Comparing the Technic and Psychotechnic Histories has revived my appreciation of the latter with its interplanetary period from "Marius" (aftermath of World War III) to "Brake" (beginning of the descent into the Second Dark Ages) and its interstellar period from "Gypsy" (beginning of the Nomad culture) to
The Peregrine (a Coordinator joins the Nomads) or, if we include this later story, "The Chapter Ends" (Galactic civilization). In the Technic History, the interplanetary period is "The Saturn Game" (exploration of Iapetus) whereas the interstellar period stretches from "Wings of Victory" (first contact with Ythri) to "Starfog" (human civilizations in several spiral arms). Not one but two great future history series.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But in the "Afterword" he wrote for THE PSYSCHOTECHNIC LEAGUGE (TOR Books,1981), Anderson went into some detail explaining why he became dissatisfied with those stories. And when I read thru them, I can see why. Because, in some ways the earlier Psychotechnic stories were marred by the flaws often attending the early works of a writer who was still learning how to write.
Anderson also became dissatisfied with the politics or philosophy underlying these stories. He started writing them when he was still a "flaming liberal" (in the left leaning sense). As time passed his beliefs changed and he became much more of a libertarian (with some conservative tinges). To say nothing of how he came to have only contempt for the useless United Nations!
I don't think Anderson himself would consider the Psychotechnic stories to be among his best works. Not that I don't consider them worth reading, I do! And I like some of them, such as THE SNOWS OF GANYMEDE and VIRGIN PLANET. And short stories like "The Pirate."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Gypsy" and THE PEREGRINE are good.
Paul.
Also, Poul got better at future history. Note that the Technic future history is mostly very generalized in dealing with the immediate future... which means it dates much less rapidly. The WWIII in the 1950’s made the Psychotechnic stories hard to continue. Also agree that THE PEREGRINE was very well written.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I agree with the examples you cited. And I would include the sardonic "Teucan" among the better Psychotechnic stories.
Mr. Stirling: I noticed that generalizing about the near future in the Technic stories. Even "The Saturn Game," the only story which has an explicit date in it, is still set over thirty years from now.
Ditto, what you said about the problems caused by Anderson having an early WW III set in the 1950's for his Psychotechnic stories.
Ad astra! Sean
IMHO, there -would- have been a WWIII, probably in the 1960’s, if nuclear weapons hadn’t been invented. We came fairly close in 1962, but MAD preserved the “Peace of the Mushroom Cloud”. Otherwise the cycle that started in 1914 would have continued until only one power was left standing.
What a damning indictment of 20th century global politics. After the lessons of two World Wars, only MAD prevented a third.
People form groups, and the groups fight each other for power and territory; that’s always been the case. We had world wars because technology increased the ‘interaction sphere’ to the whole surface of 5he planet.
It’s a tribute to h7man rationality that nuclear weapons stopped it — because they made it clear you couldn’t win.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Mr. Stirling stated well and clearly what I wanted to say about your "damning indictment." I will only add I feel frustrations at unhelpful remarks like yours. What is needed is hardheaded realism and acceptance of what people are actually like, not as we would like them to be. Emotional protests denouncing "power politics" will be of ZERO use.
Mr. Stirling: I recently read a review by Allen C. Guelzo of a book written by John D. Wilsey called GOD'S COLD WARRIOR: THE LIFE AND FAITH OF JOHN FOSTER DULLES (NATIONAL REVIEW, May 17, 2021, pages 39-40). Mr. Guelzo thinks there might have been a nuclear WW III even earlier than the Cuban Crisis. As he wrote on page 40: "Even before assuming the role of chief diplomat, Dulles called for "a policy of boldness" (the title of an article he published in LIFE in 1952) that would use the threat of "massive retaliation" against communist aggression as a means by which "the present captive world can peacefully regain national independence." The article generated accusations that Dulles was a brazen war monger, "bring ing us" (in the words of Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson) "to the edge of the nuclear abyss." Yet it was largely Dulles's brinkmanship that prevented the Korean War from exploding into a thermonuclear conflict and kept another war from erupting in 1956 over the Chinese coastal islands of Quemoy and Matsu."
I concluded that firm leadership by the Eisenhower Administration an early WW III from breaking out in the 1950's and that the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred largely because Khruschev thought Kennedy was a weak man he could push around.
Recent events are convincing me "Josip" is simply not up to handling a collapsing southern border, Russian cyber attacks on our oil supplies, or the aggressions of Iran, N Korea, and China.
Ad astra! Sean
If Stalin had had the throw-weight advantage we did until 1962, he might have provoked a crisis; or not, since he was strategically cautious and WWII had hurt the USSR worse than we knew. Basically he and his successors until the early 60’s were bluffing.
After that, MAD kicked in; prior to that, the USSR’s deterrence was weak, because it was basically a threat to bomb the hell out of Western Europe, since they didn’t have the delivery systems to reach our heartland on a large scale and we did have the capacity, from the early 1950’s, to devastate theirs.
We had a window in which we could have won a nuclear WWIII, though at an increasing cost, but democracies rarely fight big wars of their own volition, unless attacked or backed into a corner.
Kaor, Paul!
I have some idea of how badly off the USSR was before, during, and after WW II from reading Solzhenitsyn's GULAG ARCHIPELAGO. The fact is Stalin and his successors CONTINUED to hurt the USSR with their purges, gulags, and general incompetence.
Then the Cuban Missile Crisis was Khruschev's first, but premature attempt at REALLY flexing Soviet muscles.
Should the US have SELECTIVELY attacked the USSR in the early 1950's? Not an indiscriminate bombing, no, attacking certain key military sites in such a way that the Moscow regime would have been permanently rendered impotent. My answer would be no, too many innocents would have died. Yes, I know, the brutes in the Kremlin would have sneered at my petty bourgeois sentimentality!
I have a grim suspicion that the bungling "Josip" and his left wing Democrats will end by having the US backed into that corner!
Ad astra! Sean
Drat! I meant to address my previous comment to Mr. Stirling. Not Paul Shackley. Just wanted to clear up any confusion.
Sean
The problem with ‘selective’ military strikes is that the enemy, that dirty dog, may not go along with the plan... having a plan of his own, which is why we call him “the enemy”. Wars are easier to start than end, because the other side has to agree that they’re beaten.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! So, if you are NOT going to utterly crush your enemy with a preemptive attack, then it's better not to strike him at all.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: generally true, though in particular cases it may be different. Not all wars are winner-takes-all fought for ultimate stakes. They may be fought for something smaller and more concrete, like a trade-route or a colony or a border province -- limited wars for limited aims. What they used to call "cabinet wars", where the sides scuffle until the advantage is plain and then shrug and settle up, and everyone changes partners and dances.
The World Wars, needless to say, were not that sort of war. Not least because to fight on that scale, you have to get the population emotionally mobilized.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Since it is unlikely that we will ever cease to have wars, it's far better that they be fought for limited aims and gains. Cabinet wars, rather than desperate life and death struggles.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment