Broken Saints Forum Index Broken Saints
Forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Last chapter

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Broken Saints Forum Index -> We Haven't Slept in Lifetimes...and our 1000 Eyes are Burning.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marrymeshandala



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:53 pm    Post subject: Last chapter Reply with quote

I am just wondering what Lear knew and what he did not know. It seems to me that the last chapter created a subtext that was supposed to illustrate lear's [or any fanatics] wasted effort to convince people there was a miracle through all the multimillions and subterfuge and yet he was blind to an actual miracle In terms of the girls healing ability, what Are we supposed to believe by the end? I think the healing powers displayed by shan were outside of anything in lear's scenario. Does anyone have thoughts? I also want to know if anyone is familiar with sufi teaching as opposed to orthodox Sunni and Shiite sects? That religion has the concept of something called nur, you can't translate it into one word basically however, means that this is a person at some point in his or her life was overwhelmed by the power of god to such an extent that their personality memories habits, everything gets overridden so that in a very real sense it's not you speaking but god, which is exactly what Christians say about Jesus but their view includes only him, whereas in the Sufi view anyone and everyone has the potential. So is shandala supposed to be this being known as the nur? On a lighter note what was the name of the catholic hymn playing in the background and the end of this and CH 20
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darius



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 430

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

These are some very interesting concepts, especially the Nur, which seems like an equivalent to the Hindu Avatara.

Also, the majestic piece that plays during the Awakening and Broadcast is Song of Athene. I spent about a year somewhat "addicted" to it, so I know it plenty well.
_________________
Quote:
PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN REVELATION: LIFE DOES NOT SUCK. IT IS, IN FACT, QUITE GOOD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE BITCHING ABOUT ALL THE TIME.


Day before yesterday I saw a rabbit, and yesterday a deer, and today, you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rexfelum



Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 3897

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, isn't this interesting. Welcome back.

For starters:

marrymeshandala wrote:
I am just wondering what Lear knew and what he did not know. It seems to me that the last chapter created a subtext that was supposed to illustrate lear's [or any fanatics] wasted effort to convince people there was a miracle through all the multimillions and subterfuge and yet he was blind to an actual miracle In terms of the girls healing ability, what Are we supposed to believe by the end? I think the healing powers displayed by shan were outside of anything in lear's scenario. Does anyone have thoughts?

You do, along with other folks. And I must say that I don't have a lot to add: I agree, again, that Lear didn't have much of a clue.

I think the healing powers definitely form an unknown extra element: not only are we left without clear explanation for how she could do it, Lear didn't even talk about her ability to do it. So, in addition to being representative of Shandala's general awesomeness, they fit in with her becoming more than any plan-master could control.

Moving on:

marrymeshandala wrote:
I also want to know if anyone is familiar with sufi teaching as opposed to orthodox Sunni and Shiite sects? That religion has the concept of something called nur, you can't translate it into one word basically however, means that this is a person at some point in his or her life was overwhelmed by the power of god to such an extent that their personality memories habits, everything gets overridden so that in a very real sense it's not you speaking but god, which is exactly what Christians say about Jesus but their view includes only him, whereas in the Sufi view anyone and everyone has the potential. So is shandala supposed to be this being known as the nur?

I would say only inasmuch as WE are God, and she realized this identity sooner than the rest of us.

--Rexfelum
_________________
"May your deity of choice follow you with anchovies." --Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marrymeshandala



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My sense of it is that those individuals are pretty rare. So it's not as simple as " great you're god I'm god can't wait to turn water into wine" like raimi says. Maybe they come once or twice in every generation. This is really reaching, let me know if you think it's too far, in some verses of religious books it says the lord is one, did you notice how the girl's family members always call her little one? Based on what we know about sufi discussions on the nur, is this worth thinking about?

It could just be that the authors are training us to read into every little thing when we're not supposed to, or I've seen the damn thing too many times anyone want to jump in here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rexfelum



Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 3897

PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huh. Your point about "oneness" is very interesting, and I can't seem to think of any logical reason to argue against it. But I do think that though she may be such a wonderful manifestation, if the moment wasn't ultimately about all of us then it would be contrary to the message of the story there.

Well, I can't reconcile the two ideas as it is. Thoughts?

--Rexfelum
_________________
"May your deity of choice follow you with anchovies." --Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marrymeshandala



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes you are right I agree with you that it is ultimately about us all. However Lear was correct in one sense when he said that he intended them to be the first this is actually consistent with many of the writings about changing one's consciousness, which say that it'll happen gradually starting with a few people, the number will expand until eventually the shift will occur, making that population of people the majority.

