More Than Meets The Eye 2012 Annual

[inflatable dalek]

SPOILERS NATCH



















The non-Guido art was really... odd. I don't think the colouring helped though, was it me or was there a considerable amount of miscolouring this issue (especially on Drift who seemed to have pretty consistent blue highlights- was someone confused with Blur?).

But a nice, very dense plot. I loved how all the Ultra Magnus mouth stuff wound up being important plot foreshadowing rather than just a silly action sequence; setting up the shrinkey gun; Metrotitan's affect on the crew and the smile.

Liked the revamped origin story (no 13 here, yay!). Whilst still hinting at Unicron it was nice to get something that wasn't just the same old same old. It might all turn out to be lies of course (or even not to have any bearing on anything) but as a look into Cyclonus' psych it was very nicely done. And whilst there was no real reason for the "Marvel" style colouring on those pages it was a nice styalistic touch (though along with his covers it did make me wish Guido was doing interior art on Regeneration One...).

I hope this is an important turning point for Magnus and Drift as well. I'm not a particular fan of the pre-Roberts (IDW version in Magnus' case) versions of these two and as such didn't mind them being turned into out and out jokes too much, but the gag was starting to wear a bit thin. With these little crises hopefully we'll start to see them turn into slightly less one-gag punching bags.

Swerve, Skids, Rewind (who really does turn into a giant data slug! Though Brainstorm has the gun that means he could well have been what Red Alert put in Rung's hand), Ore (!); Ratchet (who finally got told to **** off by Drift as well, that's been a while coming); Brainstorm and Chromedome all got lovely bits of characterisation. Rodimus less so, but some of the comedy stuff was nice with him.

The Galactic Space Police were pretty much a plot device and I didn't think for a second Magnus would taken them up on the offer, but they were harmless enough in terms of providing a less existential threat. Not to bothered if we never see them again though.

And so the first crusade of the Crusadercons reaches its end. Unsurprisingly they didn't find what they were looking for, but the launching point into the next stage of the quest is pretty interesting (without checking last issues I guess they're heading in the direction of Krok's crew?). Here's hoping it keeps up the good work.

And was that the 1984 robots attacking the Crystal City in the flashback?

[Hound]

Pretty much agree with the above. Some of it all ended a bit too conveniently for my liking though.

[inflatable dalek]

I think the ending works for me because being able to interpret it as a literal deus ex machina seemed to be very much the point. I did like how we got two different religious/rational hopeful/cynical explanations for what exactly occurred as well.


Considering we know he's in the RID Annual I will bet good money now this is set before the last two issues of that book and Metrotian is both already on Cybertron is the one exerting strange mental/physcial changes in anyone who comes near him as a result of the trauma he's been through.

Even money on Ore being an Evil Mastermind.

[Yaya]

At $7.99, yeah, the art was disappointingly jarring, I agree.

Storywise, no surprise here, I enjoyed it. Seems like the plot took some major steps forward with the Lost Light finally making it to Crystal City (or what's left of it, anyway). Loved the whole Metrotitan subplot and thought it was cool the way he was having the unexpected effect of resurrecting the dead. Even poor Ore. Curious to find out if he really did survive and get teleported to Cybertron with Metrotitan. Love to think he actually did. What a Shock that would be. Pun intended.

Roberts is still able to balance humor with drama, though some might disagree. The whole 'Magnus smiled' element I thought was well done and facilitated some progression of Magnus' character beyond 'stoic enforcer of the Tyrest Accord'. Still waiting to see the big guy unleashed in battle though. As I said, don't mind him being the butt of all jokes, provided Roberts at some point, in the presence of the other bots, gives him his due and displays for all to see why he is a 'legend' the galaxy over. Speaking of which, count me in the party that is glad to have other alien races introduced into the storyline. It can only make things more exciting and epic in scope.

Anyone else get the vibe from Roberts' writing thus far that he hates religion (like many of you)? Cause I sure do. James obviously likes to give a social commentary through his writing, which is okay, but I've found it a bit jarring sometimes because it sounds like the author is speaking his mind rather than the actual characters themselves speaking, which kind of takes me out of the story. James also likes to include other very human and personal elements and concepts in his story, like suicide, depression, etc. I'm kind of undecided on how I feel about this when it comes to robots. In a superhero book centered around humans, I think it's more natural and I guess makes us relate to the characters in some way on a deeper level. Does that work with transforming robots as well? I think in some way, it actually detracts from the robotic, computer-like nature of the characters. Should we have an Autobot fart, for example? Like, literally let one go out of his exhaust pipe, and then have the other bots complain how it has damaged their "olfactory receptors"? I guess what I'm asking is, is there such a thing as a Transformer being written too human? James has gone all out in making the analogies and comparisons, with human beliefs, faith, diseases, etc. Some can view this as a bit over the top while others can take the view that it makes us relate with the characters better. Simon, Bob, and other writers to some degree have made comparisons, but I think James has been most aggressive in creating parallels between the Transformers and the human race to the point of them almost physically being comparable in nature.

Regardless, it's "A" quality stuff. This series has been the most enjoyable since the early Budiansky days for me when I was a twelve year-old kid. Aside from the art, really enjoyed this. Didn't realize there was a RID annual set for release also. When is that scheduled to come out?

[Hound]

The more-human element to Robert's Transformers is what makes me love his writing.

It's exactly the sort of thing that Costa failed to grasp.

Transformers are a living race. In their world they are as real and alive as any other alien race. They are not just robots.

[inflatable dalek]

Anyone else get the vibe from Roberts' writing thus far that he hates religion (like many of you)? Cause I sure do. James obviously likes to give a social commentary through his writing, which is okay, but I've found it a bit jarring sometimes because it sounds like the author is speaking his mind rather than the actual characters themselves speaking, which kind of takes me out of the story.

Not only would I say he's even handed, but this issue actually comes off better for the religous minded. See how those who believe have a more optimisitic and hopeful view of what happened than those that don't. And Drift comes over much better than Ratchet who is actively goading the swordsman when he's visibly distraught.

Should we have an Autobot fart, for example? Like, literally let one go out of his exhaust pipe, and then have the other bots complain how it has damaged their "olfactory receptors"?

There's an entire 22 minute episode of Beast Wars completely devoted to farting.

[Jack Cade]

Anyone else get the vibe from Roberts' writing thus far that he hates religion (like many of you)? Cause I sure do. James obviously likes to give a social commentary through his writing, which is okay, but I've found it a bit jarring sometimes because it sounds like the author is speaking his mind rather than the actual characters themselves speaking, which kind of takes me out of the story.

I really don't get that at all, Yaya. If anything, he goes out of his way in this story to give both sides of the story. I actually feel he kind of forces Ratchet to play the 'bad atheist' in order to give Drift an equal standing in the argument.

[Metal Vendetta]

Anyone else get the vibe from Roberts' writing thus far that he hates religion (like many of you)? Cause I sure do.

No. And I want to go on record as Swerve getting religion has got to be my least favourite piece of character development in Transformers, like, ever. All of a sudden he's become so much less interesting as a character - retreating into faith just smacks of the old "no atheists in foxholes" canard. Don't get me wrong, I loved all of Cyclonus's mythological "first five" stuff and Flywheels praying to Primus, but Swerve is a massive disappointment.

Should we have an Autobot fart, for example? Like, literally let one go out of his exhaust pipe, and then have the other bots complain how it has damaged their "olfactory receptors"?

Well there's precedent. Spotlight: Ramjet? Mini-Constructicons? "Open a window"? Wasn't terribly well-received, as I recall.

[Yaya]

The more-human element to Robert's Transformers is what makes me love his writing.

It's exactly the sort of thing that Costa failed to grasp.

Transformers are a living race. In their world they are as real and alive as any other alien race. They are not just robots.

I agree, Costa failed in this regard. I would never go as far as to say James has failed, but he does kind of swing towards the opposite extreme when it comes to making the Transformers more human. The only thing that comes close is Wildman's Marvel fleshy-faces.

No. And I want to go on record as Swerve getting religion has got to be my least favourite piece of character development in Transformers, like, ever. All of a sudden he's become so much less interesting as a character - retreating into faith just smacks of the old "no atheists in foxholes" canard. Don't get me wrong, I loved all of Cyclonus's mythological "first five" stuff and Flywheels praying to Primus, but Swerve is a massive disappointment.

Figured atheists might cringe at this, seeing as Swerve is one of the more popular characters. Then again, James two panels later does give a very scientific and logical explanation for what happened to Metrotitan and how the Lost Light escaped that containment field in the dialogue between Magnus and Rodimus, in a way debunking Swerve's faith-based conclusions. Still, when you think about it, even those events with a scientific basis are not contradictory to many faith-based beliefs, and maybe Roberts is just trying to reflect how an event can be explained away from two very different perspectives. Which I think is the point Jack might be making below.

I really don't get that at all, Yaya. If anything, he goes out of his way in this to give both sides of the story. I actually feel he kind of forces Ratchet to play the 'bad atheist' in order to give Drift an equal standing in the argument.

Maybe you're right about that, Jack, and I'm misreading it. Have to go back and read it again.

Not only would I say he's even handed, but this issue actually comes off better for the religous minded.

Did I read the same comic?

[Metal Vendetta]

Figured atheists might cringe at this, seeing as Swerve is one of the more popular characters. Then again, James two panels later does give a very scientific and logical explanation for what happened to Metrotitan and how the Lost Light escaped that containment field in the dialogue between Magnus and Rodimus, in a way debunking Swerve's faith-based conclusions.

That doesn't make it better in the slightest. So there's a logical and rational explanation but Swerve decides to go with "Primus did it!" based on...what? The warm fuzzy feeling he gets inside when he tries to assuage the guilt he feels for shooting Rung?

Still, when you think about it, even those events with a scientific basis are not contradictory to many faith-based beliefs

Well sure, I could toss a coin into the air and the scientific explanation for why it comes down again (something to do with gravity) gels entirely with my faith that there's a greedy little goblin at the centre of the Earth who wants all the coins for himself so he's using magic powers to draw them to him. It doesn't make the faith-based viewpoint any more than unfounded nonsense.

and maybe Roberts is just trying to reflect how an event can be explained away from two very different perspectives.

In that he succeeded - I just wish he hadn't turned Swerve into a credulous idiot to do so.

I suppose that Swerve at least has the excuse that - living in a fictional universe as he does - his god does stand a chance of being real within the context of that fiction. It's a comic, so Primus is likely to turn up at some point. I dunno, if Roberts wanted to explore issues of faith that's fine but I just wish he'd explored them through the resident ****ing idiot Drift, rather than infecting another member of the crew with a delusional mind-virus.

[Best First]

Anyone else get the vibe from Roberts' writing thus far that he hates religion (like many of you)? Cause I sure do. James obviously likes to give a social commentary through his writing, which is okay, but I've found it a bit jarring sometimes because it sounds like the author is speaking his mind rather than the actual characters themselves speaking, which kind of takes me out of the story.

I really don't get that at all, Yaya. If anything, he goes out of his way in this story to give both sides of the story. I actually feel he kind of forces Ratchet to play the 'bad atheist' in order to give Drift an equal standing in the argument.

Agree, although i think the dialogue between Swerve and Ore was nicely balanced between points of view.

I don't see how Swerve believing in Primus (he doesn't become religious in this issue, he just admits to it, so i don't see how it can be characterised as a retreat into religion) makes him any less interesting. It seems a rather kneejerk reaction.

In terms of no athiests in foxholes, Ratchet and Ore stand as testament (hee) against this.

Plus i find it hard to get annoyed about 'bots believing in Primus as there seems to be a fair deal more evidence for Primus lying round than there is for real world religions.

And like it or not (i don't, but hey) lot's of people do believe in some pretty whacky stuff and it does impact how they see the world and act - James is, as Ben says, infusing a deep human element to the TFs characters (really don't see how that relates to a physical corellation though - that's a pretty odd leap) so having some characters act in ways i don't neccessarily agree with, but which still echo the world we live in, doesn't irk me.

I don't like war either but i'm not annoyed it turns up in TF comics.

I was however dissapointed Pipes didn't get invited to see Tailgate get not quite Autobranded. Boo.

[inflatable dalek]

I actually feel he kind of forces Ratchet to play the 'bad atheist' in order to give Drift an equal standing in the argument.

Agree, although i think the dialogue between Swerve and Ore was nicely balanced between points of view.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't recall anything in the previous issues to say Swerve didn't have religious beliefs, unless him being a fun character is supposed to count against that; which is somewhat unfair on the religious.

There are people I've worked with for the better part of a decade for whom I couldn't tell you their faith, or lack of it. It just doesn't generally come up in canteen conversations. So only just finding out Swerve's thoughts on the Universe less than a year in doesn't seem so odd to me. It's not as if he's banging on to everyone about it either, it's effectively private confession.

I wonder if there's an American/British cultural divide at work here [Apologies if no one who hasn't liked this actually is American, in that case the rest of this is moot...]. The British attitude is generally a lot less bothered about religion. There's a very interesting interview with Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt reprinted from an American atheist magazine where he gives increasingly puzzled responses to a series of "Have your friends ever tried to convert you from atheism? Do you get treated differently by society because of it?" style questions that basically boil down to "Err, no. Nobody I know really cares either way".

Plus i find it hard to get annoyed about 'bots believing in Primus as there seems to be a fair deal more evidence for Primus lying round than there is for real world religions.

Yep, we're talking about a society where the leader carries a working bit of God in his chest. The Pope can't claim that. Reminds me of the (Shortpacked?) cartoon I saw some years ago where War Within Jetfire is standing on the surface of Cybertron going "I refuse to believe in Primus as I'm a rational agnostic" to which a voice comes out of the planet going "You're standing in my butt crevice".

[Metal Vendetta]

Plus i find it hard to get annoyed about 'bots believing in Primus as there seems to be a fair deal more evidence for Primus lying round than there is for real world religions.

Yep, we're talking about a society where the leader carries a working bit of God in his chest. The Pope can't claim that. Reminds me of the (Shortpacked?) cartoon I saw some years ago where War Within Jetfire is standing on the surface of Cybertron going "I refuse to believe in Primus as I'm a rational agnostic" to which a voice comes out of the planet going "You're standing in my butt crevice".

Well yeah, I did say "I suppose that Swerve at least has the excuse that - living in a fictional universe as he does - his god does stand a chance of being real within the context of that fiction. It's a comic, so Primus is likely to turn up at some point." I'm aware of the difference between real and fictional gods and I'm not averse to religion in Transformers. Cyclonus, Drift, Flywheels...fine. It's just that this annual has turned a character that I used to like and relate to into a character that I don't really have any further interest in. Oh sure, he'll get over the whole shooting Rung in the head thing because he's got an invisible friend to hold his hand. Yay. Can't wait to read about that.

There's a very interesting interview with Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt reprinted from an American atheist magazine where he gives increasingly puzzled responses to a series of "Have your friends ever tried to convert you from atheism? Do you get treated differently by society because of it?" style questions that basically boil down to "Err, no. Nobody I know really cares either way".

Well, not quite:

If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I’d probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit “honorable exceptions,” but I don't really think that.)

Douglas was quite, quite anti-theist, please don't try and Bowdlerise his words. In fact if we're going to invoke him, the Electric Monk from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is probably far closer to his views on religious robots - a device that believes all that stuff for you so that you don't have to, that ultimately malfunctions and just starts believing all kinds of things at random. Possible inspiration for Drift?

[Shanti418]

I wonder if there's an American/British cultural divide at work here [Apologies if no one who hasn't liked this actually is American, in that case the rest of this is moot...].

It is: as far as I can tell, the only person who dislikes the "rampant atheism" in this book is Yaya. That by itself is unsurprising given prior argum..I mean, discussions, we've all hard on the board over in the GD section. GD being General Discussions, not "God, Dude!" And Yaya, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're not American in any way, correct? (And "American" meaning "of the United States," as I do hate to be all imperialist over the Northern and Southern continents concerning the monopolization of the word "American")

However, I do obviously agree overall with the sentiment. Of COURSE we're more religified over here. If we WEREN'T religious and half of us didn't believe in evolution, we'd look like fools! On your side of the pond, you've experienced the cons of things like mixing church and state. Over here, all of that's hypothetical, we've mythologized away the fact that our Founding Fathers were deists, and the predominance of Judeo-Christian values is one of the few things that people in the US (mistakenly) believe everyone shares.

In terms of religion in this comic, agree with the popular opinion: I thought it was overall even-handed, it makes sense that a mechanical race would not be religiously inclined (esp. given their immortality), as (from our perspective) we associate things like faith and love with humanity. Also agree that Ratchet is written like Richard Dawkins.

(Hmmm....interesting point: Is it the case that Transformers feel anger and hate (Civil War), that Transformers wonder about existence and their Creator, but the second love is introduced in the equation, we would scoff? Why is that, because we tie love to reproduction?)

On to the comic. I was probably a bit let down by it, only because I expected to find something more on the planet than Metroplex snoozing around (and even then, at least show us him awake and transporting or somethin'!) But as usual, Roberts' writing, characterization, and nuggets won me over.

Points worth mentioning:

- Loved seeing Eject and Rewind's cohabitation travails.
- Not a fan of Tailgate's makeover
- Like Rodimus's personality overall, but hate that he's wearing out "Till All Are One" and really think he should NOT have phoned in the Autobrand speech. If I was an Autobot, I'd think this guy was a douche.
- Nice touch on page 11 to make Beachcomber a religious scholar.
- LOOOVEED Galactic Council. Not that they themselves were cool, it just makes everything more epic (as someone else said earlier) to make the galaxy bigger. Loved the fact that they respect Magnus so much (love Magnus's whole storyline here) and loved the fact that they're scared sh**less by the giant mechanical beings in a millions year civil war (We're blacklisted? "Cool." lol). I never liked how Transformers were just one race among many when they did get out to the stars in the Marvel run. I mean, if you truly take into account scale, the Cybertronian race should scare the s*** out of everybody.
- Loved Ore's philosophical discussion on the notion of freedom
- Except for the names (Adaptus? Groan!), liked the new origin. Very Celestial-ish designs. And hey, I want a legion of Metroplex repaints!
- Thought the transition from 29-30 was extremely clunky and confusing. I had to really stare at it to go "OK, that's Brainstorm back in the Metrotitan, OK, that's the Metrotitan from whose eyes a ray is shooting that hits the ship"
- I enjoyed Drift's monk like attitude up until he starting saying cliche things like "Oh Rodimus, your destiny awaits you. You are important. Perhaps....more than you realize" or whatever.

[Yaya]

Yaya wrote:
Still, when you think about it, even those events with a scientific basis are not contradictory to many faith-based beliefs

Quote:
Well sure, I could toss a coin into the air and the scientific explanation for why it comes down again (something to do with gravity) gels entirely with my faith that there's a greedy little goblin at the centre of the Earth who wants all the coins for himself so he's using magic powers to draw them to him. It doesn't make the faith-based viewpoint any more than unfounded nonsense.

Actually, even within the realm of scientific possibility and the laws of probability, there actually could be a greedy little goblin at the centre of the Earth who wants all them coins. I mean, has it been disproven scientifically by traveling to the center of the Earth in search of such a vile, stingy creature? Granted, it is a ridiculous notion, but scientifically, there is still a possibility of this gravity-creating goblin fiend. But I digress...

Swerve could see it this way, as I do personally:

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.-Albert Einstein

and

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God"-Albert Einstein

Guess it's a matter of perspective.

Obviously, you may like whoever you like for whatever reasons you like.

But perhaps Swerve still deserves a lil bit of lovin yet?

And Yaya, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're not American in any way, correct? (And "American" meaning "of the United States," as I do hate to be all imperialist over the Northern and Southern continents concerning the monopolization of the word "American")

Actually Shantz, I'm 100% American born and raised in the mountains of Virginia. It actually took me many years to shake my Southern accent. Spent my entire life here. I know no other culture and speak no other language save English and my mother is Caucasian. I grew up with Sesame Street, the Flintstones, and the Adam West Batman show. Can't get more American than that.

[Shanti418]

And Yaya, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're not American in any way, correct? (And "American" meaning "of the United States," as I do hate to be all imperialist over the Northern and Southern continents concerning the monopolization of the word "American")

Actually Shantz, I'm 100% American born and raised in the mountains of Virginia. It actually took me many years to shake my Southern accent. Spent my entire life here. I know no other culture and speak no other language save English and my mother is Caucasian. I grew up with Sesame Street, the Flintstones, and the Adam West Batman show. Can't get more American than that.

Ah! Well then clearly ID's line of thought was justified. *wipes egg off of face* I'll ignore the vague implication that English and Caucasians are *more* American than others. So but you're living abroad now, right? Tell me I at least got that right.

Although I indeed do not believe in God in terms of a "Guy planning things," and I do not nor have I ever been a regular church goer, I'll say a few things:

1. Scientific epistomology is just an epistomology, no more, no less. We happen to live in a Western culture still buzzed on the Enlightenment, so we really favor things like rationality and logic. However, history shows that what is rational or logic is socially constructed according to any particular time. Furthermore, there's plenty of reason to think that there are some things that a scientific epistomology would NOT be well suited to examine.

2. Science, when it comes to the big (How did the Big Bang start?) and when it comes to the small (what's the smallest particle of matter? what's that you say? It fluctuates in and out of existence?) DOES require faith, faith in the aforementioned scientific epistomology, else it becomes "unfounded nonsense". That, I think, it what Einstein was hinting at, that for him, reaching those levels, made him believe in something more cosmic (of course, perhaps if he were around today working a supercollider, he'd reconsider atheism). We may, at some point, know these things scientifically, but right now, it's a hell of a lot of extrapolation and theory.

In sum, I'm all for science, all for faith, but I'm against lifting science to a level where it is an unassailable, unquestionable, "only way" of knowing.

Also, Transformers Comics, Cartoons, and Movies.

[Yaya]

Ah! Well then clearly ID's line of thought was justified. *wipes egg off of face* I'll ignore the vague implication that English and Caucasians are *more* American than others. So but you're living abroad now, right? Tell me I at least got that right.

Hehe, sorry about that 'vague implication'. Must be my hillbilly upbringing. Ain't no Merican cept white English-speakin ones. Yeeeehaw!

I'm still in the states, live in Florida. Never lived abroad, actually, though I think it'd be quite the experience. I've traveled much, so maybe that's how you got the impression I lived elsewhere.

1. Scientific epistomology is just an epistomology, no more, no less. We happen to live in a Western culture still buzzed on the Enlightenment, so we really favor things like rationality and logic. However, history shows that what is rational or logic is socially constructed according to any particular time. Furthermore, there's plenty of reason to think that there are some things that a scientific epistomology would NOT be well suited to examine.

2. Science, when it comes to the big (How did the Big Bang start?) and when it comes to the small (what's the smallest particle of matter? what's that you say? It fluctuates in and out of existence?) DOES require faith, faith in the aforementioned scientific epistomology, else it becomes "unfounded nonsense". That, I think, it what Einstein was hinting at, that for him, reaching those levels, made him believe in something more cosmic (of course, perhaps if he were around today working a supercollider, he'd reconsider atheism). We may, at some point, know these things scientifically, but right now, it's a hell of a lot of extrapolation and theory.

In sum, I'm all for science, all for faith, but I'm against lifting science to a level where it is an unassailable, unquestionable, "only way" of knowing.

I would not disagree with any of these points. In fact, I have struggled with how to best communicate this very point you make, yet you seem to do it so succinctly and clearly. (Incidentally, though it pains me to say this, of all the people who post on these boards, I am most envious of your exceptional ability to so effectively communicate the points you make in these debates. Were you on the debate team in school? )

Anyway, despite my belief in God, I'm not one to say that when something happens that we can't understand, it's something that defies the laws of nature. I believe that it is most probable that everything that happens can be explained in a very scientific and rational way. We simply may not have discovered the scientific basis of it yet. Does this go against my belief that God does exist? Absolutely not,because as Einstein believed, so to do I, that science is a method, not an explanation.

Which brings me to that last scene with Swerve. The same event of Ore being transported was interpreted in two different ways(one from Rodimus, one from Swerve). Yet I don't think they contradict each other. If Swerve were to later discover that what Rodimus had deduced was in fact correct, it still would not contradict the concept of'divine Mercy' that Swerve was alluding to, because Rodimus' explanation would simply be the scinetific method of that Mercy. I don't view the two as polar opposites like MV perhaps does. Maybe that's what Roberts was trying to get across?

[Metal Vendetta]

Swerve could see it this way, as I do personally:

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.-Albert Einstein

and

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God"-Albert Einstein

Guess it's a matter of perspective.

If Einstein believed in a concept of god at all (which is debatable) then he was a deist rather than a theist - he resisted every attempt by organised Judaism to claim him as one of their own and the concept of an interventionist god was complete anathema to him. It's quite well-covered at wikipedia and no amount of weaselly cherry-picking of quotations will alter that. He utterly rejected the concept of a personal god - the kind that would bend the laws of reality just to save Ore, for example. So, er, no.

I grew up with Sesame Street, the Flintstones, and the Adam West Batman show. Can't get more American than that.

****, that makes me an American as well.

[Yaya]

If Einstein believed in a concept of god at all (which is debatable) then he was a deist rather than a theist - he resisted every attempt by organised Judaism to claim him as one of their own and the concept of an interventionist god was complete anathema to him. It's quite well-covered at wikipedia and no amount of weaselly cherry-picking of quotations will alter that. He utterly rejected the concept of a personal god - the kind that would bend the laws of reality just to save Ore, for example. So, er, no.

So you're okay with Einstein's perspective of God, but have a problem with people having apersonal God? Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you think it's fair play for Einstein and other prominent scientific geniuses throughout history to take their conclusion so far as to say that there is a Superpower unbeknownst to us that is responsible for the mysteries of the scientific universe but not for others to see this same Power in any way personal to them, then how can this be described as anything other then illogical? If you accept one belief as legitimate, why not accept the other? Do you have a problem with religion in general, or just those in existence?

Maybe you find both to fall under the "green goblin" heading, but you can take that up with the Einstein's of the world.

[inflatable dalek]

Well, not quite:

If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I’d probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit “honorable exceptions,” but I don't really think that.)

Douglas was quite, quite anti-theist, please don't try and Bowdlerise his words. In fact if we're going to invoke him, the Electric Monk from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is probably far closer to his views on religious robots - a device that believes all that stuff for you so that you don't have to, that ultimately malfunctions and just starts believing all kinds of things at random. Possible inspiration for Drift?

But even in that quote there's no mention of huge arguments or attempts by his friends and family to "Convert" him (or vice versa for that matter) which, IIRC, was what the interviewer seemed to be expecting.

In sum, I'm all for science, all for faith, but I'm against lifting science to a level where it is an unassailable, unquestionable, "only way" of knowing.

Very much along my own thoughts. I would hope I'm a rationalist and scientifically minded (within the limits of my abilities, more on that in a second...) man but what interests and excites me about science is we're only at the beginning of a journey into knowledge. Nowhere near its end. And I've little doubt in 400 years many of our big scientific theories will look as silly as the Big Man In The Sky Did It idea. But that's what I love and find fascinating.

It's like chipping away at a big block of stone to reveal a statue we won't see finished in our lifetimes. Or even very likely the lifetime of our species (though some distant descendants turned into giant brains in jars might well eventually go "Ha! I got it!").

I must admit, despite having a great admiration for him ( as well as all his scientific achievements he's banging Lalla Ward. Which should probably be prove of some sort of divinity in itself) I do feel slightly uncomfortable with Dawkins extreme anti-religious stance at times.

Now I understand he's fighting back against an equally ingrained and shouty attitude from the "Creationist" and over extremely religious types. But my problem is...

Well, like I said, I am a rationalist and find scienctific theories and ideas about our origins and universe fascinating. But I am not a scientist. Not even close. I follow as best I can, but to get to the level where I could fully comprehend every aspect of most theories would take years. To get to the level where I could double check the accuracy of those aspects would probably take decades, if ever.

So when I read a book or watch a documentary or browse an internet feature; however well presented or researched, it still, always, has that small leap of faith required that what I'm watching has a real solid basis in fact. I weigh up the facts and make the best choice I can, but can't guarantee it all. I suspect many people are the same (though I don't know how many folks who are really good at following science we have here).

So at times Dawkins just comes across as a mirror image of those he's facing off against, both shouting at the people in the middle going "Hey, how can you believe that rubbish over there!!!!!!! Listen to me! I'm right!".

Though my view of Dawkins isn't helped by that DWM interview he did around the time of his cameo where he almost came across as a parody of himself when he seemed to become genuinely upset that fans might view children's TV hero Doctor Who as a God like figure.

Though isn't it great this comic is generating this sort of discussion? I mean, regardless of the various titles merits none of the others are causing deep philosophical debates on the nature of faith and what the things we believe might say about us. Usually it's "hey, is the plot in RID going to start any time soon?"or pointing out plot holes.

[bumblemusprime]

Uh, so, I am a rather fallen Mormon who spent the first twenty-five years in my life believing in a literal, physical God who literally appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and gave him golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. Yes, it sounds silly, but I bought it hook, line and sinker, to the point where I spent two years of my life biking all over North Carolina to tell people about said book, said Smith, said church.

I am married to someone who remains fairly active in the Church, although she can be fairly liberal about her beliefs, especially regarding the sillier parts of the Smith story. But she sees a community of faith as an important thing.

When I think about God, I tend to conceptualize Him/Her in these words from The Stand:

He's a hard God, a jealous God, He Is, what He Is, and in this world He's apt to repay service with pain while those who do evil ride over the roads in Cadillac cars. Even the joy of serving Him is a bitter joy.

If God exists, then he's as much the God of burning embassies in Libya as He is the God of beautiful babies.

Now as far as this comic goes, I see room for all kinds of interpretations of God, from Yaya's to my wife's to ID's to Shanti's, etc. A benevolent creator, as Drift sees it, a distant, immovable force, a total myth that the TFs lean on for support. To some degree, I like seeing Swerve on a path that may lead to total self-destruction. He's like Cat Stevens in the 70s; you can almost hear the horrible things he will say in defense of what he imagines to be God's will.

Let's not forget that this comic, at its core, is an examination of the Transformers' religiosity. When I say religiosity I mean the tendency to look for metaphysical answers and organize around those answers, not necessarily the belief in any God. The Lost Light is chasing down a legend that approaches religious status in most TFs' minds, and as far as I can see, the question of faith suffuses every single word in this book.

Most of us are going to have a strong reaction to this. It resonates, for good, for ill, in different ways. Same reason the aforemention Stand resonates. Not surprised that both Yaya and MV, our most vocal posters on the subject of religiosity, both had a strong reaction to the comic. As ID pointed out, that's one sign that this is one hell of a comic. A good story doesn't always provoke love, but it does provoke discussion. I've taught Shakespeare for over a year, and he never gets old.

Me, I love Rodimus in this, partially because he is so caught between the blind optimism and the destiny he is constantly assigned by his friends and supporters, and his own self-centered but focused viewpoint. That's me exactly. I just wanna do what I want to do. If God exists, then He has granted me a measure of decent judgment like anyone else. Yet my parents and Mormon family act as though I'm hemorrhaging my entire future by not going to church.

And Rodimus really turns some other people off. That's a good thing. Well, when I teach Othello I always feel a huge measure of sympathy for Desdemona, but some people see her as a despicable pawn in her own destruction. Again, a sign of a hell of a writer.

Therefore, I end this long-ass post with the caveat that good writers can, and should, be trusted, precisely because they can touch a nerve.

[Yaya]

Interesting posts guys.

They say there are a few topics you should never discuss at the dinner table (religion, politics), and I think for the most part past TF writers have avoided these issues as they relate to the real world. Intelligently, I say, because they are so emotionally charged and very difficult to simply ignore.

As much as I disagree with MV on, well, just about everything he has ever said, I fully understand where he's coming from on Swerve's having fallen out of grace for him. Because the issue of God has such a strong emotional basis, it's hard to separate one's personal persuasion from the characters that are now labeled in one group or the other. Swerve for him was a kickass character, and now that James has gone 'religious' on him, MV is forced to suddenly look at his character in a different, and unfortunately, negative light.

I will admit feeling the same way about one of my most beloved characters, Ratchet. I mean, damn, that guy has been one of my favs since I was a kid, since he took on Megs in Warrior School. He's a doctor, I'm a doctor. He heals the sick no matter what his patients beliefs without question, and I like to think I do the same. Black, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, I don't question, I do my part, as they are human beings in need. So I kind of related to the guy, fictional though he is. Now Ratchet is bashing those who believe in God and the idea of God, whilst Drift, one of my most hated characters, is I guess in support of it. What to do?! I kept thinking "My Ratchet? My Rachet?" I mean, if James separated the bots into Democrats and Republicans, I think the same thing would happen, and you'd get a lot of disgruntled fans.

C'est la vie, in the end it's just a comic and we don't always get what we want. James took a chance, a bold one. He's been the best so far, so despite any personal gripes, I say let him carry things out the way he thinks is best.

[Metal Vendetta]

So you're okay with Einstein's perspective of God, but have a problem with people having apersonal God? Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you think it's fair play for Einstein and other prominent scientific geniuses throughout history to take their conclusion so far as to say that there is a Superpower unbeknownst to us that is responsible for the mysteries of the scientific universe but not for others to see this same Power in any way personal to them, then how can this be described as anything other then illogical? If you accept one belief as legitimate, why not accept the other? Do you have a problem with religion in general, or just those in existence?

It's the difference between a deist and a theist position. I really don't have a problem with deism at all - I personally don't believe in it but the idea that a god created the universe but then didn't take any further actions within that universe is fairly harmless and doesn't really change anything as far as I'm concerned. It's basically substituting "god" for "the big bang", and that's fair enough.

On the other hand, theism is the belief that a god not only created the universe - and let's just consider the scale of the universe for a minute - but also cares about what kind of clothes you wear. A god that is responsible for creating the entire breadth of life on Earth, all the complexity and majesty of DNA and every species that lives or ever has lived (99.9% of which are now extinct) but who can't come up with a better plan to spread his message to his creation than by having himself incarnated as an illiterate carpenter and being tortured to death? Who is responsible for galaxies but insists on genital mutilation? I'm sorry, but if the same god who is responsible for the whole of creation is the same one from the Abrahamic holy books then honestly, he must have taken some kind of injury to the head and dropped a few million IQ points in between.

Einstein's view of god was the same as that of Baruch Spinoza, later Benedict de Spinoza because the Jews disowned and persecuted him. The point is, neither of them ascribed any characteristics to god other than those revealed through science and nature. Einstein may have felt a sense of awe when beholding the universe but he didn't insist that the creator of the universe cared about who people sleep with, and in which positions. And it's kind of demeaning to suggest that god created the universe but then had to tinker with it every so often, creating the laws of nature and then breaking them again by sending down a winged horse or a burning bush to impart a dubious moral to a bunch of illiterate primates in one of the most backwards parts of a tiny, insignificant world.

If Swerve was a deist (like Einstein) I wouldn't have a real problem with that development in his character. If he'd said "Yeah, well I think there's probably something out there" and left it at that, I would've probably rolled my eyes a bit but shrugged and moved on. But Swerve is a theist - he believes that Primus personally intervened and ascended Ore, and while that's possible (within the context of the comic) it's a totally different position to deism. I don't have a great deal of respect for theists and it's very disappointing for me to have Swerve turn into one. If his character changes - as he implies when he talks about how he doesn't want his reputation any more - and this theism is a big part of that new character, I would consider that a very bad thing.

TL;DR: Deism harmless, theism retarded.

[inflatable dalek]

I don't have a great deal of respect for theists and it's very disappointing for me to have Swerve turn into one. If his character changes - as he implies when he talks about how he doesn't want his reputation any more - and this theism is a big part of that new character, I would consider that a very bad thing.

TL;DR: Deism harmless, theism retarded.

But again, where does it say in any of the previous issues Swerve wasn't religious, or even theist? Drift and Ratchet have their previously existing viewpoints strengthened here rather than changed, why wouldn't that be the same for Swerve? His desire to change himself in future is as much down to what he now realises as an extremely dodgy reason for following through on Rodimus' order to fire as anything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts is actually be a bit cynical here in how everyone is making what happened fit into their pre-existing world view, somewhat akin to that "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, they don't change their views to fit the facts, they change the facts to fit their views" line from The Robots of Death.

One important I do think Roberts is bringing to the table across the board since at least Chaos Theory is something we very rarely see in SF aliens: Diversity.

Star Trek is famous for its "planet of hats" style aliens, Doctor Who generally treats its species all "Monsters" rather than cultures anyway, even Babylon 5 which did faith and acceptance of different viewpoints better than just about any other show still had moments like that season one episode that ends with the big point being made that humanity is the only one out of the major races with multiple religions.

Frankly, in terms of TV, comic and film SF Transformers was even arguably ahead of the curve as the Cybertrontians are split into two distinct factions with different goals.

What Roberts has been doing steadily but surely is adding different facets to their society. Things like the MMO, Krok's Crew and the DJD each having very different views on what it is to be a Decepticon, Pax's conversation with his subordinate on what they both believe, Misfire (or Flywheels depending on which issue you read...) and the Necrobot... Even arguably Ironfists blind faith in the Wreckers Vs the truth of what really happened on POVA.

And I like that, it makes it feel like a real, genuine species of individuals rather than the Klingon thing of "Honour and war is what we all care about, don't wonder too hard about who runs our florists or anything like that" style thing.

On the British attitude towards religion in general Vs the American... I do think a large part of it is the CofE, the state religion, owes its existence to two things. Henry VIII wanting to:


A: Get his end away with the Church's blessing.

and

B: Have an excuse to steal the Catholic Churches gold and land in Britain.

And despite this break from Catholicism arguably being responsible for centuries of problems it's generally seen as a good thing and Henry VIII as a bit of a lovable scamp. Is it any wonder we're generally relaxed about the whole religion thing?

Two of the three schools I went to were Church of England ones and religion was only ever done in the most half arsed and tokenistic way. Odd harvest festival, the occasional visit from the vicar is assembly and that was about it.

Though ironically one of the few attempts to really push religion was pretty much the direct cause of my atheism. We had a little play put on by a touring Christian company in which two people had died and were in a "Waiting room". And through their conversation these two strangers discovered they were each about the same, average people. But one believed in God and prayed. And so they got to go into heaven whilst the other WENT TO BURN IN HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

Even as a 12 year old I could see that if there was a God, and he acted like this, then he must be a complete and utter dick.

And Rodimus really turns some other people off. That's a good thing. Well, when I teach Othello I always feel a huge measure of sympathy for Desdemona, but some people see her as a despicable pawn in her own destruction. Again, a sign of a hell of a writer.

I never really enjoyed the Shakespeare we did at school (the comedies especially. Well, I say comedies plural but we may have just done the same one repeatedly as they all seemed to have the same bloody plot) but I really liked Othello, a really really well written thriller.

On the comic in general:

I do like how Rodimus is rubbish at speeches in contrast to most Autobot leaders. We've had Drift writing for him and any time he desperately tries to come up with something himself it just sounds pants. His attempt to not go "Till all are one" but only managing to change one word was lovely.

[Metal Vendetta]

But again, where does it say in any of the previous issues Swerve wasn't religious, or even theist? Drift and Ratchet have their previously existing viewpoints strengthened here rather than changed, why wouldn't that be the same for Swerve? His desire to change himself in future is as much down to what he now realises as an extremely dodgy reason for following through on Rodimus' order to fire as anything else.

I don't think it matters whether Swerve was previously a believer or not, he's gone from someone who's never shown the slightest inclination of religious tendencies to someone who talks about miracles. Personally I think that's the last we'll see of Ore to preserve the sense of mystery, but if he were to turn up on Cybertron with the Metrotitan, that would mean Swerve's belief that Primus intervened and took him to the Afterspark would be completely false and Swerve would be unquestionably delusional. I don't consider that a positive progression of his character, especially if it's going to continue as a regular motif. Put it this way: in-universe, do you think Ratchet's going to be thrilled when Swerve starts talking about how everything is Primus's will?

[inflatable dalek]

I'd be surprised if Swerve did do that, he only opens up here in a private conversation with someone who thinks he's somebody else. He's a guy who hides a lot of his true thoughts and personality under a degree of bluster. Equally, I wouldn't expect him to talk about how what happened with Rung has affected him except in similar circumstances.

I don't think it matters whether Swerve was previously a believer or not, he's gone from someone who's never shown the slightest inclination of religious tendencies to someone who talks about miracles.

But again, there's been no indication that he didn't already believe in any of those things either. Unless you assume religious people act and behave in a certain way that should give it away, which is, IMO, somewhat unfair. Though if you are able to provide any moment in the series to date that would prove absolutely Swerve couldn't be religious I'll concede the point.

Indeed, his whole desire to go on impossible quests is arguably in keeping with someone who'd lean towards the romantic, miracles are possible side of things. And of course, one of the quests he specifically mentioned back in issue 1 was related to Cybertron's lost moon, which is revealed here to be associated with the Primus mythology.

Considering the character profiles have had that comment about Ultra Magnus smiling in them since they were introduced and that gag just got paid off, I don't think Roberts is just throwing in total character changes at the last second with Swerve here.

And as for him potentially being wrong... well with two different theories being floated one set of characters are going to be proven wrong, possibly as soon as the RID Annual. Will it reflect as badly on Drift as well? Or on Ratchet if it turns out it was Primus who did it after all?

With what Eugenesis does with Primus (I won't go into spoilers for those who haven't read it, but there's a sequence where a massive action scene stops so a character can give an entirely new origin for Primus and Unicron) I would actually be surprised if anything we learn about him over the course of MTMTE is going to be as straightforward as him being their literal God though. So yes, there's more than a good chance the characters with faith will turn out to be very wrong indeed. If nothing else I'd wager in terms of the Knights being these amazing holy men.

[bumblemusprime]

Indeed, his whole desire to go on impossible quests is arguably in keeping with someone who'd lean towards the romantic, miracles are possible side of things.

I'd say this describes everyone in this book. Hell, even for Ultra Magnus I think the notion that there might be a great set of Universal Lawgiving Knights out there is more comforting than staying on the mess that Cybertron has become.

And as we've pointed out many times, most of these guys have enough of an attachment--more than just a reverence--for the Autobot Code that borders on the religious.

Not that arguing will make MV like Swerve more. But I find this development fascinating. Partially because, as you may have guessed from the Shakespeare comment, it could be the first step in his complete self-destruction and I LOVE the idea of watching Ye Olde Tragedye of Swervye.

[Metal Vendetta]

But again, there's been no indication that he didn't already believe in any of those things either. Unless you assume religious people act and behave in a certain way that should give it away, which is, IMO, somewhat unfair. Though if you are able to provide any moment in the series to date that would prove absolutely Swerve couldn't be religious I'll concede the point.

Indeed, his whole desire to go on impossible quests is arguably in keeping with someone who'd lean towards the romantic, miracles are possible side of things. And of course, one of the quests he specifically mentioned back in issue 1 was related to Cybertron's lost moon, which is revealed here to be associated with the Primus mythology.

Well all of them are on a quest, so that's no real indication of anything, but questing aside, Swerve's entire motivation thus far has been his bar - he admits as much this issue. Now I'm not saying that religious people don't open bars because they obviously do, but we haven't even had so much of a hint of that side of his character. Now, as a result of a tragic accident he's questioning his own motivation and talking about a desire to change, if only the way others see him. If his religiosity was there along and I agree it seems likely, though something he didn't really think much about, then these events have not only brought it to the front of his thoughts but strengthened it. Just in the course of this issue he's gone from "Yeah, well I think there's something out there" to "Primus personally intervened! Squeeeee!"

I appreciate I seem to be in the minority on this, but I just hate it. I could identify with wanting-to-run-a-bar, mouthy Swerve, I'd hang out with him. Miracle-believing, faithy Swerve? I now prefer Whirl. So it goes.

[Metal Vendetta]

I LOVE the idea of watching Ye Olde Tragedye of Swervye.

That's exactly what I don't want to see, dammit!

[bumblemusprime]

I LOVE the idea of watching Ye Olde Tragedye of Swervye.

That's exactly what I don't want to see, dammit!

Maybe it just comes from being closer to a faith tradition and finding the whole thing interesting as a sociological movement, whilst remaining comfortably skeptical. There is beauty and horror in religion for me the way there is beauty and horror in so much else. I know you would argue that religion creates most of the horror of the world, but having been so in and out of a deep tradition, I can't quite see it in that way. Feels too linear and simplified. People make religion, far as I'm concerned, out of questions they can't answer, and then make the swift mistake of applying the answers they've ascertained to everyone else's problem BUT the moment of transcendence, of a closeness to a fundamental answer, is, at least to me, a beautiful thing.

Swerve's question is "Why does something seem to intervene just at the moment I am having a moral AND physical crisis?"

Now I must admit that James is pushing some of my writer-love buttons. Swerve was previously an entertaining but one-note character as far as I've seen. He's gotten depth, and with that depth comes danger.