At the Jurassic oil rig site, the bureaucrat, Symonds, tells the boss, Herries, that a special shipment soon to arrive will be marked top secret and is to be guarded by armed men. When Herries reads Symonds' list of the men to be assigned to this guard duty:
"'Brave, discreet, and charter subscribers to National Review,' he murmured. 'Teacher's pets...'" (p. 52)
When Symonds informs him that:
"'The purpose is classified.'" (p. 53)
- Herries' sarcasm knows no bounds:
"'Yeah. Sure. Classified. Arise, ye duly cleared citizens of democracy, and cast your ballots on issues whose nature is classified, that your leaders whose names and duties are classified may -...'" (ibid.)
This is followed by what might be classified as mild swearing - or at least might stand in for such.
A bit further on, Symonds tells Herries that:
"'Your language is close to being subversive...'" (p. 54)
When Herries has received his monthly supply of magazines and newspapers:
"The twentieth century looked still uglier than it had last month. The nations felt their pride and saw no way to retreat. The Middle Eastern war was taking a decisive turn which none of the great powers could afford." (ibid.)
(Blogger's comment: the great powers consider their own interests, not those of people living in the Middle East.)
Reading this in (our version of ) 2026, we might think that our twenty-first century is worse than his twentieth but we would be wrong.
When questioned on his views by one of the chaplains:
"Herries looked up into the steaming sky. A foul wind met his face." (p. 56)
Wind punctuates dialogue, as ever. And Herries' mood is foul so that is what he gets in the face.
A crewcut man called Worth is:
"...one of the professional patriots who would be standing guard on Symonds' crates; but not a bad sort, really, after you learned to ignore his rather tedious opinions." (p. 58)
Poul Anderson gets us to like a guy, Greenstein, then has him killed by a tyrannosaur. Just before the fight with the tyrannosaur, Greenstein gives Herries a long look and asks:
"'How the devil did you ever get this job?... You don't sound like a man who'd be cleared for a dishwashing assistantship.'" (ibid.)
Herries replies that he has always:
"'...liked totalitarianism even less than what passes for democracy.'" (p. 59)
- but adds that he might not get the job if he were to apply now. It has changed him.
Not killed but nevertheless badly injured by the tyrannosaur is Worth who will have to be sent home and then kept incommunicado. Herries comments:
"'I wonder how much of a patriot he'll be by that time.'" (p. 63)
Herries equates patriotism with necrophilia since citizens are expected to rejoice at megadeaths and suggests, ironically of course, that:
"...facts might be un-American.'" (ibid.)
Finally, he looks inside the classified crates.
12 comments:
And it turns out that the classification is necessary...
Yes. Bureaucrat and "subversive" come together.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Both: It's also an example of how conclusions drawn from first appearances can be deceptive.
And I've been reading NATIONAL REVIEW since 1976, a magazine to which Anderson contributed two articles.
Paul: The interests and safety of my country comes first.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The interests and safety of global humanity come first.
Are the strategic interests of a great power identical with the interests of its individual citizens/subjects?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, my country comes first. As yet there is no such thing as a global "nation," we don't have a Solar Commonwealth, United Commonwealths, or a Terran Empire. No one can claim to speak for all mankind.
Yes, at least sometimes a Great Power's interests advances those of its citizens/subjects. Strangling a brutal jihadist theocracy in Iran which has declared itself at war with the US since 1979 obviously enhances the safety of its citizens.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have one human race. I should not have to tell an adherent of a universal religion that. On the global scale, we need a federation of democratic republics, not one Big State.
Sometimes...
But sending individual Americans to die in the Middle East does not serve their interests. Nor is poverty alleviated by further enriching the already rich.
Paul.
"brutal jihadist theocracy in Iran"
I've had the thought that perhaps a competent POTUS could have quietly supported the Iranians who dislike being ruled by the mullahs, and got an Iranian government not interested in supporting the Houthi and Hamas, or blockading the Strait of Hormuz.
Kaor, Paul!
Chiristianity, esp. Catholic Christianity is universal. But the human race is not universal, because the natural inclination of normal human beings is to think in terms of one's tribe/nation, and that is right and proper.
Nor do I share this obsession you have for "republics," which has been farcical jokes for most nations. What matters is not the form of a state, whether the regime ruling it is believed to be legitimate and doesn't govern too badly. Given that, I have no problems with nations being monarchies or republics. I approve of how the World Federation of Anderson's THE STAR FOX has both monarchies and republics. I dismiss rigid one size fits all political schemes.
Recall my comments about Gen. Sherman, a soldier who hated war, but also believe war was sometimes necessary--and was determined to fight to win. Waging "hard war," doing whatever it took to break the enemy, actually lessens casualties for both sides. Half-hearted half measures will not work.
Better still, read Sherman's MEMOIRS. And Clausewitz's ON WAR.
Jim: The problem is, for forty years both Republican and Democrat Presidents have tried to manage Iran with "quiet" measures and failed. They failed because the theocracy in Iran was never interested in coming to terms with the US. And the Tehran regime was always willing, a least so far, to be as ruthless as it took to crush internal dissent (massacring 40,000 Iranians this past January).
But I certainly agree on the desirability of a post jihadist regime in Iran not interested in making trouble for the whole world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not obsessed and said DEMOCRATIC republics. If, as we believe, all men are equal in important senses (equality before the law, equality of opportunity, equal voting rights, sexual and racial equality - NOT equality of aptitudes or intelligence), then a legal and social system of nobility and royalty makes no sense because it contradicts equality.
Paul.
I do not advocate half-hearted half-measures.
Kaor., Paul!
No, what matters is, whatever the political form of a state, the regime ruling it is believed to be legitimate and doesn't govern too badly. Both monarchies and republics can be democratic, IF the right laws, customs, institutions, etc., exist in a nation for a limited State to work, setting limits on what a gov't can do. That is more important than some of the things you listed.
Good, what you said about half measures.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. Equality must be proclaimed as the most basic principle.
Paul.
Post a Comment