Subject: Summary and a paragraph, and I already want to kill it.
Author:
Posted on: 2014-09-16 03:25:00 UTC
Family friendly? Try toddler friendly.
-
I found this gem on Tumblr. by
on 2014-09-14 19:28:00 UTC
Reply
Hogwarts School of Prayer and Miracles.
According to the author's note someone wanted to make a "family-friendly" version of Harry Potter for their children, but I'm not entirely sure if this is a trollfic or not.
I will warn that it does do a lot of religious stereotyping, Christian or otherwise, so if that's not your cup of tea, don't read it. -
Upon further review. by
on 2014-09-18 19:15:00 UTC
Reply
I really think it is just a trollfic since the author has Luna Lovegood kind of appear out of nowhere (she is essentially a hippie in this if you must know.) Not to mention the only one in their house, or as the author calls them sorting hats, is Harry himself. Also apparently the Weasleys have multiplied while I wasn't looking since the author describes the table as being packed full of Ron's family. Which leads into a very funny mental image since they are in SLytherin and I am imagining the canonical Snapes reaction to such an event.
-
So what Sorting Hat are you? :D by
on 2014-09-19 10:05:00 UTC
Reply
Chapter 6 attempts to pin the different Hats (that's never going to stop being hilarious) down to four different types of Christianity. So how well are they pinned down?
-Slytherin is Catholicism; the Marian aspect is a dead giveaway. Only it's a sort of Catholicism that prays to, uh, statues. That sounds more like a corrupted version of the Eastern Catholic fondness for icons than anything I know about Roman Catholicism. I'm also not sure what the 'book full of guidelines' is - perhaps it's the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which would bring us back to Roman Catholicism?
They're also all red-haired; I assume that's a joke about Ireland, or maybe US Irish Catholics. Quite a funny one, actually, and explains why Ron's a Slytheratholic.
-After that, I can't pin names on things. Hufflepuff are clearly defined as 'wishy-washy', but frankly I suspect they're meant to reflect most of Protestant Christianity. Ravenclaw are 'the mean ones': they hate Slytheratholics, and explicitly hate women as well. Gyffindor is... whatever the author (purportedly) agrees with? It looks like they're just as strict as Ravenmean, but for 'the right reasons' - eg, they agree that women shouldn't be allowed to work, but their reason is based on positive 'they should do this instead' rather than negative 'women suck'. So... maybe Ravenmean is meant to portray the Dark Side of whatever demoniation Gryffinbest represents?
This is why I said Hufflewashy represents most of Protestantism: anyone who doesn't agree with the Gryffinbest principles (including women staying at home, rejecting the science of evolution, and not celebrating birthdays) is either a Mary-venerating Catholic, or a Hufflewashy. Since I don't believe the Gryffinbest principles are widely held across Protestantism, that means Hufflewashy is the largest non-Slytheratholic house.
I'm not sure Luna's sudden appearance makes it more likely to be a parody - I wouldn't call it a troll, because if it's not serious, then it's seriously well-executed. Draco does the same thing, after all; they just read like character introductions. However, my numbers 1 and 2 reasons for thinking 'parody':
-Sorting Hats. ^-^
-The level of knowledge is too up-and-down. Things like Sorting Hats would imply someone who's never read the books or seen the films, since it's not a change to fit the theme - it's just a very strange mistake. But the overall understanding of the books is too high, even if shown in altered form. It doesn't work unless you assume it's deliberate.
-Also (I know, I said two...), the author's notes don't ring true. She's not someone you'd see lying, but it is absolutely impossible that she's received three times as many positive PMs as negative reviews (Ch. 4). And the 'I got a PM from someone who thought I wrote the original books despite the fact that they were reading the Harry Potter section of FF.n' disclaimer (Ch. 5) is even less believable.
So: parody, but pretty good one. It doesn't poke fun at the beliefs it claims to be espousing: it just lays them out plainly and lets you decide whether or not they're ridiculous. See: A Modest Proposal, by J. Swift. Parody and satire are always best when they're 'serious'. ^-^
hS -
Re: So what Sorting Hat are you? :D by
on 2014-09-19 16:32:00 UTC
Reply
Just a guess, but the more positive 'women should do this instead' sounds to me like it would fit either Southern Baptist or Assemblies of God. Both very popular in the Bible belt of the US. Both are very strict and very restrictive on women's roles, but do tend to aim for saying 'do this instead' not just 'we hate women'. They've also been, in my experience, very mistrustful of Harry Potter and also frequently of Catholics.
Not sure about the Ravenmeans. Fairly sure whatever group they are referencing, it isn't saying anything nice about them, and the group in question would probably have a different opinion of themselves. -
That was vaguely what I was thinking. by
on 2014-09-19 16:41:00 UTC
Reply
Southern Baptist in particular is what I think when I hear 'highly conservative US Christian'. Totally wrong, I have no doubt, but there you have it.
I have to believe the Ravenmeans are just 'bad Southern Baptists' (or whatever). The two beliefs they have - women shouldn't work, Catholics are bad - precisely match the corresponding beliefs of the Gryffinbests. It's just that Ravenmeans do it for what a Gryffinbest would call 'all the wrong reasons'. "there is not much ground to stand on when you are being hateful!", the author injects, and Harry says, "You are twisting the truth so you can be mean with it!"
I suppose it's possible that she's parodying (and in this case that's absolutely the term) some specific group... Westboro Baptist Church? They tend to be a fairly common target.
hS -
Re: That was vaguely what I was thinking. by
on 2014-09-19 17:13:00 UTC
Reply
Well, I can think of a few possible denominations that could be the target, but Westboro is a pretty safe choice.
I don't really think the large majority of Southern Baptists (or Assemblies of God, small group overall, I think, but numerous here) would be offended at all about the label 'highly conservative US Christian'. I live in a highly conservative area (seriously, Prohibition hasn't even fully ended here), and most of the people I am related to and grew up with are proud of the label conservative. -
Well, good. I wasn't trying to offend. by
on 2014-09-19 18:21:00 UTC
Reply
That's why I used a political label that's generally accepted by the people who adhere to it. ;) Personally, I'd be mortally offended to be called conservative - but that's me.
hS -
Re: Well, good. I wasn't trying to offend. by
on 2014-09-19 20:46:00 UTC
Reply
I'm not conservative either. But I do live in a large concentration of people who are.
-
In need of education by
on 2014-09-19 15:41:00 UTC
Reply
If "Troll" were defined by "deliberately trying to push everybody’s berserk buttons", then I would say that this is a Troll. But apparently this definition is off, because a Troll can never be interesting and amusing?
Anyway, I wonder whether they will find my berserk button. It would be nice to know where it is.
HG -
No standard definition, I think. by
on 2014-09-19 16:00:00 UTC
Reply
Personally, I hear 'troll' as an insult, and 'parody' as a neutral term. So something which is amusing is something I wouldn't insult, so I wouldn't call it a troll...
The troll-parody-satire distinction, unfortunately, lies in the author's mindset. All three are designed to look like something they're not - in this case, an actual Christian who believes what the A/Ns suggest she does. As you say, a troll is doing it to push buttons and make people angry. A parody is doing it to get laughs - 'see how silly this is when you push it to the logical extreme' - a la LonelyStar's story. Satire is doing it to make a point.
Personally, I think the author is aiming for satire, because it's not really bombastic enough for parody, and trolls... tend to be more obvious and less worked-on. But I won't rule out a very dedicated troll, or even someone entirely serious.
Ultimately, I'm not sure the lines between them are even this solid. But this is how I see it.
(Reference: Parody and satire. But try and find the difference between trolling and parody... eesh! Also, we're clearly deep in the mire of Poe's Law here)
hS -
The comments are awesome! ;) by
on 2014-09-16 03:59:00 UTC
Reply
I'm a Christian... but I'm appalled at this. Voldemort... pushing something in Congress?
"Hi, I'm Voldemort, and this is Nagini. I want you to ban freedom of religion!" -
Summary and a paragraph, and I already want to kill it. by
on 2014-09-16 03:25:00 UTC
Reply
Family friendly? Try toddler friendly.
-
Quick question by
on 2014-09-16 03:25:00 UTC
Reply
Just to be absolutely sure, but would giving this fic the MST treatment require permission. Since I read the fourth chapter and while I was debating whether or not to spork it a particular line pretty much made me decide to mock it.
-
Re: Quick question by
on 2014-09-17 11:55:00 UTC
Reply
I think that, unless it includes or mentions the ppc, it does not require permission.
-
I think you have everyone here's blessing on such a pursue by
on 2014-09-16 17:44:00 UTC
Reply
Pun intended! But seriously, since it has been already said by Lily that is allowed, please, for the love of God, please do it!
-
Regarding the MST. by
on 2014-09-16 18:41:00 UTC
Reply
Considering the potential to cause unrest I will do one chapter of the fanfic. If the reaction is far to negative it will summarily be deleted and hopefully you will forgive my foolishness. If it does end up deleted I will just have to pick something else to MST. There is no shortage of badfic after all.
-
Condidering the things people have said on the thread by
on 2014-09-16 19:01:00 UTC
Reply
I now think that MST-ing would cause the same problems as
missioning. People have mentioned the ban on religious fic missions, and even if a MST isn't necessarily bound by the same rules, I think doing would definitely cause unrest. -
I think I see why they were banned. by
on 2014-09-16 19:16:00 UTC
Reply
One wrong step and people can get kind of miffed. Not to mention having to walk on eggshells puts stress on everyone involved which could impact the humour in a negative way.
Yeah, I think I will just drop trying to MST this fic completely and move onto other ones. -
MSTing isn't a PPC-only thing, so go ahead, go nuts! by
on 2014-09-16 03:28:00 UTC
Reply
Link it to us later if you want us to read the snarking.
-
Is it weird that I feel worst for the Dursleys? by
on 2014-09-16 00:02:00 UTC
Reply
Because as terrible as they are in canon, they are much rounder and more interesting characters in canon than the flat creatures in this fic.
(All that spouting off about Darwin. What would the neighbors think?) -
Nitpick by
on 2014-09-16 22:19:00 UTC
Reply
That's not Darwin they're talking about. Richard Dawkins is a famous British biology professor and well-known humanist atheist. He's kinda the atheistic equivalent of the "yearrgh atheism is evil" religious people - nattering on and on about how religion is bad and atheism is awesome.
-
Re: Nitpick by
on 2014-09-17 03:24:00 UTC
Reply
"'Haven't you heard of Evolution? I have a very good textbook on Evolution that I could give you on it if you would like to learn things.'"
—Science worship!Petunia Dursley
^Is Darwin! :)
(And context aside, is that not such a glorious sentence? "I can give a textbook if you want to learn something." What a society that would be!) -
This is Beautifully Awful (nm) by
on 2014-09-15 21:24:00 UTC
Reply
-
My sympathy to you all. by
on 2014-09-15 20:53:00 UTC
Reply
Also, can we file this under "why fundamentalists shouldn't be allowed on the internet"? (Or "should actually read the thing they want to criticize?")
-
Now, hold on. by
on 2014-09-16 03:14:00 UTC
Reply
Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and to self-expression in a public forum. This does NOT mean they have a right to wield their beliefs as a cudgel with which to control or hurt others, but writing a bad fanfic and putting it online does not fall into either category.
To put my objection another way, take the sentence "why X shouldn't be allowed on the internet" and swap in any other group: liberals, conservatives, Christians, atheists, heteros, gays, etc. It wouldn't be okay to say that about any of those groups, right? So it's not okay to say it about fundamentalists, either.
(I do agree that people shouldn't go around criticizing what they don't understand, though.)
~Neshomeh -
oh hey that thing by
on 2014-09-15 14:53:00 UTC
Reply
It's hilarious. I am dead certain that it is a parody fic.
-
Re: I found this gem on Tumblr. by
on 2014-09-15 14:53:00 UTC
Reply
There has been one notable badfic of the same type, and it seems similar to the D&D scares, so it may not be trollfic. May you send me the link so i can see it?
-
Re: I found this gem on Tumblr. by
on 2014-09-15 14:54:00 UTC
Reply
Oh, oops, i did not see the link.
-
My Pathfinder group both thanks and curses you. by
on 2014-09-15 06:26:00 UTC
Reply
This provided us much entertainment! And weeping an wailing and facepalming. Our DM both loves and loathes you, and her roommate is threatening you, the author, and me. (We've got a Christopagan, a former-Baptist-turned pagan, a former-Mormon, a witch, and an Episcopalian.)
...honestly, I think the offense to the English language is at least as bad as the assault on both Potterverse and Christianity. -
Ugh by
on 2014-09-15 02:16:00 UTC
Reply
Religious extremism now permeates fanfic?! Dear God(pun intended) I've seen enough fundie bat**** to bring about a crusade, and that's just on some of the saner sites.
I would love to spork this, but alas, I can't make my writing coherent with the PPC universe.
so anyone who does spork this has my thanks. -
Oh, it always has. by
on 2014-09-15 17:12:00 UTC
Reply
Haven't you ever read any Bible badfic? There's even a mission to one:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1fSEuh7NyRk9G4tS8oJEjry7ujnCAH5kavvNM-P9N3C0
I'd like to take this opportunity to state that as a Christian I loooooooove this mission. Thaaank you for taking this 'Sue out. -
Whoever wrote that mission has my gratitude as well! by
on 2014-09-15 20:30:00 UTC
Reply
For the love of God, thank you, a thousand time thank you, whoever you are!
Heaven only knows how anyone can commit so much blasphemy and other biblical errors in just one place. Again, I also as a Christian thank you so very much! -
You're welcome. ^-^ by
on 2014-09-16 09:09:00 UTC
Reply
M'name's at the top of the page, for the record.
I should note that said mission is the only Bible mission for a reason: we as a community decided on a moratorium into Biblefic, and indeed all Scripturefic from any religion, because it could very easily turn nasty.
That, of course, doesn't apply to things like 'Prayer and Miracles', which is HP fanfic with a Christian theme. -- though I see Neshomeh feels differently about that. Gonna go discuss that now.
hS -
Can't see how I missed such a detail by
on 2014-09-16 17:57:00 UTC
Reply
But since you so kindly pointed it out, I wanna thank you directly, so thank you so Huinesoron!
Well, I do think that the line Neshomeh is drawing is important. I may be horribly offended by the stuff this lady
is putting forth, but I can't deny even her the right to express just because it is a expression of fundamentalism.
Doesn't me I wouldn't want to burn to Tarturus though. I guess I sort of... undecided on the matter? -
I'm inclined to think... by
on 2014-09-14 23:26:00 UTC
Reply
... that this is a parody. It's like someone used a checklist. It might be Poe's Law in action, but I actually find this fic pretty funny.
-
Re: I'm inclined to think... by
on 2014-09-15 14:45:00 UTC
Reply
Either parody or trollfic, though I only read the first chapter.
"You're a Christian now, Harry!" -- and the fic immediately ends, because predestination doesn't require Harry to head off to fake|Hogwarts to study, he would have been saved even if Hagrid never showed up at the door. Wizards in HP are born, not made, and Hagrid's line here tells me that the same holds for Christians.
The checklist of Petunia's faults includes not wearing makeup -- sounds like someone's working off old Tammy Faye Bakker jokes here. I've had my share of run-ins with hardcore fundamentalists, and the usual belief is that wearing makeup is the sin of vanity. I suppose that "failing" could really be a subtle clue that Petunia will be saved later in the fic, but it's not worth reading further to find out. -
It just might be. by
on 2014-09-14 23:53:00 UTC
Reply
It could very well be a parody and the second chapter provides a clue. Since when Hagrid tries to convert Harry Petunia tries to bribe him with a second birthday. Although the wording makes it sound like Harry gets a birthday everyday. Then there is that very odd 'Birthdays are not of God,' bit that honestly I have never heard as an argument before.
-
Lets hope it is just that by
on 2014-09-15 00:40:00 UTC
Reply
The implacations are too horrifying otherwise. But yeah, some parts do feel out of place. I have never heard of that birthday bit either, even in extremely fundamentalist circles.
-
It's a thing. by
on 2014-09-15 08:16:00 UTC
Reply
Not in many fundamentalist circles, but it was a thing for a while in my family, and I believe the... Jehovah's Witnesses? Or there is, in any case, a sect of Christianity that does not believe in celebrating birthdays.
-
And you learn a new thing everyday... by
on 2014-09-15 18:29:00 UTC
Reply
Well, at least the ones I unfortunately encountered online recently. And trust me, those are preeeety extremely fundamentalist ones. Them again, there are different degrees of extremism everywhere and thinking about right now, it doesn't strike me as much as improbable as before. But I am curious, could you tell the basis for that belief,
at least in regards as how it previously was in your family? -
Nope! by
on 2014-09-16 07:40:00 UTC
Reply
I have no idea. The rationale behind excising Christmas and Easter I could explain, but I honestly have no idea what my mother's reasons for giving up birthdays were. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it had to do with the idea that the day one was born was somehow aloft - that, or the connection to Zodiac? That was another source of evil, I remember that. It could also have been the "pagan symbolism" of candles on a cake. I know there was a lot of angst about candles.
Anyway, I'm with Neshomeh. I'm glad you're comfortable in your own faith, but there are a lot of really nice, really lovely fundamentalists in the world, and several of them write really excellent fanfiction. Some of them are my friends. Please to not be throwing that word around like an epithet. -
Again, I am sorry if I am crossing the line even slighty by
on 2014-09-16 18:46:00 UTC
Reply
It is just, for one thing, this particular... thing really offends me and for another, finding about certain... awfully
abusive legalist and dominiost (I think that is better just blanket-calling on fundamentalists) Christian sects may have colored my vision for the moment, so I am sorry if I hurt anyone and maybe I should abstain myself from this discussion from a while... -
I'm told... by
on 2014-09-16 09:27:00 UTC
Reply
... that birthdays are sometimes seen as venerating another person above God. And, to be fair, if we set aside a whole day to praising and giving gifts to some other person, we'd probably be talking about Cults Of Personality. So the explanation makes a certain intuitive sense.
No promises that it's either right, or that it's the only explanation. Actually, I've also heard (specifically in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses) that it's because birthdays aren't mentioned in the Bible. And I'm sure there are other reasons (candles could be one, or something about commercialisation, or... I dunno, anything, really. Maybe there's a New Testament Apocrypha where a birthday ate Thaddeus' sister or something. Stranger things have happened)
hS -
Chick Tracts now in Harry Potter flavour by
on 2014-09-14 22:25:00 UTC
Reply
Seriously, I haven't read the whole of the first chapter but it comes off as very Chick Tracty. Although there is something that just really bugs me. Why do people who think like the author of this mess think that if someone read anything that so much as disagrees with their world view that if a child reads it will cause them to convert?
