Lord of Light
Roger Zelazny puts forth this scenario in this 1968 Hugo Award for Best Novel: a post cataclysmic world, which level of technology is that of the early civilizations-or at most the Middle Ages, and a theocracy governed by men masquerading as gods.
Ok, so there is a chance that you have seen a similar plot before in some form or another. To shake things up, add a rebellion aiming to cease the monopoly of power and things get… a bit predictable. But throw in the Enlightened One and a horde of Hindu Pantheon, and I assure you of an immersing read that gets you itching for a crash course on Buddhist philosophies and Hindu deities even before you get through the first chapter.
The book appears as if it is trying to unmask conspiracy and religious lies to subjugate men. It tells of men who have exceeded human limitations, pretended as gods, and act as guardians who think that they should control men as to prevent the destruction of the world and the whole race once again. These gods, however, have not fully triumphed over their human desires, some of which are good and some are not so holy. But the gods are not the only ones being exposed to have flaws; it also shows the manipulations of a holy man who twists beautiful philosophical passages to maneuver the followers he had initially led to peace towards his war.
Besides unraveling religious personalities, Lord of Light offers a more physical reinterpretation to well known spiritual concepts such as enlightenment, nirvana, karma and reincarnation. There is also a war, which in the eyes of the pious human living within the pages of the book might appear like a divine struggle or maybe even the end of the Kali Yuga---the Hindu equivalent for the Dark Ages, revealed to be but the result of two opposing fictional political ideologies which set the main conflict of the story.
Despite the desecration of religious framework, the story actually gives glimpses of virtues in the unlikely characters: the honor of an assassin, conscience of a demon, faith in greater being by the god of the undead, and love known by death. Gods may have been men once, but truth exists and will persist in the universe.
Honestly though, this is not some deep philosophical book nor an expose about religion that I am making it out to be *wink*. Rather, Lord of Light is a light read and extremely enjoyable science fantasy novel (yup, i did not even stress on that, but the science fiction element is absolutely wonderful as well) that just begs for a little of your time for it to entertain you.
Were Gods Men Once?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Some SC justices and military do act like Gods. But not all.
Questions:
Is religion really that bad or it is needed for people to have a sense of stability? (the concept of panem et circense)
Do you think the modern world could return from this "Dark Ages"? And who will lead it?
Given what happened in the book, it stirs in the direction that says that religion is necessary. The rulers did not just establish a government, probably because it is an inadequate institution. They must have realized that religion evokes a feeling of reverence, loyalty, even love, whilst, the most extreme a government can bring about is fear.
Dark Ages is escaped through enlightenment, and the the enlightenment referred to in the book is the awareness of technology (almost similar to the spiritual awakening of Buddha; science and arts of the Renaissance)
But is the escape from enlightment could also lead to decay? The Middle Ages is said to be one of the peaceful times in human history. But it degenerated into one institution controlling the whole of Europe.
Interesting summary Aria! Question: How did the men-turned-gods convince their followers of their infallability/ of their god-ness?
hi marvs, with that POV, you are siding with the gods, who are sponsoring the deicratic ideology (vs the accelarationist of the rebellion). read the book so you can see their argument. personally, i did not find much sympathy for the accelarationist movement, which aims for the spread of technology, because the story did not present any compelling situation for its progression. actually, i do not know whether it is a failing of the book that the author explained the POV of the deicrats well enough but did not dedicate much pages to accelerationism. or maybe he was just relying on the supposed inclination of human nature to want freedom and knowledge. or maybe he didn't do so, because the book is a fun science fantasy and he didn't want to dampen the mood with too much ideological details?
hi don, first two paragraphs summarizes the book, the rest however, are just my interpretations and may prove incorrect once you have read the book. how did the gods convinced their followers? advanced technology is their advantage against normal humans. technology was taken to be supernatural by the ignorant common folk. but as one of the characters said, it is more than that as well:
" Being a god is the quality of being able to be yourself to such an extent that your passions correspond with the forces of the universe, so that those who look upon you know this without hearing your name spoken."
i need to stress that the book isn't about serious ideologies, because i think my review misrepresents it and does not do it justice at all. since writing it, i have browsed through other reviews and was very surprised how highly regarded the book is in the SF communities. haha. so i really am encouraging you to read it (but dont read other reviews anymore, too much spoilers on them)
@aria
Inom na lang natin yan. In vino veritas. :D Me too. Our body is not adjusted that yet to such a fast paced lifestyle. That's why some said the Middle Ages is sort of a Kingdom of Heaven. Almost the same as most of the novels of Gabriel Garcia Marquez (just don't remind me Love in Times of Cholera), it makes my stomach and heart ache. :( But I have move on. OK, most of the novels of Faulkner and Marquez revolves on the team of a good order leading to chaos. Whether a dictator or Emily (in a Rose for Emily), all order will lead to chaos.
Don, I want to read your article on cosmopolitanism.
similar to the concept of entropy then, order leading to chaos.
but i seem to not agree to that this morning :) individual societies may disintegrate, but overall, the human race has moved towards more order. there seem to be more understanding between nations today, less racism, more integration of ideas. and if you equate comfort to order, we are so much better off than the people in the middle ages.
and, there has been a change in schedule. don would be doing pride and prejudice this friday, so get all your thoughts on love ready for discussion :)
Marvin we'll talk about love first before the rather serious cosmopolitanism. To a certain extent though, i think your discussion above regarding social order is a good starting point on how we can talk about cosmopolitanism as espused by Apiah :)
In my opinion, kaya naman iadd ang cosmopolitanism with love. Cosmopolitanism is loving/understanding others. That is friendship and sometimes what love is.
IMO, single kasi ako ngayon and happy but I'm missing some things.
Comment naman kayo sa serious blog ko, martianspectreblogspot.com. Multiply is the happier one.
Post a Comment