I have had some more time to reflect. We will have to see how this pans out but one possibility is that the number and frequency of posts on this blog will significantly decrease. After all, I interrupted rereading Poul Anderson's Rogue Sword in order instead to reread vast swathes of his Technic History. I now approach the concluding volume of Baen Books' The Technic Civilization Saga but remain specifically focused on the two novels in that volume to feature Dominic Flandry and feel no inclination, after so long a digression, to return to the more pedestrian Rogue Sword.
I have analyzed the Technic History from "The Saturn Game" to "Starfog" and from Avalon to Zorkagrad and now have an inner comprehension of the entire series. Sometimes I think of posting about a particular passage only to search the blog and find that I have already done so. If you are interested in this magnificent future history, then please read or read it, maybe with some help from this blog.
Having said all that, we are not finished yet. I will finish rereading the concluding chapter of A Knight Of Ghosts And Shadows and will then reread at least some passages of A Stone In Heaven and The Game Of Empire.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
BECAUSE of those "interrupted" comments on ROGUE SWORD, I have myself reread that book, around the beginning of this past December, I think. And I have to disagree with calling ROGUE SWORD a merely "pedestrian" novel. I thought it an interesting and very well done historical novel. It should appeal to readers whose tastes lies more in history based fictions.
Some readers might be put off by how fierce, grim, and bloody ROGUE SWORD is. I would reply that's a point in its favor, that the author was giving us an honest picture of what life was actually like in those days, in those parts of the world, as the Eastern Roman Empire was dying.
So, while I think I can understand why you consider some of Anderson's historical novels, such as THE GOLDEN SLAVE or ROGUE SWORD, merely "pedestrian," I would still disagree with using that term.
I have been puzzled, I admit, by why Anderson wrote a long historical novel about Queen Gunnhild of Norway in MOTHER OF KINGS. In many ways I couldn't help but think her a very bad woman. But I think Anderson wanted us to see that queen was not all bad. That Gunnhild did have some redeeming qualities and loyalties.
Of Anderson's historical novels, you seem to like best THE LAST VIKING and THE KING OF YS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
THE KING OF YS!
"PEDESTRIAN" only by contrast with the lengthy, complex Technic History.
Paul.
Paul: that's a matter of it being a singleton rather than a series. Series were much less common then, particularly open-ended ones.
Kaor, Paul!
And I would amplify the point Mr. Stirling made by adding that the Technic Civilization was accidental, originally beginning with two different sets of stories about Nicholas van Rijn and Dominic Flandry not intended to be parts of the same "history." That accidental quality actually increased its richness and sense of depth. So, yes, I can see why ROGUE SWORD seems "pedestrian" when contrasted with the Technic stories.
And I can think of several reasons for why you like THE KING OF YS better than THE LAST VIKING. One being that you probably like Gaius Valerius Gratillonius better than Harald Hardrada.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
One reason among many.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I thought so. And what might be some of those other reasons?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Longer narrative, fascinating city, colorful settings, wider cast of characters, more important historical events, gods active but off-stage.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Excellent reasons for appreciating THE KING OF YS, I agree! But Poul Anderson might argue that since Harald Hardrede was a genuine historical character about whom much was already known from Snorri Sturluson's SAGA OF KING HARALD, he was still worthy of his own historical novel.
But I still agree with what you said about THE KING OF YS! And I even wrote a long, single spaced eight or nine pages letter to the Andersons with many comments and questions.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
I’m behind on the weblog, although not as far behind as I was a week ago. I remember writing about MOTHER OF KINGS when I first read it; this would have been on the Bujold list, and perhaps on LiveJournal. Anderson did not portray Queen Gunnhild as a misunderstood Mother Teresa of the Viking Age, but he did make her understandable given the conditions of her time, and especially in light of an experience she had when young. She was (in the book) greedy, proud, and vengeful, but not purposely malignant. She looked out for her husband and offspring, as well as for herself. One could at least understand her, with her life told from her point of view, instead of her being the villain in someone else’s story. (She gets a bad press in the SAGA OF BURNT NJAL, the LAXDOELLA SAGA, and in the SAGA OF EGIL SKALLAGRIMSON, as well as in the HEIMSKRINGLA.)
As Egil is described as saying at the end of Anderson’s novel, “Wicked she was, but what man ever had a worthier foe? If we were to meet in the elsewhere and elsewhen, we might be friends.”
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
And I agree with your characterization of Queen Gunnhild as hard, greedy, and ruthless--but not personally malignant. I did think she made a bad mistake in urging her sons not to recognize any of their many illegitimate sons as their sons. Or not pressing at least Harald Greycloak to making a respectable marriage and siring an indisputable heir. Both of which I had thought odd of her, given her undoubted devotion to her sons.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment