Light Of The Lord Views

General Goods

Lord of Light (1967) is an epic science fiction/fantasy novel by American author Roger Zelazny. It was awarded the 1968 Hugo Award for Best Novel,[1] and nominated for a Nebula Award in the same category.[2] Two chapters from the novel were published as novelettes in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in 1967.

In an intentional match with Hindu and Buddhist mythology and teachings, the first six chapters of the book describe actions which occur in the 'Great Wheel of Life'. These are repetitive actions, and thus the end of chapter six feeds directly into the beginning of chapter one. If read in this way, of course, the book will never end, in exactly the same way as an unenlightened life will never escape the cycle of desire, and be continually reborn. Eventually, an enlightened soul can achieve Nirvana, and release themselves from the action of the Great Wheel.

While his previous works such as ...And Call Me Conrad and The Dream Master cast science fiction themes into a mythic mold, Lord of Light is the first to use Zelazny's technique of anachronistic myth, in which a mythical or legendary story has science-fiction underpinnings and features occurrences of 20th century American vernacular and culture: Hindu deities smoke cigarettes, characters refer to Marxism and old drinking songs like It's a Long Way to Tipperary, and two characters engage in a contest of Irish Stand-down, in which they take turns punching each other until one collapses.

Zelazny deliberately mixed elements of science fiction and fantasy in this novel in which the former crew of the starship Star of India pretend to be gods by adopting the trappings of Hindu mythology, and Sam invokes Buddhism to challenge them. Zelazny noted, “Lord of Light was intentionally written so that it could be taken as a science fiction or a fantasy novel. On the one hand, I attempted to provide some justifications for what went on in the way of the bizarre; on the other, I employed a style I associate with fantasy in the telling of the story. I wrote it that way on purpose, leaving some intentional ambiguity, because I wanted it to lie somewhat between both camps and not entirely in either. I did this because I did not see much stuff being written at that time which fit that description; because I wanted to see whether I could do it; and because I was curious as to how such a book would be received.” [3]