• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thoughts and questions about "Storm of the Century"

logician

Well-Known Member
An interesting miniseries on TV was “Storm of the Century” based upon Stephen King’s work.
I had a point to make about this miniseries, and also a question to pose.

The point has to do with the religious connotations of the miniseries. The demon’s name was Andre Linoge, obviously making reference to the passage in the Christian bible
“And Jesus asked him, saying, "What is thy name?" And he said, "Legion": because many devils were entered into him.”

However, towards the end, in the town hall, the demon says “I am not a god, nor one of the immortals”.
This sounds like something straight from Roman or Greek mythology. He does not say, “the god”, which one would expect if it was a Christian reference, and certainly the reference to “immortals” is of some different mythology.

The point here is that there seems to be a mixed religious message in this movie, where it’s kind of hard to figure out what religious meaning it is supposed to have.

Of more interest, of course, is whether the people of the town made the right decision to give the child to the demon.
My opinion is no, they didn’t.

By giving the demon the child, they not only sacrificed the child, but insured the continuance of this demon’s obvious cruelty to human kind.

If they had stood against the demon, here are the possible scenarios.

Best case:
The townspeople pit their collective will against the demon, and he doesn’t have the power to overcome it, and leaves.

Worst case:
The demon does have the power to make the children die, and the townspeople commit collective suicide.

I still think it’s better that the townspeople stand up to the demon, and risk dying , rather than sacrifice a child to perpetuate his cruelty.

Your thoughts?
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
Oh ya, definitely, that was the point, I think. Remember the bit about Roanoak? I think it's implied that he made them all disappear since they didnt give in to his demands. So, he tried again, this time with the people of Little Tall Island, and he succeeded in perpetuating himself.

If the people had sacrificed themselves for the "good of the whole", then maybe the evil critter would have whithered away and died without any 'offspring'. But, i think the story's moral is that people will take the easy way out, that people have a herd mentality and can convince themselves that if they all are in it together then its ok, no matter how terrible the act.

I love that movie, its one of my favorites of all time. :D
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Oh ya, definitely, that was the point, I think. Remember the bit about Roanoak? I think it's implied that he made them all disappear since they didnt give in to his demands. So, he tried again, this time with the people of Little Tall Island, and he succeeded in perpetuating himself.

If the people had sacrificed themselves for the "good of the whole", then maybe the evil critter would have whithered away and died without any 'offspring'. But, i think the story's moral is that people will take the easy way out, that people have a herd mentality and can convince themselves that if they all are in it together then its ok, no matter how terrible the act.

I love that movie, its one of my favorites of all time. :D


But we don't really know if the Roanoak thing was all a facade, i.e. he made them believe he was the cause of the disappeances, but it may not have really been true.
Remember, at the end, when the constaple's wife said "you tricked us" and the demon said "you fooled yourselves". The demon may not have been able to stand up to the combined will of the people.
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
Good point. Demons have that effect on people, giving them way too much power. When in fact, the demon merely represents the Dark Side of our own psyche we "cast off", and externalize. In our vain belief we can disown it and blame the devil for our own sins. :angel2:
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
However, towards the end, in the town hall, the demon says “I am not a god, nor one of the immortals”.
This sounds like something straight from Roman or Greek mythology. He does not say, “the god”, which one would expect if it was a Christian reference, and certainly the reference to “immortals” is of some different mythology.
I think the quote makes sense in the context. He was simply claiming not to be a god; It was apparent that he wasn't the (Christian) God and he didn't want people to get the wrong idea about what he was. I took "immortals" to mean angels or demons. Thus, he was-- or used to be-- a human, that must have tapped into some great evil power source.



Of more interest, of course, is whether the people of the town made the right decision to give the child to the demon.
My opinion is no, they didn’t.
By giving the demon the child, they not only sacrificed the child, but insured the continuance of this demon’s obvious cruelty to human kind.
I bet everyone sitting in their comfortable armchair would say the same thing, but if you were put in the actual situation, I doubt you'd be so sanguine.

I don't think it was merely a matter of taking the easy way out, as someone suggested. It has more to do with our strong sense of self-preservation, our desire to save our own necks-- and that of our children-- at all cost.


If they had stood against the demon, here are the possible scenarios.
Best case:
The townspeople pit their collective will against the demon, and he doesn’t have the power to overcome it, and leaves.

