After the horror known as Hush Hush, I felt like I deserved something kind of funny. Something bad, but in an unintentional comedy kind of way. So, when I found Halo, a blatant Twilight rip off only with Tastes Like Diabetes angels instead of sparkly vampires, I thought I had found a good option. And, in some ways, I was right. It was far less creepy than Hush Hush, and the love interest wasn’t sociopathic. Yet, somehow, the whole thing managed to make me more angry than Hush Hush or Fallen ever managed to.
The author’s raging ego, smug moralistic attitude, and obvious utter hatred for her own peers quite took my breath away.
There is nothing that this author manages to do right, and the sheer amount of failure made it so that, if I did review it, I wouldn’t have been able to keep it to a decent length. So, I did the only thing that I could. I decided to tear it apart chapter by chapter.
Background
So, Halo was written by the then seventeen Alexandra Adornetto, who had all the potential to become a Dancing Bear of the Paopao-esque kind. The thing is, she didn’t. She was published before this at fourteen, and no one really even noticed her. Even Halo hasn’t changed things too much. This isn’t to say that her work isn’t popular; it’s just that it never managed to quite achieve the publicity or interest the way that Paopao did. It’s still something of a Dancing Bear, and a bestseller, but the fanbase is pretty quiet about this one. The one person I’d talked to who admitted to reading the book said that she did so for ‘guilty pleasures’.
Adornetto was published by a group that calls itself Feiwell and Friends, that states that “books are friends for life” or some such nonsense. I don’t want to be friends with this book. I don’t really even want to be passing acquaintances with it. I’m still annoyed by the fact that I had to pay for it to do this sporking. Oh, and she has the dedication on the copyright page. This seems…cheap.
Anyways, in my opinion, there are two things that contribute to the fact that Paopao is better known and more popular than Adornetto. The first is that, despite the fact that Paolini is trying to channel Tolkien but doesn’t have the verbal firepower or linguistic knowledge to do so, he can actually get a person from point A to point B. It might not make sense, and there might be huge things that aren’t explained or developed, but he can start the hero out at point A and have stuff happen that (mostly) justifies his going to point B. And stuff DOES actually happen. Adornetto doesn’t seem to realize that this is necessary for a story. Secondly, from Minoan Ferret’s article on Paolini’s interview and some personal research, he seems to be a nice enough guy. He even (kind of) tries to address things that his critics point out by sticking things in his later books. Which means that he at least listens. Adornetto has written such charming articles as Why Teenage Boys Suck More Than Vampires, presented here in sporked form for your sanity’s sake. I don’t know how she’s reacted to her critics as of yet, but this, coupled with the tone of the books, doesn’t reflect well on how approachable she is.
I was aware of this before reading this book, but I thought that, as a Twilight clone, it would be more of the same tripe that I’d gotten used to. Yet, somehow, she was even more tiresome than the original.
There is only one thing worse than smug, preachy, self-righteous fiction: smug, preachy, self righteous fiction where the author doesn’t know very much about the religion that she’s being smug, preachy and self-righteous about. And as I am a member of the religion that she is being so ignorantly smug about, I see it as not just my pleasure, but my duty, to point out everything wrong with her portrayal. And don’t worry, Adornetto, I’ve been brushing up my angel lore just for you.
This isn’t to say that I wouldn’t want to spork this thing for its lack of plot, stupid Sues, and general fail; I just get some icing on my cake for it.
Cover Impressions
Alright, shoot me, but I actually like the cover. The outline of a girl with wings that couldn’t possibly allow you to fly leaning in for a kiss with an outline of a guy leaning against the outline of a tree works for this.
Why? Because it is promising nothing that it isn’t going to deliver. There is no plot, there is no mystery or excitement or even conflict. It’s over stylized and over ‘pretty’ but really, you’re going to get just what you paid for. Pointless romance and angels that don’t really make any sense for the whole novel. Maybe a plot will wander in at some point, but that’s about all you can hope for. It’s pretty and pointless and fits the entire mood of the novel.
Alright, let’s jump right in.
Chapter 1: Descent
Our arrival didn’t exactly go as planned. pg. 1
There’s a plan in this book?
Jokes aside, this is our opening line, or hook, as people call it. It’s supposed to make the reader want to keep going, and I’ll grant that it’s following the usual format: a short sentence that hints that something is about to happen. I’d also like to note that, like Twilight, this book is narrated in first person.
Now, I don’t dislike this way of writing. In fact, in the hands of a good author, it can give the character a unique voice and really add to the story. Take The Dresden Files. It’s written in first person, and it’s really great. However, first person is also one of the hardest narrative modes because it’s so restrictive. You can’t discuss anything that isn’t right in front of the heroine, and if you narrate wrong, the heroine sounds like a vapid little moron or slightly sociopathic. But, hey, Twilight did it, so we have to do it here too.
So, they appear in a bright column of light right in suburbia in front of some random paperboy that we’ll never see again. I would have thought that the Powers of Goodness and Light (I refuse to refer to these bozos as ‘Heaven’) would have been a little more careful about that kind of thing. Also, she mentions that no one else is awake. I find this very doubtful. If there’s a paperboy, there are other people awake. Joggers for instance. Even if they weren’t awake in the immediate area, a bright, steady column of light is going to be seen for miles. You know that scene in Return of the King where that giant beam of light had people stare at it from another country? That’s pretty much what would have happened. The army would have been sniffing around and UFO theorists would be going wild. Yes, Adorenetto, people would notice it.
Also…I don’t know about most neighborhoods, but all the ones I’ve lived in have papers delivered off a truck. This whole thing has a kind of nineteen fifties vibe that makes me nervous.
Finally, Adornetto, you’re saying that after nearly two thousand years (if you don’t count various apparitions and such) God has sent down his angels to Earth, and the place they think needs them the most is middle class white suburban America? I can think of a few places that might just need angels a little more.
Congratulations, we’re not even off the first page, and you’ve managed to fail.
Moving on, the narrator mentions that the paperboy is shocked to see them for some reason and promptly launches into some description.
Despite our human form, something about us startled him—perhaps it was our skin, which was as luminous as the moon or our loose white traveling garments, which were in tatters from the turbulent decent. Perhaps it was the way we looked at our limbs as if we had no idea what to do with them, or the water vapor still clinging to our hair. pg. 1
The entirety of the book is written like this.
How does water vapor, which is a gas, cling to hair? Maybe their hair is made of smoke or something? Shouldn’t an editor have noticed this flaw?
Now, while the bodiless hosts of Heaven are in fact bodiless, this isn’t the first time that they’ve been visible. Nor is it the first time that they’ve been in bodily form. Gabriel announcing to the Virgin Mary that she was going to have Christ comes to mind, as does a story in the Old Testament about a man called Balem who was going to get cut down by an angel if his donkey hadn’t shown more sense than him and avoided it. There are other stories about angels having physical interactions with people, but I think I’ve made my point.
Also, why are they white? Seriously?
The paperboy swerves on his bike, crashes into the side of the road, and probably gets some minor injuries. He lives though and manages to stand up. The narrator and her three companions all reach out their hands for some reason (maybe the first draft had the kid on the ground) in unison. The kid is freaked out and makes a run for it, leaving the bike. The narrator thinks that it’s because she didn’t smile. Never giving a thought to the fact that it was because they just appeared in a beam of light.
You, dear heroine, are an idiot.
Our protagonist has some issues with walking around, which from the Bible (particularly the Catholic Book of Tobit where we had the Archangel Raphael descending and traveling with Tobit’s kid) didn’t seem to be much of a problem for the angels. Next, even if she’s never actually descended before, it seems like a kind of bad idea for you to beam down someone who can’t walk yet in the middle of a suburb. Why not just have them appear off the highway close to the city or something? That way, they can get practice walking at least. What is the point of appearing in the suburb? (No, I’m not done harping on this.)
The first named character, Gabriel, walks over and props up the bike. Thus ensuring that any passing thief can walk up and take it. Our still unnamed protagonist has a little fantasy that involves what happens to the boy.
I imagined the boy bursting through the front door of his home and relating the story to his stunned parents. His mother would push the hair back from his forehead to check his temperature. His father, bleary eyed, would comment on the mind’s ability to play tricks on you when it has time to wander. pg 3
Wouldn’t it be awesome if this kid had conspiracy theorists for parents and they believed him and thought that the aliens had landed and showed up with guns? Or at least, if they were people who would believe him and not assume that he just daydreamed about a giant beam of light coming down from the sky for everyone to see in the middle of a suburb?
What’s worse is that this really could have tied into the story. Something could have come from this. This kid could have told someone who ended up being important, but no. All we get is this little bit of narration, and we never see this kid again. That whole thing was completely unnecessary.
Gr.
Moving on, the characters suddenly head onto Bryon Street and start looking for number fourteen without explaining just why we are looking for this address. I know it’s so they can stay there, but for all the text tells us, it’s just because the paperboy’s conspiracy theorist parents are having a cookout. At this point the narrator complains about how weird and new everything is because she came from a pure white world and all of a sudden there is color.
This is why I hate novels that deal with Heaven. People can never manage to make it sound better than this world.
She complains about how awful and loud the noise is and how she can hear everything, and Gabriel tells her that she’ll get used to it. He has a “low and hypnotic” voice and my mind somehow went to places that I really don’t want it to go when concerning an Archangel.
I’m going to go to Hell for reading this book, I just know it.
The third character of the trio is named Ivy and she claps her hands like an infant when she sees the house that’s named Bryon. Apparently they named the house?
The streets of the town are named for Romantic Poets. But not the houses.
This seems like one of those obnoxious pretentious tourist traps that tries to get snobs to visit, but doesn’t have a clue what the ideas behind the Romantic movement were, other that the fact that the word ‘romantic’ was involved. It wasn’t about fancy houses or fancy language. Actually, the Romantics were noted for using less flowery language than the Classical Poets. If Adornetto is trying to use the Romantics as a motif, she’s not doing it right.
Our main characters stare at the house for a while, and we get some overly long description of the place and how it was “built to weather any adversity”.
Who talks like this? I know that this is supposed to be an angel, but seriously, this narration is annoying and pretentious. I feel like the author is just flaunting her vocabulary for the sake of showing off. Or maybe she was practicing for the SAT or something.
We get our very first conversation between our three characters, and I feel it necessary to show it to you all in all of its glory.
“Bethany, hand me the key,” said Gabriel. Looking after the key to the house was the only job that I had been entrusted with. I felt around deep in the pockets of my dress. [It was called a robe earlier.]
“It’s here somewhere,” I assured him.
“Please tell me that you haven’t lost it already.”
“We did fall out of the sky, you know,” I said indignantly. “It’s easy for things to go missing.”
Ivy laughed suddenly. “You’re wearing it around your neck.” pg. 4
I’m starting to see why Gabriel was needed on this mission. These two don’t have a brain cell between them.
I suppose that this is as bad a time as any for a name rant.
Ok, kids, it’s time to play a game! Can you guess what is similar in all of these names: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Azrael, Sealtiel, and Jerahmeel? It’s the format of their names. Unless you’re talking about some of the angels in Islam, angels tend to have the same structure, ending in ‘el’, which always has something to do with God. Michael (Who is like God), Gabriel (Man of God or maybe Strength of God) and Raphael (God’s Healing) are the best known in the Catholic Church. There are others, but they’re more sketchy. Bethany is not an angelic name. Neither is Ivy.
Bethany has some connections to the Bible since it’s where Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Lazarus come from, but it means ‘House of Figs’, and it’s a place. Not overly pertaining to God. ‘Ivy’ is just a plant.
This is research that took me five minutes on Google. It would have been easy to just use some obscure, feminine sounding name (like Ariel, even though it’s traditionally a boy’s name) and go with that.
This is lazy writing.
They come into the house and stand around staring at the place, and we get another block of description. The house is all white and modern with marble everywhere, and it sounds like one of those super expensive modern horrors that feature in various magazines.
Or the Cullen’s house!
So, we get a break and are told that then first few weeks are pretty much spent doing nothing. The Agents of Light and Goodness are bums.
They sit there getting used to the textures, sights, smells and general reality of the human world. The problem with this is, naturally, time, and the fact that this doesn’t make any sense when looking at the few stories written when people did interact with angels. Is this saying that the Angelic Hosts were sitting around drinking fig juice while waiting to announce the birth of Christ for a month? Wouldn’t they have something better to do? What about the other mentions like where three angels appeared to Abraham and Sarah and sat with them? Or the Annunciation. These visits were brief, but at the same time, the angels were corporeal, so this whole recovery and seeing the human world thing is showing just how little actual knowledge or thought is present in this book.
Also, Bethany should know about the things she’s mentioned. From most religious texts, it’s not like angels stay exclusively up in Heaven. Bethany should have descended from Heaven at least a few times, particularly if she’s been around since before the planet was created. Even if she’s an idiot and hasn’t…isn’t there some sort of…preparatory course or something? Descending to Earth for Dummies? The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Human World? Anything?
Bethany mentions that there is some faceless “mentor”, as she puts it, (Why does Gabriel need a mentor?) who’s prepping them. A little late don’t you think, morons? There’s some mention that the Powers of Light and Goodness are pretty clueless about renting houses since they think they can provide documentation after you’ve been living in the house for a week, and finally it’s mentioned that there are other angels all over the world, but it’s pretty vague, and then we come up with this gem:
There are some corners of the earth riddled with the Agents of Darkness. pg. 6
I think we found out what happened to the people who weren’t classy enough to stick with the Club of Evil when it became the Society of Evil. Instead of learning the proper way to stir Evil Tea or how to comment on a lady’s Evil Hairdo without being offensive, they just became their own group called the Agency of Darkness. I wonder if they sing the Mother Earth song.
Also, if there are places riddled with Agents of Darkness, why are these three sitting around this place goofing off? It seems to me that, if the Powers of Light and Goodness would like to get rid of evil powers, they might want to actually fight them instead of play games.
Bethany, sensing the importance of the situation, asks why toothpaste gives her a headache, and for whatever reason, the mentor doesn’t smack her and gives her a half-baked excuse to cover up for the fact that Bethany is such a Purity Sue that the slightest hint of Evil TM man made things harms her delicate pureness. I’m getting a toothache.
We get a long paragraph where Bethany whines about how hard it is to adjust to human life (AKA wearing clothes and eating), and Bethany mentions that she’s young. This makes no sense.
They spend another couple of weeks doing nothing. What is this, some sort of vacation? And how they love to read. Because nothing bad ever comes from books. And, apparently, angels like stupid human novels.
They mention that they avoid people, and when they go out in public, they seem so interested in one another that that Muggles, who would be just so interested in meeting them, won’t approach…and…I’m starting to want to scream DO SOMETHING at the book.
Blast it, we’ve heard mention of a war between Heaven and Hell, and I want to see some fighting!
Seriously, in a chapter, something must happen. That something must advance the story, and the events leading up to it must be interesting enough to keep the reader’s attention. Otherwise we have unimportant drivel that’s completely boring about characters who the reader doesn’t care about. This entire chapter feels like it could have been condensed or cut out. The characters sit around and contemplate their navels the entire time anyways. A halfway decent editor would haven’t have allowed this.
There’s some brief mention of going to see a priest who actually says “Good heavens”. His name is Father Mel. Like Mel Gibson. I wonder if this is intentional. So, anyways, the priest just automatically knows that they’re angels. I guess the Vatican has a special ‘recognizing angels even when they’re stupid’ course. I’m going to have some issues with the man later, so I’ll move on. We finally get our justification for this train wreck.
We hoped that in time our subtle influence in the town might result in people reconnecting with their spirituality. We didn’t expect them to be observant and go to church every Sunday, but we wanted to restore their faith and teach them to believe in miracles. pg. 7
Bethany, the Church canon disagrees with you. This is why I hate it when people who don’t know anything about Catholicism attempt to write about it. We are not a sweet religion filled with hugs and good feelings. It is actually a Mortal Sin not to go to church on Sunday, and you have to confess it lest you face Hell. You’d think an angel would know better. Now, there are people who disagree with this and say it’s not a big deal and God will understand. Fine. I just think that it’s a little presumptuous to assume that God shares this view when you’re dealing with a religion that doesn’t. Also, what about Protestants? Non-Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? New Age practitioners? There are a lot of religions in this country, and that’s another reason why, when dealing with angels, you have to be really careful.
Now, I don’t actually know what Adornetto’s religion is. For all I know, she’s nominal Catholic or something, but it doesn’t sound like it. And, no, the ‘it’s just fiction’ excuse does not apply to this. Adornetto, you are dealing with a living religion; there are people who believe that this is the truth. This is, for people who do believe, kind of like writing a story about how Abraham Lincoln had an illegitimate daughter named Raven who falls in love with John Wilkes Booth. Ok, maybe not Booth. Maybe a Southern general, but you get the picture.
Finally, ‘believe in miracles’? Did I just walk into some saccharine Disney knockoff or something? starts singing in a screechy soprano Miracles happen, miracles happen. You showed me faith is not blind! I don’t need wings to help me! Miracles happen, miracles happen…
Ahem
So moving on. While they’re walking by the docks, we meet…drumroll A BOY!
He’s fishing but immediately strikes up a conversation with Bethany, who’s the only one who answers because, as she puts it, “my human curiosity drew me forwards.” There’s only one problem with that, Bethany: you’re not human. You never were and you, hopefully, never will be. Looking human doesn’t make you human. The only person who was both human and divine was Jesus.
…Don’t you dare…
They have a stupid conversation about how he’s fishing and throws everything he catches back in, which is really sweet and all, so long as you know nothing about fishing.
Think about it. The fish is, essentially, putting a sharp hook in it’s mouth that the person uses to drag it out of the water. So now you’re going to take this fish that is probably in as much pain as a fish can feel (you take one of those hooks and push it through your lip) and just throw it back? Why are you catching it in the first place? At least fishermen are killing the thing for food. You’re just using it as an excuse to bum around, and I have the feeling that Adornetto is sitting behind the keyboard feeling good about herself because, while he fishes, he doesn’t kill the poor things.
No, he just tortures them.
This is, naturally, lost on Bethany, who’s too busy expositing about how hawt Boy is.
The boy’s light brown hair was the color of walnuts. It flopped over his brow and had a lustrous sheen in the fading light. His pale eyes were almond shaped and a striking turquoise blue in color. But it was his smile that was utterly mesmerizing. So that was how it was done, I thought: effortlessly, instinctively, and so utterly human. As I watched, I felt drawn to him, almost by some magnetic force. pg. 9
Meet our love interest. Bethany literally falls in love with the first guy she sees.
…I have nothing to say to this.
So, Boy asks if Bethany wants to try torturing the fish, but Gabriel tells Bethany to “come away”.
I noticed how formal Gabriel’s speech pattern was compared to the boy’s. pg. 9
Bethany, you are not in the position to talk about over formalized diction. I’ve seen your interior narrative.
As they leave, Bethany gets prissy about how Gabriel was being ‘rude’ and at least trying to act like a heavenly being and not being overly interested in teenagers and their stupid hormones. Ivy speaks, doesn’t sound like a braindead infant for once, and backs up Gabriel, saying that they’re not ready to contact people yet. Bethany says that she thinks she is and looks behind her as Boy is watching them and still smiling.
I know that this is supposed to show that he’s sweet and interested in her…but honestly…I think it’s…creepy. It’s like his brains have been sucked out to be replaced with a kind of dull happiness.
…BETHANY’S A MIND VAMPIRE!
That’s our first chapter, people, and it’s not going to get any better than this.
If you have a religion, pray for me, if not…send me good vibes or something. Or just comment about how stupid this is.
swenson on 9 September 2012, 16:38 said:
All I could think about through this entire review was the video game Halo… and how much I wanted Master Chief to show up and improve the book immeasurably.
Anyway.
I agree with you, the cover is actually not bad. I kind of like the ethereal-looking wings. I mean, it looks nothing like anything I’d ever want to read, but it’s at least reasonably attractive and not a Twilight ripoff.
Also… Gabriel? As in, Gabriel-Gabriel? The one who talked to David and Mary and Elizabeth? Please, please, please tell me it’s a different angel who just happens to have the same name. I’m begging you.
(Ariel would be a nice name, by the way. “Lion of God”, I like it.)
Technically second; she saw the paperboy first.
That was a really boring chapter, by the way. Also, to clarify going forward, the True Religion of this book is Catholicism? I’m assuming so from the mention of the priest. Is she drawing from the Book of Enoch as well (which would make no sense seeing as Catholics don’t believe it’s canonical)?
Pryotra on 9 September 2012, 16:47 said:
That was kind of my feeling. It’s ok. A little too…pretty…for me, but yeah. I did like the wings.
Yup. it’s Gabriel. Now what an Archangel is doing with these two morons is beyond me. What until you see what Ivy is. You’ll flip.
I’m going to name a male character that. Because.
Well, the paperboy wasn’t a teenager, so I guess he doesn’t count. And he wasn’t hawt.
Yep. It’s using Catholism as it’s religion. I wish she hadn’t. I briefly read over things, and I don’t remember any actual reference to the Book of Enoch (particularly as researching it would be too much work and not like Twilight )
but it might have slipped in without my knowledge.
swenson on 9 September 2012, 16:50 said:
…
AKJSEHJHTKJLSBLKJFBSDKJFLkjg.
GABRIEL EXPLAINED DAVID’S VISIONS. HE ANNOUNCED THE BIRTHS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS HIMSELF. WHY IS HE SHOWING UP IN A HORRIBLE PARANORMAL TEEN ROMANCE NOVEL?! /religionraeg
Fireshark on 9 September 2012, 18:26 said:
Recently, I’ve been reading up on Catholicism and finding it quite intriguing. Although I may not agree with all that many of the faith’s tenets, it seems moving, meaningful, and absolutely not wishy-washy. And then this comes along.
Done. Not sure how seriously you meant that, but I know I’d have trouble getting through this alone.
Tim on 9 September 2012, 21:39 said:
He is a pretty cool guy, that Halo. Eh kills aleins and doesn’t afraid of anything, I hear.
Tim on 10 September 2012, 01:14 said:
Like in Back to the Future? “It’s already mutated into human form, shoot it!”
Epke on 10 September 2012, 07:40 said:
I kept thinking about Master Chief too, and that female voice in the first game that acts as a guide. Except this time, she said “Shoot them feathery idiots, Chief! It’s for sanity!” and Master Chief went all Dogma on Bethany, Ivy and Gabriel.
So in short, we have a female supernatural being (as opposed to a male, for once) who by the first chapter has met and practically had an eye-sex session with the Designated Love Interest and is already going on about being ‘human’. Love Interest meanwhile is fishing and staring at a strange girl with all the subtlety of a sex offender and I suppose this is better than writing that he was building a tree-house or making a box, because it would be very NUDGE, NUDGE, WINK, WINK if he was a carpenter. So well done, Adornetto (her name sounds like an ice cream), well done.
Also, anyone else found it slightly racist with Heaven being “pure white”? No? Just me? The superpale angels, the all-white heaven… Elohim forbid diversity or tans. No, we all must instantly love these anaemic-looking people that came dancing out of a Tim Burton movie. Blergh.
The word you’re looking for about the -el names is theophory: embedding the name of a deity in a name.
swenson on 10 September 2012, 08:51 said:
Forgot to mention this the first time through, but…
How exactly did they hope this would happen? By sitting in a house staring at the walls? By talking to one priest? To have influence, you actually need to do things, you lunkheads!
Pryotra on 10 September 2012, 10:28 said:
Thank you. That’s one the the many, many things that annoys me about this book. I’m used to Catholics been casts as the hammy villains of bad fantasy novels, but what makes this so irritating is that I know there are people who are going to believe this tripe.
Yes please.
This is probably the best short summery of this little horror.
I didn’t really want to mention the whole SYMBOLISM!!!!!OMFGWTFBBQ!!1!1111 of the whole fisherman thing. It was just too stupid.
You are not the only one. Yeah, Heaven is supposed to be a place of unending day and light and all, but this is just ridiculous. Light does have colors.
How would you like your internet?
Yeah…well…they’re just soooo gooooood you know. I don’t think that a lot of thought went into this story.
Perry Rhinitis on 10 September 2012, 12:44 said:
Hm…as an ex-Catholic living in a very, very Catholic country, my experience with the religion may be a little different than yours. I got…disillusioned after reading about the Church’s history and learning about how the local Catholic hierarchy is exerting its influence in the public sphere, among other things.
I honestly don’t know what to say about Catholicism being the “true religion” according to this awful book. So many questions to ponder about. I highly doubt Adornetto used the Book of Enoch as research; I highly doubt she did any serious research at all. How very much like SMeyer!
About the “making the people to believe in miracles” thing, I don’t think that’s gonna work out very well with the Church. The Church is very skeptical about claims of miracles, and that’s actually one of the things the Church investigates when a “Blessed” is on the way to sainthood. That’s why Mother Theresa isn’t a saint yet. The Church is still investigating on the claims of miracles allegedly caused by her.
Pryotra on 10 September 2012, 13:03 said:
Having done plenty of reading up on it myself, (I converted and I wanted to know just what I was getting into) I was ok with it, but I can very easily see how people can get disillusioned. I didn’t, but that’s just me.
Agreed. If she did any research in this, I’d be shocked. It doesn’t seem like she did much more than think ‘Oh this would be neat!’
Yep. The Church doesn’t really like backing claims of miracles unless it really can’t disprove them. So, yeah, it’s pretty clear that she doesn’t really understand how the Church’s hierarchy or mindset really works.
Oculus_Reparo on 10 September 2012, 16:28 said:
It’s interesting to note the contrast between these “angels’” physical characteristics and those of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t say a lot about Jesus’ looks, but it seems that (at best!) He looked just like everybody else: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him/nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2).
Whereas Bethany & Co. have got to be luminescent, ethereal, beautiful beings. Why? Why couldn’t an angel take on the appearance and role of a homeless man on the sidewalk—or an elderly lady in a nursing home—or a middle-aged person in a dead-end job? Why couldn’t an angel have wrinkles or pimples or be overweight? Maybe that’s rhetorical. We all know why!
Also—their mission is to help people believe in miracles?? That’s fine, but I’m pretty sure the “agents of evil” believe in miracles, too. They’re still evil. Even so, if you’re set on it, why not just perform a few miracles and head on home? Why the extended stay?
Oh yeah. We all know why.
Danielle on 10 September 2012, 16:31 said:
Unless the angels were the Goodness and Light branch of the Men in Black and they just neuralyzed everyone except for the paperboy…..
Why oh why was this not a blurb on the front cover?
Which goes to show that Adornetto hasn’t done any more research into angels than, say, Becca Fitzpatrick or Lauren Kate. This sounds like something I would have written when I was six. Only difference is, when I showed it to my parents, they would have gently corrected my theology and given me suggestions for how I could have improved the story, rather than saying “Oh, this is wonderful, Alex! Hooray, our little girl IS literate after all!”
I mean, I’m not asking Adornetto or Kate or Fitzpatrick to convert or anything, but a little more research would be nice. There’s nothing worse than the Theme Park Version of a religion.
Ah-yeah.
pulls out sharpened spork Shall we use this on Bethany, dearest Pryotra?
Enoby Dementia Dark’ness Raven Lincoln?
hyytghyhugrkhergufeeuifhuisdhf
shifjeigruihguidgsfyudshfi
hsdifhyew7857903wfgdusjhfds
Alex. Alex, Alex, Alex.
Have a seat, Alex.
There you go.
Would you like coffee? Tea? Arsenic capsules?
Lean in, Alex.
Closer.
Closer.
deep breath GOD’S MIGHTY WARRIORS ARE NOT IDIOTS!!!!!! THEY DO NOT GIVE THEIR HEARTS TO THE FIRST BOZO WHO TOSSES THEM A SMILE AND LOOKS AT THEM SIDEWAYS WITH HIS STUPID GARY STU EYEBALLS!!!! THEY FIGHT DEMONS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! STOP TREATING ANGELS LIKE BRAINDEAD BROCCOLI SPEARS!!!!
That is all.
Tim on 10 September 2012, 16:48 said:
Well, the idea of Jesus was that he was God in the form of a man. Most forms of angel-ing involve it being really obvious that you’re an angel.
Kyllorac on 10 September 2012, 17:57 said:
Not really. Book of Tobit aside, Lot was visited by two incognito angels, Gideon (Judges) did not recognize the angel that visited him until they burned his dinner, and it’s implied that angels are actively working at all times, though people may not notice them. Of course, only the cases where an angel made theirself known as an angel are recorded. ;P
Deborah on 10 September 2012, 19:39 said:
And why couldn’t they send angels somewhere else? Why couldn’t they send them to, say, missionaries in the middle of Africa?
Bah, these angels are ridiculous. Give me Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, or Madeline L’Engle any day. (Yes, the Valar are technically angels. And Lewis had them in the Space Trilogy. Very powerful, very otherworldly. L’Engle had them in books two and four of the Time Tetralogy. They weren’t human-like hardly at all.)
swenson on 10 September 2012, 19:49 said:
And Maiar are sort-of angels too! So make Gandalf star in your novel instead.
Jones on 10 September 2012, 20:35 said:
Hmm. I was raised Catholic (fairly liberal Catholic, I guess, but still Catholic) and I was under the impression that the days of obligation were the only days were it was absolutely mandatory to go to church. Nobody has ever told me “you will go to hell if you skip church on Sunday” or “Missing church is a mortal sin”
If the angels have to be going to America, surely they ought to be going to the bad neighbourhoods? Unless the intention is to get the complacent middle class to start helping those less fortunate, which doesn’t seem to be what they’re doing.
Pryotra on 10 September 2012, 20:59 said:
That’s because he wasn’t a Stu.
I think I tried to come up with something with angels when I was about ten. It sounded stupid in my head so it never got written down. I guess I decided that when angels sounded like preteens without good grammar, then I didn’t have any business writing about them.
Yes please!
Another reason why this whole premise is stupid. If you really want to change people or work with them, you don’t appear as something so high above them that they couldn’t hope to reach it. People tend to get testy about that kind of thing. We dislike being lorded over.
I have the link to the canon up there.
Anyways, I’m well aware that there are plenty of people who think that that it doesn’t matter as long as you believe in Christ. I’m going to be strict in using the canons because it would be the natural thing to use for research if you were going to write this book. So, yeah, no offense meant.
They wouldn’t do that for the same reason they won’t visit the African Missionaries or the poor in Pakistan or the rest of the third world nations. Our heroine must fall in love with a middle class White Anglo Saxon Christian.
…Oh that sounds so racist…
Juracan on 10 September 2012, 21:56 said:
Weren’t you going to do City of Glass next? No matter; this is still the article that brightened up my morning.
BTW, also Catholic, and I’m a huge fan of angels… so this sounds like it’ll be fun.
Honestly, this is one of the main reasons holding me back from actually sporking— what if I pay for and read a book, and it’s not good sporking material? I’m fairly certain this won’t be difficult for you, though, looking at your past work.
Does the text specifically say they’re white? The quote you have just says they’re “luminous as the moon”, and the connotation I get from that is white (and it wouldn’t surprise me)…
In any case, one of the things I really like about the artistic direction of the game Darksiders… the angels aren’t white. None of them. All of them that we’ve seen have white hair, but their skin is usually quite brown. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Well… technically, Raphael’s an archangel, so he might have more practice at this than most angels. Then again, Halo seems to imply that angels do this rather often, so no excuse. Like you said, there really should have been some sort of briefing for this.
[raises hand]
For an angel that supposed to be helping humanity, you have a rather dim view of us, don’t you?
Don’t be silly; a robe is less feminine!
There’s some angels in Judaism, too, that don’t have names with ‘EL’ at the end. I think, anyway…
Honestly, though, this really bugged me with Supernatural), too, as angels had names ranging from Uriel and Castiel (which make sense) to just names that were picked because they sounded old, like _Hester and Virgil. I’m kind of a nitpick on mythology, though, so… [shrugs]
Don’t know how ‘Bethany’ got picked…
[raises hand]
Why would angels need such a nice house? Hell, why would they need a house?
You may have done more research for this sporking, but I think that might depend on what type of angel the one in question would be.
A young angel? That actually sounds like it could be interesting, if we ever figure out where angels come from, or how new angels adapt to the world, or how they grow and develop—
…we’re not going to do anything interesting with this, are we?
What influence? Haven’t they been doing nothing for the entire time they’ve been there?
But… but… why? Why would she suddenly be attracted to someone not even the same species as her? Not even on the same spiritual plane, really. Because he smiles?
—-
I cannot believe that Adornetto decided to use GABRIEL, the freaking ARCHANGEL, in this drivel. It’s… insulting is what it is. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of other angels she could have used…
Why would Gabriel be sitting in a marble house twiddling his thumbs, anyway? He’s a pretty important angel— I’m pretty sure he doesn’t beam down to Earth for Bingo Night.
As a lover of angel lore, this just… hurts.
Perennial Rhinitis on 11 September 2012, 01:27 said:
“Having done plenty of reading up on it myself, (I converted and I wanted to know just what I was getting into) I was ok with it, but I can very easily see how people can get disillusioned. I didn’t, but that’s just me.”
Good for you, I guess. Unfortunately, my experience with the RCC just wasn’t good and I am very disappointed with how the Church in my country just can’t seem to control itself from meddling with the government. I don’t think I could ever make myself go back.
Although I’m not a believer anymore, I’m still very much irked with how writers ignorant of certain religions, especially major ones, decide to write about them without doing any inkling of research. Frankly, it’s just insulting.
Master Chief on 11 September 2012, 01:53 said:
These aren’t angels. These are covenant infiltrators. I need to get back to Earth
Tim on 11 September 2012, 02:59 said:
I’m fairly sure when an entire city wants to do you in the ass you probably look anything but normal.
Yeah, but on the other hand if a normal-looking person came up to you and told you they had a message to you from God you’d probably think they were at best a Jehovah’s Witness, probably not so much an actual angel. So unless you’re not doing the “divine messenger” thing you’d probably be fairly distinctive.
More to the point in story terms an honest, upstanding angel who doesn’t hide what they are makes a better contrast with a covert and sneaky demon influencing everything from behind the scenes. Hence the idea in stories like this that angels shouldn’t be too “worldly” I suppose.
Tim on 11 September 2012, 03:39 said:
The evidence that fish can actually sense pain in their mouths (or at all) is fairly ambiguous. It’s quite possible the fish isn’t actually in pain at all.
Fell Blade on 11 September 2012, 09:13 said:
This. Thank you.
Which is rather ironic considering that missionaries actually do often claim to have encounters with angels while in other countries, or at least to have witnessed miracles. Actually I have heard of people in Arab countries who are converting to Christianity because of supernatural dreams and miracles. Whether you believe its true or not, it makes more sense for angels to be at work in those areas than in the good ole USA where the church is well established and should be doing the work that these “angels” are trying to do.
Danielle on 11 September 2012, 16:38 said:
Exactly. There’s a reason why God tells His people to care for each other. Look after widows and orphans. Visit the sick and those in prison. Feed the hungry. Clothe those in rags. Give shelter to those who need it. He tells humans to do it because He wants to display His work through humans. Not angels. All of the instances of angelic contact in the Bible—and in modern life, so far as I know—involve angels being brought in when humans couldn’t fulfill the duty said angel was sent to do. Having three angels basically do what every Christian believes they are called to do—tell people about God and help them find the straight and narrow—completely defeats the purpose of having humans do anything at all.
I’d love to see angels treated as messengers and warriors, members of a vast spiritual army. Mostly, I just want to see Bethany and Ivy court-marshalled for leaving their posts. Maybe even shot for gross incompetence and flagrant disregard for orders.
Kyllorac on 11 September 2012, 17:00 said:
But the entire city thought they were human even then.
Who says they have to be “I have a message from God”? Being living examples of the Godly Way of Life and advising when asked doesn’t involve any manipulation or sneakiness (covert angel-ness aside).
Except for the sudden suffocation part. And the shock of being thrown back into cold water. The latter in particular kills fish like woah, even if death isn’t immediate.
This. So much.
Pryotra on 11 September 2012, 17:55 said:
@ Danielle: Ask and ye shall receive.
Actually that felt rather good. I tried to keep with the ultra violet prose, but I don’t think I did.
Danielle on 11 September 2012, 19:21 said:
sniff That was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. You win all the internets.
All we need now is a sequel where Bethany and Ivy are sentenced to four hundred years of community service with…..POLITICIANS!!!!! They must work tirelessly to convince them that the public good IS above money after all! Worst yet, they must work with American Democrats AND Republicans in equal measure, trying to tell them that their opponents are NOT evil and there ARE ways to win elections without mudslinging! I give Bethany fourteen minutes before she bursts into tears, and twenty before her brain explodes.
And no, you didn’t keep up with the super sweet purple prose. You need about 500 more adjectives, all applied to Xavier.
Still, that spitefic had so much more to say than Halo has said so far. I especially liked the two angels at the end—sort of implying that they are more present in Africa and North Korea because, well, that’s where they’re needed.
Tim on 12 September 2012, 09:06 said:
Well, still, they must’ve been pretty special looking for all the men of the city to want to jump their bones, and Lot certainly recognised them right away.
Well, usually they’re supposed to be acting as messengers, though I guess you could say it’s just the ones who were acting as messengers that we know for sure were angels.
It’s quite possible the fish has neither conciousness nor the ability to feel pain. Most evidence to the contrary is just people anthropomorphising signs of physical distress as human-like pain.
Nate Winchester on 12 September 2012, 10:47 said:
I have to admit… I do too. What is up with these books getting the best covers? I feel sorry for the artist that had to design it. Such wasted talent. =(
Considering that color is a function of light’s wavelengths and the cones of our eyes…. just… an angel would either have no concept of “whiteness” or “color” or they would have the opposite extreme (trying to get used to how dull this world looks to them). And they’re covered with eyes in the bible! Like, “Oh. Wow. So this is what it is to experience sensation through only one locus on my body. How very odd.”
Lewis FTW! He’s been the only author that could ever help me feel that longing for Heaven all the hype says I should have.
No, the author is going to hell. You (and the rest of us Imps by proxy) are going to purgatory for reading it.
Really? It’s built to withstand nukes and zombies? Well I think we know which house they’re staying in:
Again, it could have been interesting. Like, “She holds out her hand and stands there a moment. ‘Oh, right,’ she said. ‘I need to actually “reach” and “grasp” things on this plane.’ “
BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE is the worst part. Imagine if like… Bethany & Ivy were just adopted code names or simplifications of their actual (unpronounceable) angel names? So much potential!
Heaven has a holodeck. That’s what makes it heaven. XD
“Satan, we shall challenge and defeat you at… A CHILDREN’S CARD GAME!”
Uh… didn’t they meet one earlier? (man, that would have been awkward if… nvm, bad thoughts)
Please, Caboose should be here.
I’m going to send you some therapy right away.
And that’s why there’s a whole lot I’m never going to write about, not even for “diversity”, because I don’t think I’d be able to get it right.
…
I both loathe and love you for that.
Sometimes I keep wanting to do an article on how Reality’s (that shared world which spawned its own genre, “non-fiction”) Marty Stu (Jesus) stacks up against other stories’ Stus. I’ll probably do it when I’m about ready to die. It will be my life’s final work. lol
swenson on 12 September 2012, 16:53 said:
:D
To be played on MOTORCYCLES!
YES PLEASE. I will now picture him standing just off the screen for the rest of the book, commenting on things.
I like your ideas about showing them having to adapt, with it basically being “Okay, so this is how things work differently here, seems weird but I’ll get used to it quickly” instead of “WE URR STUPID LAWL”
Kyllorac on 12 September 2012, 17:24 said:
Oh dear. It seems my concluding sentence, “Regardless of whether the fish feels pain, it’s still cruel to needlessly kill it for fun” was lost.
Curse my touchpad and its text-killing tendencies.
In any case, while I will grant the consciousness bit, pain is one of the most basic negative responses in animals, if not the most basic response. While “lower” animals may not perceive pain the same way “higher” vertebrates do, the basic response (get away from harmful stimulus and avoid it in future) is present.
Also, last I checked, fish have nervous systems developed enough to process pain similarly to the way “higher” vertebrates do. The issue of “Can they really feel pain?” actually deals with invertebrates, like lobsters, who have completely different nervous structures, among other things.
Additionally, the most recent study I am aware of concluded that goldfish not only have a reflexive pain response, but also a cognitive pain response.
No anthropomorphism required.
Tim on 12 September 2012, 18:48 said:
The thing is, reflexitive damage avoidance isn’t the same thing as human-like pain. Trees have reflexes that tell them they’re being damaged and allow them to react. Without conciousness you’re really talking about something more analogous to a computer breaking down than a human in pain; it’s just basic stimulus / response.
Regarding cruelty, there’s plenty of justifications, starting with the fact that recreational fishing has protected many bodies of non-drinking water which would otherwise have been completely depopulated. It’s rather hard to say it’s cruel to kill one fish when said killing is the only reason there are any fish to catch. One could also view throwing back the fish as returning it to the ecosystem; if it ultimately dies then you’re really just feeding it to something else.
Regarding research, either position on the issue requires ignoring about half of the evidence. It’s not morally black and white, and it bothers me when people throw their random political beliefs into an article that has nothing to do with those beliefs.
And to be honest, the biggest advocates of this sort of thing aren’t exactly in a position to talk about needless animal deaths, except perhaps from their position as experts in the field.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Kyllorac on 12 September 2012, 20:37 said:
And research has shown that the pain response in some species of fish is not solely reflexive. Which I mentioned in my prior post.
I’ll just say, since you seem to have rather mistaken impressions about me, that I have nothing against sport fishing, or even hunting in general, so long as people go about it responsibly. I’m a conservationist, not a preservationist, and I most certainly do NOT support PETA. Just because a person objects to the cruel treatment of animals does not mean they are a supporter of PETA.
That said, it’s cruel (and wasteful) to needlessly kill a fish (or any animal, really) for the sole purpose of sport. Responsible sport fishermen take precautions to ensure that they do as little harm to the fish they catch and release as possible, but most people who fish for sport are not responsible sport fishermen. It’s one thing to kill the fish and eat it, and it’s another thing entirely to kill it and just leave it there to rot.
As far as I have seen, the only side ignoring evidence is the side claiming fish cannot feel pain, and the only grounds on which they can claim this are incredibly shaky. There’s a reason it’s now common veterinary practice to use analgesics and/or anesthetics when operating on fish and other animals. Perhaps animals don’t process pain exactly the same way humans do, but to deny that they feel pain just because they lack “consciousness” (whatever that is) is rather ridiculous, especially considering that recent research is pointing towards all vertebrate species having some level of consciousness. Regardless, a pain response is a pain response, conscious perception of it or not.
Nate Winchester on 12 September 2012, 21:08 said:
There’s only one way to settle this!
…
We must read Halo to a catholic fish and see if it flinches.
Tim on 12 September 2012, 21:20 said:
My copy-paste isn’t working properly, but I don’t think this is really worth continuing anyway; it doesn’t have a lot to do with the book to debate the finer issues of whether pain without perception is “painful” in the way we understand it.
Regardless of any of this, the issue is that whether Pryotra does or doesn’t approve of catch and release isn’t relevant to discussing the literary merits of the book. The author’s mention of it is a clumsy attempt to make Obvious Love Interest seem like a nice guy by having him do something the author thinks is nicer, it doesn’t require the full I-hate-fishing propaganda treatment.
Danielle on 12 September 2012, 21:31 said:
No, Nate! No fish deserves that! Read them Twilight instead.
Master Chief on 13 September 2012, 00:30 said:
It is almost a fact that a novel needs to have a strong opening to keep the reader from dropping the book from boredom and moving along. This strong opening could be a burst of action, a cliffhanger at the end of the chapter, or my personal favorite: one of those unsettling psychological/emotional pieces that draws you in and slowly builds up.
This pathetic excuse for a story has nothing like that. It just starts with nothing, and all I have seen so far is nothing, this opening chapter is a non-event if you will.
And Danielle, no fish deserves twilight either.
Danielle on 13 September 2012, 01:29 said:
No, but reading them that mass of glorified toilet paper would be far kinder than reading them Halo.
Pryotra on 13 September 2012, 11:29 said:
I don’t really see that I was giving it that. I believe I actually said that I understood fishing. I’m not the biggest fan of it in the world, but at the same time, I get the appeal. There’s a sense of achievement that comes with it, and you get to eat something you actually caught.
My point was that catch and release is not ‘nicer’ than actual fishing. In my human/animal interactions course, we’ve had to talk about animals (including fish) and pain. Kyllorac mentioned some of the major points. Yes, fish react to pain, therefore, Adornetto is wrong in her idea that catch and release is nicer to the fish.
And, no, I don’t support PETA either.
Master Chief on 13 September 2012, 15:15 said:
Enough with the fish argument, everyone involved. It is descending to the level of pointless bickering and all sides have proved their point well enough.
swenson on 13 September 2012, 19:04 said:
The Chief hath spoken.
Jaime on 15 October 2012, 20:56 said:
Is this is the last update? And I was starting to enjoy this too. :(
Pryotra on 15 October 2012, 21:19 said:
Oh, no. I’m not done with it. I’m working on the next chapter right now. It’s mind numbingly boring.
I’m going to post the review for The Selection first though. There are some comments about the election that’ll seem silly if I don’t put it up first.
Potatoman on 20 June 2013, 09:05 said:
It is one of the requirements of Islam to believe in Jesus Christ. Of course, we only believe in him as a prophet of God and not as a part of the Trinity. Still, Adornetto better be careful where she is going with this. Muslims respect angels a lot too.
By the way, has anyone thought of writing a YA novel using Eastern mythology? Like Japanese myths or Arabian or Indian legends? Could be an interesting thing instead of the whole Christianity thing all the time. Also I have nothing against Christians, everybody’s awesome.
Great spork by the way, Pryotra :D
Pryotra on 20 June 2013, 14:09 said:
Well, there are those books that Azure is sporking, but honestly, I think that the reason would be that 1. It would be too much work to actually know anything about these other religions and 2. Using them would be seen as nerdy. Though, I’d find it a whole lot more interesting to use a different cosmology than Christian. I’m working on something, but it’s more of a fantasy kitchen sink where I jam as many mythologies as I can justify together.
And I actually knew about the thing with Muslims being required to believe that Jesus was a prophet. It’s one of the things that annoys me the most about when people try to separate God and Allah in fiction. I don’t know as much about Islam as I’d like to, but I try not to be completely ignorant. _
Potatoman on 21 June 2013, 06:02 said:
Nice! I’m pretty sure religion in general is a pretty touchy subject (especially in some YA fiction where the authors just LOVE to go overboard with their stuff) but it helps to have a knowledge of other religions as well, I think it helps with writing.
It would be interesting to see your take on other mythologies.