Memnoch - The Devil question (poss. spoiler)
Chris McSpurren
In article <52mv0m$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>, sub...@sprynet.com wrote:
>> Jeroen van Kessel <jvke...@knoware.nl> writes:
>> hi group,
>>
>> i just finished reading menoch the devil. the thing that puzzles me is
>> the note memnoch gave to lestat (together with lestats eye). 'my thanks
>> to you for a job perfectly done.' how did lestat serve memnochs purposes
>> then?
>> am i blind? i really dont see it.
>>
>> jeroen van kessel
>> jvke...@knoware.nl
>>
>>>>>
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>S
>M
>T
>D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>O.K I think it means that when Lestat gave Dora the veil for all the world to
see and causing a tidal
>wave of religious fanatics who worship basicly the veil and not God. Remeber
" There shall be no God
>before me".(The golden calf of the 90's)
>
>Wicca
I thought he was thanking Lestat for giving the mortals "proof", rather than
questions and blind faith.
Chris McSpurren
Arachnitech Web Page Design
webm...@arachnitech.com
http://www.interlog.com/~chrismc/webdesign.html
Jeroen van Kessel
sub...@sprynet.com
sub...@sprynet.com
The Brat Queen
SPOILERS below
On 29 Sep 1996 sub...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > Jeroen van Kessel <jvke...@knoware.nl> writes:
> >
> > i just finished reading menoch the devil. the thing that puzzles me is
> > the note memnoch gave to lestat (together with lestats eye). 'my thanks
> > to you for a job perfectly done.' how did lestat serve memnochs purposes
> > then?
> > am i blind? i really dont see it.
> O.K I think it means that when Lestat gave Dora the veil for all the
> world to see and causing a tidal wave of religious fanatics who worship
> basicly the veil and not God. Remeber " There shall be no God before
> me".(The golden calf of the 90's)
>
> Wicca
Well, this depends on what branch of Christianity you're talking about.
While there are some branches which, as you say, do not approve of idols
and the like because they are seen as "false gods", there are others which
think it is perfectly fine. Roman Catholics (the kind you find at St.
Pat's) are fairly big (meaning happy/content with/etc.) on religious
artifacts. You'll find some Holy men, for example, who will have original
pieces of the Cross with them. Respecting such artifacts is just seen as
part of your greater respect for God. So thousands of people flocking
back to the Church b/c of the veil would be considered a good thing if you
were Roman Catholic (or one of the other branches which did not mind
artifacts and the like).
The question of what the note Lestat got at the end is a common one for
abar. There's one theory (Ruby? You want to fill us in here?) about it
all having to do with vision (Lestat got the note back with his eye) and
the like, but IMHO Anne was playing a little fast and loose with the story
and the concept of religion and Christianity and faith and so on for any
theory to be suggested and to hold a great deal of water.
Laura Ann (aka Mrs. Wicked One)
----
"Yes. President Clinton would be the incumbent." --Bill Maher
--**--
The Anne Rice and alt.books.anne-rice FAQs can be found at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~talset & http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2591
rmcc...@sprynet.com
> i just finished reading menoch the devil. the thing that puzzles me is
> the note memnoch gave to lestat (together with lestats eye). 'my thanks
> to you for a job perfectly done.' how did lestat serve memnochs purposes
> then?
> am i blind? i really dont see it.
> jvke...@knoware.nl
>>>>
Okay gang, this is my take on the Letter Fiasco. Fire at will.
Memnoch sends a letter and the eye back to Lestat, who replaces his eye, reads the letter, and has a nervous
breakdown, thereby necessitating a visit from Maharet and a stay in the basement. The letter said something like "Thanks for a job
perfectly done", and Lestat realizes he's been played like a Walmart harp, but he doesn't know by whom: God, or the Devil.
Remember back in the day when Lestat was the BMOC in Paris and he ran around flaunting his atheism and screwing
anything that moved? Rememeber how he claimed not to believe in any higher force of reckoning than himself, namely, his complete
lack of faith in the existence of any deity whatsoever, be it good or evil? And then remember how Memnoch just crawled out of the
woodwork at St. Lizzie's, snatched him bald-headed, and basically fucked up Lestat's entire life by forcing him to believe in God
and/or the Devil? And then think back and recollect at the beginning of the book before Phase 2: Milton Revitalization kicked in.
Memnoch asked Lestat to be his assisstant/angel/secretary/publicist in hell. Memnoch is on some crusade to prove to God that the
old man is wrong, and he thinks he can do it if Lestat helps him. But Lestat works for nobody, and he thought the Inferno Tour '95
pretty much sucked. All the ghosts scared him, and apparently Lestat wasn't too happy down in Shangri-la because he ran out of
there like a bat out of...well, you know. And after Memnoch ripped out his eye, it was all downhill from there. No *way* was he going
to do anything to help Memnoch, he thought the entire thing was insane. So he goes home with the veil, gives it to Dora, she kicks
up a righteous storm, and biggity-bam! Christianity undergoes the biggest resurrection since, well, the original resurrection. Suddenly
EVERYBODY honks 'cause they love Jesus. And Lestat gets this note with an eye that says he's done the perfect job.
That means he's been the fall guy in a gang war that's bigger than him, and all of a sudden he needs a daily injection.
Lestat realizes he's been duped, been had, bushwacked, bamboozled, double-crossed, snookered, and every other obscure past
participle referring to the the state of being fooled. He's inadvertantly brought back the bloodiest religion in the history of mankind.
(Don't believe that? Check any history book. Remember the Crusades? The Inquistition?) Now he's got to figure it out: Who scewed
him over? Did God do it to get the world on its knees and praying again? Or did the Devil do it to cause another thousand years of
bloodshed and hatred in the name of the divine? He knows that God and the Devil are playing this game, this great, secret game
with the world as their chessboard. Or really, it's more like Monopoly, if you want to get technical about it. Lestat's basically been told
to go directly to jail without passing go and without collecting $200. There's a war in heaven, and Lestat is just another little battle in
billions of years of little battles. He can't stand it. It drives him mad. And what's worse is that he nows that both God and the Devill
know that the veil doesn't mean a damned thing: it's just another icon. It's just another gambit in the game. He knows they couldn't
give a tinker's damn about the world- it's just a game. Lestat feels insignificant, ineffably so, and he can't take it. He comes unglued.
And on top of all of this, Armand got sucked into the hype and decided to ace himself over what Lestat knows is a crock of shit. He
is going crazy that Armand died for something so worthless, went out with such disgrace. Lestat knows it's all a lie, but Armand was
apparently so excited about it that he ran out and killed himself. Oh well, just another casualty of war, and war is hell.
However much the book itself was pages worth of crap, you've got to give Anne credit for the end that leaves you
spinning like "What the hell was that all about?" At least, that's what I got out of it. I, personally, detested the book, but it did have a
few redeeming moments. Maybe. Possibility. If you strip off the layers of high-flown agenda and get to the heart of it. Which, sadly, is
sinking fast in the mud.
Well that's my 2. I'll shut up now and wait for the fireworks.
-Amy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You know, this job would be great if it weren't for the fucking customers"
-Clerks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nightfall
rmcc...@sprynet.com wrote:
> However much the book itself was pages worth of crap, you've got to give Anne credit for the end that leaves you
>spinning like "What the hell was that all about?" At least, that's what I got out of it. I, personally, detested the book, but it did have a
>few redeeming moments. Maybe. Possibility. If you strip off the layers of high-flown agenda and get to the heart of it. Which, sadly, is
>sinking fast in the mud.
> Well that's my 2. I'll shut up now and wait for the fireworks.
> -Amy
Fire at will??!!! Are you crazy? WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<shaking hand>
Beautiful, that's it exactly, in a nuts hell----I mean, nutshell!
Debbie
------
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2571
<><><>My pictures of Lestat and the gang<><><><>
/<
O[@@@{O}|::<====================-----
\<
Blessed darkness . . .
William Powers
In the book, Memnoch's goal was to get souls into Heaven. Accordingly, the
vampires suicide for various reasons, and therefore cease to kill. In
effect, Lestat has redeemed the vampires. (Here one could also digress on
the topic of Armand's loss of faith when Lestat originally tells him to
give up on Satan and ditch the coven) Another point is that in giving "the
flock" a very solid proof of faith, the veil, only leads more to God. In
the book God told Memnoch something about anything Memnoch did would only
give God more glory. (Something to that effect I forget the exact quote)
God also told Memnoch that he could not return to Heaven and HIS presense
until Sheol was cleared of souls. One of Memnoch's main goals is to regain
Heaven. So Lestat is serving both God and Memnoch by giving the vampires
and humans tangible proof of the passion and a bona fide miracle on top of
that.
This is a good topic and I would love to continue my diatribe, but this
could turn into a thesis if I go on...
W
sub...@sprynet.com wrote in article <52mv0m$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
> > Jeroen van Kessel <jvke...@knoware.nl> writes:
> > hi group,
> >
> > i just finished reading menoch the devil. the thing that puzzles me is
> > the note memnoch gave to lestat (together with lestats eye). 'my
thanks
> > to you for a job perfectly done.' how did lestat serve memnochs
purposes
> > then?
> > am i blind? i really dont see it.
> >
> > jeroen van kessel
> > jvke...@knoware.nl
> >
> >>>>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
> S
> M
> T
> D
>
>
>
>
>
>
sub...@sprynet.com
> The Brat Queen <tal...@eskimo.com> writes:
> SPOILERS below
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Sep 1996 sub...@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> Well, this depends on what branch of Christianity you're talking about.
> While there are some branches which, as you say, do not approve of idols
> and the like because they are seen as "false gods", there are others which
> think it is perfectly fine. Roman Catholics (the kind you find at St.
> Pat's) are fairly big (meaning happy/content with/etc.) on religious
> artifacts. You'll find some Holy men, for example, who will have original
> pieces of the Cross with them.
>
>
> Laura Ann (aka Mrs. Wicked One)
> ----
> "Yes. President Clinton would be the incumbent." --Bill Maher
> --**--
> The Anne Rice and alt.books.anne-rice FAQs can be found at:
> http://www.eskimo.com/~talset & http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2591
>
>
>>>>
you should worship God not idels.(but I tend to disagree about that when it concerns those who can
and do worship idels such as Hindues and Buhddist<?>)
Wicca
Frank Yao
Chris McSpurren <chr...@interlog.com> wrote:
>I thought he was thanking Lestat for giving the mortals "proof", rather than
>questions and blind faith.
It all depends on whether you think the devil was lying or not. Anne
Rice leaves that very open. If he was lying to Lestat and really is
the "Father of Lies" then he was thanking Lestat for turning people
into 'spiritual zombies'. Remember that Bible-wise, the people of
Israel have had been condemned (read 'killed') for worshipping idols,
and in at least one case, attributing to the idol (the golden calf)
acts that God Himself would do. The Bible teaches that God is the
only one who can (through the Holy Spirit) make you a believer. Now,
you have these people claiming that it was the veil that made them a
believer. "Blessed is he who believes, yet has not seen." (Or
something like that) were Jesus' words to Thomas, when he refused to
believe it was the Risen Christ until Thomas could touch Christ's
wounds. This could very well be the case here. Those who believed
w/o the veil are blessed.
- frank
--
****** Frank Yao, fy...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca ***************************
* Maybe it's that we are all outsiders, we are all making our own *
* unusual way through a wilderness of normality that is just a myth. *
***** - Anne Rice ******** http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~fyao ******
Dr. Francis Martinstein
> Okay gang, this is my take on the Letter Fiasco. Fire at will.
>
> Lestat realizes he's been duped, been had, bushwacked, bamboozled,
<squeek squeek> <squeek squeek>
<squeek squeek>
Hmmmmm, is that just me or is that the sound of a flamethrower gone dry?
Sounds like it. So, no fireworks from me right now. (Shouldn't have used
the 'Pandemonium' setting on the Trek groups, I suppose.)
Seriously, what a GREAT way of explaining that note, Amy!
Francis M'stein
-------------------------
RubyEuropa
breathed the following:
>It all depends on whether you think the devil was lying or not. Anne
>Rice leaves that very open.
I wonder if Anne even has a clue about it <g>. When I talked to her
about that (I asked her about Lestat losing his eye) at the
booksigning, she seemed to imply that perhaps Memnoch was NOT the
devil. Her exact words were: "but WAS he the devil? Would the devil
have given the eye back?"
>wounds. This could very well be the case here. Those who believed
>w/o the veil are blessed.
Or possessed? Merely mad? Merely suffering from a wee bit of
indigestion caused by bad porridge? :)
Ruby
The Brat Queen
On 2 Oct 1996, Dr. Francis Martinstein wrote:
> <squeek squeek> <squeek squeek>
>
> <squeek squeek>
>
> Hmmmmm, is that just me or is that the sound of a flamethrower gone dry?
Don't worry, Dr. F. I hear it happens to a lot of people with age.
We can just stay up and cuddle if you want ;)
Frank Yao
Repeat after me: <Enter> is my friend, I will use its services after
75 characters per line. :)
What editor are you using, Wicca?
In article <52rc32$r...@juliana.sprynet.com>, <sub...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Yeah your right about some parts of Christianity, but being a Southern
>Baptist I was always told that you should worship God not idels.(but I
>tend to disagree about that when it concerns those who can
>and do worship idels such as Hindues and Buhddist<?>)
But the official Catholic position is that they aren't worshipping the
saints or the veil, or whatever. I go into greater detail in a
previous post. Yes, I have seen Catholics who don't think that way,
but *shrug*, it's always best to look at the official position...
How would the Vatican respond to such a 'miracle'? Would we get the
same things as we saw with the Shroud of Turin?
And, BTW, contrary to popular belief, Buddhism (as defined by the
Buddha) is an atheistic religion/way of life. Most of what we see
today has been intermixed with folk religion, and the various
additions were added later on.
Frank Yao
The Brat Queen <tal...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Well, this depends on what branch of Christianity you're talking about.
>While there are some branches which, as you say, do not approve of idols
>and the like because they are seen as "false gods", there are others which
>think it is perfectly fine. Roman Catholics (the kind you find at St.
>Pat's) are fairly big (meaning happy/content with/etc.) on religious
>artifacts. You'll find some Holy men, for example, who will have original
>part of your greater respect for God. So thousands of people flocking
>back to the Church b/c of the veil would be considered a good thing if you
>were Roman Catholic (or one of the other branches which did not mind
>artifacts and the like).
The official Catholic line behind the saints and artifacts is not that
they are to be used as something to worship, but as a reminder of
something that the person did. For example, having a piece of the
true cross (which seems a little suspicious to me) would act as a
reminder of the sacrifice of Christ, and a reminder for that person to
follow the example of Christ. It's not meant to have supernatural
powers and the such. (Okay, maybe that last sentence isn't part of
the official line.) As you said, it is part of a greater respect for
God, but it should never be replacing God, or Christ's work. The only
recorded history of the Christian God's interaction with people (and
probably where Anne would first get her ideas) shows time and time
again that people are drawn to something magical, but eventually fall
away because they don't have what it takes on the inside. Perhaps to
paraphrase John Candy in "Cool Runnings" would sum this up best: If
you are faithful enough without the artifact, you will never be
faithful enough with it.
- frank (unofficial abar resident christian)
Lady Black Death
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, RubyEuropa wrote:
> breathed the following:
>
> >It all depends on whether you think the devil was lying or not. Anne
> >Rice leaves that very open.
>
> I wonder if Anne even has a clue about it <g>. When I talked to her
> about that (I asked her about Lestat losing his eye) at the
> booksigning, she seemed to imply that perhaps Memnoch was NOT the
> devil. Her exact words were: "but WAS he the devil? Would the devil
> have given the eye back?"
I'm starting to see a trend here. Anne the Clinton groupie.. Anne the
politician who can not make a firm statement on anything - even to the
identity or fate of her characters - even if confronted directly.
Whatever the polls suggest... hum.
Lisa
Lady Black Death
"When I'm miles and miles apart from you
I'm beside you when I think of you" - the Riverdance
Now booking for New Orleans Tours - Mail me for details! :)
sub...@sprynet.com
> fy...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao) writes:
> Repeat after me: <Enter> is my friend, I will use its services after
> 75 characters per line. :)
>
> What editor are you using, Wicca?
>
> - frank
> --
> ****** Frank Yao, fy...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca ***************************
> * Maybe it's that we are all outsiders, we are all making our own *
> * unusual way through a wilderness of normality that is just a myth. *
> ***** - Anne Rice ******** http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~fyao ******
>
>>>>
might get hurt.
Wicca
Frank Yao
RubyEuropa <r_eu...@clark.net> wrote:
> breathed the following:
I think you are missing something somewhere in how you determine what
this line is. The name never shows up anymore.
>>It all depends on whether you think the devil was lying or not. Anne
>>Rice leaves that very open.
>
>I wonder if Anne even has a clue about it <g>. When I talked to her
>about that (I asked her about Lestat losing his eye) at the
>booksigning, she seemed to imply that perhaps Memnoch was NOT the
>devil. Her exact words were: "but WAS he the devil? Would the devil
>have given the eye back?"
Hmmm ... well, if he wasn't the devil, it would explain all of that
crap about evolution and such.. I wonder how much of Genesis 1-2 Anne
Rice actually read and understood. If I remember correctly, she puts
death into Creation before the Fall. I suppose everyone is entitled
to their opinions, but this goes against what I've heard from various
different denominations, and probably what is written in various parts
of the NT, like Romans 1, for example.
>>wounds. This could very well be the case here. Those who believed
>>w/o the veil are blessed.
>
>Or possessed? Merely mad? Merely suffering from a wee bit of
>indigestion caused by bad porridge? :)
Hey now. There's no need for that. :)
Mark Amir Shenouda
It is obvious to me that Lestat was being played from the start by
Memnoch at least and quite possible by god. The Truth about Unkle
Mickey's Eye diddnt make much sence until the end. Why did memnoch chose
that? Because he knew what was going to happen. He knew that Lestat
would run to Dora. And he knew what Dora would do. Lestat knew that
Roger and Dora were involved in it all, despite Memnoch's denial.
And why would God give Lestat the veil? Diddnt make much sence
either.
Personally, I feel that Memnoch and God both decieved Lestat.
They wanted a second sign, to recindle the faith so people would not be
angry with God for being abandoned and for the suffering. And that sign
required devinity and sacrafice, just like the Crusifixion. Dora provided
the ministry (especially when given a gift to solidify her faith), and
Lestat provided the devinity and the sacrafice. Him and the vampires like
Armand who, in their newfound love for god, revieled to the world the
supernatural.
Thus, although Lestat thinks that both are nuts, he did their
bidding. He did the dirty work for a god whom he despised.
Thats my 2 cents, anyway. E-mail me with your opinions.
Major Tom
> However much the book itself was pages worth of crap, you've got to give Anne credit for the end that leaves you
>spinning like "What the hell was that all about?" At least, that's what I got out of it. I, personally, detested the book, but it did have a
>few redeeming moments. Maybe. Possibility. If you strip off the layers of high-flown agenda and get to the heart of it. Which, sadly, is
>sinking fast in the mud.
> Well that's my 2. I'll shut up now and wait for the fireworks.
I myself Enjoyed the book, but I was also offended on nearly every
level... It took me about a month to decide how I felt about it and
what I came up with was this. The story being told this time is
different, not Lestat telling us about his life, but the Lestat
telling us about the Devil telling him about the Devil's life. Now
this is a bit of a switch, because we are used to it being Lestat's
tale. That is the first major difference here. Sorta like how in
Interview Louis made Lestat look like a completely unlovable
son-of-a-bitch! But in book two when you hear Lestat's side of it,
you begin to feel sympathy for him(sympathy for the devil?). Now,
although most of the people in this group seem to think This book is
about Anne's personal agenda, I dissagree. After some careful
consideration, I think it was about the Devil's personal agenda. And
besides, being the biggest liar in existience we don't even know if
anything he told Lestat or had Lestat experience was real! Even if it
were "real" though, remember if Rush Limbaugh gieves you his version
of the Debate outcome and then Stephanopolis gave his, somehow the two
accounts would sound alot like completely different debates.
The things that bothered me most about this book were the
lines that were crossed. The drinking of menstral blood. The drinking
of God's blood. The idea that everyone secretly hates God. Making
the Devil out as a poor dupe. And making God out as a do nothing care
nothing ass hole.
These bothered me for awhile, but then I though, what else
would I expect from the Devil! And there's the rub! If the story
offended you, or was troublesome, rmember it was the Devil's version
of the truth, not necessarily the real truth. And I think maybe the
"Bloodythisty religion" thing is correct. And I like the upheaval she
left her vampire world in. After four books the fifth should
radically alter things.
That's my .02
Shannan Boyle
Major Tom wrote:
>
> > However much the book itself was pages worth of crap, you've got to give Anne credit for the end that leaves you
> >spinning like "What the hell was that all about?" At least, that's what I got out of it. I, personally, detested the book, but it did have
a
> >few redeeming moments. Maybe. Possibility. If you strip off the layers of high-flown agenda and get to the heart of it. Which, sadly, is
> >sinking fast in the mud.
> > Well that's my 2. I'll shut up now and wait for the fireworks.
>
That is an interresting perspective. If you think about the entire book
as the devil's lies and tricks it seems somewhat acceptable to me. I had
trouble with the notion of God being portrayed as apathetic toward
humans. Anne wrote it so that God had created the human race to watch as
a sort of game. But it was thought provoking and caused me to do alot of
introspection. I had heard stories about the devil being a fallen angel,
so that part made sense. But to believe that it was the devil who had
compassion and not God is a stretch. Thanks for the point of view it
makes the book alot easier to swallow. But about Lestat's treatment, she
definitely crushed his status as a strong, willful figure who never
backs down. Lestat has always been curious in the previous books about
the existence of God, but he was a scared, coward once he obtained the
devils so called 'proof'. Never fear though, Lestat will always be a
hero in my heart!
*Elizabeth T Eisenstatt
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Shannan Boyle wrote:
I snipped a whole bunch.....
>
> That is an interresting perspective. If you think about the entire book
> as the devil's lies and tricks it seems somewhat acceptable to me. I had
> trouble with the notion of God being portrayed as apathetic toward
> humans. Anne wrote it so that God had created the human race to watch as
> a sort of game. But it was thought provoking and caused me to do alot of
> introspection. I had heard stories about the devil being a fallen angel,
> so that part made sense. But to believe that it was the devil who had
> compassion and not God is a stretch. Thanks for the point of view it
> makes the book alot easier to swallow. But about Lestat's treatment, she
> definitely crushed his status as a strong, willful figure who never
> backs down. Lestat has always been curious in the previous books about
> the existence of God, but he was a scared, coward once he obtained the
> devils so called 'proof'. Never fear though, Lestat will always be a
> hero in my heart!
>
>
Ah, well, for me MtD fit right in with Why Bad Things Happen to Good
People. I personally, my opinion, how I feel etc., view G-d as the
omnipotent one who put the world into being and doesn't meddle. The good,
the bad, the ugly, they're all here and ( to me) it's all chance. Perhaps
that is why I didn't have a problem with MtD, except for the menstual
blood, now that WAS gross....
Talamasca (Philip) Ho
Major Tom (des...@cyberhighway.net) wrote:
: I myself Enjoyed the book, but I was also offended on nearly every
: That's my .02
:
Well i am not offened by the god devil shit but i got offened Anne
writing such a shitty book.
It is like been taken for a ride.
The menstrul blood shit was disgusting.
But as a Rice fan i expected that kind of shit so it didnt brother me.
BUT GOD!!! licking the blood of the .... damn i cant even say it.
DAMN it gave me the chills.
The Mayfair House Keeper