A New Power Has Arisen!

A few days ago I finished watching a television series entitled Kings.  It is essentially a retelling of the biblical tale of King David.  Although it isn’t too obvious with the show’s story arc, the first episode is as plain as can be.  David goes to war for his country against their southern enemy, and while on the front lines he destroys a tank . . . a Goliath . . . with a hand-made grenade.  In doing so, he rescues his king’s son and sets the path for future peace between the two nations.

The religious component of this show is blatant.  The ruling king, Silas, started as a soldier and rose to the top by way of powerful friends and a revelation, which in turn persuaded the people of the country, Gilboa, to follow him.  Once David gets the eye of the king, these miracles begin to happen to him.  The court minister revokes his blessing to Silas and instead supports David.  God ceases “talking” to Silas and begins to show light on David.  In other words . . . Silas is on his way out, and David is rising from being a mechanic-farmer-soldier to being a top aide to the king and country.

This storyline, while incredibly fascinating to me, also relates to my thesis for my website.  Science fiction authors utilize their own religious backgrounds to teach readers about religious dissonance and unity.

This story is “science fiction.”  There is no futuristic technology – hell, the queen looses her Blackberry in the third episode – or anything of the sort, but rather it is an “alternate universe.”  There is no map shown, but all of the countries mentioned are monarchies that were created fairly recently, out of ages-long political and social strife.

The creator of this show, Michael Green, obviously had some ulterior motive, possibly religiously-related, for writing the pilot.

What was it?

I believe that there were two reasons.  The first was “just for fun.”  He liked the story from the Old Testament, and imagined a modern way to incorporate the parables outlined in the Book of Samuel (Sefer Shmuel) and the Book of Chronicles (Divrei Hayyamim) (the two – or four – books concerning the life of King David (David HaMeleh)).

That is completely acceptable; many authors attempt this.  C.S. Lewis used the birth, death and re-birth of Jesus as his base for the Chronicles of Narnia.  Many other writers use the concept of a “chosen people” or “chosen one” to fill their books, such as Neo in The Matrix, Ender in Ender’s Game and even possibly Arthur Dent in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

The second plausible reason for Green to write the plot for Kings with a biblical slant is that he wanted to share his own belief with others, and figured that he might as well use talents he already held (screenwriting) and a medium through which hundreds and maybe thousands of citizens would witness his work (the screen).  That, too, is acceptable.  Is that not the basis for The Da Vinci Code?  Dan Brown was already a writer prior to his “Christianity-deciphering” best sellers (Digital Fortress, 1998 . . . Angels & Demons, 2000), so why not use every outlet he had to get his points across?

No matter how controversial each of the aforementioned authors is (well, except for Douglas Adams.  He's awesome.), every one of them teaches through their writings.  Green demonstrates that a solid belief in God (and, indeed, every citizen of Gilboa has – or had – staunch beliefs in God and their divine-right king) has the power to unite, but then also destroy, should the “God-spoken” have a change of heart or interpret signs to be against them.  Lewis writes about unity with Aslan the Lion and the Pevensie children overcoming the great evil that is the Ice Queen.  Brown, on the other hand, could be said to “separate” with his books. What is his true goal when he calls out the Catholic Church for “mistakes” long forgotten?

As a side note, I find it funny that two of the authors I am discussing here have colors for their last names.

In the end, religion has this power.  The power to create, the power to destroy.  The power to unite, the power to separate.  I believe, however, that the true meaning is in the eyes of the “beholder.”

I Say Tomato, You Say Pomidor . . . on the Moon

So, Professor Lloyd lent me a book last week, entitled "The Celestine Prophecy," by James Redfield.  I did start it over the weekend, but only really got into it . . . today.  From the two chapters that I have read, it is about a manuscript, the Manuscript, which was found in the Peruvian forests sometime in the latter half of the latter half (so, like the last quarter or so) of the Twentieth Century.  This Manuscript details nine principles of life that all humans will eventually obtain, in order, through intense psychological and spiritual "awakening."  Hm, sounds like my kinda deal!

There are, of course, some issues.  Not bad issues, just . . . issues.  The greatest one, perhaps, is that this document is written in Aramaic.  And found in Peru.  Huh.  Last I checked, the Incas didn't speak a lick of Semitic tongue.  This does follow, however the Mormon belief that a small band of Israelites found their way to the New World a long, long time ago and set up shop in the southern US.  It is possible, as most beliefs are, that during these proto-Jews' divine travels they wrote this epic essay, but Redfield doesn't give any explanation.

I like to think that there was an original language, a language that everybody spoke, or at least a lingua franca of Pangaea that stayed with humanity through the ages, until the introduction / evolution of the linguistic tree.  This is the thought of some historians of the Biblical ages, although not necessarily the consensus of some people of the past.  There is a common test that some kings and other elders have performed to try to determine the original language.  This test is quite easy . . . give a newborn to a couple of deaf-mutes, restrict verbal access to the child, and see what language they come out speaking in the end.  Herodotus, or Papa History, told a story that ancient (and Herodotus lived in the 5th century B.C.E., so that's pretty damn ancient) Pharaoh Psamtik once did this test, and the first words the child spoke were not dissimilar to Phrygian terminology.  The conclusion in this Egyptian court was that Phrygian was at least the "modern-day" form of the original language.  King James V of Scotland also tried this, some time later, and his conclusion was of Hebrew.  More recent trials, of King Frederick II and Emperor Akbar, had identical results to one-another.  The children didn't speak.  Wow, whodathunkit!?!? 

Now, at least the first two trials make sense.  Phrygian was the an elite language of its time, and Hebrew was a revered language later on, especially in the more-religious (Christian) areas of the world.

This does pose a question, possibly philosophical, in relation to science-fiction universes: how in the world can everybody on all 100 central planets speak the same language?  That has always proved difficulty for me.  No matter what galaxy you look at, it is generally the same concept (not so much for Star Trek, but the various planets weren't united yet).  In Firefly / Serenity, Star Wars, and even Ender's Game, everyone speaks the same language!  There are outliers, and thus the necessity for something akin to the Babel Fish (of Douglas Adams' lore), but it seems that there would have had to be an original language, if only for a specific galaxy.  In Ender's Game, for example, Earth was already united under the equivalent of the UN's flag, and English was the predominant dialogue for the citizens of this world.  Once we (humans) started populating the outer arms of the Milky Way (and beyond), English came with us, and because there weren't any linguistic aliens around yet, English stuck.  That is essentially the same story with Firefly / Serenity (Whedon).  The question I have with those universes is why was there no more evolution of English?  With so many planets, no matter how "flat" the universe can get, there must be some alteration of the language.  Not even English, which is so malleable that even the Germans managed to just mold it and not destroy it, can encompass all emotions, all expressions, all events.

 

Star Wars, on the other hand, is just way too complex to analyze.  Since we don't even have a back-story to the galaxy far, far away, we have no way in knowing how English, let alone humans, got to Coruscant or Tatooine or Naboo.  There are hints throughout the stories of humans being the "colonizers" or the "invaders," but no hint to where home base was.

I mentioned earlier that English cannot stand on its own attempting to describe certain aspects of life.  I firmly believe this.  I don't know much in too many languages, but I utilize what I do know to a great extent.  I say "Ciao" instead of "Goodbye," "Rega" instead of "Hold on," and "Oui" instead of "Yes."  If only a way to retain a minimal amount of what I learned last year abroad, exercising these words (Italian, Hebrew and French, respectively) and phrases (there are others)  helps me conquer this debate in my own mind better.

There are instances of a Common Language, a lingua franca of the Universe, but even then it is comprised of many other, pre-existing languages.  I hope to learn at least two more languages before exiting university; learning not fluently, but grasping the basics good enough to recognize it when it's spoken and to incorporate certain words and phrases into my every-day language.  It can be as odd as Yiddish, as popular as Chinese or as fictional as Elvish (Elvis-ish?  Uh-huh.), but I'm gonna learn it.  Language is such a divider, but it doesn't have to be.  Not every language can speak for itself, and must call upon its dictionary-brethren to help it out sometime.

Capisce?  Ani yodeah . . . esta muy dificil.

(Italian, Hebrew, Spanish)

Do you get it?  I know . . . it is very difficult.

The best we can to is try to understand each other.  In more ways than just the one.

Looking Towards the Future By Way of the Past

Did you know that Destruction lives on a secluded Greek island, right nearby where Orpheus' head is guarded?  He left his family to escape from the world, and lives with Barnabas the dog. (Barnabas was one of the first Christian disciples ever, and is attributed to the foundation of the Church of Cyprus, part of the Greek Orthodox Church.)  Destruction is a monstrous fellow, with great orange hair and a rough voice . . . much like a young Thor (or Hephaestus, depending on your Pantheon).  Before I get too far along in explaining Destruction, let me preface this with the following:


Throughout my grade-school years, I had one teacher for three different classes.  Mrs. B- was my 8th grade Social Studies teacher, and then my fill-in AP European History teacher in 11th grade, and then my AP Human Geography teacher senior year.  She also created and led the high school's Capitol Forum and Euro Bowl teams, both of which I participated in.  Additionally, Mrs. B- led the school's Fed Challenge and Mock Trial teams as well as the Veteran's Club, and (I believe) was head of the history department.  At least, she is the head now, at a different high school.


Essentially, she loves government in general and especially democracy and is thus very patriotic.  One of her two favorite sayings is:

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."  This is not a direct quote from some old white guy in a wig; rather, it is a version of what poet George Santayana said in his Law of Repetitive Consequences.  I never really grasped that idea until my 12th grade year of school.  I think I came to the realization that there is something slightly contradictory to that in Judaism, but also an agreeing concept.


The first is that whenever someone says a name like Hitler, they are supposed to say "May his name be erased forever" under their breath just after.  When I first learned this, I thought, well, that doesn't really work, does it?  If his name is erased, how will we teach younger generations what happened, so they don't repeat the same grievous atrocities?


The second aspect, the agreeing one, is that Jews are also deemed people of the book.  Our holy testament is a big history book.  The most intriguing concept about it, though, is that it doesn't only praise the main subjects (the Hebrews to Israelites to Jewish people), but also tells of the bad things.  How do I know not to commit incest or murder my neighbor if I hadn't been taught that by way of the stories of Lot (who was seduced by his two daughters) or of Sodom and Gomorra (two neighboring towns that were strewn with violence and arrogance, and thus destroyed in the long run)?  We, as Jews and whoever else reads the Old Testament and other such ancient texts, are forced to not forget history, so that we dare not repeat it.
This leads into my analysis of this week's books: episode 7 in Neil Gaiman's comic The Sandman.  It is called Brief Lives.  In it, among other side stories (albeit related tales), Delirium (who used to be Delight) and Dream take off on a supposedly short and misguided journey to find their lost brother, Destruction.  Delight, it seems, was in love with her brother, and misses him dearly.  It is implied that she transformed from Delight to Delirium only when he left.  Dream needed a break from his realm, as his most recent love (a goddess or whatnot) left him, and thus he was in a funk.  Remember, a funk to a being that is more than a god has great repercussions on the physical plane than a funk from one of us.  It was bad.  So, they went.


Throughout the story, however, it is understood that certain individuals are being murdered in mysterious events (that is, it is plain that they're dying and how, but no one can figure out why or by whom).  Also, there is always the looming memory of Destruction commanding - nay, pleading - for his siblings not to search for him, as he'll return when he's ready.  Something occurred in his past, in all their pasts, which made him revolt against his nature, and effectively retire as the reigning concept of Destruction.


This, like most of Neil Gaiman's work, speaks to me greatly.  There is always an overriding idea in each of book of The Sandman.  It could be explicitly stated, such as in this book, or less so, as some of the side stories do in previous books.  In this book, I find the message to be supporting the idea that everyone needs to get away once in a while, and during that time the individuals who were left behind should respect the departed's wishes.  Inevitably, the traveler will return in one way or another.  Through force or by free will, in a coffin or walking, they will always come back home.
I see this portrayed greatly in the various ancient texts of Judaism.  Brothers reunite after years of hostile separation, humans break a promise to God to look back upon their beloved city once more (only to turn into a pillar of salt . . . Kosher salt?, of that I'm not sure).

Going home is a something that everybody wishes for.  However, the common misconception is that home is where you live, where you were raised.  Rather, to use the common idiom, "Home is where the heart is."

My home is in the rural environment of Appalachia, of the east coast.  From the Adirondack Park to the Green and White Mountains of Vermont and Maine (respectively), from the back country of North Carolina to the C&O Canal towpath that runs not far from here . . . I am completely at peace when surrounded by those trees and streams, that bluegrass music and micro-brews (I have yet to have the real liquor of Appalachia: moonshine.  That stuff will make you blind!  I can't wait).



Anyway, back to the religion-stuff.  For many people, they believe they will only reach home when they die, and then only if they have traveled on the right path.  And yet, what is that famous line that I memorized in third grade?  Ah, yes . . .
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference."  Who says that the so-called road to righteousness is the direction in which everyone (who believes) seems to be moving?  It is truly right on down the yellow brick road towards the Emerald City?  Maybe Jack Kerouac was right in his own ways, by leaping from coast to coast, seeing the dastardly side of life in all states (both of the USA and humanly-physical).  To truly find peace-of-mind, I believe, is to not focus.  Keep the lens a little off-kilter, and eventually you will something from just the right angle and distance that it is a clear picture.  The woods do that to me; the finish line is that goal for my mother, gardens evoke that emotion for my eldest sister.



Nevertheless, there will always be something hindering our path.  In this case, Delirium was the intrepid (kind of) traveler, while Dream was effectively her chaperon.  He had discussed with the other siblibgs the matter of finding the brother that wished not to be found, and only joined his younger sister in this quest to get his mind off of grief and to appease Delirium for a while.  Even as Delirium thought that Dream was aiding her, he was purposefully going slowly, hiding information from her that would entice her to march on in quick time.



When she did find out that he was intentionally restricting their voyage, she broke down and went back to her realm to pout.  Only then did Dream call her back and continue the quest; his main apprehension from the start was having to consult an oracle, and that simple meeting would effectively undo a great and ancient evil pact.  He realized in the end, though (and many of us do) that something must be sacrificed for the greater good, of both the community and the individual.  In a combination of my Jewish, multi-ethnic and literary educations, I have come to believe that everything occurs for some purpose, to move life forward.


The good always outweighs the bad for me; it might just be through mindset, but it is true.  I might miss a bus to the Metro and thus am pushing the limit on being late for a meeting, but only on the next bus would I meet an old friend - or a new companion.  I might not study hard enough for an exam and become anxious of failing, but then it all turns out all right and I develop my own way of thinking logically about the subject, furthering my interest in the school of thought.  In Dream's case, he had to find and talk with this oracle (who was also his son), and in doing this supposedly dangerous deed he reunited his own, immortal family, as well as all of his Eternal siblings.

I love The Sandman.  It is a thought provoking, intellectual and above all fun story to follow.  As with most of my interests, I can talk about and discuss this for quite a long time, but for now, I must sleep.  Who knows what will occur tomorrow that could change the course of history . . . if indeed history has a set path?

Amid the Ruckus, Someone is There

Over the past week, a few questions have been posed to me, mainly concerning a plea for a greater divulgence into the philosophies of Neil Gaiman and Orson Scott Card.
From my understanding, both of these men have great and mysterious views of how the world should - or could - be, at any time.  Having read a nice chunk of Orson Scott Card's novels, I have come to the conclusion that he might not be against the world, if not just America herself, being a relatively insular group.  That, or a strong exercise in hegemony.


This is not only restricted to the Ender series; a reader can discern this opinion from his other novels, such as Empire and Folk of the Fringe.  In Empire, the entire higher level of the executive branch is assassinated: the Vice President is in a car crash while the President and the other chief are blown up in the rocket-induced explosion of the West Wing (imagine if that was on the show!).  The book involves conspiracy, luke-warm treaties, and secret underground lairs in the forests of Washington State.  There are AT-AT-esque robots and marines so devout to the government - nay, the Constitution - of the United States of America that they will do anything to protect what they feel is right.  There is also Averell Torrent, the pure bi-partisan.  He of course has qualms with each party, but instead of playing off of those negatives, he entices the parties to join together and successfully nominate and elect him as president for, as the book ends, an indeterminate amount of terms.  Much like Dwight D. Eisenhower was nominated by both parties, Torrent is just so perfect no one can beat his politics.  However, while Ike chose to run with the Republican Party, Torrent has no contenders.  The country is in turmoil, recovering from what could be seen as the "Second Civil War," although a satellite could not discern the physical sides here; rather, it was Red versus Blue.  Republicans versus Democrats.  Right Versus Left.  Conservative versus Liberal.
He saves the day, essentially.


But, this is not all that it seems to be.  In the Afterword, OSC (can I call him that?  I think I will), describes his initial thought process of this novel.  Much like with the origin of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, this was discussed over drinks.  Someone, a friend, suggested that were there to be a second Civil War, it would certainly not be fought on physical sides; if anything, that would turn out to be akin to Ecotopia, and pre/sequel Ecotopia Emerging, where the three Pacific states secede and create an ecological / environmental haven (heaven, maybe).  Rather, as I mentioned prior, this war was on political terms.  There are physical - land based - attributes to our political system, most easily discerned by CNN's "Red State, Blue State" (One State, Two State?) map.  Indeed, the states who jumped on the über-Liberal takeover of the USA were some of the Bluest states out there: New York, New Hampshire and Washington.  The others weren't necessarily on the "other side," it just wasn't necessary to include the physical territory of a state in this battle.


Once Averell Torrent is put in charge, he creates what I believe to be a solid form of government: Hegemony.  He enforces federal laws and power, but lets the states deal with themselves (rebuild if they have to, otherwise just control their own citizens).  The easiest way to explain a hegemony is to say that the "Federal Government" sets out an outline for the laws, and then the States can do what they will, within the boundaries of that outline.  The Federal Government (I am capitalizing these to signify their power, and that they are actual entities) also controls some form of the armed forces, but States can also appeal to use their forces separately.


Dictionary.com:
he⋅gem⋅o⋅ny: [hi-jem-uh-nee, hej-uh-moh-nee]: noun, plural -nies
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation


This can lead to Imperial rulership (indeed, in the sequel Hidden Empire, I understand that is what occurs, under Averell Torrent).  This also occurred in the Enderverse, under Ender's elder brother Peter (also known as Locke).  OSC delves more into this in the later books, and I will discuss that later, when I finish reading Xenocide (150 pages to go).


Now, to relate this to my proposed topic: religion.  Kind of.


Orson Scott Card is part of a very important lineage: he is descended from Brigham Young (y'know, one of the most important LDS members?).  OSC is Mormon, and thus believes the basic tenants of the divinity of Jesus.  However, they split from the greater part of Christianity because of the concept of the Trinity.  If anything, they are more monotheistic, from the Jewish prospective, than the other Jesus-based religions.  I don't know too much about the Christian belief structures, but I am aware that the Trinity (I capitalize for sake of recognition, not reverence), does not play such a grand role in Mormonism, although of course it does have its importance. The general Mormon belief is that there is one God, and that Jesus is the son of said god.  I am not going to talk much about this, simply because I don't know so much about it, and I believe that while I might do my own research and form my own concepts of it all, what I put in words will not give the religion, nor culture, a sturdy enough placement.  I'll discuss what I know.


I hope you all know US history enough to remember that Salt Lake City is the core of the Mormon religion.  A possibly less-known fact, although just as important to US history, about that region, is that the state of Utah and the surrounding area was once known - for a short while - as the Mormon Empire of Deseret.  This nation-state had functioning legal, political, social, economical and educational systems, all based around the tenets and history of the Mormon religion.  They wished, essentially, to be to the United States as Lesotho is to South Africa: a sovereign state within a greater country's boundaries, thus land-locked and surrounded.  Well, there was talk of the plan to expand the Empire to the Pacific Ocean, but the Mormons were content enough with a greater portion of what we know as the Mid-West and Rocky states.

This is very possibly where OSC's vision of a universal hegemony / empire originates.  Many proselytic religions who have claimed their own land as a state, such as Catholicism (Holy Roman Empire, Vatican City) any form of Protestantism (Great Britain under Henry VIII, colonies), Buddhism (China) and Islam (many Middle Eastern countries), have also introduced their own form of imperial rule, and the countries did run fairly smoothly, prior to the modern era of mass-communication and the sense of equality for all humans, depending on their belief, wealth, and skin-color.   Mormonism falls under that "proselytic" umbrella (notice the missionaries?), and it only makes logical sense for them to at least attempt to create their own empire.  It succeeded until the US said no.  And, as we have all learned all too often over the past decade or so, when the US says no . . . something happens.


Back to the brief biography of OSC.  He is fluent in Portuguese, after spending his mission years in Brazil, and uses both the language and the culture (of both the motherland as well as of the colonies) in his books; the main planet in Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide is a Catholic Portuguese colony.  As I have seen and heard of before, many missionaries return from their travels with a fascination not only with their own religion, but also with the culture from which they returned; their infatuation encapsulates not only the modern-day activities of the host people, but also the associated historical and cultural anthropology.  This could explain Orson Scott Card's intrigue with native cultures and the origination of a civilization.  Indeed, he spends a great deal of time explaining certain customs of the aliens Ender encounters throughout the books, even going so far back as the origin of the species.


Now for a brief personal note.  I find Orson Scott Card most intriguing when he is discussing the anthropological and xenopological reasons for a certain attribute of a culture; conversely, I get relatively lost whenever he discusses the scientific reasons and whatnot (I am having a hard time getting through this chapter now, for that reason.  All physics and biology, no anthropology or psychology).  I have always gravitated towards religion and the supernatural explanations of societies.  It started when I was young, maybe even with my first introduction to the Torah and the other writings of Judaism.  I became obsessed with the Egyptian pantheon, but quickly moved North, to Greece and Rome, and then across the Pond to the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans.  I swam through each of the humanistic sciences, still keeping my eyes on the stories of the origins of the world and life as we know it.  There are of course overlaps and contradictions, but in the end, most of the myths and tales are congruent with one-another.  Orson Scott Card, as well as Neil Gaiman, follows up on those stories, and use some of them to enhance a currently unknown culture's system to us readers.  That is what interests me about the Enderverse and the associated novels: they have all potential to be real.  They are completely and utterly plausible in my mind, if not the real "Science Fiction" aspects, but then the aliens.  We share this universe, and may it be in all of our prayers that we, as Humans, do not concede to degrade the universe, let alone just the galaxy, as we have the Earth.


The Bugger Hive Queen once explained to Ender the real reason why the Third Invasion never actually happened: the Buggers realized that Earth - the Humans - were not really usable to the Bugger's taste.  The Buggers use a telepathic, faster-than-light communication, and thus every Bugger knows what every other Bugger knows, currently and prior, and the Hive Queen sees everything that her workers see, as if through their eyes.  Humans are too individual, too sporadic for that to work.  She, the Hive Queen, saw in Ender's mind while he was at the Battle School (remember the Giant remains on the Bugger home-world?), and while she would have loved to conquer his mind, she was unable to get a good fix on his . . . synapses.  She ended up just being able to converse with him, telepathically, but no Human with a conscious and determined mind could ever be taken by the Buggers.  We are too inventive, too solitary in groups for our minds to ever be controlled to that extent.


I am fully enjoying this book.  I hope to finish it this week; I realize that I had all potential to complete it this past week, but my days just moved too slowly, and the computer was too much of a distraction.  When I do finally read the last word on the last page, I'll write a synopsis and critique of it.  OSC discusses gods a great deal, whether he meant to or not.  I see it, and I relate much of what he says to what I believe and what I think he is trying to say.

Sandman: The First

Well, he wasn't really the first.  Out of all the Endless, Dream is the third oldest, after his brother Destiny and sister Death.  After Dream comes Destruction, Despair, Desire and Delirium.  Right off the bat, you can see some patterns.  The most obvious would be the alliteration, but that is only there to catch your attention.  All of these . . . beings go by other names.  Destruction is also Olethros, Destiny is called Potmos, or even Mister Destiny, and Delerium goes by Mania, and on occasion - especially in the past - she went by the name Delight.
The next pattern you've hopefully caught up on is evident in the pseudonyms.  They're all Greek.  And, as it comes down to it, Dream is known as either Oneiros or Morpheus, probably the most famous of all the sibling Endless.  Commonly, he is the Sandman . . .

Enough with the spooky rambling introduction.  This blog is and will be (for at least the next five entries) about a certain sub-sect of the literary genre of Science-Fiction / Fantasy.  Even when I was young I was confused . . . I always put those two titles in boxes (or shelves) far separate from each other.  Science-Fiction dealt with space-ships of epic proportions, alternative science "experiments" gone haywire - or succeeding, depending on what the initial outcome was postulated to be, and possibly little green men playing a jumpy jazz tune in a cantina on a desert planet a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.  Fantasy, on the other hand, dealt with flying beasts of epic proportions, alternative hominoid-shaped creatures, and little hairy men playing a smooth folk tune in a tavern in a shire of an unknown time and place.  See the difference?
However, over the past few years I have come to terms with these two genres, and now can understand how librarians and other "literary experts" can group them together, if only to save money on shelf labels.
Both Sci-Fi (SyFy?) and Fantasy take on the ideas of alternate worlds and dimensions.  Whether the bright green flash over the ridge was a UFO crash landing in order to find the successor to a heroic intergalactic guild, or a dragon's flame ricocheting off of a paladin's broad-shield, both have histories and futures worth knowing about.
There have been many great stories over the course of modern human history that have postulated the existence of the otherworldly, even those beings co-existing with humans in our own time.  Ranging from the legends as familiar as King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (great movie, by the way), to the lesser-known - but just as worthy - books of Piers Anthony and Robert Jordan, the general public has always had the thought of neighbors, not separated from us by a patch of grass and white picket fence, but rather a patch of space and time . . . . . . .
Two of my favorite authors, Neil Gaiman and Orson Scott Card, play around with this idea quite a bit.  Neil Gaiman (http://www.neilgaiman.com/) is more open about the "god-factor."  He was raised Jewish, and then his family (excluding himself) converted to Scientology.  Possibly due to that, Neil Gaiman is adept at analyzing and discussing facets of religions and belief structures, old and new (and possibly not-yet-seen).  His books include American Gods, Anansi Boys, Good Omens and Neverwhere, to name a few.  I'll discuss a few of his works throughout the next few entries.  He also writes graphic novels, my favorite being Sandman.  You saw a brief introduction to it earlier, and will definitely learn more about it.  In addition, movies have come from some of his literature, such as Coraline, Mirror Mask and Stardust.









Orson Scott Card (http://www.hatrack.com/), on the other hand, is a Mormon, and some of his literary work displays that.  He is the author of the Ender series, starting with Ender's Game, and continuing on with series and sub-series to form a spider-web map of the epic.  In these stories, the presence of a god is not looked at so much as aliens are, and how humans can, will, and could interact with other sentient beings of our universe.  Other novels, however, do find place in the Mormon belief structure and others. Folk of the Fringe is one of these books.  In addition to that, OSC peers into the inner workings of governmental and political systems of the modern and post-modern US in his newest novels of Empire and Hidden Empire; I have only read the former.

I believe that we are not alone in this life.  I have conflicting views on whether our co-inhabitant(s) is / are (a) supreme being(s) or just (an)other life form(s) trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck.
I'll write both summaries and opinions, and you'll read them.  Then, you'll write your own opinions and reactions, and I'll read.