The Sword and Laser discussion

This topic is about
Hyperion
2012 Reads
>
Hyp: Chapter One: The Cruciform and Christianity
date
newest »

This was a really interesting section of the book. I think it could be that Christianity is the Cruciform perverted somehow, or re-told in a way that makes sense on a planet where the Cruciform doesn't exist.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about either topic to make an informed guess :)
I'm not knowledgeable enough about either topic to make an informed guess :)


Let me just say...keep reading to the end of the series.


I always find myself rushing to find out whether an author is religious or not, or conservative or liberal in his social views, as a shortcut to framing the text. I shouldn't.
It's curious to me that he sets up a horrific picture of what religion can become in the Bikura (i.e. a mindless cult with ritual for ritual's sake), and that's what leads the priest to rediscover his faith. He sees the negative reflection of the religion he wants.
In my mind, someone from any belief system could have written this and the results would be as equally open to discussion and interpretation. I'm almost sorry I saw the other thread about Simmons' xenophobia, because it certainly has informed my reading of ch. 2.


Maybe at first, the human and the alien meaning of the word have nothing to do with each other, but the more the two worlds collide, the more they have in common.
(view spoiler)
I think, that just because the crucible seems to be perverting so many religious aspects (view spoiler) , the humans are more likely to see it as a religious symbol.
Zac mentioned it being a connection to the inquisition and I also see this coming up, but differently (view spoiler)
I haven't read Endymion yet, but it's definitely on my list.

I agree with Zac, in that I see the literal binding analogous to the metaphorical kind conducted in Christian liturgy and culture. It is a twisted form of religion (the Cruciform) where the holy is actively bound to you and you to it. But I do not see it necessarily as a negative comment on Christianity and religion in general, more as a critique on the nature of a literal holy or god-like being. Father Dure's voice is tinged with desperation and hope - he wishes to be able to prove to others and himself, as well that God does exist, but when he finds the truth, he is horrified and disgusted. But for a moment (I thought), he does consider it a possibility, that this truly is God and these people truly are worshippers of the true divine being.
I lost my track of thought there. I'll think about this some more, for sure, and see if I can be a bit more coherent in the morning.

Agreed. Its going to be hard to bite my tongue and not say things that would be spoilerish.


By suppressing the free will of the believer and punishing the attempt of liberation by the sceptic the Cruciform reveals its true intentions of bending a person to its own cause. This is exactly what you can find in many sects in our time.
The fact that Simmons makes the connection to christianity as the most influential religions of the western world is pretty blunt and open criticism.
I am looking forward to see what the Cult of the Shrike is really like, because I can't believe it to be purely evil.

I'll also simply say to those speculating so far off just the priests tale . . . .keep reading. This series will get very deep into matters of faith, what it means to believe, and how that belief can effect everyone. There will be times when you think he's being pro christian, others when you think he's being anti christian, and then you'll realize that neither was ever really his intent.

So maybe the original Bikura descendants were Christians and the "shape" of the "cruciform" was coincidental? And then they changed their religion accordingly? Or did Simmons just not think it through properly? I guess I'll have to suspend judgement until I've read some more.

There are definite reasons for everything. The shape in the form of a cross is not an accident and the reasons why will be explained though I don't think its til near the end of the 2nd book you find out. If you don't know the 1st and 2nd books are really one long book split in two. The narrative style is much more straightforward in the 2nd but its picks up pretty much right from the cliffhanger endings of book one.


I'm intrigued by the notion that Christianity is a perverted response to the cruciform parasite. In that case, like much mythology, we can see a religious ritual which grows out of an attempt to explain an unrelated phenomenon. The cruciform literally does essentially what Christianity promises to do: it offers eternal life in exchange for obedience. What might be the source of Father Dure's horror is that, given that promise, there are plenty of people who would be willing to make that bargain. How can the vague afterlife promises of his own religion possibly compete with a 'god' who offers literal ressurection? So what does he do? He reproduces the Christian symbology, layering it over the top of the reality of the cruciform parasite, by placing himself on a cross, hanging himself on the tree like Christ in an attempt to co-opt the cruciform's message.

LOL, do we need to warn you that this is actually a FOUR book series. While the 3rd and 4th are not direct sequels to the first two books they are in the same universe only a few hundred years later and will pick up some of the hanging plot threads from the first two books. A few characters from the first two books do make appearances in the 3rd and 4th books but probably not the ones you expect as it mostly centers around two new characters and a 3rd character who does appear in the first two but in a very minor way.

I have only read the first chapter, but I assumed Christianity and the Bikura faith to be separate religious beliefs entirely, only sharing a common symbol (the cross). But as P. Aaron points out, one cannot deny the common bonds in the two beliefs -- eternal life through obedience and the Christ-like death of Father Dure.

All will be explained and all will make sense. Suffice it to say you don't have near enough information right now to even hazard a guess.


I love stories that make me think this hard about the universe they play in.

It's all connected to vampires, right? It always comes down to vampires with S&L.


It is very well thought out and there are definite reasons for everything. You just have to learn a whole lot more. Every pilgrims story is like a puzzle piece and gives you an important part of the history and important persons / entities in the universe. The Priest tale introduces the cruciforms. The soldiers tale tells the backround of the Hegemony / Ouster wars. The Poets tale tells the history of what happened to Earth and how Hyperion was founded. The Detectives tale tells about the Techno Core. The Scholars tell tells about the Time Tombs on Hyperion and hints about what they might be about. The Consuls tale tells about worlds being forced into the Hegemony. Once you've read all of them you can start to see part of the puzzle and start making better guesses but there will still be gaps that won't be filled in until book two. Suffice it to say there are reasons and little is random.

I think Veronica is spot on.
Christianity perverts the Cruciform. Although I don't really know what this term means.
So here is what I think based on a guess of the meaning of that term. Christianity in the USA at least perverts what Christ did or at least what is purported that he did.



Whether this is relevant to the book as a whole, the priest's tale did make me think about the nature of religion, along with the dichotomies of origin and evolution, obedience/acceptance versus defiance/challenge, death/true death versus rebirth/being saved, ritual versus rote.
I think this chapter was successful for me because it actually made me think about things beyond the story and how to fit that into the way my world is now and where it came from and where it is heading. I found it philosophically meaningful outside the scope of the story.
Origin/evolution: Which came first, the Cross (our version of Christianity) or the Cruciform? And I don't necessarily mean that in context of the Hyperion story, but just about religion origins in general. Stargate deals with this in that Egypt's religion didn't originate on Earth, it originated elsewhere.
Death/rebirth: Obedience (acceptance) ties into this as well. I liked the comment about the Bikura becoming angels. And I'll take that a step further, it was as if the Bikura de-volved to this state of "angel-ness." That was a chilling thought I hadn't considered until now.
Finally, obedience vs. defiance links in with rote vs. ritual aspect, which is something that we can see in religion today. We get so caught up in the rote that we forget what the point of ritual is about: to remember. Some ritual can put us in a meditative state that helps us grok something even more. Repeating things, such as the congregation saying a key phrase after a priest says something during mass, or saying Namaste at the end of yoga, or saying ten Hail Marys, or the prayer rituals of other religions, etc. Sometimes to me they sound like drones, in that I don't always think they know what they are saying or why they are saying it. It's just what they do and have always done.
The Bikura did everything by rote. The reason for why they did what they did didn't matter. And it mattered even less as they lost their intelligence through each rebirth. In this aspect, they were more like animals: behaving on instinct without really understanding why they were doing what they were doing. Unlike Dure, who always wanted to know why. Why do this, why do that.
So in the bigger scheme, do we obey, or do we defy? In Dure's ultimate defiance he became more of the Cruciform than the Bikura ever did.
What message is that sending?
(Note: I haven't read the Canterbury Tales, don't know anything about Keats, and have never read Hyperion before.)


Check this out yo:
Christ was resurrected after dying on the cross.
The Bikura are resurrected after dying with the cross on them.
Whoa.
But I have to admit, having been raised Catholic and going to a Catholic grade school for 9 years- this chapter is super creepy. I actually read Hyperion & The Fall of Hyperion over 10 years ago but totally can't remember what happens so, like Ani Difranco's goldfish with its plastic castle, I am really looking forward to the surprise here.

P.Aaron, may I say: you have my COMPLETE agreement there. This thread is an excellent case in point. I would be very interested to dig into what Simmons was saying about religion in this book. However, I believe those who have said that you can't really do justice to the point Simmons was trying to make unless you read both (and really all 4) books. That kind of kills this discussion, or limits us to mere conjecture.
So really, this club should either 1) Eliminate series fiction [the obvious answer] or 2) Commit to reading the entire series before we can discuss it intelligently. And of course, choice 2) would be too ponderous. Few would stick to it.
Veronica said something to the effect that we should limit our choices to stand-alone books. I enthusiastically second the motion. Otherwise, our discussions can't reach their true potential.

I think excluding serialized novels is going overboard- I mean, that's a huge part of sci-fi/fantasy. can't we just agree not to staunch conversations on account of something we're hypothesizing about being revealed in later installments? Isn't the unknown what makes reading fun?
I say if you've already read the following books that reveal whatever it is that other people are hypothesizing about, just keep it to yourself and let the first-timers enjoy the guessing game of it all.

Another option would be to go into it with eyes open. Maybe it was inadequately communicated but I certainly got the word that Hyperion was divided into two parts by the publisher. Would you be more inclined to read a multinthousand page tome? Writers are mostly at the mercy of their publishers. Unless you are perhaps someone like Stephen King...hence the thousand page tomes.


No, that's been made clear. What's been a point of contention is whether the publisher was right to do so, whether this really is two separate works, whether a multithousand page tome would have been more or less readable, whether Dan Simmons, or Stephen King for that matter, needs a more aggressive editor to tell him to get to the point already, and a host of other questions.

BTW I'm more than half serious that S&L should consider a SF anthology sometime. At least that way maybe most of the Goodreads and S&L readers will all find something they like. I find the hyper-critical very off-putting.

What do you think? If you've read the book already, feel free to make fun.