Did the question come up recently: who is your favourite Poul Anderson woman character?
Some main candidates:
Coya Conyon
Tabitha Falkayn
Diana Crowfeather
Wanda Tamberly
I particularly like Coya in "Lodestar" which might also be my favourite Technic History story. It begins with an Andersonian action scene but is much more than that:
the cartelization of the League;
van Rijn becoming dated;
the generation gap between him and Coya;
the confrontation between van Rijn and Falkayn;
hints, as in "How To Be Ethnic...," at what life is like in the Solar Commonwealth.
What's not to like?
(Blogging any longer this evening is not to like.)
26 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't agree Old Nick was becoming "dated." My belief is that he was wiser than many, many others as his times were getting worse.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
He was becoming out of date, out of tune with the times, but not less wise.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Old Nick was "...getting out of tune with the times" because Technic society and the League were betraying the principles which had worked so well and made them great.
Ad astra! Sean
Indeed.
Kaor, Paul!
I was reminded of this bit from a conversation Gimli Gloin's son had with Legolas near the beginning of Book V, Chapter 9 of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, after entering Minas Tirith: " 'And doubtless the good stone-work is the older and was wrought in the first building,' said Gimli. 'It is ever so with the things that Men begin: there is a frost in Spring, or a blight in Summer, and they fail of their promise.' "
Too true, all the efforts of Men might begin well, and great achievements be made, but foolishness, folly, blundering, etc., always eventually crops up.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Fantasy and sf authors can have other intelligent species commenting on mankind:
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
They do! And I recall Targovi the Tigery saying something roughly analogous about mankind in THE GAME OF EMPIRE.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I also thought of this quote from Chapter VI of WE CLAIM THESE STARS, indicating the frustration Flandry had with human foolishness: "But would the whole long climb of man, from jungle to stars, fall back in destruction--and no single person even deserve to have his knuckles rapped for it?"
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That question faces us now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Too true, like the fools recently elected to be mayors of New York and Seattle, great cities being wrecked by insane ideas.
Ad astra! Sean
Of course many people regard the person elected to be president of the US to be a fool wrecking that country with insane ideas, like high tariffs on potash needed by US farmers, or on aluminum needed by aircraft manufacturers.
There are differences of opinion on:
What constitutes foolishness?
Who is foolish?
Are ideas that we disagree with literally insane?
Is the danger of civilizational self-destruction more deeply rooted than the recent election results in two American cities?
Paul.
Kaor, Jim!
It's no use, I'm never going to have anything but fury and contempt for the Democrats as a party. My anger goes back to how these bunglers turned tail and scuttled away after they wrecked the war against the Hanoi tyrants in Vietnam. These hypocrites stuck the Republicans with the messy and painful job of extricating the US from Vietnam.
I also have only contempt for the Democrats for how shamelessly they have fallen prostrate in adoration of Moloch--fanatical support for "legalized" abortion, which is nothing but the revolting murder of unborn human beings.
I can easily go on and on listing why American leftists sickens me!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But that is not the only point here, is it? What is your critique of the Republicans? And what are the reasons why our civilization might destroy itself? I do not think that "fury and contempt" do us any good! (Uncharitable, to say the least.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course the Republican Party, as an institution, has its own flaws and vices. And I too have had frustration with it, esp. when it fails to live up to ideas/ideals I believe in. One of those flaws being how the G.O.P. is too often far too timid about forthrightly standing up for its avowed beliefs. Also, there are times when, being only human, Republicans succumb to the temptations of power and varied kinds of corruption.
That said, the G.O.P. is the only political institution capable of opposing the Democrats. Given the two party system which exists in the US, third parties have next to no chance of seriously challenging the major parties of right and left. Major new parties emerging only when one of the old parties disintegrates--as happened in the US during the 1850's, when the new Republican Party replaced the Whigs.
I think it's obvious what are some of the reasons why I dislike the Democrats. Ever since the 1960's they have shown increasingly reluctant or incompetent in defending the interests and security of the US. Which means they have too often been inclined to appease the enemies/rivals of the US: the USSR, Maoist China, post-Soviet Russia, jihadist movements within Islam, etc., all of whom correctly regard the mere existence of the US as the prime blocker of their ambitions. A world where the incompetence of the Democrats led to the destruction or impotence of the US would delight them!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Two party systems can break down as seems to be happening in the UK right now.
The US regards the mere existence of the other power blocks as the prime blocker of its ambitions and these rivalries ignore the imminent destruction of the environment by the present global economy which requires a united response from all governments such as would be given to an alien invasion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good, the UK needs a strong, forthright, genuinely conservative party willing to fight for and roll back bad ideas and policies.
Disagree, the post-WW II order set up and defended by the US and its true allies is better than anything Maoist China or jihadist Islam would set up.
Thank you, I'll take the Terran Empire and Technic civilization (oops, I meant the US and Western civilization) over such alternatives.
Global unification is not going to happen until a single power or alliance of powers conquers the world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree.
The UK needs billionaire Farage able to implement his xenophobia? That will be opposed both in and out of Parliament.
I am not defending China or jihadism! We have got to get beyond such good guys-bad guys politics. We need unity to save the environment.
You want the US to conquer the world? Such a project is an agenda for endless resistance and conflict.
We do not know how the world will be unified but it will definitely not be like that.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I had great PMs of the past like Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, Thatcher in mind.
What matters is hard-headed realism about human politics, not an impossible "ideal." Fact, Maoist China has global ambitions inimical to the safety of the US (and the UK for that matter!). Fact, there are fanatical Muslims who dream of setting up a global caliphate--and they don't care beans about the cost/bloodshed that means.
I did not directly mean the US conquering the world. I had more in mind an alliance led by the US which gradually unified the world. And setting up something like the Solar Commonwealth in the Technic stories. I've also thought of the United Commonwealths seen in Anderson/Dickson's Hoka stories. And there's the Federation seen in STAR FOX. All these would be vastly better than anything Maoist China or jihadist Islam would set up.
Anderson, being a realist, did not expect anything like these possibilities coming about peacefully and gently. He had Hloch describing the story of the rise of the Solar Commonwealth as long and terrible. Because human beings are like that, whether or not we like it.
What I wrote above is far more likely than any implausibly peaceful unification.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And we disagree about what is realistic and what is idealistic but you define your view as realistic.
Fact, you can always identify some other power as having inimical global ambitions, thus justifying maintaining the status quo, and it is the status quo that is destroying the environment. That is the basic threat, not the long succession of external threats. As soon as one is eliminated, another is identified. That is how the system works. I do not defend anything that Maoist China or jihadist Islam would set up. Neither of them is going to conquer the world. US influence is waning and is being driven back. History shows imperial powers rising and falling. We have it in our power to break out of that cycle. I am not talking about what is more likely but about what needs to be done. Global unification will NOT be peaceful because the US, among others, will resist it with violence unless it is on their terms, preserving the competitive economy that is destroying the environment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I believe my geostrategic views to be basically correct and realistic, while I don't believe yours to be anything close to that.
Again, you are passing over what is blatantly obvious to me: any unification of Earth by a regime as brutal/tyrannical as the Maoists in China or a jihadist caliphate would be nothing I would like. It does not matter if any attempts by such people to achieve their ambitions are more likely than not to fail. The mere attempt is going to cause untold agonies and chaos. Esp. if perceived weakness and blundering by the US tempts them to make bids for global domination. I'm still going to pick the "waning" US/West over any other alternatives.
Global unification is not going to be peaceful because human beings, not just their states, are ambitious, often quarrelsome and violent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not passing over anything. I am not advocating global unification by Maoists or jihadists. We seem to be talking past each other. Many people around the world now reject all the current alternatives offered by our present rulers and their ideologues.
I agreed that unification would not be peaceful and stated a reason for that. Human beings are not always ambitious, quarrelsome or violent although there are kinds of societies that encourage all of that and plenty of people who rationalize the status quo by arguing that the causes of violence are not in their own preferred social formations but in humanity as a whole.
These discussions feel like blundering around in the dark, hearing someone talking about something in another part of the room.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But, de facto, by rejecting Western civilization you are tacitly assenting to one or the other of these two bad alternatives becoming dominant.
I don't care if "Many people around the world now reject all the current alternatives..." if all I ever see from them, going by your oft stated views in this blog are hopeless, futile, and unrealistic dreams, wishful thinking, and mere speculation. Moreover, the only way people who think as you do and trying to make real what you hope for is by becoming ambitious, power and office seeking politicians themselves. Since I don't believe in the realism of most of what you hope for, politicians trying to enact your beliefs are going to be frustrated and facing opposition. And with such resistance comes the temptation to crush opposition thru tyranny. Which is exactly what we have seen from tyrant monsters beginning with the French Revolution.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not rejecting every aspect of Western civilization and I cannot be told that I am assenting to Maoism or jihadism. Absurd! I am assenting to the kind of society that I have outlined: the use of Western-developed technology to feed, clothe, house and educate everyone on Earth and to provide clean water and medical care for everyone on Earth. To do this involves replacing existing Western, Maoist and jihadist regimes.
This is materially and technologically possible, not hopeless, futile, unrealistic wishful thinking or mere speculation. It will not be done by individuals becoming ambitious or seeking power for themselves but by the masses deposing current power-wielders. It will be necessary to resist a minority trying to regain power but they will be a disempowered minority, not a tyrannically oppressed majority.
You merely rehash the arguments of the past. Humanity CAN, not necessarily WILL, move forward and do better. We now have the technology, the ideas and a lot of aspiration for something better than the little that our present rulers insist is all that we can have!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And the good things you listed in the first paragraph above will or might be possible only thru two of the greatest innovations of that oft maligned and defamed Western civilization. I mean free enterprise economics (as worked out by Adam Smith and his successors) and the limited State, in whatever form, bound by its laws and accepting limitations on its powers.
Rejected, your second paragraph, which is sheer fantasy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Free enterprise will become redundant when wealth is abundant. It will no longer be necessary to compete for anything. Everyone will benefit from technology developed by Western civilization - no need to malign or defame that civilization; we seem to be fighting unnecessary battles here - and everyone will be free to live as individuals and/or to cooperate with others in learning and creating more. The State will be so limited that it also will become redundant.
Rejected, your second paragraph. (I do not like this way of expressing ourselves but I reply in kind.) Mass struggle is sheer fantasy? It happens all the time and overthrows tyrants.
Free enterprise does not and will not produce all those good things. Instead, it generates massive imbalances in wealth and power and will clearly continue to do so.
Can we not just discus the issues instead of uncompromisingly disagreeing and "rejecting"? I find this approach unhelpful.
Paul.
Post a Comment