Thoroughly enjoyed the read. I knew absolutely nothing about the author or the Count of Monte Cristo...so I entered into this with no clue of what to expect. The opening "love letter" really tried my patience, but from there on, I was fully absorbed in the plot and characters. The turn of events following Babe's death -to the final chapter ...wow! Blew me away. I stayed up till 2 or 3 in the morning cuz I was so entertained.

I'm curious about the British version...especially the title. What's up with that?

barbara | January 21, 2003 9:09 AM

The UK title refers to the following quote which appears before the book starts:

We are merely the stars' tennis balls, struck
and banded

Which way please them

--John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, Act V Scene 3

kara | January 21, 2003 10:22 AM

I will jump in right here and say that I LOVED this book. I actually teared up when Babe died (I am such a crybaby LOL!)and I was cheering for Ned/Simon almost the entire way through the book. I found Portia to be REALLY annoying. I never read The Count of Monte Cristo either so I can't compare it but I would certainly read more of Fry's work!

Kate | January 21, 2003 10:54 AM

I have seen a bunch of Stephen Fry's movie work, and I was really surprised at how grim the book turned out to be (even knowing about the Count of Monte Cristo connection). I didn't know he had it in him.

I loved Revenge and will definitely look for Fry's other work. Also, as soon as I put down Revenge, I started reading Monte Cristo (which Tripp has been bugging me to do forever).

Sarah | January 21, 2003 11:13 AM

It's interesting to see the religious themes woven into this book - Fry is both a devout Christian AND a homosexual, who for the longest time was celibate because of this contradiction (leading to a very public nervous breakdown).

One of the key points in the book is the whole religious context of the concept of the revenge story.

Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and other heathens who derived their mythological and religious roots from Woden, Thor etc. believed implicitly in the idea that what we understand as "revenge" was not something to soothe the injured - it was to be undertaken as a sacred journey.

Permit me to elaborate.

These peoples believed that the world should be in harmony. Should someone commit a great crime against another, there would be injustice but further to this a fundamental problem with the balance of the universe and an imbalance that MUST be righted. Redressing that balance should be done with a cold, calculated and impassionate act - but one that is fair: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.

Even after England became Christian, a lot of these ideas persisted in Anglo-Saxon culture. Take Shakespeare. Hamlet, it was understood, had no choice but to restore balance and harmony to Denmark by killing Claudius. Not out of malice or hatred or personal interest (Hamlet just wanted to mope around), but out of the need to balance the universe. In fact, it's noted in Hamlet that Denmark rapidly falls into disharmony and "rot" after Hamlet's father is killed. (Hamlet is explicitly mentioned as something that had relevance, but one of the characters couldn't figure out the relevance)

This goes against the Christian idea that God supernaturally takes care of things, and therefore venegeance is NOT for mortals to take up.

So I found it interesting that Ned attempts to call up a glowing Christ, who is destroyed by a flaming Satan. Satanists typically say they don't worship Christianity inversely - they treat the concept of Satan as a metaphor for all the forgotten, darker gods replaced by the jackboot of Rome.

Initially, when I read this bit about Satan destroying Christ, I interpreted it as Ned going from an essentially good person to one being driven by darker, vengeful motives (going from the Christian "turn the other cheek" to the LaVeyan Satanic "if one should slap you on the cheek, smite him on the other"). However, Cotter is anything but malicious. He is cool, calculated, methodical. He does not destroy anyone he doesn't have to, and longs to start a huge charity with Portia the moment the last victim dies twitching. However, he is compelled to earn Valhalla, rest, etc. by redressing the wrongs before his life goes back to being his own.

Midway through the book Ned (who before going into the asylum believed in God and the devil absolutely) refuses to go to the truck driver's church. Later on Albert Fendeman the narration mentions that the Gods are cruel, note the plural.

I think that this religious regression motif is not only an interesting commentary on ideas of venegance and justice in a religious context but may give some real and relevant insights into Mr. Fry's psychology.

Dark Past | January 21, 2003 1:25 PM

On the subject of anagrams -

Babe - anagram of Abbe (the character who helped the original Monte Cristo). Fry has Babe point out an anagram of two related words at one point. maybe I should run some of the names through an anagram generator and see what we get.

Or has anyone else found any? :)

Dark Past | January 21, 2003 1:27 PM

What terms did people who read the British book not understand? As a Brit I'd be happy to "translate" :)

Dark Past | January 21, 2003 1:29 PM

One last comment before shutting up.

Fry himself was jailed at one point (I think it was for fraud). It would be interesting to see how much of those experiences made it into the book. I wonder if the Drapers were real people (or based on real people).

Dark Past | January 21, 2003 1:31 PM

I. Loved. This. Book.

Of course, now I'm finally gonna have to read CoMCristo (yeah, Tripp, I know, I know).

I've been a big Fry fan for a while, too, and I was fascinated at the things he revealed about himself by even being able to write Ned's years on The Island the way he did.

I hadn't thought of Cotter's last boat ride as a Valhalla trip, but it makes eminent sense.

The setting of the book in a pre-September-Eleventh, pre-dot-bomb era dated the book for me, though. The IRA's just not as threatening as it used to be. (But then I'm not a Brit, so it was never brought home to me as much as it might have been, to be fair.) Also, dot-commers are nowhere near as impressive as they once were. A sad fact, that the last part of the book has become quaint in only three years.

Oh, and who's this "Dark Past" person? Did I miss an introduction?

Rich | January 21, 2003 3:28 PM

Sorry for no intro - came onto this scene last knockings, and there was no time to enroll me b4 the discussion. :)

I think one of the reasons why Fry has used a pre-existing story is that the book really isn't about the story per se. I mean, even in the dot com world (whose implosion he predicted anyway) a lot of what Fry had computers do was pretty deus ex machina, and in grand Old School style, the plot itself was all about coincidences and dropped letters and that sort of thing.

No, what makes this book what it is is the way Fry uses the skeleton of the story to display a lot of his philosophical, religious and other views. You just have to admire the dude's style. Voltaire tried to do similar things, but just came across as catty and bitchy, writing his rants in not-disguised prose "ee went to ze docteur, and of course ee got better in spite of ze care zose docteurs gave heem, you know ze way zose eencompeetent, steenkeng docteurs do, you know, *hon hon hon hon* zat joke was trenchant, no?" and of course, Wilde had an inimitable style at it, luckily enough having been born at a time when wit and wordiness was appreciated.

You've gotta love the way Fry pulls it off. For example, giving Babe the opportunity (and Fry, by extension) to rattle on about Zeno's paradox and the like gives Fry a useful and believable way to talk directly to the reader. That way, when Fry sprinkles his dry wit throughout the rest of the book, you don't feel like you're being hit over the head with a hammer all the time ("I'm making a stellarly beautiful point here, retard *WAM*")

Dark Past | January 21, 2003 3:54 PM

Sorry to be monopolising this thread - it's just that there's so much to talk about in this book.

I also find it interesting that each of Cotter's (can't say it's Maddstone at that point anymore - Portia got that right) victims is also the author of his own destruction.

Curious point - the three victims could possibly represent things about Fry he can't stand. Barson-Garland was a sycophantic social climber (Fry wasn't exactly an Earl at Oxford) and homosexual (at odds with his Christianity), Cade abused substances (Fry likes alcohol and cigarettes) and was a bit of a gadfly (luvvie! darling!), and Fendeman? That one eludes me. I don't think Fry's a rapist, certainly not a womaniser. He didn't marry his own cousin... maybe there's something else I missed. Maybe Fry coveted someone or something at some point. Thoughts?

Dark Past | January 21, 2003 4:00 PM

I was totally sucked into this book until Ned started seeking his revenge. Although I'm not a huge Dumas fan, I got more of a sense of resolution at the end CofMC. (Interestingly enough, Ned and Babe read CofMC in German.) I have a feeling this may have a lot to do with the fact that Dumas’ work took about 1500 pages to explore the Count’s obsessive hatred of his enemies as well as his exacting revenge which consumes him. In addition, the Count is a romantic figure; every man wants to be him while every woman wants to do him. I didn’t particularly care for Ned (or Portia) for several reasons, but I’ll leave that for later in the discussion.

marydell | January 21, 2003 9:54 PM

I really enjoyed the book as well. The only drawback is that I finished almost a month ago, so it was hard waiting for the discussion to start. :^)

Been a Fry fan from Blackadder but did not know he was an author. Will definitely look at his earlier books (which sound much more humorous). And I really want to see Jeeves & Wooster and A Little Bit of Fry and Laurie.

I think we've read too much into Ned's return to the island as a trip to Valhalla. I think he returns there merely as it is the only place he feels at peace. He lost his father, his girl and his past, but his life and being is all tied to his time on the island with Babe. Think of how many years he was there before his return to England. I think he returns there because there is nowhere else he can think of to be, the only place where he makes sense (in terms of his place in the world). It feels more like a retreat to his sanctuary than an ascendancy.

Dark Past, thanks for the additional info on Fry. Don't think we would normally have heard all of this detail from American entertainment channels.

Hunter | January 22, 2003 3:14 PM

Well, I didn't think it was a literal retreat to Valhalla - although the boat ride to the island of the slain to join the ranks of hallowed fallen warriors of justice is something that could be reasonably read into it.

I was more referring to a mental or internal Valhalla, a release from a geas. He is now free to be his own man, as opposed to as an agent of the Gods. He turns his back on the wealth, the company, the big house, the knowledge, etc. because really, they were a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves.

Of course, this is TOTALLY my opinion. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is what Fry's saying about the nature of the Gods and reality. The very title he gave the book alluded to human existences being merely balls in a galactic game between deities. :)

The overall avenger-as-agent-of-the-Gods-to-redress-an-imbalance-or-injustice motif is pureblooded and deeprooted in the culture that produced the Nordic, Germanic, Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon societies. Fry is the product of an Anglo Saxon society. Thing is, this book is like an onion - there's so many layers to it!

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 3:55 PM