revolt. It is a pretty feminist book, but that just adds another note of sadness to it really. I'll have to dig that essay out, I remember it being rather good if I say so myself

 

[The Judge]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I think there comes a stage in oppression, whether societal or simply within the family, when the victim's emotional responses shut down in order to prevent complete mental and/or physical collapse. So, to me, that emotional deadening that Offred experiences is absolutely right both for the situation and for her as a character. After all, she isn't a hero, she's just an ordinary person caught in a nightmare.

As for the lecture at the end, I thought that was brilliant, and also frightening. We don't find out what happened to Offred, we don't get full resolution, much less a happy ending to her story, not least because things aren't resolved, and there weren't any really happy endings. Here are my thoughts from my book non-blog earlier in the year:

I've finished The Handmaid's Tale which had as a coda fourteen pages of "Historical Notes", not, as one might think, on Atwood's research into genuine theocracies and the societal incarceration of women through the ages, but a further example of her brilliance, since it's a lecture given 200 years after the events forming the bulk of the novel on the once-secret now-transcribed tapes which relate those events. Not only is it a clever way of giving more non-POV detail about the fundamentalist order, with a sly dig at symposia and their academics, it's also a worrying hint that at bottom nothing has changed, that moral relativism refuses to condemn blatant discrimination and horrific injustice from other cultures, and that a few pages from a man's computer are thought to be more important than the terrible lived experience of women.

 

[Parson]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I've just finished "The Handmaid's Tale." I listened to it as an audible book during my morning walks. I can say that as an audible book it was mesmerizing. I had a deep resonance for the feeling of being hopeless and trapped that Offred had.

I would consider the book brilliant, a psychological tour de force. I think the comparisons with 1984 and Brave New World are right on. This is a classic and a must read.

There were two things I did not particularly like. One is obvious to anyone who knows me. I'm frustrated that authors continually see religious conviction as THE great threat to human society, while in my opinion the greatest threat to human society is anarchy, or perhaps more accurately described as unrestrained freedom. The first has rather regularly achieved stable societies in which humanity has advanced rather significantly, the later has never done such, at least as far as I can recall. But it has often laid waste to the achievements of the past. Where there is no restraint there is no true freedom for all but the strongest, while at it's best religion tries to help the weakest among us move forward.

The second thing was her story about her second encounter with the chauffeur. She tells the story, and then "It didn't happen that way, I made it up." and then she does it to us again. I thought that this was a petty trick unworthy of the novel.

 

[tinkerdan]

Re: Margeret Atwood

While reading through this thread I was spurred into reading The Handmaid's Tale of which I have only seen the movie.

I rather liked it though it took some getting used to .

I think for me part of the problem was that it was First Person that was mostly Present Tense with lots of flashbacks that changed tense sometimes and maintained Tense other times; especially at the beginning where it seemed in one tense with a flashback.

Once I got the feel for that, I could see the distancing; but I thought that was deliberate because of Offred's circumstances.

I could understand the distancing; the whole desperate nature of her being dehumanized by the system made me sympathetic for a character I otherwise might not have liked that much. The distancing helped demonstrate the dehumanizing aspect.

 

[Parson]

Re: Margeret Atwood

While reading through this thread I was spurred into reading The Handmaid's Tale of which I have only seen the movie.

I rather liked it though it took some getting used to .

I think for me part of the problem was that it was First Person that was mostly Present Tense with lots of flashbacks that changed tense sometimes and maintained Tense other times; especially at the beginning where it seemed in one tense with a flashback.

Once I got the feel for that, I could see the distancing; but I thought that was deliberate because of Offred's circumstances.

I could understand the distancing; the whole desperate nature of her being dehumanized by the system made me sympathetic for a character I otherwise might not have liked that much. The distancing helped demonstrate the dehumanizing aspect.

Exactly. I think this really worked as an audible book, which is how I read it. The whole effect was mesmerizing.

 

[Michael Colton]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Well, I finally finished The Handmaid's Tale, but found it a slog.

What continues to frustrate me about Margaret Atwood's writing is my perception that the reader is supposed to fill in the emotional reactions for the characters. I thought this was especially underlined at the end of this book, where it finishes on a lecture, rather than delve into the fate of Offred.

There's a chapter opening towards the end of the book that really sums it up for me:



That pretty much sums up my experience.

I willingly accept any criticisms that I may be missing the point through being male. I accept that I like to see a character struggle against adversity, and that isn't the point here. But what I struggle with as a reader is the emotional disengagement.

I posted a similar criticism for Iain M Bank's Consider Phlebas - I feel a need to know what drives a character, and feel frustrated without that. I guess that's just a personal bias.

Oddly, this criticism has made me even more interested in reading The Handmaid's Tale, in addition to the responses I received when I asked about Atwood in a different thread. What you have described as a frustrating style of narrative is one that I have always enjoyed, if I am understanding your criticism correctly. I quite like the author not being particularly clear about the emotions of a character - it somehow can make me more curious about the character, make me want to delve deeper into them.

Perhaps that is just me being vulnerable to a narrative trick, though.

 

[Toby Frost]

Re: Margeret Atwood

It's a very good book, but the ending is rather annoying for being ambiguous. But I'm not sure how I would have ended it. I found it interesting that the rest of the world - Britain, Canada and Japan are explicitly mentioned - is still free.

One thing I liked a lot were the holes in Offred's knowledge. Her understanding of what's occurred isn't perfect, and, thanks to the policy of the regime, it's getting worse. As with 1984, the pointlessness of day to day life is very well evoked. As someone once said about North Korea (I think it was Christopher Hitchens), if it's not obligatory, it's forbidden.

The lecture, which I'm sure is partially tongue in cheek, is very good. I think it is a parody of a certain type of intellectual and their outlook: the refusal to condemn Gilead, despite it obviously being evil, is still very common and crops up each time a woman is publicly murdered in the Middle East for some alleged "crime". But it's their culture, so it's ok when they do it...

I'm frustrated that authors continually see religious conviction as THE great threat to human society

A quick thought on this, Parson. I would respond by saying that it's not so much religion as fanaticism that is the greatest threat to the human race. I would argue that the attitudes of Islamic fundamentalists, medieval witch-hunters, Nazis and Stalinists are very similar: the rejection of logic, the unnatural revulsion from women and sex, the dismissal of whole groups of people as lesser races or unbelievers, the love of violence for its own sake, the endless worship of a leader-figure with supernatural powers and so on. (In fascist Japan, of course, religion and dictatorship were the same thing, since the emperor was literally considered divine.) Anarchy, to my mind, is merely a transitional stage, from which the most vicious person usually emerges triumphant and then sets up a dictatorship. Religion is just another head under which fanatics can get some murdering done, but it's a tried and tested one.

 

[Michael Colton]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I'm frustrated that authors continually see religious conviction as THE great threat to human society, while in my opinion the greatest threat to human society is anarchy, or perhaps more accurately described as unrestrained freedom.

Since I have yet to read the book, this is just a general response to your comment.

It seems to me that part of the reason we see extreme religiosity used in fiction so much is that we see it so much in real life. Because of that, people can relate to that sort of threat. Whereas something a bit more abstract like unrestrained freedom and anarchy are a bit harder to make 'real' for the reader in a threatening way. We have all read about or met religious fanatics (especially post-9/11 in the US, especially true as far as media is concerned), whereas it is difficult to quantify or describe what devastating unrestrained freedom looks like. It could have a variety forms.

Though I suppose one could argue that much post-apocalyptic fiction that focuses on either natural disaster or technology/bioengineering gone awry could be seen as explorations of the consequences of unrestrained freedom.

 

[tinkerdan]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I agree with I Brian in this instance;

I wish this story were different...I wish it showed me in a better light, if not happier, then at least more active, less hesitant, less distracted by trivia.

This, in fact, pulled me out of the story while I had a quiet chuckle thinking gee even the author is getting tired of some of this.

I think that there came a point in the novel where I realized that we have an unreliable narrator, which accounts for the freedom to make up a story and then backtrack to retell the truth. 'Truth' is a slippery subject in this book. Were talking about being steered by someone who is living inside a huge disinformation factory and trying to rely on her to tell us a story about what was happening. Compounding that with her own indoctrination that creates a way for her to justify what she has to do and even what lies she must tell herself and others and some tiny bits of manipulation that she must engage in. This is our window into the world of the Handmaid.

 

[Parson]

Re: Margeret Atwood

It's a very good book, but the ending is rather annoying for being ambiguous. But I'm not sure how I would have ended it. I found it interesting that the rest of the world - Britain, Canada and Japan are explicitly mentioned - is still free.

I actually liked the ending a lot. It seemed right, but I was frustrated that it didn't tie up what happened in the end to Offred.

One thing I liked a lot were the holes in Offred's knowledge. Her understanding of what's occurred isn't perfect, and, thanks to the policy of the regime, it's getting worse. As with 1984, the pointlessness of day to day life is very well evoked. As someone once said about North Korea (I think it was Christopher Hitchens), if it's not obligatory, it's forbidden.

The lecture, which I'm sure is partially tongue in cheek, is very good. I think it is a parody of a certain type of intellectual and their outlook: the refusal to condemn Gilead, despite it obviously being evil, is still very common and crops up each time a woman is publicly murdered in the Middle East for some alleged "crime". But it's their culture, so it's ok when they do it...

Having spent some time attending things like this it rang positively true and devastating.

A quick thought on this, Parson. I would respond by saying that it's not so much religion as fanaticism that is the greatest threat to the human race. I would argue that the attitudes of Islamic fundamentalists, medieval witch-hunters, Nazis and Stalinists are very similar: the rejection of logic, the unnatural revulsion from women and sex, the dismissal of whole groups of people as lesser races or unbelievers, the love of violence for its own sake, the endless worship of a leader-figure with supernatural powers and so on. (In fascist Japan, of course, religion and dictatorship were the same thing, since the emperor was literally considered divine.) Anarchy, to my mind, is merely a transitional stage, from which the most vicious person usually emerges triumphant and then sets up a dictatorship. Religion is just another head under which fanatics can get some murdering done, but it's a tried and tested one.

This is well said. I find myself agreeing, and a little less frustrated. Of course being who I am I would like to see religion shown in a more favorable light often, but a lot of the time Christianity and the other religions do not deserve any sort of favorable press. But I still believe that there are some more positive things that seldom are lifted up and praised.

Since I have yet to read the book, this is just a general response to your comment.

It seems to me that part of the reason we see extreme religiosity used in fiction so much is that we see it so much in real life. Because of that, people can relate to that sort of threat. Whereas something a bit more abstract like unrestrained freedom and anarchy are a bit harder to make 'real' for the reader in a threatening way. We have all read about or met religious fanatics (especially post-9/11 in the US, especially true as far as media is concerned), whereas it is difficult to quantify or describe what devastating unrestrained freedom looks like. It could have a variety forms.

Though I suppose one could argue that much post-apocalyptic fiction that focuses on either natural disaster or technology/bioengineering gone awry could be seen as explorations of the consequences of unrestrained freedom.

I would agree that it is a bit harder to make feel "real." But I also suspect that part of the reason is that we all think being able to do what we want, when we want, to whomever we want, sounds like a really good way to live. I think that has as much to do with it as the experience of unbalanced fundamentalists.

I hadn't thought of the man-made disasters of post-apocalyptic fiction as being the consequences of unrestrained freedom. But yes, yes it often is just that.

I agree with I Brian in this instance;

I wish this story were different...I wish it showed me in a better light, if not happier, then at least more active, less hesitant, less distracted by trivia.

This, in fact, pulled me out of the story while I had a quiet chuckle thinking gee even the author is getting tired of some of this.

I think that there came a point in the novel where I realized that we have an unreliable narrator, which accounts for the freedom to make up a story and then backtrack to retell the truth. 'Truth' is a slippery subject in this book. Were talking about being steered by someone who is living inside a huge disinformation factory and trying to rely on her to tell us a story about what was happening. Compounding that with her own indoctrination that creates a way for her to justify what she has to do and even what lies she must tell herself and others and some tiny bits of manipulation that she must engage in. This is our window into the world of the Handmaid.

I thought the quote that IBrian used was perfectly in character. I felt from the very beginning that our narrator was less than perfectly reliable because she came across so true to life. It is easy to see yourself acting the same kind of way in the same kinds of situations. I said early that I'm not sure a man could have written this book, and I still believe it.

 

[Michael Colton]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I would agree that it is a bit harder to make feel "real." But I also suspect that part of the reason is that we all think being able to do what we want, when we want, to whomever we want, sounds like a really good way to live. I think that has as much to do with it as the experience of unbalanced fundamentalists.

Sure, though this also seems to be a bit more of an American thing - at least that is the impression I get when I meet and discuss with Europeans. The hypercapitalistic sense of freedom has infiltrated into the social realm and gone quite beyond economics. While certain freedoms are nice, such as our freedom of expression (how difficult it is to be sued for libel and slander, etcetera), there is always a downside to such extreme individualism. I quite agree.

