The Foreword and Afterword of Fire Time are a ten page narrative in their own right. The novel has third person narration but one of its viewpoint characters is the first person narrator of these framing passages.
Daniel Espina, on stage only in the Foreword and Afterword, is a "president" but this title is confusing since it makes us think of the President of the United States. In fact, Espina, also called a Tribune, is the president of the Federation Tribunal, thus a judge. However, when he and his colleagues on the Tribunal have passed judgment, he has the power to grant an unconditional pardon. Surely this power should reside in the equivalent of the US President, not in the chief Tribune?
The narrative inclines us to respect and admire Espina but I have some reservations. He contemptuously dismisses large sections of the population as "'...monkeys...'" (p. 253), not an appropriate attitude in a judge.
Espina says:
"'Don't fear...that you need become fashionable radicals. Leave oratory, demonstrations, riots, denunciatory articles in chic magazines, solidarity with every grubby Cause that wants to hitch a ride, sermons which don't mention God because he isn't relevant - leave such things to the monkeys. Better, disown them, reject them.'" (ibid.)
If Espina is a Christian, then he should be concerned about whether God is mentioned in sermons but this is neither a legal nor a political issue. Reject riots? Yes. Demonstrations? No, not always! Reject causes as "grubby"? Of course, I don't know what causes are espoused in the Federation but I would expect to regard some of them as legitimate - and probably also as interconnected rather than as just "hitching a ride" with each other. On riots: in the Federation, each city has a large Welfare district and such districts have gang lords (p. 9), so there will be some violence until society is re-organized on a different basis.
Addendum: Granted that "...fashionable radicals..." can be nuisances! However, true radicals must be prepared to be decidedly unfashionable. Try to oppose a war, if you disagree with it, while it is still popular...
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
It's been a long time since I read FIRE TIME, but I think one reason why the President of the World Federation Tribunal has an unconditional power of issuing pardons is precisely because the state is a FEDERATION. That is, a more or less loose union or confederation of NATIONS which still have a large degree of autonomy. And the Federation apparently does not have a true head of STATE (as distinct from a Prime Minister, a head of GOVERNMENT). But, since there might well arise cases coming before the World Federation Tribunal where pardons would be appropriate, the laws or constitution of the Federation gave the presiding judge the power to pardon. And, quite likely, the heads of state of the member nations of the Federation also retained the power to pardon in cases reaching them from the courts of their countries.
And the bit about Espina contemptuously dismissing sermosn which doesn't mention God makes sense to me! There are all too many fashionably liberal or "Modernist" homilies which doesn't mention God in the real world, after all. Many of these "sermons" try to ignore, explain away, or minimize, for example, the hard sayings of Christ and the Church in matters like abortion or homosexuality (to name two hot button issues). So I aree with Espina's contempt for "Modernist" sermons.
While I agree with you in regretting how Espina dismisses so many people as "monkeys," I would say in extenuation that a long life in having to deal with people at their worse gives him some grounds for having a jaundiced view. And while Espina does not specifically list any causes he considers "grubby," I can think of some, indeed many, causes right now which I consider worse than grubby!
And you already know of my skepticism regarding your hopes of human societies reorganizing themselves along what you consider "cooperative" lines. My view remains that a freee enterprise society (whatever the political form it takes), moderated by tort law and the laws against fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc., is the closest mankind will get to your ideal.
Also, my view remains that the disparities we see in individual human lives, some being rich, poor, or intermediate, well or poorly educated, etc., comes down, at least in part, to people being DIFFERENT. That is, some people ARE natually more intelligent, forethoughtful, or merely luckier than others. I don't believe any one size fits all "cooperative" scheme for society will work precisely because of how variable people are.
It's my view that the TRUE radicals are convinced Christians, conservatives, and even libertarians. Precisely because they argue for ideas and beliefs at odds with the dominant leftist world view so prevalent in the West. To say nothing, of course, of how fanatical Muslims also oppose such ideas and beliefs (see Andrew McCarthy's exhaustive study of how some jihadists and leftists came to be tacit allies in his book THE GRAND JIHAD).
I hope I have not caused you any offense with my remarks!
Sean
Sean,
All discussion is welcome. Thank you for that comprehensive response. What you say about the judicial situation and the absence of a World President makes sense. These discussions arise because the issue of the future of mankind is present in Anderson's texts, not because either of us drags politics in where it doesn't belong!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Many thanks! Yes, I agree, political and philosophical discussions often arise here because they spring naturally from what Poul Anderson wrote.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I have wondered how a World Federation President or "Co-ordinator," to use a term from Asimov's works, would be chosen. Would the heads of the member nations of the Federation do the choosing, analogous to the electoral princes of the Holy Roman Empire who elected the Emperors? If so, I can see how the member nations would be very careful to make sure the head of state had only strictly limited powers.
Sean
Sean,
And the national heads of state would want to retain their power to appoint the World President as opposed to allowing him to be directly elected by the world population.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I would FAVOR letting the national heads of state choose the Federation president, as a means of keeping a check on the powers of the World Federation.
Sean
Re: "sermons which don't mention God":
Speaking as a devout atheist ;)
I would get a bit annoyed by that too.
Make it not a sermon, but instead a speech advocating in secular terms for whatever position you hold.
Kaor, Jim!
Exactly! Make your speech or declaration APPROPRIATE to the timing and occasion.
And, goodness! You are really digging thru old blog pieces and combox discussions!
Ad astra! Sean
Yes, I'm going through in order.
I'm finding it interesting enough to do that.
Kaor, Jim! And I have wondered what you thought of my guest articles! Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment