In the second chapter of The Amber Spyglass, THIS IS ALL THE MOST PERFECT THING OF ALL THINGS EVER. Also, who knew angels could be total douchebags??? If you’re intrigued, then it’s time for Mark to read The Amber Spyglass.
This is pretty much my own personal version of heaven. How ironic.
CHAPTER TWO: BALTHAMOS AND BARUCH
How great is it that Pullman drops us into Will’s perspective immediately after the end of The Subtle Knife? Also, this is the most perfect book that was ever a book ever.
I’m glad that Pullman spent so much time in the last book building the relationship between Lyra and Will. It was great character development at the time, but it’s now clear it needed to happen. Had it not, it would have seemed incredibly silly that Will would go against his father’s desire and seek out Lyra instead. But Lyra is Will’s only true friend and he’s lost her. Why wouldn’t he try to find her?
What is so spectacular to me is the fact that when it comes right down to it, twelve-year-old Will spends the entirety of chapter two bossing around two angels who are thousands of years old and massively in love with one another. He commands their attention, he demands the things he needs, and he makes it abundantly clear that he is the boss and no one else. No, seriously. When he discovers that angels are “weaker†than humans, he says this:
“If I’m stronger, you have to obey me. Besides, I have the knife. So I can command you: help me find Lyra. I don’t care how long it takes, I’ll find her first and then I’ll go to Lord Asriel.â€
Again, he’s talking to ANGELS. WHO ARE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD. What’s so striking to me is that Will is aware of the power that he has, but he chooses it not to benefit himself, but to locate his best friend and liberate her from whomever has her captive. Will’s moral compass has always been strong and blatant, but I still can’t help feeling impressed by this all. Would I have done the same thing when I was Will’s age? Or would I have been too overwhelmed by the awesome responsibility that came with being the bearer of the subtle knife? I don’t honestly know, but I can’t deny that I find will to be a respectable role model in this sense, even for myself at my current age.
Pullman further expands the world of angels as we learn that the two who have come to Will, named Balthamos and Baruch, are actually low level angels themselves. (There’s an angel hierarchy? How exactly does that work? Hell, how does one even become an angel?) Because of this, the two can only be seen in near-dark, and even then, they’re still just outlines of themselves. They are determined to bring Will to Lord Asriel for some unsaid reason, though I imagine it’s probably because he has the knife. Will’s having none of that. He sends one of the angels off to attempt to locate Lyra while the other stays with him as he naps. Seriously, bless him. Commanding angels and taking naps. He is perfect.
Guess who’s not so perfect? Balthamos. I had an idea of writing this chapter from the point of view of Balthamos as a jaded hipster who is just so over this poor mortal, but there’s too much important stuff here to discuss. But Balthamos is, without a question, rude, sarcastic, sassy, and fed-up with Will from the very beginning. I chalked some of it up to the fact that the angel was dealing with a child (in his perspective) who was bossy and insolent, but that soon didn’t even really make sense. He was being rude simply for the sake of it, as if Will’s very existence was enough to get upset about. (Actually, much later, I realized that Will had separated Balthamos from the angel he loved, and that would certainly be enough to keep him snappy.) As Will lays out his plans for heading to the camp where Mrs. Coulter was (as the angel relays the fact that there are dead bodies there and one is probably Sir Charles), Blathamos can barely hold back his utter contempt for Will. More than any other moment, I was kind of irritated by the scene where Will came upon the body of Sir Charles and began to collect as many supplies as possible. Seriously:
“Do you think I need anything else?â€
“You could do with some sense,†came the reply. “Some faculty to enable you to recognize wisdom and incline you to respect and obey it.â€
Hey, Balthamos: shut your angel mouth. What the HELL are you doing? Let’s just assume you are a more wise being than Will. That’s pretty easy to believe. You’re “much older†than Baruch, who is 4,000 years old. I’m inclined to believe you possess far more wisdom than most beings ever. You are speaking with a twelve-year-old boy. Getting snappy with him is like getting cross with a newborn for not being able to spell their name. GIVE HIM A LITTLE TIME. Why are you being such a turdface???
“Better stick to your task. You have plundered this dead man’s property, you have all the toys you need to keep you alive; now may we move on?â€
OH, SOMEONE NEEDS A SMACK ON THEIR HOLY FACE. My mom would shame you out of existence for that sort of talkback. RUDE.
Yet even Balthamos’s incessant whining and bitterness could not ruin what Pullman does next. It did seem strange that Will was only able to cut between his world and Cittágazze. If there were infinite worlds, shouldn’t he be able to travel to any of the other ones? So Pullman introduces the concept of feeling between worlds:
It was like tracing a row of stitches while pressing so softly that none of them was harmed.
When Will concentrates, he can feel the various worlds piled on top of one another, and each one has its own texture to them. I cannot believe that my prediction about seeing other worlds was answered so quickly. Will is able to open a window to at least two other worlds, each with a texture unique to itself.
“Are you going to stay here all day?†said Balthamos.
WILL YOU SHUT THE HELL UP, DUDE. This boy is opening windows into parallel universes right in front of you. Surely this is important?!?!?!?!?!
It is important, as Will finds a way to recognize a subtle feeling that means that the ground in the parallel world is in exactly the same place as the one he is in, making it easier to travel into other worlds without falling fifty feet to one’s death. I can already guess what this means: Will is going to travel to a whole lot more worlds than I predicted. He travels to a third parallel world in this session that contains a bison-like creature with horns and blue hair. This is going to be the best book of all books, right??? Unfortunately, Balthamos is miserable, does not understand joy, and probably was a goth in his past life or something. This angel is the worst downer I have ever come across. Is traveling between worlds something completely normal for him? No, honestly, he is the epitome of an angel hipster. He was into all of this way before Will, so Will just bores and infuriates him. Well, and he misses his angel boyfriend. I’ll excuse that portion of it.
After a long day of traveling, Balthamos directs Will through another window in pursuit of Baruch, who has discovered that Mrs. Coulter took Lyra back to her own world. (That’s smart, actually. Go back to her world of comfort.) Will plans to stay in Ci’gazze for the night and then travel through to Lyra’s world in the morning. Will asks if Balthamos can change shape (in order to become a dæmon so Will does not look out of place), and, unsurprisingly, the angel agrees after dripping every word he speaks with sarcasm. Look, Balthamos: You need this boy. You will get him quicker if you’re not openly hostile to him every goddamn second. Get him to Lyra, stop complaining, and then you can go on your way.
To be fair to Balthamos, he does seem to warm up to Will the next day, albeit using food to do so. Angels can eat? Who knew? But maybe it’s just a temporary thing. Perhaps Balthamos is just tired of being angry. Either way, the angel’s tone does start to change once Baruch returns. I’m guessing that it helps that it’s only been a few days and Baruch has successfully located Lyra and Mrs. Coulter. Baruch confirms that they are both alone and in hiding. That confuses Will. (And me. I’ll just say it: I’m confused. Why is she hiding from the Church? I always considered her the representation of the Church.)
Well, this has all been nice and fascinating. (I’m not being facetious. Again, I don’t care that I’m an atheist. Angels are awesome.) But Pullman had gone far too long without Shit Getting Real. How about the arrival of The Chariot and one of God’s angels? THAT SHOULD DO IT, RIGHT?
This third angel–much stronger and larger than the other two–is struggling under the weight of Balthamos and Baruch, who are holding him down and covering his mouth. But when Will mistakenly turns on his torch and causes Balthamos to let go in fright, and in a second, the third angel manages to get aware from Baruch and call out to “Lord Regent†in a voice that is stunning and loud. It frightens me how quick Will is to act, pulling out the subtle knife and immediately slashing the third angel violently as another figure comes speeding towards them from the sky.
And then the angel dies. Will killed an angel. THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND CHAPTER.
Quicky, Will cuts a window into a new world (number four for this chapter alone oh my god i was never prepared) and he and the angels manage to escape Lord Regent and his spear. (I love that sentence dearly.)
It wasn’t until they were safe that I realized Pullman had broken his own tendency to have characters speak plainly and openly. I mean…they do now, but our entire experience with these two angels has involved them hiding the truth or Bathalmos refusing to tell it because….well, he’s just an angry angel, apparently. But good GOD. INFO DUMPING BEAUTY IS NOW A REALITY.
WHAT MARK LEARNS IN CHAPTER TWO
- Lord Regent is named Metraton! He sounds like a transformer.
- Baruch and Balthamos discovered a secret of the Kingdom, which is the world of the Authority.
- The Authority is indeed the Abrahmic God.
- GOD WAS NOT THE CREATOR BUT SIMPLY THE FIRST ANGEL. Oh, now I know why this book is hated. That alone is deeply, deeply blasphemous in terms of Christian theology.
- “Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter loves matter. It seeks to know more about itself, and Dust is formed.†Can I marry this quote? Can I? It’s self-realization. Self-interest. The quest for knowledge. This is so beautiful.
- God lied about creating the universe and when an angel found this out, she was banished by God and this is who Baruch and Balthamos serve.
- The Chariot = The Clouded Mountain. It’s the location of the Kingdom, it is constantly moving, shrouded in clouds by god so that no one can see the summit where the Authority lives.
- HEAVEN IS NOT REAL. GOD SENDS ALL DEAD SOULS TO THE WORLD OF THE DEAD, WHICH IS A PRISON CAMP. holy fuck why. Oh my god, I totally get why people hate this but I am loving it with all of my heart.
- Will is the most amazing, fierce twelve-year-old to have ever existed. I actually felt a tinge of Lyra’s personality coming through him when he flat-out told the angels that their plan to use Will to convince Lord Asriel to listen to their “secret†is just a poor idea. Bless him.
- Will AGAIN commands two thousands-of-years-old angels to do exactly what he wants. Baruch heads off to speak with Lord Asriel and Balthamos stays to help will get Lyra and protect him.
After all this, Balthamos finally realizes that he has made a grave mistake in underestimating Will and he apologizes to him for being so rude to him. BRAVO. I mean, it was kind of entertaining to have a sassy angel as a companion, but it was a bit too much for me.
But I want to end this review with a bit of a discussion about the revelation of God’s true nature in this book. Obviously, this is a loose theory presented by Pullman for the book, but when I was Christian, I was constantly confused by how God was portrayed. It was hard not to assign human traits or characteristics to Him because that’s all that I knew. The Catholic Church, through my teachers, harked on the idea that I should never think of God in those terms, though, because they were inherently flawed and fell short of the truth because they were man-made and could never capture His true nature.
That seemed to be more of a hindrance than a help for me, though. If we could not portray God in any method that we could understand, how could we put faith in the concept if it was so abstract?
I felt that the source material (that sounds really douchey) didn’t help either. Was God all-loving? Hateful? Angry? Should I fear Him? Love Him? Cherish or worship Him? Why’d he even make us in the first place? How did my own purpose fit within the design of a Creator who apparently created me simply to turn around and spend my whole life thanking Him for it? Even worse, how could I thank a God who dropped me into a system that wasn’t pleasant and bore the fruits of a species who was so bent on hatred and destruction?
