PeterDavid.net

I rather liked it.

Okay; perhaps a bit too dry--in all honesty, I thought it some of the best work PAD's ever done.

Of course, this may be due to my own religion(s): Judaism by birth and occasional practice, along with Friendship and Baseball for good measure. I suppose I'm agnostic about agnosticism: I don't know if I should be agnostic or not.

While I won't quite go along with Twain's notion of any God who would allow the world's suffering to be no more than "a malign thug", I will admit to long ago have decided to live my life as if there were no God: I choose to act as if there is no Dominating Daddy looking down on me, nor a Benevolent Buddy nudging me in the right direction. I choose to live a good life, caring about and helping others. I do this because it's enjoyable and because it feels right, rather than hoping for an apres-death paradise or damnation. I don't know that being good simply because one fears a punishment or hopes for a reward is really all that, well, good.

If there is a God, I figure that He, She, It, or "Other" would look upon my worldview with approval.

And if I'm wrong; if this hypothetical He, She, It, or Other feels that merely working to live a good life without singing His (Hers, Its, Other's) hosanaas to the highest whilst doing so just isn't good enough ...

... well, then, that's a God I simply do not wish to waste any belief upon.

Hey, the comments are working??? Wow! that's great! I have nothing to say! haven't read the book yet...but FA has been, in all its incarnations, some of the finest work PAD has ever produced, so I have no doubt that this issue continues the streak. Wow. Comments again. I was starting to feel like a junkie during a police crack down.

I still think that this website would benefit from a message board. Back in my AOL days, I strongly enjoyed PAD's board there, but like a lot of people on the net nowadays, I don't have access to that sort of thing.

Besides, I'm pretty sure it's actually cheap these days for message boards, and it would build toward a sense of community. ...or something.

When I got to the Big Theological Reveal, I wasn't shocked or horrified. My reaction was more along the lines of, "Yep, about what I've been thinking for a while, if somewhat harsher." :)

I really liked the issue, Peter! In fact, at a recent comic book convention, I picked up Sachs and Violens and now I finally understand a bit more of the tie-in in FA 19-20. The only thing about the recent issue of FA is that it made it seem like the series was ending. I don't know if it was just me that got that impression or what but I hope the series really isn't ending! I guess I'm a PAD junkie. I'm almost finished reading the latest New Frontier - when is that going to be the next televised Star Trek series? It gets my vote!!!

If the Catholics got upset over "DaVinci Code" they would have a field day with this.

Of course they first have to find Bete Noire on the map...

Great reading. The only comic title that is consistent in its universe and makes sense withoug knowing dozens of other permutations.

Best issue yet, Peter. :-)

I like the title and anxiously await each new issue. I remember PAD said he ran this storyline by a Rabbi who told him it (IIRC) that it had the distinction of never having been tried before.

The inherent problem with writing a story that purports to describe God's motivation is that any such description is filtered through a human sensibility. How can we describe an all-powerful omnipotent being when, by virtue of our humanity, we are not all-powerful and omnipotent. We must anthropomorphize God. But that automatically defines something other than God. God is all-powerful so he isn't bound by a reluctance to admit he "failed his final exam." He doesn't get tired and want to die, humans do. To put limits on God is to describe something other than God.

This is not a new tactic. George Carlin has an old routine about going to a Catholic school and trying to stump the priest with theological questions. "Father, can God make a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" Either God can't make a rock that heavy or he can't lift it. Both options put a limit on God. I can attest to the reality of those questions as a fellow Catholic school graduate. It was the most interesting part of religion class.

Anyway, Fallen Angel is an intriguing, well-written, beautifully-painted comic. I will continue buy it but not to glean any theological answers.

And as to the mention above about the DaVinci Code: my wife and I saw it this weekend, (she had read the book). It's a fine movie, but I enjoyed the Last Temptation of Christ much more. The questions postulated by LTOC are much more powerful because they imply that to be human is more desirable than to be God. That is what the Last Temptation was: to be a normal guy with a wife and job and not to have the salvation of mankind rest on his shoulders.

I enjoy cerebral issues, but my reaction to this particular revelation about God was just... "Eh, okay. Thanks for the info." Now Juris - that was pretty nifty (although unsurprising)! I definitely think FA's strength lies in the mysterious personal interactions rather than the religious themes, so I look forward to more issues that explore that. I'm grateful for every book that you and Woodward produce, but I don't think I would offer this to a newbie as a quintessential "Fallen Angel" issue.
Now, #6 - THAT looks incredible! I am literally counting the days...

George Haberberger, interesting comments regarding humans putting limits on God with the suggestion that God would become tired and want to die. But wouldn’t the idea that God wants- even demands- worship also put human limitations on Him/Her/It? Just as Captain Kirk asked what God would need with a starship, you have to wonder why God would _need_ humans to worship and love him. Isn’t the desire for love (or at the very least some sort of acknowledgment) a human need. Wouldn’t God, being _God_ be above such things?
Now, I realize you didn’t say God did need worship, I’m just presenting the logical other side of the coin.
And speaking of limitations on God, isn’t our use of a pronoun setting a limitation?

I recently loaned a friend, who’s a Jesuit brother, the trade paperback of the first six issues of the DC run of _Fallen Angel_, and as we drove to the Motor City Comic Con on Saturday, I brought him up to speed about the IDW series, and told him about Lee’s statement about God’s plan. I was curious what he, as someone in the religious life, thought of that interpretation. He thought it was an intriguing idea, but doesn’t agree with it. He doesn’t think God wants to be left alone. Which isn’t surprising, I suppose.
In discussing the issue, we realized God, as depicted in _Fallen Angel_ is in a bit of a “Catch-22” situation. One might wonder why God doesn’t make a very public appearance, say, “stop bugging me and start living your own lives, you stupid humans!” and storm off to wherever. Well, if God were to do so, it would confirm that God exists; and I’ve no doubt that the number of prayers and praises would explode. Poor God wouldn’t get a moment’s peace. Mike Wallace pounding on His door with a 60 Minutes news crew and...

O.K., maybe not that, but if God does nothing, the prayers and praise keep coming. If God essentially holds a press conference, they’ll still keep coming, and probably to greater degree.

This conundrum raises another question. If God didn’t want to be bothered with praise and worship, why put those details in the Bible, especially the demand for exclusive worship in the first commandment? Two possibilities come to mind. One, God had nothing to do with writing the Bible; it was all done by Human hands. Two, God originally wanted praise and worship and has since changed his mind (and/or expected that like children going off on their own, humans would eventually outgrow the _need_ to turn to him for help).

But if God had nothing to do with writing the Bible, then the only way humans would know what God wanted/demanded would have been if they’d made it up themselves. That, in turn, would mean humans either created God to explain the mysteries of the universe (and in some situations to shore up their own political/religious power bases), or they came up with the Bible stories in an attempt to better understand and/or explain something they instinctively _knew_ existed, but which remained apart from them.

If God’s a human creation who has come to believe He’s the creator, then there’s a certain irony in his stance in _Fallen Angel_. If God does exist as _God_, and has found Himself pigeon-holed by stories made up about him, it’s no wonder He’s pissed.

One might also wonder why God doesn’t just make all of humanity forget everything about Him, destroying all copies of the Bible and related works (as well as all houses of worship) in the process? Probably because it wouldn’t do any good. Even if there weren’t a domino effect with regard to our knowledge of some basic science (Earth’s position in the solar system, for example) that could return the human race to coming up with supernatural explanations for various phenomena, there would still be people in the world who would seek such explanations. And if God is the _one_ and _only_ God, then prayers, no matter to whom addressed, would reach Him. And He’s right back where he started.

Again, looks like God’s caught in a “Catch-22” no matter what.

By the way, in 9th grade theology class, Fr. Follen (AKA the Rev. George R.) offered the following argument for why there could only be _one_ God: God, is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-whatever, and two “Gods” can’t occupy that lofty pinnacle. One would be a little bit higher than the other, and if Godhood is defined as being omni______, then anyone in second place couldn’t be God, by definition.

Rick

to Rick Keating:

Hmmm...what if God appeared in Times Square and held a press conference and said, in essence, 'Okay, here's the deal...yes, I exist. No, I don't want your prayers. In fact, the next person to pray to Me will have their head explode,' and then make good on it.

Think that would get him out of it?

Of course, it would certainly change the way we cuss ('God damn it' is a prayer, albeit a mean one).

Terry Pratchett's Discworld wizards refer to religion as the "god-bothering business".

Fits right in with this issue, i'd say.

Mark Patterson,

God shows He's serious by exploding a few heads at the press conference, and right away you'd have reactions like this:

"Oh, God!.... Please don't make my head explode! I didn't mean to say that. It was reflex. Please, not my head. E-Explode _his_ head. He goes to church every day. He's _always_ praying."

And variations on that theme. In short, people would be praying to God not to explode their heads for praying to him. In the end, he'd probably end up exploding everybody's heads, which, according to Lee, he wouldn't want to do, since it would mean his "final exam" was a failure.

But since God is (presumably) the top dog of creation, this "final exam" must have been a test He gave Himself. And since God seems unable or unwilling to toss aside this "final exam", it suggests He's His own worst critic. It sounds like God either isn't perfect, and hates to admit it to Himself, or isn't satisfied with being perfect, and wants to be better- but can't, because you can't be _more_ perfect.

No, I think God, as described in _Fallen Angel_ is in a "Catch-22" situation, no matter what He does.

Rick

P.S. Re "God damn him/her/it/them." I've never believed God would damn someone if I said that (and assuming God exists, of course). First, if just saying it makes said damnation happen, it puts God at our (or my, in this case) beck and call. And if God is _God_, why would he be subservient to humans?

Second, wouldn't God have better things to do than go around damning people at the spur of the moment insistence of other people?

