What is necessary for the evolution of Danellians? First, human beings to evolve into Danellians. Secondly, time travel:
"'They did not wish to forbid the travel - it was part of the complex which had led to them - but they had to regulate it.'"
-Poul Anderson, "Time Patrol" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 1-53 AT 2, p. 11.
Time travel requires advanced technology and therefore, before that, a scientific revolution whether in the seventeenth century AD or at some other time.
"Delenda Est" is the culmination of the original collection, Guardians Of Time, and PART SIX, "Amazement of the World," is the culmination of the novel, The Shield Of Time. In both culminations, a change to history prevents the scientific revolution and therefore generates a timeline without Danellians. I had wondered whether a mere change to human history would necessarily eliminate the Danellians but these changes would.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And exactly HOW, physically, did human beings change to become Danellians? This bit, from hear the end of "Time Patrol," makes the Danellians frightening: "He could not look at the shape which blazed away before his eyes. There was a dry sobbing in his throat as he backed away."
That's very different from the Danellian met by Manse and Wanda at the end of THE SHIELD OF TIME, who looked like a normal human. Were the Danellians capable of changing shapes at will or did Anderson move away from using the first "blazing" alternative?
This would be an example of the kind of nit picking and casuistry so beloved of SF fans!
Ad astra! Sean
I think they -can- appear as normal human beings, by some sort of "shielding" of the otherwise dumbfounding and awe-striking effect they'd naturally have. Note that Everard asks his superior (Guion, IIRC) if -he's- a Danellian, and he denies it and says he's never even met one. So he knows that Danellians can "pass" as ordinary humans if they want to.
(From SM Stirling.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling.
Trying again.
The "shielding effect you suggested would "save the appearances" for how we see Danellians in "Time Patrol" and THE SHIELD OF TIME. Exactly the sort of thing SF fans like to come up with!
More simply, of course, Anderson may have overlooked how the Danellian seen in SHIELD did not match what was said in "Time Patrol."
Guion was a Patrol agent from the far future. Far enough that Everard wondered if he knew enough about the Danellians to be frightened.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling! Your suggestion about the possible "shielding" ability of the Danellians who appeared to ordinary humans would "save the appearances" with readers who noticed how different the Danellians seen in these stories were from each other. More prosaically, of course, Anderson may have overlooked the inconsistency he created in THE SHIELD OF TIME. I recall how Everard wondered if Guion, an agent from the far future, knew enough about the Danellians to be frightened by them, even if he had never knowingly met one. Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I don't think Poul would have made a mistake that elementary.
I think that the Danellian at the end of THE SHIELD OF TIME has modified his appearance to suit the occasion. He has come to reassure, not just to dictate.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: You are more likely than not to be correct.
Paul: Probably, even if what we see in "Time Patrol" and SHIELD still looks like an inconsistency.
Blazing beings with shape changing powers would certainly be frightening!
Ad astra! Sean
Personally, I think that any random change in history would be likely to eliminate the Scientific Revolution, because it was the product of a whole series of unlikely accidents -- in everything from political history to developments in philosophy and theology.
Note that the Chinese are/were, until the Scientific and Industrial revolutions, the most inventive of all cultures.
They invented everything from the wheelbarrow to coal-fired iron smelting and deep drilling for salt water and petroleum.
But they never had anything like a Scientific Revolution, nor were they likely ever to do so -- because the religious and philosophical backgrounds weren't there.
I agree. And there were accidents in evolution. Apparently, organisms could not go straight from single-celled to multi-celled. Two cells had to combine in an unlikely way with each other before they could start linking with other cells to form more complex organisms. Simple cells could not do it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. During my Chinese "phase" I read of how innovative the Chinese could be, esp. during the Sung Dynasty. But, as you said, they lacked the kind of philosophical and religious backgrounds that would have enabled a true science to arise.
Too much of what China achieved depended on support from the state. IIRC, Anderson wrote in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? wrote of how it was the Imperial mandarins who discouraged or prohibited traveling and trading outside China after about 1421.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment