I hope a lot of you have read or are reading this book because I have a lot of questions, more than I expect any one person to answer.
"Angels [and Grandfathers?] speak by the power of the Holy Ghost"
Mau has his whole world shattered around him when the wave comes. He suddenly does not believe in the Gods his people had always believed in. Yet, at the same time he hears the voices of his ancestors talking to him; he has conversations with Locaha, the God of Death; and he has an out of body experience. I thought this was an interesting and not altogether uncommon paradox.
I think sometimes we grow up with certain beliefs about religion, and then we have a catastrophe (like the wave) or a 'coming of age' (and Mau was right between boyhood and manhood) where we realize that our religion is not what we thought it was. It is then our tendency to throw it all out and not believe in anything, but simultaneously, we may be having experiences that should be affirming our faith that there is much more than science and reason can explain.
I used to see things in black and white, and I had a hard time when I came upon things that weren't so clearly defined. It was tempting to say that because some things weren't clear maybe nothing was clear, but I think the 'voices of the Grandfathers' are not just in my head. And I'm strengthened when others say they've heard the 'voices of the Grandmothers'. Am I making sense? Have you had your perception of religion shift drastically? Were the voices of the Grandfathers real or just in Mau's head? Why could the ghost girl hear the Grandmothers but not hear anything after the death of her mother?
The Parable of the Poison Beer
I think the spitting and singing to make the beer safe is a lot like many of our spiritual traditions. Some of it is necessary to keep us safe (i.e. the spitting and waiting) and some of it is just culture (i.e. the song about the 4 brothers vs. baa baa black sheep). If we are smart, we may be able to seperate the culture from the necessary, but it doesn't make the culture bad. It is much better to follow the entire spiritual tradition (culture and all) then to get lifted up in pride (as Foxlip did) and get killed. Do you agree? Do you try to separate culture from the necessary? Do you like to sing Baa, Baa Black Sheep? Does it affect the quality of your beer?
False Priests
I enjoyed the character of the priest that was silently struggling with his own faith in the Gods while simultaneously trying to restore everyone else's faith. He said some wise things in between acting rather stupidly. When he tried to keep Mau from bringing up the God Anchor that hadn't been there before, he showed that he believed in a dead religion. There are so many historical examples of religious leaders that fought against change because they thought it proved their religion to be false or it weakened their position. I'm grateful to be in a living church where we are encouraged to believe all things that are true. What is the appropriate way to react when things we thought were true turn out to be incomplete or false?
If North were South
While it's probably not unique to this book, I'd never really thought about the idea that the orientation of our globes (with North being on top) is arbitrary. I've never seen a map turned the other way around, and the idea of it would be difficult to adjust to. I liked how Pratchett said the cannibal looked like the Prime Minister; how he pointed out who the true savages were; and how the original thinkers were from the Nation. Do you think that museums and the idea that artifacts should be 'where the world can see them' are racist or cultural supremist or whatever the right word for that is? Do people in the Southern Hemisphere have inferiority complexes?
What if _____ had never happened?
At the end, Mau and Daphne wonder if they would have been better off if the wave had never happened. Daphne decides that she's glad the wave happened, and Mau decides not to decide and thinks there would be good and bad parts to each scenario in the multiverse. This illustrates the growth that can come through tragedy and trials and why they are an important part of this life.
However, just because we've grown from a trial does not mean that the trial was good. I've never met someone that has had a child out of wedlock that has regretted having that child. After all, how can you regret the creation of a wonderful child? But does that mean that the decision that led to having the child was good? Or that it was meant to happen?
We change through our life experiences and trials have an ability to change us faster than comfortable living, but the retrospective look back on our lives may not be the best way to decide if an event was good or from God. How does one determine if one's path was guided by God vs. allowed to happen by God? Or are all paths always guided by God at all times?
I don't know if I believe in a multiverse, but I like the idea of it from the ability of God to judge our actions. For example, He could say that if event A had happened, then we would have behaved like so, but if event A never happened, then we would have turned out like such and such. What are the multiverse versions of you doing right now? One of mine is in Texas with a PhD. Another might be a drunk psychologist.
Quotes and Comments
"When much is taken, something is returned"
It's like the inverse of the scripture (D&C scripture mastery!): when "much is given, much is required". Is the inverse of any scripture true? Is he that is compelled to do nothing a wise and not a slothful servant?
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
How limited are we in our learning because we fix a perception of the world and make everything fit into it? I like to think that I think more than the average person, but I find it quite difficult to have lots of unresolved questions.
"You shout and stamp and yell that there are no gods, and then you shake your fist at the sky and revile them for not existing! You need them to exist so that the flames of your denial will warm you in your self-righteousness! That's not thinking, that's just a hurt child screaming in pain!"
Even atheism is a belief system.
"She just wanted an explanation that was better than "It's the will of God," which was grown-up speak for "because."'
We have inherent needs for explanations. If they don't exist or if we don't know them, we'll make them up. In sports, for example, we're quite good at coming up with explanations for random events.
"I don't think he believes in his gods, but he believes in belief."
There is lots of evidence for the power of our beliefs to have real effects on our health and other tangible events. Unfortunately, perhaps, I don't think you can just 'believe in belief.' You have to believe in something, and you have to really believe it for it to have any positive benefit.
"And that was a sin. Even if you have no god at all, that was a sin. Some things are a sin all by themselves. And I'm going to murder you, and that is a mortal sin, too."
Certainly ethics can exist outside of religion. In theory, things can be wrong (though perhaps not a sin) without a moral authority to say it is wrong. However, Cox reached a point where murder wasn't wrong, as did the cannibals.
"If a lie will make us strong, a lie will be my weapon. People want lies to live by. They cry out for them."
I do think that people want lies (including children), but lies are a dangerous weapon. When lies are uncovered, then any gain from the lie becomes nullified by the increased pain of discovering the lie and the consequent lack of faith. Of course, in this case, if the truth was discovered, then they would all be dead anyway. Is there a 'time to lie'?
On Good vs. Popular Books
I agree with Peter’s comment on my last post that the popularity of the book doesn’t make it a good book. And just because it’s a good book doesn’t mean it’s the best book for the book club. I wasn’t trying to demean any of the previous choices (except Peter’s) because I think all of the books have led to interesting discussions, and the only reason I tried to pick on Peter was because he hasn’t liked any of my book choices and I was trying to validate myself. (I really liked 2 of his 3 choices.)
I chose this book over the other options I presented because I remembered wanting to discuss it with the book club when I finished, even though the other options were probably both better and more popular. I value all of your opinions and thoughts, and I hope you’ll comment even if you haven’t read the book.
PS In case you haven’t read the book and in case it wasn’t clear from all of this rambling, the author ends the book on a note that indicates he does believe in God.
