Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: To Reign in Hell [SPOILER]
Message-ID: <196@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 16:11:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: hyper.196
Posted: Mon May 13 16:11:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 01:12:22 EDT
References: <1823@topaz.ARPA> <1369@shark.UUCP> <184@hyper.UUCP> <1386@shark.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 87

> 
> 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