In "Welcome," Barlow reflects that:
"...in the total context of history, hereditary government was the norm, elective government the deviation. Given proper training...modern genetics also, no doubt, and medicine, so there were no defectives...the same family might provide wise rulers for hundreds of years." (p. 69)
But how wise and by what set of social criteria? So the World President is a canny manipulator of chattel slaves and "coolies" who are slaughtered to feed the rich and powerful?
The point about hereditary rule being the historical default option came up in the combox recently... See here.
6 comments:
Barlow is transparently trying to make the best of it -- he's increasingly aware that he's landed in (and is stuck in) a grim dystopia, but he's fighting the knowledge. After all, it isn't as if he has any alternatives.
The 'roast suckling coolie' is the last straw.
I have got another brilliant parallel between Anderson and Wells but it will take a while to write it right. It is half past midnight here so I will get some sleep first.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
THAT ending to "Welcome" was a shocker to me! And the bit about "roast suckling coolie" reminded me of how you had Count Ignatieff relishing the memory of "the melting tenderness" of a suckling coolie he had eaten back in the Russia relocated to Central Asia in THE PESHAWAR LANCERS. Maybe you had Anderson's story in mind!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I missed that possible parallel.
Paul.
I most certainly did!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I thought so! Once in a while I catch on to your use of Andersonian allusions!
Paul:If you read PESHAWAR again you might find Andersonian echoes I missed!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment