Blayne wrote:Except that was your complete argument!
"But how is that interesting unless you're just hooked on the novelty of demons not being portrayed as invincible supernatural killing machines?"
Your implying that a story of invincible demons is somehow more valid then the salvation war, its right their in your text and that is what I responded to.
For my own part, I do not see this implication. Classically, demons are portrayed as nigh-invincible and the only way to beat them is to outwit them (see any number of folk tales stretching back to the Dung Ages). Suddenly, Stuart writes a story in which demons are NOT nigh-invincible! They actually die when you stab or shoot them*! Wow!
*For sufficiently vigorous stabbing or shooting.
______
But by itself, that isn't a big enough idea to carry a trilogy of novels. It's interesting, and it's more than a mere conceit, but:
1)In and of itself, it isn't actually
new, even if Stuart is the first to explore the implications as thoroughly as he has. Other authors have written demons (and angels) as antagonists that non-demon, non-angels can defeat in direct combat by people who, strictly speaking, have no magic powers. It's even a major part of the premise of a couple of popular fantasy games.
2)By the time you've written up several hundred straight pages of demons and angels not being invincible, the reader may have a hard time remembering that he ever
was supposed to think of them as invincible. You can only hammer your opponent for so long before "Ha-ha, you're not as invincible as you're made out to be!" becomes "Ha-ha, you're a pathetic irrelevant worm!"
So unless you're really really caught up in the novelty of that
one idea of demons and angels being vincible*, sooner or later you're going to look for other things to carry the story and keep your interest. If they're not there, then that's a problem with the story. For me, they
are there, at least there in enough quantity to keep me reading. But I understand why someone else might not see it that way. In some ways I have low standards.
And when someone says "they aren't there," it is most unreasonable to say "no, you dipshit, they don't
need to be there, because instead something else that is awesome is there!" That might be a reasonable argument by itself, but not so obviously true that it can justify the "dipshit" part.
*For lack of a better term.
______
Blayne wrote:Aaaah, so people reading fiction set in WWII or Iraq is thus 'boring' because we already know who wins?
You missed an important subtlety. In a World War Two story we know who wins (barring alternate history, of course). But the protagonists don't, and shouldn't. At the time the war was actually fought, the "good guys" were very much in doubt over their ability to beat the "bad guys" without paying an unacceptable price, and that doubt, the
plausibility of the villains of the piece winning the war, carries through to a modern audience. Your heroes are fighting characters who operate more or less on their level of competence, and who are more than capable of inflicting dreadful reverses on the entire cause.
Here, that's not happening. We would have been able to infer that the villains of the piece were going to get their asses kicked almost from the beginning. All we needed to know was that the Legions of Hell (which are traditionally considered a fairly significant threat) turned out to be a bunch of exceptionally durable Bronze Age phalangites who only posed a "threat" in the sense that we might conceivably run out of ammo before killing the last of them. That gave away the ending
one twelfth of the way into the overall story. It's as if World War Two had started with the rout of a German invasion of Poland and the Polish lancers had been parading through the streets of Königsberg by November 1939.
If someone wrote a story like that in a world where the real war never happened, it
would be rather boring, especially if the Poles didn't have to fight very hard to make it happen. At that point, it doesn't matter how menacing and evil you made the Nazis look by having them beat up on defenseless Jews inside their country, because they're a pushover compared to any competent enemy outside their own borders.
_____
I don't need to reason my way out of a problem, I am explaining to you that your interpretation of the text you probably did not read is incorrect, I am answering your criticisms and providing an explaination for a potentially ambigious text as sometimes we aren't just supposed to rely on Word of God but by studying the text figure it out for ourselves. You took the lazy way out and just didn't care.
That would be a good idea if he were actually trying to interpret a text. He's not; he's trying to
read a text and explain why it wasn't as good a read as he would have liked. I'm free to like it, and you're free to love it to pieces, but "Meh, there wasn't really enough dramatic tension for me" is still a valid criticism, because
most readers of stories like a certain amount of dramatic tension in their fiction.
Keep in mind that "Story X can be criticized for reason Y" does not equal "Story X sucks and should be despised by all right-thinking people." It would be wrong and dumb to say the latter about the Salvation War stories, but not necessarily wrong and dumb to say the former.
______
Blayne wrote:That the antagonists have been made vulnerable through the application of science and the understanding that the source of our knowledge of them is from a biased source of propaganda should clearly explain that this setting isn't your normal setting of Humans versus the Elritch and unexplanable, this settings background is that they are specifically explainable thanks to Humanities ability to study and understand things and because of that victory is a real possibility.
To be sure.
What I'd like to see (not as a variation on
this story, but on
some story) is a "science vs. magic" scenario in which the scientists
actually have to figure out the magic. Where they are confronted with a problem that is outside their context and actually learn how to fight and beat it on its own terms, rather than entirely into a problem to be dealt with on
their terms. Just as applying scientific chemistry to, say, metallurgy improved the art of metallurgy beyond what would be possible for a medieval blacksmith, I'd imagine that applying scientific study to the techniques of magic would yield more impressive magic.
But the key is that there would be something that you would honestly call
magic going on, something that really does operate in terms of "making things happen by wishing for them with the aid of suitable appliances," something that does not reduce gracefully to the Four Forces as we know them.
Whereas in this story, the "science vs. magic" conflict is resolved by saying there is no magic, only slight wrinkles on the science we already understand, at which point the fantastic beasts we're fighting become unusually primitive alien invaders. That's an interesting idea, and definitely worth its own military thriller novels, but in a perfect world I wish I could also see the one of that other type.
I'm tempted to believe I could
write one... [wanders off into ideaspace]