- This topic has 32 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m working on planning my next novel, and I’ve decided I want to expand my horizons and use a variety of humaniod characters, rather than just using people. And I thought, “Hmm… it would be interesting to have a ghost as a principal character in a story.” And then I thought, “Wait, is that Biblical?” And then I thought, “Well, it’s fantasy– does it have to be exactly Biblical?”
So that’s my dilemma.
Let me explain my world.
In this realm, there is a God who rules over the universe, but there had not yet been a Messiah character to redeem the world from its evil. As a result, a vast number of people have died over the years without the saving blood required to get into a place of eternal rest. There have been people who have died blatantly rejecting their Creator, and their spirits were sent directly to Hell upon death, but those who believed in God but didn’t know much about him, or who were waiting for a redeemer, are stuck between the human world and the heavenly world as spirits.
These characters operate in a different dimension of the human world. They can speak to humans, see humans, and physically interact with humans and humans’ objects, and they can be felt and heard, but they cannot be seen themselves (except under specific conditions). They maintain whatever personality and habits they had before their deaths.
Some of them have malicious intents, and take pleasure in haunting or harming people, but others are just passing the time before their second judgment, or searching for a redeemer who can grant them passage into Heaven.
This is about all I’ve worked out so far, because I don’t want to go any further until I decide whether or not it’s Biblical to use ghosts in Christian fantasy. Ghosts are a topic that makes some Christians uncomfortable, and I don’t want this to be a problem with potential readers or parents of potential readers. Personally, I feel like ghosts are a neat concept, and I haven’t found enough Scriptural evidence to say whether they definitively do or do not exist (so if anyone out there has found Scriptural evidence for or against ghosts, let me know– my mind is open in either direction). I don’t have a problem with reading about ghosts in Christian fantasy. I mean, The Lord of the Rings had ghosts all over the place. And I love The Christmas Carol. But I haven’t really read any other Christian literature that contains ghosts, so I’m not sure how Christians, in general, feel about them. I asked my dad about it, and he said he didn’t have an answer, because he could see both sides of using ghosts in literature.
If you have any thoughts at all, about ghosts in literature, ghosts in real life, or any other random comments you want to make, I’d love to hear them, along with any cautions, tips, or suggestions.
Many thanks!
Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas!YA Fantasy Writer
Obsessive Character Namer
Find me at hisinstrumentblog.wordpress.com@his-instrument Great topic.
As far as ghosts in real life, here’s my opinion. So, what is a ghost? Well, a spirit of course. But the real question is whether it can be any spirit or if it has to be the spirit of a real person that has died, but now that dwells on earth in spiritual form. Of course, I believe in angels and demons that could appear on earth and in that dead people have spirits, but I doubt that the spirits of the dead can wonder on earth. It seems to me that their spirits would stay in hades. I’m thinking of the rich man and Lazarus. Then again, there is that chapter where the sorceress supposedly brings up the spirit of Samuel, but I’m not entirely sure what to make of that.
As for using them in Fantasy, the idea behind Christian Fantasy is the fantasy world is used to symbolize the real world, not to simply portray it in different shapes and colors. It is understood that the church won’t look exactly like the church in real life, perhaps God may live in a separate part of the earth and not actually in Heaven (as in the chronicles of Narnia), and God may not even have a son. The idea though is that, while you won’t be able to show Christianity as it really should be, you can really make a point about specific aspects of Christianity. In your case, you want to ask what truth(s) you can symbolize with ghosts. If you think ghosts help you symbolize a truth without corrupting it, then I’d say go ahead and use them.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
I tend to agree with @Daeus, @His-Instrument. Literature doesn’t always HAVE to be literal and exact to the real world— especially when it comes to symbolism, there are definite lines you can cross— but unless you feel that it will help illustrate a truth (maybe you wanna explore guilt and how it keeps you from moving on?) probably best not to deviate from what really is. An allegory is after all a picture, and though sometimes it is permissible and powerful for the elements of a picture to shift, the truer the picture is for the most part, the stronger it is.
@his-instrument What Kate said. That’s what I meant to say, except I would have put it better of course.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@Daeus of course. No one doubts that. XD
Ooh! This topic!
I’m glad to see that several dozen people didn’t jump on it right away and say that ghosts have to be evil and there’s no way to let them in even to fantasy. I happen to be fond of the idea of ghosts myself. . . partly telling myself stories about friendly ones when I was little to counter my fear of the dark. However, since “it is appointed to men once to die and then comes the judgement” (I forget the citation for that, sorry), and since souls have one of two options for being judged: either righteous through Christ (and so to Heaven) or unrighteous (and so to Hell), I don’t think there’s any cracks for souls to slip out and go wandering where they might be seen by people in our world.
In stories, though, I don’t mind a little more latitude if it’s set in a different world. Maybe Hell is sending bad souls out to haunt the sites of their evil deeds and mourn eternally, seeing how their crimes affect people centuries afterward. Maybe the definition of soul is a bit different (say, in a world where you have centaurs and unicorns and dragons and other highly intelligent, rational beasts, or fay folk or whatnot (for an excellent take on whether fays have souls see Pendragon’s Heir).
I like to have hypothetical conversations about ghosts. Imagine if one got lonely and wanted to make friends, and found a little kid who wasn’t scared of him. Imagine inviting a ghost over to tea, forgetting that he can’t drink it, and he’s too polite to say anything, and comes over, and you offer him a chair. But of course he can’t sit in it, so he sort of drapes himself over it and hovers there, so as not to hurt your feelings. Maybe he tries to get some good out of the cookies by sniffing them. Or you knitted him a scarf for Christmas, but he couldn’t open the package, so he slipped between the layers of the paper to see what you gave him, even though he couldn’t actually wear it.
That sort of thing isn’t in itself harmful, it’s the idea of spirits getting loose after death that is theologically harmful (at least for this world). Spirits in Heaven would have no need or desire to leave; spirits in Hell aren’t given permission, as we know from Dives and Lazarus, and to suggest that they can escape is to limit God’s power too much. And ghosts can get really creepy. They usually are in the stories, or really sad. Which is partly why I picked them, and friendly ones, for the stories to combat the dark.You will draw water joyfully from the springs of salvation. (Isaiah 12:3)
@northerner @daeus @kate-flournoy Thanks for the input.
I could probably find a way to have ghosts represent something spiritual in this story, but it might be a stretch. I guess my question is, do they have to represent something? If you look at Lord of the Rings (which is pretty much one of my favorite things to point to as an example of anything that has to do with writing), there were ghosts everywhere, but they didn’t represent anything. Tolkien himself said that Lord of the Rings was not supposed to be an allegory or symbolism or anything (whatever, Tolkien). Is it wrong to use ghosts simply as characters?
This story does take place in a different world. It has different rules. A different method of judgment. While in this world, I don’t think there’s any way ghosts could happen unless part of the punishment of Hell is to look upon the suffering of mankind and be unable to help (as in The Christmas Carol, and I doubt that that form of ghost even exists, for fantasy, you’re bending rules of the universe to begin with. I would be using them in the way that Tolkien used elves or orcs or any other made-up being.
But, ultimately, I want to honor God with my writing, and if this seems like a concept that could lead people astray (despite careful plotting), I will nix the idea and settle for a different kind of character. I’d really like to make this work, but Christ’s Kingdom comes first.YA Fantasy Writer
Obsessive Character Namer
Find me at hisinstrumentblog.wordpress.comWell @His-Instrument, it depends on how you define ghost I guess. And sorry Tolkien, whatever you say about no allegory, I’m not buying it. 😛 There is no way he was blind to the symbolism in his work. Even if it wasn’t supposed to be a specific allegory, it was allegorical in so many ways it’s impossible he did that on accident. Sauron of course represents ultimate evil. The Ringwraiths represent the corruption of power. The what-do-you-call-em’s— the Dimholt people— represent the binding nature of an oath and eternal guilt that comes with breaking it. They are all symbols. If they were there just because ‘ghosts’ that would be a problem. But they all have symbolic reasons for their place. And that’s what I mean when I say ‘illustrate a truth’.
@his-instrument Well, I see what you mean. Of course, elves and ghosts are different, since elves are basically just a different looking human, whereas ghosts are spirits.
The basic principle here is that the truer something is, the better. Truth, though, isn’t always simple. There are levels of truth. For instance, if you wanted to show a messianic sacrifice in a fantasy story, the messiah might pay for people’s sins, but perhaps his suffering would only be a spiritual torment with no physical death. This wouldn’t be a full representation of absolute truth, but it would express the arch-truths of propitiation, perfect justice, and sacrifice. Your world can look very different, but you want to match up the arch-truths with reality as much as possible. We all understand no fantasy is perfect, but the purer it is, the better it will be. There are, however, neat opportunities when you play with different ways of representing arch-truths. For instance, if we go with our example of a messiah that doesn’t actually physically die, we leave out the arch-truth that God has conquered death. We can still show this though, but in an unusual way. We could have our messiah character go down and actually battle some mythical creature guarding Hades and defeat him. This would show the arch-truth, but in a very original way.
This, I think, is what Tolkien meant when he said he didn’t write allegory. What he actually said was that he wrote mythology. The difference is partly stylistic, but what the key difference is, is that Tolkien was willing to give up details for the sake of presenting arch-truths in original ways. For instance, in the Silmarillion, his God character is all powerful and involved in his creation. However, he appoints lesser “gods” to be his representatives on earth and control certain aspects in accordance with his plan. This is not allegory. There are not lesser gods in real life, but the arch nature of God is not changed.
Now, I will note one thing about Tolkien. There’s no redemption in his stories (well, maybe there is, but not in the ones I’ve read.) I guess you could say destroying the ring in mount doom kinda qualifies, but only barely. You see, it’s never clear how creatures will be eternally judged (though it’s kinda understood their actions and heart are important.) There’s also no savior and no unified body of believers in any way. This, I feel, is a missing arch-truth that could have added a lot to Tolkien’s story world.
So all that is to say, you can twist detail and change them almost all you want, but aim to keep as many arch-truths as you possibly can.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@His-Instrument yeah. What he said.
Alright, @kate-flournoy, we’ve got this thing down. So next time, you provide the full explanation and I’ll summarize it, and then we’ll switch back and forth.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@daeus @kate-flournoy I’ll give you another chance to implement your plan, because I’ve been doing some thinking and I believe I have worked out my details. This is sort of what I had in mind before, but I didn’t have it all worked out yet.
So, one of the main characters in this story is a ghost named Emeth. She died fifty years ago at the age of sixteen, and has been, ever since, waiting in death for her Messiah and searching for him.
The reason she has no resting place is this: When the body dies in this fantasy world, the spirit journeys to Heaven, but just before the gates of Heaven is the Accuser (representing Satan), who, since humanity first submitted to him years ago, has had the legal right to bar human souls from reaching their eternal rest.
Spirits are transparent, which to humans means they cannot be seen, but to other spirits means that all of them can be seen, including the sin that they have inside. The Accuser, knowing that no flawed soul can go into Heaven, turns back every spirit whose guilt can be seen. The only thing that can hide the spirits’ guilt from the Accuser is mortal blood, like the blood of animals. Spirits cannot see through blood-coverings. The Accuser cannot see through blood because of his nature, and the Creator (God) cannot see through blood because of His choice, His method of redemption.
During life on this fantasy planet, much like in Old Testament law, mortals can sacrifice animals to atone for their guilt. If they do this faithfully and follow explicitly the laws of the Creator, the blood they will have stored up will be enough to cover them from the gaze of the Accuser and allow them passage into Heaven. However, those who have not stored enough are turned back and left to wander on the earth. They cannot be sent to Hell, because the Creator knows that there is still a chance for them– through His Messiah. Who will, of course, come during the story, freeing both mortals and immortals– but only those who choose to receive him and become covered by his blood.
After his resurrection, the Messiah will throw the Accuser from his place at the gates of Heaven, and will judge for himself who can pass in to the Creator.
Thus, the “ghosts” in this world are a direct representation of the human spirit, and our inability to enter Heaven by our own works. They will allow the reader to see the spiritual side of this dimension, as well as the parallel to the spiritual side of our own planet. The ghosts can also see things like the work of angels and demons– being immortal they can see the immortal, and this can show the reader spiritual warfare on a different level. My protagonist is a human, so the main part of the storytelling will be told from the human point of view, which can see neither ghosts nor angels nor demons, but the ghosts in the story would allow everything to be viewed at two levels.
Does that sound Biblical? The one thing I’m wondering about is whether or not anyone should be allowed to enter Heaven by the blood of animals. I mean, salvation was kind of “by works” prior to the coming of Jesus. Rules had to be followed. And eventually, through human labor and the grace of God, the righteous could pass into Heaven (we think. There seem to be some indications that there was no afterlife, since passage into Heaven seems to be rarely mentioned by Old Testament figures, but post-death is referred to as “rest” by the righteous, which leads me to wonder if they weren’t even admitted into Heaven until after Christ). Should this world’s salvation be through Christ alone? Or should it have been previously attainable through works?Here’s another weird passage in Scripture, which isn’t related directly to what I’ve been talking about but which has to do with spirits and which has always confused me: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built” (1 Peter 3:18-20). Some translations seem to say that Christ went to proclaim salvation to “spirits in bondage,” which has never made any sense to me. Some people interpret this to mean there is a spirit-world after death where spirits will have an opportunity to accept Christ again. I don’t think that makes sense, completely, but in a way it does… Does anyone have any thoughts on this passage?
YA Fantasy Writer
Obsessive Character Namer
Find me at hisinstrumentblog.wordpress.com@His-Instrument actually that does sound like it could be a powerful allegory, handled well. It’d need a lot of prayer and study of scripture of course, but that’s not difficult.
And that verse has always puzzled me as well. For me, it’s one of those mysteries that doesn’t really need explaining. Something God knows, but didn’t spell out for me, so I’m happy with Him just knowing it. I’m curious of course, but it doesn’t kill me that I don’t understand it all the way. 😉
I think that could work. I especially like how you’d get to see the ghost’s view of the spiritual realm. Could make for some nice subtlety and suspense. As far as the story idea goes, two elements jumped out to me: The Accusor and the blood. Both of these, I think, could be deepened through developing their background mythologies. This is where you can be more Tolkienesque. Perhaps the Accusor has a really mysterious background, or maybe he was actually a human who did some awful thing and had his nature changed, or it could be just about anything. And you’d want to ask yourself what his motivation is. Also, how will the Messiah overthrowing the Accusor look?
The blood can have its own mythology too. It’s reasonable to ask, “why does blood conceal people’s sins?” and there could be a whole tale to explain that.
Now, as for the theological questions here, I’ll start with redemption through works. I don’t think works were ever part of salvation. For one, God calls our works filthy rags and the old testament shows very clearly that unclean things are not to enter God’s presence. Also, I don’t know of any verse that would indicate that clearly. And finally, Hebrews seems to state that the old testament believers were saved by faith. Actually, while we’re in Hebrews, it says there that the old covenant did not justify.
Does that mean you have to change your story? Well, I don’t think that’s absolutely necessary. There might be some way to keep the arch-truth while still maintaining the system. That could imply writing really deep mythology background, but I think an easier solution would just be to make the question of whether souls can disguise themselves with blood enough to make it past the Accuser a mystery. There could be a big debate as to whether any spirits had ever made it past and it could motivate people to do more and more sacrifices to give themselves a better chance.
Now, that 1 Peter passage. Honestly, I don’t have a perfect understanding of that either. I will say one thing though. (Sorry, Kate. I’m going rebuke you here. Please excuse me.) Don’t ever say a bible passage is a mystery (unless it actually says the words, “This is a mystery.”) In English, that means, “This seems like a lot of work, so I don’t care about it.” There’s a really good way to get nowhere, and that is by never taking a step forward. The bible says, “All scripture is… profitable for doctrine.” That means all scripture is at least basically interpretable.
The 1 Peter passage does obviously say that Jesus preached to spirits (and seems to indicate those specifically who perished in the flood, I think), but it says nothing about what he preached. It could have been on anything as far as I can tell, so to say he was offering them a second chance at salvation seems like no more than a guess to me. Also, if we assume that he was preaching specifically to those destroyed in the flood, a message of salvation doesn’t make sense, because what about the bad people after the flood?
If I have time, maybe I can study this more.
As far as your own story world though, I do think you could keep the arch-truth here pretty easily with a little bit of imagination.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.