CSFF Blog Tour, Day 2 – Eye of the Sword – What’s With All the Angels?

Posted on Updated on

((In conjunction with the CSFF Blog Tour, I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.  Go here to read my post from Day 1.)).

Eye of the Sword features a merry mash-up of various mythologies, including world trees, aura-reading, and magic harps.  Although a Most High deity is mentioned, angels and half-angels feature most prominently in the series.  Author Karyn Henley even uses different levels of angelic authority, all the way from top-dog seraphim who guard the Most High, to lowly Exousia who don’t even have wings.  Of course, being the language and anthropology nerd that I am, I had to do some Google searching.

Henley borrows the first three levels from knowledge of medieval angelology:

Seraphim – A seraph (pl. seraphim (play /ˈsɛr.ə.fɪm/[1]); Hebrew: שְׂרָפִים śərāfîm, singular שָׂרָף śārāf; Latin: seraphi[m], singular seraph[us]; Greek: σεραφείμ) is a type of celestial or heavenly being in the Abrahamic religions.

Ophanim – The Thrones (lat. thronus, pl. throni) are a class of celestial beings mentioned by Paul of Tarsus in Colossians 1:16 (New Testament) and related to the Throne of God. They are living symbols of God’s justice and authority. According to the New Testament, these high celestial beings are among those Orders at the Christ‘s service.  The Thrones are mentioned again in Revelation 11:16.

Cherubim – A cherub (Heb. כְּרוּב, pl. כְּרוּבִים, eng. trans kərūv, pl. kərūvîm, dual kərūvāyim lat. cherub[us], pl cherubi[m], Assyrian ܟܪܘܒܐ) is a type of spiritual being mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and cited later on in the Christian biblical canons, usually associated with the presence of God. The plural can be written as cherubim, cherubimsKJV or cherubs.

The rest of the levels she basically borrows from Catholic angelology as well, only Karyn Henley changes some of the names and she adds in one or two new groups:

Kuriotes : means dominion, power, lordship – Henley makes them the bosses of lower order angels

Archae : origin Greek archaio-, from archaios ancient, from archē beginning – Henley makes them the guardians of the four elements

Thronos : a throne seat, or a chair of state having a footstool – Henley makes these ones justice-minded

Exousia : can be power of choice, mental power, or power over government – Henley makes them warriors and keepers of history

And the rest are archangels, regular old messenger angels, and half-angels.  With all this angel talk, I’m not at all surprised that she features a whole section of her website on angelology from different cultures.

To be honest, all this talk of angels makes me a bit edgy.  It’s one thing when a clearly secular book decides to fool around with angels.  There are different expectations.  It’s quite another when a book filed under “Christian” does the same thing.  It seems to muddy the waters and create an unwise focus on angels.  Even if the book is “just a story”, it’s marketed at Christian teens who will come into it familiar with the idea of angels.  Like it or not, Henley’s book will become associated with that in their brains, and perhaps create an unhealthy focus on angels, rather than on Christ Jesus (excessive mental preoccupation does count as worship).

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, ‘Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!’ ”  – Revelation 22:8-9

It would be different if Henley is just using the word “angel” for her own creations, but that’s a hard sell when there is a clear linguistic and duty connection between them and Catholic angelology–with a few exceptions, in that these angels get frisky with humans and appear to be far closer to humans than the Biblical standard.

I understand that this is supposed to be fantasy, and that gives Henley some creative license.  The much-favored C. S. Lewis is infamous for weaving in all sorts of myth into his stories–favoring Greek and Roman figures.  However, Lewis still had a strong story telling core to most of his books, of which the mythology was decoration and deliberate ornamentation.  In Eye of the Sword, sort of non-Biblical angels are the main event–combined with many other ideas.  This makes Eye of the Sword a book that I’d much rather see in the regular young adult section, where it could find its way into the hands of a larger teen audience and give them a refreshing change from yet another fallen angel romance.

Come back tomorrow for Day 3′s post – myth-mixing with a pinch of Christian morals gets random relativism soup.

For some other thoughts, please check out the following bloggers:

Julie Bihn
Thomas Fletcher Booher
Keanan Brand
Beckie Burnham
Jackie Castle
Brenda Castro
Jeff Chapman
Christine
Theresa Dunlap
Victor Gentile
Ryan Heart
Janeen Ippolito
Jason Joyner
Carol Keen
Emileigh Latham
Rebekah Loper
Shannon McDermott
Karen McSpadden
Meagan @ Blooming with Books
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Anna Mittower
Mirriam Neal
Nissa
Faye Oygard
Nathan Reimer
Chawna Schroeder
Kathleen Smith
Donna Swanson
Jessica Thomas
Steve Trower
Shane Werlinger
Phyllis Wheeler

7 thoughts on “CSFF Blog Tour, Day 2 – Eye of the Sword – What’s With All the Angels?

    Julie said:
    August 22, 2012 at 3:26 am

    Yeah, I would have liked the book better if they hadn’t been called “angels,” myself.

    [...] √ Jeff Chapman Christine Theresa Dunlap Cynthia Dyer √ Victor Gentile Ryan Heart √ √ Janeen Ippolito √ Jason Joyner √ Carol Keen Emileigh Latham Rebekah Loper √ √ Shannon [...]

    Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
    August 23, 2012 at 1:29 am

    And I loved the book but would still have preferred if they weren’t “angels” because clearly they were not. Yet, I’m a fantasy lover used to handling wizards and separating them from the Biblical concept, so I figured I should do the same with angels.

    Still, I thought Julie made an interesting point which you mentioned, too, Janeen–the effect on young minds. There’s been a lot of damage done, I think, by literature’s false representation of angels. “Good” human spirits don’t become angels, they don’t earn their wings by performing their duties well, they aren’t stars, and so on. If someone were to read the Angeleon Circle and thing this was an actual depiction of angels … well, that would be wrong.

    Becky

      Janeen Ippolito responded:
      September 25, 2012 at 1:37 am

      I agree. It’s really tempting as Christians to want to believe that–though honestly, I find the truth that loved ones in Christ are in heaven at the feet of Jesus much more comforting. I have to hope that people can make that distinction, but I know speculative fiction readers enjoy reading immersively, and that always comes with a danger of fiction blurring into and influencing our thoughts on reality.
      Isn’t that why we write books, in part?
      Thanks for your comments!

    [...] navigation ← CSFF Blog Tour, Day 2 – Eye of the Sword – What’s With All the Angels? Aug 23 [...]

    [...] eligible for the Top Tour Blogger Award: √ √ √ Keanan Brand √ √ √ Julie Bihn √ √ √ Janeen Ippolito √ √ √ Shannon McDermott √ √ √ Meagan @ Blooming with Books √ [...]

    [...]  The topic of angels was definitely a turn-off.  I’m not a fan of personifying angels, or any content dealing with angels.  It feels awkward, especially since there are angels everywhere.  There are angels watching me [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s