However, the same authors' novel, Star Prince Charlie:
is set on a different planet, New Lemuria;
features only a single Hoka;
addresses serious issues of kingdoms, tyrannies and freedom.
Thus, this novel might count as a crossover between humorous and serious sf.
Everything is wound up implausibly neatly in the concluding chapter:
the deposed tyrants are not killed but sent where they might do some good;
the kingdom now has an Eternal King but, in his perennial absence, must learn to govern itself through newly installed democratic institutions.
I once argued that:
if there is only one God and He is not a human being, then, in the Kingdom of God, there is only one throne and no human being sits on it;
therefore, the Kingdom of God is complete anarchy.
("Anarchy" means not "disorder" but "no rule.")
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Even during my previous, fairly casual reading(s) of Anderson/Dickson's STAR PRINCE CHARLIE, I thought the ending, in which Talyina has an "Eternal King ," implausible. I wondered then how LONG the position of the head of state, whatever title is used, could remain, de facto, vacant before it was filled by SOMEONE? How long could this "Eternal Kingship" LAST before an actual king or president occupied this vacancy? Preferably, of course, the head of state would have limited powers.
I can't recall a single instance from our actual, real history of a state which didn't have some kind of executive authority, whether invested in a single person or a group.
And ANARCHY in actual life and history HAS meant chaos, socio/political collapse, economic breakdown, civil wars, banditry, etc. With order being often restored by a dictator or tyrant. If a society is lucky, the dictatorship might evolve into new political institutions, under whatever form, which becomes accepted as legitimate and governs not too badly.
Sean
What is being aimed for at the end of STAR PRINCE CHARLIE is what happened in the UK, more or less by historical accident: the hereditary monarchy becomes the -symbolic- head of state, what Bagehot in the 19th century called the "dignified" part of the unwritten Constitution, while a Prime Minister equivalent becomes the -political- head of State, the "efficient" part of it.
There's no power vacuum; there's an executive authority, it just isn't -called- the head of state.
In point of fact, there's a good deal to be said for this division; the functions of the Monarch as embodiment of the nation's history, traditions and continuity are one thing, and those of the Prime Minister as the political executive are quite another, and you can change the one without affecting the other.
The Japanese ended up with something similar. It didn't matter who the Tenno was; the Shogun did the actual ruling, while the Tenno conducted ceremonies, formally omnipotent and actually powerless.
In Poul's work, the Roidhun of the Merseia was in a similar position.
STAR PRINCE CHARLIE takes it further: the symbolic monarch is not physically present.
Gondor ended up with something similar in LORD OF THE RINGS -- an empty throne presided, while the Stewards ruled.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for your very interesting comments.
I should have thought of the examples of the UK and Japan, in which the monarch became the dignified embodiment of the nation's history and traditions while a PM or Shogun did the actual day to day governing. I would put some stress on the impression I got that, at least in the UK, the King or Queen has the right to be kept informed and to give his opinions and advice to the PM. And in Japan the Tenno seems to still have the right to act decisively and speak with COMMANDING authority in a dire emergency.
Agreed, what you said about the Roidhun, in Anderson's Technic series. I would add that A CIRCUS OF HELLS did say that whether or not a Roidhun was a totally powerless figurehead depended on the circumstances of his reign.
I don't quite agree with the example you argued from Gondor, in Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS. After the disappearance of King Earnur, the Stewards became the rulers of Gondor. But this was held, at least formally, to be only a temporary and regrettable situation, to last only till the King came again. Also, it was explicitly said the Stewards held all the powers of the kingship, lacking only the title of "King."
And we both know how Aragorn was the heir of the former kings and, because of his patience, wisdom, valor and willingness to be sacrificing in the struggle against Sauron was recognized and accepted as King of Gondor and Arnor by the last Ruling Steward, Faramir, and the people of Gondor.
And I still don't find the "Eternal Kingship" of Talyina in STAR PRINCE CHARLIE convincing or plausible. How LONG can an "Eternal King" reign while a PM did the actual governing before everybody knows that throne was vacant? Esp. after King Charles of Talyina must have died of old age? Wouldn't SOMEBODY eventually become king, to become the stately embodiment of the history and traditions of Talyina a la the UK? I can even imagine Talyinans searching for descendants of Charlie and asking him to become king!
Sean
In my last sentence in my comment immediately above I meant to write: "I can even imagine Talyinans searching for descendants of Charlie and asking ONE OF THEM to become king!"
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Since this is the last post on a book co-authored by Poul Anderson and Gordon Dickson, I’ll put this comment here: I am acquainted with a Nigerian, the Reverend Gordon A*****. I recently saw his name in a list of names, and it was given as Gordon Dickson A****. Is that a coincidence, or were his parents sf fans?
It’s a weird world we live in.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Nicholas,
Weird.
Paul.
Kaor, Nicholas!
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying someone in Nigeria was a fan of Gordon R. Dickson and named his son after him?
Sean
Kaor, Sean!
That would seem to be the case, unless the name is pure coincidence, or perhaps someone in Nigeria wasn’t actually a fan, but saw the name on a book cover somewhere, and decided to use it. I don’t know for sure.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Post a Comment