I don't wanna give the impression that I doubt that Lear was insane, since he clearly was, What would be interesting is to question whether he started out that way believing something Spiritual at first then descending into insanity? but this series a whole especially this episode is trying to show that something can start out as a Spiritual truth, then pathologically deteriorate into dogmatism thanks to the egos of those trying to impose the doctrine they happen to believe. That's what Lear fell prey to, even to the point of creating a bizarre play in which shan was supposed to be the feminine archetype of Eve, his clone was supposed to be Adam, and he himself would act as god the father. By the way, I also know that clones name is supposed to be Gabriel, but I can't think of that person as anything but an extension of Lear any thoughts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bs



Joined: 20 Oct 2001
Posts: 2341
Location: Not there...THERE!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I consider this thread a post-bday gift...thanks!



'Nur' = Good thinking.

Some of my best friends are Sufis. Some of yours should be too

xo

B
_________________
It is flickering
A distant lamp
But I can still see it
Not just another star
It is Me
It is You
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Rexfelum



Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 3897

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ooh, creator commentary. And in that vein:

Lear's avatar wrote:
The Arabic Sufis shared their knowledge with Jewish Mystics...

So the ideas are surely involved somewhere.

But on other topics, let me address this:

marrymeshandala wrote:
By the way, I also know that clones name is supposed to be Gabriel, but I can't think of that person as anything but an extension of Lear any thoughts

Extension of Lear? Sure. Jesus was an "extension" of God. Consider that in conjunction with my reply here:

marrymeshandala wrote:
That's what Lear fell prey to, even to the point of creating a bizarre play in which shan was supposed to be the feminine archetype of Eve, his clone was supposed to be Adam, and he himself would act as god the father.

Thinking of it that way makes sense. But I primarily think of it as Father, Son, and Unholy Ghost, for various reasons that have been discussed before.

--Rexfelum
_________________
"May your deity of choice follow you with anchovies." --Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marrymeshandala



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rexfelum, Ph.D. wrote:
Ooh, creator commentary. And in that vein:

Lear's avatar wrote:
The Arabic Sufis shared their knowledge with Jewish Mystics...

So the ideas are surely involved somewhere.

But on other topics, let me address this:

marrymeshandala wrote:
By the way, I also know that clones name is supposed to be Gabriel, but I can't think of that person as anything but an extension of Lear any thoughts

Extension of Lear? Sure. Jesus was an "extension" of God. Consider that in conjunction with my reply here:

marrymeshandala wrote:
That's what Lear fell prey to, even to the point of creating a bizarre play in which shan was supposed to be the feminine archetype of Eve, his clone was supposed to be Adam, and he himself would act as god the father.

Thinking of it that way makes sense. But I primarily think of it as Father, Son, and Unholy Ghost, for various reasons that have been discussed before.

--Rexfelum

Wow was that actually Brooke? Itís an honor to talk to you and exchange ideas. Fight studio interference! Donít let them mess with your baby. Anyway, Rexfelum, Ph.D."]the only problem I have with the comparison is that Christ demonstrated his own personality and asking the father for guidance as to what to do in next, at least in some forms of Christianity. Remember that the Lear was out of his mind completely so that any parallels which were there were of his own creation, and are at best perverse approximations very forced to fit his scenario. My sense of it is that Gabriel was conditioned in much the same way shandala was but that Lear could only do it in a piecemeal form a rather than a massive sensory overload as with Shan [but then again Lear engineered her so he was probably counting on expanded brain capacity) in other words you just made the process more efficient the second try with Shan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bs



Joined: 20 Oct 2001
Posts: 2341
Location: Not there...THERE!

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They both had 'customized' Limbic systems.

Shan absorbed stimuli - particularly of the emotive variety - in exponentially increasing amounts. Hence her 'abilities' where Fear (suffering) and Love (Healing) were concerned.

Gabe's system was 'blocked' - ie: zero empathy. He didn't just feel 'no pain'...he felt NOTHING. Pure dogma/reason, lacking a heart/soul.

Sad, really...even if he hadn't been plugged by our favourite Arab mercenary, Gabe likely wouldn't have blinked from Shan's broadcast.


_________________
It is flickering
A distant lamp
But I can still see it
Not just another star
It is Me
It is You


Last edited by bs on Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Darius



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 430

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's always very interesting when the creator of such a complex and varied work comes in and explains or underscores concepts or ideas that might not have been so well explained in the actual piece.


Take Gabriel: I always assumed he was just "manufactured" to suppress physical stimuli and bodily reflex, but to not feel anything even from the Broadcast?

Very curious indeed.
_________________
Quote:
PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN REVELATION: LIFE DOES NOT SUCK. IT IS, IN FACT, QUITE GOOD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE BITCHING ABOUT ALL THE TIME.


Day before yesterday I saw a rabbit, and yesterday a deer, and today, you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rexfelum



Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 3897

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, well! Interesting to hear that about Gabriel. I had already written an essay back in . . . 2004, yikes . . . where I discussed meaning in Gabriel's death. This adds something neat.

(Ugh, the writing was quite a bit long to repost.)

--Rexfelum
_________________
"May your deity of choice follow you with anchovies." --Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marrymeshandala



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would form topic was that I will be sure and look it Do you think postings go back that far
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guppy



Joined: 20 Mar 2003
Posts: 5670
Location: bullseye, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I knew which thread professor rex was talking about I would have linked you we had several threads along this theme. However anything before 2004 was erased due to a hacking in March/April of 2005. Would it be lelandpauls the one he reposted?
_________________
Honor thy error as a hidden intention
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Rexfelum



Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 3897

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, you do not know what you are inflicting upon yourself. This is about as long-winded as I've ever gotten. But since it is not available on the forums anymore due to hacking, here goes . . .



[MAGIC REPOST TIME]

I have rarely been completely satisfied with the common writer's use of death near the end of a story. Note that by this I'm not referring to death at the end or even as the end--all Stories end in death by definition, as Stories are metaphors for life.

Instead, I am referring to two things that I view as failures of the writer. One is what I call the "character massacre," which is where a flood of main characters whom people have failed to kill through the entire story are suddenly killed in one fell swoop. What's bad about these deaths is that they mean that the writer ran out of ideas--for the most part, the deaths aren't even plot important beyond the fact that the dead ones can no longer create any plots. For examples of this failure, I direct you to just about every action movie where there are more than two main villains, such as that disaster that was the Dick Tracy movie over a decade ago.

The other is what I call the "failure of resolution" or "failure of redemption," depending on the situation. It is also the main topic that I wish to discuss here. This is where a single character, not a flood as in the example above, is likewise suddenly killed. Again, what's bad about these deaths is that they mean that the writer could not figure out how to resolve one person's storyline--is there some low-class, minor villain whose only real threat is that he knows Superman is Clark Kent? Well, kill him off! But just make sure that somebody who likewise isn't too important does the killing, so that the sin of killing can be brushed aside and we can just be grateful the villain is dead. This "failure of resolution" was why I stopped watching Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman very shortly after it began.

The "failure of redemption," however, brings me to a much more modern story than my above examples: the very one that has brought us all together. In watching the death in Broken Saints, I kept waiting for something more to happen to give it all meaning--and yet, in so many cases, it didn't.

The story ended in a glorious moment of redemption. But before that could happen, Briggs killed himself, Palmer was killed by Lear and even Gabriel--perhaps the person who most needed to see it--was blasted mere seconds before the broadcast. As we know now that we have seen the end, a glorious redemption of everybody was possible, as it even brought Lear to remember what he had forgotten. So what does this say about everyone who died?

Was Gabriel unredeemable? Didn't he deserve to learn forgiveness? If Goku could be forgiven for being a pawn, why not Briggs and Palmer? These sudden (after the characters "whom people have failed to kill through the entire story are suddenly killed in one fell swoop") and unnecessary (as proven by the successful redemption of Lear) deaths seemed to exist to state only one thing: the writers could see no reason (or possibly way) to bring a satisfactory resolution to these persons' storyline. Hence, the reason why I gave this type of occurrence the two titles that I did.

. . .

The above is my literary complaint about these events. However, I feel like continuing this discussion with what may be a meaningful counterpoint to my own words about Gabriel's death.

As we have seen countless times, the creators of Broken Saints wanted us to keep thinking. They refused to ever hand us nice, pat answers. So, it could be that I had been too quick to accuse them of finding no way to resolve Gabriel's storyline--perhaps there was a reason that I just failed to see.

I think I may have found it.

Gabriel, as we saw, was the zealous hand of his father, willing to do the most incredible things for Lear's goals. This was why, in other stories, less thoughtful writers would assume that a meaningless death was the only thing to give him. But for me, I looked at exactly the same information and felt that he desperately needed redemption.

To see how a lack-of-redemption could not be a failing of the plot, consider these things. To start, assume that his death held a purpose in the story anyway as well as a message for us--safe assumptions given what we know of the creators. This would lead one to think that, in fact, this message that Gabriel was UNREDEEMABLE was deliberate. The "meaningless" death held meaning.

But then, what would be so different about Gabriel that the creators would want us to approve of his death? It couldn't be his zealotry, because the zealous Lear was joyously redeemed. So perhaps it connects to something else that I found interesting about the series . . .

