GO: 4004 BC (possible minor spoilers)

[Levi]

The date Good Omen's references as the date of the creation of the world is a date that was proposed by an Anglican Archbishop named James Ussher after what he called a "literal" reading of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_c...

I would preferred a made-up date that didn't reference the history of young-earth creationism, as that drew me out of the book and made it difficult to get back into. Anyone else think the authors should have been stronger creationists themselves and taken less from the history of Christianity?

[Kate]

Levi wrote: "I would preferred a made-up date that didn't reference the history of young-earth creationism, as that drew me out of the book and made it difficult to get back into."

I thought the opposite, in order to 'locate' Good Omens in a world that is recognizably our own certain historical details should be factual, if they'd made up some stuff I would have been drawn out of the story. Also, why would you bother making up some competing young earth theories when there are plenty existing ones to go around?

Levi wrote:Anyone else think the authors should have been stronger creationists themselves and taken less from the history of Christianity?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. They made up plenty. The Chattering Order of St. Beryl in particular will always stay in my mind.

[Curt]

This book is a take off from the Omen movies and other similar stories. They were full of Christian imagery which makes sense since the anti-Christ needs a Christ to make sense.

[Sean]

The book assumes that Christian mythology is true, no matter how absurd it is. The Earth being 6000 years old is no harder to swallow than the Wheel of Time, and the fact that one is based upon real myths and the other comes from Robert Jordan's imagination doesn't make a difference.

[Martin]

Sean wrote: "The book assumes that Christian mythology is true, no matter how absurd it is. "
I agree with Sean and this is also the true strength of these two authors, to set up a somewhat absurd premise and push it to the extreme to see where it leads them.
I found this book rather 'empty' when the wittiness and the chuckles are put aside, but what will stay with me is what Crowley and Aziraphales dialogue in the end, where Crowley says in the end: "That's not good advice. That's not good advice at all. If you sit down an think about it sensibly you come up with some funny ideas. Like: why make people inquisitive, and then put some forbidden fruit where they can see it with big neon finger flashing on and off saying "THIS IS IT!"?"
..
"I mean, why do that if you really don't want them to eat it, eh?"

This is their book where they examine the Christian mythology and so to speak put it to the test. To do that they would want to stick as close to the truth as possible and examine what consequences that brings.
I was a bit surprised not to find any reference to the dinosaurs in there, but I guess that's already been done (by Adams).

[Colin]

Martin wrote: "I was a bit surprised not to find any reference to the dinosaurs in there, but I guess that's already been done (by Adams)."

They did mention the dinosaurs as being a joke, very start of the book. But that was about all i've found so far (but then again, i am only at Wednesday).

[Levi]

Martin wrote, "I agree with Sean and this is also the true strength of these two authors, to set up a somewhat absurd premise and push it to the extreme to see where it leads them."

Looking at it from that point-of-view, it makes sense to me how they wrote it. It still completely took me out of the book to see young-earth-creationism espoused, but I guess that's my baggage interfering with my enjoyment, and no fault of the authors.

[Don]

Levi wrote: "The date Good Omen's references as the date of the creation of the world is a date that was proposed by an Anglican Archbishop named James Ussher after what he called a "literal" reading of the Bib..."

I understand how strong religious themes might set you sensibilities on edge, but remember, Pratchett writes satire. Young Earth creationism practically satirizes itself so not including it would have been a waste of good material.It is supposed to be a humorous romp through Christian-style Apocalypse after all.

[David]

Also remember that the authors - like - myself are British. We don't have big debates over Creationism, no ones really interested and we aren't a particularly religious society. Only a small (15%) proportion of the UK are regular church goers. (http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php)
We would not see it as the authors being creationists, but as using well known stories, myths and people to populate a book. The initial idea was apparently to do a satire on the "Just William" books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Wil...
There is one called "William and the Witch" ......