The first time I read that passage, I thought that Poul Anderson had made an original contribution to time travel fiction. I still do. In such fictions, when causality violations occur, they are caused by time travelers. Anderson had been working towards explaining such violations by comparing them with quantum fluctuations. Now he dispenses with the time traveler as cause and presents a change in past events as simply another kind of quantum fluctuation.
However, the fluctuation would pass unnoticed if there were no time travelers to notice it. And such time travelers can try to rectify the situation although they may not succeed. In this case, if they had merely shot Lorenzo from a distance, then they would have caused a "miracle" of divine or demonic intervention on the battlefield. That would have diverted events away from the alpha timeline without turning them back towards the Time Patrol timeline. Finesse is needed. Lorenzo, who did not kill Roger in the Time Patrol timeline, must be prevented from killing him but not in any way that will change events further. The Patrol seems to succeed but what they really needed, and did not get on this occasion, was Lorenzo's death.
"A noseguarded spangenhelm was secured above." (p. 341)
Everard fights Lorenzo and wears one of them, which I had never heard of before.
Everard recognizes Lorenzo because he had been/would be his guest a year in the future of the alpha timeline. Lorenzo, of course, does not recognize Everard but grins gamely and rides to meet him. What a thought. Does this happen to all of us? Do we live different versions of our lives in alternative timelines? We don't know. All that we ever experience is a single timeline.
The change event is described as a fluctuation, a quantum leap and a randomness. Later, it is called an accident and a quirk. (p. 434) A Danellian explains that such random changes, if not counteracted, would destroy the universe and prevent freedom.
"'In a reality forever liable to chaos, the Patrol is the stabilizing element...'" (p. 435)
This is why, back at the Academy, when Whitcomb asked, "'What routine are you giving us?,'" he was told, "'The truth...As much of it as you can take.'" (Time Patrol, p. 14)
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Another factor, of course, is that Manse Everard and his colleagues in the Patrol did not WANT to kill Lorenzo de Conti. Manse, and later Wanda Tamberly, LIKED Lorenzo and wanted to somehow spare his life. That was why the gentlest possible means of removing Lorenzo from the causality vortex/fluctuation were used, in preference to more lethal methods.
Sean
"'In a reality forever liable to chaos, the Patrol is the stabilizing element...'"
So there's no reason for the timeline that led to the Danellians was the original. There could have been any number until one produced a species capable of preserving it.
"All that we ever experience is a single timeline"
Unless there are an infinite number of parallel timelines. Assume that it's possible to move sideways (quantum fluctuation?), and the difference was so minor that you don't notice. (Keith Laumer - Worlds of the Imperium) I has a couple of 50 year old memories that don't seem to match reality. A novel that I can't find with an Internet search, and the exact spelling of a girlfriend's surname (Mc v Mac)
John,
Well, if there IS some evidence for alternative timelines...
Paul.
Which of course there isn't. There can't be. I just can't believe I can remember her phone number after 50 years, but not the spelling of her surname. I don't claim my memory is perfect, but some things you never forget.
Post a Comment