Falkayn has received van Rijn's message warning of an imminent naval attack on Technic civilization that will probably cause multiple genocides and billions of individual deaths and has played it back to Chee Lan:
"The phrases fell curt and flat.
"They were followed by a silence that went on and on." (p. 576)
This is the kind of moment when wind or thunder usually comments in an Anderson text but perhaps silence is even more effective, prefiguring the silence that would follow so many deaths? Either way, we must always note very carefully what Poul Anderson writes at every dramatic moment or pause in his dialogue.
21 comments:
It's the sort of interior silence required to assimilate a concept outside the normal range of experience.
There's been violence in the Technic history prior to this, but not this sort of planet-destroying all-out effort to destroy on an immense scale.
Silence necessary to assimilate the concept. Yes. that too.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I think we all have had similar moments of silence as we tried to grasp concepts outside of our experience.
The aborted violence of the Satan/Shenn affair was a kind of precursor to the violence and chaos of the Time of Troubles, beginning about a century later.
Ad astra! Sean
There's always conflict.
Sometimes it's contained, sometimes it isn't.
The thing about rules is that they're inherently fragile. Anyone can start a process of escalation, but while you can -start- it unilaterally, you can't -stop- it on your own.
You don't get to stop it at a point convenient to you, though this is a perennial human delusion.
Because the other guy can decide to escalate another step.
The all-or-nothing massacres of the 30 Years War gave way to the formalized, restrained wars of the Age of Enlightenment -- nobody pushed things too far.
But then came the French Revolution and Napooleon.
Then the Concert of Europe and "cabinet wars"... but then WW1.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Anyone can unilaterally start a war but doesn't get to end it similarly if the other guy doesn't want to? I agree. Unless, of course, the first party is able to FORCE the other side to end it. We call that VICTORY.
While I agree the wars of the 18th century Enlightenment were limited conflicts, fought for limited ends, I think the later stages of the Seven Years War of 1756-63 were a partial exception. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was an implacable enemy of Frederick the Great of Prussia, whom she hated very PERSONALLY. She refused to accept repeated defeats inflicted on her armies by Frederick, but relentlessly drove them on to keep ATTACKING, ATTACKING, ATTACKING the Prussians. By the time she died in January of 1762, Frederick was at his last gasp, despairingly SEEKING death in battle. The Empress' death and the accession of Peter III, a Tsar who admired Frederick and ended the war, was his salvation!
And after WW I we got te rise of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism and WW II. And I agree only the Peace of the Mushroom Cloud has prevented, so far, similarly massive conflicts. My fear, however, is that a weak President like "Josip" in the US might tempt China, Russia, Iran, even N Korea, to take reckless chances.
Ad astra! Sean
The "miracle of the House of Brandenburg", as it was called.
A very bad influence on subsequent German rulers, sort of a Micawberish "something will turn up" option, one of our enemies will drop out, a ruler will die, etc.
That -nearly- happened again in WW1, with Russia's collapse, but that was more than compensated for by the USA's entry into the war.
It gave Hitler false hopes -- he thought it would happen again when FDR died.
Frederick never started another war, though; he spent the rest of his life repairing the damage from that one.
It pointed out the peril of the traditional Prussian "smash, grab, make peace" strategy; that depended on the other guy going along with it.
The risk was that the neighbors would get fed up and decide to put an end to the pest once and for all -- and that nearly happened.
Though escalation can happen in any political conflict, not just international wars.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, that "miracle of the House of Brandenburg," encouraged that "Micawberish" attitude in too many later German leaders. It's never wise to base your calculations merely on hope.
It was Frederick's bad that two Empresses, Maria Theresa of Austria and Elizabeth of Russia were his most implacable enemies. Between them they very nearly destroyed the Prussian pest.
It does make me wonder, what have happened in history if Elizabeth of Russia had lived long enough to utterly crush Prussia? Would Austria, instead of Prussia, had unified Germany?
And we are certainly seeing a lot of political escalation in the US as the bungling "Josip" and the radical left of the Democrats continue to insanely MESS UP.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Those you disagree with are not insane. Your root and branch approach will never find any common ground.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
To use a relatively clear example, the horrendous deficit spending the radical left is pushing in the US, creating out of nothing TRILLIONS of dollars backed by nothing, backed by no real goods or services, WILL create chaos and drastic spikes in inflation, with all the evils those things bring. For "Josip" and his lying left wing backers to say their policies will not cost Americans a dime when that is patently false is insane. This is pure Gresham's Law, too much money chasing too few goods and services!
And many of the other policies of the left are equally catastrophic! Such as their truly insane refusal to defend the borders of the US, refusing to prevent millions of illegal immigrants from swarming in. That has been causing fury and outrage!
I could go on and on detailing the follies and insanities of the left, but this is enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there were insane policies like climate change denial under the previous administration. Then there was election result denial. I think that anyone who tries to manage the current chaotic system involves themselves in contradictions one way or another.
Literally millions of immigrants? If that many people are desperate to enter the US, then there is a big problem somewhere that has to be addressed urgently.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We have discussed the matter of climate problems. ABSENT any solutions that WORKS, nothing is going to change. China and India will keep on being the worst polluters in the world.
Yes, literally millions! The CONSERVATIVE estimate I've seen is that 1.7 million illegals have streamed across our abandoned borders since January 20. And probably more than that number of criminals have waltzed in!
The US cannot and should not try to solve the problems of Haiti, Zimbabwe, Syria, or whereveer these illegals came from. It's too much for one nation to manage. And these illegals swarm in because many of them hope to feast off the US welfare system. Some of hose who don't will be paid "under the table" for whatever jobs they get, UNDERCUTTING legal workers. Which will cause more anger and bitterness!
In their corruption and cynicism, many Democrats are hoping they can get these illegals to UNLAWFULLY vote in US elections, as a means of grasping at power.
And we should not forget how drug traffickers and sex slavers are now conducting their disgusting business virtually unhindered because of "Josip's" folly!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Everything is going to change in a massive ecological catastrophe. Your comments still seem not to acknowledge this. China the biggest polluter? I was talking about the US electing a climate change denying President. Merely blaming someone else can only be the start of a discussion, not the final world.
International cooperation is necessary. More powerful countries can set an example and give a lead, especially since they have sometimes contributed to problems elsewhere.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't care about Trump, he is no longer president, and thus does not matter. The weird, grotesque obsession so many left wing Democrats have for him strikes me as either literally insane or a desperate attempt to distract attention from the catastrophes they are causing.
I hardly know what to POLITELY say about the total IMPLAUSIBILITY of "international cooperation." That is the last thing we are going to see! Tyrannies like Russia and China see a weak and bungling president like "Josip" and are seizing the chance he gave them of advancing their ambitions as far as possible. And the way they are developing hypersonic missiles worries me. Such weapons are designed to circumvent those of the US, with the clear hope of reducing it to impotence. And they certainly don't give a cuss about "cooperation"!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that Trump's antics in denying and trying to overturn an election result and provoking a riot in which some people died can't be just dismissed because he is no longer President. How many people would like to have him back?
We won't get any cooperation among current world leaders but we still urgently need it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Many people are so angry at "Josip" and the Democrats that they would vote for Trump just to spite them. My view is that almost anyone is better than a Democrat, but I would prefer someone like Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida to be the next President. He shares most of Trump's better ideas, and without his baggage!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The two-party system works like this in the US and the UK. At any given time, one party is in government and is widely hated. They are accused of doing anything to cling to power. An election is almost an optical illusion when many people seem to think that something fundamental is about to change yet the basic structure of society remains intact. If discontent becomes sufficiently widespread, then it can be satisfied by changing which party is in government. Then the other "side" can have its turn at hating the President/Prime Minister.
"The Lion and the Unicorn were fighting for the Crown..."
"Tweedledum and Tweedledee resolved to have a battle...."
Meanwhile, at present, that ecological catastrophe remains well and truly in place:
"Just then flew down a monstrous Crow..."
IF it is true both that international cooperation is urgently necessary and also that it is just not going to happen, then the world is in a very bad state - and the evidence confirms that it is.
BTW, I do not support the present political systems in Russia, China or the US but nor do I buy into the total demonisation by any one "side" of the other "side" - including the left-wing Democrats. (Is there any difference between "left-wing Democrats" and "Democrats" or are these terms interchangeable?)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Are parliamentary/congressional forms of gov't headed by PMs/Presidents* flawed and imperfect? Of course, as is INEVITABLE in anything set up by flawed, imperfect, corruptible human beings, but it's preferable to either anarchy or tyranny.
I disagree with your dismissal of any real differences between the Republican and Democrat parties in the US (or in the UK, between Conservatives and Labour). My view remains that ever since the 1912 election the Democrats has more and more become the party advocating a never ending concentrating of power in the state, which inevitably meant the steady erosion of real liberties. And the Republicans, no matter how confusedly at times, has become the party advocating restraining the powers of the state, genuine respect for the Constitution, and rolling back those erosions on real liberties.
Yes, there are "moderate" Democrats as well as the extremists now dominating the party. People who gag at the whacked out demands of the extremists and are appalled by the disastrous results of the policies of those extremists. The problem is many of those moderates are afraid to resist the radical left.
As for the ecology, only nuclear power, a space based solar power grid, and plain old RUST for sopping up carbon dioxides offers any REAL chance of addressing ecological problems in the long term. Nothing else will work. And I blame ignorant or cynically corrupt demagogues (mostly on the left) for much of the opposition to these ideas.
China and Russia are brutal tyrannies and there is nothing we can do about them except oppose them when they get too ambitious and aggressive.
Ad astra! Sean
*The forms of those parliamentary/congressional states does not really matter. A parliamentary regime, strictly defined, has a head of state who holds office for life, with a PM doing most of the day to day governing as long as he hold a majority in parliament. The US President is both head of state and head of gov't, and is restricted to two four year terms in office.
Note that if you want to get people doing X, the best way is to make X immediately beneficial to them in their own terms.
Waiting for an outbreak of selfless virtue is sort of contra-indicated.
Eg., if you want people to emit less carbon, make it profitable.
If renewable energy sources become more profitable, you don't need to make people "willing to sacrifice" to emit less carbon, you just need them to be self-interested.
Which is fairly easy.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolute agreement on both your main points here! And we see Old Nick doing exactly that in "Territory," making it PROFITABLE for t'Kelans to do what it would take to save their planet. Not boring, abstract, incomprehensible appeals to selfless virtue!
Ad astra! Sean
Present rulers are unmoved even by the issue of survival.
Post a Comment