Before I was able to describe the vacancy in my heart and before I had to admit that I couldn’t believe in any higher being without lying to myself, my rebellion against God came from those ideas. Either God lied to me, or I was born into an unjust system that I was supposed to appreciate. I tried so hard to rectify the two, to prove to myself that there’s no reason God would lie to me, or that my perception of justice was flawed by the influence of non-believers around me. For anyone who has struggled with faith or these sort of theological conundrums, it’s a painful and confusing process. Why would so many people lie to you? Why would they believe the lie themselves? That can’t possibly be what’s happening, could it?
I am enjoying the chance to speculate if this is true, and I look forward to being able to discuss it further, but for now, I don’t think about these things in those terms. My atheism is remarkably simple these days: I feel nothing inside of me. I feel no inkling of holy love or divine intervention or cosmic companionship. I feel hollow and it is how I have always felt. I can discuss the theology of it, but it turns out to be an act of absurdity in the end. None of it matters, even if it’s all real. Because there’s no God inside of me.
Also, gay angels. Excuse the term, but GOD BLESS ALL OF THIS.
All this talk about God's true nature just gave me random thought – that there's been no mention of Jesus. I find it slightly amusing that in all these stories incorporating Christian mythology; demons, Lucifer, angels, God, Metraton and Micheal, never include Jesus. Is it so taboo that no story will touch it? We don't know if Pullman will address it but I can only think of two books that have done it; Night Watch and Dresden Files.
A sarcastic angel, you say?
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/Gilleth/Metatron.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">
Is that the Dogma Metatron? It's been so long since I watched it and my screen resolution is such that I can't figure out if that's Alan Rickman…
It is! It was the best quality picture that I could find quickly but it's not great quality. I wanted to make sure I used one with the wings in to make it a bit clearer.
😀 it's been a long while since I watched it (my mum stole the DVD and now it lives at her house!) so I wasn't sure but thought it looked familiar – Rickman was brilliant in that role 🙂
Isn't he always brilliant?
Why yes, he is.
Good point, well made 🙂
Ha, that's what I get for being slow!
Beat me to it. When I read this chapter, I got to the Metatron part, then went back and imagined all the sassy angel comments in Rickman's voice. Made it more fun for me, at least.
*snigger* I like it 🙂
Can you tell me where this is from? I need to watch it NOW. *-*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_%28film%29
Flawed, but interesting – which sums up most of Kevin Smith's work for me.
That's pretty much a perfect description of KS I think 🙂
Kevin Smith? Now it looks more interesting than before. I'll have it in an hour or so and then I'll make my own judgement of it but considering what you've said, I don't think it'll be better than that.
The commentary track is also worth a listen if you have the time and inclination. Smith gives good commentary.
And now whenever I reread this chapter I'm going to be imagining Balthamos as Snape.
I am not complaining about this.
Oddly, I imagine him as Sirius. And Baruch as Remus. But then, that's just the way my brain works….
Can I upvote you? Never mind, I just did. xD
OH GOD HOW DID I NOT MAKE THIS CONNECTION.
In conclusion, Alan Rickman.
I'm going to assume that was a Made of Fail reference and quietly giggle to myself.
Bahaha, I loved Balthamos’ sass! I guess he was pretty rude but he IS super old… it must get tiring being 4000 years old. But he and Baruch warm my cold little heart <3 When they were being attacked I thought Baruch was going to die and I was about ready to throw this book into a blender.
Although, WHY DID BALTHAMOS KEEP US FROM A BARUCH BACKSTORY/ HOW TO BECOME AN ANGEL STEP-BY-STEP?
“But how do people become angels?”
“What is the point of this metaphysical speculation?”
“I just want to know.”
“Better to stick to your task. You have plundered this dead man’s property, you have all the toys you need to keep you alive; now may we move on?”
Uuurgh yes, I was all TELL US ALREADY!
Don't be a secretive douchebag Balthamos!
You know there has just got to be fanfic of this, right?
One of the things I love most about this series is that Pullman isn't saying there is no "god." He saying all of the stuff the churches believe in is real, but that humans got it all so terribly wrong.
But he is saying there's no creator. That's huge. My boyfriend's mom recently read Stephen Hawking's latest book, in which he posits that there is no need for a creator. She and I had a big discussion about it (she's very active in her church and I'm very atheist). She really couldn't accept the fact that there wasn't a conscious being who created the universe. We ended up settling on the fact that, unlike Dawkins, Hawking never said there wasn't a god, just that science still works without one. But it's definitely a point she got very hung up on.
Wellllllll… he’s not saying there’s no creator. Just that the Authority wasn’t it. If someone created the universe, they pretty much fucked off right away and left the angels in charge—which obviously went SO WELL, but what, an omnipotent universe-creating being is supposed to have perfect foresight, too? Come on.
But angels are dust, and dust is when matter becomes aware of itself. So the angels formed on their own, didn’t they?
He took this right out of the Hebrew text. Jehovah might be the God of the Jewish people, but the Elohim are the Creators.
That's true, he does take out the Creator, which in most Christian religions = god.
I think what really excites me about this series is how it compares to my religion: Mormonism. (Hear me out!) Mormons believe all beings (even God) come from what we call intelligence (dust?). We don't view the Fall as something bad, but as something necessary for humans to progress and eventually become Gods. It's interesting to me that people consider this the "atheist Narnia" when there is a very real belief system. Hell is real, angels are real, the Fall was real… it's just not what we all thought it was.
That's true, he does take out the Creator, which in most Christian religions = god.
I think what really excites me about this series is how it compares to my religion: Mormonism. (Hear me out!) Mormons believe all beings (even God) come from what we call intelligence (dust?). We don't view the Fall as something bad, but as something necessary for humans to progress and eventually become Gods.
He takes out the single-being-with-a-material-form creator, not the concept itself. There may or there may not be a recognisable creator, all it says is that every being you come into contact is a created being, not the creator of the beings. At least that's how I understand it. I see no reason to accuse him of destroying what created everything if the one he put in here is someone taking the name of that and not what started it all.
That's just my point of view.
I think anyone who speaks to a young boy like that is pretty much proving they are NOT that wise – a wise being would know how to address Will in a way that would incline Will to his point of view…
Am I really the first commenter???!
One of the major crticisms of this book is that the anti-Christian stuff that was mostly kept under the surface in books one and two completely comes spilling out. I see the point, but speaking as someone who was raised Christian myself (I don't quite consider myself one anymore but don't regret my time there) I have no problem with this. There's plenty of pro-Christian works out there (Narnia, anyone?) so why not one from the other side?
I'm still a bit confused as to why Will doesn't get a daemon when he enters Lyra's world, like his father. Maybe this is explained later, but I don't remember at all.
God, (if you'll pardon the expression) I adore Balthamos. The whole idea of an impossibly old and wise being who's also a rude, sarcastic jerk really appeals to me. I especially love when he says pretending to be Will's daemon is "unspeakably humiliating."
I always wondered about Will's daemon too. All I've been able to come up with is that he hasn't become and adult yet. Maybe because he was born without a daemon, he can't meet his until he knows himself more.
There is sort of a reason, but it's spoilery so I won't mention it here. However I asked the same question and got an answer at the spoilers board on the forum.
I've never thought about that until now, but this reason satisfies me. 🙂
There is another answer, but we can't discuss it yet.
I can't wait 'til we can, I was talking to my friend about this on the train today, and now I'm deeply curious as to whether our postulated idea is the same as yours.
"I especially love when he says pretending to be Will's daemon is "unspeakably humiliating.""
For some reason I "hear" Graham Norton when Balthamos says that… *unsure*
This unspeakable humiliation has always amused me greatly.
Mark got it sooo right with his hipster angel imagery 😀
If you re read the part where Wills father is talking about it, he doesn't actually say his daemon just appeared when he entered Lyra's world. He came to know his daemon in Lyra's world, but he doesn't say how.
I was bursting to point this out when Mark assumed the former when he read that chapter, but it would have been a bit spoilery methinks. More clues about this can be discussed in spoiler forums. 🙂
Why Will doesn't get a daemon while his father does isn't explained outright, but there's…spoilery stuff that relates to it later, and Pullman stated it somewhere – an interview maybe. I'm sure it will come up again when we get to the spoilery point.
"Metraton"
AKA The Voice Of God – I'm not sure where this originates, I suspect it might be another RC thing, but yeah. Alan Rickman plays The Metatron in "Dogma", and there's also a Metatron in the Pratchett/Gaiman book Good Omens, which by the way you so want to read, Mark… trust me!
Seconding the Good Omens suggestion!
I can't remember if I put it in the suggestions thread or not, my memory is terrible, but when I thought of it and thought of Mark reading it I grinned hugely 🙂
It's the 5th most highest-rated suggestion on the list, so maybe one day!
YAY! Excellent. That's good to know 🙂
Tell me, can someone still vote on the suggestion list and get it even higher? I still don’t know how to vote on those so I haven’t given my opinion yet. I think it’s time to do it.
Just click on the link to the suggestions page up at the top, and give whichever book/series you want Mark to read a thumbs up! There's no guarantee that he'll read something on the site just because it's most popular (asoiaf has the most votes, but I believe Mark is reading it on his own, which is for the best imo), but it can't hurt to add a comment as to why you think it'd be good for review and discussion!
It never hurts. Even if I don't really publicly acknowledge much on that page daily, I do read it often and the numbers are absolutely crucial to helping me decide what is next. 🙂
Good to know!
<img src="http://i54.tinypic.com/2gt6ner.gif">
I'm going to pretend this bodes well for Mark Reads Gaiman and Pratchett!
Thanks! Going over there in search of the comment thread I'd like to upvote 😀
If I can think of anything myself I'll put it up as well but from what I'm reading it's like everything's been suggested already. At least everything worthwhile.
If you find the original "Good Omens" post and can find the permalink (I've not figured that out quite yet…) then please post it here, I'd vote for it if I could find the thing…!
Permalink from caito716 original comment for Good Omens . It's the 8th main comment on the second page of comments.
I'm already there to add my own comment. I was busy until now creating my entry for the BTTS contest. 😀
Sweet! My dream is that once Mark reads Sandman, he will realize the greatness of Neil Gaiman and then he will read Good Omens, which will lead him to realize the greatness of Terry Pratchett, and then he'll read Discworld and ALL MY DREAMS WILL COME TRUE.
<img src="http://i54.tinypic.com/2wmgop2.gif">
A path of everlasting joy!
Thirding! Best book ever, IMO
I’m on the Good Omens ship as well!
If you want a satisfying hilarious book, go read that one AT ONCE!
OMG YES Good Omens!! Fabulous choice!
Yes, I have been supporting that suggestion for some time now! 😀
Metatron is actually a very Jewish thing. Look to the Kabbalah and the Tree of Life for descriptions of the hierarchies of Angels. In Hebrew, the name Metetron means "Angel of Presence" or "World-Prince" and is associated with Kether (for simplicity – Kether is the highest "world" on the Tree of Life which is like a map of Jewish cosmology).
Yeah I had a look on Wiki – I didn't realise it came from Jewish mysticism. Seems like some churches have co-opted it which I guess is why I associated it with the Roman Catholic church.
Strange, I wonder if it was because of all the Jewish ecumenism that Pope JPII undertook. Maybe he went with Madonna to the Kabbalah Center or something.
This is true and the most likely reason I've seen it taught in the Roman Catholic church.
I don't even know if there's any shred of originality in all of the Christian teachings or is just an amalgamation of all the religions they've come across during its lifetime.
American Gods is also really spectacular.
🙂
*hangs head in shame* I've not read that yet… I am poor and my house is already overflowing with books.
One of these days I will order it from the library if nothing else, but I have to pay off my outstanding fines first…
Go, pay your fines. I'll wait here.
Yes, pay your fines. Libraries are wonderful resources for us poor people, and they need your money! (I recently got rid of a heap of my books because I'm now living in a GREAT library system. Who needs to own a copy of a book when the library has 12 or more copies of it?)
Sadly I am one of the poor people at the moment – soon to be poorer if the gov have anything to do with it… eep.
(probably would be less poor if I'd not bought lots of books over the years but I don't drink or smoke, so… it's my vice and I am sticking to it)
The annoying thing is the library is just that bit further than I can comfortably walk at the moment 🙁 so till my health improves, I have to be careful borrowing things – that's how I ended up with the fine <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: -12px -36px;"><span>:(</span></span></span> they probably would let me borrow more anyway, but I just can't feel right about borrowing books when I owe them money. It's about a fiver, so it's not much, but money is tight… I'm selling things on eBay so here's hoping that will help soon! xx
I missed the subtext when I was eight.
On rereading it when I was fourteen, I exclaimed something along the lines of "Holy batman the angels are gay!"
Hah, I had NO IDEA when I was twelve, and for awhile after. When I was around fourteen and searching for His Dark Materials fanfiction, I remember finding a romance story between the two and feeling TEENAGE HETERO BOY RAGE at the idea that there was yet another slash story over taking fandom. How dare they misinterpret these characters totally platonic love and twist it?! IT MAKES NO SENSE
I find the fact that I missed it hilarious on rereads, because it's just so blatant. And then I'm thankful that I had an example of gay characters who are fully fleshed out at such a young age, which probably helped me along the path of realizing that others liking different things to me was not weird or icky or stupid.
Lol, I've missed plenty of subtext in my lifetime (like New Spring of WoT, how the hell did I miss that?!), but one of the things that I've always distinctly remembered about these books are the gay angels. I've been anticipating Mark reaching them too.
I think, even if there wasn't the whole "killing God" thing (that tiny detail) this chapter would probably have been enough to make many in some Church's heads explode with righteous rage.
There are gay angels.
They have fully fleshed out (hoho pun), multifaceted characterisation.
They are in an apparantly stable loving relationship, and are escorting a twelve year old boy to help him.
This would not have gone down well. Hah
I wonder what they would have done if the made The Amber Spyglass into a movie…. And I thought all the changed to GC were rage inducing o.0
You know, all my experiences with my favourite books being turned into half-assed (or just not fabulous) movies has made me think lately. I no longer wish for books to be made into movies, I wish for HBO to get the rights and turn them into a series. That's pretty much the only way they could do justice to some of my ultimate favs.
Also, what about the fact that said 12-year-old boy seems to find their romance sorta sweet? Can I possibly love Will any more than I already do?
THIS!
I forgot to bring to attention the fact that we saw the description of their love from the perspective of a 12-year-old who also sees it as the most normal thing a being could show. In case some people haven't noticed, Will's perspective not only described a reaction between two beings of the same gender, but also the depth of feelings that you normally don't understand at 12 (as stated by Ruta's lack of explanation of what happened when she entered Lord Asriel's bedchamber since the other witches didn't need an explanation and the children couldn't imagine the event) and they are all completely natural to his perspective and so make it natural for the reader.
holy shit, you are both SO RIGHT.
ugh love this fucking book
Yes this this this this this.
I love Baruch and Balthamos. And Will. Always Will. Will Will Will Will Will.
There were many things I'd forgotten about this series between readings, but the gay angels were not among them. THEIR LOVE IS SO TRUE.
Also, there being an angelic hierarchy is straight out of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy) as is Metatron. Metatron acts as the Voice of God in the Bible. Whenever you see God speaking, it's actually Metatron relating the message; God is the Word, Metatron is the Voice. Played beautifully by Alan Rickman in Dogma 😀
The seraphim and cherubim are biblical, but a heck of a lot of that article is not based on the bible, it's based on people's interpretations or what they have taken things to mean.
And the Metatron is not from the bible either, it's from Jewish mystical tradition.
So, no, it's not straight from the bible.
Although I agree Rickman was an awesome Metatron in Dogma.
Again this Dogma thing. Makes me want to watch it even more so than the first comment on this thread. 😀
Yeah, Mark–Pullmann is not making any of this stuff up. The Angel Heirarchy is part of standard Christian dogma.
Well, I think it depends. I don't recall too much of it during my Catholic years, nor from my years as a non-Catholic Christian before that.
I don't think it would necessarily be something they go into in Sunday School, though. It seems like more of something that would be discussed in higher levels. I know it wasn't something I learned about in my Jewish schools – angels as a whole were mostly not discussed except vaguely as servants/messengers of God and when they appeared in Genesis.
I will never ever not love this chapter. I mean, snarky gay angels. Thank you, Pullman. Forever.
Angel hierarchies are, I believe, Biblical. As to becoming an angel, I imagine the paperwork is staggering — worse than immigration — but clearly Balthamos and Baruch thought it worthwhile.
Also…ALSO! Will, a 12-year-old male, is completely non-judgmental about Balthamos/Baruch, and, in fact, finds their love to be rather sweet. If I didn't already love Will times a million, this would definitely seal the deal for me.
"Oh, you like bands? Um, I was around before music. So like…good for you, or whatever." – Hipster Balthamos, casually sipping an incorporeal PBR
Now I want to read the whole book from hipster Balthamos's point of view.
'So this guy called Asriel wants to kill God and I'm like I was there the first time we did that. But whatever I'll help you ironically.
And I've now started to imagine Hipster Balthamos in the artwork of Hipster Hitler.
For those unfamiliar with glorious Hipster Hitler… enjoy: http://hipsterhitler.com
BLESS THIS POST.
I think we've all been waiting for you to get to the gay angels, by the way!
As I think I've said elsewhere – as a Christian, I don't hate these books. I just don't agree with Pullman. I don't feel the need to hate him or his writing in order to disagree with him. And actually the real problems I have with this book are not really to do with his theory on God etc (if I got offended every time a work of fiction implied or directly said that I was wrong in what I believed I'd pretty much never read or watch anything and that would be very dull) but other aspects.
Zl gjb ovt fghzoyvat oybpxf ner:
Znel'f ybff bs snvgu – fur tbrf sebz orvat n aha gb na ngurvfg bire n cvrpr bs znemvcna… vg'f orra n juvyr fvapr V ernq gur cnffntr ohg V erzrzore ernqvat vg naq tbvat, "Jung? Jung??!" orpnhfr vg frrzrq irel ubyybj gb zr, ure ernfbaf… "V whfg xarj vg jnfa'g gehr…" V qvfgvapgyl erzrzore guvaxvat, BX Chyyzna, vs lbh'er jnagvat gb fgngr lbhe cbvagf fheryl lbh pna qb orggre guna gung?
Gur Zhyrsn'f flzovbgvp eryngvbafuvc jvgu gur gerrf – vg'f n ornhgvshy qrcvpgvba bs n flzovbgvp eryngvbafuvc, ohg vs V erpnyy, Chyyzna znxrf gung gur "cebbs" bs ribyhgvba, juvpu qbrfa'g frrz gb gnyyl. Gur gerrf ercebqhpr orpnhfr gur Zhyrsn hfr gurve frrqcbqf nf jurryf, naq gur Zhyrsn fcernq gur frrq sne naq jvqr. Gung znxrf frafr. Ohg ubj qvq gung ribyir? Qvq gur Zhyrsn fcbagnarbhfyl qrirybc nkyrf? Jung jnf gur vagreevz fgntr va ribyhgvba/ubj qvq gur Zhyrsn zbir naq ubj qvq gur gerrf ercebqhpr? Whfg arire frrzrq gb znxr frafr gb zr, naq tvira ubj zhpu gubhtug naq ybtvp Chyyzna hfrq va perngvat uvf jbeyqf, V sbhaq gung qvfnccbvagvat.
Pullman not agreeing with me, well, like I say, I don't have to agree with something to read it.
what cipher is that?
rot13 🙂
http://www.rot13.com/index.php
(I was tempted to claim it was Klingon ;))
Bxnl, yrg zr pyrne hc gur znemvcna guvat, orpnhfr gung ng yrnfg V pna rkcynva.
Znel qvqa'g pbzcyrgryl ybfr ure snvgu bire znemvcna. Gung jnf whfg n zrgncube (yvxr gur tbvat gb Puvan zrgncube). Onfvpnyyl, fur ybfg ure snvgu bire ybir. Fur jnf bhg naq nobhg ng n fpvragvsvp pbasrerapr bs fbzr fbeg, naq fur tbg vaivgrq bhg sbe qevaxf naq fcrag gvzr naq raqrq hc zrrgvat guvf thl gung fur jnf nggenpgrq gb. Naq riraghnyyl fur ernyvmrq fur jnf va ybir jvgu uvz. Fb ure pubvpr orpnzr, jryy, nz V qribgrq rabhtu gb Tbq gung V qba'g arrq ebznagvp ybir/frk va zl yvsr? Be qb V jnag gb chefhr guvf ybir rira gubhtu zl snvgu fnlf gung V qba'g arrq vg? Gur znemvcna guvat jnf whfg n flzoby. Fur gubhtug fur'q arire orra va ybir, ohg fur ernyvmrq gung fur unq, jura gur obl ng gur cnegl srq ure znemvcna. Znel yrsg gur snvgu jura fur qrpvqrq fur jnagrq gb unir gung srryvat ntnva, naq vg jnfa'g fbzrguvat fur pbhyq chefhr juvyr n aha.
Sbe gur zhyrsn V gubhtug vg jnf abg fb zhpu n cebbs bs ribyhgvba nf gur rivqrapr gung gur Qhfg vagreirarq va gurve qrirybczrag. Bapr gur zhyrsn jrer rkcbfrq gb gur frrq-cbq bvy gurl orpnzr fragvrag. Gurve culfvpny qrirybczrag jnf fbzrguvat ryfr ragveryl: Znel rira erznexf gung gur zhyrsn ner culfvpnyyl fvzvyne gb gur aba-fragvrag tenmref, naq V nyjnlf gubhtug gung vg jnf zrnag gung gurl ribyirq sebz tenmref, ohg gur tenmref ner abg fragvrag naq gur zhyrsn ner.
Bu V xabj vg jnfa'g nyy gung fvzcyr. V whfg qvqa'g svaq ure pbairefvba irel… uzzz V qba'g xabj ubj gb chg vg. Vg whfg frrzrq gung vg jnf fgenatr gung bire fbzrguvat gung fvzcyr fur jbhyq qrpvqr vg jnf nyy jebat.
Sbe zr, vg jbhyq or ybtvpny vs gung vagrenpgvba jvgu gur zna jbhyq znxr ure ernyvfr, uzz, znlor V jnfa'g zrnag gb or n aha, be znlor orpbzvat n aha jnfa'g fhpu n terng vqrn. Nsgre nyy, cerfhznoyl ab bar sbeprq ure gb orpbzr bar – fur pubfr gb orpbzr bar. Sbe ure gb or qrqvpngrq rabhtu gb orpbzr n aha, ohg gura jvyyvat gb gbgnyyl ghea ure onpx ba gung orpnhfr fbzrguvat fur pubfr cerpyhqrq fbzrguvat ryfr, jryy vg frrzf fgenatr gb zr naq (gb zr) vg znqr ure frrz n ovg funyybj. Nf jvgu nalguvat, LZZI, ohg V jnf qvfnccbvagrq, orpnhfr V'q gubhtug Chyyzna jnf tbvat gb znxr fbzr qrrc naq zrnavatshy fgngrzrag… naq gura vg (sbe zr) sryy syng.
Vg'f yvxr fur frrf na rvgure/be bire snvgu naq ebznagvp ybir gung vf fbzrguvat fur unf _znqr_ vagb na rvgure/be ol orpbzvat n aha – vg'f abg fbzrguvat gung jnf vagevafvp gb gur snvgu (jryy znlor vg vf va fbzr pvepyrf, ohg V qba'g frr vg), vg'f na vqrn gung unf orra nqqrq ba.
Bu lrnu vg frrzf gung gur Zhyrsn fubj gung Qhfg unf orra vaibyirq va gurve qrirybczrag, ohg gur frrqcbqf/jurryf guvat – jryy hayrff ur'f fnlvat gung gung nyfb jnf Qhfg, va juvpu pnfr jr'er abg gnyxvat nobhg fgenvtug ribyhgvba.
Vg'f orra n ybat gvzr fvapr V ernq gur obbx, V'yy or ubarfg, ohg vg jnf fghss yvxr guvf gung obgurerq zr. Nf V'ir fnvq, V'z n Puevfgvna, ohg V qba'g unir n ceboyrz jvgu ernqvat obbxf gung qba'g funer zl jbeyqivrj (nsgre nyy, gung jbhyq frevbhfyl aneebj qbja zl obbx pubvpr!); sbe zr vg'f abg nobhg jurgure guvf vf Puevfgvna be abg, vg'f gung gur ybtvp snyyf qbja va n pbhcyr bs cynprf va n jnl gung (ntnva LZZI) ernyyl vagresrerq jvgu zl jvyyvat fhfcrafvba bs qvforyvrs – naq va Znel'f pnfr, znqr zr guvax yrff bs ure punenpgre.
Gubfr ner gur guvatf gung pbagevohgrq gb zl qvfnccbvagzrag jvgu GNF (nybat jvgu n srj ovgf jurer V sryg gur zrffntr fgnegrq gb birejrvtu gur fgbel); guvatf yvxr gur nagv-puhepu zrffntr jrer fb jryy ragerapurq sebz GTP, naq V ybirq gur svefg obbx naq rawblrq gur frpbaq. Vg'f guvatf gung zrffrq jvgu zl novyvgl gb or fb qrrcyl vzzrefrq va guvf jbeyq gung znxr vg zl yrnfg snibhevgr.
(Aside: I love rot-13… 🙂 )
ETA I just read back this comment (not in rot-13 ;)) and I'm not sure I'm very coherent, I am seriously sleep deprived to the point where I can barely stand up today. And I wish I didn't mean that literally! So yeah. Just leave it as, those two bits of plot just left me cold and left me with questions/unsatisfied. Something which hadn't happened a lot in the first two books and I found disappointing in the third.
I understand why people are unsatisfied with the book; it is definitely complicated. It took me a long time before I came around and appreciated it for what it was. I can completely understand people who have issues with it though.
I think I definitely need to read them all again – and not on my computer, which is possible but not optmial!
V jvyy guvax zber nobhg guvf jura jr npghnyyl trg gb gung cneg va gur obbx, ohg V guvax sbe Znel vg jnf zber yvxr, vs gur hygvzngr rkcerffvba bs zl snvgu vf fbzrguvat gung qbrfa'g vapyhqr culfvpny cyrnfher naq ybir, ohg V xabj gung culfvpny cyrnfher naq ybir ner guvatf gung znxr zr srry gur zbfg jubyr, gura jung qbrf gung fnl nobhg zl snvgu?
Random thought, while reading the rot13 my mind converted a word to it and it turns out that sraf is fens in that code. Makes no sense at all but it's nice to see an actual word in English out of it. xD
That pleases me 😀 so worry not, you're not the only person who thinks that's kind of nice 🙂
Will killed someone, we got a peek at a few new worlds, and we learned that God = / = Creator, which isn't religious happy-fun-time. You're doing really well with these predictions!
Yup, there's definitely a hierarchy of angels! I don't know how official it is, but it definitely exists in non-canonical texts. I don't know if or how it comes up in the rest of the book, so I won't elaborate other than to say that Metatron is the highest ranking one.
<img src="http://i54.tinypic.com/2e30nbk.jpg">
Your Balthamos-induced rage makes me lol. His uptight snideness reminds me of a certain other fictional angel, so I kind of love him.
Either God lied to me, or I was born into an unjust system that I was supposed to appreciate. I tried so hard to rectify the two, to prove to myself that there’s no reason God would lie to me, or that my perception of justice was flawed by the influence of non-believers around me.
That sounds similar to what motivates Lord Asriel. Of course, you aren't driven to revenge and he still believes in the Authority's existence, but there's a sense of betrayal and anger at a system seemingly set up for your exclusion.
Metatron totally sounds like a transformer! I know he has this whole actual back story in the bible and is the Voice of God and everything. But I had the exact same thought reading this chapter.
I liked how the Chariot incorporated so much of the imagery of where God lives. You have the clouded mountain, hearkening back to Mount Olympus, and the general clouds in the sky of early Christian mythology. You've got the constantly changing place to explain how it's everywhere and nowhere and the multiple universes to show that God isn't a part of this universe at all.
I've always loved mythology. That's actually a big part of my atheism. If the Abrahamic God is real, why not Zeus? Or Odin? Or Anansi? Or Om? Why not all of them? And if that's the case, how do you choose which one to worship. Does it matter? But the more I learn about angels, the more fascinating I find them. A lot of it's through pop culture – this book, Neil Gaiman's works, Supernatural – but anyone who digs into it seems to arrive at the same conclusion. Angels aren't benevolent spirits sent to watch over us; they are warriors in the battle between Heaven and Hell. I think this paints the entire thing in a much more interesting light, and calls back to some earlier mythologies in which humans were really just playthings for the gods to amuse themselves with.
I may have some issues with religion. Sorry.
Also, how interesting that the rebel angel, Lucifer I'm assuming, is female in this story. I think Lucifer, and angels in general, are sexless in most stories. But I always default to picturing males in these roles. It toys with my mind to have a female devil.
I've always loved mythology. That's actually a big part of my atheism. If the Abrahamic God is real, why not Zeus? Or Odin? Or Anansi? Or Om? Why not all of them?
Yeah… that thought has contributed a lot to my own thinking, which more or less runs this way: every current religion, more or less, says that their religion is the only true one and all others are wrong. So either they are all right or no one is right. Knowing that people are people and are incredibly fallible, I cannot believe that any one religion has the 100% correct truth about the makeup of the universe. Combining with this are ideas from anthropology and some fiction about religion being created by cultures to suit their specific needs.
I also found myself at odds with the idea of God or the devil working through people to commit various good or evil acts. If you give a supernatural entity the credit for your actions, you deny the person responsibility– either for their selflessness or their crimes. That doesn't seem just or fair to me. And the idea of hell doesn't work for me. What kind of just or loving god would send someone into eternal suffering? No matter what crime you committed, is it really ever enough to justify that?
I still haven't really decided if I'm an atheist, although I often find myself arguing from that point of view, but overall these kinds of thoughts have ended up with me more or less giving up on Christianity. I can understand that viewpoint, but I no longer believe it.
Edit for minor spoilers: (rot13) Jr trg gur srznyr natry'f anzr yngre ba– vg'f abg Yhpvsre. Va snpg, ur'f abg zragvbarq ng nyy.
There's a lot of overlap in the stories, too. I had a wonderfully snarky professor of mythology one semester in college (dude was in his 80s and had been studying this his whole life). Every now and then he'd tell us a story, like how Horus died and came back to life three days later, or Zeus got mad and flooded to world but saved one family by telling them to build a boat, and he'd just pause and say, "sounds familiar".
I'm coming from the opposite side of the spectrum. I was raised in a very atheist household with a whole lot of disdain for religion or faith in any form. I spend a lot of time trying to learn about different religions, and I'm trying to build up respect for people of various faiths. But I don't think I could ever make the leap myself.
I wasn't raised with religion, and mythology fed my atheism, too. I think Pascal justified pagan gods by saying "whatever, if they were real, they'd still be important," but that's a load of crap. Also, aren't other gods mentioned in the Bible? There was definitely concurrent worship of other deities, and YHWH supposedly had a consort goddess named Asherah in popular worship. I also love the parallels between mythologies, and how Christianity mingled with indigenous European beliefs !
I have heard that in the early days of Christianity, there wasn't really the message that "our God is the only god" that we get now. It was "yes there are other gods, but you must only worship the one God." Just the fact that it was a monotheistic faith was a pretty big difference, and that was part of the difficulties early Christians had, as the Romans and Greeks and Egyptians and pretty much everyone else were like "Only one god? wtf? How does one god take care of everything? Also, you eat his flesh and drink his blood? That's gross."
Interesting. I hadn't really thought about it, but that makes sense. I know they co-opted a lot of pagan holidays, because one of the big rules was basically "you can worship your gods, but ours comes first". This practice didn't give them time to worship their own gods and the practices eventually died out. I don't know that any of that appears in the bible.
Even within Christianity, you see the worship extending beyond the one true God. People worship the Mother Mary or various saints, which is in direct conflict with one of the commandments, but arises naturally from some of the religions that Christianity supplanted.
Indeed. People freak out about Christmas becoming too secular, but Easter is named after a pagan goddess. Mostly they just grafted Christian names onto existing holidays– the winter solstice was supplanted by Christmas, and the rebirth of the sun with the spring equinox/fertility/rebirth celebrations meshed very nicely with the resurrection of Jesus. It's a lot easier to convert people to your religion when you let them keep their holidays, but just switch out the names.
I do admit I never properly understood worshiping the saints or Mary, but I grew up Lutheran, and the Protestant traditions are a direct criticism of a lot of the opulence/complications like saints that the Catholic church had started. There was a lot of ripping up decorations and burning them when the Protestants first got rolling. I understand their point, but the art historian in me still cries a bit thinking of all that awesome art being destroyed. ):
Easter is named after Passover rather than Eostre in many languages, it's quite interesting. In French it is Pâques and in Russian ПаÑха (Pascha), both of which look to come very much from the Greek for Passover Πάσχα (pas-cha) – the little hat (circumflex?? I can't recall) "â" often means "there was an s here in the language we borrowed this word from, like château/castle – sometimes English has retained the s where French hasn't). Those are the only two I know off the top of my head, but it's interesting to see the distinct variation in where the name of the festival came from.
In Norwegian, Easter is called Påske, which is pronounced 'paw – skeh' or something like that;)
Yup! Well, really it was Judaism that established monotheism in the Mediterranean, and it was also unique because it was ethical, as opposed to systems with gods who arbitrarily interfere in the lives of men. The Hebrew God interacted with people, but he didn't get bored and seduce queens as a swan, or lightning bolt your ass for no reason. I'm oversimplifying and possibly screwing things up, but the Hebrews were God's chosen people, there's a covenant between them, they are supposed to fulfill it by living according to his commandments. Christianity is a little different, wherein you obey God's words to avoid punishment, but it's still ethical monotheism.
I may have brought up transubstantiation during religious conversations between Catholic and Protestant friends to watch the fur fly.
Right. Technically, I think the first monotheistic faith was Zoroastrianism, but you know, no one really remembers or cares about that one. Christianity grew out of Judaism, which is why it's probably more correct to talk about Judeo-Christian traditions. The key difference seems to be the methods of redemption– my understanding of Judaism is that you have to obey the commandments very carefully and do all you can to live without sin, because otherwise there's no salvation? With Christianity, you don't really have to sacrifice because Jesus was the sacrifice, so just accepting him absolves you of your sins. Although obviously there are a lot of variations on that between the different flavors of Christianity; I'm not sure how this works with the Catholic tradition of confession, for example.
Zoroastrianism is (if memory serves) still a current religion in Iran, it's just that with Iran becoming an Islamic state and basically repressing anyone who doesn't agree with them, Zoroastrians are persecuted.
As such, I'm guessing you would find a fair number of covet Zoroastrians in Iran, and you would definitely find them in expatriate/refugee communities around the world.
Interesting. I had no idea it was still a current religion. My (very brief) lesson on it was from a middle-school class on religions, I think, which said something like "this was the first monotheistic religion but then it died out."
Just been having a read on Wiki, and it looks like persecution of Zoroastrians by Islam has actually been happening for centuries, which I didn't realise, though Iran becoming an Islamic state has obviously adversely affected religious minorities over the last twenty odd years.
According to Wiki, which may not be the most accurate source but is usually not far wrong, the US actually has the 3rd largest Zoroastrian community in the world. So your middle school teacher (or possibly the textbooks) was comically mistaken.
I think a fair degree of Iranian emigration is at least partly religious – I know I've read at least one account of an Iranian who said the reason her family left the country was lack of religious freedom for them as Zoroastrians.
Poor Zoroastrianism. Always forgotten. But it is relevant, since it probably influenced aspects of the Abrahamic faiths (though Judaism also fought against encroaching outside influences…it's complicated!). Actually, I think Judaism is looser with the concept of sin than Christianity. All people sin at some point, you can atone for those sins through prayer and good acts, and sin is an actions, not a state, whereas in some forms of Christianity you are BORN with sin, and in others you can live in a state of sin. And yeah, some combination of confession, prayer, and acceptance of Jesus enables your salvation (unless you're from a denomination that believes in strict predestination, in which case, you're possibly screwed, but should be on your best behavior anyway).
And since we're talking about other monotheistic and sorta-monotheistic belief systems, jbhyq guvf or n tbbq gvzr gb oevat hc Tabfgvpvfz? Jr'ir whfg sbhaq bhg gung gur Nhgubevgl vfa'g gur Perngbe, ohg engure n cergraqre jub unf pbafgehpgrq n synjrq ernyvgl. Naq gur fbhyf bs gur qrnq ner vzcevfbarq, naq ceriragrq sebz nfpraqvat. 🙂
Also, couldn't help but think of this:
There's hymnals and a rosary
But they don't keep me company
The wafers now don't taste so great
They won't transubstantiate
Without you near the gospel choir sounds askew
Jimmy, come back and fill my lonely pew!
That's great! Eryrinag gb Znel naq znemvcna?
Nah, I just thought of it because you mentioned transubstantiation. Every time I hear that word I think of the song. (It's from Reefer Madness the musical, if you're not familiar)
That's the movie that made me fall in love with Kristen Bell.
"We are just like Romeo (and Juliet)!
Happy, young and…*cough* hemorrhaging blood…"
I do love that movie. XD
Yes and no. The common Christian translation of Genesis tells us God created heaven & earth and created man in His image. Unfortunately, it is a rather poor translation of the Hebrew.
"And said the Elohim, Let there be light; and there was light."
El is the root word for Deity, while Eloh is a feminine singular word – a Goddess. 'im' is the plural ending for things masculine. So, Elohim can be translated as either "Gods and Goddesses" or "Dual-gendered Deity".
I've heard it said by Jewish scholars that Asherah is the mother of Jehovah.
Thanks for sharing this. It's always interesting to see what got lost in translation
The Romans folded all the gods they encountered during that whole "Expansion of the empire" thing for a couple reasons: one, it just makes good PR sense, "Yeah, you'll be paying taxes to us and we're gonna run everything, but you get to keep your gods, so…. there's that." two, it makes good practical sense, too- if the other gods are real, you don't want to piss them off by making their followers not worship them anymore. They'll get pissed and you'll get dead. In an unpleasant manner.
It kind of depends on what period of the Roman Empire we're discussing, but in general, religion didn't inform the ethics of Romans. Romans used reason and philosophy to create a list of virtues which subsequently formed the basis of ethics and law. Religion was viewed as mostly a personal matter & no one really cared if you worshipped with the cult of Isis or Mithras or whatever. Nearly all Romans engaged in a form of ancestor veneration and the state sponsored "religion" included honoring the ancestors/family daimon of the emperor.
The problem the empire had with the early Christians is that they refused to honor the emperor in this way, which was tantamount to treason.
It toys in Pullman's mind as well because he states clearly that angels are also divided in genders like every other breeding creature, as well as mentioning that they've had intercourse with humans and have offsprings from them. To me that's another indication of the kind of created beings that angels are in this mythology.
I just love the image of Balthamos being a disdainful hipster, complete with fedora and self-rolled cigarettes.
Also I love Mark reading the passage that explains why the Church hates this book: “ooooh NOW I get it!”
_Some_ branches of Christianity: none that I personally have ever come across. First time I ever came across the Metatron was in the Gaiman/Pratchett "Good Omens" in my teens, and I'd been in church plenty before then.
Yeah, I deleted my comment because it seemed like other people said everything I did but better— basically, I think a lot of these kind of things were added in to Christianity some time in the past and have since been discarded or mostly forgotten. Basically, Christianity, like anything else that's been around for thousands of years, gets changed and added to and reinterpreted depending on the current social context. When the social context changes or moves on, bits of the religion get left behind as well, or discarded because they no longer fit. The wikipedia page for the Metatron seems to say that his inclusion is mostly from very early parts of Judaism, and the idea was mostly dropped later on. That doesn't stop people from going back to those older beliefs and reinventing them or using them for new works like Dogma and Good Omens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron)
Yep. The page someone posted about angel hierachies is actually fascinating more for what it tells you about people more than about the stuff they were trying to work out. It's interesting to me that people felt the need to impose a human hierachy on the angels – there are some bits about angels in the bible which imply that certain angels have specific duties, and there's certainly a suggestion that some are more glorious or beautiful than others (Doesn't Lucifer mean "Son of Light"?), but nothing that I can remember reading that implies the kind of incredibly details series of tiers etc that people surmised.
Lucifer means light-bringer or light-bearer. He/It? is also called the Morning Star. Very pretty names for the devil. It's like they were trying to fuel alternate positive interpretations of his character.
My interpretation is that Lucifer was the most bright and glorious of the angels and so he was the one who got, for want of a better word, big headed. I think it's also a comment on how appearances can be deceptive… Off the top of my head I can't remember the reference (see post elsewhere on extreme sleep deprivation, I am Not Well :() but I think this second thing is referenced in a New Testament letter as well…
It is my understanding that the word Lucifer is an epithet for a number of light- bearing (torch bearing) Gods and Goddesses of the Mediterranean. Many of the Greek goddesses associated with guiding the dead through the underworld are called Lucifer.
I thought that the whole point was that Lucifer was the second-in-command and was the best and brightest of the angels, which is why he got jealous and tried to seize power. I mean, the fall is much greater if you are the next best thing to god and then get cast out.
'xackly.
(80s milk advert throwback. Forgive me :))
Yup, basically his downfall is pride.I want to say he might've been the favorite. Also, if I'm remembering correctly, there is also a Saint Lucifer, which makes me giggle at the irony. /immature
(this is slightly off-topic to the thread itself, but you don't "become" an angel (at least in RCC dogma) they are separate beings created before humans, for those that might not know)
That's my understanding too (in decidedly non-RCC circles in my case :))
I think the whole "problem" of theodicy is based around people/religions ascribing human-like properties, agency, and principles to that which is non-human. This is, if you don't start with the assumption that the/a God is all-loving by your limited understanding of what love is, then, voila! There is no problem.
I cleave to a version of the Gospel of Sir Pterry, in which the gods are defined by, and thus reflect, the people who created them. Some people want their brand of righteous justice. Some people want a nurturing parent. Some people just want someone to talk to inside their head when they get lonely. Some people want to believe that there is Someone In Charge Who Knows Best.
Me? I just like to think that the Universe has got a sense of humor.
Mmmm I always thought Pterry's idea seemed like a good one. The idea that you sort of get the god you expect.
Also, I love how everyone thinks Omnians are really annoying, because it's fine to say your god is the best but just plain silly to claim he's the only god.
I personally am convinced that the goddess Anoia really exists.
I also like how when you die, you pretty much go to the place you expect you'll go to.
Oh but, right? Gay Angels!
GAYNGELS!!!
High-five!
Oh, and also … can I insert above: and a human's biased and mutable perspective on what consitutes "evil".
thanks.
I went through a phase of examining the nature of God in my misspent youth- I was never in any doubt that there was one, but I had a lot of trouble squaring the fact that there are so many religions in the world. My religion might be right, but that meant that everyone else was Doing It Wrong, but that seemed too arrogant even for the arrogant little shit teenager I was. So that put out the possibility that *I* was Doing It Wrong, and that didn't sit well, either- WHO WAS RIGHT. Existential crisis!
I eventually came to the conclusion that, to a point, everyone was right and everyone was wrong- how they view the Divine isn't the whole, it's like the blind people and the elephant, yeah? The important part was the not be an asshole about it, which a LOT of people fail on.
All that said, I adore the image of Hipster Angels and their angelic PBR. (Can PBR be angelic? I think PBR is proof that there is a devil, honestly. What else could take a wonderful thing like beer and make it SO TERRIBLE.)
'I eventually came to the conclusion that, to a point, everyone was right and everyone was wrong- how they view the Divine isn't the whole, it's like the blind people and the elephant, yeah? The important part was the not be an asshole about it, which a LOT of people fail on.'
I have a friend, who is an episcopalian priest, who basically demonstrates this by looking at someone and asking what he or she sees, then telling you what he sees (being obviously different from the other, as his view is behind him or her), and saying that it's all a part of the whole picture and we each only have a part of it. Unfortunately, religion on a whole isn't taught like that, and a lot of clergy are unable to see beyond their own beliefs.
I can see why a sassy angel guide might get old, fast. But Balthamos has a very special place in my heart when he answers Will's question about whether others can hear him with "Not if I whisper." I love it and I make no apologies.
What is so spectacular to me is the fact that when it comes right down to it, twelve-year-old Will spends the entirety of chapter two bossing around two angels who are thousands of years old and massively in love with one another. I KNOW, RIGHT?! Will is so awesome. I hearts him.
I was quite taken aback by the snarkiness of the angels though. I was completely on board with them as ALL KNOWING AND WISE ARCHITECTURES, and yet now they have personalities? Weird… but awesome weird.
I totally thought the Regent would be Jesus – I thought that would be the massive controversial crux of the series. Killer flying Jesus on the loose! But no, it was only an angel. I am disappoint.
I loved the bit when Will told the angels that finding Lyra and his mother was the point of this metaphysical speculation. BOOYAH, angels. This kid is beyond awesome.
ALL KNOWING AND WISE ARCHITECTURES
This makes me imagine a bunch of buildings talking to each other, and the oldest one has a huge dumbledore beard and a stuffy british accent.
"I was completely on board with them as ALL KNOWING AND WISE ARCHITECTURES, and yet now they have personalities?"
I recall the alethiometer being snippy with Lyra once when she asked the same question more than once. And when Mary asked the Cave if Dust was conscious and they answered with "evidently". Like "um, duhh we're conscious. We've been talking to you this whole time."
KILLER FLYING JESUS ON THE LOOSE
I love that Pullman doesn't make a big deal about how the two angels are gay. They're just gay, no big deal. Of course, I imagine certain people in certain religious groups had an absolute fit over that.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to controversy.
"Parallell universes..?
Too mainstream."
“Lord Regent is named Metraton! He sounds like a transformer.”
My thoughts exactly. Clearly Metatron is actually Magatron.
number four for this chapter alone oh my god i was never prepared
And now you know which of your predictions yesterday made me giggle. 🙂
You reached my favourite character in all of HDM: Balthamos. What you hate about him I simply adore. Those quotes of him are percisely what I love about him. I know he's annoying and you just want to shut him with your fist on his mouth, yet somehow that's exactly what I love him for; being that level of annoying is precious. This is nothing strage for me, I'm weird like that and always choose to latch on the weirdest characters, and for this series he's the chosen one. =)
Now moving on to the theological discussion because it's so appropriate. First of all, the hierarchies of angels is a very known concept in Christian religion. I know Catholics have that in their studies and they certainly know who Metatron is. Even without having ever studied religion as a Catholic (I was never really that or any other branch) I know about them. Those of you who have studied them correct me if I'm wrong, but there are nine hierarchies in the angelic ranks. I know Metatron started out as a human and went up them until he became the Regent, the general of the angelic forces. I don't want to say that much about it because I'm possibly highly misinformed and will get a crack on the head for messing up the details. Those of you with more knowledge can say it better.
I can easily separate the Authority from the Creator as there are many and varied Creationism stories that can do without a physical entity as the origin of everything. What I can take from this is a kind of energy creationism which fits in with a more scientific approach to the beginning of existence itself. Just like you, I love Baruch's explanation on what Dust is and how it becomes consciousness and how that created the beings made of Dust called Angels. With that in mind, you can see the picture Pullman intends to create of life made up of particles of consciousness that make every sentient being a part of each other and of everything else. It gives the idea of a creation far disengaged from being the product of one single material being that can make and destroy all as if it were just his toy house. It gives more meaning of the term of Free Will ('Team Free Will' for all Supernatural fans xD ). (Now someone stop me from linking Free Willy to this cross-purpose that became my comment. Oh, no… I already did. That and all the other combinations are already one thing in my mind.)
Many people I know will tell this much better than me and without straying from the subject at odd tangents like me. I know I like Pullman's definitions much better than all human religions because it doesn't try to make me impersonate a force of creation into something tangible. That's what always bothered me about religion, the way people try to make you believe into human concepts as divine which they can then control through human logic and trap those inside into obeying their precepts as divine. I prefer there being no tangible god and only endless possibilities without control, measure or ends; it makes life look infinite.
The mentions of Jesus in these comments makes me wonder: Have any of you read The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ? And would you recommend it?
You can win a copy [THAT'S RIGHT, WIN, FOR FREE] over at bridgetothestars.net, there's two days left to enter our contest!
(I've read it, and personally don't think it's all that great [I AM NOT EVEN SURE IF I AM ALLOWED TO SAY THAT], but many people do seem to like it, so perhaps it's just me?)
Neat! I'll try to get my uncreative brain into gear. You're free to express your opinions! And if you're worried about the spoiler policy, I don't think it's so severe that it covers things as vague as likes and dislikes; look at all of the adoring fans of Good Omens on the first page!
THANKS! Sent my entry, I hope it can enter the contest. 😀
I love Balthamos and Baruch. They are sweet together, no matter how snarky. That is all.
SASSY GAY ANGELS. Bless this book.
You know it's been so long since I read this, I forgot how much I love Baruch and Balthamos.
Oh I've been waiting for this chapter for so long. After reading most of the comments I realised that I have a different approach to this book. I'm not a religious person for many reasons, but even if I was I wouldn't be offended. I like to view books as ideas that writer is trying to show me. In the book, this version of god works. He's not a creator but one of the creations who seized power, and is suppressing human thirst for knowledge. I get that, and I see it as Pullman's version of the story. I don't have to agree, or argue that he's wrong, I'm just.. hearing him out.
What I really hate are really preachy books, like the last one in Narnia series, and I'm so glad Pullman told his story without beating me in the head with the point. I hope I made any sense at all. I'm too overheated to express myself better.
I… I kind of love that Balthamos is a snarky asshole, he was so entertaining to me in this chapter with his attitude and snappish remarks. You kind of expect angels to be all distant and inhuman, but here's one that's just being sarcastic and disdainful and to me that was glorious. But then, I love snark and sarcasm, so I was bound to enjoy him. 😀 And he and Baruch are gay, and in love, and it's just part of who they are and not a big deal and IT IS AWESOME. <3 Love it. I really enjoyed rereading this chapter, it reminded me of how much I enjoyed it the first time through. I mean, I love Will and I think he's pretty kickass in this chapter, but I also find Balthamos hilarious, so it's very fun to read all around. Plus MOAR ALTERNATE UNIVERSES. Never a bad thing.
You're not alone. I love it completely that Balthamos is a snarky asshole. He's my favourite character of the whole trilogy because of that. 😛 I also love how much he loves Baruch's goodness and gentleness and ultimately tries to imitate him for that. They're so sweet you can't separate a part of it, you have to love it all together and understand how that love was built in them.
OMG KENDAL MINT CAKE IS THE GREATEST OF ALL THE CAKES!!
It's not much of a cake though. Well I guess it is a cake like you can get a cake of soap. Or something being caked with mud.
I remember going to the lake district when I was 13 and insisting on seeking out some kendal mint cake 😀
When I was a kid i was raised Roman Catholic, but gave that up almost right after my first communion (i hated waking up early on Sundays during the school year!). As a teenager I professed to be a born-again christian, mainly to appease my fundamentalist foster mom, though I was *always* questioning stuff… like, right after Columbine happened, I asked "So, God knows all but gave us free will, etc. So if we have free will, how did God *know* Cassie Bernall would say yes she believes in God, and *why* would he allow that just for her to get killed?" my foster mom didnt like my interpretation of some of the verses of the Bible, even though they made sense to me. She felt that it is not to be questioned, just taken on faith, which is something I cannot do. i am too academic, i read too much into stuff and I like thinking about the whys and wherefores.
Now, I cant really say I am an atheist because i think there is something out there… even if it is just Creation itself, rather than *A* creator… but i dont think i can properly call myself agnostic either because that just doesnt seem to fit my viewpoint. In a way, I am more pagan than anything but have no solid belief.
One thing I am sure of though is, I cannot believe in the God of the Bible. this God that is professed as being loving and caring and all that… I cannot believe that *that* is the same god that allowed my mother to die violently when I was 12, or that a "loving god" would take my daughter from me before she could even draw breath. All the platitudes people say when a loved one dies- "She is with god now" "God has a reason" and so on- are just too painful when it is your baby, and it causes more pain than help. So there is just NO WAY I can truly believe in that God.
But one thing I love is the Unitarian universalist church I belong to now. A church filled with people of different faiths, none of whom say "you HAVE to believe as I believe". the message on the sign by the road says it all- 'To Question IS the Answer'. everyone believes we have our own path to follow, no one can be 100% sure that THEIR beliefs are the right way… and how many churches can you find with an agnostic minister? All I know is the folks there accept me as I am, and have become a family to me in a sense. And I encourage anyone who says they want to learn more about other faiths to check out a UU church.
"How did my own purpose fit within the design of a Creator who apparently created me simply to turn around and spend my whole life thanking Him for it?"
I had a big, fat problem with this as well. And how exactly do you thank this God anyway? I mean, He created me to be irredeemably flawed and without the sacrifice of his son, there was nothing I could do to perfect or improve myself. I was so very flawed, he didn't even SEE me! besides, what do you give to God who made/has everything? It seems a bit shallow to only want a world full of sycophantic humans, and anyway, who would be impressed by him having sycophantic followers anyway?
Okay! So back by Popular Consent (read: 3 people said it was cool), here is today's chapter quote:
Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up. *The Book of Job*
Also, hooray for Balthamos and Baruch! I love Balthamos' snarkiness, and their love for each other, and how awesome their names are.
Siriusly, thank you again for this 🙂
*blush* No problem!
I didn't realize you probably did this yesterday. And now that this is here I remember something else that should be here: Mark hasn't commented on the dream sequence at the end of this chapter. Did he forget or didn't he see it was there? I'd forgotten myself it wasn't anywhere in any comment so far until you put the quote from the square where there used to be a picture for each chapter.
Pullman surpasses himself every time. And you have all my gratitude for bringing these little pieces from each chapter. 😀
He actually did comment on yesterday's dream sequence;
This short chapter ends with what I’m guessing is Lyra’s dream sequence while she’s kept asleep by her mother. She is some other world, described as “the end of all places and the last of all worlds,” and there are beings with her, ones without faces or names. Are they imprisoned as Lyra believes? Are these actual ghosts?
Surprisingly, Roger is here. He says this is the world of the dead. And he is very afraid, unsure if he’s done something right or wrong.
I’m inclined to believe that even if this is a dream, it’s actually real. I think this is a real place. So now is there a possibility to get Roger back from the dead?
Oh, I am so terribly excited.
That's from the end of his review yesterday, but he didn't comment on it today. I'm wondering if that is because it was on a different page in his edition, and he didn't see it yet, or if he just had so much to talk about from the actual chapter. (Which was really long, actually, 18 pages in my edition)
I know it was in the previous chapter, that is precisely why I asked about it on this one. Since next is a new one I don't know if he'll put both there today or what.
Ahhhhhhh! Okay, I understand what you meant now! 😀
Started uploading them on BTTS! Feel free to link to the image 🙂 I always loved the type in these, I didn't realise that other editions only have them as text, or not at all!
http://bridgetothestars.net/misc_gallery/Extras/T…
Oh, that is very cool! I have the trilogy in one book I ordered from the library (my personal copies are in some box most likely in my parent's house) and the quotes are in teeeeeny tiny printing between the chapter number and name. My original copy of TAS is the American mass market paperbound, and I can't remember if it has the quotes, but it definitely doesn't have the quotes in awesome formatting like that.
Awesome! Thank you so much!
Your site is generally awesome, by the way 🙂
Thanks! Come and take part in the discussion if you've read HDM already! If not…be sure to visit after. Hopefully we'll have some fun stuff coming up for you guys, like the contest to win a signed The Amber Spyglass which Mark mentioned…
Mark, I'm rather new to your blog so let me ask a question before I make a true comment. Does it go against your spoiler policy to comment on what you think an underlying meaning of a character or theme of the story is at this point? Wouldn't want to get ahead of where you want to be.
Thanks!
Susan
Hi Susan!!!!! It was nice meeting you on Friday!!!
I would say…hmmm. If I am confused and I don't explicitly say, "SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME," I would hold on to that thought until later.
So when I first read this book, I was somewhere in high school, probably fifteen or sixteen, and deep in the throes of The Closet, going to therapy to Fix Myself, etc etc, and I remember reading about the gay angels and thinking "I must be misinterpreting this, no one could be allowed to write books with gay characters, right?" And I would read and reread the sections with Balthamos and Baruch. What cracks me up is, at the time I thought I was trying to figure out what their relationship actually was, but looking back I was obviously reading it because it was literally the first time I had been exposed to gay characters (or, hell, even gay people in general!) and I was half turned on and half desperately wanting some personal validation.
I was raised as a Protestant and still consider myself Christian, even if I have been through many phases of doubt.
Despite this I have never hated this series for it's portrayal of God, maybe because my view of our Creator is only very loosely based on the Bible.
Actually I don't really have a set belief of what God is like. I do think that there was an entity which caused the Universe to be created, but believe that it was closer to what science currently thinks it was like than the Creation myth says. (because why not?) Also the Bible was written down by humans, which makes it not a very reliable source since..well if it was really written down about 2000 ears ago what changes could have been made in the meantime? Where the people who alledgedly wrote it really telling the truth? I highly doubt it.
Therefore I have taken on the simple belief, that the entity which created the universe probably has a very different outlook than we have. And when i look at the way our planet turned out, I find myself thinking that while there are a lot of things which are horrible, there is also so much beauty in it.
I don't think something that created this universe can be entirely evil.
So I just put my trust in this entity and hope that whatever will happen to us in the far and near future will not be completely bad.
I am SO happy you love this book so much, Mark!! For real – His Dark Materials are my favorites of all time and especially The Amber Spyglass. (But don't tell Harry Potter I said that! By the way – was there for your panel for LeakyCon and it was FANTASTIC!!)
Anyway, I love your comments at the end about atheism. I also struggled to try to continue believing in god for awhile (probably around the ages of 14-17 most prominently) and then once you realize it was all a lie, you just think – How could so many people have told me this was true? It is…abominable really, to be lied to in that matter and then have to still watch other people believe the lie. Pullman was really a source of comfort and strength to me, especially during that time. He understands – even if god WAS real – why would you want him?? Some psycho dictator who forces unwavering worship and says you have to submit to all of his stupid rules or you are tortured for eternity. Eff that. Ridiculous.
But anyway, I just wanted to say that personally for me – I wouldn't say being an atheist makes one feel "hollow." When I finally admitted to myself that god wasn't real I felt FREE and LIGHT, like an enormous burden had been lifted and I could finally really live. I especially loved reading Richard Dawkins after that. He explains the world and it's true beauty. I feel bad for Christians who can't understand how absolutely INCREDIBLE and BEAUTIFUL all the things around us really are. Not because "God did it" but because god didn't do it! It's a miracle!! 🙂
So yeah, I just wanted to share that. Absolutely love your work, loved meeting you at LeakyCon – sooo looking forward to your reviews for the rest of Amber Spyglass!! 🙂
Like you, Mark, I was also raised Catholic, and struggled with what I felt to be incompatible descriptions and images of God. In fact, in what was the very first step on a lengthy journey from Catholicism to agnosticism, I decided at the age of eleven that I did not believe in hell, because there could not be such a thing as a loving, all-knowing, all-forgiving God who sentenced people to eternal damnation. My solution, at the time, was to reject the existence of hell (which is so child-like in retrospect: there could not be both A and B, but A sounded better, so there must be no B).
Throughout my teenage years, I struggled to develop a system of faith that made sense to me, (even referring to myself for a brief period as a Kate-ist, one who believes what Kate believes) and as an adult, have chosen to accept that I simply don't know. Neither does anyone else. Smarter people that me have attempted to prove that there is a higher power, or that there is not a higher power, but in the end, we have no idea. For me, agnosticism is about being open-minded to the possibilities, but not irrationally attached to any sort of dogmatism. I respect people who have a belief system of one sort or another (atheists do too), but embrace my own ignorance with respect to the mysteries of the universe. It's a comfortable place for me.
I have, however, a related quandary, and hope that some of you in the Mark Reads community might be able to help out. My husband (a technically-baptized-but-definitely-not-practicing-Anglican) and I are expecting our first child in October (yay!). I think that being raised within a religion was important for my development, in that I had a belief system to question and think about in a concrete way, a starting place for my own spiritual journey. My husband, who comes from a church-for-Christmas-and-maybe-Easter family doesn't seem to have a well-articulated theory of everything, and in fact seems not to have thought about it much (he's more scientifically than philosophically inclined).
I cannot, and will not, pretend to believe in something that I do not for my kids (Santa's different, as it's a temporary gig) but appreciate that my own religious upbringing has helped to make me who I am. What do you all think? If you were raised in a belief system, was that good or bad for you? What about if you came from a relatively secular upbringing?
No pressure or anything, but I need someone to tell me how to not screw up my baby. Have at.
Metatron , by the way, is not a made-up name. Metatron is a high angel and is the voice of God, or the scribe of God, depending on your tradition. You can also look him up on Wiki. I checked to make sure that there are no spoilers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron
The first part of this chapter was like one of those point-and-click adventure games where you pick up everything you can find, stand around in the same spot for an hour while you think, and have a disembodied voice tell you everything you need to know.
When I got to the battle with the other angles, I thought it was a bit sloppy; I could not tell what was going on. And Will has got to be the luckiest kid in the world! I mean, isn't this the THIRD guy that he's killed just by flailing around!? Then there was this:
"And in the moment it took the angel to check his flight and turn upright and pull back his arm to fling the weapon…" Geez! All those 'ands' in that moment? Did he lick his finger to check the wind direction, too!?
Then we get the story behind the Authority's deception. I thought it was imaginative, outrageous, entertaining––I loved it. For the first time in this series, I was dreading that the chapter would end before the explanation was done.
I am so sad that Mark didn't do his review in-character as the smarmy angel, though. The 'normal' review was still great, but like Will said––once a choice is made, the alternatives are gone forever! :'(
Oh, and I kind of wanted to discuss this in a respectful way:
My atheism is remarkably simple these days: I feel nothing inside of me. I feel no inkling of holy love or divine intervention or cosmic companionship. I feel hollow and it is how I have always felt. I can discuss the theology of it, but it turns out to be an act of absurdity in the end. None of it matters, even if it’s all real. Because there’s no God inside of me.
I found that an interesting description of how Mark "feels" his atheism. I wouldn't say that it accurately describes how I feel as an atheist. I wouldn't describe myself as feeling "hollow". I am interested in hearing different atheist perspectives here.
I wonder if it's because I wasn't brought up with religion. Mark, I don't want to make any assumptions, but I assume that, since you were raised as a Christian, you at one point sort of childishly felt the "presence" of a creator. And then, as you lost your faith, you felt the absence of one… the sort of hollow feeling of not having a god with you anymore.
I didn't experience that, growing up. In fact, the idea of feeling some kind of vague supernatural force "inside" me or "watching" me gives me the heebie-jeebies. I don't really feel an absense of a god, because I never felt the imaginary presence of one in the first place. Does that make sense?
How do other people experience this?
Actually, it wasn't even that at one point I "felt" anything. Ever since I was a child, I felt like the black sheep when it came to God: I could not experience the sensation my mother told me I was supposed to feel, so I thought I was doing something wrong. It only took until I was 19 to realize that sense of vacancy was okay to experience.
It's sort of like…everyone around me said they could see a color. Let's say..purple. Everyone can see the color purple on their own face when they look in the mirror. Then they say they can see it when they look at me. They know it's there. But I cannot see it on my own face or on anyone else's, no matter how hard I try. So I start attempting to imagine it, and bend my whole life to see it, and then one day realize it is never going to happen, and that is not the end of the world.
I was very loosely raised as a catholic. Loosely in the sense that religion never had much importance to my parents, but very much so to one of my grandmothers and I also always went to catholic schools.
I used to believe, but have lost these beliefs more and more over the course of my teenage years…
I wouldn't say that I'm an atheist, maybe I am, but it's not what I see myself as.
For me, what holds the world together (that, to me, has always been the base of religion and/or beliefs) is our universe itself. I hate how overly esoterical that always sounds, but for me, nature itself is the Creator and I think I believe in "nature spirits" that form our world (for lack of a better word, it's really hard for me to phrase these things)…
In terms of hollowness or feeling something inside, I'm not sure… I know I've felt certain presences in certain situations (again, I hate how esoterical I sound), for me, that was living, breathing, sentient nature…
But what you say makes a lot of sense to me, if you've never felt it, how could you miss it? I guess I'm somehow a little envious of that. Mostly because this catholic education is still so deeply engrained in me, it's hard to completely get rid of it…
I'm an atheist, but it's funny. I feel the awe that most ascribe to God, it's just I feel it towards the universe. I don't have a hole inside of me waiting to be filled; I'm just intensely grateful to live the life that I do and in a world of such wonderful possibilities. I simply don't long for anything more, and on top of which don't see the need for it. I have my fuzzy feelings about existance, just not with the belief of an afterlife or supernatural beings hanging over me.
Douglas Adams described how I feel about the Universe best, I suppose: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Yup, this is my experience, right here!
I was raised in a (looking back) fairly generic Christian tradition, but more along the lines of "read everything and come back with questions." My family's church attendance was spotty, but my mom was and is a big believer, just more in the way of living her faith quietly and asking God for help when she really needed it. I told her when I was pretty young, probably around 8, that I didn't believe in God, and that was okay.
I don't believe in Deity, souls, or an afterlife. I believe in the astonishing everyday marvel of emergent consciousness and flowers and neutron stars and my kitty-cat. I believe that when I die, I will be over, kaput, nothing — just as I was nothing before I was born. Death doesn't disturb me; life exhilarates me. I've never felt the need to worship. I have everything I need right here in front of me, and it's fantastic.
I agree very much with this. I think (although how would I know? OK, I believe) that I experience my atheism in as profoundly moved and awed manner as my religious friends say they experience their spirituality and relationship with God. I've never felt empty (other than when I was depressed), and find myself constantly moved by how amazing the world is, and by the paradox that the time we have on earth is so small and insignificant that it means nothing at all, and yet is everything to us.
I was brought up Catholic (though my parents aren't super intense about it or anything), but I don't really feel like something is missing, or that I feel empty somehow, either. I didn't believe as far back as I can remember and only came to grips with it/asserted myself when I was a teenager (and I don't think my mom really accepts it, to this day). The ritual aspect has always kind of creeped me out; I just don't feel the need for that stuff. My mom in particular is very spiritual, and I'm just not (she jokes that I'm like Temperance Brennan because I'm very literal, but this is another reason I'm like her…), so that has been a point we've always clashed on. My dad is less religious, but even he insists there is something god-like out there that connects everyone. (I think "we are all connected" is true in a literal and real sense, as human beings who live on planet Earth in a delicately balanced ecosystem and a global society–the things we do affect each other and every living thing! But that has nothing to do with the supernatural!)
But anyway. This comment kind of got away from me. But yeah, I wouldn't say I feel hollow without belief.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who imagined Metatron as a Decepticon.
What's really interesting about Pullman's angel cosmology is that he's really not making any of it up on his own.
Well, except maybe the gay angels, which is cool because they are awesome.
The modern image of angels as "like humans with the brightness cranked up, and maybe a pair of dove's wings" is pretty narrow in comparison — the phrase "choirs of angels" actually refers to this entire hierarchy (and we also get "bands of demons" which may do the same thing in reverse). Speculatively, I'm going to claim Balthamos is one of the Grigori — the Watchers, mostly because he's of "low rank" and because he is in love with what was once a human man. The Grigori were the lowest caste of angels and worked most closely with humans, and it was from them that man learned things like farming, and mathematics, and astronomy. The Grigori, pretty much to a man, were cast out of Heaven, though, because they fell in love with humans and interbred with them, creating the Nephili — and though much of the book of Enoch was excised from the Bible, you can find a Nephilim or two still in the canonical books (Goliath, for example, is often called such, and the Flood of Noah was primarily meant to kill all the Nephili off). The Grigori have been around for as long — and perhaps a bit longer — than mankind, so in HDM's chronology, Balthamos could be over thirty-thousand years old. No wonder he's so crotchety.
The lowest choir of angels who weren't exiled I don't believe have a special name (I've seen them called Mercurians, since their function is to serve as messengers) and I would probably place Baruch in this caste, simply because he's of "low rank" and doesn't seem to fit with the appearance or missions of the other choirs (which I can get into more if anybody has an interest).
Oh, and Enoch, who wrote the book I'm referencing above? He became an angel when he died, too, and his name is Zrgngeba. Vg nyjnlf obgurerq zr va Qbtzn gung Zrgngeba jnf fubja gb or frkyrff — ur unq orra uhzna, bapr, naq vs zna jnf perngrq va Tbq'f vzntr, jul jbhyq Ur srry gur arrq gb punatr gur sbez bs bar bs Uvf snvgushy jura ur ragrerq Uvf freivpr?
Kind of nitpicky, I know.
As for female angels — well, if the Grigori were sexed, I chose to believe that some angels in that choir and in others were women — for example, Gabriel, who in angelology is associated with symbols like the Moon, which is traditionally a female presence.
There are lots of reasons why churches do not like these books. But i do not think they should take it that seriously. If someone believe in their religion, I do not think they will walk away because of these books. If someone does it, then he was already losing his belief. This book is just a way out for them. I am a Muslim and I will never lose belief in my religion.
I love that God in this book is actually the first angel. When I was reading the second book, the idea that you can destroy God was really silly to me. If the God was same as my idea of God or Allah, then it is simply impossible and absurd. But now this book is just an awesome fiction to me that is so full in itself that it just have me in awe. I love everything about this world.
Thank you for sharing your atheist idea, Mark. It was really interesting.
What I really want to know is how did John Parry got his dæmon ? How can Will get one? HOW CAN I GET ONE?
THIS! I never understood how people could think that a simple book could shake someone so much that they would completely drop their religion. If that were the case, they must not have had a firm hold on the religion in the first place…
Unfortunately this is about where the book started to go a bit above my head, as I'm not religious in any way and had no real understanding of what Pullman was subverting. I guess the story is still readable as a fantasy creation, with supernatural angels and all, but I think a lot of its power was lost on me.
I love how you're only in chapter 2 and you're already saying it's the best book to ever be a book, because as soon as I got to the gay angels I thought the same thing. I mean, it's gay angels. How can you not love this?
And that's all I feel coherent enough to say. I think some people have expressed my views on religion and atheism a lot more eloquently than I can, so I'll just go on an upvoting spree.
I love this book mostly for a paragraph in this chapter. It reads:
Will considered what to do. When you chose one way out of many, all the ways you don't take are snuffed out like candles, as if they'd never existed. At the moment all Will's choices existed at once. But to keep them all in existence meant doing nothing. He had to choose, after all.
When I'd read this, I started laughing hysterically, thinking this is how I've lived so much of my adult life. A good amount of years ago I had written something to the same effect, about how possibilities exist as a fragile fabric and choosing one causes it to disintegrate, and how sometimes we chose to hold onto it by staying still so that it all still exists. When I read this, not that long ago, it struck chord in me, and made me realise that I still do this and it absolutely has to change. It sort of propelled me into action and forced me to confront my bad habits, which will be a never ending task. It's something quite similar in effect to Dumbledore's saying, 'It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.' (I do find it curious and wonderful that at 36, the two most life altering influences in my life have been this passage and the entirety of Harry Potter.)
The atheism in this book is fascinating to me because it doesn't exclude spirituality and souls. I've always been repulsed by any sort of absolutism (in argument and judgement of belief) be it from atheists or believers in the divine (by that I mean when they insist they are right, and there is no possibility of any other interpretation). I found HDM to be a unique perspective, especially since it wasn't absolute or confining in it's definition. I have more to say, but I fear spoilers, so I will hold out until the end of the book!
(Btw-I've been reading here since HP, but I've not ever commented before, so hi everyone!)
HI! *flaily hand waves*
Hi!! And also… your comment struck a chord in me, too… I realized I've been doing this with people in my life, and it isn't fair to them. :-/ -sigh-
I've done that too. As well as not being fair to them, it also deprives you from whatever is being held back. This I've learned the hard way, and also have to try very hard to change. Well, being aware of our shortcomings helps up change them, so that's something!
🙂
I suddenly understand the Schrodinger's Cat thing a whole lot better.
is this the not dead cat mentioned in Will Grayson, Will Grayson? Too lazy to look up.
It's some quantum mechanics thing that it was referring to, I think.
From my own weird religious/atheist/agnotist mess of a philosophy, this is what bothers me about the killing-God plot in HDM:
It's not actually God.
I don't always agree with Pullman's take on religion. But, to me, if you're going to kill God, you'd better go all out. That's not the kind of thing you can half-ass. And by making 'God' an angel impostor, instead of the actual Creator, a lot of the power and cultural resonance the books provide by directly opposing the core doctrines of Christianity fades away. So the God that's killed isn't actually the Christian/Abrahamic God. I feel like the books would have been more powerful if they'd shown that the Christian God, as he actually exists in Christian theology, is worthy of being overthrown.
And here 11-year-old me just COULD NOT figure out why my Catholic school had no copies of this book when I desperately needed to read it and find out what happened.
DUH.
Balthamos and Baruch were hipsters before hipsters even existed.
Balthamos and Baruch listen to bands (of choir angels) you've never even heard of.
Balthamos and Baruch find fixies so mainstream. Flying is the new cycling.
Also, it's been a while since I've read this book, but are Balthamos and Baruch referred to with the pronoun "he"? For some reason I assumed the angels were sort of genderless
Yes, and they refer to another angel as "she." I don't know if they have biological sexes in the same way that humans do–since when Ruta Skadi saw angels, she saw them in human form because she "expected to." But it seems they do have genders? Or at least, they have genders for the purpose of interacting with humans.
So there's this series that features not only "heroes" trying to kill God, but homosexuals? And it has sold millions of copies and won prestigious awards? And they're children's books? What is this world coming to?
I'm sure that's what some thought of His Dark Materials.
They probably don't even know about the homosexuals bit.
Unless they actually read the book.
Yeah, that's a good point. Banners hardly ever read the books that they're so against.
Conservapedia knew about it, though. http://www.conservapedia.com/His_Dark_Materials#H…
I especially like what they wrote in the awards section.
I don't see how the God character in this series is any worse than the one in _Left Behind_. At least Pullman's world is entirely fictional and not really derived from Christian theology. The authors of _Left Behind_ believe that their mass-murdering God character is real and that everyone had better get on his side Or Else.
"Why would they believe the lie themselves? That can’t possibly be what’s happening, could it?"
Yes, that's what's happening, and yes, it is ridiculous.
Also, I understand the atheistic blank left behind by faith. That is an argument many religious people use against atheism: 'What's the point without God? If we all lost our faith, wouldn't we just go throw ourselves off a cliff?'
But there is more than enough to replace it. The world in itself is magnificent: Evolution, stars, planets, the origin of life, things too big or too small for us to comprehend: So much to think about and so much to appreciate. The glory of reality is, to me, far more than the flawed system of faith and religion. We DON'T need God, we DON'T need religion- we have the world and each-other and our own wonderful, natural, science-made minds and bodies, and that is ENOUGH. That can awe me more than God any time. We are curious, we naturally strive towards truth and knowledge and scientific evidence… But religion tells us this is wrong, that faith without evidence is a virtue, that to look for more knowledge is not humble.
So that is why it's brilliant that you are reading this. Because that genius Pullman has created an allegory that turns religion on it's head, and CELEBRATES humanity, and the search for knowledge. This will help anyone fill the atheistic gap.
I have to say it.
This whole "Christians hate this series thing" is wearing a little thin. It's exchanging crazy fundamental Christians for all of Christianity.
I fecking love these books so much so that I have pretty, pretty copies that are signed and I won't even eat when I'm reading them which is party my OCD and partly the books.
I think these books are well written, wonderful stories and there is nothing wrong with reading fiction that does not fit your theological beliefs. I'm a Christian and appreciate these books for books, the same way that millions of people ignore the allegory of Narnia and even Harry Potter to an extent (see J.K. interviews on why she couldn't talk about her religious beliefs pre-Deathly Hallows in case it gave something away).
So can we please stop saying Christians hate these books?
I cannot understand why Christians hate these books (I'm an orthodox christian too). Well I actually can but the thing is that believing that what Pullman says is "There is no Creator", is the same thing as believing that world was created in seven days….
I think that is one of the most important info for me. And i’m happy studying your article. However want to observation on few general things, The website taste is ideal, the articles is actually excellent : D. Excellent process, cheers
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.