Though I do think that the combination of Islamic fundamentalists abroad and our very own fundamentalists at home such as Fred Phelps have spurred the broad experience of fundamentalists. I mean, how long did the Phelps family dominate the news before people stopped caring? And around the same time, there was a rise in abortion clinic bombings. And those are only the most extreme examples. Most people I meet from elsewhere in the world, or even the more nonreligious Americans, would put the vast majority of evangelicals closer to those groups than standard religiosity. If that is one's view, it would certainly seem like the fundamentalists are everywhere. Even the Amish - a group I have never heard a single person criticize for their way of life or beliefs - have television shows now about how 'extreme' they are.

They are also very easy to characterize. So when a film like Red State is made, the director-writer quite literally says he got the idea from the Phelps family. And he was later hounded by the very same family all across the country when he went to give presentations and talks. Religious fundamentalism, whether exaggerated or accurate, is just a perpetual topic of the zeitgeist now. Whereas hyper-individualism is considered normal, something modern society is founded on.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think you make a good point about the presentation of religion in SFF, Parson. The type of person you almost never see is the sincerely religious non-fanatic*. In fantasy especially, when characters pray, it's usually to get power to do difficult things, the way you might drink a glass of whisky before making a speech. Of course, since most medieval people were extremely religious, that doesn't really work. That said, if I did read an SF book where characters prayed publicly (ie not in a church or in private) I would assume that it was written by an American, as that sort of prayer feels very American for some reason.

* Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn feels like an exception. The human characters are largely religious, and the knight Camaris is extremely pious. He sounds strange to a modern reader, but not unpleasant. Likewise The Acts of King Arthur by John Steinbeck, but that's a translation of a medieval book anyway.

 

[Kylara]

I think you make a good point about the presentation of religion in SFF, Parson. The type of person you almost never see is the sincerely religious non-fanatic*.

The Acts of King Arthur by John Steinbeck, but that's a translation of a medieval book anyway.

I have just finished Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (translation and in the original!) and in between the hunting and descriptions of clothing there is a lot of religion. But religion in an everyday, pious way. In fact the whole plot revolves around how "correct" Gawain is, both in the religious and as a knight way (which are interlinked really) and I think you might like it Parson It is interesting, as it is such an old text, but I would consider it fantasy as you have a green knight (who is actually green) and some magicy things.

I think a problem people have now would be that a character such as that might be seen as insincere. People struggle to believe that people can be like that without an underlying motive. A friend has a grandfather who is a Reverend and she had a massive shock and felt betrayed by him, when it turns out that he had in fact been having a sort of affair whilst his wife was dying. She had always considered him perfect, and one of those who was religious in a non-fanatic everyday sort of way. She now no longer speaks to him which is sad, but after the revelation she feels as if he has somehow been lying to her and other slightly intolerant beliefs he has have become too much for her to cope with after he lost his elevated position in her mind.

People are happier with fanatics. And if you want to read something which question that, try The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

But, personally, I don't think people believe in sincerity, or at least sincerity in fiction - there must always be an underlying motive that renders them insincere, mustn't there? and people can't deal with the fact that they may actually be perfectly sincere with no evil plan at all. It makes people uncomfortable I think.

 

[Michael Colton]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I hadn't thought of the man-made disasters of post-apocalyptic fiction as being the consequences of unrestrained freedom. But yes, yes it often is just that.

I realize it is bad form to respond to someone in two different posts and for that I apologize, but I did think of the other element of this that I forgot to mention in my other post.

In the United States religion is explicitly political ever since Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. The association of a particular political party with a particular sort of evangelical Christianity in the United States only spurs the stereotypes and envisioning of them as more extreme. Especially in recent years, since the religious in the United States are the last group fighting against things such as same-sex marriage. These sort of developments create an impression of fanaticism in otherwise everyday religious folks that would not have been characterized as fundamentalist before. Especially with younger generations that studies are showing are overwhelmingly on the other side of some of these political issues (even conservative ones are beginning to become socially non-conservative), the characterization becomes furthered even more.

So when you have stereotypes of religious fanatics combined with a country wherein religion is explicitly political, that makes it very easy to give someone religious antagonists in fiction.

 

[Parson]

Re: Margeret Atwood

Sure, though this also seems to be a bit more of an American thing - at least that is the impression I get when I meet and discuss with Europeans. The hypercapitalistic sense of freedom has infiltrated into the social realm and gone quite beyond economics. While certain freedoms are nice, such as our freedom of expression (how difficult it is to be sued for libel and slander, etcetera), there is always a downside to such extreme individualism. I quite agree.

Though I do think that the combination of Islamic fundamentalists abroad and our very own fundamentalists at home such as Fred Phelps have spurred the broad experience of fundamentalists. I mean, how long did the Phelps family dominate the news before people stopped caring? And around the same time, there was a rise in abortion clinic bombings. And those are only the most extreme examples. Most people I meet from elsewhere in the world, or even the more nonreligious Americans, would put the vast majority of evangelicals closer to those groups than standard religiosity. If that is one's view, it would certainly seem like the fundamentalists are everywhere. Even the Amish - a group I have never heard a single person criticize for their way of life or beliefs - have television shows now about how 'extreme' they are.

They are also very easy to characterize. So when a film like Red State is made, the director-writer quite literally says he got the idea from the Phelps family. And he was later hounded by the very same family all across the country when he went to give presentations and talks. Religious fundamentalism, whether exaggerated or accurate, is just a perpetual topic of the zeitgeist now. Whereas hyper-individualism is considered normal, something modern society is founded on.

I would most certainly agree that people like the Islamic Fundamentalists and Fred Phelps have helped to color the modern view of fundamentalism. However the abortion bombings largely date from a time before Fred Phelps was making news.

Christian fundamentalism predates both Fred Phelps and the abortion bombings. It really formed at the beginning of the 20th century in response to the "Modernist" Christian teaching which was sweeping American and European seminaries in the time. The men who wrote the Fundamentalist papers had a very specific agenda and it was not socially driven. The five fundamentals of the faith were (1) The inspiration and authority of the Bible (2) The virgin birth of Christ (3) The atoning death of Jesus. (4) The bodily resurrection of Christ. (5) Christ's miracles literally happened. These were stated as the things which the Christian Church had believed from the time of Jesus.

The Amish are fundamentalist in the historic sense of the word, not the modern one which is tied to politics. And I believe it is how they try live by the literal truth of the Bible and their own cultural interpretation of that which makes them good T.V. A typical modern finds much of that incomprehensible. And therefore an easy target for the media.

I think you make a good point about the presentation of religion in SFF, Parson. The type of person you almost never see is the sincerely religious non-fanatic*. In fantasy especially, when characters pray, it's usually to get power to do difficult things, the way you might drink a glass of whisky before making a speech. Of course, since most medieval people were extremely religious, that doesn't really work. That said, if I did read an SF book where characters prayed publicly (ie not in a church or in private) I would assume that it was written by an American, as that sort of prayer feels very American for some reason.

* Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn feels like an exception. The human characters are largely religious, and the knight Camaris is extremely pious. He sounds strange to a modern reader, but not unpleasant. Likewise The Acts of King Arthur by John Steinbeck, but that's a translation of a medieval book anyway.

Interesting idea about such a book being "American." I suspect that in the worldwide scope of things that this is probably going to change. Christianity is growing rapidly in the global south which I would suspect would make it more likely for such a book to be written there.

Obviously I've heard of both of the authors, but I've never read either of their works. I have a hard time with Fantasy. It just doesn't catch me for some reason.

I have just finished Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (translation and in the original!) and in between the hunting and descriptions of clothing there is a lot of religion. But religion in an everyday, pious way. In fact the whole plot revolves around how "correct" Gawain is, both in the religious and as a knight way (which are interlinked really) and I think you might like it Parson It is interesting, as it is such an old text, but I would consider it fantasy as you have a green knight (who is actually green) and some magicy things.

I think a problem people have now would be that a character such as that might be seen as insincere. People struggle to believe that people can be like that without an underlying motive. A friend has a grandfather who is a Reverend and she had a massive shock and felt betrayed by him, when it turns out that he had in fact been having a sort of affair whilst his wife was dying. She had always considered him perfect, and one of those who was religious in a non-fanatic everyday sort of way. She now no longer speaks to him which is sad, but after the revelation she feels as if he has somehow been lying to her and other slightly intolerant beliefs he has have become too much for her to cope with after he lost his elevated position in her mind.

People are happier with fanatics. And if you want to read something which question that, try The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

But, personally, I don't think people believe in sincerity, or at least sincerity in fiction - there must always be an underlying motive that renders them insincere, mustn't there? and people can't deal with the fact that they may actually be perfectly sincere with no evil plan at all. It makes people uncomfortable I think.

I found a translation of this story and may try to give it a go sometime. The paragraphs I read make me see that this is going to be a slog for me to read. Maybe like Shakespeare it will read better aloud.

Why do you suppose people feel that a sincere believer has to have some alternative agenda? In real life people with an alternative agenda for believing most certainly exist but they are far away the exception rather than the rule. --- As I think about the portrayal of pastors on television and the movies, you can almost bet that a pastor who is young will be up to no good. If he's old and gray, and past his prime, then he might be an admirable character.

I realize it is bad form to respond to someone in two different posts and for that I apologize, but I did think of the other element of this that I forgot to mention in my other post.

In the United States religion is explicitly political ever since Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. The association of a particular political party with a particular sort of evangelical Christianity in the United States only spurs the stereotypes and envisioning of them as more extreme. Especially in recent years, since the religious in the United States are the last group fighting against things such as same-sex marriage. These sort of developments create an impression of fanaticism in otherwise everyday religious folks that would not have been characterized as fundamentalist before. Especially with younger generations that studies are showing are overwhelmingly on the other side of some of these political issues (even conservative ones are beginning to become socially non-conservative), the characterization becomes furthered even more.

So when you have stereotypes of religious fanatics combined with a country wherein religion is explicitly political, that makes it very easy to give someone religious antagonists in fiction.

As you note it is only a certain form of Christianity which is inextricably intertwined with (we might just as well say it) the Republican party in the US. The more liberal branch of it is almost as completely intertwined with the Democratic party. In my particular denomination your political affiliation is almost more certainly determined by where you live than by affiliation with our church. On the East Coast my denomination is overwhelmingly Democratic, and in the Midwest and the West Coast it is very strongly Republican. (We are a bit of a rare bird though in that we hold membership both in the World Council of Churches and we have some judicatories with membership in the Association of Evangelicals.)

I think part of the reason that Christians are seen as against so many things is that the news media actively searches out those whose views are most extreme because they make the best sound bites

 

[Michael Colton]

Re: Margeret Atwood

I think part of the reason that Christians are seen as against so many things is that the news media actively searches out those whose views are most extreme because they make the best sound bites

I would agree with this as far as the Phelps-type goes. But not as far as the social conservative post-Falwell movement goes. Political scientists know quite a lot about that movement, how it changed American politics, and how much the Republican party has come to rely on the social conservatism of that sort of evangelical. Many thorough studies have been done on the topic. Falwell & Co. in addition to Reagan were quite literally a fundamental shift in the Republican party that placed them within the realm of a particular breed of social conservatism.

It obviously is not all the party is about, but it is a large enough part of their base that it permanently politicized religion in America in a manner that it had not been before. It is also, combined with the Tea Party, part of the reason why many political scientists believe the Republican Party will eventually split within the next generation and a half since that sort of religious social conservatism does not hold as much weight with the younger generations. The party will either have to quickly adapt or split.

What the Reagan-generation evangelical Republicans consider 'normal' social conservatism is slowly becoming more and more extreme in the eyes of younger generations, which helps drive the fundamentalist trope in the media and fiction. So even without including the most fanatical like Phelps, what is considered extreme is becoming broader.

And about the term fundamentalism, I was using it in the colloquial sense. When the media use the term they are certainly not thinking of the doctrinal or theological implications. That sort of definition is not particularly useful outside of doctrinal discussions. Much like how the term 'evangelical' has become more and more fuzzy as time goes on.

 

[Kylara]

Oh yes, you have to read it aloud! They work best like that. I can tell you which is the best translation too Simon Armitage Faber & Faber Poetry (2007) - it has a pale green cover. Here is a link to it on Faber website Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Simon Armitage they also have it as an audio book

In regards to sincerity, it was just a comment on general sincerity, not just religious. I have a feeling people feel uncomfortable when they encounter genuine sincerity of any kind, and can't help but think it must be fake, or part of a ruse.

 

[Parson]

I would agree with this as far as the Phelps-type goes. But not as far as the social conservative post-Falwell movement goes. Political scientists know quite a lot about that movement, how it changed American politics, and how much the Republican party has come to rely on the social conservatism of that sort of evangelical. Many thorough studies have been done on the topic. Falwell & Co. in addition to Reagan were quite literally a fundamental shift in the Republican party that placed them within the realm of a particular breed of social conservatism.

It obviously is not all the party is about, but it is a large enough part of their base that it permanently politicized religion in America in a manner that it had not been before. It is also, combined with the Tea Party, part of the reason why many political scientists believe the Republican Party will eventually split within the next generation and a half since that sort of religious social conservatism does not hold as much weight with the younger generations. The party will either have to quickly adapt or split.

What the Reagan-generation evangelical Republicans consider 'normal' social conservatism is slowly becoming more and more extreme in the eyes of younger generations, which helps drive the fundamentalist trope in the media and fiction. So even without including the most fanatical like Phelps, what is considered extreme is becoming broader.

And about the term fundamentalism, I was using it in the colloquial sense. When the media use the term they are certainly not thinking of the doctrinal or theological implications. That sort of definition is not particularly useful outside of doctrinal discussions. Much like how the term 'evangelical' has become more and more fuzzy as time goes on.

Michael: I'm afraid that we have taken this thread completely afield and our highjack of it might be complete. If you want to continue this discussion and I'd be more than happy to, perhaps we'd better do if via PMs or start a new thread. For now I'd like to say that I agree with your post mostly. However I do not think that the Republican party and their linkage with evangelicals and/or fundamentalists (I hate using those terms colloquially because they mean so much to me in a theological sense) will not last past the coming elections. The TEA party, the "old line" Republicans, and the Religious right are but a hair's breath from splitting right now. Although they have some common ground, but at heart they all have very different agendas. For myself I long for the day when the Religious Right (and I'd likely be considered among them) loses it power in the party. Christianity is never the force it was created to be when it has governmental power. We are to be counter-cultural, in the words of Jesus "in the world, but not of the world."

Oh yes, you have to read it aloud! They work best like that. I can tell you which is the best translation too Simon Armitage Faber & Faber Poetry (2007) - it has a pale green cover. Here is a link to it on Faber website Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Simon Armitage they also have it as an audio book

In regards to sincerity, it was just a comment on general sincerity, not just religious. I have a feeling people feel uncomfortable when they encounter genuine sincerity of any kind, and can't help but think it must be fake, or part of a ruse.

Thanks for link. And sad about your feelings about sincerity. I earnestly hope that you are not right. How calloused and sickenly urban has humanity become if we can't believe that anyone could sincerely care, or love, or hope, or anything else.

 

[Michael Colton]

Michael: I'm afraid that we have taken this thread completely afield and our highjack of it might be complete. If you want to continue this discussion and I'd be more than happy to, perhaps we'd better do if via PMs or start a new thread.

I agree. And to any that were put off by my thread hijacking, I apologize. This sort of lengthy discussion would be a bit frustrating for me with the current PM system, but once we move to the new site and PM's are in thread form so you can reread old posts and keep a good flow I would be more than happy to continue the discussion.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Can I just say I found the digressions very interesting. Obviously being where I'm from (just outside Belfast) religion and politics are completely intertwined. Even someone like myself, who is easy-going in terms of what religion people are (reads for that, doesn't give a stuff), finds voting outside my religious convention less than straightforward, for a number of reasons:

1. The lack of viable candidates fielded

2. Policies. By and large, the parties do tailor their policies to the demograph that supports them and this does, sometimes, mean they have little relevance or might even go against what is best for different demographs.

3. A ruined vote. Frankly, the best I can do is vote for the extremists of my religion, the more moderate (who don't stand a chance of getting in at this point), or the middle of the road party who really aren't that effective. Voting for a party of the other religion is, in my predominantly single religion (of which I am of the same religion town) tantament to spoiling my vote. Ergo, whether I like it or not (and I can guess most Chronners know me well enough to know it's a not) I vote along religious lines (although not for the extremists).

4. History. It's there. There are people on my government (from both sides of the religious divide, but notably linked to one large-scale party) who have an openly terrorist background. Others have links to organisations I don't support (some ex-paramilitary, some, shall we say, of a more cultural persuasion). The Troubles weren't far enough in the past for that not to be a sticking point in our politics. Most of us swallow it and accept we have to work within the confines of our history to achieve peace, but it does affect where I would be comfortable to place my vote.

Oh, and I believe that people are sincere, still; but I like to believe the best in people. because the alternative is horrid.