With my domain name requiring renewal it seemed timely to revisit my story and for three reasons:-
1) To continue to provide access for anyone who wished to read the two part book.
2) To revisit the text and consider improvements given I have subsequently gained more writing experience.
3) As the story is "All about everything." whether the Film (and book) had anything to say about the Pandemic. On rereading it I concluded that the central driver of Part 1 Sir Peter Weylands desire to seek more life and find there was nothing (for him) is a metaphor for keeping many of an entire generation alive at a huge cost to all involved most especially themselves and then finding a Virus comes along and wipes large numbers of them out. Although Fifield is absent from the narrative of the Book they to abound.
I trust all the contributors to the Forum remain well and I offer my apologies for in the past being dismissive of those who come to this fractured franchise from a different place to me. In reality I am in the minority. But I am pleased to have discovered a number of Genre Defying Works in recent months which operate in the same way as the type of books I wish to write more of.
Many many thanks for those who diverted to the link. It is always exciting to see people from all over the world connect. China and the United States always come up but Malaysia and Mexico are new.
One of the consequences of writing the book has been to look at material associated with the broader Promethean Tradition and see how close the movie was to that tradition.
Since 2018 I have read the 1818 Text of Dr Frankenstein, considered various thesis written and looked hard at the Documentary. Two scenes come back to me time and again as being key.
1) The Holographic speech of Peter Weyland.
2) The four-way interaction between Elizabeth, the Dark Angel and then Weyland and David's intervention.
Why are we here, what is soul, the attempt to deny death, why did you make me and then want to destroy me. What have I done wrong?
The difference between The Modern Prometheus and Movie Prometheus is David and he enables us to enlarge the question and consider comparatively what is existence and its subtext (do androids dream).
This is the point at which to formally identify another concept of my work. Bardo or Intermediation. In Tibetan philosophy it is the state beyond life and before the next life.
From the very beginning, even when the story was quite different, two characters were in the Bardo, in the intermediation. But there is a broader way to look at it.
My work is split into two at the point that the Prometheus slams into the Juggernaut destined for the earth we leave Elizabeth considering the meaning of the two craft and their occupants. We begin Part 2 when she realises she has survived or has she? Different readers have suggested at different points she has 'died'. All are valid viewpoints. But they depend on your view of life, death and the soul. My work is proposing that those are not the gatekeepers to the truth and once you consider the distinctions of the imagined world then the answers to those questions are irrelevant.
An even broader interpretation is if you take the matter of the Waterfall Incident and then consider the final visual in Ridley's Scott's short Hennessay advert (The Gathering In) you could consider everything is in the Bardo. The Lone Figure dies and all that he is passes with death into Intermediation until the story ends, until the soul comes back to us.
We live in a world where people live and they die. This is a world where people live as a consequence of someone 'dying.'
The smaller question is would Bardo be relevant to a Movie which would have ended with David and Elizabeth reaching Paradise. Given that the subject was raised recently by Damon Lindelof to explain one of his other works it might have been.
I do believe though once Damon Lindelof saw how his attempt to fashion a separate story away from ALIEN was becoming anchored in a purely Alien conversation (Badass robots, nastier monsters, make Shaw vigilante) that such matters were to excuse the pun 'dead' from the moment he moved on.
Thanks again for everyone's interest and in particular those who have fed me related matters. During Lockdown in New Zealand, I wrote a second book connected to the Star Trek Enterprise Series.
My next work will be entirely my own but I have enjoyed the apprenticeship and found myself going back to the text of Furious Gods this last month and once again finding more of the story.
Thanks for the Share and Time put into this.
I really really must take a look at your Interpretation i think while we all have Varied Interpretations i feel its a SHAME that we never got a Sequel that seemed to take on what seemed to be a Different Direction to what we eventually got with Alien Covenant.
R.I.P Sox 01/01/2006 - 11/10/2017
One of the most difficult elements of a conversation about where Prometheus was going is we all look at this in very different ways. We do not start in the same place let alone end up in the same place but there are two broadly different start points:-
1) The literal approach.
2) The philosophical thematic approach.
The two elements have to find a common language which is not easy. If I can show why I will give three examples of each.
i) What is the meaning of the Alien Shape fused into the alter?
ii) Why did the Urns in the Sanctuary leak but the Urns in the downed craft do not?
iii) What is the weird creature in the Fresco pouring over the Engineer?
i) You made us why did you want to destroy us?
ii) What is the soul?
iii) If they made us who made them and why?
For me, the first three questions are simply a matter of choice and ensuring the answers support the narrative. So In Part 1
i) I remove the shape and put back the Bowl and place Charlie's "This is just a tomb" where Damon had it in the Paradise script.
ii) The urns leak in the sanctuary as part of a broader warning.
iii) I build on the Fresco and turn it into one of many Buddist Story Boards which fits with Steve Messing's remarks about the Creature in the Mural.
Now some people will quite correctly go no no no that's not how I see it and that takes them away from the story. I understand that but I am interested in writing a coherent story where all those decisions support the much broader narrative which I am interested in.
Oddly enough some of these questions are answered in the film and supporting materials but people from the literal group want "Evidence" and evidence that fits there view of what evidence is.
i) You made us why did you want to destroy us. Charlie and David both answer this at different points in the movie because we could and why does it matter. It is the question of Milton's Adam and the Creature created by Frankenstein. The underlying point is we assume our creator likes us even loves us clearly that is not the case. We are just something in a Petri Dish that can be upgraded, just like Dave the robot.
ii) What is the soul? That's one of the fun questions which we get no sense of in the film. David is offended by Sir Peter's remark in the Hollo Speech, wishes Sir Peter a safe journey and is fascinated by Elizabeth. He thinks there is some kind of answer. I provide one which makes perfect sense to a Robot.
iii) We do not get any clear idea of who the big chap is in the movie and that's a fun question. What I can say is 'it' made them. I also take as gospel Ridley's comment that he left the Engineers out of the Prologue because he did not want to meet God until the second movie. I also take the fact he called the material in the imbibing cup Genesis as being important.
Now a certain segment of the audience would have loved those questions answered provided in a thought-provoking way. Damon and Ridley had some "Cool Ideas." I answered those questions and I stuck to Logan Marshalls remarks its neither Darwin or Faith-Based and it is also consistent with Ridley's view that we may simply be a footnote.
However I hope my remarks have communicated that if you are from a literal background with your own preconceptions you would find my story understandably difficult.
Then there is the issue that for some A L I E N fans Prometheus is an intrusion. I use that thought cheekily as a metaphor in my story and reverse the process I make the creature an unintended consequence. I take the view Kane was not meant to linger over the Ovoid they had much bigger fish to fry.
So to sum up:-
1) If you have preconceived views of your own.
2) You want evidence that my view is "right."
3) Anyway, Prometheus is an intrusion.
Then the book doesn't help. You talk about interpretations, having delved deeply into this you can imagine I would find it supremely hard to suspend and look at an alternative view. For a very simple reason, I wrote the book so I could get Elizabeths answers not for her but for me. So I have them and I am profoundly moved when people feel they got there's too not because they are accurate within the imagined world of Ridley and Damon but because it means we are together on a journey unlike Elizabeth who is alone.
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!