I have never liked Lord of Light. If I’ve ever been in a conversation with you and you’ve mentioned how great it is and I’ve nodded and smiled, I apologise. The reason I’d have done that is because my dislike of the book is amorphous and hard to pin down, which makes it hard to defend when I know it’s a much loved classic. There’s also the thing when I haven’t read it for a while and I start believing that it must be the book everybody else seems to find, rather than the one I remember.
The story of Lord of Light is that a group of high tech people with ineluctable European-origin names like Sam, Jan Olvegg, Candi and Madeleine colonized a planet on which they are now pretending to be the Hindu pantheon.
No spoilers.
The local population consists of their descendants and the descendants of the passengers on the ship they crewed. This situation, where the privileged crew rules the unprivileged passengers, isn’t unusual, but having a story about it from the crew point of view is—though actually, as Lord of Light is 1967, it predates A Gift From Earth and most of the other examples I can think of. There are demons who were the original inhabitants of the planet, who happen to be beings of pure energy. The colonists live at a low tech level and in a culture that seems to be somebody’s approximation of ancient India. The “gods” enjoy a high tech level. There is technological reincarnation. Everybody, at the age of sixty unless they’ve been unfortunate enough to die earlier, goes to be judged by the gods, their past lives are seen in detail and they’re given a karmically appropriate new body—age, gender and species chosen by the gods. Most of the gods are not the original settlers—war and attrition and elimination of the opposition—but younger demigods who have been promoted. One of the First, Sam, wants to bring technology to the ordinary people and opposes the gods, at first by starting up Buddhism in opposition to their imposed version of Hinduism, and later by war.
It’s actually possible to argue about whether the book is science fiction of fantasy. It feels like fantasy, but there’s the clear science fictional and technological underpinnings of everything. But the “gods” have aspects and attributes—the attributes are high tech, the “aspects” are apparently psionic skills that work even in new bodies. There are things they do with technology and things they do with the sheer power of their mind—Yama has a death gaze, Sam can bind energy. The lines are blurry in more than one direction. This is one of my problems with it. I think Zelazny wanted it both ways, he wanted the mythic resonance, he wanted war in heaven, and he wanted it all to be grounded. I think he did this better elsewhere.
If someone wrote this book today, we’d probably call the use of Hindu mythology and Indian trappings cultural appropriation. In 1967, I think we call it getting points for being aware that the rest of the world existed. There’s absolutely no explanation for why the First decided on that system of control in particular. It clearly isn’t intended in any way as an authentic portrayal of India or Hindu religion, more a caricature set up deliberately to maximize the power of the “gods”. Then there’s the introduction of Buddhism. I’m not really comfortable with this—unlike the religions Zelazny used so well elsewhere, these are living religions.
My real problem with the book is that I don’t care about the characters or what happens to them. Every time I’ve read this book I’ve forced myself through it as a cold intellectual exercise. There are things about it that I can see are clever and were innovative when it was new. But none of the characters feels real. It’s written in omniscient, not the first-wiseass that Zelazny did so brilliantly, and I think it suffers from that. Sam’s motivations are obscure, the other characters even more so. It’s huge and mythic and it just doesn’t ever warm up for me.
The first time I read it I had the familiar sensation of thinking the book was too old for me and I should leave it for later. When I was a child books were finite—the house was full of them, but new ones seldom came into it. I didn’t discover the library until I was twelve. Books on the shelves got read and re-read, and if I couldn’t get into them, if they were too old for me, I’d keep nibbling at them. For the record, I eventually got old enough for Lorna Doone, George Eliot, and T.H. White, but I haven’t got there yet with Thomas Hardy. I think I was right that Lord of Light was too old for me when I was twelve—I couldn’t figure out that most of the book is a massive flashback, and the fantastical science fiction fantasy thing confused me. I didn’t like it, but I kept coming back to it. Now I do feel I understand it, but I still don’t like it. Maybe it’ll reveal itself to me as the masterpiece other people say it is when I’m sixty, but I’m not betting on it.
Jo Walton is a science fiction and fantasy writer. She’s published eight novels, most recently Half a Crown and Lifelode, and two poetry collections. She reads a lot, and blogs about it here regularly. She comes from Wales but lives in Montreal where the food and books are more varied.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 02:29pm EST
As far as the colonists "choosing" Hinduism, I think you hit upon it yourself, it was meant to maximize the power of the inhabitants of Heaven by using a conveniently existing mythos. Pure expediency.
The Chaplain fought against that across his incarnations (notice that even the Chaplain used the reincarnation technology because it was expedient).
Hinduism would have been a superior choice because it possesses a rather extensive (and flexible) pantheon, whose gods more often than not behaved very much as "normal" humans might while also possessing superhuman powers. Plus, it was easy to incorporate the various indigenous life forms into the mythos, simply by embuing them with behaviors/titles attributed to mythical beasts/demons of the Hindu mythology.
Maybe your criticisms were intentional on Zelazny's part here? A world is a big messy place, where most often the big picture and the little picture are obscure, and where the players aren't always sympathetic in nature.
Monday November 09, 2009 02:48pm EST
So my reading wasn't that the choice of the Hindu pantheon was arbitrary, but that it represented the best tool of control available to them.
I also didn't notice mention of a requirement for transfer at 60, but I might have simply missed that.
I actually thought that the use of Buddhism was appropriate, considering it grew up in opposition to the very hierarchical system of the Vedic period, which LoL's society parallels (See Wikipedia for details).
And, in the end, Sam wants to find liberation for everyone, not just a chosen few, which was also one of the goals of the Buddha. I guess my affection for him stems from his willingness to pursue this goal even to the point of his own destruction.
Monday November 09, 2009 03:02pm EST
Overall, Roger Zelazny is my favorite SF author, on the strength of his short stories, Isle of the Dead, Call Me Conrad, and Creatures of Light and Darkness. Lord of Light, to me, isn't in the same league.
Monday November 09, 2009 03:08pm EST
Jo: Interestingly, I intensely dislike most of Zelazney's "wiseass first"-person characters (none of them engage or feel sympathetic to me, and several of them I want to drop off a cliff and consider it a better job, with the narrator of "Unicorn Variation" a minor exception), and almost everything you dislike about LoL, I'm very fond of - it's big, it's messy, you can't tell if it's sci-fi or fantasy and I'm not sure it matters, and with the caveat that the women are largely what I'd expect of a '67-written novel, I'm very fond of almost all the characters.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 03:25pm EST
I love your reviews, by the way: they have led to a lot of book orders and re-readings from my long-lost scifi mad reading youth.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 03:38pm EST
Monday November 09, 2009 04:26pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 05:36pm EST
Monday November 09, 2009 06:02pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 06:44pm EST
Rob
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 07:21pm EST
Personally, I would like to have seen a Nkrumah-Kenyatta-Nasser type figure emerge from the common people. Up against the wall with all the gods!
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 09, 2009 08:50pm EST
Really though, I find I still can't get through any more than the first couple chapters of A Tale of Two Cities and I couldn't tell you why.
Monday November 09, 2009 09:42pm EST
@11 Would Sam's disciple who became truly enlightened and then got killed count?
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday November 10, 2009 01:10am EST
What jmelzer @11 says makes sense, and that might be part of the problem -- not only was that all before I was born, but British Empire style colonialism has never made sense to me at a gut level.
But more than that was a stylistic issue -- too much wordy description, not enough story happening. Or something like that; it's not that I dislike all description, but there's something about certain styles of it that annoys me, and this was tapping that button. (Gormenghast mashes it harder.)
And then there was that pun. Just the one. It's not a funny book. Why on earth is there a random shaggy dog story stuck into it?
tudzax1 @12 -- that's one of two Dickens I dislike. (Of what I've read, which is not everything, but rather a lot.) The oft-quoted opening is really the only good bit, IMO. (The other one I dislike is Dombey and Son.)
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday November 10, 2009 06:23am EST
Where did that interpretation come from? I'm afraid I don't agree.
Your "good guys" are just a bunch of elitist exploiters, demeaning/destroying the indigenous culture while attempting to superimpose their own version of a "good society" willy-nilly upon them.
Tuesday November 10, 2009 08:01am EST
Maturation can come in several ways, but the most common are self-sacrifice (Jack of Shadows), death, or fatherhood (Creatures of Light and Darkness, first Amber series).
What makes LoL interesting is the way it plays with this. Sam seems like the standard Zelazny protagonist, but arguably the hero of the story is Yama. He, not Sam, gets the character development. He starts the book as a self-centered, thin-skinned adolescent; by the end, he's become much more thoughtful, much more mature, and a (symbolic) father to the infantilized Kali. He has the only character arc in the book, and it's not a bad one -- don't let his initial obnoxiousness put you off.
Zelazny only did this splitting effect a couple of times -- Creatures of Light and Darkness is the other good example -- and it's a pity, because I think it works well.
Also: LoL works as a classic buddy novel. Sam is worldly-wise and cynical, but wants to improve the world. Yama is an arrogant techno-nerd who refuses to believe the world needs improving. At first sight they can't stand each other; later, a woman comes between them and makes it worse; eventually, her betrayal brings them together; Yama learns idealism and service from Sam; they become good friends and comrades in arms; Sam eventually Goes Away (the mentor figure must die or disappear) leaving Yama to carry on the good fight.
Note that Sam the mature male gets a sex scene, while Yama the immature male does not.
I can see why you don't like it, but I think it's... very interesting. There's a lot more structure in it than is apparent at first glance.
Doug M.
Tuesday November 10, 2009 10:30am EST
-- I really liked the hints that Zelazny scatters through the book. Jan Olvegg, for instance, was clearly the captain of the ship (or _a_ ship? there might have been more than one) that brought the first colonists. But the origin of the colonists, the split between Nirriti and the others, the early history of the colony and its wars with the natives, the Mothers of the Terrible Glow... all these are just hinted at, alluded to, in a way that implies a rich and detailed backstory. This was very well done.
(Of course, probably no such backstory existed. Zelazny liked dropping hints, and had a lot of confidence in his own ability to retcon if need be. But still: it's well done.)
-- I can see why Jo invokes the Eight Deadly Words against Sam, but several of the other (male) characters have stayed with me. Yama, but also Kubera (a benevolent fat man, another recurring Zelazny trope), the reformed assassin, and of course Taraka. Zelazny makes us believe that an immortal creature might spend eternity playing King of the Hill. That's impressive.
-- The gods are ordinary people with superpowers. This is a key plot point. Sam gets it from day one. Yama, on the other hand, has drunk the Kool-Aid -- "He is Fire. She is Dance." etc. This might be improbable given that he's right in the middle of the fun, but Zelazny very nicely patches it with the whole 'Yama was never a child' thing.
-- In Zelazny's worlds, adulthood always comes at a price, so unambiguously happy endings are very rare. The only Zelazny hero who gets one is Dilvish... and (1) he's already literally been through Hell, and (2) of all Zelazny's male protagonists, he's probably the lightest, and grows the least. (Though Fred from _Doorways in the Sand_ is a close second.) Usually, the pattern is "though the hero has suffered greatly, he has now fought through to some sort of enlightenment". But since enlightenment is a solitary thing, Zelazny heroes usually end up alone, or nearly so. (Dilvish again the interesting exception.)
-- The Dilvish short stories and _The Changing Land_ -- IMO Zelazny's most sheer-fun extended work -- are another set of buddy stories.
Doug M.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday November 10, 2009 10:58am EST
Doug M., I generally agree with and admire what you've said, but I'll quibble with the theory he didn't know the back story. One piece of his writing advice that sticks with me: the writer should know things about the past that are never revealed in the story. He said at least once that led to a short story. (Alas, I can't remember the example.)
Now, writers lie to themselves at least as much as they lie to anyone else, so he may've just been a master of the retcon.
Tuesday November 10, 2009 12:57pm EST
I'm not sure that it's ever set out in so many words, but I think that the book pretty strongly implies that "Sam" was his original name, before all of the god-games got started.
Tuesday November 10, 2009 01:33pm EST
Great discussion. I love Zelazny's work, _Lord of Light_ included, like a raving fanboy, but it's fun to hear all these different takes on it, positive or negative. (I especially like Doug M.'s coming-of-age-story comments.) Admission: I read _Lord of Light_ pretty young, and it took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out the middle section was a flashback. I just kept on going, confused, but eagerly following the bread-crumb trail of Zelazny's sentences.
Tuesday November 10, 2009 01:46pm EST
Tuesday November 10, 2009 04:37pm EST
Tuesday November 10, 2009 06:45pm EST
I can see why it's so well-regarded, though. Zelazny's creativity and originality are on full display, and I think that's a large part of what draws science fiction/fantasy people to the genre(s) to start with.
Tuesday November 10, 2009 08:09pm EST
I liked Tak ("it is no easy thing to have such memories, and to be an ape") but found Ratri rather dull. She's the Good Female Character foil to Kali, but neither of them gets a character arc, inner life, or even an explanation for why they are as they are.
Kubera I wish we could have seen more of. There are some interesting gender issues raised with him. (Kindly fat man in a premodern setting suggests "eunuch", and then at the end he's in a distinctly maternal role. On the other hand, he beats the crap out of Sam in a very masculine form of ritualized combat.) Also, he just seemed like a neat character. Nirriti I think needed just a little more time on stage.
The way Kali ends up... agh. (Nor would it be the last time Zelazny would ruin a female character in order to complete a male character's arc of growth.)
In an earlier thread, someone suggested that the ending was potentially redemptive because Kali now had the chance, maybe, to not grow up a bloodthirsty homicidal maniac. I sharply disagree. One, it's Zelazny who made her that way, damn it. Even Taraka at least had a reason. Kali is Just Bad. And two, there are several male characters who are just as lethal. But the males get a redemptive character arc (Yama), a noble death of self-sacrifice (Rild) or at least a clean death in fair combat (Mara, Taraka, Nirriti).
There's a discussion to be had on female characters in Zelazny... but perhaps that's best saved for another thread.
Doug M.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 12, 2009 05:53pm EST
But your thoughts are still interesting. I kind of liked dancing the edge of sf vs. fantasy (Dune does this too). It was my introduction to Hinduism (and has not gotten me in bad trouble since; not that I take it all as, er, gospel). And I did like the characters. Sam, certainly, but Yama even more, and Tak, and Rild, and to some extent Taraka. The gods having magic powers did bother me even then, but there was so much John W. Campbell psionics and equivalent around (see also Dune) that I had lost much of my resistance when I first read this. And I always appreciate a book where the christians are the evil authoritarians, in this case zombie-master militarists.
The crew faction that wanted to bring the passengers up to tech sooner were "Accelerationists".
I think the colonists must have been Hindu, probably Indian, originally. The ship was indeed named Star of India. So that, plus the ease of integrating the range of weird powers the gods displayed, makes it the natural religious path of control. And Buddhism is historically a response to Hinduism, in exactly the way Sam used it (in addition to being, of course, many other things).
This book lead me to reading Hesse's Siddhartha, but I was not impressed. Not as well written as I was used to, and full of boring stuff.
The unexpected pun (this has already been mentioned above, but I would say that it constitutes a spoiler) was indeed out of place. I use it as my example of one of the darlings that one SHOULD in fact kill, and why.
Friday November 13, 2009 04:01am EST
Sunday November 15, 2009 02:03am EST
To me, a large part of the appeal of Lord of Light is the first-time reader's attempt to figure out just what the heck is going on here.
A large part of our best literature has this effect - e.g. so who or what exactly is this Sandman who shows up at the start of Neil Gaiman's comic? - and readers with the hard-won knowledge that comes from persevering through the work are always eager to share that knowledge in summaries of the premise.
To my mind, they are missing the point and getting the work exactly backwards.