I really didn't see any evidence of this being a possibility. The whole movie is basically proof of Linoge's power over the mind, through his ability to force people to commit suicide and murder, and to produce a common dream in all the townspeople.

It is more likley that the townspeople truly did have a black and white choice:
Either give him a child and everyone lives, or with-hold the child and everyone dies.
Which do you choose?

I thought one townsperson made a convincing argument, to paraphrase "It is better to lose one child in life, then to lose all of them in death."


But we don't really know if the Roanoak thing was all a facade, i.e. he made them believe he was the cause of the disappeances, but it may not have really been true.

While the Roanoak thing may have been a ruse, somehow I doubt it. It fits. The fact that the Roanoak townspeople resisted was probably directly linked to the greater piety, and religious feeling, of the day. They were more afraid of what God might do to them than they were of Andre Linoge.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
The one thing I always wondered was about the choice of the child. Andre Linoge claims that it is all chance, but really, what are the chances that it was going to be Ralphie? Linoge wanted him. Ralph was a "good" child; the idea of corrupting him into something completely evil probably amused him.
 
Last edited:

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I have to say... I agree with you Logician...

They made the wrong choice in handing over the child... that said, from what I remember of the movie, and book, there was no real third option of possibly defeating Linoge...

When in fact, the demon merely represents the Dark Side of our own psyche we "cast off", and externalize. In our vain belief we can disown it and blame the devil for our own sins
I believe that for some that may be the case, but hardly all... I do not pawn off my faults and failures... and yet still believe in demons...
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
""I think the quote makes sense in the context. He was simply claiming not to be a god; It was apparent that he wasn't the (Christian) God and he didn't want people to get the wrong idea about what he was. I took "immortals" to mean angels or demons. Thus, he was-- or used to be-- a human, that must have tapped into some great evil power source.

Why are you intimating a "Christian" interpretation when there is none. Saying "a god" definitely implies there are multiple gods. If he meant angels he would have said angels, not "immortals". Also demons are merely fallen angels, thus both are immortals under the Christian definition. Yet he is obviously a demon, yet not immortal, a contradiction.



"I bet everyone sitting in their comfortable armchair would say the same thing, but if you were put in the actual situation, I doubt you'd be so sanguine.



I don't think it was merely a matter of taking the easy way out, as someone suggested. It has more to do with our strong sense of self-preservation, our desire to save our own necks-- and that of our children-- at all cost.




"I really didn't see any evidence of this being a possibility. The whole movie is basically proof of Linoge's power over the mind, through his ability to force people to commit suicide and murder, and to produce a common dream in all the townspeople."

Of course you missed Lenoges obvious weakness, he didn't have total control over minds, such as when he couldn't get the guy to kill his girlfriend. This implies a concerted effort of the townspeople to deny his will may well have worked.

"It is more likley that the townspeople truly did have a black and white choice:
Either give him a child and everyone lives, or with-hold the child and everyone dies.
Which do you choose?

I thought one townsperson made a convincing argument, to paraphrase "It is better to lose one child in life, then to lose all of them in death."

DITTO


While the Roanoak thing may have been a ruse, somehow I doubt it. It fits. The fact that the Roanoak townspeople resisted was probably directly linked to the greater piety, and religious feeling, of the day. They were more afraid of what God might do to them than they were of Andre Linoge.[/quote]

Again the Christian argument which is not supported.
 

Carrick

New Member
I'm several years late to the party. I just watched the movie.

One of the things about religious/philosophical debates often is when people either focus "too much" on minor details or "too little." Fact is, focusing so much on "not a god" seems misleading at this point given King's own religious background. Now, I said his religious background, not what he currently believes. I simply mean, what he grew up with.

It is the same as how Christians divide themselves into numerous denominations often without real justifiable reasoning. For example, the split between denominations over the interpretation of "es" in the Greek interpretation to "in" or "into," as in "baptized in water" or "baptized into water." All the while arguing over such meaningless debate, missing the whole core and fundamental point of baptism.

Here's what this movie means:

Linoge, as explained in the movie, is anagram for Legion, referencing the story of Christ driving out the demons, Legion, into a bunch of pigs. From this story we know, Legion cannot exist without hosts. When Jesus came to them, they worry Jesus would drive them out into oblivion. So instead, they asked Jesus to cast them into the pigs.

Now, why pigs? Because the demons were described as "unclean," and likewise in the Jewish tradition, pigs are unclean. It was a legal ground for them to go into. This gives you a lot of explanation to this story. As Legion explained, this whole town is filled with depravity. Every single one of them has hidden sins. But even more so, as demonstrated in the last scene, they're not true believers despite their Christian background. Even the pastor/priest was there helpless in this situation.

This is a common theme in many of King's work, he has a very cynical view of church and Christians, often pointing out their hypocrisy and fake conviction. In many of this stories, the one man with conviction and doing the right thing is often suppressed and overruled by the mass of fake Christians. This movie would be no different.

Linoge's host is actually a man, though life prolonged by the demons. So he is mortal, he can age, he can die. The demons inside however is ageless and therefore require "new" hosts from time to time. This is what Linoge is looking for, a new host. He's not looking for a protege, all this was a deception as much of what he says to the people were deceptions. This is how evil works, they deceive. For example, Linoge constantly reassures them they're doing the right thing, falsely praising them for their decisions, etc... Also, one may ask, how can Linoge and the boy walk together in the end? Well, Legion is not one, but many. Even more so, in the end, we can see clearly the boy has become Legion.

The reason Linoge can control these people is because he has legal grounds for them. "Born in sin, come on in." A common Christian warning, "Do not let Satan have a foothold in your heart." These people are sinful, so Linoge can force them, tempt them, make them kill each other or themselves. He cannot "take" any of the children, b/c they are innocent and he does not have legal grounds for them. Therefore, only way is to make a deal with the adults for them.

Did they make the right choice?

It isn't about right or wrong. To be honest, I think it was already too late for them, that's why Linoge was there. They were already too far gone, that is why the ending is more of a "reflection" of what happens when people are too far gone from the light. They were selfish, self-righteous, concerned for their own lives and willing to sacrifice a child to save themselves. Now, describing that about unbelievers is nothing new, that's how the world is. What makes it a shocking revelation is the suppose religious backgrounds of these townsies. They're, again, fake believers with fake faith.

Now, to be an optimist, could they have chosen a different choice? They voted yes to sacrifice a child and they were spared. They could've voted no, which Linoge most likely will wipe them all out. Is there a 3rd choice? Yes, actually there is one possible choice.

First, we must recognize one fact. They were afraid to die, that in itself is an indication of lack of faith. A true believer is not afraid of death b/c they know death is simply a passage to God's Kingdom. All Christian martyrs knew this. So the fact is they feared their death b/c they were not believers and thus so willing to do anything, including sin, to save themselves.

They had one other option. They could say "no" to Linoge and then all "repent." Yup! There is no sin which is so great that it cannot be covered by grace. The problem is, they don't know or don't believe that. The sole responsibility of this falls on the failure of their shepherd, the false pastor/priest. The only reason Linoge has claim to them is because of their sin, so expunge it, then he has no claim on them anymore. All they had to do was stand up, openly confess and repent their sins in the crowd as witness before God.

Some might say that had they realized this, the wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. But is there really such a thing as "too late?" For was not there a criminal crucified with Christ that received salvation at the last possible moment? Fact is, had they come to this conclusion, repented their sins, they wouldn't even fear death anymore or be compromised to sin.

-----

Application:
I relate often to King's view on Christians and the church. And often reading religious debates and other people's view only reaffirms what I thought of them. I mean, with no disrespect, this forum begun over discussion over Linoge's usage of "I am not a god," all the while overlooking the heart of the story and the more important things to notice.

What I've written here, I don't consider deep at all. They're what I call "Theology 101," or the most basic common understanding of the Gospel. When I read people go into extreme length, often with fancy terms and liturgical explanation, yet miss the fundamental understanding of biblical text, it makes me realize how many people out there are like the people in this town. And for a true self-reflection, what would you do when this situation is put upon you? When you have to make tough choices in life concerning morality and your conviction?

Would you quite your job if the company you work for is corrupt? Even if they offer you tons of money and the things that come with them - power and women? Would you quite this job knowing the economy is in a downturn and you may be jobless for years? Or would you hang on to your job to survive?

Spiritual death occurs one compromise at a time.
 
Last edited:
Top