I picked this one up after reading Dumas Club and getting reacquainted with the Milton's Paradise Lost. After few people remarked that Revolt of the Angels is much better book on the relations between Heaven and Hell, and famous fall of The Rebels I was hooked and went to read this one.

Style-wise, book is relatively hard to read. It has archaic sentence structure and - at least for me - it is very very verbose. It is short book in any case but could be shorter still. Again this is something that can be said for every book from this age and I guess use of more sophisticated style was mark of the reader's own literacy level.

Now, story-wise ..... I will put this under spoilers because I will definitely mention them so be warned.



Story starts slow, and I mean slow. We get introduced to the family d'Esparvieu, its history, important members of the family etc and this goes on and on and on. In what might be called the foundation of the family, great library, strange things start to happen - books end up thrown on the floor, they are missing and then found in gutters of Paris. All of this starts to upset the librarian and poor soul starts to go crazy because of all of these events. It is not uninteresting, mind you but after chapter 3 I was like - OK, did they send me wrong book? Was not this about War in Heaven? And then actual story starts when the guardian angel of one of the family scions, Maurice, shows up while Maurice is having an affair (one of many) in a hotel. Guardian angel shows up and states he is leaving Maurice for a greater cause - fight against the impostor in Heaven (Pullman's book "Golden Compass" has a very similar twist). What happened is that this guardian angel (named Arcadia) while disgusted with Maurice's choice of women started reading books in family library and acquired knowledge that showed him he is is serving the wrong master in Heaven. So he decides to rebel and join the Fallen Angels roaming the world under various disguises.

So if we look at this, and time when the book was written (1914) it is obvious that Arcadia starts to play the role of the young revolutionary who reads works he takes for granted (I mean he reads works of mortal humans, creatures he alone says are below him, and finds heavenly truths in them (!?!)) and decides to take arms against what is seen as a perversion and great danger. Enter any revolutionary pamphlet or text here that calls for rebellion against "the others".

As a matter of fact as story progresses we can see that angels are very emotional and when in contact with Earth and especially humans they tend to lose their reason and give themselves completely to emotions. And those that embrace emotions the most fall the lowest - I think that author was giving not so subtle parallels with revolutionaries of the time, [violent] anarchist movements, who were people who sought something - without knowing what exactly - and decided to take arms and blow things up a bit to achieve it.

In general Arcadia and other Fallen Angels become activists, people taken away by emotions, concentrated on a single goal - violent takeover of power - without knowing (or even thinking) about the ultimate question - what then?

So our rebels decide that now is time to make Second War in Heaven - this time they will utilize technology and weaponry developed by humanity (explosives, firearms etc) and this will ensure their victory. Their meetings echo so much meetings of revolutionaries of early 20th century, where stories are told of old times that were beautiful and about all the progress that these activist's brought to the humans at the time (focus here is solely on Christendom, there is no mention of Islam here, which is weird considering what is meant by Fallen as one the greatest tragedies is loss of art and beautiful presentation of nature and humanity, ability to live the life of pleasure always and to the fullest and in this religion, human presentation is forbidden as is heavy drinking and general over-indulgence in life; I assume author was working with what was familiar to him so he skipped this).

To cut it short, Fallen Ones origin story is story how they brought everything that is beautiful to the world and it was only because of dictator from Heaven that suffering and decay entered the world (because in ancient times, especially in old Pharaoh land, there was no suffering, slaves and war - yeah, right :)). As can be taken from above this is very one-sided story, it rightly sounds like a myth, fairy tale to everyone else except those involved - our rebels just cannot accept any other version of the story. Other side is corrupt, dictatorial and they [rebels] are the true ones, protectors of life and all that is beautiful.

Soon they organize the great armies of angels to be hurtled against the Heaven but on their path they start to behave more and more like humans - they become greedy, jealous and possessive, they drink, get drunk and cause mayhem. It comes to a point that Maurice starts to act as guardian to Arcadia because he wants him turned back from the rebels. This in turn raises suspicion of French police because they start to see these loud, mysterious persons as opponents of the French government (especially when informers get information that revolution is on a way). When earthly police gets involved rebels do not think twice, they dispatch them in such a violent way that it should make them think, what have we become. Alas, this does not happen.

One of the small side-elements here are financiers. We are introduced to a wealthy man, who is also one of the original Fallen, ready to finance the rebels against Heaven. Why? Simple, he wants them off his land (France) because he wants to keep his base safe. On the other side other financial forces are financing the military might of the Heaven. Sounds familiar? Should be because here we again have parallels with the real world - heartless international financiers who give money to all sides in war because it is good business. Only condition - don't wage it on my turf.

And then comes the finale. Rebels are in need of leader so they go back to Big S (or L :)) and he says to them no. And thus rebellion fails.

Now, you may ask why not strike? Well Big S figures out that moment he sits on the Throne of Heaven (and he is sure it is doable with all the technology behind it) he will become the new tyrant. All the virtues that he sees in himself as a rebel for good would pass to the one he dethroned and sent to rule in Hell, while he will become what he despises. Basically he will switch the places and become the tyrant who everyone will want to bring down in a couple of millennia.

When it comes to parallels isn't this what happen to Russia after Tsar was deposed? Or let us look what happened when the "carrot-man-who-must-not-be-named" was replaced by another - what actually changed except division and enforcing of authority just grew more stronger (and not just here but also in a special places down under and all around the world)?

You might say that Big S decided to be a realist instead of activist. Instead of taking the throne and becoming what he is currently fighting against he decides to remain where he is and live his life with an image of the eternal rebel. Since he wont be able to answer the hard questions [that would come up if he has the ultimate power] he can always tell a story of small rebel against the gigantic tyrant and play the role of one who tried but failed, but is moral victor. Isn't this the situation with eternal political opposition - just make sure you are always against the power in place? And when you take power (the greatest fear for them all) then, hey, we need to take some drastic action. Please look the other way, nothing to see here, we "know" what we are doing here - right?

Roles might be changed but it is always the same players on both sides. And the oppression? It remains in place but now it supports the "right" guy :) actual people manning the police and other control mechanisms, they never change, they remain the same, only thing that gets changed is a badge or some other identification.

In this case Big S shows more reason than humanity and our band of rebels, and by deciding to remain eternal "rebel" he chooses to live in exile and at times point his finger and say "He is the enemy" and continue living without stirring any actual trouble.

I heard this book was forbidden/censored by Rome. I think that reason is this very ending, indication that every social movement that comes to power through revolution, ends up more strict and suffocating than the one before it. And when you put religious aspect to this .... well it does not sound good to general populace. Might sound strange doesn't it (especially in modern times), but keep in mind that secular forces have heavily censored hundreds of books and dozen of authors in last two years because of similarly ridiculous reasons. Activists, what else can be said......



All in all interesting book, to be honest not something I have expected but I truly liked the ending. It is way different book than Milton's and it has completely different message.

Recommended. ( )

I would judge this one of his less successful efforts, though entertaining enough as a story. An angel appears to the son of a wealthy Parisian businessman in the late 19th century and enlists his sympathy for a second revolt of the angels against God or, as he insists on identifying him, Ialdabaoth, a mere “demiurge whom, in your blindness, you adore as the one and only God." France is nothing if not witty, learned, and a wickedly effective satirist. But the book had, for me, a dragged-out quality; I think it might have been far more effective as a short story. There is a little too much showing-off of his knowledge, particularly of Biblical history and theology. After a while, it becomes less-than-illuminating and more pedantry to wade through. I believe, as I suggested, he has a wonderful theme and a great plot but it all would have been better served in far fewer pages. ( )

La rebelión de los ángeles nos sitúa en el centro de la más audaz y quimérica de las empresas imaginables: destronar al anciano y todopoderoso soberano: el Dios de la mitología judeocristiana, el tirano del universo, el cruel Ialdabaoth. La acción comienza en la biblioteca de los Esparvieu, donde la plácida rutina diaria de su conservador se ve interrumpida por una serie de misteriosos desórdenes y extrañas desapariciones, que nos conducen hasta los ambientes revolucionarios del París de principios de siglo. Sin necesidad de recurrir a fantasmas esotéricos, Anatole France logra una espléndida y divertida metáfora sobre la eterna lucha entre el bien y el mal, dando vida simplemente a los viejos es píritus familiares de la teología cristiana.

Great novel, not too long (165 pages), and very readable. It's a bit like a shorter and more Satanic version of Milton's Paradise Lost.

The author, who was a poet and journalist and supporter of the 1917 Russian Revolution and French Communist Party when it started in 1920, writes it fully from the perspective of the rebel angels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, after it was published the novel was placed on the Catholic Church's list of banned books.

Like Satan in the Book of Job, the angels are wandering about the earth. The action of the novel takes place in Paris. The bohemian demi-monde there is nicely evoked. For example,there's a scene where two angelic organisers, on a recruiting drive, arrive at a pub:

" As his eye lighted on a tavern, whence, through the mist, the light fell golden on the pavement, Theophile suddenly bethought himself of the Archangel Ithuriel who, in the guise of a poor but beautiful woman, was living in wretched lodgings on La Butte and came every evening to read the papers at this tavern." p. 50

Aside from being a great story, the the author's take on theology is very interesting. How did El, the god of the Canaanites who created the world, come to be thought of as God, the only God? As he has the angel Abdiel ("Arcade", in human form) explain:

"I believe in Him, since my existence depends on His, and if He
should fail to exist, I myself should fall into nothingness. I believe
in Him, even as the Satyrs and the Mænads believed in Dionysus
and for the same reason. I believe in the God of the Jews and the
Christians. But I deny that He created the world; at the most He
organised but an inferior part of it, and all that He touched bears
the mark of His rough and unforeseeing touch. I do not think He is
either eternal or infinite, for it is absurd to conceive of a being who is not bounded by space or time. I think Him limited, even very limited. I no longer believe Him to be the only God. For a long time He did not believe it Himself; in the beginning He was a polytheist;
later, His pride and the flattery of His worshippers made Him a
monotheist. His ideas have little connection; He is less powerful
than He is thought to be. And, to speak candidly, He is not so much
a god as a vain and ignorant demiurge. Those who, like myself,
know His true nature, call Him Ialdabaoth."
"What's that you say?"
"Ialdabaoth."
"Ialdabaoth. What's that?"
"I have already told you. It is the demiurge whom, in your blind-
ness, you adore as the one and only God." ( )

It's becoming obvious that many of my bk 'reviews' are actually just excuses for anecdotes w/ just a little bk review thrown in here & there. That's the case here. I've been writing a math humor bk called "Paradigm Shift Knuckle Sandwich & other examples of PNT (Perverse Number Theory)" - in fact, it's more or less finished now: I'm just working on the Glossary & the Index. Part of this bk entails my navigating thru my notes about math bks that I read between, roughly, 2003 & 2005. In one of them, I ran across mention of Anatole France's novel entitled (in English translation) "The Revolt of the Angels". I'd made a note to myself to find & read that. Then, in another note I found France quoted by one of the math bk authors. So that strengthened the resolve to read something by him. Now, I've known about A France for at least 32 yrs & I have his "Penguin Island" in my library - but I'd never read that or anything else by him. I was never that curious. In the back of my mind (in the visual cortex? Just Kidding), I think I always thought of him as a pop novelist & never had much interest. ANYWAY, the reason why I knew about him ±32 yrs ago is because of something that I eventually worked into this bk I just wrote. SO, read the relevant excerpt below & then I promise to move onto the actual review:

"Beckmann goes on to diss Aristotle, who he describes as the "one whose teachings held up the progress of science for close to 2,000 years". Ha ha! "Aristotle, we are invariably told, was 'antiquity's most brilliant intellect,' and the explanation of this weird assertion, I believe, is best summarized in Anatole France's words: The books that everybody admires are the books that nobody reads." Coincidentally, I've been vacillating about whether to talk about what I call Bird-Brainism, wch I've so far decided against, but now that A. France is mentioned, the time for a segue has clearly come.

"While reading these math bks, some non-math bk might be mentioned that seemed interesting, so I'd make note of it. In the Turing bio, Elmer Rice's play Judgment Day, about the Reichstag fire trial, was mentioned; Nobel Prize winning French author Anatole France's La Revolte des Anges (The Revolt of the Angels) was mentioned elsewhere. I've gotten both out of the library recently.

"Anatole France has the fate, perhaps somewhat unfortunate, of being the guy whose posthumously determined small brain size (2.24 pounds as opposed to the average 3 pounds) is used to demonstrate that "big brain" doesn't automatically correlate w/ "intelligence".

"When I was in my early 20s I took a Physical Anthropology class at a community college. That's probably where the subject of France's brain-size & its significance was mentioned. The 1st paper I wrote for that class is reproduced below:

"The Significance of Efficient Brain-Use

"Anthropologists have used cranial capacity as an indicator of the degree of mental ability. This makes Neanderthals "superior" to "twentieth-century" people. This practice is based on the belief that the brain's ability to manipulate functions is relative to its # of cells. However, a major mental ability increase is not necessarily accompanied by brain-size increase.

"NAVIGATION: Bird-Brainism

"Bird-Brains must remain small & light & still function complexly in order for flight to occur. This requires great brain efficiency rather than great size. Homonids could follow this example & make birthing less painful for the mother with a smaller head size.

"If one accepts the idea that words & images are a major building block of thinking, one step toward greater brain efficiency might be to exploit the ambiguities of language to permit a multitude of simultaneously productive thoughts.
In a society of interdependent specialists, the ability to create & send & receive useful synopsises can simplify the need for each individual to go through processes redundant in terms of the societal whole. Telepathy can make a person part of a giant brain without the need for a one-body housing.

"There is a religious myth of winged homonids as beings on a higher evolutionary plane than non-winged homonids. It should be obvious by now that these beings, commonly called angels, should more properly be called Bird-Brains."

SO, I finally got "The Revolt of the Angels" out of the library & just finished reading it at 2AM today. I was pleasantly surprised, it was, perhaps, more interesting than I expected. I wd've given it a 4 star rating but he makes stereotypical statements about Jews that I found so offensive that it lowered my estimation of his intelligence. In fact, he wrote it around the beginning of so-called World War I, in 1914, & he somewhat conflates Jews & Germans together as bad guys at one point. Now, that's an oversimplification - since I'm taking it out of context - but, still, it's interesting considering later German anti-semitic developments.

The plot of the bk is basically that there are angels on Earth who've chosen to be here b/c they prefer it to heaven for one reason or another. One of them is one of the main human characters' guardian angel & he decides to stop working in that function in order to organize a revolt of the angels against God - who's represented as not being the actual creator but merely a demiurge dictator. Satan is represented as intelligent & benign, by contrast. One of the things that interests me about this bk is that it cd clearly be called "Satanist" insofar as Satan is depicted favorably & many of the protaganists are allied w/ him. Nonetheless, A France won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1921. That's fine w/ me but it seems strange given the way this world usually works. A writer of a flagrantly "Satanist" bk getting the Nobel Prize? I wd've been tempted to deny it to him just on the basis of his Jewish stereotyping - but that's a different story. I will say that I think he's a good writer. ( )