Merseians
Tigeries
a Donnarian
Irumclagians
Shalmuans
a Wodenite
a Cynthian
These eight species appear or are mentioned in the first two chapters of Poul Anderson's The Game Of Empire. Members of each of these species have already played active roles in earlier instalments of Anderson's Technic History. The species interact in interesting or entertaining ways. In CHAPTER TWO, Targovi, a Tigery, visits an inn owned by Ju Shao, a Cynthian, and, later, interviews Fodaich Eidhafor the Bold of the Vach Dathyr, a Merseian.
Ythrians, although important in the Technic History, are not mentioned in this novel.
This is how a future history series works. Details accumulate, become parts of the narrative background and interact with each other until history goes beyond them into remoter futures.
12 comments:
Poul does handle mutliple aliens well.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, Anderson gave his readers more speculatively convincing depictions of what non-humans might be like than similar efforts by most other SF writers.
I think Niven and Pournelle gave us an interesting alien race, the Moties, in THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE and THE GRIPPING HAND.
I was reminded of how, in your book DRAKON, we see the villainous Gwen Ingolfson recalling how Draka explorers discovered a planet with intelligent life. But aside from reports stating it was believed these non-humans could be broken to the Draka yoke, nothing more was said about that species.
The Draka and the Samothracians had been slowly colonizing other planets by STL since the end of THE STONE DOGS.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that h. sap. sap. became the sole species of hominid because we could cooperate in larger numbers than other types -- that was due to the emergence of behaviorally modern humans about 70K years ago, due to a drop in male testosterone levels.
(You can tell when it happened because of, eg., less of a brow-ridge in males.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Because larger groups of modern humans, acting in disciplined cooperation commanded by a war chief, could/would kill or drive away smaller groups of other types of hominins not having that talent for large group cooperation. I also thought just now some Neanderthals might have survived for a time as slaves of those early Homo sap. sap. That might account for the presence of some traces of Neanderthal genes in us.
I'm still rather sorry Neanderthals didn't survive till our times! Harry Turtledove, in his collection A DIFFERENT FLESH, gave readers some speculations on what a surviving population of Homo erectus might have been like. I noted with interest how Spanish Catholics believed Homo erectus were humans and could be baptized.
We do see Neanderthals or part Neanderthals in two of Anderson's stories: "The Long Remembering" and "The Nest."
Ad astra! Sean
"I noted with interest how Spanish Catholics believed Homo erectus were humans and could be baptized."
Then there are the anabaptists Christian sects who regard baptism of children younger than 'the age of reason' to be invalid. If your intellectual capacities are too limited to understand Christian doctrines well enough to consider whether you agree with them, it does seem dubious to baptize you.
Right. We never had our daughter baptized. And then she attended a girls' club at a Baptist church!
Kaor, Jim!
Anabaptist Protestants are in error denying the validity of baptizing infants. Briefly, quoting from page 195 of Fr. John Hardon's POCKET CATHOLIC DICTIONARY (Image/Doubleday: 1980, 1985): "The Catholic Church's constant teaching is that children should be baptized soon after birth. The reason being that a child is born with original sin, which, in God's ordinary providence, cannot be removed before the age of reason except by baptism with water. Through baptism an infant receives sanctifying grace, the infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit."
Scriptural support for baptism of infants can be seen in texts like Matthew 19.12-15: "Little children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them, "Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." And when he had laid his hands on them, he departed from that place."
It's also telling that when Peter and Paul baptized entire households no mention was made of infants/children being excluded. These households included adults and children. If you wish, I could look up extracts from the writings of the earliest Fathers testifying to how baptism of infants was of Apostolic origin.
Last, not even all Protestants agree with Anabaptist denial of the rightness of infant baptism. Here I mean the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Is it believed that anyone who has been baptized no longer suffers from the effects of Original Sin?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, esp. when any of us sins. But Christ made allowance for that when He gave the Apostles and their successors in the Church authority to forgive sins in His name. The classic text for that from the Scriptures being John 20.21-23: "He therefore said to them again, "Peace be to you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you." When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." And that reminded me of Matthew 16.19, as part of the unique authority conferred on Peter by Christ: "...and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't understand your first sentence.
Someone who has been baptized no longer has Original Sin, therefore has no sinful motivations and is no longer Fallen?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am trying to say we all continue to suffer from the results of original sin One of them being far weaker control of our passions and drives--with all the bad things springing from that. That was why Christ gave his Church the authority to forgive sins. I am repeating that is not ordinary, standard Catholic teaching.
Ad astra! Sean
Correcton: I meant to write: "I am repeating that is ordinary, standard Catholic teaching." That "not:" was a mistake.
Sean
Post a Comment