"The Pirate" (1968);
The Peregrine (1956);
"The Chapter Ends" (1953).
Thus, the order of composition and publication was the reverse of the order of fictional events.
There can be a delay between writing and publication: more than three years in the case of Star Ways/The Peregrine, according to Poul Anderson's Introduction. Once, I told a British sf writer, Bob Shaw, "I've read your new novel. I wasn't as sold on it as on the others." He replied, "Neither was I." He then explained that his publisher, Gollancz, expected a new novel from him every year. This year, he did not have a new one so he gave them a manuscript that he had held back for a few years. To at least one reader, this text obviously belonged to an earlier stage of its author's career. This also happens when we read a series that was not written in the chronological order of fictitious events.
In "The Pirate," Trevelyan thinks:
"...Cosmos knew..."
-Poul Anderson, "The Pirate" IN Anderson, Starship (New York, 1982), pp. 211-251 AT p. 240.
The Chronology tells us that the Cosmic religion began in 2130 but how much do we know about it?
The two spaceships in the story are called the Campesino and the Genji. (p. 219)
"The planet filled half the sky with clouds, seas, sunrises and sunsets..." (p. 233)
On a planetary surface, sunrise and sunset are times of day whereas, from space, they are places.
A mother protecting her child:
"...was driven by the instinct of Niobe." (p. 238)
In the Technic History, the planet Merseia is shielded from supernova radiation whereas, in the Psychotechnic History, an entire planetary population has been killed. When Trevelyan finds an ossuary, he realizes that this is a building in which many of the dwellers, already dying from radiation sickness, had preferred to be killed by carbon monoxide poisoning.
Trevelyan thinks:
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; I will not bless the name of the Lord." (p. 239) See here.
Murdoch threatens Trevelyan with "'...a cyclic blast..." (p. 239)
At the Time Patrol Academy, Manse Everard learns:
"...the tricks and the weapons of fifty thousand years, all the way from a Bronze Age rapier to a cyclic blast which could eliminate half a continent." (Time Patrol, p. 12)
"'...the planet is such an archaeological and biological Golconda..." (p. 243)
The supernova was of Type II. (p. 224)
When Smokesmith comments that sentient beings are unlikely to be alive on the irradiated planet, Trevelyan says:
"'True.But if dead -'
"Trevelyan stopped." (p. 231)
Then, after looking long at the planet:
"'We're going in...'" (ibid.)
The unfinished sentence and the sudden stop alert the reader to an Andersonian moment of realization. Trevelyan has just realized what might be happening on the planet.
Trevelyan, a Stellar Union Coordinator, reflects:
"We are scattered so thinly, we who guard the great Pact." (p. 230)
How often does Manse Everard say that about the Time Patrol?
And who is the narrator of "The Pirate" who (kind of) preaches at the very end of the story?
17 comments:
Paul:
With regard to the term "cyclic blast," it occurs to me that one of the types of nuclear fusion reactions in stars is known as the "carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle" (the other is the proton-proton chain reaction). Apparently the CNO cycle is dominant in stars more than 1.3 times the mass of Sol. So a cyclic blast, "which could eliminate half a continent," may well be a variant of thermonuclear weapon.
Thank you, David.
Kaor, Paul and DAVID!
Paul: I think it's fairly obvious who the unnamed narrator at the beginning and end of "The Pirate" is: Trevelyan Micah himself.
David: Thermonuclear weapons? I'm rereading Poul Anderson's THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE. Grim tho the subject matter, the rise of rogue regimes in N Korea and Iran possessing or aspiring to possess nuclear weapons makes it a good idea for us to read such books to get an idea of the dangers of such weapons. Of what they can do and what we can expect.
Unlike the coldly calculating realists of the Politburo of the ex-USSR, erratic, unpredictable despots like Kim Jong Un or fanatical theocrats like the Ayatollahs in Iran cannot always be expected to be guided by a rational analysis of the risks and benefits of using nukes. I don't think Anderson's book will have much to say about the "bonkers" factor or the risk of nukes falling into terrorist hands. But it should still be a star.
Sean
Sean,
The major powers also need to start dismantling their nukes. Have you heard of Stanislav Petrov? See his Wiki article. It would have been better for the USSR to be destroyed than for both the USSR and the US to be destroyed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have to disagree with your fist sentence and agree with PA when he discussed that point in THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE. As a matter of simple REALISM, even the most cautious nation unwilling to use nukes will NOT give them up. Because they could never be ABSOLUTELY sure a hostile or potentially has done the same. In such circumstances it would be FOLLY for the leaders of such a nation to voluntarily strip themselves naked like that. And the mere existence of rogue regimes like Iran and N Korea makes nuclear disarmament also an impossibility. Any policy about nuclear weapons has to begin with being REALISTIC.
Not sure I've heard of Stanislav Petrov, but I will look him up. Yes, horrific tho a nuclear war is, I would have preferred the US to have survived such a conflict, instead of the USSR. Albeit, in his book about nuclear war Poul Anderson makes it plain that the victor would not be much better off than the defeated power.
I'm inclined to think the real danger these days, as regards nukes, comes from rogue regimes like N Korea, regimes with a fanatical ideology (such as in Iran), or nukes falling into the hands of terrorists.
Sean
Sean,
I would never use nukes so I would not want to possess them. Small countries want nukes because big countries have them. Kim knows that he could be toppled if he did not have them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I also think Kim Jong Un might actually USE nukes, most likely to attack S Korea, Japan, or even the US. An example of the bonkers factor!
And, unfortunately, I don't think the use of low yield, relatively "clean" tactical nukes are totally out of the question, or even unreasonable. I mean the use we see of them in, say, Anderson's "Outpost Of Empire."
Sean
Sean,
Thank you for qualifying the use of nukes: low yield; clean; tactical. I still don't like it. If I had to wage war against a tyrant, then I would want to do it in a completely different way, e.g., drop not bombs but leaflets calling on the people to rise up against the tyrant and offering to arm them while meanwhile setting an example elsewhere in the world of the peaceful uses of technology. We can/could eliminate want, one of the main causes of violence and of why people accept tyrants.
Did Trump threaten to destroy North Korea? Leaders of super powers need to set an example of non-bonkers factor!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Low yield, clean, tactical, and used strictly against military targets. A city might legitimately be nuked, as happened to Gray, in THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND, if the attacking power warns its opponent the city was a target if time for civilians to be evacuated was granted.
WHEN has leaflets ever caused a people to rise against a tyrant in times of war? As far as I know, never. Moreover, a dictatorship like Nazi Germany or the USSR will have tight control of the media, to make sure no information reaches the people it does not approve of. So I cannot see mere propaganda doing much good.
And I believe bad and incompetent gov'ts is the prime reasons many peoples are still in want. Not mere poverty by itself. Because bad gov'ts gets in the way of better ideas and policies.
I agree leaders of superpowers should not be bonkers. That said, if Kim Jong Un goes crazy and uses nukes, he and his regime SHOULD be destroyed.
Sean
Sean,
Leaflets alone insufficient. That's just an example of a peaceful use of aircraft, like dropping food and medical supplies instead of bombs. Other propaganda and covert help as well, though. Part of overthrowing a tyrant is getting some of his own armed men to turn against him. They must then hand their weapons over to the resistance movement, not put them in the service of a new dictator. Anything to turn a population against a dictator instead of making them rally around him.
Paul.
Paul:
John Brunner's 1973 short story "Who Steals My Purse." A Southeast Asian country declares opposition to the United States. In unprecedented response, we launch a massive aerial bombardment — of foreign aid: well-made tools, seed grain, educational materials, etc. Overwhelmed by the bounty from the skies, and with a populace no longer willing to accept anti-U.S. propaganda because they've just been SHOWN we're nice people, the foreign government capitulates and signs a trade agreement.
Realistic? I don't think so. But an amusing, appealing notion nonetheless.
Kaor, Paul!
At least you concede leaflets are insufficient. And the same would be true "dropping" food or medical supplies. You can be dead sure the regime would simply confiscate for its own use such supplies. Nor do I believe M Korea to have ANY kind of internal resistance movement. Trying to persuade even a part of the army that it's in their own interest to turn against the Kim regime might do some good. Sometimes the best you can realistically hope for is a dictator who doesn't bother his neighbors.
So, I agree with David's skepticism as regards tue methods you would use.
Sean
David,
You are a fund of old sf stories - the blog archivist.
Paul.
Sean,
My discussion was more general. Dropping food and medicine was intended as an example of a peaceful use of aircraft, to be applied when appropriate, not as a policy proposal for N Korea! Similarly, I was talking about my preferred approach to tyrants, not just about the current situation. I admit to not knowing about internal conditions in N Korea. But, when a situation gets very bad, it is difficult to know what to do - except that threatening to destroy a country (a) is inherently wrong, (b) will prob make Kim more belligerent, (c) will make a lot of his people support him.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Speaking generally, I still don't think dropping propaganda leaflets or food/medical supplies will do much to undermine any tyrants. Not when he would have control of the media and have his goons confiscate such goods.
I'm inclined to agree with your points (a) and (c) but not (b). President Trump's speech just might make Kim or the people around him more cautious. How far can an even erratic tyrant disregard the views of his subordinates without running the risk of being ousted?
Sean
Sean,
Yes, (b) is an unknown. The psychology of an individual or a small group remains unpredictable - even to them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And unless Kim Jong Un has gone completely bonkers, even he must know the US is vastly more powerful than N Korea. He (or his subordinates) might not be totally crazy enough to completely ignore the risk of fatally enraging the US.
Sean
Post a Comment