The Sword and Laser discussion

What's the connection between the Cruciform and Christianity? Is it coincidence? Is the Cruciform Christianity perverted (or vice-versa?!)?

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

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 would say christianity is the cruxiform diluted more than perverted maybe. I suppose people have in the past used religion to explain things they can't explain maybe this could be the case here.

As someone who's read the entire Cantos, this is a thread I'll be watching with interest.

aldenoneil wrote: "If you've read the book already, feel free to make fun"

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

I found the story of the Pater quite scary, listening to it on audio at night. My initial take on it was just this, a feeling of horror, especially with the twist at the end. Thinking a bit more about it, the cruciform might indeed be meant as a perverted from of religion. I just started the second story, so I am curious to how this will all connect in the end.

Nicolai wrote: "Thinking a bit more about it, the cruciform might indeed be meant as a perverted from of religion."

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.

I feel that there is a connection between christianity and the cruciform. For a lot of people their religeon is forced upon them as a little child. Bound by their parents decisions they go through their childhood being raised by a certain following. Some of those that follow the religeon follow blind and stupidly. I contribute this to the original cruciform followers. I also see a connection to the inquisition here, where if you are not a follower of the cruiciform/christianity you were killed. These are just begining thoughts as I went through reading this section. I also feel that there are several other connections (view spoiler)[I looked up the information on the rest of the series and found out that if has a huge involvement on the rest of the books (hide spoiler)] are made to the catholic and christian beliefs.

Maybe the cruciform is also there to show us, that religious symbols might mean nothing to other cultures.

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)[Paul Durè seems - at least to me - to have problems explaining his meaning of the word cruciform to the indigenious. The story even jokes about his translator using "the wrong word". (hide spoiler)]
I think, that just because the crucible seems to be perverting so many religious aspects (view spoiler)[the rebirth, the rituals, the god/shrike (hide 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)[In the end, M. Orlandi and Hoyt attack the bikura and kill all of them. Maybe they saw them as some kind of sacrilege to their religion. (hide spoiler)]

I haven't read Endymion yet, but it's definitely on my list.

First let me get this off my chest: Holy crow, was that intense. Seriously, my mind is reeling right now. I even gasped in several places.

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.

Nevan wrote: "As someone who's read the entire Cantos, this is a thread I'll be watching with interest."

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

I think its a play in how much sacrifice its takes to actually follow the commandments. No matter what sect your talking about.

I think the Cruciform symbolizes the strong bond that some people have to their deity. It mocks any religious belief, not just christianity (it's just the only one that has one defining symbol representing it), by overdrawing the connection between faith and behaviour.
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.

Staying spoiler free as I've read the entire series I think Simmons does a good job with faith and religion in this series. He shows both the good of it when the right people are spreading the message and the bad where people will pervert the message to justify bad things. The books will also delve into the meaning of faith, particularly in the scholar's tale.

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.

I'm not entirely sure if Simmons is attempting to propose that the Christian Crucifix/symbolism is originally derived from an alien culture ie that the Christian crucifix on Old Earth is not necessarily merely a symbol derived from a Roman method of execution but is somehow related to this alien parasite on Hyperion. This is what he appears to be proposing but then we are not left with an explanation as to why the term "cruciform" is used ie why is an alien parasite on another planet named in reference to a specific Roman cultural practice on Old Earth?
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.

David wrote: "I'm not entirely sure if Simmons is attempting to propose that the Christian Crucifix/symbolism is originally derived from an alien culture ie that the Christian crucifix on Old Earth is not necess..."

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 really enjoyed the way everything gets turned on its head in the priest tale. He follows in the steps of the missionary priest converting the savages, but he himself gets (forcibly) converted. How he finds faith when confronted with the Shrike. How the simple and lowly Bikura are reborn sexless, like angels.

{Aside: the number of references to how necessary the second book is to understanding the first book are really underscoring to me why it might be good to ditch series fiction which can't stand on its own in selections for a book group.}

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.

P. Aaron wrote: "{Aside: the number of references to how necessary the second book is to understanding the first book are really underscoring to me why it might be good to ditch series fiction which can't stand on ..."

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.

Is it 400 years that the 70 Bikura have followed the cruciform? I don't recall if that is true, but if it is, then one wouldn't assume Christianity to be an evolution of the Bikura way (I suppose I am hoping that is not true in this novel).

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.

Peter wrote: "Is it 400 years that the 70 Bikura have followed the cruciform? I don't recall if that is true, but if it is, then one wouldn't assume Christianity to be an evolution of the Bikura way (I suppose I..."

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.

The Bikura have been there only 400 years, but Dure describes the basilica as being at least ten thousand years older than human space travel.

Maybe there were other Bikura before that.
I love stories that make me think this hard about the universe they play in.

Rik wrote: "Suffice it to say you don't have near enough information right now to even hazard a guess. "

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

I think speculating on the depth and breadth of the Hyperion Cantos after just reading the Priests Tale is very premature. I'm about half way through Hyperion and at least I for one can rest assured that Dan Simmons has thought this whole storyline through. I didn't dwell too much on religious symbolism. To me The Priests Tale is mostly a science fiction horror story. Scared the crap out of me.

Joe wrote: "I think speculating on the depth and breadth of the Hyperion Cantos after just reading the Priests Tale is very premature. I'm about half way through Hyperion and at least I for one can rest assure..."

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.

Hi my name is Jeremie.

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.

Ditto Jeremie and Veronica. I would add that it took 3 days to regenerate Alpha -- the same number of days Christ spends in the tomb before the resurrection. This seems to strengthen the claim that Christianity had somehow evolved from the reality of the Cruciform. I would argue this is an important element of the story since it is mentioned twice (at the beginning and end of that diary entry) that it was the third day since Alpha had died.

I don't actually think Simmons intention here is to suggest a "Davinci Code" style alternative to Christian history -(view spoiler)[At least he doesn't follow this line of thought through even to the second book (hide spoiler)] but rather the Biblical parallels/references serve to highlight his religious criticisms - in particular Christian doctrines like the Resurrection.

Chapter One started off slow, but once Dure interacted with the Bikura, I was an avid listener.

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.)

So the Pope is an alien-human hybrid, sporting clusters of this parasitic organism. That would be my guess, but I'm not that far into the book. The structure has me a little off kilter.

David Sven wrote: "I'm not entirely sure if Simmons is attempting to propose that the Christian Crucifix/symbolism is originally derived from an alien culture ie that the Christian crucifix on Old Earth is not necess..."

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 wrote: "{Aside: the number of references to how necessary the second book is to understanding the first book are really underscoring to me why it might be good to ditch series fiction which can't stand on ..."

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.

Scott wrote: "P. Aaron wrote: "{Aside: the number of references to how necessary the second book is to understanding the first book are really underscoring to me why it might be good to ditch series fiction whic..."

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.

Scott wrote: "P. Aaron wrote: "{Aside: the number of references to how necessary the second book is to understanding the first book are really underscoring to me why it might be good to ditch series fiction whic..."

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.

If anyone were truly serious about laying the ban hammer on serialized work then perhaps S&L should switch to reading SF short story anthologies only, that's where SF excels anyway.

Joe wrote: "Maybe it was inadequately communicated but I certainly got the word that Hyperion was divided into two parts by the publisher...."

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.

In the 21st century, I think a Stephen King is beyond editing unlike the 19th century for the likes of a Mark Twain, who I have great admiration for, and it's probably due, in no small measure, to his editors. I agree, they should all get to the point already. One of the great things ivevalways admired about the writing of Kurt Vonnegutt who made a great point of communicating his stories in the shortest space possible. I miss that guy.

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.

I see reading as something like food or drink, if you don't like it stop consuming it, but you don't need to go on and on about how much everyone hated what they just consumed.

I find the hyper-critical very off-putting.

+1!

Hear, hear.