Talk:Behold the Man (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Novels / Fantasy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Fantasy task force.


This article gives two dates for the books release, which one is correct? YankeeDoodle14 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the opening paragraph, then they both are. The original novella version of Behold The Man was published in the 1966. The expanded novel version was first published in 1969. I'll edit the opening to make this clearer. Perhaps there should be a section in this article detailing the differences between the two versions? Demos99 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Intent to offend?[edit]

The following sentence gives me some concerns as to its accuracy: ""The Man", in Moorcock's interpretation, seems calculated to offend Christians everywhere: he's a neurotic, narcissistic slacker whose religious and sexual impulses often intermingle." First off, the words "seems calculated to offend Christians everywhere" are subjective. Although the subject matter maybe controversial Moorcock's intent was not to offend or even specifically attack Christianity; that is a popular misconception of the novel's impact.

I had a profound respect for Christianity and my own belief system is clearly a development of Christianity but I have an equally profound antagonism to the kind of debased, supersitious religiosity which passes for Christianity...As far as my book goes, it has never given offence to Christians of any denomination because it deals with problems of faith and of following in the footsteps of Christ.

— Michael Moorcock, [1]

I therefore suggest removing those words.

Secondly, with regards to the word "slacker": Glogauer's inherent personality flaw is not that he is primarily a 'waster', 'drifter' or 'idler' more that he allows others to define him because, until he discovers his 'purpose' as Christ's stand-in, he lacks any Ego. This is a significant theme in existentialist philosophy, which posits that "Existence precedes essence". Thus Glogauer engages in homosexual acts not because he is homosexual but because he has no reason not to go along with his 'abuser'. Similarly, he allows John the Baptist to believe him to be the Messiah because it is easier for him to do so than not. It's only when he discovers the historical Jesus to be a congenital idiot that he finally finds his vocation in life.

Lastly, I realise the previous editor used "The Man" at the start to carry forward their entomology of the book's title in the previous line/paragraph, but Moorcock isn't suggesting that the Biblical Christ was Karl Glogauer (or vice versa) but instead uses the book to explore concepts of demagogy; how is that figures like Jesus or Hitler are able to influence so many people?

I guess that's all a rather long-winded way of saying I think this section should be rewritten somewhat. Demos99 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy (1967)?=[edit]

Could anyone objectively refer to any attending controversy related to the publication of Behold The Man? I assume that there must have been some objections from more orthodox Christians, but there is no reference to that in the current article. Calibanu (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu

The Skull (PKD,1952)[edit]

Philip K Dick's 1952 short story The Skull (readable online for free) has a similar arc to this novel, so I wonder if Moorcock had read it and was influenced by it. Custardslice7 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Behold the Man (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)