If the Eisners don't recognized this as the single issue of the year in 2007, I will throw a bag of dog poop at the presenter.

Also, regarding "God damn" as a prayer, the Onion did a pretty funny article about that six years ago.

"Players and employees of the Vikings organization," God announced from Heaven, "I have heard the pleas of Lester Ruddick in the final moments of a devastating 30-27 Bears loss to the Vikings, and My wrath shall burn forever against you..."

My LCS just got Fallen Angel #5 in today. I had an enttirely different interpretation about Lee's explanation of God's motives than anything that's been posted here. I'm with Jude on this one: I don't believe it.

I don't mean that I think that the theory that PAD's espousing is something that he wants us, the readers , to actually (and wrongly) beleive. I mean that I think that Lee LIED.

My problem is that I can't reconcile the idea of the guardian angels with the idea the Boss wants humanity to learn to get along without him. If he set up a whole network of guides that whisper into our unconscious, that seems to contradict the whole idea of him wanting us to just ignore him. I expect that PAD could reconcile that problem, but that's beside the point. For whatever reason, I think that Lee was lying to Jude about God. Maybe she was making some final attempt to influence him away from taking over Juris' post. Maybe she couldn't bear to tell Jude that allowing evil in the world was the logical consequence of Free Will. Whatever: I just didn't believe her.

Maybe Lee didn't intentionally lie, she just presented a very bitter version of the story.

That may very well be the case, Jason. However, I can't get that great line/point of Babylon 5's Jeffrey Sinclair out of my head: "Everybody Lies."

Lots of fans tend to automatically take anything a comic book character says at face value, especially the main character. They assume that they're not going to lie or even shade the truth too much to get what they want or make themselves look better or whatever. I was falling into this trap when I read Lee's bit about the Boss and was trying to square the Boss wanting mankind to ignore him with him assigning a host of guardian angels to watch over mankind, when Jude said "I don't believe it." and that old B5 line came back and bit me in the ***. "Everybody lies."

Mr. David has created a cast of rich well developed characters with complex motives and psychlogies. It's a virtual certainty that they're all going to lie at some point.

Now, after I've had most of a full day to digest it, I suspect what Lee said will have at least a large grain of truth in it, but I my gut is telling me that something's off. I think that she's at least shaded some facts or left something out. I just can't take it at face value. Hopefully IDW will keep publishing Fallen Angel long for long enough for us to find out for certain.

1Another thought provoking issue by Peter David. As a wiser man than I said: Nuff said!
But if I may add a comment of my own: I thought Peter's insight on God was original (At least to me.)and thoughtful.
It was not the psyco giant ego God of Garth Ennis' Preacher, nor was it the boy wizard God of Peter's Supergirl work. This was an invisible God that is all around us and just wants us to grow up and get out of the house already. Frankly, I found it refreshing.

"If the Eisners don't recognized this as the single issue of the year in 2007, I will throw a bag of dog poop at the presenter."

Jake, "Fallen Angel" has been submitted for Eisner consideration every year since it first launched at DC, and every year it's been ignored. Frankly, I don't expect that to change. But I certainly wouldn't hurl dog poop at the presenter. He's just the guy who steps in and announces the winner.

PAD

Lee may very well have lied. When PAD released the preview a while ago of that sequence, one thought that crossed my mind as to what happens next was Lee saying "I'm just messing with you."

Which she may be.

Then again, look to last Hurricane Season, or the tsunami. There were plenty of people willing to go on record saying that those disasters were sent by God for various reasons. Most of those were hateful, but is that far off from what Lee proposes? That these natural disasters that kill thousands by the hundreds are deliberate acts of God.

Christianity teaches that Christ brought a new covenant, a new way to get closer to God, and live together. What if God's had it with that covenant? What if we've failed him? And after 2,000 years, he's tired of giving everyone a free pass because Jesus died on the cross? Might not a God that's pissed off at the kids still living in the basement after 2000 years take a little dramatic action to prompt them to move out on their own?

It's a terribly fascinating concept. And terrifying. Imagine, having a living validation of your faith tell you that you essentially have to give up on the spiritual portion of your faith in order to stay faithful. It truly takes the phrase "if you love something, set it free" to entirely new levels that I think most people wouldn't or couldn't manage.

Oh, and the art no longer bothers me. I appreciate it, even like it. Change scares me, but I can adapt.

Y'know, something occurred to me. It involves the fact that, there being so many human religions that can't agree on what God wants, why should the angels be any different?

After all, angels are theoretically below human beings in most estimations I've read; they are supposedly servants of God, and have no free will like mankind's. That may also mean they may have lower abilities to percieve and understand things. Even if they have the same perceptivity and comprehension as humans, who's to say that they are any less free of prejudice or interpretation than us humans?

So maybe Lee's description of God's desires are filtered through Lee's cynicism. Perhaps other angels may have completely different perceptions. (I also kind of suspect that you'd have to BE God to know what God wants. Or that maybe God plays things close to the vest.)