On its first reading, Boat... moves rather slowly, of necessity. A range of characters must be introduced in disparate milieus and must overcome a number of obstacles before they can come together. If two immortals are concealing their longevity, then how can they learn anything of each other? On later readings, an individual's name has significance as soon as it is introduced. Thus, the Chinese Imperial court has heard travelers' tales of a Taoist whose:
"'...virtue appears to have brought him great longevity... Actual immortality?'" (p. 36)
When the subprefect responds:
"'Oh... I understand. The person who names himself Tu Shan.'" (ibid.)
- this name means a very great deal if, as in the present case, we have just reread Chapter XIX first! We now want to be reminded of how Tu Shan was first introduced and also to reread whatever account he gives of himself to an Imperial inspector. Meanwhile, as always, we appreciate Poul Anderson's descriptions of nature:
"...leaves full of sunlight. Willows along irrigation canals..." (p. 33)
We are not hastening through the text and can pause to notice details. We glimpse the patience of the immortals...
10 comments:
Note that Chinese landscapes are often (not always, but often) more "artificial" than European ones. More irrigation, more swamp drainage, more terracing.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And managing the flood prone great rivers of China has always been a major preoccupation of any gov't trying to rule that country effectively.
But I have wondered if the Maoists made a bad mistake with their obsession with the colossal Three Gorges damming project. It would be catastrophic, mildly put, if terrorists or enemies of China during a war destroyed it.
Ad astra! Sean
I recall reading the claim, while the 3 Gorges dam was being built, that 2 or 3 smaller dams along that stretch of river could have generated about as much power while flooding less land. I would expect destruction of one of those dams to be less catastrophic than the destruction of the one large dam would be. Did the Chinese government just want to have the biggest dam?
Jim: essentially, yes. They have a gigantism fetish... and probably resent that India now has a larger population. Though India's tfr is below replacement now too. Not nearly as low, yet; about twice what China's is.
Kaor, Jim!
Exactly! The Maoists wanted to thump their chests and bray: "Look at us! We have the biggest, badest dam in the world!" Two or three more modest dams generating the same amount of electricity with far less damage done if destroyed wouldn't satisfy their egos!
Mr. Stirling: Readers get a glimpse of China's disastrous demographic problems near the end of your TO TURN THE TIDE.
Ad astra! Sean
sean: I think that's at the beginning of Bk. II?
Re: "TO TURN THE TIDE"
I just listened to this.
https://historyonfirepodcast.com/episodes/2024/01/25/rerun-episode-73-the-life-of-marcus-aurelius-part-1-stoicism-pandemic-and-war
Maybe I should listen to part 2 before reading the novel.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Mr. Stirling: I think so, but I'll have to check my copy of TO TURN THE TIDE. What I mostly recall was mention of the Chinese characters, and their parents, being only children. A direct consequence of the Maoists sickening "one child only," enforced via compulsory abortions.
A few months ago I saw a news report of a young Chinese couple being executed--their crime being murdering their two infant children by dropping them over the balcony of their apartment from a great height. Again, this murderous callousness sprang from that revolting "one child only" policy.
Jim: Yes, the reign of Marcus Aurelius was troubled not only by the Marcomannic War but also by the Antonine Plague (probably smallpox), which killed at least ten percent of the entire population of the Roman Empire. Given the inadequate medical knowledge of that time, precious little could be done about the plague.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the one-child policy was repealed quite some time ago, but Chinese birthrates have gone down, not up.
Overall they're at about 1 child per woman, and in the big cities, lower -- 0.5/0.6, which is just as low as South Korea. Which never had a one-child policy. Which is why both countries have declining populations -- if that rate continues, the decline will be 40% per generation, eventually, and it will be continuous. So will aging, since each generation will be larger than the one that follows.
Essentially women in those countries aren't having children, or one only, because that's what they want.
Human beings have an instinct to have sex, and one to bond with/care for young children, but they don't have an instinct to -reproduce-. That wasn't necessary when we were evolving, since if you had sex you had children.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, I knew that EVIL "one child only" policy of the Maoists was belatedly abolished around 2010, too late and too little to do much good.
The attitude you described, too common among Chinese, Korean, and Japanese women, amounting to near hostility to having children, is very bad and will lead only to catastrophe. It would take conversion to a faith like Christianity to restore a better, more balanced attitude. And that may be what is going on in China, as more and more convert to Christianity.
If the Maoists really cared about Chinese demographics they would stop persecuting Christians!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment