The Sword and Laser discussion

So when the book first started, I assumed that the book was going to roughly follow the course of European history. Tamas was hiding his personal reasons under the cloak of justice, but I figured that revolution was an idea whose time had come. I assumed that the biggest part of the story would be the other kingdoms sending armies to try and preserve the idea of divinely-appointed sovereignty, the same way that other monarchies sent destabilizing agents to France during the French Revolution. Except with magic thrown in as a metaphor of aristocracy and to make things interesting.

Except that deposing a king in the name of the people turns out to be a lot more foolhardy when the king is honest-to-goodness backed by the divine! Even if the divine was bribed into doing so by the ancient kings. On the one hand, that was a twist I didn't see coming very far ahead. But on the other hand, I feel like it made the book less interesting for me personally. I think it is difficult to put oneself into that mindset. That, no no, a god chose your king and his line to rule, and if you commit treason, you are also rebelling against the god.

Maybe Brian McClellan thought the only way to convince a modern, secular audience was to actually involve a god in the story?

I'm not saying it's a bad book. I'm saying that it wasn't the book I thought it was going to be. I was kind of looking forward to reading that other book.

I felt this way too at first-- I found the whole politics backed by magic stuff pretty interesting. However, giving it time to settle in, I think this is the more interesting choice. It's asking the question, if the divine right of kings actually is divine, does that mean we really do have to support the king, or does it mean we are justly required to overthrow not just the king but also the monarchs of the cosmos?

Rob wrote: "...or does it mean we are justly required to overthrow not just the king but also the monarchs of the cosmos?"

That's very interesting and a good point. It does sit a bit odd with me since I identify as a Christian who also thinks that a republic is one of the fairest forms of government available.

Rob wrote: "if the divine right of kings actually is divine, does that mean we really do have to support the king, or does it mean we are justly required to overthrow not just the king but also the monarchs of the cosmos?"

Agreed. And don't forget the question of if Kresimir and Mihali and the others are really are divine, or if are they just akin to very powerful Privileged. Or indeed, if there is a difference there at all.

Yeah, I really hope the "are gods actually divine?" Is explored at length on future installments rather than shoved aside.

But then I'm a catholic who studied theology in my undergrad so I'm predisposed to finding theological fantasy interesting :p

What would being divine mean in this context?

The beings are clearly powerful but not omnipotent, knowing but not omniscient. Since they disagree, I gather that being a "god" doesn't require benevolence either.

Does divinity rest on whether they created people?

If so, and if they are divine, maybe they are like Greek gods, who were sometimes opposed to humanity's interests.

I really hope that the concept of divinity is explored further.

I really enjoyed the book and now have to go and buy The Crimson Campaign to find out if this happens.

It does seem to be that we were introduced to initially three levels of magic, Knacked, Marked & Privileged. And then we went a step further with Predeii (which is a kind of mix etymologically of pre- before and deity which is kind of interesting). And then it seem as if Godhood is just a step further up that rung.

Then I feel like it's a side-step into what Ka-poel does. Or whether we get a revelation that she's one of the Predeii.

If there really were 10 gods and not 1 god and 9 saints, then that adds a whole lot of more interesting questions. Could we see not only the political revolution, but a theological revolution as well? I think that could be really interesting as "the Church" seems to wield a lot of power but what this could mean is that we have these small rebel religions starting up worshipping other gods.

It's interesting that many of the people on this thread (myself included) have identified as Christian or have a Christian background. Especially when you think about the theological impact of Adom being a god, where the Church of Kresimir could be seen as the Jewish religion and the possible coming of the church of Adom could be seen as following some of Christianity's roots. A small movement started by a man who claimed to be a god (or son of God) that didn't necessarily fit in with the theology of the time.

Now maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here but exploring this concept of starting a new religion and the parallels it has with current religions is really interesting!

What *is* the definition of a god? Do we define based on what power and knowledge the being has, or how people think of them, like whether they worship the being or not? I think for the purposes of this book, perhaps the second definition is clearer? Because powers don't make things clear at all. Someone in the book says "You can't kill a god", but how do you know? I guess it is easier to definitively prove someone is not a god than it is to definitively prove that they are.

Maybe I was a little fuzzy on the ending, but did Taniel kill Kresimir? I vaguely remember someone saying he didn't because "you can't kill a god" but what if Kresimir wasn't the invincible, omnipotent "god" we think of, but just an extremely powerful sorcerer?

Jordan wrote: "Maybe I was a little fuzzy on the ending, but did Taniel kill Kresimir? I vaguely remember someone saying he didn't because "you can't kill a god" but what if Kresimir wasn't the invincible, omnipo..."

Have to read the sequel!

He almost certainly wounded him and at least temporarily prevented him from scouring the land with fire or whatever his plan was. But they imply it won't stick.

Joanna wrote: "What *is* the definition of a god? Do we define based on what power and knowledge the being has, or how people think of them, like whether they worship the being or not? I think for the purposes ..."
Hmm, Norse gods could be killed and once you have more than one god, the concept of all-powerful goes away so I think you're right that whether or not a being is a "god" depends on the interactions between god and person. I focused on the "god's" interaction with us - did s/he create people - while you focused on our interactions with him/her - do we worship. I think your definition is better than mine.

I haven't read the sequel yet but, if worship makes a being divine in this universe, then one question is whether the author is also using the relatively common idea that the amount of worship affects the god's power. If so, a religious reformation could change which god is stronger than the others and Adom could take Kresimir's place.

I really liked the concept that the "gods" were just really powerful sorcerers. That they still had some mortality in them.

I enjoyed that Ka-pole is somewhat of an anomaly for the Privileged and the Predeii. I would like to understand better where her power comes from, I hope he explains it and that it's not something lame like "love".

Wasn't it explained that she's a wizardy person just like the mages, but a dangerous, powerful anomaly because she is from a non-western society with its own way of looking at, understanding, and practicing magic that the Westerners just kind of looked down on/ignored?

If I remember correctly they don't see her magic through their 3rd eye. Definitely sounds like there are other cultures that manifest magic in a way the Privileged/Power Mages/Knacked do not understand.