@RUTGERS.ARPA:LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA (04/01/85)
From: Laurence R Brothers <LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA> TO REIGN IN HELL: This is VERY good. UP THE REVOLUTION! -Laurence -------
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/02/85)
Just finished reading this book, which I don't think I would have normally picked up, but since the author is a net type person... The book concerns a struggle in Heaven, between the various of the Heavenly Host. The premise is to show how events like the fall of Satan, etc., might have actually happened quite differently, but still have given rise to the standard interpretation. The problem with writing this sort of a book is that the author has started off by placing severe limitations upon himself. First of all, he has to write a story that supports the standard interpretation of the struggle in heaven. Secondly, he has to craft the story so that the reader is left with an entirely different viewpoint about what happened. Third, within this framework he has to write a story. Brust handles the first two points nicely. I'm not well read on the various myths about the fall of Satan, etc., but the story fit in well with what I do know. The story also left me with a new view on the fall of Satan, so it succeeded on the second point as well. However, the story fails (somewhat) on the third point. I'm of the opinion that a story must be personal in order to succeed. That is, even if you intend to tell the story of some sweeping historical change, you must show how that change has some personal effect on someone. LOTR does this admirably. Although the story is, on one level, a struggle between good and evil, it succeeds because it shows how this struggle is reflected in the life of Frodo. To Reign In Hell doesn't do this. If you've read the book, ask yourself who the main character is. Satan? Well, much of the action does revolve around Satan, but he isn't (strangely) central to the story. In fact, the story doesn't have a main character, and that, I think, is its major failing. By not having a personal side, and by not showing a great deal of character development, etc., TRIH fails to be a complete story. On to some unrelated comments. I found two ideas in TRIH to be fairly fascinating. First, there is the idea that the angels were at some time ignorant of morality. This idea is only hinted at and then abandoned. The hint is when they question whether or not they have the right to force other angels to do something. At first they seem surprised by the question (and, indeed, Michael never does see the point), but the issue is never fully developed, and there are plenty of actions by angels that contradict this premise (i.e, Abdiel worries about what he is doing, Jaweh feels love, etc.). Still, this is a fascinating idea. Suppose you had a world full of creatures who had no morality at all. What would they (and their society) be like? The second idea is the implication that Jesus Christ was the SECOND coming, and not the first. I'm not sure if Brust intended this or not, but it occurred to me while reading the book, and I found it to be an interesting idea. I'm not sure how this can be used in a story, but it makes a fascinating premise. -- Scott Turner
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (04/04/85)
> From: Laurence R Brothers <LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA> > > > TO REIGN IN HELL: This is VERY good. > > UP THE REVOLUTION! > > -Laurence > ------- Thank you. Indeed. -- SKZB
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (04/15/85)
> > .................................. Suppose you had a world full of > creatures who had no morality at all. What would they (and their society) > be like? > > > -- Scott Turner I recommend James Blish's A CASE OF CONCIENCE, if you haven't read it. An excellent treatment of (among other things) exactly this point. -- SKZB
ted@usceast.UUCP (Ted Nolan) (04/27/85)
In article <166@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: >> >> .................................. Suppose you had a world full of >> creatures who had no morality at all. What would they (and their society) >> be like? >> >> >> -- Scott Turner > >I recommend James Blish's A CASE OF CONCIENCE, if you haven't read it. >An excellent treatment of (among other things) exactly this point. > > -- SKZB Another interesting book along this line is _A Pity About Earth_, I don't recall the author, but it was half of an old ACE DOUBLE with R. A. Lafferty's _Space Chantey_ on the other side. The people in this book were the most completely amoral characters I can ever remember reading about, and there was a sort of strange fascination in watching them live. Ted Nolan ..usceast!ted -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Nolan ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!usceast!ted (UUCP) 6536 Brookside Circle ...akgua!usceast!ted Columbia, SC 29206 allegra!usceast!ted@seismo (ARPA, maybe) ("Deep space is my dwelling place, the stars my destination") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@RUTGERS.ARPA:Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA (04/29/85)
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
(**** itty bitty teeny weenie spoiler warning ****)
WOW!
I just read To Reign in Hell (by S. Brust) and it is a rreally grreat
book. To be quite honest, I didn't think it was as good as Brinn's stuff
(sorry SZKB), but it is well worth the paper it is printed on and much
more! I really like the fact that it is only a novel - I like series,
but I like novels too, and there are too damned few of those around! The
characters are great, and the book left me wishing I was a little more
familiar with the biblical account of this stuff. In addition, I relly
like Brust's writing. It never gets in the way, and there is some great
humor. I particularly liked the first sentence of the book. I must have
read it over four or five times before I turned the page. I liked it
enough to go out and buy Jehereg (spelling?), which is waiting on my "to
read" shelf.
I am left with but one small question: does anyone have any idea why
Beelzebub speaks in Medieval English?
>>Dave
PS: Here is another question unrelated to the general topic. Being
unsure where to ask, I will ask the kind-hearted SFLovers. What in blue
blazes does :-) mean?? brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/03/85)
> From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA > > > ..... To be quite honest, I didn't think it was as good as Brinn's stuff > (sorry SZKB),......................................................... No apology necessary. When STARTIDE RISING won the Nebula, I was delighted, as well as being pleased the Nebula continued to be an award that meant something. An outstanding book. > I am left with but one small question: does anyone have any idea why > Beelzebub speaks in Medieval English? > > >>Dave > I'm curious, too. *I* have no idea. Well, er, I sort of know part of it: One of the things I was playing with there was using dialogue to convey character (note the difference between Lucifer's speech styles and those of Mephistopheles). But beyond that, it just happened. And, by the way, thank for liking the first sentence. It is the only thing I have written to date that I am, without reservation or doubt, proud of. -- SKZB
chabot@miles.DEC (05/06/85)
Dave >>I am left with but one small question: does anyone have any idea why >>Beelzebub speaks in Medieval English? Hutch >Because he read the originals to Faustus. Actually, that was one of the >touches I liked, but it wasn't Medieval English, only archaic english. >True Medieval English would have been rather hard to read. Okay, quiz time: how many of you read the dedication page, and saw the line there about thanking Pamela C. Dean (_The_Secret_Country_) for help with the Elizabethan English? *bzzzzzp* -53 points. Uhoh, I think I got that right... what? verify before I post? whatever for? *bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzp* AIEEEEEE!
boyajian@akov68.DEC (05/07/85)
I'm glad to see that there are other people who didn't care for
Brust's TO REIGN IN SPAIN-- I mean HELL. Well, I'm not *glad*,
really, I mean I want Steve's book to do well and all that cause
he's a good musician and he looks just like me (that handsome
devil!) and he keeps his wrist straight and he's just a hell of
a guy and all that. But it's just that I was one of a whole big
bunch of people that read the thing before publication, and I
seemed to be the lone wolf who wasn't exactly overwhelmed by it
(or at least the only one who was honest :-)). Not that there
was anything about REIGN to *dis*like. Just that there wasn't
much that I *liked* about it. I did enjoy his other books, though.
I guess I'm glad that it isn't just me.
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA)
UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}
!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPAdim@cbuxc.UUCP (Dennis McKiernan) (05/18/85)
___________________________________________________
Steve:
I just this morning finished _To Reign In Hell_ and
I had one of those *good* feelings when I put the book down.
I mean, I really liked what I had just finished.
I re-read Zelazny's foreword, and I totally agree
with everything he said, and more.
It truly is an engaging tale...
(And it has delicious word/thought/sayings play sprinkled throughout.)
But, Lord! I sure did want Satan and Yaweh to have a
let's-sit-down-and-talk-before-things-get-out-of-hand conversation.
But then, if they had gotten together early on,
the tale would have spun out differently...
And I liked it just as it came off the loom.
Steve, I'm gonna post this on the net news as well as
mail it to you.
Dennis L. McKiernan
...ihnp4!cbuxc!dim
___________________________________________________
PS: Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I seem to remember
that Milton drew upon but a single line in the Bible to
weave his original tale. You see, in the elder days,
Lucifer (light-bringer) was the name given to the
morning star. And some biblical person (a king?)
glanced up at the morning stars and espying Lucifer
says something like, "O mighty Lucifer, how far thou hast
fallen from heaven." The king(?) was simply refering
to the nearness of the dawn, but Milton took this line
and based the entire mythos of the heavenly revolt
upon it...
