Thursday, 13 February 2014

22 and 23 May 1987

Poul Anderson, Time Patrol (New York, 2006).

Luis Catelar's verdict on what he sees of the twentieth century:

an electrically lit city seen from above at night is "'...a blaze of glory...'" (pp. 699-700), like the dwelling place of saints or "'...the gates of Heaven...'" (p. 707);
but thousands of rushing, roaring, demonic engines are more like Hell;
language and ways are foreign;
heresy and shamelessness are rampant;
Wanda is an infidel defying God's laws for women!

We have learned to comprehend that tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis (times change and we change with them), whereas Luis' period preceded that understanding. Talking to him, Wanda comes to understand him:

unyielding but polite;
killer, racist, fanatic;
"a man of his word, fearless, ready to die for king or comrade" (p. 706);
humorless and romantic;
good by his own standards, like a medieval warrior whom Wanda is yet to meet.

(If there is any deity that judges us after death, then he is going to have to judge our actions by a whole lot of historically differing standards.)

Wanda had to convince him that the vacuum cleaner was not a gun and, indeed, she does wield it as a weapon, stunning Luis to gain a moment in which to phone Everard. In The Shield Of Time, Everard, grabbing a stolen Time Patrol communicator from an Exaltationist, has only a moment in which to request help. He manages:

"'Unattached Everard. Come immediately. Combat.'"
- Anderson, The Shield Of Time (New York, 1991), p. 113.

Similarly, Wanda, speaking into Everard's answering machine, has time for:

"'Wanda Tamberly. Palo Alto. Time traveler...Friday night before Memorial Day. Help!'" (p. 713)

The answering machine would record time and date so five of her words are unnecessary. In both cases, the short message is enough. Time traveling help arrives immediately.

And in the next section, headed "23 May 1987," we are back to third person narration from Everard's point of view with Wanda for the first time described as seen by somebody else. A first task is to tidy the apartment so that the earlier Wanda returning on Monday evening will not see any signs either of occupancy or of conflict. The present Wanda remembers that she did not notice anything untoward.

For over ten years, I lived in Lancaster but commuted once or twice weekly to work in Merseyside, spending three or four nights in a cheap one-room apartment. Perhaps two or three times, I had reason to spend part of a weekend there. For all the rest of that time, the apartment is empty at weekends unless my future self finds a way to time travel to it.

10 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Hi, Paul!

I agree with Wanda Tamberly's assessment of Don Luis Castelar, a good man by the standards (which are also many of our standards) of his time and faith (which happen to be my faith!). Except I did not get any "racist" vibes from Castelar when I read "The Year of the Ransom." In fact, at the end of the story, when Manse Everard discussed how the Time Patrol checked up on Castelar's later years in Peru, he mentioned how Don Luis was among those Spaniards who did their bit to lessen the harshness of the conquest.

Btw, I admire the astonishing zeal and enthusiasm you show in reading, discussing, and analying the works of Poul Anderson. Amd the sheer prolificity of your blog pieces amazes me!

Sean

Paul Shackley said...

Sean,
An interesting point about the "racism." Although I did not put it in inverted commas, I was paraphrasing Wanda at that point and she does use that word. I imagine that he regarded the "Indies" as inferior although I am not sure whether I can find a passage in the story to verify that.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Hi, Paul!

I simply did not see any racism in Don Luis. Here, I would say Wanda was flatly wrong about him. We do see Castelar thinking the gold smithing work of the Incas was ugly as art. But, that's merely a matter of taste, not racism.

Btw, you mentioned in a previous thread that you started writing to Poul Anderson after THE SHIELD OF TIME was pub. in 1990. So, should I assume you first wrote to him in 1991? And I think you wrote at least 20 letters to Anderson in those ten years?

In many ways, it still surprises me that a man like you should be so enthusiastic a fan of Poul Anderson. After all, I think you would call yourself a man of the left who was at least wistfully sympathetic to socialism. And Poul Anderson was unrelenting in his opposition to, and rejection of socialism. True, unlike many other socialists, you have admitted that socialism has many grave faults which has caused it to fail whenever it has actually been tried. So, that makes you a moderate leftist wiling to admit conservatives and libertarians at least have some ideas you believe are good.

Sean

Paul Shackley said...

Sean,
Fortunately, we can enjoy fiction and other art created by people with whom we disagree philosophically, religiously or politically. Our common humanity is a great unifier.
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Hi, Paul!

I wish "common humanity" being "a great unifier" was always true! But fanatical monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., shows how easy it is for absolutely convinced leaders to treat those who don't agree with them like "insects" (Lenin's term) or "subhumans" (Hitler's word).

Sean

Paul Shackley said...

Sean,
Intelligent and informed conservatives have a great deal to say about history and society. That is clear both in Poul Anderson's works and in some of the discussions we have had on this blog!
Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Hi, Paul!

Thanks! And I would have added libertarians a well, despite not always agreeing with them. And you personally is proof not all leftists are hopelessly benighted! (Smiles)

Sean

Jim Baerg said...


"After all, I think you would call yourself a man of the left who was at least wistfully sympathetic to socialism. And Poul Anderson was unrelenting in his opposition to, and rejection of socialism."

And George Orwell was a life long socialist who recognized the ways it could go wrong.

I have had an interest in libertarian views, & still have considerable sympathy for them, but I also see the ways that can fail. I would put quite a bit more human activity in the class of "things best done by governments" than a proper libertarian would.
Eg: there are activities that are naturally monopolies or at least oligopolies & it is hard to see how to prevent those from being oppressive without oversight by democratic governments. I'm thinking particularly of transportation systems.
For possibly different reasons private health care insurance works poorly compared to a single payer government system.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

I think it's in Orwell's HOMAGE TO CATALONIA that we see him becoming disillusioned with the left, during the Civil War in Spain.

I'm more distrustful than you are, it seems, of the state. Nor am I opposed to subways being run by private companies. And I am emphatically skeptical of having a bungling gov't trying to run a national health care system.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

People in Britain value their National Health Service free at the point of delivery.

Paul.