Sunday, 9 October 2016


Following the previous post, we might summarize some interesting motivations of different characters:

Everard - to preserve his history and his people;
Stane - world unity and peace;
Neldorians - luxurious living;
Exaltationists - to rule in order to have wholly free wills;
Gratillonius - to administer society for the common good;
Edward Garver - to curb and control capitalists like van Rijn;
van Rijn and Chee Lan - to get rich;
Falkayn - to get rich but also to help the poorer planets and to preserve freedom on Avalon;
Adzel - enlightenment;
Axor - to prove the Universal Incarnation;
Benoni Strang - to revolutionize Hermetian society;
Daniel Holm - to preserve a way of life;
Argos and Molitor - to impose order on social chaos;
Flandry - to enjoy preserving a civilization while continuing to enjoy its decadence;
Chives - to give satisfaction;
Aycharaych - to preserve a racial heritage by any means necessary;
McCormac - to end corruption;
Cairncross - to make himself great;
Leon Ammon - to be "big";
Chunderban Desai - to understand society and influence Imperial policy;
Olaf Magnusson - to purify humanity by subordinating it to Merseia;
Diana Crowfeather - not decided yet.

They are (nearly) all different. No doubt it would be possible to extend such a list indefinitely.


Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I frankly dislike Edward Garver. He was far too STATIST for my taste. The ideas he favored and the policies he advocated inevitably expanded the role of the state at the expense of REAL liberty. I far prefer Nicholas van Rijn and David Falkayn. Nor do I think Old Nick hostile to poorer planets improving their lot.

I also dislike Benoni Strang. His ideas and policies disrupted, at the very least, a society on Hermes I believe was in many ways admirable. To say nothing of how Strang became a Robespierre like despot during his brief rule of Hermes.

Aycharaych not only strove to preserve the heritage of his extinct race by any means possible, he came to ENJOY doing so. His means were not only deplorable he was also a "subtle sadist" as Sandra Miesel called him.

And I was amused by the inclusion of Leon Ammon in your list! Despite my distaste for his gangsterism, I even have some sympathy for his desire to be "big," if that came to include a desire to strengthen and stabilize the Empire.

I agree with your comment about Chunderban Desai. His "rediscovery" of the work of John K. Hord came to shape how he understood the evolution of civilization and the way he strove to influence policy.


Paul Shackley said...

Thank you. I am still adding to the list.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Sean!

I think we're meant to dislike Edward Garver and Benoni Strang, but Anderson did not present them as villains in their own eyes, and did not insist that their grievances were purely imaginary. He was a subtler writer than that.

Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Nicholas!

Actually, I agree with you. While it's plain PA did not agree with them, Garver and Strang were not villains in their own eyes, at least. And Garver almost certainly became the kind of despot we see Strang becoming on Hermes. And, of course Terra and Hermes had their faults and flaw. Yes, Anderson was far too subtle a writer to inflict cardboard cliches on us.

Regards! Sean

Sean M. Brooks said...

Drat and cusses! I meant to say: "And Garver almost certainly DID NOT become the kind of despot we see Strang becoming on Hermes."