Poul Anderson, The Winter Of The World, III.
The mass of the Arvannethan population lives in superstition, corruptions of faith (heresies?) or unbelief or worships strange gods. However, the Temples continue to support the "...monks and nuns of the four Orders of Wisdom, Red, White, Gray, Black." (p. 32) - which elect and serve the Council. The Grand Wiseman of the Council, a figurehead, presides over:
the Holy Councilor of the Godhood, responsible for the Temples;
the Holy Councilor of the Woe, responsible for the military, therefore redundant since the conquest;
the Holy Councilor for the World, responsible for civil affairs, now liaison with the conquerors.
Why does Ercer en-Havan, Councilor for the World, resist the Captain General's invitation and advice to change with the times? Ercer replies that other nations too ready to embrace change "'...are gone and forgotten...'" whereas "'Arvanneth has abided.'" (p. 29) Why has Arvanneth abided for over ten thousand years? Is it because, during the Ice Age, technological recovery and advance have slowed to a crawl; therefore, the most effective survival strategy has proved to be the preservation for uncounted centuries of time-honored usages? Is Ercer wiser than we realize?
Ercer also opposes early Imperial invasion of the Northlands and even seems to fear advance as far as "'...Unknown Roong...'" (p. 29) Arvanneth once ruled as far as Roong but now knows only "'...myths and mysteries...'" (p. 30) about it. What is Anderson preparing us for? When Ercer first asks about Unknown Roong, his voice drops until it is almost drowned by the wind of the approaching storm. As on several previous occasions in Anderson's works, the wind almost becomes an impersonal character or chorus commenting on human affairs.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
If I remember correctly, the current Grand Wiseman of the Council seen in THE WINTER OF THE WORLD was "recommended" by the Rahidian/Barommian conquerors of Arvanneth, and duly elected by the Temples, largely because he was a harmless old man whom nobody hated or feared.
I think Ercer en-Havan makes a good point. Truly long lasting nations survived as such by not being too ready to embrace change. At the same time I agree this has to be done carefully, to accept some changes. Yes, I recall Ercer's surprise and uneasiness about Sidir's plan to advance up the Jugular River to mysterious Roong. In fact, Ercer urged the Captain General to wait a few years, to truly firm up Rahidian rule.
Sean
I liked this book but found the Rogaviki unconvincing in an evolutionary sense.
First, humans evolved as small bands of hunter-gatherers and don't need speciation to revert to that lifestyle.
The evolutionary advantage of humans is that they can evolve culturally much faster than biological evolution can produce complex behavioral changes.
It only takes about three generations to completely revise a culture given sufficient pressure; biological selection under natural conditions, even extremely stressful ones, takes much longer.
Second, territorial predators -- which is essentially what the Rogaviki are -- are without exception highly aggressive against their own species. We are, wolves are, lions are, hyenas are, and so forth.
Mr Stirling,
When I have reread to that point, I will have to judge whether I accept Poul Anderson's reasoning about the evolution of the Rogaviki. Rereading takes forever because I pause on details and am interrupted by Real Life.
It is our ability to revise a culture in three generations that gives me hope for the future. I do not think that we necessarily have to have empires, power politics and wars for tens of thousands of years into the future!
Paul.
Sean,
Two kinds of conservatives: those who oppose all change and those who think that change should be careful and gradual. Obviously, some negotiation is possible with the second kind!
Paul.
Dear Mr. Stirling and Paul,
Mr. Stirling: as usual, you have given us some very interesting thoughts about Anderson's works. In this case, about the Rogaviki seen in THE WINTER OF THE WORLD.
Yes, I can see why even ten thousand years would not be enough time to produce the kind of drastic speciation seen in the Rogaviki--perhaps 100,000 years? It would probably take at least that long for a new kind of hominid to become non-infertile with our kind of hominids.
Yes, defining the Rogaviki as highly territorial predators certainly fits in with how we see them in WINTER. And they are most certainly EXTREMELY aggressive against any non-Rogaviki invading their "staked out" territory. And it certainly seems odd how the Rogaviki never pursue enemies beyond their borders.
Paul: alas, I have to disagree with a comment you made to Mr. Stirling. I don't believe at all that mere cultural changes can make human beings NOT be quarrelsome, aggressive, ambitious, ambitious for power or status, etc. I simply can't see mere cultural changes making all men mild, gentle, peaceful, disinclined to argue or even fight over ideas, beliefs, causes, etc.
The kind of cultural revision Mr. Stirling was talking about was how changes in the circumstances in the ways we live forces us to adapt or die. It does not necessarily means we will become LESS contentious or hungry for status.
And Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism with have agreed with how you defined the two kinds of conservatives. Albeit, he would probably have insisted on stating that not all proposed changes will necessarily be desirable.
Sean
Humans are variable within very broad limits; but there are limits.
There is not one single human culture I'm aware of -- and I've been reading in the literature very extensively for a very long time -- that doesn't have political violence, for example; or that isn't territorial and xenophobic to some degree.
This is a matter of evolutionary psychology. These traits led to reproductive success; that reinforces them.
The behavioral plasticity of human beings allows them to be expressed in -different ways-.
Eg., human beings can be territorial about things other than territory -- a job, a set of ideas like a religion, and so forth.
But the emotional pathways are identical.
Mr Stirling,
Territorial about ideas and practices? Too true! But we can also be non-territorial about them. Our Zen groups advertises its existence to anyone interested but does not proselytize. If someone says, "There are many meditation groups, several even calling themselves 'Zen.' Which should I practice?," then we reply, "Check them all out and see which one suits you best." A guy I knew agonized between Zen and Tibetan visualization and opted for - visualization. That was obviously the right choice for him then. It wouldn't be for me. If a path has limitations for us, then we should encounter those limitations by consistent practice and will then learn where to go next. I am staying with just sitting meditation until something better comes along - even until God or the Bodhisattva shows me something better if that is how I come to see it at a later date. (But I am philosophically materialist at least for the time being.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But, even here, you and the gentleman you mentioned were being territorial. You both believed different Buddhist paths were better than others, at least for the two of you. That is to be territorial, no matter how mildly expressed.
Sean
Sean,
A path that is better for me now is not better for everyone all the time. I think that the "territorialists" insist that their way is better for everyone.
Paul.
Post a Comment