-
I think it is a matter of trust really... by
on 2014-09-14 23:32:00 UTC
Reply
The world is filled soooo much temptation and sin, gotta isolate our kids from it. They can't trust God or their children that if something MIGHT cause to even slightly question their beliefs, they wont completely fall from grace.
* sighs* I'm sorry if I am posting here a lot or if I am going even slightly out of here, but this REALLY gets to me. -
I wasn't allowed to read Harry Potter until I was eighteen. by
on 2014-09-15 17:18:00 UTC
Reply
Which I understand, though I don't think it was any more dangerous than most other fiction I've read, just more apparently dangerous. I also wasn't the most trustworthy child. But my mom had the sense to not try to change the story and call it a "solution," because she knows that's stupid.
Watch you don't lose your lines. 0_0
I totally get you. As a Christian myself these things bother me partially because it makes the rest of us look stupid and partially because it is stupid, and all stupidity bugs me.
The assumption that your kids will turn into witches and wizards if they read Harry Potter particularly bothers me. That's what's known as a slippery slope fallacy, first of all, and second of all, how's that gonna work? Are they gonna go to Hogwarts? I mean, really? -
That's unfortunate... :( by
on 2014-09-15 19:35:00 UTC
Reply
It was pretty different with me. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we are Christians ourselves, but thankfully my parents were pretty lax with popular culture. My mom even took me to most of the movies. It was pretty much the same as you with my grandparents, and today the same with older sister, though. Can't ever mention anything of the sort with anyone of them going off the rails... But yeah, at least your family had the sense to not go off the hinges like this lady.
Yeah, this sort of makes all of us look Bad in the eyes of others. This sort of thing leaves a lesser form of the damage that things like Chick Tracks, Westboro and Quiverfulls do to the rest of us. And it's also really, really stupid.
But yeah, it is falling into a slippery slope fallacy, though I guess the fear is that they are going to convert to Wicca or (heavens forbid!) Satanism, which is also pretty stupid because first of all, those are often equated with each other (Wiccans workship the devil etc) when they have nothing in common, and secondly, as has been stated multiple times in defence by them, the religious practices of Wicca have nothing in common with HP-verse magic.
"communing with the dead and spirit world, sorcery, curses, occult symbology, black magic and demon possession", all charges laden against HP and correlated with Wicca, nothing of that figures even slightly in their beliefs. Oh and also, apparently what critics often call Wicca is something that is lump together from many different spiritualist practices that have little in common with each other, so there is that too. -
Extremist bullcrap is everywhere, apparently by
on 2014-09-16 02:10:00 UTC
Reply
didn't know you and snowy were Christian. I'm an atheist.
and the reason I hate this particular fic is because it's more proof that extreme religion is invading our culture. In addition to the obvious perversion of one of the most beloved franchises in the world just to make it fit with their nutty views. I have a theory on the fic's origin.
this.... thing needs to be sporked. and I will happily heap praise on whoever rips into this abomination(seeing as I'm not going to ask permission in the near future).
as for the origin, It may have come from a member of the Kids in ministry international/kids on fire ministries group. or worse, Becky Fisher herself( if that is the case that.... witch will be truly unforgivable).
and yes, the implications of painting devil worship on Wiccans is disturbing. essentially it means that extremist nutjobs have the moral right to destroy them(demonization is the first stage of genocide). -
You're brushing against flames here. by
on 2014-09-16 09:20:00 UTC
Reply
You're referring to people - real people, people who eat breakfast in the morning, drive to work, worry about whether their kids are really ill or just a bit sniffly, and have, y'know, feelings - as 'nutty', 'nutjobs', as a '... witch'; you're characterising them as planning genocide. I think they call that libel in the Real World; around here, we call it flaming.
And everyone: we're the PPC. We comment on the story, not the author. We know nothing about the author, and even if we did, that's not what we do. Keep the discussion pointed the right way, please.
hS -
And since was the one who answered the question... by
on 2014-09-16 18:56:00 UTC
Reply
I was the one who answered the question that lead to this disaster, so I am sorry. I hope I came off as mostly just discussing things like my faith and criticism of HP with Snowy
and why things like this story may offend me, but if I did anything at all hurtful I am sorry. I understand the reason for the ban on religious fic, I throughly support it and I call off the comments on missioning this fic. Again, I am sorry and like I said to Vixen, this last thing I will say on the matter.
-
*wince* by
on 2014-09-16 23:26:00 UTC
Reply
Er... nothing personal, but I vastly prefer the nickname VM.
-
Aww, are you sure? We could call you Vixie! by
on 2014-09-17 09:31:00 UTC
Reply
Ooh! Or Vixie Mixie! That's an awesome nickname. VixMix?
hS is wicked -
So then this happened. by
on 2014-09-17 10:54:00 UTC
Reply
I'd apologise, but I'm having too much fun. ;D
hS -
*twitch* by
on 2014-09-23 05:38:00 UTC
Reply
You do realize that "Vixie" evolves into "Irate Badgerfox," right?
-
Good heavens, does it? by
on 2014-09-23 12:50:00 UTC
Reply
Tell me you saw that coming.
hS -
Your preference is duly noted. by
on 2014-09-17 02:28:00 UTC
Reply
Sorry then, VM.
-
I feel I must apologize. by
on 2014-09-16 09:41:00 UTC
Reply
Since it was my bafflement of something that appears to have caused this go a bit out of hand. I will be more careful about what I ask in the future.
-
Sorry by
on 2014-09-16 09:30:00 UTC
Reply
I was bullied by these people once, you can understand my dislike at this.
-
Let me remind you all... by
on 2014-09-16 03:24:00 UTC
Reply
... that we don't spork religious fic. Yes, there was that one, but after that there was a lot of discussion and it was agreed that it's far too sensitive a topic to mess around with.
Also, please mind your SPaG. 7.65x54R, you've dropped an awful lot of capital letters in your post, and put a few where they don't belong. If this is making you so upset that you forget to capitalize properly, perhaps it's time to let this topic go?
~Neshomeh, who doesn't want to see this thing get out of control and become hurtful to anyone. -
Religious fic, or Bible fic? by
on 2014-09-16 09:16:00 UTC
Reply
My understanding was that we made a community decision not to send any more missions into fanfic based on religious scripture, not religious fic in general. So Biblefic, Qu'ranfic (uh, where does the apostrophe go? I see Wikipedia's given up on it entirely...), Guru-Granth-Sahibfic, Book-of-Mormonfic, etc etc, are off-limits.
I don't think we ever made a statement about fanfics of canons based on scriptures - would Prince of Egyptfic be sporkable? It'd probably depend on the story.
And I really don't remember us saying you can't touch anything with a religious theme. It certainly didn't come up last time I looked at a Christian badfic (the one where Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe are brought to Modern Earth as kids and raised Christian), though I ultimately decided not to do it anyway. So do I misremember?
(Also: the ban was a community decision. That means it can be repealed by the community if people feel differently now. Personally I've never minded either way)
hS -
My admittedly sketchy memory... by
on 2014-09-16 13:42:00 UTC
Reply
...says that it was specifically 'fic of religious texts - I remember being super uncomfortable that Bible-fanfic even existed, at the time of this debate. (I also remember a post by Mum's The Word that involved casting the entirety of the PPC as wide-eyed children in need of guidance, which was largely ignored although the conclusion agreed with. Yet I somehow don't remember who made the final call. The mind, she's a seive.)
My instinct would be to uphold that call, with a caveat that no religious 'fic whatsoever should be tackled unless the author feels they can do it without malice or insult or disrespect. As I may have mentioned, myD&DPathfinder group took great pleasure in verbally MSTing it as I read it, with several of the complaints being more along the lines of "SAID, dammit! It's a good word, not a swear!" and "Okay, if Harry's never even seen a cross before, how is he suddenly referencing Bible verses in conversation?" and, from the DM's roommate, who's actually a Sunday School teacher, "THAT WAS THE WRONG TENSE FOR THAT. Okay, either put the fic down or I'm going to break all your fingers." -
Mumsy was here? by
on 2014-09-16 14:12:00 UTC
Reply
That puts the whole thing waaaaaaay back in 2004-2005... which is three quarters of the lifespan of the PPC. For that matter, the moratorium on Emergencies was half our existence ago...
I'd hope the 'without malice or insult or disrespect' statement would go for all fic, not just religious fic - and that it would go without saying. If people are bashing the subject matter itself, rather than the treatment of it, they're doing the PPC wrong. A girl who falls into Middle-earth can be good - but presentation of it as a Mary-Sue is bad. Slash can be good - but bad slash is bad. A, I dunno, devout Scientologist* attempting to convert Darth Vader could be good, provided it bends neither the rules of the universe nor the characterisation of Vader (so, uh, it probably wouldn't work, and would probably end with Simon Tologist being force-choked, but that's Vader for you).
Agents can disagree with the beliefs someone states in a mission - but they should limit their abuse to places where it's done badly. And, like anything else, they should do their research. You wouldn't insult an author for giving their Elf a bow, or even insult the story for using 'such a hopelessly obsolete weapon'; you'd insult the fact that said bow is made of obsidian, after checking that obsidian bows weren't a thing. Equally, you wouldn't insult Christian!Hagrid for saying that 'Evolution is a fairytale', though you might vehemently disagree with him - you'd insult him for overriding Petunia's ability to say anything in response to that statement, for describing atheism as a religion, and for slapping random adjectives on the end of every dialogue tag he uses.
Frankly, there's so much to poke fun at in this story without ever touching on the beliefs of the author that I don't know why you would.
Actually, that's not true: I do know, and something like the evolution part might easily provoke me into a character rant. But... hmm. I'm beginning to see your point.
To take a safe example: imagine you read a story by a devout Greek Pantheon worshipper who had a character claim that in the Real World, there's a bunch of gods living on top of Mount Olympus, looking just like people (only prettier). Well, that's provably false - you can look up satellite photos of the mountain, and they're not there. So... would an agent be allowed to call that stupid? It is stupid, because you can absolutely prove they're not there - but the character insists they are, and seems to be echoing the beliefs of the author.
Darn. This just got annoyingly complex. Is this why we banned it to start with?
hS -
Kippur gave us a great example . . . by
on 2014-09-17 15:30:00 UTC
Reply
With "Q Is Saved by Mary Sue."
Despite the flagrantly religious theme of the story, Kippur kept the sporking limited to how to the story mis-portrayed Q:
A. Q considers himself a god, and is godlike in power, and therefore wouldn't put faith in an (the) actual God.
B. Q's unexplained loss of powers is just an extremely lazy plothole to get him in this position.
C. Q is a fictional character, so the unsurprised reactions to him by everyone on Earth is . . . really weird and unsettling.
D. Shoehorning in the Touched by an Angel characters, LITERAL ANGELS, to achieve the author's purpose was . . . well, Kippur just had Alec knock Monica out and didn't really address it, but as a TbaA fan in my childhood, I found it rather heavy-handed and self-serving. I seem to remember a (more figurative) knock against Monica in the Original Series, too; what's with all the TbaA hate, early PPCers? :(
There was also one scene where Kippur showed the author has eroded their own logic/argument:
“Now, remember, these friends are good Christians. So behave yourself."
“As opposed to bad Christians?” Alec muttered.
This is the closest the mission gets to addressing the religion itself.
So, uh, yeah. I would personally be in favor of lifting that ban, just for the sake of having a greater variety of missions to do. (Same for real person fics, but that's maybe a discussion for another day.) -
I vaguely remember ... by
on 2014-09-16 10:23:00 UTC
Reply
... it being brought up on the Board that the PPC are not allowed to spork badfics with a religious angle. It must have been years ago, probably around the time I joined, so I don't remember many of the details.
Somebody brought up a truly horrendous HP badfic where everyone in Hogwarts were getting stoned and having premarital sex and nobody would be able to touch canon with a fifty feet pole. But since it was written from a religious standpoint, we weren't allowed to kill it. I think the idea was that it would be impossible to spork the fic without touching on the underlying themes and that could come close to bashing somebodies religious beliefs.
Frankly, I found this rather silly for various reasons, but since it's not hard to simply steer clear of religious fics, I never felt like objecting openly to the rule. *dramatic pause* Until now.
No, it's still not something I feel strongly about. I would be happy to see the rule go, because I simply don't think that religion should be given that sort of special status (after all, we kick people off the Board for bashing LGBTQs, even if they claim that they are simply stating their sincerely held religious belief), but I am not religious in any way myself. If other people are uncomfortable with the idea and the rule stays I'll simply carry on as I always have and avoid those kinds of fics. -
I think... by
on 2014-09-16 15:29:00 UTC
Reply
that it would be nearly impossible to stay respectful of other people's religious views when they are vastly different than the PPCer who is trying to spork the material. Or at least that many people would find it very difficult, and all it would take for serious unrest to erupt on the Board would be one person who was not capable of handling that delicate situation who ended up writing a 'bash the belief system' sporking (even if they did it unintentionally).
It would be particularly hard in regards to some groups. I know people who are very, very devoted to their beliefs that ignore and/or contradict basically all science. I, personally, have a problem with many of their beliefs and I am not alone in that. I am a Christian, for what it's worth in this conversation, and I still have a problem with those beliefs. I think they make those of us who don't have a problem with thinking and science and social equality look bad. HOWEVER, that doesn't give me the right to bash them for their sincerely held beliefs. And it would be mighty hard (for me, speaking on a personal level here) to keep that in focus while sporking a fic that had severely OOC characters spouting those beliefs.
So anyway, I can understand the ban on missioning fics with a certain content. They have a great potential for causing a blow-up on the Board, which possibly outweighs the potential they have for entertainment.
All that said, I wouldn't be adamantly opposed to lifting the ban, but possibly with the caveat that perhaps a PG should be in on the beta process for any fic that falls into that category. (Sorry, I know, volunteering you all for more work.) -
I might remember wrong, but... by
on 2014-09-16 16:40:00 UTC
Reply
I basically feel the same as Miah about this: while it should technically be possible to spork a fic like "Hogwarts School of Prayer and Miracles" without bashing the religious beliefs therein, it would be really, really hard for a lot of us, and we can see that just from following the discussion in this thread. We spork for quality, not content, so anyone going "oh man, fundamentalism, ew" has no business PPCing this fic any more than someone who hates slash has any business PPCing a bad slashfic.
When the religious beliefs are the entire point of the fic, I think it's safer for everyone just to stay away from it. That's not to say I think any fic that happens to have some religious content is untouchable, but when it's clearly a fic about someone's religion, whether it's explicitly a religious-text–fic or not, discretion is probably the better part of valor.
~Neshomeh -
*line by
on 2014-09-14 23:44:00 UTC
Reply
Line, going out of the line, dammit what's with me these days...
-
I can see why you have reserves about this... by
on 2014-09-14 21:02:00 UTC
Reply
Yeah, definitely not everyone's cup of tea. Whole bunch of stereotyping there. Calling evolution a religion, shaming girls at public schools for wanting to have careers " like the women in Sex and the City", making the infamous reference to the Proverbs 31 woman... The whole thing feels closer to endorsement of fundamentalist Christianity like the Christian Patriarchy or the Quiverfull Movement. I would be surprised if Hermione there doesn't become a housewife and mother of upwards of 10 kids... I am a Christian but this thing... *shudders*
If you guys want to read a Goodfic that involves Hogwarts (regular Hogwarts) and Christians that is interestig and pretty much is never preaching, ranting or condemning anyone, you should check out
Thou Shalt Not Suffer.
The main character, Michelle, is the daughter of a fundamentalist Christian couple, and of course, turns out to be a Muggle-born witch. This also of course a whole lot of conflict, not only with her parents but within herself as well, as she tries to navigate the conflicting desires of being a devout Christian and not commit the sin of witchcraft, and at the same time the one of wanting to learn her talent and about the simultaneously wondrous and terrifying world that has been reaveled to her.
Michelle is a great OC, both deeply flawed and extremely likable and also a refreshingly honest narrator. The fic also includes what is perhaps the most balanced and best portrayal of Slytherin to date. Such fairness also extends to the main two groups as well, as it purports to portray that neither all Christians are extremist nor does it condemn all wizards as inherently bad. -
Oow... by
on 2014-09-14 20:12:00 UTC
Reply
NO. Just NO. Two sentences in and I was already offended - Please make it stop.
These religious "fixes" of Harry Potter really offend me. Either you read it or you don't, you don't make yourself a middle ground. That's just stupid. Also - no wonder a lot of people think religious people are stupid. DX
The characters feel butchered enough that this could be missioned... -
I feel for you sister * hugs you * by
on 2014-09-14 21:46:00 UTC
Reply
I am religious myself and I feel really offended by this ally this as well. Really, if you piously believe that witchcraft is a sin and can't divorce yourself from it to a read Glauranging work of fiction, yeah you shouldn't to "fix" it by writing fanfic about it. Obviously it wont work and you will end up with a Badfic, for the Sankt Kaiser's sake. Someone should really kill this...
-
Me too *hugs snowy as well* by
on 2014-09-16 02:20:00 UTC
Reply
this.... abomination is offensive to anyone who isn't a fundie bibolater. it really needs to die.
Yeah, what James said. anything written by these extremists tends to have the quality of badfic. examples include left behind, this present darkness, and the utter crimes against humanity and sentience known as Chick tracts.
this is precisely one of the reasons I am secular. -
A point of pedantry. by
on 2014-09-16 13:56:00 UTC
Reply
We are all, in view of our posting here, secular. The term 'secular,' despite its common misuse in an increasingly polarized media, does not generally refer to people. It's more of a term that describes cultural happenings - holidays, concerts, meetings, for example. Christmas is a great example because it's got both sides - the secular, which is along the lines of Santa Clause, songs like "Jingle Bells" and "Suzy Snowflake," and so on - and then there's the sacred (which is the opposite meaning of 'secular') side: the season of Advent, the stories of Christ's birth, songs like "Joy to the World" and "The First Noel." I personally dislike the secular holiday immensely, mainly because I used to work retail. *shudder* Many people observe the secular side of the holiday, but see no point in keeping the religious holiday - which, too, is fine. Some people would like to separate the two, leading to the immensely irritating media bone of "War on Christmas," which... well, that's another rant for another day. (Another example, fwiw, would be Halloween. Secular entirely to me, and probably to most people, but quite sacred to many pagans as Samhain.)
Anyway! You can be both secular and sacred. For the past many-thousand years, at least, humans have done both. Worshipped at temples and pyramids, then gone out into the market to hawk their wares. Put out all their fires and watched the great temple-pyramid in reverent silence at sunrise, then three days later continues their lives. Etc.