Because according to that oh-so-helpful website Nora visited, the first fallen angels were thrown out for their lust for human women and power and wanting to have dominion over Earth.
It sounds like she's conflating the story of the original Fallen with the story of a group of second-wave fallen angels--the Grigori, or Watchers. Here's what I found out about them, courtesy of an urban fantasy fanfic I wrote:
The Grigori.
There's not a lot about them. Hell's bells, most of the references to them nowadays are in fantasy lit or roleplaying games. However, they also show up in a few apocryphal writings. Basically, they're fallen angels--not the original Fallen, but the guys who ended up having sex with mortal women around the time of Noah. Yeah, that Noah. Nowadays they're supposed to be demon spirits who are eternally hungering and thirsting for food and drink. And they'll do just about anything to get what they want. Including possessing a body and evicting the soul of the original owner.
If Fitzpatrick is mixing up the story of the original Fallen with the story of the Grigori, that has nothing to do with Mormonism. She's just an idiot.
Still, the fallen angels bit doesn't make sense for this book. She's pretty clearly trying to model it after the fall of the Watchers in the Book of Enoch, what with Patch falling because of lust for a human woman. The Book of Enoch is the only religious text referenced at all in this book. Therefore, one would assume that the fallen angels referenced were supposed to be the Watchers. If it wasn't supposed to follow the Book of Enoch like that, she should have specified that there was a difference. >_<
I agree. It really doesn't fit well. And the Book of Enoch says fuck-all about fallen angels being forgiven or redeemed. In fact, it says the opposite. First, God tells Michael to drive the Nephilim (a.k.a. gigantic cannibalistic angel-human hybrids) to mutual slaughter, and then pronounces sentence on the Watchers:
And when all their sons shall be slain, when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment, and of consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last for ever, be completed.
Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments; and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever.
"In confinement shall they be shut up forever"? Yeah, not seeing a lot of ways that a fallen angel can be redeemed.
I suspect that the Book of Enoch is Fitzpatrick's version of Meyer's Alaskan weather. Alaska is one of the sunniest states in America--yet Meyer puts two covens in Alaska, apparently thinking that if it's cold, it must be dark and stormy. Fitzpatrick seems to have heard of the Book of Enoch but doesn't seem to have read it. In either case, five to ten minutes with Google would have told them that they were screwing up major plot points. They just didn't bother to do so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Fallen Angels--the Mormon Version
Date: 2011-09-30 04:42 pm (UTC)It sounds like she's conflating the story of the original Fallen with the story of a group of second-wave fallen angels--the Grigori, or Watchers. Here's what I found out about them, courtesy of an urban fantasy fanfic I wrote:
The Grigori.
There's not a lot about them. Hell's bells, most of the references to them nowadays are in fantasy lit or roleplaying games. However, they also show up in a few apocryphal writings. Basically, they're fallen angels--not the original Fallen, but the guys who ended up having sex with mortal women around the time of Noah. Yeah, that Noah. Nowadays they're supposed to be demon spirits who are eternally hungering and thirsting for food and drink. And they'll do just about anything to get what they want. Including possessing a body and evicting the soul of the original owner.
If Fitzpatrick is mixing up the story of the original Fallen with the story of the Grigori, that has nothing to do with Mormonism. She's just an idiot.
Still, the fallen angels bit doesn't make sense for this book. She's pretty clearly trying to model it after the fall of the Watchers in the Book of Enoch, what with Patch falling because of lust for a human woman. The Book of Enoch is the only religious text referenced at all in this book. Therefore, one would assume that the fallen angels referenced were supposed to be the Watchers. If it wasn't supposed to follow the Book of Enoch like that, she should have specified that there was a difference. >_<
I agree. It really doesn't fit well. And the Book of Enoch says fuck-all about fallen angels being forgiven or redeemed. In fact, it says the opposite. First, God tells Michael to drive the Nephilim (a.k.a. gigantic cannibalistic angel-human hybrids) to mutual slaughter, and then pronounces sentence on the Watchers:
And when all their sons shall be slain, when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment, and of consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last for ever, be completed.
Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments; and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever.
"In confinement shall they be shut up forever"? Yeah, not seeing a lot of ways that a fallen angel can be redeemed.
I suspect that the Book of Enoch is Fitzpatrick's version of Meyer's Alaskan weather. Alaska is one of the sunniest states in America--yet Meyer puts two covens in Alaska, apparently thinking that if it's cold, it must be dark and stormy. Fitzpatrick seems to have heard of the Book of Enoch but doesn't seem to have read it. In either case, five to ten minutes with Google would have told them that they were screwing up major plot points. They just didn't bother to do so.