Good Omens

[Cymrugirl]

After reading this book in bits and pieces over the last several months - some I re-read and read again - and loving the mastery of it, I finally sat down and read the last three chapters last night. I told myself I wasn't allowed to pick up Anansi Boys until I did.

So, on the backside of Good Omens and on the backside of the backside of Good Omens meaning the notes in the back and the notes on the notes in the back, I feel bursting with conversation on this extraordinary theological offering from two of the greatest writers in fiction.

While I didn't find the theology to be correct, I did find it fascinating in - well, not the way I expected.

I know there are other Good Omens lovers here. Anybody up for a good chow on it at the moment?

[Ransom v. Unman]

What's to be said? Two of the best writers of modern times lampoon every apocalyptic nut since Nostradamus. It's bloody brilliant!

One would have hoped this would've done better than Left Behind, but that's another issue altogether that I don't feel the need to get into.

While I disagree with the nature of the theology behind it, there is an interesting insight into how evil and good both sort of depend upon humanity to contiue their struggle, in a sense. I almost wonder that there might be something in that that could explain our appearance here on this Earth...

Anyway, top notch on every level save the theology. Certainly, it also presents a proper and lighthearted challenge to anyone who sees the world so thoroughly black and white, and the end of the world in particular.

[Cymrugirl]

I think that it has done better than the Left Behind series in the long run. It has, I understand, become a cult classic that's adored by millions - whereas the Left Behind series initially discovered a wide audience, then quickly narrowed its readers down to the evangelical eyes only club. Sad really.

Agreed on the nature of the theology being incorrect. What is infinitely interesting to me though is how spot on they seem to be when it comes to the nature of people. Their reasoning regarding God's actions falls apart at the end when they begin to contradict even their own line of thought (they start early on by depicting humans as more wicked and more evil than either heaven or hell can imagine in its own - then go onto say that humans are alright if good and evil leaves them alone) - but they seem to maintain a steady understanding of the fundamental nature of man.

The dedication to Chesterton is the most thrillingly interesting thing about the whole book - and of all things, they never mention it. Gaiman has this very logical, steadiness about his thinking that I zero in on in all his novels - it's why I absolutely love him. There is something extremely honest about his approach to life itself - there is something very God-inclusive - something very humble in his representation of things larger than himself. Terry Pratchett is different for me. I see him as the most brilliant cynic I have ever read. (second only, for me, to perhaps Douglas Adams - though I haven't read more than three of Pratchett's novels yet) I don't think of Gaiman as a cynic at all. I see him as a man living the great "why" in a very honest, searching fashion.

I know this sounds weird, but when I look at his fiction, I see a pre-Tolkien - pre-agnostic C.S. Lewis writing. I see a strong mind capable, teachable mind - who is okay with the universe being bigger than he is - and also okay with admitting he doesn't understand it - something that Christians seem to consistently struggle with.

The combination of the brilliant cynic with the brilliant seeker into a text ultimately about the fundamental principals of God and hell and humanity in a relationship with each other was....unlike anything I've read before.

Oh yeah. And the writing is perfect. It felt nearly flawless.

The questions in the book are the timeless ones - the ones that I don't actuallly see in a lot of theological novels.

[treesalt]

I personally would love to get my hands on a hell hound, and I second the opinion that the writing is flawless. Man, if I could ever write like that... *sigh* Professional envy will have to do I suppose. ;)

[Ransom v. Unman]

Agreed on the nature of the theology being incorrect. What is infinitely interesting to me though is how spot on they seem to be when it comes to the nature of people.
That's what I really do love about both of the authors – they can understand and expound on the mechanisms of human beings better than almost anyone I have read upon, save for a golden few others. In modern times, I really find them to be peerless – especially in genre fiction.

The dedication to Chesterton is the most thrillingly interesting thing about the whole book - and of all things, they never mention it. Gaiman has this very logical, steadiness about his thinking that I zero in on in all his novels - it's why I absolutely love him. There is something extremely honest about his approach to life itself - there is something very God-inclusive - something very humble in his representation of things larger than himself. Terry Pratchett is different for me. I see him as the most brilliant cynic I have ever read. (second only, for me, to perhaps Douglas Adams - though I haven't read more than three of Pratchett's novels yet) I don't think of Gaiman as a cynic at all. I see him as a man living the great "why" in a very honest, searching fashion.
/sigh

The tragedy of it. The big question looms, "Will Gaiman see through the morass into the truth of it all? Or will he be sidetracked by the issues so many others are, from both within and outside of the church?"

Obviously, we know where I am on this.

The questions in the book are the timeless ones - the ones that I don't actuallly see in a lot of theological novels.
Well, here's hopin' on my part... Though it does seem a little cocky and ludicrous to imagine that I could live up to Pratchett or Gaiman?

But, as we've discussed before, I should not try to be either, but merely be myself. We'll hope that that's good enough. :)
I personally would love to get my hands on a hell hound, and I second the opinion that the writing is flawless. Man, if I could ever write like that... *sigh* Professional envy will have to do I suppose. ;)
Well, if you read enough of your favourite authors, it's supposed to work like osmosis in how it helps your own craft.

And yes, a Hell hound would be nice, save for the whole "Hell" part of it.

And if I ever move to London (crosses fingers) I know now to avoid the M25. Thanks, Terry and Neil!

[treesalt]

LOL Ransom. I'd forgotten about that part (avoiding m25 that is)