hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (05/01/85)
In article <1823@topaz.ARPA> @RUTGERS.ARPA:Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA writes: >From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA >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 don't know about how it compares with Brinn, but I was really disappointed myself, after the great recommendation by Zelazny and all. Oh, sure, the writing was nice enough, but it got just a bit forced in places, and I found myself anticipating turns of phrase, or horrid puns, and there they were, staring me in the face. > 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! Uuuuuhmn, looked an awful lot like a lead-in to a sequel to me. Any word on this, SKZB? > The >characters are great, and the book left me wishing I was a little more >familiar with the biblical account of this stuff. There IS no such account. There might be some traces of this in the Jewish scriptures, but since many of our Jewish cohorts claim that there is no mention of "Satan" as an angel in the Hebrew... Brust credited Milton's "Paradise Lost" as a major source, if I recall, and there are other plays and poems on the topic going back quite a ways. > 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? 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. The things I didn't like: The characterizations all started out real nice, but as the villainy progressed it got to be just a bit too much to take. If Brust wanted to offend Christians, Moslems, and Jews, he did a real good job of it. My real complaint, however, is that the choice was the OBVIOUS one. If you want to make it tragic, take the cheap way, make Satan the good, honorable one who refuses to go along with the duplicitous and rather foolish Y*hw*h. And of course God is "just another angel" and Yeshua is the last created angel, rather than the coequal or even the first created. Yawn. It's been DONE. A multitude of times, it's been done. If you want tragedy, make the real tragedy come out of the real losses. I would be impressed if the conflict between obedience and choice had been handled in a way that didn't make God into a proto-Nixon. Or which dealt with a truly omnipotent God, or a truly omniscient God. The mechanism of reducing Y*hw*h into a mere angel, limited and accessible, is just too easy. I dunno. Maybe its just because I have seen too much of that type of thing coming out of cults, new and ancient, and it isn't a new approach to me. Perhaps it was because my religion was offended. I imagine the same kind of dissonance happens to Hindus who read Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant" series. Oh well. >>>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?? That is the infamous Snicker Icon. It is usually left out of articles which are intended to be taken as humour, leading to hurt feelings and attacks of offensensitivity. Some people leave it out because they detest smiley faces of any form. It infests the Usenet more than the Arpanet, where people are politer and don't have to tell everyone when to laugh. Hutch
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (05/02/85)
Stephen Hutchison, responding to Dave Newman's positive review of To Reign in Hell (Stephen Brust), writes: > If Brust wanted to offend Christians, Moslems, and Jews, he did a real good > job of it. ... take the cheap way, make Satan the good, honorable one who > refuses to go along with the duplicitous and rather foolish Y*hw*h. And of > course God is "just another angel" and Yeshua is the last created angel, > rather than the coequal or even the first created. Yawn. If someone is religious and regards his religion's account of these events as the only true and valid way to handle the subject matter, *sure* he'll be offended. Sorry if your religion got gored, but as far as I'm concerned the treatment was original and extremely well crafted. Before reading it I doubted that it could live up to Zelazny's introduction, and was pleasantly surprised. Hey, what's wrong with Yeshua's creation, other than your reading of John 1? His creation was unique and (by his own account) the only peaceful one. > I would be impressed if the conflict between obedience and choice had been > handled in a way that didn't make God into a proto-Nixon. Or which dealt > with a truly omnipotent God, or a truly omniscient God. The mechanism of > reducing Y*hw*h into a mere angel, limited and accessible, is just too easy. Yaweh was not cast as a "mere angel", but as the first among them ... and after he learned to tap into the illiaster of the others, he was MUCH more powerful than the others. But what would be so good about an omnipotent and omniscient God as a plot element? Where will you get conflict? Imagine a Superman story that doesn't involve Kryptonite or others from Superman's planet -- if the character is too far ahead of everybody else there's nothing for him to strive against. I found it a moving and very well-written book - the more so because I had thought the whole subject matter had been mined out centuries ago. I strongly recommend it! -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/03/85)
It is Bad Form for an author to respond to negative reviews. Up until now, I haven't. All of the review I have read (including yours, by the way) have been intelegent, and that is such a pleasure that I almost don't care about how negative some of them have been. However, I am into bad form these days. The thing is, there were a few points that just made me itch to answer, so I'm going to scratch the itch. I hope you don't mind. > > > 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! > > Uuuuuhmn, looked an awful lot like a lead-in to a sequel to me. Any > word on this, SKZB? > Absolutly not! There are only three possible sequals that I can see: First, the book of Job. No thanks, Heinlein covered it. Certainly not the same way I would have, but he did. In any case, this would have been a short story or a Novelette, which, as they said in Monty Python and the Holy Grain, "Isn't my idiom." Second, the Passion. Yeah, I could, but I'm just not interested. The point of the book was NOT to offend anyone, though I'm willing to if necessary. Doing the Passion WOULD be offensive, and I just don't have enough interest in it to justify it. The third possibility for a sequal is the appocalypse. Yeeeech! I almost killed myself doing the research for HELL. Do you have any idea how much appocalyptic literture I'd have to wade through to do a competent sequal???? No way!!! > > >I am left with but one small question: does anyone have any idea why > >Beelzebub speaks in Medieval English? > > 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. > It was Shakespearean (sp?) English. It was corrected by Shakespearean schollar and writer Pamela Dean. If there are any mistakes, it is because I did over-ride her recomendations on a couple of points. > The things I didn't like: The characterizations all started out real > nice, but as the villainy progressed it got to be just a bit too much > to take. If Brust wanted to offend Christians, Moslems, and Jews, he > did a real good job of it. My real complaint, however, is that the > choice was the OBVIOUS one. If you want to make it tragic, take the > cheap way, make Satan the good, honorable one who refuses to go along > with the duplicitous and rather foolish Y*hw*h. And of course God is > "just another angel" and Yeshua is the last created angel, rather than > the coequal or even the first created. Yawn. > Okay, here we go. If this is what you took from it, I didn't do my job. This is unquestionably a flaw. But, for the sake of discussion, I'll say this: What you describe was exactly what I was trying NOT to do. Satan admits in conversation with Beelzebub, toward the end, that Yaweh had been RIGHT, that his decisions were correct and that he, Satan, was wrong. I never did buy that anyone with Satan's intellegence could have revolted against an omnipotant God. So, why did it happen? I think there are as many holes in my approach as in the traditional one, but they are different holes. However, I don't see where it was "cheap." I went over and over that manuscript, doing my best to make sure there were no cheap shots, or any actions motivated by stupidity. If I had succeeded, you wouldn't have come away with the opinion you did, yet I can't see where I failed. Yaweh was drivin by love, Abdiel by fear, Satan by indecision, and Beelzebub by loyalty. If there was anyone in the entire book who really knew what was going on, it was Lilith, but she was too lacking in self-confidence to take the necessary steps. No, Yaweh was never evil. He was forced into evil actions, as was Satan, by his own failings. The real flaw in the book (I say its a flaw because very few people have picked it up, so I obviously didn't bring it off) was this: Abdial's actions didn't matter. If there had been no Abdial, things would have proceeded in almost exactly the same way. In some sense, that was the point of the book, so in that sense, the book failed. I take consolation in the number of people who have enjoyed it anyway--to me, a book's "point" is secondary to its enjoyment value. This is one reason that I like C. S. Lewis and don't like George Orwell--even though I disagree with them to same extent. There. It was probably stupid to write this, but maybe you hit me where it hurt. In any case, I will repeat, it is a pleasure to be read and reviewed by people who actually READ the book, and have something to say about it, even if the review is negative. -- SKZB
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (05/05/85)
In article <184@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: > Yaweh > was drivin by love, Abdiel by fear, Satan by indecision, > and Beelzebub by loyalty. If there was anyone in the > entire book who really knew what was going on, it was > Lilith, but she was too lacking in self-confidence to > take the necessary steps. Second-guessing the author is a losing proposition, I suppose, but hallowed by long tradition in English classes. So: I would have said that Abdiel was driven (at the beginning) by ambition rather than fear, and kept that motivation all the way until he was discovered by all and sundry to have invented evil. Although basically a coward, I would say that his confrontation with Satan at the Southern Keep was not the action of a fearful being. Also, wouldn't you say that Mephistopheles (my favorite character, I think) knew even more about what was going on than Lilith? Let me reiterate my high praise for this book: I found the characterizations and motivations very credible. As long as it says spoiler in the title, let me also say that the final confrontation between Yaweh and Satan was incredibly impressive. I'm a big fan of the Regency Romance, where everybody wanders around under false pretences, and when finally when everybody *really* knows what everybody else meant by their actions they all make up and live happily ever after. However, to have the truth come out but still not make any difference to the outcome requires a great deal of artistry. Further, there is an inevitability about the ending: I was left with the feeling that even if Abdiel hadn't been doing the dirt throughout, the natural course of events would have ended in a similar result. -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/08/85)
In article <184@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: >It is Bad Form for an author to respond to negative reviews. Now, why is that? It seems to me like you would want to respond to bad reviews. After all, what kind of response can you make to good reviews. "Thank you, thank you." Mutual back-patting isn't that interesting. Obviously you don't want to get caught up in arguing about your books too much -- you'd end up looking juvenile -- but I think a fair amount of response to negative reviews is warranted. The author of a book has a very different understanding of the book than a reader does, because much of what the author understands about the book comes from internalized thoughts, false starts, musings, etc., that never show up in print. Negative reviews often point out where the author failed to completely communicate his understanding. Writing to clear up these kinds of mis-communications can be helpful for both the author and the reader. > ...The real >flaw in the book (I say its a flaw because very few >people have picked it up, so I obviously didn't bring >it off) was this: Abdial's actions didn't matter. If >there had been no Abdial, things would have proceeded >in almost exactly the same way... > Prime example, I think. I never considered this point until you brought it up. Thinking back upon the book, I guess I can see your argument for this. I don't agree with it. For this to hold, the forces involved should have been so overwhelming that the course of events would be unchangable. This simply isn't so in To Reign in Hell. There are several points in the book where a conversation between Yaweh and Satan would have cleared the air. Regardless of whether or not you brought the point across in the book, it is interesting to hear that this was the point you were trying to make. Now, the question is: Did you start out with this as your "point" or did it develop during the course of writing the story? Scott R. Turner ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt SPUDNET: ...russet$eye.srt
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (05/10/85)
In article <184@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: >It is Bad Form for an author to respond to negative reviews. > ... > >However, I am into bad form these days. > >The thing is, there were a few points that just made me >itch to answer, so I'm going to scratch the itch. I >hope you don't mind. Mind? Actually getting a reply from someone who has been published, talking about a review of his work? Why should I mind? >Absolutly not! There are only three possible sequals that I can see: >First, the book of Job. No thanks, Heinlein covered it. Certainly >not the same way I would have, but he did. In any case, this would >have been a short story or a Novelette, which, as they said in >Monty Python and the Holy Grain, "Isn't my idiom." Second, the >Passion. Yeah, I could, but I'm just not interested. The point >of the book was NOT to offend anyone, though I'm willing to if >necessary. Doing the Passion WOULD be offensive, and I just don't >have enough interest in it to justify it. The third possibility >for a sequal is the appocalypse. Yeeeech! I almost killed myself >doing the research for HELL. Do you have any idea how much >appocalyptic literture I'd have to wade through to do a competent >sequal???? No way!!! Good. It looked frighteningly like a sequel was pending, probably a rewrite of Genesis. As for offending anyone, I'm offended, but let me make clear the reasons. The book clearly intends to be a retelling of the pre-creation mythos which developed in medieval Europe from some Jewish and Gnostic traditions. This mythos was adapted by Milton when he wrote Paradise Lost. Now, the things that offend: First, it will offend any orthodox Jew because the Name of God is not supposed to be written casually, and never ever is it supposed to be destroyed (treated as trash). Those names have meanings and they can add to the cognitive dissonance. "Satan" means "adversary" for instance. It will offend just about any educated Christian. There are several points of basic theology which you tweaked with. First, the reduction of God from the absolute to "just" another angel. Second, the denial of the trinity inherent in the existance of Yeshua as you described it. Third, the creation of Yeshua as an entity well after everything else in Heaven, and the very sick personality which you ascribed to him. >> ... My real complaint, however, is that the >> choice was the OBVIOUS one. If you want to make it tragic, take the >> cheap way, make Satan the good, honorable one who refuses to go along >> with the duplicitous and rather foolish Y*hw*h. And of course God is >> "just another angel" and Yeshua is the last created angel, rather than >> the coequal or even the first created. Yawn. >> > >Okay, here we go. If this is what you took from it, I didn't do >my job. This is unquestionably a flaw. But, for the sake of >discussion, I'll say this: What you describe was exactly what >I was trying NOT to do. Satan admits in conversation with >Beelzebub, toward the end, that Yaweh >had been RIGHT, that his decisions were correct and that he, >Satan, was wrong. What he admits to Beelzebub, and what the rest of the angels do not grasp, is that the story which was concocted with Abdiel's collaboration was a true one as far as it went; that Satan was explicitly created BY Y*hw*h as were the others. That was the political linchpin on which everyone else organized around Satan, that and the creation of Yeshua. The "untruth" is that there was no planned, deliberated, careful creation of ANYTHING (according to your own descriptive interludes) until the existance of an area large enough to live in and (sort of) relax in had been established. Y*hw*h did not believe this to be the case; he accepted this dishonesty as necessary and followed through with it. God as Richard Nixon. Since this theme predominates among the ancient and current Gnostic philosophies, and it is just too easy to do, I got the idea that this was a cheap shot. >I never did buy that anyone with Satan's intellegence could >have revolted against an omnipotant God. So, why did it >happen? I think there are as many holes in my approach >as in the traditional one, but they are different holes. >However, I don't see where it was "cheap." I went over >and over that manuscript, doing my best to make sure there >were no cheap shots, or any actions motivated by stupidity. If Y*hw*h has the power to OBSERVE (and probably to communicate) at a distance, why would he believe Abdiel rather than using his own power to investigate the claim? For that matter, as to why anyone would revolt against an omnipotent God, try, ignorance of the true nature of that omnipotence, pride in one's own tremendous power, the simple refusal to obey. You touched on THAT topic very nicely and I really thought that would be the nature of the tragedy, the tension between obedience and free choice. As for omniscience. You granted Y*w*h the power to find out anything; this was not automatic but rather seemed more like traditional Angelic Knowledge. True omniscience consists of automatically KNOWING. >If I had succeeded, you wouldn't have come away with the >opinion you did, yet I can't see where I failed. Yaweh >was drivin by love, Abdiel by fear, Satan by indecision, >and Beelzebub by loyalty. If there was anyone in the >entire book who really knew what was going on, it was >Lilith, but she was too lacking in self-confidence to >take the necessary steps. Y*w*h was driven by love and anger and the desire for survival. Abdiel was driven by fear, by greed for power, and by his immaturity. Beelzebub was pretty much loyalty incarnate, hence the doggy form; Satan was paralyzed by indecision but driven by ignorance and by stubborn pride. At least, that was what I perceived. >No, Yaweh was never evil. He was forced into evil >actions, as was Satan, by his own failings. The real >flaw in the book (I say its a flaw because very few >people have picked it up, so I obviously didn't bring >it off) was this: Abdial's actions didn't matter. If >there had been no Abdial, things would have proceeded >in almost exactly the same way. In some sense, that >was the point of the book, so in that sense, the >book failed. I take consolation in the number of >people who have enjoyed it anyway--to me, a book's >"point" is secondary to its enjoyment value. This >is one reason that I like C. S. Lewis and don't >like George Orwell--even though I disagree with >them to same extent. If there had been no Abdiel, then there would have been no lies, no murders in Heaven, and the tension would have to have developed along the lines of Satan and Y*w*h trying to convince each other of their respective positions. I didn't LIKE Abdiel but I do think he was crucial in the development of the plot you wrote. As for "never evil" once again we disagree. AS YOU DEFINED THE SITUATION it was wrong for Y*w*h to resort to coercion and the choice to do so was morally wrong. How does one persist in a course of action which is admittedly "evil" without accepting that evil and, in fact, BECOMING evil? A "lesser of two evils" is still an evil. There was lots of room there for further exploration. The real problem with the story was that you were writing in a minefield. Nearly every american has SOME preconceptions about the Judeo-Christian beliefs and therefore will find SOMETHING wrong with a story where their own preconceptions have to be reconciled to the story. This is a LOT of the reason I dislike the book, but I have tried to keep my objections on a basis of literary analysis. >There. It was probably stupid to write this, but >maybe you hit me where it hurt. In any case, I >will repeat, it is a pleasure to be read and reviewed >by people who actually READ the book, and have >something to say about it, even if the review is >negative. > > -- SKZB My apologies and touche'. Your book hit ME where it hurt. I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of Jhereg and Yendl at the local Powell's Books. Hutch
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/11/85)
> In article <184@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes: > > >It is Bad Form for an author to respond to negative reviews. > > Now, why is that? It seems to me like you would want to respond to bad > reviews. After all, what kind of response can you make to good reviews. > "Thank you, thank you." Mutual back-patting isn't that interesting. > > Obviously you don't want to get caught up in arguing about your books too > much -- you'd end up looking juvenile -- but I think a fair amount of > response to negative reviews is warranted. The author of a book has a very > different understanding of the book than a reader does, because much of what > the author understands about the book comes from internalized thoughts, > false starts, musings, etc., that never show up in print. Negative reviews > often point out where the author failed to completely communicate his > understanding. Writing to clear up these kinds of mis-communications can > be helpful for both the author and the reader. > The point is that the book ought to stand on its own. If I was trying to get something across, it may be of academic interest to someone to know what I was trying to do, but book either made its point or it didn't. Now, it is certainly the case that it might have worked for some people and not for others, or to differing degrees for different people, but an explanation from the author saying "No, no, you missed the point, I WANTED that chapter to be dull and boring to point out the bordom in our lives," or something like that, is not especially helpful. The fact that it took me an entire book to say what I wanted is a good indication that I'm not going to be able to do much better in a few column inches. > > ...The real > >flaw in the book (I say its a flaw because very few > >people have picked it up, so I obviously didn't bring > >it off) was this: Abdial's actions didn't matter. If > >there had been no Abdial, things would have proceeded > >in almost exactly the same way... > > > > Prime example, I think. I never considered this point until you brought it > up. Thinking back upon the book, I guess I can see your argument for this. > I don't agree with it. For this to hold, the forces involved should have > been so overwhelming that the course of events would be unchangable. This > simply isn't so in To Reign in Hell. There are several points in the book > where a conversation between Yaweh and Satan would have cleared the air. > Regardless of whether or not you brought the point across in the book, it > is interesting to hear that this was the point you were trying to make. > A prime example of what I meant. Yes, now you know one of the themes I was playing with. I thought this might be interesting or wouldn't have brought it up. But it doesn't make the book any better. If the reader didn't pick that up on his own, after-the-fact knowledge, interesting as it may be, won't improve it. > > Now, the question is: Did you start out with this as your "point" or did > it develop during the course of writing the story? > > Scott R. Turner > ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA > UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt > SPUDNET: ...russet$eye.srt I don't honestly know. There were a number of things I wanted to play with. Depending on when you ask and the phase of the moon, I will probably say different ones were the "point." I try to play fair with my readers, however. What I mean is, I do my best to let the characters behave as they will, rather than using them as mouthpieces for points I want to make. There are two advantages to this: one, it is, I think, more honest. Two, it allows me, after the fact, to go, "Oh, that's an interesting idea. I wonder if I believe it." I hope this answered your question.
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/13/85)
> > Good. It looked frighteningly like a sequel was pending, probably > a rewrite of Genesis. > > As for offending anyone, I'm offended, but let me make clear the reasons. > The book clearly intends to be a retelling of the pre-creation mythos > which developed in medieval Europe from some Jewish and Gnostic traditions. > This mythos was adapted by Milton when he wrote Paradise Lost. > > Now, the things that offend: First, it will offend any orthodox Jew because > the Name of God is not supposed to be written casually, and never ever is > it supposed to be destroyed (treated as trash). Those names have meanings > and they can add to the cognitive dissonance. "Satan" means "adversary" for > instance. Right. I thought seriously about changing some of the names that had meanings--but ALL of the names have meanings. Mephistopheles, for instance, means "dark angel," or "black angel" or something like that. There was just no future in it. But yes, I knew some people would be offended, but it seems just as bad to me to avoid writing something so as not to offend people as to set out attempting to offend people. > > > What he admits to Beelzebub, and what the rest of the angels do not > grasp, is that the story which was concocted with Abdiel's collaboration > was a true one as far as it went; that Satan was explicitly created > BY Y*hw*h as were the others. That was the political linchpin on which > everyone else organized around Satan, that and the creation of Yeshua. > The "untruth" is that there was no planned, deliberated, careful creation > of ANYTHING (according to your own descriptive interludes) until the existance > of an area large enough to live in and (sort of) relax in had been > established. Y*hw*h did not believe this to be the case; he accepted > this dishonesty as necessary and followed through with it. God as > Richard Nixon. Since this theme predominates among the ancient and current > Gnostic philosophies, and it is just too easy to do, I got the idea that > this was a cheap shot. In the early stages of Stalin's rule, before the Moscow trials, he was forced into various economic decisions. Rather than saying, "We have been forced to do this bad thing," he said, "We are doing this because it is good." It was this, as much as anything else, that led to the "necessity" of the Moscow trials and the murder of a whole generation of Bolsheviks, the betrayal of the Spanish, etc. Yet his DECISIONS were necessary, not wrong. Satan was unhappy about angels being coerced. Toward the end of the book he admits that the coercion WAS justified and that he was wrong, but he still cannot accept Yaweh's having lied about it. > > >I never did buy that anyone with Satan's intellegence could > >have revolted against an omnipotant God. So, why did it > >happen? I think there are as many holes in my approach > >as in the traditional one, but they are different holes. > >However, I don't see where it was "cheap." I went over > >and over that manuscript, doing my best to make sure there > >were no cheap shots, or any actions motivated by stupidity. > > If Y*hw*h has the power to OBSERVE (and probably to communicate) at > a distance, why would he believe Abdiel rather than using his own > power to investigate the claim? > This power is reduced almost to the point of non-existence by the lack of flux between waves. Remember how surprised he is that he is able to watch the battle at the Southern Hold? He hadn't expected to be able to use this ability. The reason that he could is the leak created by Michael's sword. This is also the reason Raphael is able to heal Harut. > > .......................................................... Beelzebub was > pretty much loyalty incarnate, hence the doggy form; ................... Well I'll be...You know, I think you're right. I never thought of that. Hmmm. Unless it was just the reverse. I never did know why I made him a dog (someone has suggested "Lord of the Flies"). Thank you. I like that. -- SKZB
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/13/85)
> > .......................................... I would have said that Abdiel was > driven (at the beginning) by ambition rather than fear, and kept that > motivation all the way until he was discovered by all and sundry to have > invented evil.................................................... Maybe. It seems to me that a readers opinion on something like this is at least as legitimate as the authors. But I was playing with an idea taken from Will Shetterly's CATS HAVE NO LORD. He had a character (Lord Noring) who became an excellent swordsman, and was forced into courageous actions, because of his basic fear. I turned that around with Abdiel. His actions (to me, at least) were motivated by wanting to be in a position where he could avoid direct battle with the flux. He schemed to take over Satan's role so he could have a decision-making position, which led to, as you put it, the invention of evil. > > Also, wouldn't you say that Mephistopheles (my favorite character, I think) > knew even more about what was going on than Lilith? > Yes, but, until nearly the end, he refused to take a side other than that of personal friendship, which doesn't go very far in a revolutionary situation. -- SKZB