Readers might appreciate the characters of Chunderban Desai and of Aycharaych even while remaining unaware that both beings reappear later in the History. They might also read the single reference to Dominic Flandry without suspecting that an eight-volume sub-series of the History covers Flandry's career from his teens into his old age and the beginning of his daughter's career.
At the same time, The Day Of Their Return presents a solid account of life on the planet Aeneas with many details to be found nowhere else in this future history. The characters live in the shadow of the defeat of their Rebellion just as some of us in Britain currently live in the shadow of defeat in a General Election.
The Aeneans live in the confidence that, whatever happens in their planetary system, their species has spread through many systems:
"Don't you suppose we, puny mankind, are already too widespread for extinction, this side of cosmos itself endin'...'" (7, p. 130)
- whereas we have to be concerned because, as I read today, "United Nations climate talks in Madrid have failed to agree a plan to avert climate catastrophe."
I began this post positively and did not expect to end it negatively.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I would have reminded whoever you were quoting, Ivar probably, that many Merseians of the Roidhunate, were willing to at least contemplate the extermination of races, such as mankind, which had the gall to oppose them!
But Ivar was, in some ways, still naive about the facts of life and politics.
As astra and Merry Christmas! Sean
Though losing an election is scarcely equivalent to national defeat and occupation. I would add that one should always treat electoral setbacks as one’s own fault.
Of course it is not! Although one guy really did jump off a bridge a few General Elections ago. Some people get things all out of proportion.
Sorry. "Of course it is not!" to your first sentence and "Yes" to your second.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, in most cases the losers in elections have only themselves to blame for losing.
Ad astra and Merry Christmas! Sean
Another failing humans are prone to is overestimating the number of people who agree with them -- something which, as a monarchist in the US, I'm not likely to fall prey... 8=).
This is particularly true if you spend most of your time associating with the like-minded.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That is a common failing of human beings, and one I have to guard against!
Ad astra and Merry Christmas! Sean
Mr Stirling,
A monarchist? So maybe you really are a would-be subject of the High King of Montival?
I have a set of political associates but also a range of friends, contacts and correspondents with very different views. A particular kind of politics involves not only propagating a minority set of ideas but also realistically analyzing where most other people's heads are at (and why).
My mother lived in a cocoon where she could not cope with the fact, when it occasionally penetrated, that the world was full of intelligent and informed people who disagreed with her.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You know I'm relatively indifferent merely to FORMS of gov't. That is, I don't believe one form of gov't is always, forever, and everywhere the only right form for any state. I don't believe in one size fits all schemes. What works for one nation, republic or monarchy, is not necessarily likely to work for a different country.
To me, what matters is whether a particular gov't, in whatever form, is believed to be rightful and LEGITIMATE by its people. If so, then you can also hope to improve it, correcting or reforming abuses.
As for Montival, I'm reminded of the Portland Protective Association, a major part of that kingdom. The PPA began as a nasty set up, run by a power mad former history professor who recruited gangsters and bikers to form the barons he created for it. But, as time passed, we see the PPA becoming accepted as legitimate, and the founding leaders having successors who ruled far more mildly.
Ad astra and Merry Christmas! Sean
I agree with Sean that there's no universally obligatory form.
On balance, I prefer a constitutional monarchy, largely because it separates what you might call the "mythic" and "practical" aspects of government efficiently. A ceremonial President with a Prime Minister actually running the executive is passable, but it doesn't work as well, IMHO, other things being equal (as always, the devil's in the details).
The drawback of monarchic and aristocratic forms of government is that they're pretty much a lottery. There was a well-known member of the House of Lords a few centuries ago who always gave his speeches standing -- because he was convinced his buttocks were made of glass and would shatter if he sat... 8-).
The benefit of them is precisely that they're a lottery -- you don't get the predominance of the extremely intelligent and extremely power-obsessed at the top, which is the great drawback of all competitive and meritocratic systems.
Modern capitalism is as close to being a pure meritocracy as human beings have come so far, for example, which is precisely why it produces so many psychopaths at the top.
You have to be very, very driven to -want- to spend your life in that sort of grueling competition. Occasionally this produces very valuable results, as with Elon Musk, for example.
More often, it produces people for whom winning the game is absolutely everything.
Politics in a representative democracy has the same drawback, or for that matter in a Leninist-style party-state, though it's more obvious there -- which may well be why several of them have mutated into hereditary absolute monarchies by default.
In the Flandry series, we never see the Roidhun...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: again, you expressed more clearly and concretely what I had in mind. A constitutional monarchy has the advantage of the head of state not having gained the crown (in most cases, anyway) by ruthless competition with other politicians. Which is what we have in the US. A monarch can also act as a brake and restraint on prime ministers, who usually gained that office by that same kind of tough competition.
Yes, the problem with democracies is how it puts a premium on competitive ruthlessness, and how that encourages the rise of psychopaths to powerful posts. Ditto, what you said about the even more ferocious politics of Marxist regimes.
Amusing, what you said about the British peer afraid of shattering like glass! It reminded me of poor Charles VI of France (r. 1380-1422). Beginning in the 1390's he began suffering severe bouts of madness, including an absolute conviction he was made of glass and would shatter easily.
And I hope Elon Musk manages to found his colony on Mars! Sometimes, as you said, obsessively driven men can produce valuable results.
Paul: I have occasionally wondered why we never see any of the Roidhuns in the Flandry stories. After all, we do see several of the Terran Emperors or their Crown Princes (Manuel I, Josip III, Emperor Hans and his son Gerhart). And several others were mentioned: Manuel the Wise, Isamu the Great, Pedro II, Olaf, and Georgios.
Ad astra and Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
My point was that the mystique of the Roidhuns is maintained by them remaining permanently off-stage.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Meaning Merseians thought of their Roidhuns as exalted, remote, quasi-divine, the pride and hope of a warrior race? I should have remembered that! A CIRCUS OF HELLS mentions how even the harshest, most dictatorial Protector regarded his Roidhun with some of the same awe felt by the lowliest "foot or tail" among his subjects.
Probably my last comment on the blog until I come home.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Sean
Hi,
The unfortunate Jeremy Corbyn is not self-aggrandizing. He accepted an elected position in good faith but was not up to it. He compromised too much within his own Party and failed to give a decisive lead precisely when it was needed. He might either have won the General Election or at least have lost it less badly, as in 2017, while remaining a strong Party Leader. Our criticisms of him are not those of his enemies. I say "our" because this analysis is that of a particular political tradition, not just of my own making.
Paul.
Post a Comment