Sunday, September 25, 2016

Magic and Fantasy Fiction Part 3--How Literary Fantasy Promotes Paganism (at times)

(J.R.R. Tolkein's Silmarillion abounds not only with Fantasy magic, it also lists a full set of literary Pagan deities.)

My previous two posts on this topic first defined what magic actually is in the Bible (an appeal to spirits or spiritual powers as opposed to seeking God) and also looked at how two millennia of Christianity have affected how the world thinks about magic (primarily it has separated out magic and religion as different things--which was not originally the case in Paganism). I repeatedly refuted the idea that "magic," Biblically speaking, is primarily understood as a quid pro quo exchange, making it fundamentally different from prayer. No, for ancient Pagans, a prayer was a ritual and a spell was too--they were essentially different aspects of the same thing.

I also stated in my first post that I believe literary magic--magic in fantasy fiction, poses a real hazard for people but that hazard is not generally where Christians concerned about this topic believe it is. Now I'm going to explain that statement.

I'm going to delve into a small bit of history of fantasy as a literary genre before revealing my main point:

While fairy stories are ancient, those stories about magical creatures (creatures with special abilities inherent to themselves) 
were originally seen as belonging to little-known corners of the real world. In other words, the original fairy stories were actually believed to be true to at least some degree by the people who told them. (Yes, this is because of Pagan notions about the world and how it works.)

The Romantic literary period in the 1800s (which reacted against the rationalism of the Enlightenment of the century before it) stirred up a tremendous interest in the "epic" past and also in the fairy and ghost stories of Medieval times. Hans Christian Anderson reworked fairy stories into novels and George McDonald and William Morris were crafting new novels near the end of the 19th Century (and the beginning of the 20th) that made fresh stories out of ancient fairy tales and epic sagas. Diverse writers such as Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), L. Frank Baum (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), and H.P. Lovecraft (Cthulhu Mythos) belong to this period near the turn of the 20th Century, all writing prior to J.R.R. Tolkien, as did many other authors.

But Tolkien can be fairly credited with creating epic fantasy and he also made the genre of fantasy turn mainstream. Fantasy as a genre after Tolkien was no longer seen as either stories for children or as a small niche for readers of the bizarre. Tolkien also remains the most widely read fantasy author to this day.

My Christian friends love to embrace the fact Tolkien was a Christian, that he wove Christian elements into his story--e.g. the resurrection of Gandalf is intended to parallel Christ's (though was never intended to be a one-for-one allegory), the return of Aragorn to Minas Tirith is supposed to parallel the Second Coming of Christ, and the seductive power of the ring itself comments on the sin nature. It reveals real human beings do not have the power to vanquish evil by an act of the will alone--and evil can never in fact be an instrument for good. And many more parallels.

However, in reality Tolkien was as much inspired by ancient mythology, i.e. Paganism, as he was Christianity. That may seem unduly harsh to my Christian friends who love Tolkien, but it is true--
he was a lover of ancient Germanic stories and sagas and included many, many Pagan elements in his tales. Please bear with me as I explain why he thought doing so was harmless. 

From my understanding, both C.S. Lews and Tolkien, as well as certain other deeply intellectual Christians of their time believed that the gods of the Pagan tradition actually pointed to the one God of the Bible. That these Pagan deities either personified or represented aspects of God's power, ignorantly worshiped. In 1944, Lewis said, “Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some divine illumination vouchsafed to all men. The Divine light, we are told, ‘lighteneth every man.’ We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story—the theme of incarnation, death, and rebirth.”

Tolkien thought much along the same lines. He saw no harm including magical items, spells, and realistic versions of fairy creatures in his story universe even though these story aspects were lifted from Pagan sources and not from the Bible. He also saw no harm in creating a set of fictional gods in the Silmarillion (which in reality was background notes to his Lord of the Rings and Hobbit stories, published after his death).

But in the thought of the time, Christianity had irrevocably replaced Paganism. For a Christian intellectual of the early 20th Century, there was no danger that Paganism would make a resurgence in the world. But that's exactly what it has done.

Aleister Crowley, whose lifespan occupies roughly the same turn-of-the-20th Century period as the birth of fantasy fiction as a modern genre of literature, looked back to ancient traditions not for Christian inspiration and not to write books of fiction. He sought to revive the ancient rituals and magic of the past, the worship of Pagan deities, especially the binary essence of male god and female goddess. His works have proven to be tremendously influential in our modern world. And the fruits of Crowley's work was already underway when Lewis made his statement in 1944.

Though in 1944 the efforts to revive Paganism was a niche movement. But it isn't really anymore. Neo-paganism has millions of adherents worldwide. The number grew enormously in the 20th Century and it still continues to grow (though, granted, the number of Pagans remains far less than the number of Christians--for now). The US military has accepted Wiccans (witches) as chaplains. There are far more people practicing revived Pagan traditions, including, no kidding, seeking the power of spirits other than God--far more than most people living in a Christian bubble would ever imagine.

Modern Pagans I have known personally LOVE Tolkien by the way. Not that they think magic in his world represents the way magic really works, but they are especially appreciative of his overall world view. I personally think that relates to the polytheism he crafted in the Silmarillion.

C.S. Lewis they aren't so thrilled about. Not only is Aslan rather too overtly like Jesus for their taste, Lewis presented the practice of magic in our world in a bad light in The Magician's Nephew. And Lewis, in spite of his open admiration for Pagan mythos, includes only one other god aside from Aslan in all his stories--Tash, the evil god, which is easily enough seen as a representation of Satan.

So here is my point. I'm not really concerned with fantasy fiction portraying magic. I don't believe Harry Potter will curse me or evil spirits dwell in any book of fantasy literature that mentions magic--even if such books contain pentagrams and other symbols of evil or magic (please refer to my previous posts if you haven't seen them as to why I don't worry about that). But I am concerned how fantasy literature promotes modern-day Paganism. 

I am concerned, especially, with the fact that such stories abound with multiple gods and goddesses, but other than C.S. Lewis and a few of my friends who write similar stories, the one God of the Bible does not appear. The fantasy genre is open to ANY Pagan god of any stripe or brand--but the God of the Bible isn't welcome.

It isn't magic or witchcraft in the literary sense that should concern a Christian all that much. Such magic is obviously fiction and in fact can operate much as science operates in a story setting. Literary magic does not necessarily have the connection it ALWAYS had in ancient times--that is of allegiance to spirits other than the one Creator God. 

Of course, calling up spirits in a realistic sense portrayed in a story should be more concerning. Though of course there is a difference between reading about something and doing it. I can read murder mysteries and enjoy them without ever wanting to commit murder myself. I could read a story that features a realistic description of an actual magical practice and never want to perform the ceremony myself.

The same could be said about the inclusion of multiple gods and goddesses. A Pagan god as an object of fiction may have no appeal to me, so I can read about him or her or it without any real danger. So a Christian could say for valid reasons.

But a Pagan god or a spiritual practice realistically described represents an actual potential danger. Just like a loaded gun in a closet does. I, as an educated gun user, can have and operate my firearms for my own benefit. But I would never hold the opinion that just anyone could handle my weapon without any instruction whatsoever. I would be especially concerned about exposing children to its power to kill without supervision.

Likewise, if a story contains a realistic description of the Occult and/or any reference to a Pagan deity of any kind, such a story is not necessarily harmful as in it's a portal for evil spirits to enter your body. But seek and you will find, said Christ, "knock and the door will be open unto you."

Those who seek the power of gods and goddess find not really what they imagined they'd find, but a real spiritual power nonetheless. That's how it worked with the magic the Bible condemned and that's how it still works today. Those who create in their imagination a system of deities or spirits and then actually seek them will find, not what they were looking for really, but a genuine spiritual power. An evil one.

So, yes, I get concerned that fantasy fiction mostly shuts out God in favor of polytheism. By continual exposure to just one point of view, that the gods of paganism are really around (even if only in fiction), that astronomically increases the chances that some reader out there will try to find these gods for real. Just as leaving loaded guns lying around vastly increases the chances someone will carelessly pull a trigger (though doesn't guarantee it).

Yes, I agree science fiction shutting out God in favor of an atheistic world view represents a genuine danger as well--a danger C.S. Lewis was very much concerned about, by the way. And I agree with him.

But the Bible makes it plain it is possible to veer off of correct action in more than one way--we should turn neither to the right nor the left. The peril of real worship of other gods is something the Bible never ignores, nor should modern Christians. And science fiction, unlike fantasy, rarely includes gods and goddesses that people actually worship. Though sometimes it does.

Especially in the modern version of epic sagas known as the superhero story, which could be classified as science fiction. Superhero stories include LITERAL gods, Thor, Loki, and Odin recently. There are people actually worshiping those gods today. Yes, there really are.

Did the Thor or Avengers movie cause such worship? No, of course not, not directly. But it doesn't hurt the gods any to get some free advertising, if you follow my reasoning. Note that I see no evidence at all that such references to false deities in fiction (as if diminishing them to mere fiction) actually reduces the number of people who worship them--in fact, on the contrary it seems likely a small number of people who will be introduced to Thor for the first time in Marvel fiction will wind up worshiping him some years down the road, once the seed of their curiosity about the Norse god grows.

Note that the DEVIL of the Bible is welcome in a superhero story, such as Ghost Rider. But God? No. Anybody but him. That's not good.

My reaction to this bias is part of why I as a Christian write fantasy at times. I want to include God in my writing--for me, I will never create a story universe in which there are no monotheists at all. For me, it is evident that creating such worlds of fiction with gods and goddesses other than the one true Creator (who is excluded or perhaps negatively portrayed) has a sinister purpose, though one mostly unintended by the human authors involved. That purpose (yes it is fair to attribute this plan to Satan) is to increase the chances someone will seek spirits other than God.

So it isn't the portrayal of magic in fictional literature that concerns me nearly as much as the portrayal of other gods and spirits. A clear reference to other deities or to seeking out spirits other than God's--that's what raises my suspicions and causes me to be aware a danger is present. 

And I don't want to be like J.R.R. Tolkien, who with the best of intentions wrote stories that the Neo-pagans adore even more than Christians do. Yes, Christians, feel free to reclaim Tolkien. Make the world aware of his Christian themes. But I think Tolkien went too far in his admiration for his Pagan sources--I think the point he definitely crossed the line was when he created his own pantheon of fictional deities. 

I will not do likewise. I will be aware that what I write could represent a potential danger. While I will not steer clear of literary magic in my stories, I will be very careful about how I portray spirits or gods other than Jehovah. I cannot absolutely control how readers will take my works, but some things clearly represent more potential danger than others. For me, the inclusion of God in stories is an important distinction, one I will not ignore.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."


Saturday, September 10, 2016

Magic and Fantasy Fiction Part 2--Christianity and Magic

(The FIRST title page above is a 1520 copy of the "Malleus Maleficarum," a manual on witchcraft originally published in 1487. The manual presumed all powers of ascribed to Witches were real and could only be explained as being a result of being in league with the Devil. NOTE the Catholic Church condemned this book as heresy not long after publication. It nonetheless remained popular and went through multiple editions. The SECOND title page is from the "Discovery of Witchraft," first published in 1584, which concluded witchcraft is almost entirely a result of charlatans or overactive imaginations and has almost no basis in reality.)

Christianity has had a strong cultural influence on how magic has been seen throughout the centuries. Before examining that influence in some detail, it's worth repeating a few pertinent details from my last post on this topic and fleshing them out by looking at magic as seen in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Magic in the real world (as opposed to fiction) mostly but not exclusively relied on a view of nature that believed spirits inhabited all parts of what we would consider the physical universe--a.k.a. animism. Magic originally consisted of actions performed to appease or control the spirits, which always had the option of rebelling against any attempt to direct them. Spirits seen to be more powerful would eventually be worshiped by a formal priesthood in polytheism, but before the composition of the Hebrew Bible, there was no systematic distinction made anywhere in the world between religion and magic. Biblical condemnations of magic in the Hebrew Bible should not be seen as essentially different than its condemnations of idolatry or worship of gods other than the one Creator.

Magic was also linked to the annual cycle of time, especially in the ancient Pagan solar calendars. So the spring equinox was seen as a special day demanding particular rituals, which were required to cause the fertility of the ground to progress during the year. Likewise the winter solstice, which has the longest night of the year, was seen as requiring special ceremonies to cause (or encourage) the sun to in effect come back from hibernation. And so on.

While ancient magic and religion saw spirits in everything, some spirits were believed to be stronger and more important than others. Some places were seen as important, too--as especially powerful or magical or even "holy" in the eyes of those who believed in them. Certain symbols were seen as having special powers as well. Many objects were thought of as what we would today describe as "magic" (which was really the same in non-Hebrew thinking of ancient times as "holy"), including rings and amulets and swords from what we would consider normal in literary fantasy. But many other things were also in that category--ancient idols especially were seen as representing not just a means to worship the gods, but as talismans of the power of the gods (if not in fact the actual gods themselves). In short, an idol was a magical device, an especially powerful one.

The Hebrew Bible does not spend a lot of time focusing on spirits or magic in its overall scheme. Magicians opposed Moses in Egypt, in a passage that highlighted the fact they did at least appear to have some power--but it was nothing compared to the power of God. Likewise with Daniel in Babylon, whose God-given power to interpret a dream (a very important form of divination at the time) easily exceeded anything the Pagan competition was able to perform. These passages do not develop any real systematic study or theology of how actual magic would work, but neither do they deny the existence of magic. Magical practices are simply forbidden and made to look feeble in contrast to Divinely-sanctioned contact with God.

Note the Israelite worship calendar given in the Torah does not directly oppose the idea that some times of the year are special, a deeply ingrained Pagan belief. But it gives an entirely different set of special days than the Pagans of the period had, with an entirely different rationale. The Hebrew calendar of worship is about remembering the acts of God in the PAST, instead of an attempt to get him to perform something in the future, which was the focus of the Pagan calendar. There are numerous other differences, too many to detail here, including the fact the main spring celebration, the Passover, was about death and deliverance in Hebrew tradition and not at all about the Pagan celebration of life and fertility that occurred at roughly the same time of year (and which involved rabbits and eggs)(note also the Hebrew calendar was lunar instead of solar, so it was different in nearly every way from the Pagan nations around it).

The ancient Israelite worship system does not bother to address the issue if among the vast array of locations in the world whether some places are actually in fact better for worship of spirits than others. It simply and repeatedly tells Israel that THEY are commanded to worship at one place, which is special in relation to all others, the temple in Jerusalem. And even that place is given several historical references as to why it is special, as a place where Abraham was ordered to take Isaac as a sacrifice and also where God appeared to King David. So there is very little sense in the Bible that even the Temple Mount is in any way a special place in the Pagan conception--a place where especially powerful magic (or worship) can be performed (see King Solomon's prayer in I Kings 8:27). Nor is any other place seen as special or "magical" in indisputable terms in the Hebrew text.

The closest thing to any physical object in the Bible having a special spirit or ability would be Moses' staff, which he could turn into a serpent whenever he wished (God commanded that the staff would have that ability, according to the Bible). And Aaron's rod, which budded after being a dead stick for who knows how long. The Ark of the Covenant, in spite of the Indiana Jones treatment of the subject, is not in fact treated as having any special power in the Bible. It is not credited with the victory of the Israelite army at Jericho, even though the Bible says the priests carried it before the army. The most that could be attributed to the ark is one particular guy died when he touched it as it nearly slipped off an ox cart (2 Samuel 6:7). But the Bible specifically says the LORD did that to the man, as opposed to ark itself.

The Hebrew Bible on multiple occasions takes a specific shot against the view that Pagans had concerning their idols--that they were repositories of living spirits. On the contrary, says the Bible, again and again, idols "have eyes, but do not see; mouths, but do not speak" (in Psalm 135:16 and elsewhere). In other words, the idols were just physical objects and had no spiritual reality backing them up at all.

The Christian Scriptures took this particular Hebrew view and modified it in the New Testament in particular ways. First, in the life of Jesus a large number of spirits are mentioned. These though are not seen as occupying every single thing in the visible world, but only human beings and only on one occasion animals (but only after what seems to be unusual circumstances, the evil spirits making a special request of Jesus). These evil spirits are described by the terms "demon" and "devil" and are described as falling under the command of a specific head, the Devil, or Satan (who is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but in rather disputable terms).

In human beings, these spirits, these demons, are accredited with being the cause of multiple illnesses, especially those along the lines of what we would call "insanity" today. However, only some of the people Jesus cured had demons cast out of them. MOST in fact are not so described. Indirectly, the Gospels thus support the idea that most illnesses have causes that are in no way connected to the spiritual world.

Also mentioned in the New Testament are angels. In the New Testament, as opposed to the Old (where they do in fact also appear on numerous occasions, but with little explanation) they are specified as "ministering spirits." In other words, they also occupy a realm of things ordinarily invisible to the human eye.

So the New Testament in effect allows a theology of magic to be made by stating that the power of magic IS in fact performed by spirits like the ancient Pagans believed. Spirits are around us, but invisible. But these spirits do not happen to live in every single object. They are at most only around some things and not every single thing. They can in fact, Biblically speaking, really only be expected to dwell in human beings and not in other living creatures or physical objects. The Bible text however does attribute to them as having at least some powers that extend outside their demon-possessed hosts. They are always evil, so magic, which comes from them, is also always evil from this reasonable Biblical interpretation, even though they can and at times will pretend to be good.

In this theological view, what we call "magic" is never attributable to God. Even if Divine power does things that appear to be the same as what magic would do (such as turning the Nile River bloody, which both God and the Egyptian priest-magicians could do in Exodus), God's power is described by one set of terminology, while "magic" refers to power designated as evil. 

And for most modern Christians, the power derived from the study of nature (also known as "science") would be described by yet another set of terminology, even though that particular division isn't Bible-based. In fact, many believers in God who were scientists have stated that the laws of physics are really manifestations of the will of God. Could we apply this same reasoning to apply what is called "magic" to being just another manifestation of the will of God?

As the Bible defines the term "magic," no. Please note I believe fiction writers are free to create alternate definitions of magic for the purpose of storytelling, but for my fellow Christians, what the Bible says about this topic is important. We may in fiction decide that people can fly if they can manage a happy little thought, but we also should know before we write fiction, what the facts are.

"A manifestation of the will of God" isn't what the Bible says about "magic" and related terms at all. Magic was linked to worship of other gods--that is why it is designated "evil." Let me assure all readers, lest you think
delving into Greek and Hebrew original words in Bible texts somehow changes this situation, it doesn't. The fundamental position of the Bible is that spiritual power derived from sources other than God deserves special terminology to set it apart from God's power--unlike the power of science (which actually does receive indirect mention in the Bible, believe it or not).

This legitimate (and sharp) Biblical dividing line forms part of the reason why some Christians are so dead set against even the term "magic" or related terms like "sorcery." For some people, if magic is ever used by any fictional characters at all, it is seen in light of the theological view I described above, i.e. that magic is always bad, period. But please note that literary magic taken as a whole has a great number of differences between it and the Christian theological view of magic I described above.

Literary magic, just to name a few of the most common differences, is full of creatures with special magical talents (like unicorns)--the Bible does not indicate that any living person has any more access to evil spirits than any other--not by nature (it may be true of people hypothetically, but the Bible at the very least doesn't 
directly comment on that possibility, which probably but not certainly indicates it isn't true). Nor does it show that ANY animal is in fact in league with evil spirits or otherwise "magical." 

Literary magic also tends to strongly fall in line with the view I mentioned in my last post, that magic power is simply that, power, and spells and potions and whatnot, instead of appeasing spirits, are involved in transfers of invisible powers mostly on a quid pro quo basis (this view was influenced in the West by certain Greek philosophical considerations, by the way). Literary magic is also filled with enchanted objects, things like special scrolls, rings, and swords.

The Bible's view does not give one shred of reason to believe that even though spirits are real, they attach themselves to physical objects. They only are interested in living human beings from what the Bible reveals and not any physical thing. There are therefore no real magical or holy symbols of any intrinsic value (the only value they have would be what people assign to them). No pentagram is condemned, Biblically speaking. Nor is the use of the sign of the cross commended. Nor is there any reason to believe a spell would always work--just like the ancient Pagans believed, a REAL spell is an appeal to a spirit which that spirit may or may not accept--not a quid pro quo exchange. 

Nor are there any holy (or unholy) places. All places in the world, with the possible exception of the temple mount in Jerusalem, are ALL just like any other place, spiritually speaking. Nor are there any special magical days--the Pagan high calendar would seem to be as much a product of human imagination as their notion that spirits lived in the idols made of wood, metal, and stone, which in fact could neither speak, hear, nor move. 

You may note how very modern my explanation of what the New Testament says about evil spirits seems to be. It is very close to the modern "scientific" or materialist view, which would say there are no spirits at all, anywhere. And that the entire corpus of Pagan and magical thought was entirely the product of human imagination. Modern scientific man would agree with me that there are no holy (or magic) symbols or holy (or magic) places or objects or any days with any special magical (or holy) value.

Note that in apparent harmony with a modern view, First Corinthians 8:4 specifically affirms that idols are "meaningless." However, the same Biblical author (Paul) in the same epistle later says that things offered to idols are offered to demons (I Corinthians 10:20). How can both things be true, a view that is essentially modern in asserting Pagan holy symbols are meaningless, yet still accepts the existence of evil spirits? 

Simply this, that idols were primarily physical objects cooked up by human imaginations (as were other false ideas, like animism itself). But that's not all they were.

The New Testament affirms that there ARE real spirits around, searching for an opportunity to get their metaphorical hooks into humans exercising their imaginations as they engaged in such activities as Pagan worship or the practice of magic (which were originally aspects of the same thing). Note the primary identifier of such worship or magic is that it involves turning away from God and seeking other "powers." It is NOT true that the most important thing about it is that the relationship involved is a quid pro quo exchange. Thinking that "quid pro quo" is the basic definition of magic would be to read too much literary magic into what real magic actually was (and is).

Note that early Christian teaching tended to see the powers of darkness as already defeated by Christ. Such powers as represented by witchcraft as a result were not something the early Church talked about very often, even though they condemned them on occasion. In addition, the real significance of some things we think of as Christian, such as the symbol of the cross as a holy object, or the idea there were holy places (almost like magic places, but CHRISTIAN brand...ahem), crept into Christian thought over time. The first major significance assigned to the sign of the cross that I know of was from the (future) Emperor Constantine, around 300 years after Jesus walked the earth (who was a Pagan at the time he saw it). The first holy places centered around places historically linked to Christ, also hundreds of years later--but they at times were also seen as having special powers in a way with obvious parallels to Pagan thought.

By the time of the Dark Ages in Europe, the Pagan view of magic had largely been overlaid over what I consider the Biblical theology of good and bad invisible spirits with no real connection to physical things. Some magic practitioners of the period and afterwards sought to find the direct help of the angels, who are always good in Biblical theology. Or to force the intervention of God through certain specific rituals or symbols. These are things the Bible itself never recommends--instead, Christians are told to seek God through prayer, which is directly asking the Divine Creator of all for something and which requires no ritual or special day or special symbol. 

Please note though, that these people who sought Divine or angelic power through ritual or symbol considered themselves to be working for God's glory. Even though to at least some degree, there is no question they in fact were borrowing concepts taken from Pagan practices. 

Borrowing Pagan practices and importing them into the worship of God I would agree could be called "white magic" (though that term is ALSO borrowed from Paganism--it does not exist in the Bible), because the influence of magical thinking really is there. However, strictly speaking, it is an error from the Biblical point of view to define any attempt to reach the one true God as "magic," even if it employs a method that parallels things found in magical spells. "Magic" by Biblical definition is seeking power outside of God. Seeking God wrongly is not advisable, not a positive good, can be very much like magic in its methods, and even can be dangerous in that it may court God's judgment. But it is not in the final analysis the same thing as the magic the Bible condemns.

So, is it correct to call certain Christian practices that call on God to perform certain acts in exchange for other acts "white magic"? No, not really. 

I would say there is more "white magic" in specific rituals and symbols which are supposedly Christian than in calling on God to act in a belief He will be required to respond as promised. Symbols and rituals have stronger parallels with Pagan magic, even though not even these are actually what the Bible condemns as "magic" if they are intended to reach God. 

Of course, what I said about God's promises is assuming what is pursued by the Christian has at least some basis in Scripture. Imagining God to have promised something not in Scripture at all is bad and dangerous, but it's closer to heresy than to magic. That's true even though I agree that God is no one's genie--He in fact decides how to answer and when and it is a theological error to think a believer can force God to do anything. Thinking so parallels magic in some ways--but nonetheless wouldn't be the same thing even if Pagans had believed they could force their gods to act (which they mostly did not believe).

So h
ow about an exorcism or spiritual cleansing? Are these things "white magic"? Is it wrong to attempt to do these things as a Christian? Is it acceptable to attempt to clear a room of evil spirits by commanding them to depart? 

The Biblical Epistles are the marching orders of Christian churches, as opposed to historical books like Acts and the Gospels, which tell us what happened without always expecting us to do the same. The Epistles give no clear commands to perform any exorcisms or cleansings, nor any instructions on how. So I would say that it probably isn't a good idea to attempt such an action, even if Jesus and the apostles did so. 

That Jesus walked on water does not mean I can do so, too--if I were to be called out on the water, like Peter was, then I can expect to succeed there. But the Bible does not have a general command to walk on water and it also does not have a general command for Christians to go out and perform exorcisms, not from what I see. Though there are Christians who disagree with me about that based on certain interpretations of the Gospels and Acts. Even though I know where they're coming from, I think they are mistaken.

HOWEVER, as much as I am not pro-exorcism, I would not agree, based on the New Testament that addressing a demon is in fact somehow praying to it. Jesus himself addressed demons and certainly did not ever pray to them. Claiming that addressing a demon is itself intrinsically a form of magic or a prayer to that demon is a false statement not based in any objective New Testament teaching--a false statement that might actually qualify as slander. Since again, Jesus and the apostles addressed them when they performed exorcisms and they were definitely not praying to them.

After the time of the apostles, in which miracles were apparently common and into the late Roman Empire, very little appears in church writings about events we could describe as miraculous. In this same period, neither was very much written about magic. But beginning in early Medieval times, magic began to be the subject of some legislation. Medieval law did not attempt to legally banish all of what I would label as "magical thinking," but did provide some legislation that forbade the use of spells to hurt someone. The emperor Charlemagne was especially insistent on laws against the damaging use of magic from what I've read. 

Note that once Christian armies (or at least armies who fought in the name of Christianity--baptizing someone does not "magically" mean his thinking is no longer Pagan) defeated in battle the armies of Pagans, like Charlemagne defeated the Saxons, the overt Pagan rituals were forbidden. The Pagan priests (such as Saxon priests) were no longer allowed to openly perform the public worship they had done in the past. Folk magic, not practiced by any formal priesthood, took over among people largely Pagan in their allegiance. Magic continued to uphold a number of ancient rituals and developed new, clandestine ones. This period is part of why our modern thought separates magic from religion so thoroughly. Formal religion was one thing at that time, formally approved by the governments of the period. "Magic" was performed by a different set of people under different circumstances, in private, quietly, a surviving remnant of Pagan thought.

But it's worth repeating that the two systems were not fundamentally different in the Pagan era--once upon a time, magic and religion were two aspects of the same thing. It was the entrance of Christendom upon the world stage that sharply separated them.

By the late Middle Ages thinking on magic in Christendom itself went through a radical transformation. The book Malleus Maleficarum (the witches' hammer, as in what would be used against them) in 1487 perhaps more symbolized that change than caused it, but it affirmed that certain people, mostly women, were in league with the Devil and acquired from him a number of supernatural powers (it also discussed how to find and prosecute such witches). These powers are never mentioned in the Bible, as are a number of other allegations in the book--for example, that witches slept with demons or turned people into animals.

This concept, that witches were dangerous traitors to the human race who yielded great power still influences a number of literary traditions about witches (think: Wicked Witch in Oz). Though of course most modern, Western people believe such a view of witchcraft is sheer fiction. 

And we should note it largely WAS fiction. While there are real modern witches who are practicing a revived attempt to worship ancient gods and goddesses and perform ancient rituals, they CAN'T really do the magic that Malleus Maleficarum claims they routinely do. And it's worth mentioning that the witches don't believe that they report directly to Satan or other demons as the Malleus reported (though as a Christian I believe they do, simply unknowingly).

This particular old view of witches has never entirely disappeared from the world. People remain at least vaguely aware of it and it inspires some of the terror that certain Christians, Evangelicals in particular, still feel today. However, based on what the Bible actually specifically says about it, a pentagram that the Malleus would see as powerful witches' symbol is in fact nothing, totally meaningless. But to someone convinced that witches really exist in the Malleus Maleficarum sense, even looking at a pentagram or going near it would be to court danger. The idea that the very mention of witchcraft or magic in literature could represent another potential hazard is bound up in this late Medieval concept of witches--that they were in league with the Devil and certain images and objects (and ideas) need to be scrupulously avoided, lest Satan use them to take possession of you. 

This Medieval concept included believing that certain books or symbols had magical evil power and certain places were favorite haunts of demons. But this idea, that there are special places or objects that have special meaning in the demonic world is ITSELF imported from Paganism. It isn't part of how the Bible portrays the spiritual world. 

Biblically speaking, caution about evil spiritual influences is justified. Terror about certain physical objects or places or even the existence of certain literary characters who practice magic is NOT.

Modern sources often credit the Enlightenment with ushering in the current Western scientific view that there are no spirits at all in the world. But the Protestant Reformation had a prior influence, which arose from the Bible texts being re-examined. Not so much in the earliest days of the Reformation, but a bit afterwards, a number of Protestant Christian thinkers began to affirm that the actions described as "witchcraft" were in fact a giant scam, like circus palm readers. Or the product of overactive imaginations. Note they were taking about witches in the 
Malleus Maleficarum sense.

They also eventually concluded that the persecution of such people is a waste of time and was fundamentally wrong. That spirits may exist, but special spiritual places, special dates, and special symbols or objects with magical or spiritual (demonic) power were in fact largely fake. (The earliest example I know of this thinking is captured in Scot's "Discovery of Witchcraft," for which I gave the title page above--note it was originally produced less than 100 years after Malleus Maleficarum).

Protestant thinking of the period, inspired by what the Bible actually says, definitely helped pave the way for the modern view that spiritual power is nothing at all to be concerned about. That it is total fiction.

However, please note that the Bible's condemnation of magic remains pertinent for a Christian who believes the Scriptures. And the New Testament's linkage of such powers to evil spirits remains valid for a Christian who believes the Bible. There is such a thing as magic which we can accurately describe as "real." It ISN'T all entirely made up or the product of charlatans, even if Malleus Malificarum is bogus. What it actually is always involves turning away from God to acquire spiritual (or magical) power, whether that definition lines up with a modern way of thinking or not. 

So, it's worth repeating one last time, a quid pro quo exchange is NOT the fundamental definition of magic, Biblically speaking. That's true even though systems of spells designed to appeal to the animistic spirits employed a lot of quid pro quo. Magic according to the Bible is linked to seeking supernatural power outside of God, whatever the means.

My sincere apologies about the length of this post, but I made it as short as I could. To wind it up by turning back to the original purpose of this series of posts: 

Are there any ACTUAL hazards from the magic seen in literary fantasy fiction? Or to rephrase that, what is the relationship between magical fiction and real magic, if any? Is it possible for books that portray magic to cause any real person actual harm? If so, how? 

These last points and others I will, God willing, cover in the next post in this series. Please stay tuned. :)


Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Magic and Fantasy Fiction Part 1--What is magic?

(A Babylonian cylinder seal above shows a worshipper standing in between the goddess of love, Ishtar, on his left and the sun god, Shamash, on his right. Note the abundance of magical symbols including the crescent moon and stars.)

A fair amount of discussion has been going on recently among my fellow Christians who write speculative fiction on the nature of magic in relation to fantasy fiction. E. Stephen Burnett in Speculative Faith especially has made some comments that have inspired this particular blog post.

I would say there is a real connection between fantasy fiction and the practice of magic--or there is a possible genuine connection anyway. But that connection doesn't really lie where people who worry about such things (usually fellow Christians) think it does. It is not true that the very mention of magic or the practice of magic is somehow dangerous.

However, those who dismiss such concerns with a wave of the hand are not really correct in their understanding of the situation, either. For example, I believe E. Stephen would have to be fairly classified among Christians who think there are a lot more important things to worry about in the world than anything that occurs in fantasy fiction magic. (If he has ever stated that concern about the supernatural in fiction on the part of some Christians has any validity at all, I have not witnessed it--though I haven't read everything he's written, either.) And he's recently opined that some Christians perform what he called "white magic spells" which are worse than fantasy magic.

The crux of his reasoning centers around people believing that certain specific actions compel God to act. That such a quid pro quo is in contradiction to prayer, which is asking God for things and recognizing He may deny the request. Therefore the actions compelling God to act are really "white magic"--since Mr. Burnett identifies magic as making things happen in the supernatural realm in exchange for other things happening. Intellectually it's a compelling way to look it things because it's straightforward and unambiguous. Quid pro quo = bad. Non quid pro quo in relation to God = good.

The problem with such elegant simplicity is that it is unfortunately not entirely true. Magic doesn't always equal a quid pro quo exchange and a relationship with the God of the Bible does not mean God has never promised to perform some actions in response to other actions.

This is a multifaceted concern and it merits more than one post. I have already addressed the issue of how I think Christians ought to write magic, by the way, in my 7 Ways to Deal With the Problem Magic Poses Christian Fantasy Writers post. This post will be different in that I will explore different aspects of the topic than before. Specifically the aspect of quid pro quo in relation to magic.

Or more fundamentally, what IS magic? Why is the Bible so critical of magic?

Volumes could be written (and have been) on what magic is. But one thing is clear is that ancient human beings as a whole saw the world very differently than we do. They were as a whole animists--which means they believed that every single thing that exists has a spirit dwelling inside it (treating everything as if it were human in a hidden way). Animists believed there were a number of actions one could take to appease such spirits, to appeal to them, to convince them to help a person in need, or to ward off their wrath. A not all that different concept is found in pantheism, the idea that a single spirit permeates all of nature and has aspects that can be appealed to or manipulated.

Certain symbols were special for certain spirits or aspects of the one pantheistic spirit and would be useful in getting their aid. Words spoken in ritual, especially words only understood by the inner circle of those who made a living from the practice of magic (shamans) formed part of the means to reach the spirits, as did special gestures and the performance of such acts at specific times. Animal sacrifices were also often part of such rituals, as were many, many other things.

Anthropologists study such actions among the people who still practice them today and again, have written volumes about them. But the essential thing to note for this post is that the animistic or pantheistic view of magic did not really see the use of magic as a this for that exchange (quid pro quo). Not entirely.

The offerings, gestures, and symbols were all seen as ways to get on the good side of the spirits--but it was always possible for a spirit to refuse to do what it was supposed to do. Even the pantheistic spirit so similar to the Force of Star Wars could manifest a will of its own. 

Shamans thought of most of the spirits as not being particularly bright--a certain herb or symbol might work nearly every time with a certain spirit, because it would frighten it or trick it. They believed they could at least most of the time control or manipulate the spirits. But they did not believe that the spirits had no choice in the matter as to whether or not to come through and do what they were supposed to do. Spirits at times would misbehave--and while the shaman could and did do everything possible to minimize such acting up on the part of the spirits, they recognized they did not have ultimate control over them.

The religions of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt were the first to employ a formal priesthood. The priests supported the kings in various ways, were literate, and kept temple records. Conditioned by millennia of monotheism, we may think that once priests came into existence, a sharp division was created between religion and magic. We might think that priests prayed, while the magicians who continued to exist in ancient civilizations did something fundamentally different.

No, not really. The ancient priesthoods formalized the magic of the past, but they saw no distinction between performing rituals designed to appease the gods--whom they saw as the greater, more noble, and more powerful spirits--and the rituals used to appeal to the lesser spirits.

So when Ba'al, one of the gods of Canaan, needed to be appeased by his worshipers having sex with one another (they believed such actions would cause him to bring rain), that was seen as legitimate ritual. Priests and priestesses organized and participated in such things as much as they did animal sacrifices. Or the use of magical symbols. 

Words spoken in ritual by a priest (what we might call prayer) were not fundamentally different from words spoken by a private practitioner of magic (what we might call spells). Ancient Pagans saw this all as a suite of similar things--yes, the priests were different because their role was for public ritual and they were formally trained. They worked in the temples. But their rituals were still designed to appeal to invisible spiritual powers--their incantations were still thought of as appeasing their gods. Their appeals to Ra or Marduk were no less magical to them than the shaman praying to--or casting spells with--local spirits (please note the image I've included above from ancient Babylonian worship, with magic symbols linked to worship of the gods). And the priests, the polytheistic temple magicians, still believed it was possible that the spirits of the gods could say, "no."

Over time, in some places, the concept of magic evolved so that the rituals were seen to appeal to power that did not emanate from specific spirits. This eventually developed a concept that magic is the manipulation of vague powers that do not really emanate from spirits at all. But all historical references I've seen make it clear this is much more modern than the animistic or pantheistic and polytheistic versions of magic. Yes, this type of magic employs a lot of directly quid pro quo thinking. But even these practitioners believe spells can fail for totally unknown and unknowable reasons. The fundamental nature of the supernatural they regard as being unpredictable to a certain degree, something a believer in the one God of the Bible usually will say is true of God's will. We can only know it to a degree.

However much believers in one God may in fact agree with magical practitioners that the nature of reaching out to the supernatural is an appeal and not a quid pro quo situation, we are quite different. For one thing, we monotheists have a clear division in our minds between religion and magic and prayer and spells. It is OUR concept of that division which has affected the modern views of magic as practiced by Neopagans and as portrayed in Fantasy fiction, believe it or not. Ancient man, prior to formal monotheism, saw no division between magic and religion.

Copious texts we would call magical exist from the ancient world prior to the formal entrance of monotheism into history via the official establishment of Judaism through Moses (though the Bible itself maintains belief in one God is original to humanity and humans became corrupted with false ideas after the fall of man). None of these ancient texts actually USE a word that means "magic" as opposed to a prayer or ritual to appease the gods. Magic and prayer and ritual were all aspects of the same thing.

The first book in the history of the world to use the term "magic" in reference to a spiritual power separated from prayer is the Hebrew Bible itself, in Deuteronomy 18, Isaiah 8, and other places. All concepts of magic that see it as separate from prayer are in fact influenced by the Bible, the first book in world history to delineate a difference between the two things.

So how does the Hebrew Scripture define the difference between magic and prayer? Does the one involve quid pro quo and the other not?

No, not all all. The Bible shows numerous situations in which a condition is created for God's blessing, from things as morality-based as the behavior of the kings of Israel to as seemingly random as Moses needing to keep his arms elevated for Israel to win a battle against the Amalekites. There are some clear examples of quid pro quo in the Hebrew Bible.

The Bible in fact draws the difference between magic and prayer in that magic is the use of power by appeal to supernatural forces other than the one, legitimate God. That includes ALL versions of such supernatural powers and is linked to the worship of other gods, which the Bible routinely condemns. Divination and necromancy were quite popular versions of magic in Bible times and get specific mention in Bible passages--but ALL of it, all supernatural power other than that coming from the one God of the Bible is all condemned and seen in the same light. The condemnation cannot be limited to necromancy or divination alone. 

Nor can magic be solely thought of as just a quid pro quo arrangement. Often it was, nearly always in fact, since the spirits only acted up on occasion in the view of the practitioners of magic--but that's entirely beside the point, Biblically speaking. The Biblical condemnations of magic do not care a niggle if quid pro quo was involved in the magic or not--if a supernatural power came from a source other than God, it was condemned by the Bible under the banner of "magic" or as going after other gods, which were two aspects of the same thing. Period.

My references to the Bible's view of magic have been to the Hebrew Scriptures up of this point. Does the specifically Christian New Testament see this issue differently? Do Christians have a legitimate reason to think we can get God to perform specific actions for us, quid pro quo? Is thinking so "white magic"? And how did Christianity influence the understanding of magic in the world? Is the use of symbols, spells, and rituals specifically anti-Christian?

These issues and a few others I'll address in my next post on this topic. Please stay tuned.


Monday, July 11, 2016

Non-lethal Weapons of the Science Fiction Future

Inspired by a Facebook comment by Jessi Roberts (thanks Jessi!), I've decided to comment on non-lethal weapons. The most famous of which would be the Star Trek phaser, set on stun:

The general problem is that it is harder to disable someone than to kill them. Recall the case of the terrorist attack in Moscow in 2002, when terrorists from Chechnya took over a theater. In the end, the Russians pumped an anesthesia gas into the place, which killed about 130 innocent people, but allowed all 40 terrorists to be killed and allowed some 700 other people to be rescued. The problem with gas is an overdose is very easy. And people who fall asleep may involuntarily vomit and choke to death on their own emesis. So you could say the Russian solution worked--unless you were one of the 130 killed on accident. Or related to them.

Other disabling systems have the same problem. Too little of whatever you want to use and the person you intended to stun is still on his feet, ready to hurt you. Too much and you might permanently injure or kill the person you mean to stun. Ultrasonic waves or infrared heat that can disable an opponent at a certain range of energy are ineffective or overkill at others. And the systems required to set up such "stun" settings are not presently something you can just hold in your hand. And the chances are you won't be able to hold anything like that in your hand any time soon. The Star Trek "stun" setting is simply fiction. Knocking people out without killing them is a lot harder than that.

Star Wars used carbon freezing to in effect "stun" Han Solo (though Star Wars also shows a stun beam at least once), though of course if you freeze a person, the real problem comes with thawing him out. Frozen cells rupture, so a thawed person in reality is as good as dead. Star Wars offered no real solution to this problem, only hinting at the difficulty by making Han Solo temporarily blind on his release from his imprisonment. But even if you mastered the technology of freezing and rethawing, actual freezing would surely work a lot better in a controlled environment, just like anesthesia works a lot better on a surgical table than in a Moscow theater.

A pretty effective modern system revolves around pepper spray, which is usually good at causing pain and making people drop to the ground, disabled but not killed. This isn't very practical for military use, since its range is so short and it can be cancelled out by chemical protective gear (and a tiny percentage of people can ignore pepper spray anyway). 

And in a science fiction context, I think you'd have no assurance that the pepper spray we use would work at all on an alien species--they might simply get angry. Or HUNGRY for that matter. :)
The modern taser gives a better example of how an effective stun system might work. The taser uses electrical pulses to in essence override the nervous system of the person its used on. This still isn't practical as a military weapon, because its range is too short. But imagine you could fire a taser rocket that would fly over to an enemy, guiding itself, then delivering the taser charge and keep it going until its owner came to turn it off. THAT might be very effective. And its stunning effect could be tailored to match the species it attacks. (Or we could imagine a self-piloting flying syringe delivering designer anesthetic.)

In fact, contemplating a future with robotic weapons incorporating computer systems that would have the ability to individually calculate dosages of anesthesia or amounts of shocking energy and monitor the person who falls afterwards, non-lethal systems suddenly become much more probable. There seems little doubt that individually fired flying projectiles, ones that could guide themselves to their target, and that could deliver a precise dose of whatever it took to knock out an opponent, such technology would seem to be an inevitable part of the future of weapons. 

Note that other futuristic computerized systems are possible, not just the self-guiding projectile kind. You could have a door that automatically stuns people who attempt to break in. Or bomblets which drop from the sky, opening up into little flying or even crawling robots, seeking out people to stun. Or a nanite cloud, which in science fiction are usually portrayed as eating people alive, instead, delivering them just the right amount of anesthesia to put them to sleep.

Taking prisoners could become the standard practice in future wars, actually killing people on purpose considered barbaric and unneeded. Or at least certain science fiction races would see it that way. (Others, presumably, would not.)

So, dear friends, as you write combat scenarios in a science fiction context, don't forget the non-lethal weapons. They are certain to be the wave of the future for real military operations.


Saturday, July 2, 2016

An Open Letter to the Alien Invaders of Earth (Independence Day Resurgence)

(Without discussing the entire story, this post commits numerous movie SPOILERS for "Independence Day Resurgence")
                     (The alien queen, in action, mentioned below: Independence Day Resurgence)

Dear Alien Invaders of Earth,

I offer my most sincere condolences on your total failure to once again defeat what must surely be one of the weakest space powers in your known universe, what you must think of as the obscure and little-known Planet Earth. I would like to kindly offer you a small bit of tactical advice for your next attack, since you clearly need it.

I'm saying this as a resident of Earth myself, even though my planet occupies an alternate timeline from the one in the film I recently watched, since we have never been literally invaded before and united as a planet to build a space defense force after the fact. Please note that the documentary film of the climatic events which occurred in your alternate universe has been released in many Earth languages on my world. The one I saw was in Spanish, so perhaps there are a few details concerning your invasion plan which were lost in translation for me.

Though I must say, I felt your invasion plan was going very well at first. You targeted the lunar-based space defense force with ruthless efficiency and followed up with an immediate and decisive strike against all space defense forces orbiting Earth. At this point in the documentary, I had high hopes for the success of your plan, because on close approach to Earth, destroying all the best defenses is exactly what sound military tactics called for.

Though if I may add this: if you simply fired a very powerful single space weapon, of the kind that would really require a lot less energy than maneuvering your massive "mother ship" through the gravitational field of Earth, from far away from Planet Earth itself (say from the orbit of our neighboring planets Mars and Venus) I do not think very many (if any) Earth weapons would be able to respond from so far away. Just a thought.

Though perhaps you wished to savor your revenge up close. Very well--who am I to judge the requirements of alien revenge?

However, after destroying the space-based defenses systematically and rapidly, I am puzzled as to why you did not follow up with a systematic attack on the Earth ground-based defenses. I mean, it was a primitive weapons platform designed to fly in the oxygen atmosphere of Earth that took you out before. So I would think you would have targeted them this time, making sure there were none of them left.

And I must also admit to being puzzled at your plan to destroy Earth itself. Yes, you benefited from the incredible luck that your chief alien enemy showed up right above the main lunar space cannon, looking hostile, without broadcasting any messages of peace and friendship which any reasonable opponent of your space empire would do (I mean, no wonder you defeated them, they're dumb), but you should have considered at least some possibility that the Earth would have benefited from alien tech helping us. So actually landing on our planet seemed to me to be an extraordinarily bad idea.

Your mother ship was something like 5,000 miles wide (or was that 5,000 kilometers?) big enough to produce a significant amount of its own gravity, which you must know, since you keep your own ship from collapsing in on itself from its own gravity somehow. Why not simply orbit Earth at a high rate of speed? The tidal forces from your ship's gravity would tear the crust apart, creating numerous earthquakes at an unbelievably massive scale and giving the globe a very satisfying end that none of our ground'based weapons would be able to do anything about. OR, alternatively, if you have mastered artificial gravity (as it seems you must have), simply pull Earth out of its orbit, sending it spiraling into the sun. Much simpler than what you actually did, while simultaneously still very dramatic.

Speaking of simple, why not just shower asteroid-sized space rocks on Earth at high velocities, thousands of them. The Earth is sitting at the bottom of a gravity well and from space you are like attackers who have taken the high ground. Drop some rocks on the people below--it works very very well, since you have the forces of nature on your side.

But in fact, it would seem you protected the Earth from the gravity of your own ship, because you did not shatter the crust of the planet when you landed on it. Sure, you killed a lot of people who happened to be under the equivalent of your landing struts, but you actually should have killed a lot more, as large as your ship was.

I suppose that must have to do with the requirements of alien revenge again. OK. You want us to die nice and slow, got it.

OK, if so, why not consider a biological agent to do that? You use bio-engineered suits to protect your bodies, so I assume your biological science are well-developed. Make a super bug, especially one that would turn humans into zombies. Watch the fun from space as we literally eat one another alive.

Or again, more simply, why not just drop a lot of poison on the planet? Powdered plutonium would do very well--or nerve agent. Or chlorine gas in massive amounts (we invented that as a weapon more than 100 of our Earth years ago, so I assume you guys must know what chlorine is, right?).

Your actual plan, of drilling a two kilometer wide hole all the way down to the planetary core, um, did not make much sense to me. How exactly was that going to destroy the planet? Earth is not a balloon filled with pressurized air. Gravity, that stuff we were talking about just a bit ago, gravity keeps the core material inside the core. Digging a hole might cause a lot of earthquakes, but not near as many as simply landing on the planet itself with whatever you used to dampen the effects of your ship gravity turned off.

Maybe I was missing something due to watching in Spanish...were you going to use artificial gravity to pull the core contents out, once you reached the core? That would take a long time through a hole only 2 kilometers wide. Well, it would destroy the planet, but lots of other things would do it even better--like dropping some neutronium or a small black hole into the center of the Earth. You would not even have to dig a tunnel--gravity would make it find its own way. And gravity would compress the planet, eating it from the inside out, killing everyone. Faster and more straightforward than the "drilling down to the core" thing.

Okay, okay, your plan was obscure, strange, unlikely, but once a plan is in motion you are committed. I get it. It's a military culture thing.

But if I may humbly suggest, why is it that if your technology was linked to a single queen and would cease functioning without her, why would you attack with a ship that has a queen on board? 

Or if you are going to use the queen, why would you only bring just one? Sure, she was several hundred feet tall, but still, with a 5,000 mile (or kilometer) diameter ship, you have room for more than one of them. You have room for thousands, if not millions, in actual fact. 

Well, no need to get excessive. You could easily have taken hundreds, but how about just a dozen? Or maybe even just one other? Just one. One spare. Is that too much to ask for you to plan in advance?

Or maybe you could invest in some automation, something that would keep the ships running when the queen is gone?

True, the humans were painfully stupid enough to send a live human to attack your ship from the inside, a job that essentially called for him to flip a switch. Couldn't they find a robot to do that? Hasn't anyone on Earth heard of automatic pilot? Sheesh!

But look, just because the humans were dumb doesn't you had to be. So you had just the one queen. There you were, fighting with the forces you actually had rather than the ones you could have wished you had.

So under the circumstances, having the one queen, the one linchpin to your entire system, having her lead the attack probably was not a great idea. And once having led the attack, she totally lost focus on what she was supposed to be doing. Chasing a school bus? Why? Going after random pilots who happened to bail out, why? Wasn't there a specific military objective she was supposed to achieve, instead of chasing any moving object in her field of view? (Don't you guys have any tranquilizers on your planet? She could have used one.)

Anyway, my condolences again on your horrific defeat. But if I may humbly submit this to an obviously powerful and technologically advanced species: sorry, but your plans suck. 

I mean, other than the first step of destroying the space-based weapons. Other than that, everything else you did was painfully stupid. No wonder you guys keep losing...

A non-fan