In Virgil's Aeneid, Neptune, favouring one captain in a boat race, reaches up and moves that boat forward by hand! Another captain, realizing what must be happening, rallies his men by declaring that the first place is the gift of the gods and that men must strive for second place.
In Poul Anderson's multiverse, universes with quantum jumps and gods coexist and there is some limited contact between them but never enough to compromise the integrity of the distinct genres.
It is a matter of individual taste which kind of narrative we prefer.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But what Neptune did was still cheating! (Glowering)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: invoking the Gods to put a thumb on your side of the scale was standard.
Romans used all sorts of divination -- one was feeding chickens, and if they pecked energetically it was a sign the Gods were with you. One frustrated Roman admiral screamed:
"Well, if they won't eat, let them drink!" and threw the cage of prophetic chickens overboard.
He lost the battle, which Romans were fond of pointing out.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I was aware, from reading Homer, of how interfering gods would often intervene to benefit their favorites.
I had to laugh a bit over that story about the Roman admiral and the prophetic chickens! Yes, the Romans were notoriously superstitious.
I can't help remembering how Jews and Christians were sternly forbidden to have anything to with any kind of divination magical practices.
Ad astra! Sean
Yes, Jews were forbidden magic, including divination -- though that didn't mean there weren't Jewish magicians.
Kaor, Paul!
All humans being what we are, flawed and imperfect, I am not surprised some Jews were magicians. And too many Christians indulge in the nonsense of astrology.
Ad astra! Sean
We are not all flawed and imperfect. We have not Fallen from Paradise but risen from animality and can rise further.
Kaor, Paul!
The actual facts of real life, real history, on what a chaotic jumble of good and bad we all are contradicts your beliefs. We can only "rise" in technology, which I do not believe will somehow make us better. All "gains" we make are far more likely than to be precarious and prone to being lost.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
These facts do not contradict my beliefs. The evolution and history of humanity display immense change, progress as well as regression and great potential which I support whereas you oppose it at every turn! Why can we only "rise" in technology? We have evolved and can evolve further. We can reorganize society. We do not needed to be weighed down with nuclear stockpiles, arms merchants and bodies of armed men who could be better employed to address the now urgent environmental crisis.
Of course gains are precarious and prone to being lost. All the more reason to protect and extend what gains we have already made. This internet connection is a gain. It can be used to plan a better world instead of to discourage any such plans.
Paul.
We do not need...
Paul: what we need is sort of irrelevant. We have an inherent nature, established by evolution, just as wolves or lions do... in fact, we're actually rather similar to wolves, which is why they were the first animals that moved in with us.
Civilization can modify our behaviors -- but only by continuous pressure. The "Old Adam" is always waiting in the wings, ready to return.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
I do not oppose "progress," I simply don't believe in the kind of "progress" you hope for--and which strikes me as merely a secularized Pelagianism. Nor do I believe men and women are going to be "reorganized" the way you want them to be.
The horror story which is Haiti tells me, as it should to you, what is going to happen when the Old Adam tears apart all restraints.
Mr. Stirling: Absolute agreement!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not know what is going to happen. I do know that we as a species can perform far better than we are doing at present. There is widespread opposition to the continued war-mongering of our rulers, both East and West.
Haiti and elsewhere. But it is not just the Old Adam. It is present power structures and economic systems.
Paul.
Post a Comment