To me, the Ellimist/Crayak-God/Satan connection seems pretty obvious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was intentional.
I agree that it was intentional. The Ellimist is caught up in a lot of the interesting themes of the overall story. His book shows that he is both an individual and a collective being, for instance, and that he is a "brilliant loser." A trapped kid who got in way too deep and couldn't get back out.
People often say that God must see us like we see an Ant hill, that he's more than powerful enough to help us and simply chooses not to. However, the Ellimist shows that might not be the case. Maybe he does have the power to help and he does want to, but do to reasons beyond our understanding, he simply isn't allowed.
The Ellimist does raise that question. If there is a God, in what ways are his power and influence limited? Aren't there rules and principles he must abide by, rules to the game that he plays? What are those rules, and what would be the consequences of violating them? Does he interfere in the same manner the Ellimist does, stacking the deck ahead of time, making slight adjustments when he can, looking for loopholes in the rules of the game? Is he an Almighty meddler? A brilliant loser? Is he really infallible? Who is he, exactly, where did he come from, who appointed him, why is he in such a position of power in the universe? Is he the pawn of some even higher power? Is he an individual with his own mind, a three-part being, or a larger collective consciousness made up of countless minds? How well do we understand him?
I don't want to go too far into religion bashing, though.
I think Animorphs plays both sides of that field, especially in Visser and The Ellimist Chronicles, and with The Sharing and The One.
The Sharing and The One both promise deliverance through the surrendering of one's individuality and freedom. Megamorphs 4 shows how vulnerable Tobias is to their promise. His own self is worthless to him. He watches Jake intensely, hoping that somehow he could have his life. Be him, not Tobias. Later he realizes that there was no escape rope, and that he could have endured.
Visser shows how The Sharing was designed to exploit human religious, cultish behavior:
It would cater to one of the most fundamental human weaknesses: the need to belong. The fear of loneliness. The hunger to be special. The craving for an exaggerated importance.
I would make a haven for the weak, the inadequate, the fearful. I would wrap it up in all the bright packaging that humans love so much.
The Sharing would never be about weak people being led to submit to a stronger will, no, no, it would be about family, virtue, righteousness, brotherhood and sisterhood. I would offer people an identity. A place to go. I would give them a new vision of themselves as part of something larger, erasing their individuality...
I studied every cult, every movement, every great, mesmerizing leader that had ever held sway over humans.
And by the time those thirty-five humans came into the rented hall, I had adorned the walls with symbols and flags and icons. All the visual nonsense that moves the susceptible human mind.
They filed in, some in small groups, but most alone. They were stirred by the inspirational music. Flattered by the attention paid them by attendants I’d hired from a temp agency. Impressed by the expensively produced booklets we handed out. Awed by the pictures and symbols that draped the walls...
Later, after it was over, I found I couldn’t recall exactly what I’d said to this first meeting of The Sharing, not the specific words. A lot of high-flown rhetoric touching on the themes humans love to hear: that they are special, superior, a chosen few. That their failures in life are all someone else’s fault. That mystical, unseen forces and secret knowledge will give them power.
The next Saturday there were more than twice the number of humans. And already I had begun to explain that there was an “Outer” Sharing, and an “Inner” one. The humans in the “Outer” Sharing were wiser, better, more moral, superior to the average human, but not as superior as those lucky few who had entered the “Inner” Sharing.
I think this quote is very critical of organized religion, identifying the need for religion as the great weakness of humanity. At the same time, however, Visser features Eva as one of its central characters. Eva is religious, and her relationship with God is a strength, not a weakness.
I think there are plenty of real organizations that can be considered the equivalent of The Sharing. The Church of Scientology is definitely the most obvious. I tend to equate Scientologists with Controllers. Their organization is frighteningly powerful and has too much control over its members. There are members, then there are full members, then there are fuller members. They go after powerful and visible celebrities, just like The Sharing. And, Scientology's founder: L. Ron Hubbard. The Sharing's founder: Lore David Altman.
There's also the Boy Scouts, which is often compared to The Sharing in the books. The Boy Scouts promise acceptance and belonging, becoming part of something larger than yourself. They can give a lonely kid a community to belong to. They indirectly give power to members who rise in their ranks. Eagle Scout status is a powerful tool in our society. But members subscribe to the beliefs of the organization or they are kicked out.
What about gay kids? They are often the ones who feel the most powerful need for a sense of acceptance and belonging. But if you're gay and you join the Boy Scouts, you stay in the closet or you lose everything they've offered you.
"Place your right hand here," Bill said.
I placed my hand in what could only be a
shackle. A handcuff. My insides were churning
now. I was placing myself totally in their power.
What was I doing? What was I doing? ...
Bill suppressed a smile. "You want to leave
The Sharing? You want to leave all of us? All your
friends? After all we've done for you? Okay, To-
bias. But what will you do, then? Where will you
go? What's your future?"
My heart was pounding. "I don't know," I said
desperately. "I just. . . I . . ."
"There is no 'I,' Tobias. What are you? One
lonely, messed-up kid. No one loves you. No one
cares. No one but us. Put your head in the har-
ness."
Hard to imagine humans welcoming seven-foot-tall goblins into their local Boy Scout troop when they couldn't even manage to tolerate some gay kid.
Are some religious organizations similar to The Sharing in certain ways? Is religion a source of strength or an exploitation of weakness? Is it both? Where is the line that divides the two?
