See the description of the interior of the Pleistocene lodge in "The Academy And The Lodge," here. The "...stylized hourglass..." is:
"...the insigne on uniforms that were seldom worn." (I, p. 296)
So when are they worn? The attached cover image shows a sleeve with the hourglass in the shield. When else? At the Academy? At graduation? Apparently some agents work in uniform - maybe only when tracking down rebel members? -:
"A hopper appeared, with two men in Patrol gray aboard. There were weapons in their hands. Everard cut them down with a low-powered stun beam."
-Poul Anderson, "Time Patrol" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 1-53 AT 6, p. 50.
That is in the opening installment. If the series is ever filmed, then the hourglass should be visible on these men's uniforms and also on their vehicle as it is on the cover of Time Patrol.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I assume, after the Morennian Triumph more than 17,000 years in our future, and the founding of the Time Patrol by the Danellians, agents of the Patrol were able to work openly in that far future. Which would be when they mostly wore Patrol uniforms. Before then, only secretly and in secure facilities, would the uniform be worn.
Ad astra! Sean
Got it.
Kaor, Paul!
And what it would be LIKE, to live in a time when everybody knew time traveling was real and you could even see, not exactly casually, but also not as something shockingly unexpected, agents of the Time Patrol openly going about their business in uniform?
Ad astra! Sean
I imagine the uniform is also worn on ceremonial occasions -- medal awards, graduation, etc.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, and for ceremonial occasions as well. I should have mentioned that.
Ad astra! Sean
Uniforms have a number of functions; one of the more important is building communal solidarity, which is an emotion more than a conviction.
Many traditional ethnic/religious/social forms of dress serve this function; they signal membership in a group, reverence for its stories, past and traditions. They're a statement of identity.
And that is true of many Muslim women in European countries now making a statement of identity by the way they dress.
Kaor, Paul!
Or many other Muslim, or ex Muslim women making a similar statement by refusing to wear traditional Muslim clothes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That too. Individual freedom and choice.
Paul.
I tend to be suspicious of people who claim a right of individual choice in a Western context, if their relatives deny it in places where -they- have the power.
That smacks too much of tactical hypocrisy to my way of thinking.
Also, some customs are just sand in the social gears.
There's a very strong argument for forbidding cousin marriage, for example, on the grounds that it encourages "amoral familialism", nepotism and other Bad Things.
It's notable that the societies which (starting with the Latin West in the medieval period) forbid or strongly discourage cousin marriage have simply done better.
Likewise, veiling is one of a complex of practices which tend to cater to rather than minimize the force of sexual jealousy (something which cannot be eliminated but can be controlled) and encourage things like male feelings of possessiveness and paranoia about sexual fidelity and the fatherhood of children.
Attitudes like that always have negative consequences.
Hence I'm fine with simply stamping them out by ruthlessly enforced law and telling those who object to obey or bugger off.
In an American context, that's why I feel the Federal government was fully entitled to stick the Mormon church's head in a collective vise and turn the crank until they abandoned polygamy. Polygamy always has bad consequences; this is demonstrable; hence we're going to make your life a misery until you get a revelation on the subject.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: In principle, I agree. But Stirling's comments explains why that can sometimes be very hard or counterproductive to carry out. So,in this context, I have more sympathy for ex Muslims who exercise freedom of choice by breaking away from laws and customs I have to consider at least barbaric. And not for those who make an ostentatious show of being Muslims in Western nations.
Mr. Stirling: However much I disagree with or dislike Mormon theology, I'm not very happy over the LDS being pressured by the US Gov't to abandon polygamy (because of the First Amendment). And I do agree polygamy is a bad thing!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I don’t give much of a damn about their theology — it’s pretty much a farce, and was probably pirated from a local clergyman’s SF novel (the Indians being the 10 Lost Tribes and so forth). But that’s their business. Social -practices-, on the other hand, I judge on a practical basis.
It’s not moral; I don’t care if their theology encourages gay marriage with kangaroos. Polygamy has predictable bad consequences and should therefore be put down, regardless of whether it’s mandated by a Prophet or by some rich guy who wants lots of chick. (Joseph Smith’s motivation, btw, probably, but he’d deluded his collection of chumps that he had a line to God). After his death, it was probably a matter of sincere belief, which makes it worse, not better.
I met some Reorganized Mormons who accepted Joseph Smith but not Brigham Young. I predicted that that would be their position before I confirmed it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with you in dismissing Mormon theology as a farce much of which was plagiarized by Joseph Smith from that novel he came across. So, I think your view is that a social practice believed in by a religion causes "social harm" (a term which I believe needs to be carefully defined) the state can rightly take action against it, as was done with Mormon polygamy in the US.
I think this problem was actually discussed by the US Supreme Court, using the example of whether the First Amendment would compel the state to accept human sacrifice. The Court decided no, the First Amendment could not apply to things like that!
Ad astra! Sean
Wait up. An sf novel influenced the Book of Mormon?
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, that was the argument I think I saw (it was long ago) in various sources critical of Mormonism. Some have argued Joseph Smith based his Book of Mormon on books written by Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith (no relation).
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment