BOOK REVIEW: “The God Engines” by John Scalzi (2009)

If you’re a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, you probably shouldn’t read this book. Heck, if you’re a Hindu or an African tribal shaman, you should probably try to stay away from it as well. Basically, this book is an equal opportunity offender: If you believe in God or gods at all, this story will bother and scare you. It’s like an old Pkzip file that unzips in your mind, flooding your thoughts with disturbing notions that you can’t really easily delete. Definitely not a tale to be entered into lightly and unawares because it’s a very hard one to leave behind again.
That said, I find I quite liked it.
Oh, sure, I found it offputting, sacrilegious, oppressive and vaguely scary for the first chapter or to - all of which was clearly intended by the author - but I was fairly quickly drawn in by the understated characterization, the creepy setting and the rapidly unfolding and interesting plot. By the end, I realized *some* (but not all) of the curse had been taken off the story simply because it wasn’t going in the direction I thought it was.
The setup:
At some point in the future humanity’s god has defeated all the other gods, and enslaved them to man: the gods power starships. Since faster-than-light travel is impossible in the physical universe, since physics dictates that such things simply can’t happen, these ships use supernatural means to get about. These are the titular “God Engines.”
Seriously, how cool is that? I mean, I’ve read a *lot* of SF and SF/Fantasy hybrids in my day, and I’ve never come across anything like this before! Though enslaved, the gods are not docile: They resist, they connive, they cajole, they refuse to work on occasion, and sometimes they slip their bonds, go crazy eight bonkers, and kill everyone.
For readers of occidental religions, the real sticking point is the intimation that Humanity’s god is the same as the Judeo/Christian/Islamic one. This is never clearly stated, and (Minor spoiler) events in the end of the book show it not to be the case, but it’s inferred strongly enough through three quarters of the story to make it very uncomfortable for a reader of faith. Very bad things are said of this fictional god, the depiction of who’s worship will seem pretty familiar to any Catholics, or high-church Protestants.
The gods - even humanity’s god in the story - gain power from their worshipers. The more people that believe in them, the more powerful they are. They’re promised life after death and all the usual incentives, but, as with the Ori in the later seasons of Stargate: SG1, these things can’t be taken on faith. If all this all seems a bit too similar to the whole Ori/Book of Origin thing, it is. Scalzi works on the current Stargate: Universe show, though he never worked on SG1. I don’t believe he ripped the story off from that show - he’s too good a writer, this is thematically too close to a lot of his other work - but it is a curious case of parallel development.
The enslaved gods - who bear a disturbing and no doubt intentional similarity to the demons of Abrahamic religions - have one last hope to overthrow the evil tyrant god who rules humanity. This leads to a horrific and gruesome, but very logical finale that all makes sense, and evokes various forms of Gnosticism. I can’t tell you any more than that without giving away the surprises, but suffice it to say this is not a happy ‘gee gosh wow’ Buck Rogersy novel. It is, however, one of the most unique and interesting ones I’ve seen in years, but then I spent years and years as a heretic before coming back into the fold, so I’m somewhat immune to esoteric fictional theologies. You may not be so thick skinned, and if you’re not, you may hurt yourself with this one.
The book jacket says, “If J.G. Ballard and H.P. Lovecraft had ever collaborated […] the results might have been like this.” I think that’s fairly apt, though I’d throw Philip K. Dick into the mix as well. The setup, the theological extrapolation, the horrifying implications, and the gnosticism nibbling in the fringes of the story are all very Dickian, from one of his darker moods (As in, say, “Faith of our Fathers,” or “Rutavara’s Case,” both of which - once again - should *not* be read by Christians).
Personally, it’s these Gnostic mystery religion touches that most interest me. Though I’m back in the church and once again a mostly-normative Christian (I‘m not a Fundamentalist, however), I remain fascinated by the schema of these long-dead apostasies. I love to read up on them, I have all of their extant scriptures on the shelf behind me as I type this; I love to debate their role in the development of Christianity (Which I suspect is more massive than is commonly realized) and weigh their theologies against each other. This is heady, fascinating stuff, but it is definitely not for the uninitiated.
Again, I can’t really go into details without spoiling a lot of the book, and this isn’t really the place or time to discuss heterodoxy, but suffice to say it informs this book on every spooky level.
I’m sorry to write such a cautionary review, I really am, but as a somewhat fanatical fundamentalist (I’m not one anymore, but I used to be) back in my formative years, I got some of this ‘forbidden knowledge’ type stuff dropped on my by boorish intellectuals who simply didn’t care about scaring children, or taking a dump on their precious things. It hurt me an awful lot, the kind of deep hurt that lasted for years, thinking thoughts I didn’t want to, my faith becoming raggedier and raggedier all the time, living in fear of having absorbed some blasphemy that would damn me to hell forever, sliding into nihilism because self-righteous jackasses are always fond of taking things away from you, but never bother to give you something to replace them with. That kind of thing hurt me, and it hurt others, and though I made it back eventually, having taken the long way ‘round, others I know didn’t.
I refuse to do that. I refuse to say “This is a good book,” (Which, in fact, it is) and not warn my readers of the dangers. I am *not* going to be responsible for causing someone to stumble, or even fall.
Technically, Scalzi has always been a very transparent writer, by which I mean his style does not overshadow his story. He restrains himself. His writing is exactly as florid or as plain as it needs to be for what he’s writing about, which is meant as a high compliment. In this case, he’s more staccato and straightforward, because he’s dealing with fantastic things, and needs to contrast it with the more fantastic and horrific aspects of the story. This isn’t Paradise Lost, and he wisely steers clear of apparent artifice. There’s a lot of really compelling writing, but the machinery of it is all below ground where it doesn’t mess up the scenery or draw attention to himself. I’ve always admired his ability to do that.
What really impresses me, though, is its brevity. The hardback comes in 136 pages, a nice, brisk, tidy Hardy Boys length. There’s enough ideas in here to fill up one of those tedious seven-book cycles, the kind where they take two or three short-story hooks and pad them out to several thousand pages, to the point where the ideas themselves are overcome by dross and watered down into apathetic oblivion (See what I did there? That’s an example of non-transparent writing). I hate those things. I like tight, punchy, crunchy science fiction. I like efficient idea delivery systems, and Scalzi’s always been really good at that. I like a man confident enough in his own ability to come up with neat new ideas that he doesn’t feel the need to stretch them out.
WILL CONSERVATIVES LIKE THIS BOOK?
What? Are you kidding me? Did you not read the review?
Actually, if you’re an atheist conservative like our own occasional contributor, “Doubting Thomas,” you won’t mind it at all. In fact, you’ll probably think it’s pretty cool.
If you’re a Social Conservative (Which is more and more an euphemism for “Politically Active Fundamentalist Christian”), absolutely, positively, definitely, without question, beyond a shadow of a doubt not only will you not like this, you will be enraged.
- Republibot 3.0's blog
- Login or register to post comments
>>>I'm not a pantheist as much as a panentheist... I don't believe that God IS everything, but I think it's entirely possible that everything is IN God.<<<
Oooh! Nice spin on that one!<<<
not really a spin, it a de facto definition of how pantheism and panentheism differ.
but really how far does a person look, until there is nothing outside of what they are looking at.
I leave that level at the Multiverse (collection of every universe EVER) you can't get bigger than that.
I'm not a pantheist as much as a panentheist... I don't believe that God IS everything, but I think it's entirely possible that everything is IN God.
>>>Are you familiar with the Minbari religion from Babylon 5?<<<
No I am not
but I looked it up and I agree with most of what they are saying,
here's what I read
"The core of Minbari religious belief is that of the soul. A soul is defined by them as a non-localized phenomenon, meaning that a person's soul does not originate from within, but from the outside by a hidden source (the universe). To them, the universe is a conscious entity engaged in a search for meaning. It breaks itself apart and invests itself in every form of life. Thus, every being is a projection of a part of the universal soul. They believe that all sentients have immortal souls. However, there is more than one "universal soul" since breaking itself apart and only meeting identical versions of itself would be pointless and redundant. "
then for me once we learn the "meaning" as the text above describes, like Buddhism we have become enlightened, and go to heaven, where the MULTIVERSE SOUL teaches us how to be good universe souls. The universe already knows the answers, it is the task of the ones living in it to discover them.
when I read something like this it always makes me wonder
"if this is to be taken as true, how does god fit into the equation"
it nearly always leads me back to the same god. Nearly always, either God or Jesus is likely to be the very universe we live in.
Certainly, it's a worthwhile caveat for the readers who'd be concerned about those matters and shows them respect. I imagine I'll skip the book; "Old Man's War" was kind of fun but neither Scalzi nor gnosticism interest me enough to check this out.
And I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it's given, but the day I'm secure in my faith is a long way off ;-)
"the real sticking point is the intimation that Humanity’s god is the same as the Judeo/Christian/Islamic one."
This wouldn't be a sticking point for me personally, since nothing described here about the god in this story matches that well with the God I follow. Precisely because this version of god as a character is fictional, it's neither blasphemous nor off-putting to me. The idea that these god beings allow for faster-than-light travel is interesting, and I agree that the brevity of the book sounds like a good selling point.
You've been tweeted by Scalzi:
http://twitter.com/scalzi/status/21549107061
>>>vehicles to tell a tale<<< LOL
I take things with a grain of salt but an open mind. Like the Pullman trilogy. IT was a good tale, and very contreversial, but I like to give any new idea the chance to either prove its validity to me, or not.
for example, how do multiverses fit into religion. How would Aliens, etc. fit.
pretty much take everything as true within reason, and go from there. If religion isn't strong enough for a concept, that means it doesn't work.
Glad to see this review finally come up in the rotation. And yes, you can't really talk a lot about the plot of this book beyond the setup. I must not be sensitive to religious ideas in my stories, as I've always been able to read books with wildly conflicting viewpoints and strange theories and keep them walled out, not trying to fit them into my life and beliefs. They are vehicles to tell a tale, and very few of them are propaganda trying to convince you of anything more than the fleeting moment of background necessary to tell the story in the book. If you stick to reading only things that you are comfortable with then you'll have no mental challenges or wonderful discoveries at all. Like you will if you read this book.
I have read this was an unpleasant book to read with a vary dark outlook more horror than science fiction.
Status
Latest Status Updates
| Jake Was Here Bunch of French spammers clogging up the forums. God only knows why. 20 hours ago |
| nwkeys01 anyone willing to review the tv show "Once Upon A Time", I've heard it's good, but I'm not good at making reviews, and haven't seen it yet. 3 days ago |
| nwkeys01 surprised the N.C amendment was called to a vote. Based on supreme court cases and 14th amendment it is unconstitutional. 3 days ago |
| Ginrummy Obscure science joke: "Dr. Schrodinger, you got a package in the mail today. I took the libery of opening it. Why did you order a dead cat?" 4 days ago |
| Ginrummy There's a HUGE spider in my house. So do I deal with it or just let it stay and eat some cockroaches? 1 week ago |
| Jake Was Here Conservatives hating on MLP? Where do we go from here? 1 week ago |
| shhhimbatman YJ ep 24 review up. I'm trying to catch up now. It's good to be back. 1 week ago |
| Ginrummy Vin Diesel says new "Riddick" movie (which just finished filming) is on track for a tentative release date of January 2013. 2 weeks ago |
| Scorpious wants to buy R3 a beer 2 weeks ago |
| Ginrummy I'll go to France and ask someone to "do something 'French' for me." They'll probaby just say "Stupid American!" and I'll reply "Thank you!" 2 weeks ago |
| Ginrummy XKCD cartoon for Altas Shrugged at http://xkcd.com/1049/ 2 weeks ago |
| Scorpious @Republibot 3.0 My birthday too ;-) 2 weeks ago |
| Republibot 3.0 Today is Larry Niven's birthday. He's 74. 2 weeks ago |
| SheldonCooper @Republibot 3.0 No you didn't, we just had a Dave and Maddie moment 2 weeks ago |
| Republibot 3.0 Well, it would appear as though I really screwed the pooch this time on the forums... 3 weeks ago |


>>>I leave that level at the Multiverse (collection of every universe EVER) you can't get bigger than that.<<<
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my youth minister when I was about thirteen or fourteen. We were talking about which we believed in: Pre-millennialism or Post-millennialism, which is a subject of much debate amongst us low-church protestants. He said, "I'm a pan-millennialist: I believe it'll all pan out in the end."
Would an "Omniverse" be larger than a "Multiverse?"