Previous posts show SM Stirling, Val McDermid and Mike Carey naming (and shaming?) Tony Blair who has also starred, as a character, in a lot of TV dramas. Alan Moore in Jerusalem also refers to Blair in no uncertain terms and names many other current public figures.
Fiction ranges from narratives scarcely distinguishable from current experience to the most fantastic fantasy and sf. Anderson excelled at the latter but was also able to write the former.
13 comments:
One of the inherent problems of democracy in our era is that to achieve high office you have to devote your entire life to that pursuit, from a fairly early age.
In other words, you have to be totally obsessed with obtaining and holding power. If you aren't, you'll drop out because you realize it's eating your life.
This is true pretty much regardless of -why- you want the power.
We've created a process that filters out non-psychopaths, which is why you just look at the leadership echelons of every party and think: "euuuww."
Mr Stirling,
The Romans had a story about a man who was working his farm when a messenger arrived to say that the Senate had declared war and appointed him to lead the army. He left the farm, led the army, won the war and returned to the farm. He did not stay in Rome and go into politics like Marius.
Paul.
Paul:
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.
When George Washington resigned his commission in 1783 rather than seize power, King George III noted that if he did as he said, he was "the greatest character of the age." Washington is often called the American Cincinnatus.
Cosmically rock on!
Kaor, Gentlemen!
Paul: I can think of at least one Anderson story, besides THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS, with a character named "Moriarty", "The Word To Space." Albeit, the descendant of the dastarly Moriarty seen in that story was a Jesuit priest not in the least proud of his villainous ancestory.
Your comments about how democracy tends to filter out non psychopaths and preventing them from rising to high office makes me wonder if the various types of monarchies and feudalisms seen in your Change books gives us food for thought. That is, after the psychopaths of the founding generation passed away, their sons and grandsons often seem to be fairly decent and well meaning persons. Could it be possible a hereditary leadership, by eliminating the fiercer types of competing for power, enables no sociopaths to hold high office? They might not always be very intelligent, but many people also don't go "eeeuuuu" on them!
David, I HAVE seen speculations that if George Washington HAD children then the men who wrote the US Constitution might have conferred a hereditary kingship or presidency on them. so Washington's childlessness might have been what prevented the US from becoming a monarchy. Good or bad? Who knows?
Sean
Sean,
There is one other Moriarty.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I've thought and thought, but I simply can't recall the the third Anderson story with character named "Moriarty" in it. I don't think it was Anderson/Dickson's Sherlockian Hoka story.
Sean
Sean,
An Eyrie agent in THERE WILL BE TIME.
Paul.
http://sfappreciation.blogspot.co.uk/
Kaor, Paul!
Darn and drat! (Smiles)
Sean
Sean:
When the Children of Israel decided they wanted to be ruled by a king, such as reigned over the lands around them, the Lord passed on the following message through Samuel:
"11. And [Samuel] said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 1 Samuel 8:11-18, King James Version (KJV)
The Lord didn't give Israel a king because He thought it would be best for them; He gave them a king as a punishment for wanting a king.
Thus runs the word of God.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
We currently have as President of the United States a man who, whatever else you can say about him, is not a professional politician, and has not dedicated himself, from an early age, at achieving political power. He did, on occasion, speak of running for president, but this was regarded as risible; he did not engage in such usual activities of the politically ambitious as getting a law degree, becoming informed about public affairs, or running for a post like state legislator or city councilman.
If only he were a non-psychopath.
Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen
David,
Despite this Biblical account, CS Lewis in A PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST and PERELANDRA presents the First Parents of humanity as inherently royal - King and Queen even before they have any subjects! However, in THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW, Aslan appoints a human King of Narnia only because a human being has introduced evil into the Narnian universe.
Paul.
Kaor, DAVID!
Very true, what you quoted from 1 Samuel, about the costs and burdens of a king. I would merely that such costs and burdens are true of ALL states, whatever their forms may be, republic or monarchy. And a complicating factor is that the Old Testament includes texts giving a neutral or pro-monarchical point of view, as we can see in the very next chapter of 1 Samuel (see esp. verse 16).
One of the reasons why I admire the OT so much is because the editors were not afraid to include texts showing the Jews at their worst. To which I would now add that the redactors included opposing points of view, such as pro or anti monarchical view points. The Book of Deuteronomy, for example, has a basically favorable view of kingship as such. The innovation in DT being that the king's powers should be limited by law.
Sean
Post a Comment