Sunday, 1 March 2026

1930

One advantage of blogging is that, if we forget to include a quote in a particular post, then we can include it in a later one. Yesterday, in a completely different context, I had read a passage that I had thought was highly relevant both to the twentieth century (in which it was written) and to future histories (written in that century). However, the context was so different that I had forgotten the passage when I wrote:

1930, 1950, 1990, 2000

In Italy in 1930, Antonio Gramsci wrote in one of his Prison Notebooks:

"The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born - now is the time of monsters..."

1930 was also the year of publication of Olaf Stapledon's Last And First Men. (See the first link above.)

We remember Poul Anderson's "New centuries scream in birth."

Future histories do not have villains as such. However, we remember political "monsters" in Poul Anderson's "Un-Man" and "The Sensitive Man" and in the real twentieth century! (Anderson's Technic History incorporated his Captain Flandry series in which the Merseians appeared as well-written although stereotypical green-skinned space opera villains but Anderson later transformed them into a more well-rounded and plausible alien species.)

In "1930, 1950, 1990, 2000," we mentioned that Jerry Pournelle's CoDominium future history chronology starts with Neil Armstrong in 1969 and that the CoDominium is formed in 1990. It follows from these data alone that, when this chronology was written, 1969 was past and 1990 was future. Future histories reflect their times.

8 comments:

S.M. Stirling said...

Every age produces "monsters". They're also known as "human beings".

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Alas, too many human beings are truly monsters. Examples from the 20th century being Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and all their lesser imitators.

The 21st century will probably have its own monsters.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Well, people who seize power tend to be ruthless. One of the advantages of hereditary monarchy is that heirs to the throne don't -have- to be ruthless.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I agree, and the worst of these seizers of power are ideologically power crazed fanatical monsters.

Yes, a stable, long established monarchy does have that advantage. Esp. with a PM who does the day to day governing and takes the political heat.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

One of the advantages of Parliamentary systems is that nobody has to revere the Prime Minister. He's just a politician. The monarchy is symbolic and gets the reverence.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

As was also the case in Japan: shoguns, prime ministers, politicians were not revered. The Emperor was the focus of national reverence, and seldom intervened in politics, except in emergencies.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: though Shoguns often went through the same process -- with someone ruling from behind the curtain.

Anonymous said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I remember reading about that as well, how there were times when the Shoguns were only figureheads supervised by the real power holders "behind the curtain." To quote a line from HUNTERS OF THE SKY CAVE: "The intrigues of her small city were as subtle as any around the Imperial throne."

Japanese seem to have a fondness for such subtleties!

Ad astra! Sean