Imric's fleet raids a troll town:
"Though war was still not declared, such forays and tests of strength were growing common on either side." (p. 36)
Does that sound familiar to us now? There are powers that do not want to break a ceasefire but cannot make peace either. War and life become synonymous.
This novel has a complex metaphysics. How do beings from all the mythologies coexist with each other and with the new god Whom elves etc cannot name? Alfheim is not just one of the Nine Worlds in the Tree but is also coterminous with the human world, Midgard.
Imric's elves defeat:
"...a group of exiled gods, grown thin and shrunken and mad in their loneliness but wielding fearsome powers even so." (pp. 36-37)
Who are these gods, neither Aesir nor Olympians? Maybe they are some that we have never heard of.
Neil Gaiman's The Sandman remains the most appropriate parallel text for Poul Anderson's fantasies that I know of. All gods exist as long as they are believed in. They begin and end in the Dreaming and linger in a Dream Country after their worship ceases.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And defeated powers can test ceasefires to see how far they can go provoking the victors.
I thought those exiled "gods" were the Olympians.
You chose one of the better cover illustrations I've seen for any of Anderson's books. Makes me wonder if it was for either the 1954 or 1971 versions.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I checked, the illustration you chose belongs to the 1971 Ballantine Books edition of THE BROKEN SWORD. I hoped it was for the 1954 version!
Ad astra! Sean
For most of human existence, war was a continuous state. There's a reason Norse men took a spear along when they went to the outhouse...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
We see that in Anderson's stories as well. In "The Man Who Came Early" the Norse narrator in Iceland commented that altho he was on good terms with his neighbors, he and the men of his household were careful to always be armed before leaving the house.
No State and we either get the war of all against all or a precarious, shaky system of trying to limit feuds/vendettas thru weregilds. And that broke down in Iceland after 1180. IWHBD.
Ad astra! Sean
We can do better in more favourable conditions of shared abundance in future.
Paul: abundance is completely relative, and envy is part of human nature.
But, when every single person has instant access to much more than they need, there will be nothing left to envy. I do think that there is a failure of imagination here, in projecting familiar psychologies into a qualitatively different society.
Kaor, Paul!
No, it's not "a failure of imagination" in Stirling and I, we don't believe human beings are going to change. Anything can trigger spite and envy, as we see happening in Chapter Six of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis. Societies change and people change with them.
Anything cannot trigger spite or envy. If, in a future society of abundance, every single person has instant access to much more than he will ever need and, over a period of time, has come to take that situation for granted, then what will there be left to trigger envy?
Paul.
Paul: that envy is inherent means people will always find -something- to envy. And envy spawns hatred -- as the saying goes, it's the only one of the Seven Deadly Sins that doesn't even give you momentary pleasure when you indulge it.
But we don't always find something to envy! Many people can be content with what they have got and conditions could be such that more people could be that way.
Paul: Politics runs on envy and tribal hatreds.
We will do without politics of that kind in future!
There is certainly a very great deal of virulent hatred at present. We have experienced it. I know people whose views would automatically get them labelled as "extremists" and "fanatics" yet use outlooks and motivations are entirely cheerful, intelligent and positive. Mind you, I have also encountered many of the opposite sort. But that is how society is and has been for a long time: divided; conflicted; polarized.
"...use outlooks..." should be "...whose outlooks..."
Kaor, Paul!
It does not matter how abundant prosperity might be in the future, it's still only relative and people will always find something to envy, and that will trigger spite and hatred. Many might be content with what they have--others will not be so content.
Politics will always run on envy and partisan/tribal hatreds. Because that is what drives the competitive struggles for offices and power. The chief advantage of democracy, when it works, are rival factions being willing to accept defeat. Nose counting is better than head bashing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, it does matter. In the conditions that I describe, there will be no reasons for envy but you cannot imagine that.
Politics will not always run on envy etc. Indeed, we will not always have politics. There will not be power when there are no longer means of coercion.
Trump did not accept defeat.
This repetition really is pointless, isn't it?
Paul.
Post a Comment