Sunday, 26 January 2014

Star Prince Charlie III

This was unexpected. I was persevering with Poul Anderson's and Gordon R Dickson's Star Prince Charlie (New York, 1976) but it was not holding my attention. I even preferred to return to my struggle with Virgil's Aeneid. No easy task: I thought that the Greeks were offering virgins to the goddess when they were really making offerings to the virgin goddess. Then an old friend arrived unexpectedly for an overnight stay so that I did not get very far with Virgil either.

"Sark" (see earlier post) is a Scottish word for a shirt or similar garment.

Despite its humor, Star Prince Charlie does make serious points about society. Charlie as Prince of the Prophecy is a stooge for an ambitious local ruler but, of course, does not see eye to eye with him. The local, Dzenko, defends the social role and rights of the nobles who:

led against sea rovers and savages;
keep the peace;
manage productive estates;
try cases;
"...conduct olden usage and ceremony which hold society together..." (p. 117);
"...support learning and religion..." (ibid.);
"...deal with foreigners..." (ibid.);
maintain order and progress;
work hard to do all this.

Charlie replies that perhaps the nobility was necessary and can still supply leaders but:

"...we're ready for the common people to have a chance at leadership, too, and freedom in their private lives, and a better break all around." (pp. 117-118)

Weighty matters for a lightweight work.

3 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Hi, Paul!

Glad you are starting to think better of Anderson/Dickson's STAR PRINCE CHARLIE.

The complicated response to the points raised by Dzenko and Charlie is that they were both right. I agree the aristocracy should continue to provide and also that they should surrender some, but not all of their power. I also agree that it was time for commoners who wished to do so to have a chance at rising to leadership, but again that not all power should be seized by them.

Sean

Jim Baerg said...

I'm skeptical that hereditary aristocracy would ever be a net good. Just that the bad can be greatly mitigated by an attitude of 'noblesse oblige'.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

It doesn't really matter, IMO. Because all societies have de facto aristocracies, whether or not an aristocracy is formally and legally defined as such. What I mean by that is the simple fact all societies have leadership groups or "elites" of one kind or another. What really matters is whether an "aristocracy" is willing to let new people rise into it.

Ad astra! Sean