| |
|
The worship = God-food model of deity put forward in Gaiman's work is indeed damaging, but to only to lazy magicians who treat it like Gospel, not to the Gods. They endure. You can tear down Their temples, you can put Their worshippers to death, you can demonise and slander them; but the God will remain.
So, a couple different things.
First of all, Neil Gaiman isn't listed as the author of that Bast comic. It's spun off his world. I'm not sure if that affects anything here. I don't know enough about Joe Bennet and Caitlin R. Kiernan to comment on their philosophy and attitudes in other stuff.
Second, I think the worship=food idea being put forth is there because it does interesting things to the stories, and in that context the point is to tell an interesting story, and perhaps explore interesting ideas in the process, even if it turns out, when you're done poking at it, that it doesn't apply after all.
I don't think it's absoloutely untrue, but I don't think it's a face-value thing, either. It's just not that simple.
I liked the way Gaiman had that bit in American Gods better, perhaps, than in Sandman. In Sandman he had to deal with the existing DC/Vertigo universe, for one thing. The dramatic difference in interpretation of Odin, Loki, Bast, etc. in that book vs. Sandman show that Gaiman isn't wedded to either depiction. Aspects of gods, specific faces, may come and go and grow and die with the force of worship supporting them. But the power behind those names, those faces endures.
I think it's an interesting perspective on why, first of all, these hugely powerful beings seem to be just as much subject to human politics as anything else (If the gods are so powerful, why did Christianity take over Europe?) and yet seem to be able to resurface in so many different ways in so many different places (In some places Frigga is Freya. In others They're sepparate. How are both true?)
--Ember-- |
|
|
