Posted by Darth Dobbin at 234.11.pool.outpost.com on February 10, 2000 at 10:11:12:
In Reply to: 'Dogma' characters posted by Mixalis on February 10, 2000 at 02:42:10:
In the norse mythos, it is the freeing of Loki from his imprisonment that sets off the chain of events that is referred to as "Ragnarok," or the Twilight of the Gods. This is the "final conflict" where the earth is consumed in battle and chaos, before the new age of whatever is supposed to happen after that. I think that Kevin's use of that name, mixed with the jewish/christian myth of the angel of death are precisely what you said- the fact that ALL religions have been attempts to name these aspects that are timeless and eternal. Each religion has done something "right" in its perception, but failed to count that it's perception is limirted by its perspective, and not the "complete and final" definition.
Bartleby's name is lifted from, of all things, a Melville short story about a guy who sees too much suffering, and is broken by it, and becomes a pitiable anti-hero of sorts who eventually loses the ability to cope with the world. I think making the "world of literature" just one of the various "pantheons" that attempts to explain the universe was a really cool move.(Thumbs up, "Moves." ) I got the impression that all these names, and the faces or manifestations of ALL of the otherworldly characters were more a product of our (human) biases and pre-conceptions. That these "endless" characters switched their names quicker than Shannen Dougherty did outfits in Mallrats, as the name was really just a temporary neccesity, a "Let X= "Loki."
Neil Gamien pulled a similar move in the 1st few SANDMAN books, when Morpheus met the "3 weird Sisters"... They shifted names and faces, panel by panel, suggesting the same principal.
Unfortunately, this type of outlook flies in the face of the strict & narrow interpretation and construction that most "Fanboys" subscribe to, where a rigid and definite continuity becomes a "DOGMA" in and of itself.
: Dear Kevin & View Askew,
: I just watched 'Dogma' for the 2nd time in a week, and while there are a few dozen comments/observations rattling around in my head now, I want to start with a question: Why did you incorporate elements of several varied "mythologies" (as a doubter, I use this word a lot) -- the name of a Scandinavian trickster-God; the abstract Muse(s) which I assumed were mostly the province of ancient Greek mythology; and so on -- in a story that is mostly centered on Catholicism?
: My theory is that you wanted to show that the varied and sometimes "competing" religions throughout human history are simply our attempts to 'get it,' as in Rufus's comment that, though the message is what's important, we haven't quite gotten it yet. I see it as suggesting that all the different gods in different cultures are actually different facets -- interpretations -- of the same thing, the absolute Truth for which we have been searching for our entire history but may never comprehend, or even receive, fully.
: Cripes, I'm starting to answer my own question, so I'll sign off. I'd love to hear what others think of this.
: Muchas gracias,
: Mike
: