[foolio]

Tayshrenn said

Quote

Oh, and personally, I like god, I just have a problem with some of his fans.

awesome, I live in Columbia, South Carolina, and man do we have some obnoxious "fans" around here...

[cauthon]

Why would his RL view matter? It is his choice, and it does not in any way alter the awesomeness of this series.

[Morgoth]

was resurecting this thing really necessary?

[MTS]

Probably not. Although, there is an interesting passage in DoD about the nature of faith that's fairly critical of monotheism...

[cauthon]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 June 2009 - 10:05 PM, said:

<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Okay, this isn't the damned religion forum so STOP NOW<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->. This is no longer about SE's possible beliefs and their possible affects on the Malazan Book of the Fallen. If I want to read a couple people go at it about christianity I'll go find Gem and Terez and throw throw them in a Religion Forum thread together and watch the fireworks fly. As it is, this is messing with my groove.

Agreed!

[Nevuk]

As far as Erikson goes, there isn't really much evidence either way. The Crippled God has always read as a very overt criticism of the YHVH to me, however many of the other gods can be seen as similar criticisms of other religions, without him coming down on the whole process of worship as negative, the gods do accomplish some good, and the line between mortal and god is very blurred. And I will be very surprised if the Crippled God remains as negative of a figure by the end of 10th book, as almost every other villian has ultimately had sympathic portrayals.

[That one guard near Ox Gate]

It's funny that half of the idiots who blasted this guy for asking a question ended up saying "personally, I think S.E. is an atheist." Thats nice, how the fuck did you guys get that impression if not from his writing?

The idea that you can't get some idea of what a writer thinks from his writing is fucking ridiculous, you guys need to get off S.E.'s nuts for a second, and realize that. Yeah, the guy can write. But he isn't jotting down objective prose just to pass the time, he has some motivation. This threads creator had a legitimate question, if you can answer it in any way other than saying "wtf, how dare you assume things about our sacred writer based off of what he writes? Oh, and yeah, I think he's an atheist too." Then just go away.

And yeah, I think Robert Jordan probably did wear women's clothes on occasion, he obviously had some serious mommy/woman issues.

[Sinisdar Toste]

i realize you are a new member, so i'll not blast you. but in this forum, this kind of diatribe just isn't acceptable in the book forums. i understand you feel strongly about the subject matter but try to avoid the swearing and the name calling. thats what the phoenix inn is for.

[Sucka27]

I think it's an interesting question because many writers use their work to sort out or share their own beliefs, religious or not. Tolkien did it, C.S. Lewis did it, many other very respected authors did it and a lot of them were commended for it.

If anything I'd guess SE is an agnostic, and not an atheist. An atheist is generally just as certain that he is right and everyone else is wrong as any member of any other religion. The danger of religious certainty is a recurring theme in this series. Also, many of the chapter intros seem to give insight into anything SE might or might not be trying to share to his readers beyond the Malazan story. Offhand the one from the Tanno Spiritwalker in the Bonehunters about halfway through about how counting on paradise in the afterworld can cause a person to neglect the planet on which the live because they get the feeling it is a quick stop on the way to eternity. That would most certainly apply to today.

Also, I think SE makes frequent political statements as well. One of the funniest and most profound things he wrote was a chapter intro in Midnight Tides reflecting on the idiocy of both extreme liberalism (communism) and extreme conservatism.

The argument was this: a civilization shackled to the strictures of excessive control on its populace, from choice of religion through to the production of goods, will sap the will and the ingenuity of its people - for whom such qualities are no longer given sufficient incentive or reward. At face value, this is accurate enough. Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore, a kind of intransigence as fierce and nonsensical as it maternalistic counterpart.
And so, in the clash of these two extreme systems, one is witness to brute stupidity and blood-splashed insensitivity; two belligerent faces glowering at each other across the unfathomed distance, and yet, in deed in fanatic regard, they are both mirror reflections.
This would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetically idiotic…