For San Francisco Bay on the blog, see here.
Manse Everard and Trygve Yamamura see the Bridge;
SM Stirling's Other Siders see the Bay without the Bridge;
The Bridge, or alternatively its absence, is a focal point in more than one universe.
Wednesday, 6 September 2017
The Golden Gate Bridge
For San Francisco Bay on the blog, see here.
Manse Everard and Trygve Yamamura see the Bridge;
SM Stirling's Other Siders see the Bay without the Bridge;
The Bridge, or alternatively its absence, is a focal point in more than one universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge also features in Poul Anderson's short story "Sister Planet."
What a pity it would be for the Golden Gate Bridge to inevitably collapse in the Changed world. But I don't think the Emberversers would be able to prevent that, because of being unable to use the kind of high energy technology that requires.
Sean
It would be technologically possible, but not economically feasible. There aren't enough people in that area to spare the resources and time.
You'll probably find the Dunedain settlement in Muir Woods -- Emyn Muir, to them -- interesting.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Something like the Golden Gate Bridge COULD be built even with low energy post Change technology? I'm surprised!
I do find the Dunedain Rangers of your Emberverse books interesting, and rather more plausible, than the neo-pagans of the Mackenzie Clan. I did think it odd of Astrid Larsson Loring to become a Wiccan. I would have thought a devout Tolkien fan like her would worship Eru Iluvatar, not pagan gods.
Sean
The Dunedain of Montival worship Eru -through- the Valar; they don't invoke deities with other names.
In Tolkein proper, the Valar were originally (in his early drafts) called "Gods".
In the published version they function as demiurges in the neo-Platonic sense; intermediary governors of the material world charged with specific duties, but subordinate to the ultimate Creator.
They're rather plainly analogous to the deities of the old Indo-European pantheons, mated pairs (mainly) having specific functions, Ulmo of the Waters, Mandos of the Halls of the Dead, and so forth.
The Dunedain of the Wiccan persuasion interpret Manwë and Varda as equivalent to the Lord and Lady who, as in the other varieties of Wicca, are emanations of the Ultimate, the One. The specific Valar are then seen as aspects/avatars/emanations of the Lord and Lady.
Wicca is not "hard" polytheism; it doesn't conceptualize deities as completely separate individual beings the way say, Hellenic or Asatru reconstructionists do.
It's more like Neo-Platonism, and even more like modern Hinduism in that it's monotheistic "in a sense", with deities who are aspects of the ultimate spiritual origin. You can focus on the aspect, or the ultimate.
Gardner shamelessly ripped off Hinduism and Hindu thought (and aspects of Greater Vehicle Buddhism) as well as Western esotericism when he was cobbling together Wiccan theology in the 1950's.
You couldn't -build- the Golden Gate bridge in the post-Change world. You could -maintain- it against rust in the frame and cables and so forth, though it would be prohibitively expensive. If you maintained the superstructure, the actual foundations of the towers would last a very long time.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Building bridges like the Golden Gate with post Change technology? Impossible! Maintaining them? CRUSHINGLY expensive! Meaning they would not be maintained and eventually they will collapse. So it's back to cumbersome ferries or long overland journeys around the water barrier. Drat!
Sean
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I agree with what you said about Tolkien's works. The point I would stress being that a devout Catholic like him eventually removed anything like polytheism or "emanations" from the more finished texts. Broadly speaking, a writer's LATER drafts are to be preferred to earlier, rejected versions.
And I noticed how Tolkien removed from his later texts anything like his "mated" pairs of Valar having CHILDREN. They ended up looking a lot more like the angels to me. Albeit, with physical bodies.
Sean
I forgot to add that Tolkien plainly did not intend readers to think of the Valar as mere "emanations" or "aspects" of Erul Iluvatar. Rather, they were created, angelic beings.
Sean
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I simply find it easier and more logical to conceptualize deities as completely separate beings. It must be both the influence of Aristotle and Christianity in me!
I do recall your earlier comments about Gerald Gardner and how he blithely plagiarized and plundered from sources as varied as Theosophism to Hinduism and Greater Vehicle Buddhism.
Needless to day, I don't believe any of this is TRUE. That is, there is only One God and He revealed Himself to mankind using the Jewish people as His instrument. A revelation reaching its culmination with the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ (and the Church He founded). No other gods exist or can exist.
I do realize you are inclined to be agnostic and I'm not expecting you to agree with me! (Smiles)
Sean
It's not an either-or but a both-and. As many religions conceptualize deities or other supernatural beings, they are -both- individuals -and- aspects of something else. From an outsider's p.o.v., this is no more or less strange than, say, transubstantiation. It's just less familiar.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Yes, but for informed Catholics it IS an "either/or" proposition. Catholic Christianity rejected anything like "aspects," "emanations," "modes," etc., where it comes to God. All this was thrashed out during the Modalist controversy.
Sean
My spiritual practice, zazen, does not refer to a deity. Because I spontaneously say "Lord" in certain circumstances, I postulate and hypothetically address either a single Lord or a group of gods that might hear and help but that don't give us any grief. (We generate the grief.)
Kaor, Paul!
Well, I certainly agree human beings are among their own worse enemies (next after Satan).
Sean
Post a Comment