marycatelli (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
marycatelli) wrote2015-02-16 12:00 am
marycatelli) wrote2015-02-16 12:00 am
Angels,Demons and Saints.
Wasn't what I quite wanted, though it had its points.
Dwelled too much on lists of the "satiric" type that, in my experience, thinks that shallow, glib portrayals of God say a lot about God rather than the author. . .
Vampires came up a lot -- including the Buffy type of demonic posssession of corpses, which was not, in a panelist's eyes, developed enough, and which, I pointed out, was also the Chinese view. (Chinese vampires also must travel in straight lines and hop, which were the only other things we knew of them.) One panelist observed that you have to watch what you choose because of its implications. Whether they are repelled by crucifixes or by any holy symbol. (Though he really put his foot in it. He called the first accepting the implications of fundamentalist Christianity. As if the fundamentalists were not, on the whole, almost as repelled as the vampire.) But, yeah, introducing any form of religious being has heavy implications.
One audience member wanted to talk about expressing an ineffable God. Alas, no panelist pointed out the obvious, that it is logically impossible, but that you can, sometimes, imply it. But that's an excellent way to show off the depths of your shallowness.
never hit on the sort I like reading best. Like Miserere by Theresa Frohock or L. Jagi Lamplighter's Prospero's Daughter trilogy. (Or, of course, my own Diabolical Bargain. O:)
Dwelled too much on lists of the "satiric" type that, in my experience, thinks that shallow, glib portrayals of God say a lot about God rather than the author. . .
Vampires came up a lot -- including the Buffy type of demonic posssession of corpses, which was not, in a panelist's eyes, developed enough, and which, I pointed out, was also the Chinese view. (Chinese vampires also must travel in straight lines and hop, which were the only other things we knew of them.) One panelist observed that you have to watch what you choose because of its implications. Whether they are repelled by crucifixes or by any holy symbol. (Though he really put his foot in it. He called the first accepting the implications of fundamentalist Christianity. As if the fundamentalists were not, on the whole, almost as repelled as the vampire.) But, yeah, introducing any form of religious being has heavy implications.
One audience member wanted to talk about expressing an ineffable God. Alas, no panelist pointed out the obvious, that it is logically impossible, but that you can, sometimes, imply it. But that's an excellent way to show off the depths of your shallowness.
never hit on the sort I like reading best. Like Miserere by Theresa Frohock or L. Jagi Lamplighter's Prospero's Daughter trilogy. (Or, of course, my own Diabolical Bargain. O:)