In Merseians And Russians, I compared Merseians to Russians but SM Stirling, in a comment, compared them to classical Japanese.
In Japan and Kamakura, we discussed coverage of Japan in Poul Anderson's works.
We contrasted Japanese and Draka here.
An Ian Fleming character said that the Japanese were a separate species here.
Russians and Japanese fight here.
I compared Ythrians to Japanese fishing cormorants here.
The Japanese are Former Enemies.
James Bond feels awe before Shinto gods here.
24 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Anderson's "Rokuro" interests me as not only the author setting a story in a very different culture, Japan, but also as being a Japanese style No play. And, of course, we see Japanese culture being used in his short story "The Shrine For Lost Children."
Yes, Stirling compared the Merseians to classical Japanese, and I can see why. Another writer, Sandra Meisel, in her essays about Dominic Flandry and the Terran Empire, compared the Merseians to Sassanian Persians.
Sean
Sean:
Although Miesel ALSO said the Merseians had "the self-discipline of samurai" (essay "Lurex and Gold," included in Ace's 1980 edition of *Agent of the Terran Empire*), so she, too, saw a Japanese semblance.
Kaor, DAVID!
And I agree Meisel was right to make that analogy. The stoic self-discipline of Wilwidh Ocean Merseians can be seen in the beings coming from that culture.
I've also wondered in a comment about "The Day Of Burning," if the "Demonists" seen in that story was one of the roots of the racism of the Roidhunate. The Demonists were those Merseians hostile to persons of other species.
Sean
Sassanid Persia was a very aristocratic culture, dominated by a number of clans of the high nobility -- I think that was the grounds for Meisel's analogy. And the Merseians do have an apparently monotheistic religion.
On the other hand, so was Sengoku-era Japan, and the aesthetics of the Wilwidh ocean culture -- the masks that are part of the armor, for example, and the towns dominated by castles -- echo Sengoku-era Japan. So does the politically powerless position of the Merseian emperors, offesett by their cultural-religious power.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
And since Persian shahs were, usually, NOT powerless figureheads, that is a point to keep in mind, to not stress too far any comparison of the Merseian to Sassanid Persia. Yes, I have to agree that Merseia to Sengoku Japan and later times makes more sense.
Sean
The "Protector" who actually rules the Merseian empire echoes the position of the "Shogun" -- the "Barbarian-subduing Generalissimo".
One of the basic distinctions between China and Japan is that in China when the wheel of political power turned, it didn't lead to a new dynasty, but to a new family controlling the Emperors. And usually intermarrying with them, wedding their daughters to the Imperial heirs.
In fact, at one point there was a dynasty of hereditary 'shikken' (regents), the Hōjō clan, who controlled the hereditary Shogun who controlled the Emperor; and councils or individuals sometimes controlled the ostensible Regent.
In the early Kamakura period a woman named Hōjō Masako held the actual power. She was technically a Buddhist nun (as the widow of the first Kamakura shogun) and was known as the ama-shōgun, the nun-Shogun, for the period of her rule.
This pattern of nested facades of theoretical and actual power is a recurrent one in Japanese history.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I agree, the Merseian "Protector" is exactly analogous to the Shoguns who were frequently the real rulers of Japan. Caution, politics even on Merseia could be complex, as this bit about the Roidhun from Chapter XII of A CIRCUS OF HELLS makes plain: "Who might or might not be a figurehead, depending on the circumstances of his reign--and surely, that he was always elected from among the Urdiolch, by the Hands of the Vachs and the heads of Merseian states organized otherwise than the anciently dominant culture--from among the Urdiolchs, the only landless Vach--surely this was in part a check on his powers--but, surely too, the harshest, most dictatorial Protector regarded his Roidhun with something of the same awe and pride that inspired the lowliest "foot" or "tail"--for the Roidhun stood for the God, the unity, and the hope of a warrior people--..."
And I have heard of the astonishingly complex situation in Hojo era Japan, where they were content to rule behind repeated layers of "masks." But not of the "nun-Shogun."
And that is still the situation today in Japan, for that matter. Technically, Japan is governed by a PM leading the majority party in the Diet. The Emperor being regarded with great reverence but little actual day to day power. And I have heard of how certain groups and factions actually control the PM and Diet. The pattern is FAMILIAR.
Sean
I transposed "China" and "Japan" in the first sentence of that post. My bad.
During the 1930's, Japan was apparently ruled (and actually administered) by ministries of politicians, but ultimate power was in the hands of nationalist leagues and military officers, who exercised "policy veto by assassination". Likewise, during the Meiji period the "Genro", the unofficial council of elder statesmen, made and unmade Cabinets from behind the scenes.
You find the same pattern portrayed a lot in Japanese literature and visual media.
It has a lot of good points -- they Emperor acts as a symbolic focus, while the temporal power is immersed in actual politics; not totally unlike the constitutional monarchy of the UK.
It's interesting that the monarchies where the monarch did -not- have political power were much more likely to survive the 20th century.
Also interesting that it's in the surviving communist states that family dynasties re-emerged as the actual centers of power.
Mr Stirling,
"Communist dynasties: a travesty!
Paul.
In several of these threads, the blog post has intiated discussions that have gone way beyond my knowledge!
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Oh, I understood about the "transposition." No problem!
And I did know of things like Meiji and early post Meiji elder statsemen called the "genro" called the real shots from "behind the curtain." But these generally prudent, cautious, wary men were shoved aside by the hard line nationalists and their policy veto by assassination in the 1930's.
And I still have rather a soft spot for, say, Austria-Hungary! (Smiles)
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
While I did think it odd for a Communist dynasty to emerge in North Korea, I have to say I don't think it was all that implausible. It was quite natural for the Kim family to want to keep power in their hands. The problem being that Marxism does not give them many means of "legitimizing" their hold on power. But we still have Kim Jong Un as the third member of his family to rule N Korea. Albeit, I wonder if his eccentricity and saber rattling might blow up in his face and bring an end to him and his "dynasty."
Sean
Sean,
"A consummation devoutly to be wished." (Hamlet)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In this case I completely agree with you! And I hope the fall of the Kim regime can be done with as little harm as possible to ordinary North Koreans.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Another communist dynasty would be the Castros of Cuba. The odious Fidel Castro was succeeded by his brother Raul--and I strongly suspect one of their children will succeed Raul when he shuffles off this mortal coil!
Sean
Sean,
While I understand that the Cuban regime has done some good things for its people, it remains a dictatorship, therefore not the kind of society that I want to see spread elsewhere.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Whatever accidental, trivial "good" was done by the Castro regime does not excuse its cruelty and tyranny. And I have read of how Raul's son, Alejandro Castro, might succeed his father.
Sean
Sean,
Policies of health care and literacy are neither accidental nor trivial, though. I agree that decision-making needs to be democratic.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But how much of that was ALREADY being accomplished during the rule of Fulgencio Batista before the Castros took over in Cuba? And I have read of how, when you probe deeper, the current regime's alleged successes in medical care/education was very LIMITED. So I remain skeptical.
Sean
Sean,
I don't know much about Batista except that his rule was unpopular and made a lot people want a revolution. I don't think he started working towards good educational and health services?
The world is ideologically divided. If people support a regime, then they find evidence that its policies are successful whereas, if they oppose the regime, then they find evidence that its successes are at best limited - and external opposition can cause those successes to be limited. We urgently need a better world.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, I don't consider Batista one of those dictators we see once in a while who actually cares about his people and was EFFECTIVE about it. But I do think he was merely an "ordinarily bad" dictator. That is, he did not oppose things like modernizing health care and schools. For one thing, Cuba was already, in the 1950's, one of the most modernized Caribbean nations. I still think, absent the Castros, Cuba would have continued to modernize itself.
I agree we need a better world. But I simply don't think any real, BENEFICIAL advances can be made using the Marxist style command state and other forms of socialism. For the simple and sufficient reason that socialism doesn't WORK.
And that has been the case with Cuba, a lot of hype and propaganda by the regime about alleged advances, which then turned out to be far LESS than promised when honestly examined. I would rather have an "ordinary" despot, like Batista, than the Castros!
Sean
Post a Comment