Either a short story or a chapter of a novel can be part of a future history. The short story can be published in a magazine or in an original anthology, then republished first maybe in a miscellaneous collection but eventually in a future history volume. The short story must be a complete narrative whereas a chapter of a novel can derive some of its meaning from its position in the novel. Poul Anderson's
Starfarers is a novel that incorporates revised versions of two previously published Kith stories and also additional chapters expanding the history of the Kith from their beginning to their decline. Thus, Kith Town has begun in Chapter
10, p. 84,
is "...ever dwindling..." in Chapter
44, p. 423 and is "...empty..." in Chapter
48.
In the Prologue, every President of the United States gains a permanent Chief Advisor. In Chapter 10, the Greatman of Mongku is no longer Earth's ruler but a mere figurehead. In Chapter 44, the Coordinator of the Jensui Governance reigns in the Solar System and Seladorianism is growing in North Meric. In Chapters 47-48, when Envoy has returned after eleven thousand years, there is no political power structure left on Earth but Seladorianism remains a major spiritual force and even sends missionaries to Tau Ceti in Chapter 49.
This is a condensed future history of Earth, Envoy and Kith.
24 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Actually, my vague recollection is that Seladorianism was ruling Earth in the later chapters of STARFARERS, and was headed by a kind of high priestess.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I will reread those chapters. What I remember is:
"...whatever coercion this required was not obvious. 'Probably social pressure does most of the work...'" (48, p. 450)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Iow, the essential point remains there was some kind of coercion. As Stirling said, such things can take DIFFERENT forms.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But social pressure is not political control.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I disagree. As Stirling put it, "Public opinion backed up with spears" most certainly is political control. It's simply being expressed differently from the ways we are used to.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, by "political control," I mean a smaller group controlling the rest of society! "Political control" doesn't just mean "control."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But there are such "smaller groups" even in nations or tribes without formalized leaderships. Stirling mentioned how the Masai and Kikuyu had no chiefs or kings, but they did have councils of elders. And they certainly did exert "control"!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But my only present point is that public opinion, however forcefully expressed, is not the same thing as a political ruling group or structure.
Paul.
And the Unifer may be leader without being a ruler like if people continued to accept the spiritual authority of the Pope or a guru but no longer had a President or Prime Minister etc.
Kaor, Paul!
Leadership groups, however defined, and however formalized their powers might be, are by definition always going to be smaller than the rest of their societies. Because they have to be if they are going to be EFFECTIVE leaders.
And "public opinion" is simply a more diffused way of exerting political control. Stirling pointed out real world examples of how lethal that could be for people who fatally angered their neighbors in times and places where formalized state structures had not yet caught up with frontier regions.
You make too much of the alleged differences between a leader and a ruler. In times and places where such persons were not powerless figureheads and held REAL powers, I see little or no practical differences between them.
I think the status or position of the Unifer was more like that of the Japanese Emperors or Merseian Roidhuns, greatly revered but seldom interfering directly in policy or political matters.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But public opinion is independent of and can be opposed to a ruling group.
In those chapters of STARFARERS, we see the Unifer but no policy makers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first comment: then we will probably get what was seen during the last 80 years or so of the old Icelandic Commonwealth (the Sturlung Age), increasingly bitter and violent strife between warring factions and clans. It ended with an exhausted Iceland accepting Norwegian rule.
And think there were policy makers who advised the Unifers AND preferred to remain in the background.
Ad astra! Sean
There’s always the temptation to escalate and push the rules.., just a little… and then the other soap goes a little further…
It’s in our nature to interpret our side’s peccadillos charitably and to construe those of the other side as willful
…willful malice, that is. So the temptation to escalate is overwhelming, and the stakes yet higher and the animosity gets more intense…
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I think you meant "side," not "soap" in your first comment immediately above.
As for the phenomenon you described, I agree it is real and can be seen in the US, with the increasing bitterness and anger left and right have for each other. And that is very bad, nothing good can come from going down that road.
Ad astra! Sean
When people get to be too much of a problem, people remember that old Russian saying Luz quoted — “No people, no problem, because death solves all problems”.
I have thought that problems exist only within and between people. When there were no people, there were no problems.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Too true, what Luz said. And some now fear the possibility of a second civil war breaking out in the US.
No people, no problems? Taken literally, that could mean no CONSCIOUS life! And there are "environmentalist" wackos who do think like that!
Ad astra! Sean
The Russian saying is fairly hard to translate into English accurately while remaining compact and pithy. It carries a sense that the “people” are ones who “cause you problems”. But if they’re dead, they won’t.
“When three men sit down at a table to talk politics, two are fools. One is a spy for the secret police.”
Also a Russian saying.
And: Only in prison is the fear of prison removed; only in Siberia is the name of Siberia not a terror.
Why three guys are in the Gulag:
"I spoke well of Comrade Popov in 1930."
"I spoke badly of Comrade Popov in 1931."
"I'm Comrade Popov."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
These sayings and aphorisms were all too grimly apt for describing how terrible life became in Russia after Lenin's seizure of power in 1917!
And I don't think it's much different now in Putin's Russia! He began as a KGB goon, after all!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the one about only being free of the fear of Siberia when you're in Siberia actually dates to Czarist times. So does the "when three men..."
Lenin was much worse than any of the recent Czars, but the regime he built was very Russian.
I'm reminded of a description I read of an episode on the Trans-Siberian Railway just before WW1.
The locomotive engineer is going around tightening loose connections during a stop at a remote station. His drunken assistant follows him, giggling as he loosens them again. The engineer sees this and knocks him down and begins beating on him.
One of the ubiquitous soldier/gendarmes found at event he smallest station joins in, then when the assistant is bloody and unconscious asks:
"By the way, brother, what are we beating this son-of-a-bitch for?"
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Oh, I agree! Lenin was very much a Russian himself, in the worst possible ways, without any of the redeeming qualities to be found on the better side of the Russian national character. He was far worse than Nicholas II, Alexander III, Alexander II, or even Nicholas I. Here I have in mind what I read about those Tsars from the books of Edward Crankshaw and Robert K. Massie.
And that story about the locomotive engineer and his boneheaded assistant is all too Russian!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment