Why was there this strange composite sub-genre in which the characters travel in spaceships yet fight with swords? It is not serious speculative fiction but a familiar adventure genre projected into an exotic futuristic setting. But Anderson's hard sf is also present when the Terrans deduce the nature of the planet from the fact that its star is a burnt out dwarf. Logically, Arzunian predatory animals also have partial telekinetic powers.
The characters refer to an Empire of Sol, not of Terra, but this is a minor detail. Terminology can change and, in any case, the "Impies" speak Anglic, not English.
Appreciation of Anderson recedes to infinity. I could start to draft the next two posts but my immediate agenda is breakfast, domestic chores and preparation for a Latin class this afternoon.
17 comments:
Hi, Psul!
I've been reading your notes about Poul Anderson's PLANET STORIES tales with great interest. They inspired me to start compiling a note of my own. I hope to have it ready to send you in a day or two. If you like it, maybe you can post it in this blog?
Sean
Of course, when I have overcome the usual technical problems! First, I expect to like it. Second, I would post it anyway. I welcome diversity.
Many thanks, Paul!
Sean
"Why was there this strange composite sub-genre in which the characters travel in spaceships yet fight with swords?"
You might find this commentary on the question interesting.
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/09/spaceship-and-sword.html
BTW way down in the comments to that post (Oct 1 2007) I came up with a plausible way to have significant practical use of horses etc. in an otherwise quite high tech culture. (Somehow my name got detached from that comment)
Kaor, Jim!
But I can already think, off the top of my head, why horses might still have practical uses in a space faring, high tech setting. I think it would be cheaper, for several generations, on newly colonized terrestroid planets, to have horses as draught animals. The necessary genetic material for breeding animals should be easy to transport and be vastly lighter than machinery. Also, newly founded colonies are not likely to be able to import all forms of advanced tech for quite a long time. Animals like horses would be used, where applicable.
Ideas like this can be found in several of Anderson's stories.
Ad astra! Sean
My idea applies also to earth in the near future with petroleum scarce & expensive, but with plenty of fairly cheap electricity from nuclear fission.
Kaor, Jim!
Just a correction: fossil fuels like oil, are not that costly and not in the least rare. It's political factors which drives up prices.
Ad astra! Sean
It's true that the limited capacity of the air & ocean to harmlessly absorb CO2 is a more important constraint on fossil fuel use than limited supply of fossil fuels.
We never really run out of a resource we just use up the most easily extracted sources & try find alternatives and greater efficiency in how to use the resource. That is the limited sense of my use of 'scarce & expensive
I suppose environmental laws, if we ever have the international capacity to enforce them, could be considered a 'political factor' or an expense that we need to pay. I would charge a carbon tax to subsidize the building of nuclear power.
Kaor, Jim!
Or simply exempt the owners and builders of nuclear power plants from needing to pay taxes for a certain number of years. That would help encourage the building of nuclear power plants if we ever get over this ignorant, panic stricken anti-nuclear hysteria!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know people who are anti-nuclear. I am agreeable to scientists advising decision-makers and decision-makers deciding. I certainly do not have a strong personal view for or against nuclear. I am among the scientifically ignorant.
I think that you over-state your case and denigrate your opponents. Many anti-nuclear campaigners are scientifically informed, not panicky and not hysterical. But they are finite and fallible. It remains possible to disagree with them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Granted, but so often the only anti-nuclear people I see about are the ignorant and hysterical. And my view is that the pro-nuclear people have the better scientific case.
If you want PRACTICAL alternatives to fossil fuels in the reasonably near future, then only nuclear power is available.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, I know you think that. I was referring to how you express your case.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because of the anger and frustration at what I can only consider short sighted folly and foolishness! And I sensed a similar anger by Anderson himself in the "Commentary" he wrote for SPACE FOLK.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But people disagree fundamentally on all sorts of life and death matters. I think we have to understand contrary points of view. Again, people arguing against nuclear power present scientifically based arguments. It is possible to disagree with them without calling them either short-sighted or foolish.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In principle, I have to agree. But I am convinced the equally scientific arguments in favor of nuclear power are far sounder.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, I know you think that those arguments are sounder. That is simply not the present point.
Paul.
Post a Comment