DLMcK
___________________________________________________brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/21/85)
> > Dennis L. McKiernan > ...ihnp4!cbuxc!dim > ___________________________________________________ > > PS: Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I seem to remember > that Milton drew upon but a single line in the Bible to > weave his original tale. You see, in the elder days, > Lucifer (light-bringer) was the name given to the > morning star. And some biblical person (a king?) > glanced up at the morning stars and espying Lucifer > says something like, "O mighty Lucifer, how far thou hast > fallen from heaven." The king(?) was simply refering > to the nearness of the dawn, but Milton took this line > and based the entire mythos of the heavenly revolt > upon it... > DLMcK > ___________________________________________________ Thanks. Your information is more complete than mine. It is true that the above mentioned quote is the way that Lucifer became associated with Satan, but I didn't know that Milton was the instrument of this. I had assumed the mistake to have been made before his time. -- SKZB
jsq@im4u.UUCP (05/28/85)
>> Dennis L. McKiernan >> ...ihnp4!cbuxc!dim >> ___________________________________________________ >> >> PS: Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I seem to remember >> that Milton drew upon but a single line in the Bible to >> weave his original tale. The passage you're thinking of is Isaiah xiv, 12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning. or, in the Revised Standard Version: How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! The Hebrew words are Helal (Day Star) and Shahar (Dawn). These are names of Canaanite deities, and are supposedly a reference to Canaanite mythology. There's more to this passage: How you are cut down to the ground you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ``I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.'' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit, From there on it reads a lot more like a human king is meant. There is also Luke x, 17, where Jesus explains why his disciples can cast out demons in his name: And he said to them, ``I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'' As Jesus quoted or referred to Isaiah many times, this could be another such. If so, it puts the identification of Lucifer with Satan much earlier than Milton. The most explicit description of the whole thing is Revelation xii, 7ff: Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. There are a few things which could be treated as allusions in Jude and Job, but that's about it for the biblical basis of the fall of the angels (as distinct from the creation, descriptions of heaven, etc.). I looked up all this once for a paper on Paradise Lost in high school. There was so little of it that I'm pretty sure that's about all of it. Milton mixed in ideas from Greek mythology, particularly the war of the Titans and Gods, and the story of Prometheus. I liked "To Reign in Hell," though it was amusing that what everyone seemed to spend the most time doing was finding Satan (I always thought he found you...), and it was odd, considering the nature of the creation of the angels, that even the First Seven had no trouble comprehending the idea of gods, and particularly of an absolute god. It was also a bit hard to accept a Satan whose major character flaw was indecision, since that is so unlike Milton's Satan/Prometheus figure. There seemed to be a deliberate attempt to show Satan developing into something more like Milton's character, especially at the end, but it wasn't very convincing.
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (06/02/85)
In article <202@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: >> Dennis L. McKiernan >> ...ihnp4!cbuxc!dim >> >> PS: Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I seem to remember >> that Milton drew upon but a single line in the Bible to >> weave his original tale. You see, in the elder days, >> Lucifer (light-bringer) was the name given to the >> morning star. And some biblical person (a king?) >> glanced up at the morning stars and espying Lucifer >> says something like, "O mighty Lucifer, how far thou hast >> fallen from heaven." The king(?) was simply refering >> to the nearness of the dawn, but Milton took this line >> and based the entire mythos of the heavenly revolt >> upon it... >> DLMcK > >Thanks. Your information is more complete than >mine. It is true that the above mentioned quote >is the way that Lucifer became associated with >Satan, but I didn't know that Milton was the >instrument of this. I had assumed the mistake >to have been made before his time. > -- SKZB Actually, I think this is a simplification of the story. Lucifer does indeed mean "light-bringer", and indeed was the name given to the "morning star". However, in the specific situation that the quote is from, it is refering to a nearby monarch (one who was dominating the Jews), one of whose titles was Lucifer, in the sense mentioned here. It was, however, impolitic to insult such a powerful neighbor directly. Reference: Asimov's Guide to the Old Testament. (Sorry, I don't have it at hand -- otherwise I'd be more specific.) -- Larry West Institute for Cognitive Science (USA+619-)452-6220 UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) [x6220] ARPA: <west@nprdc.ARPA> La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west OR ulysses!sdcsla!west
bottom@katadn.DEC (08/03/85)
Brust this is all your fault. I said what's all this talk about? So I bought the book. Now I can't sleep at night...at least until I finish it......:-) db !dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom
mte@busch.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (08/05/85)
I walked into my friend's room and I fall upon the new Ace
edition of To Reign in Hell. "It's by Steven Brust!" I shout at
my friend. Who's been holding out on me?!, I want to know. So, I open
the book and after marvelling over Zelazny's five (5) line review over
Yendi I'm impaled on a three page forward by this fantasy pseudo-deity.
I was a bit thrown, since I was hoping for one of Steve's more
earthy adventures, like Jhereg or Yendi, but I delved in eagerly anyway.
Besides, the cover artwork was really nice.
Unfortunately, I found what seems to be more of a study in
(biblical?) fantasy than the enchanting marvelous adventure that I was
expecting to be served up. I confess that I'm totally unfamiliar with
the subject matter at hand, which according to Zelazny is related to
two works, namely: Anatole France's Revolt of the Angels and Taylor
Caldwell's Dialogues with the Devil. This should give you netlanders
a notion of what the book is about if you've recognized these titles.
(I did not.)
So I read and as I am not so much into intrigue and masterplots
I begin to wonder... Also, as G-d (Yahweh) is purported to be one of
the "Firstborn" this contradicts a primary foundation for Jewish belief,
which is, G-d was before all, everything, etc. and that G-d created the
stuff of everything: time, matter, energy of which everything, including
angels are made of. Now, I don't mean to drag fantasy into religion or to
start a Judeo-Christian controversy here and I'm sure that wasn't the author's
intent either; but I have temporarily concluded that To Reign in Hell is
at least a semi-religious/philosophical work.
If I haven't defined my question about the subject matter clearly
enough I apologize. It may just be that this underlying feeling I have is
due to the contradictory nature to my faith, although I do find the
descriptions of the angels & devils very interesting. But before I resume
my reading I'd like a clearer definition, perhaps from the author, concerning
this book.
Moshe Eliovson
{allegra, ihnp4}!we53!busch!mte rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (08/14/85)
> Just to toss out another opinion on this book; this was the worst book > that I've ever finished. It wasn't bad enough to make me give up on > it completely, I guess I just kept waiting for it to get good. > Admittedly fantasy is my least favorite form of fiction but this book > borderlined on what Roger Ebert likes to call "The Idiot Plot". If any > one of the main characters acted sensibly during the first half of the > book, the book would have been over. After all the good things I'd > heard about the book, I was definitely disappointed. You, sir or madam, wouldn't know a work of fiction if it jumped up and bit you on the arse! ``The Idiot Plot,'' huh? Perhaps you haven't read ``Romeo and Juliet,'' a play by Will somebody-or-other. Melodrama, man, M-E-L-O-D-R-A-M-A. It isn't often handled too well these days; I really credit Steve Brust with a job well done for ``To Reign in Hell.'' Melodrama means your characters are prey to forces beyond their control. In this myth, even the gods are caught in the web of their own machinations. The characters don't ``act sensibly''... but rather they act like people. Brust handles this with the dexterity and dry wit of the early Zelzany. Yeah, it's got some flaws, but the overall quality is high. Who knows -- maybe you were joking. You know, ``:-)'', and all that. Probably not. I guess you're right; fantasy isn't your can of worms. Back to Sidney Sheldon with you. -- Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/14/85)
In article <2294@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: > Melodrama means your characters are prey to forces beyond their control. In >this myth, even the gods are caught in the web of their own machinations. Nope. Melodrama: a drama with exaggerated conflicts and emotions, stereotyped characters, etc. Perhaps you're thinking instead of classic tragedy in which a character's tragic flaw and the workings of fate conspire to do him in? >... fantasy isn't your can of worms. Back to >Sidney Sheldon with you. God, you really want to hurt the guy, don't you? :-) -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly