"'We are the kings who die that their blood may safeguard their folk, the sacrifice that goes consenting, walking to their fate with open eyes.'"
-SM Stirling, The Sky-Blue Wolves (New York, 2018), CHAPTER EIGHTEEN, p. 291.
References to blood turn me off. If they die in battle, then it is at least clear how their deaths have safeguarded their people whereas ritual sacrifices of blood and a sacramental sacrifice of consecrated wine are less obviously beneficial.
The Empress replies that:
she prefers victory;
she has post-war plans that require her presence;
moments that may be their last are savored more keenly (see the above link).
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think High Queen Orlaith's statement about the "the kings who die" can be understood in ways you could agree with. That is, there may be times when leaders can rightly die for their people if doing so will save them from ruin or defeat. Such as by being slain in battle. Or at least being willing to accept the risk of that fate. But I also agree with Empress Shohei's more pragmatically worded statement.
And course I'm sure both recall how Poul Anderson wrote a story called "Kings Who Die"!
Sean
I asked Poul for permission to use the phrase (quite some time ago, in another story); he told me I was being excessively polite, and to go ahead.
All fiction is in conversation with all other fiction... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That was exactly how a gentleman as gracious as Poul Anderson would have behaved!
Hmmm, all fiction converses with all other fictions? I can see that being true! I also thought of John Myers Myers SILVERLOCK, which is one long extended conversation of literature of all kinds with each other.
Sean
Post a Comment