"HE MADE US BOTH IN THEIR IMAGE! DESIGNED TO RECEIVE!" Much discussion has been made of Shandala's role, but we seem to have almost universally ignored her brother. So what was it that Gabriel received? Obviously he became a duplicate of Lear just as Shandala became a duplicate of Mariko, but Shandala also obviously "received" much more. Was he different from Shandala in his purpose, possibly having some other meaning that we failed to see?

No, I would say that we failed to see the similarity. In the big chat, we were told that in an alternate storyline "the chips would convert minds and adaprt [sic] their physiology make them all like Shandala/Gabe." This made no sense to me at the time because I could not see why being "like Shandala/Gabe" in a physical sense could be plot-important. On what was more likely the plot-important side, I still couldn't see what being like them in a mental/emotional sense could possibly mean--and, if it involved Shandala, what would be so bad.

But here comes in the important point which is, coincidentally, the single reason why Lear's planned failed: the false idea that we are all empty clones, pushed about by external "good" and "evil."

Gabriel already received what Shandala was to receive and gave himself up to it--and we've all seen the result of that. Lear thought that exactly the same willingness would appear with Shandala and, even, that there was no way that Raimi, Oran and Kamimura would disagree with him. In fact, for a while, Shandala did become like Gabriel--but in this case she was not a follower of the Unholy Spirit, a thing incapable of goodness by definition, but rather its vessel. She too gave herself up to it, killing numerous people she never knew and being willing to kill millions more under the delusion that this plan would bring a positive resolution . . .

Until Raimi touched upon the one difference that existed in her and that allowed him to remind her of love: Shandala was bred to have empathy, which evolved over the years, for "the illusion of safety and community kept her emotional acuity honed." She was able to forgive and feel for others, even to the point of being able to give what she had "received" to Raimi--because he was likewise showing his love for her.

Gabriel's death at the conclusion, in this light, was therefore not an approval of death but rather the conquering of the evil within. He was a symbol (just like so many of the characters) and he could not be redeemed ("to sacrifice the symbols in our soul yields the keys to nirvana") because he fought against the simplest truth of all. And this difference between the brother and sister is what made her REDEEMABLE--so her death, of course, was no "failure of redemption," because she saw this truth. Just like Shandala, we can give to others in this life and change an entire world, for we are all of us human--and we all have the good within.

. . .

Thank you for reading this, those of you who have taken the time out to do so.



[Just in case people couldn't get any meaning out of my giant ramble, I then went on to write even more. It turns out to be a good summary of parts that are more important to the current conversation. REPOST REPOST WHEE]

As to the meaning of Gabriel's death:

Lear created Gabriel and Shandala as empty clones, designed to receive something external to the self. Although, on the first pass, I had missed the great similarities evident between Gabriel and Shandala, I can see now that they both let themselves be molded in this way. Lear likewise expected Oran, Raimi and Kamimura to be willingly pushed around by external beliefs of "good" and "evil," but he was obviously proven wrong in this.

It is my point that he was likewise mistaken about Shandala. Now that I have seen the similarities between the brother and the sister, I can also see that there was a critical difference: Shandala had empathy, a "goodness." She was always able to forgive, even though she stooped to the "evilness" of Lear's plot. She was, in sum, one great big symbol for human nature--having both the good and the bad within.

Lear also did, so he was redeemable. Gabriel refused this truth, having completely given himself over to this "evilness." In fact, I find it interesting how much he looked like the "gray face" that has been equated with the evil. As such, I feel that his death was a symbolic message from the authors of the simple, tried-and-true "conquering the evil within" type. Within "one's self" in a general sense, within Shandala, within the entirety of humanity, etc.



[Then, as a small addendum, I wrote EVEN MORE]

Ah ha! I have one other reason why Gabriel could not be redeemed. We already knew that casual text in the series could have completely literal meanings--witness Oran saying "I'll kill that man" in Chapter 22. Were there any among us who doubted how Chapter 24 would go?

Well, back in Chapter 15, Oran also said "some would give their souls" to have a feeling of purpose . . .

Indeed, as I suggested above, Gabriel completely gave himself over to the plan (don't forget how he discussed "purpose" in practically every sentence he spoke), so here we can see that he was a doomed Faustus as well. And no, I don't believe that I am making this up: Gabriel was discussing "purpose" heavily in this very Chapter and, as we know, Brooke only wrote the dialogue once he got to each individual Chapter. I'm just surprised that I didn't catch onto any of this "purpose" stuff until we got to Chapter 22.



. . .

Are you sorry you asked?

I'm sorry, at least, for the parts of the above that don't make sense anymore.

--Rexfelum
_________________
"May your deity of choice follow you with anchovies." --Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Broken Saints Forum Index -> We Haven't Slept in Lifetimes...and our 1000 Eyes are Burning. All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP