I really don't see what the article's accelerationism has to do with the notion as used in Lord of Light. In spite of the Hindu religion references, that is definitely not a philosophy/politics book.
It is Zelazny's best book in my opinion, and you can read it - it has little to nothing to do with the Guardian's article.
Absolutely agreed. This seems to be a simple case of confusing a number of largely unrelated things just because the names given them are the same. If I were the author, I'd be embarrassed over spending so much time and proverbial ink over what is essentially a misunderstanding of concepts.
Yes, very misleading. How unfortunate that this is the article's launching point for navigating the difficult critical concept.
I am not very familiar with Zelazny but am very familiar with accelerationism discourse and can therefore add another confirming perspective that these are not usefully related.
Comments
I really don't see what the article's accelerationism has to do with the notion as used in Lord of Light. In spite of the Hindu religion references, that is definitely not a philosophy/politics book.
It is Zelazny's best book in my opinion, and you can read it - it has little to nothing to do with the Guardian's article.
Absolutely agreed. This seems to be a simple case of confusing a number of largely unrelated things just because the names given them are the same. If I were the author, I'd be embarrassed over spending so much time and proverbial ink over what is essentially a misunderstanding of concepts.
Yes, very misleading. How unfortunate that this is the article's launching point for navigating the difficult critical concept.
I am not very familiar with Zelazny but am very familiar with accelerationism discourse and can therefore add another confirming perspective that these are not usefully related.