|
David Johnson
04-28-2009
13:45 UT
|
~
Tanit attacked by pirates!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=800250
Satan take that accursed Prince Viktor of Ras Hafun!
David
--
"You
know, it's never a mistake to take a second look at anything that
everybody believes." - Rodney Maxwell (H. Beam Piper),
"Graveyard of Dreams"
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-17-2009
05:27 UT
|
~
Jack Russell wrote:
> That's cool. So now we have John Carr and Dietmar Wehr doing
> Piper follow-ups. We need to get more people doing that!
http://www.zarthani.net/fanfiction.htm
Enjoy!
David
--
"Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!" - Harry Mudd, _Star_Trek_, "I, Mudd" (1967)
~
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 07:16
|
|
Dietmar Wehr
04-16-2009
02:37 UT
|
Hi all. It's been a while since I was active on this forum and I just
wanted to let all of you know what the status of my Cosmic Computer
sequel is. I've finished it and I've submitted it to Baen books for
possible publication. They always have a large backlog of submissions so
I'm not expecting to hear anything for months. My submission is the
reason why I haven't made the sequel available on Zarthani.net.
|
|
David Johnson
04-11-2009
22:52 UT
|
~
Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> I've just made available "Dhergabar" as a high quality print
> through PODgallery.
>
> http://www.podgallery.com/index.cfm/hurl/a...=artwork/MSGID=1079
My goodness! There are some other rather interesting images there too. . . .
I also enjoyed "Princess Rylla's Throne":
http://www.podgallery.com/index.cfm/hurl/imageid=12051/
action=showimage/oldMsgId=1079
Thanks,
David
--
"Did you see her? She was glorious!" - Worf,
_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_9_, "Looking for Par'mach in All the Wrong Places"
~
|
|
Lensman
04-11-2009
18:26 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for noticing that I endeavor to restrict my observations
> to Beam's work, instead of making claims about him personally.
> I can think of no greater compliment in the context of this
> forum.
David,
I have provided examples both from canon and in a quote from a
long-time friend of Piper supporting my arguments. You have provided
none from either, despite my repeated challenges to do so.
I'm content to rest on what I've already said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-11-2009
16:02 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
> Specifically, the fact that you described the organizations in
> question as a monster hunters' "cooperative" and an atomic
> workers' "union". Unions are not cooperatives, and vice versa.
You're
still talking about abstractions from outside of Beam's work. I've
been trying to have a discussion about the Industrial Federation of
Atomic Workers portrayed in "Day of the Moron" and the Hunters' Co-
operative portrayed in _Four-Day_Planet_. These are each a very
specific thing portrayed by Beam (and McGuire) in his fiction;
neither
is a "union" or a "cooperative" in some general, theoretical sense
(any more than, say, Lucas Trask was a "viking" or Verkan Vall a
"cop").
> I don't know that much about Piper himself, apart from his
> writings; but the limited amount I've read confirms that the
> philosophy and beliefs presented in a positive light in Piper's
> writings were indeed his personal philosophy and beliefs.
>
> If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly be
> interested in reading it.
I've
been doing this from time to time for years now, primarily by drawing
attention to those places in Beam's oeuvre where the
portrayed
ideological perspectives seem to contradict each other. (If "the
traitor we don't name" had not pulled down the old PIPER-L archives in
a fit of pique I could direct you to several such
instances there
going back over more than fifteen years.) But I suspect that even if
Beam's discarnate self were to communicate this point to us, your own
ideological commitments would still lead you to reject what his
idiot-sensitive go-between had to say.
Furthermore, my purpose in
this discussion has not been to make this or that point about Beam's
supposed ideology. Rather, I'd hoped that we could come to some
agreement that it's in poor taste to foist one's own ideological views
upon the rest of us here by trying to masquerade them as Beam's.
> I'm quite certain I can *not* tell exactly where Piper's views
> end and mine begin. Please note I said we should *attempt* to
> discern between what the author writes and what we read into
> it. I don't think anyone could possibly be 100% successful in
> doing so, unless we don't agree with *any* opinion expressed in
> an author's writings.
I agree, but I do believe it's possible to make a better effort than it seems you're willing to undertake.
> But it
> certainly does explain why some, perhaps many, of your opinions
> regarding Piper's writings appear to be rather contrary to what
> many or most of the rest of us find obvious.
Thanks
for noticing that I endeavor to restrict my observations to Beam's
work, instead of making claims about him personally. I can think of
no greater compliment in the context of this forum.
Be well,
David
--
"'What would Piper think?' You don't know, and no one else but H. Beam Piper would know." - John F. Carr, April 20, 2008
~
|
|
Lensman
04-11-2009
00:20 UT
|
QT - David Johnson wrote:
> What differences between atomic workers and monster hunters,
> specifically, lead you to this view?
Specifically,
the fact that you described the organizations in question as a monster
hunters' "cooperative" and an atomic workers' "union". Unions are not
cooperatives, and vice versa.
You asked how Piper could view such
superficially similar organizations in such different lights, in view
of what appears to be his personal philosophy, David. I provided *an*
answer, altho not necessarily the correct one. If you disagree, then I
think the ball is in your court to demonstrate where I'm wrong.
If
you don't agree that a farmers' Co-op is a good analogy for the
hunters' union, or if you don't agree that the hunters' cooperative has a
significantly weaker socialist agenda than the atomic workers' union,
then please quote from the canon with evidence backing your claim.
> So, you're of the opinion that anything Beam ever wrote in his
> fiction which suggests a particular political viewpoint is a direct
> indication of his personal political views? That Beam was either
> unable to--or for some reason chose not to--present a political view
> in his fiction other than his own, personal view?
Now
you're just being argumentative. The question isn't whether or not
Piper *could* have written from a different political viewpoint; the
question is whether or not he ever *did*. When Piper puts political
philosophy into his works, there's a very clear pattern. Libertarian
politics and the philosophy of personal responsibility are presented in
terms of admiration, and held up as the ideal; socialist politics and
the philosophy of people perceiving themselves as "victims" are
presented in disparaging terms, and shown to be disastrous.
I
don't know that much about Piper himself, apart from his writings; but
the limited amount I've read confirms that the philosophy and beliefs
presented in a positive light in Piper's writings were indeed his
personal philosophy and beliefs.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly be interested in reading it.
> With all due respect both to John and to Mr. Pournelle, you must
> recognize that this is, at best, a _third_ hand account of Beam's own
> views. And even for those of us who have just a smattering of
> familiarity with Mr. Pournelle, it's clear he looks at the world with
> a particularly thick set of ideological lenses. It would be difficult
> not to expect these to color his reporting of the views of others.
Disputing evidence is not refuting it, David. Again, the ball is in your court to provide counter evidence.
> Given the admission in your first sentence here, how can you be sure
> where your own views end and "Piper's" begin?
I'm
quite certain I can *not* tell exactly where Piper's views end and
mine begin. Please note I said we should *attempt* to discern between
what the author writes and what we read into it. I don't think anyone
could possibly be 100% successful in doing so, unless we don't agree
with *any* opinion expressed in an author's writings.
>> When I read certain passages in Piper's works which seem to me
>> especially persuasive, they read to me as though Piper is speaking
>> directly to the reader, speaking passionately because this is what
>> he really believes.
>
> Well, of course, given your own political commitments. This is quite
> understandable. I'm sure this has been no small part of the appeal
> of Beam's work for you.
Of
course. And it surprises me greatly to find a self-described
socialist as an active participant in this forum. But it certainly does
explain why some, perhaps many, of your opinions regarding Piper's
writings appear to be rather contrary to what many or most of the rest
of us find obvious.
>> Other characters, with other philosophies, speak less persuasively
>> in Piper's stories because that is *not* what Piper really
>> believes.
>
> . . . or, perhaps, because it's merely not what _you_ believe. I
> suspect it may be particularly difficult for you to take seriously
> those places where Beam's portrayal of ideas are at odds with your
> own commitments
Please provide an example from the canon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-10-2009
18:48 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
>> Are you being _descriptive_ here, or rather "interpreting" what Beam
>> was writing through your own ideological lenses? To wit, I don't
>> believe "a typical union--a socialist organization," is a
>> _descriptive phrase. It's an ideological judgment.
>
> Actually I was attempting to describe it from what I perceive as
> Piper's ideological / political viewpoint.
And
there's the rub, eh? How are we to distinguish Beam's personal
viewpoint (as opposed to the dramatic viewpoint he is presenting) from
our perception or interpretation of what he (and sometimes McGuire)
presented? I believe this is possible to do but we have to be a bit
more careful than simply describing things as "typical" or using
loaded words (at least in America) like "socialist."
> I don't at all see
> "socialist" as a pejorative term; I see it as a descriptive one.
> The goals of unions are collective bargaining with
> corporations, protection of jobs,
> increased wages, "better" (from the POV of the worker) working
> conditions, health care and other fringe benefits, and pensions.
> These are all socialist agendas.
They're
also pretty much the agenda of the Hunters' Cooperative--and yet you
used the term "socialist" to distinguish the atomic workers' union
_from_ the Cooperative. I think, if you had begun with these sorts of
descriptions, you would have found it more difficult to suggest such a
stark distinction between the atomic workers and the monster hunters.
_That_ would have led us to look more closely at the different ways
Beam (and McGuire, for the atomic workers) chose to _portray_ the two
groups, perhaps drawing our attention more to his dramatic intent than
to his supposed political views.
>> Similarly, describing the Hunter's Cooperative--essentially a
>> producers cartel (think OPEC, but on a much smaller scale)--as "a
>> collection of rugged individualists" ignores the genuninely
>> _socialist_ aspects (in a descriptive political science sense, rather
>> than in a pejorative ideological sense) of such an organization.
>
> Actually I agree.
Then why did you use the term as a way to draw distinctions between the atomic workers and the monster hunters?
>> Attributing both the negative portrayal of the atomic workers union
>> _and_ the positive portrayal of the Hunters' Cooperative to the
>> _same_ ideological orientation _makes_no_sense_ because they are so
>> contradictory. Rather, the differences in portrayal are _dramatic_,
>> not ideological.
>
> No, I entirely disagree. A farmer's Co-op is socialist, but not
> to the degree that the UAW is.
We're
not talking about a farmer's co-op and the UAW. We're talking about
the atomic workers from "Moron" and the Federation-era monster hunters
on Fenris.
> And I think Piper was able to
> justify his opposing views of two similar organizations on that
> degree of difference.
What differences between atomic workers and monster hunters,
specifically, lead you to this view?
>> (Or, perhaps, it is _McGuire_ who is the source of the harsh anti-
>> unionism we see in "Moron" while Beam's own views are a bit more
>> nuanced when he portrays the Hunters' Cooperative in the solely-
>> written _Four-Day_Planet_.)
>
> I don't think so. Not from a writer who used the term
> "soft-headed liberal" in at least one of his stories, as Piper
> did.
So, you're of the opinion that anything Beam ever wrote in his
fiction
which suggests a particular political viewpoint is a direct
indication of his personal political views? That Beam was either
unable to--or for some reason chose not to--present a political view
in his fiction other than his own, personal view?
>> Indeed there is, but on what grounds do we then take this view and
>> paint the whole of the Terrohuman Future History--or all of Beam's
>> fiction in its entirety--with this single "skeptical of democracy"
>> brush?
>
> Is that really the only place that Piper questions the stability
> of democracies?
Your
question in response to my question misses the point. The question
isn't whether or not Beam portrayed his characters as having political
views. It's obvious he did this quite often. (Indeed, this seems to
be what draws many of us back to his fiction again and again.) The
question is, how do we jump from any particular instance of such
dramatic portrayal--or even any collection of them--to
suppositions
about Beam's own ideological views? More poignantly (and
problematically), what are we to do when Beam portrays political
themes in his fiction--atomic workers 'union versus monster hunters'
cooperative or "first" Federation versus Mardukan constitutional
monarchy--which appear to be _at_odds_ with each other? On what
grounds do we accept one as giving indication of his personal views
while rejecting the other?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jerry Pournelle still remembers many an evening spent with Piper
> discussing historical figures and events and how they might
> apply to the future. Piper had many a keen insight into the
> past and often expressed a longing that he had been alive in the
> simpler days of the Christian Era, when Clausewitzian politics
> and nuclear war were a faraway nightmare.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --"Introduction" to /Federation/ by John F. Carr
With
all due respect both to John and to Mr. Pournelle, you must recognize
that this is, at best, a _third_ hand account of Beam's own views.
And even for those of us who have just a smattering of
familiarity
with Mr. Pournelle, it's clear he looks at the world with a
particularly thick set of ideological lenses. It would be
difficult not to expect these to color his reporting of the views of others.
>> Perhaps this has nothing to do with "rationality." Rather, perhaps
>> this is merely because, being a socialist, I don't _bring_ (your
>> version of) this "self-reliant man" perspective to Beam's work.
>
> Well of course, I can't step outside myself and read Piper's
> works with an objective eye. It's because my own personal
> politics are so close to Piper's that I believe this gives me a
> personal insight into his thinking.
Given the admission in your first sentence here, how can you be sure where your own views end and "Piper's" begin?
> When I read certain
> passages in Piper's works which seem to me especially
> persuasive, they read to me as though Piper is speaking
> directly to the reader, speaking passionately because this is
> what he really believes.
Well,
of course, given your own political commitments. This is quite
understandable. I'm sure this has been no small part of the appeal of
Beam's work for you.
> Other characters, with other
> philosophies, speak less persuasively in Piper's stories
> because that is *not* what Piper really believes.
.
. . or, perhaps, because it's merely not what _you_ believe. I
suspect it may be particularly difficult for you to take seriously
those places where Beam's portrayal of ideas are at odds with your own
commitments, and therefore you may not actually recognize the
ambiguity and ambivalence in his work. Hopefully, this insight will
allow you to look at Beam's work the next time you reread it--
something I think we can all agree is an everlasting pleasure--with "new eyes."
Be well,
David
--
"'What would Piper think?' You don't know, and no one else but H. Beam Piper would know." - John F. Carr, April 20, 2008
~
|
|
Lensman
04-10-2009
17:19 UT
|
QT - David Johnson wrote:
>> the Atomic Workers' Union sounds like a typical union-- a socialist
>> organization-- but the "Hunter's Cooperative" sounds like a
>> collection of rugged individualists.
>
> Are you being _descriptive_ here, or rather "interpreting" what Beam
> was writing through your own ideological lenses? To wit, I don't
> believe "a typical union--a socialist organization," is a
> _descriptive phrase. It's an ideological judgment.
Actually
I was attempting to describe it from what I perceive as Piper's
ideological / political viewpoint. I don't at all see "socialist" as a
pejorative term; I see it as a descriptive one. The goals of unions are
collective bargaining with corporations, protection of jobs,
increased wages, "better" (from the POV of the worker) working
conditions, health care and other fringe benefits, and pensions. These are all socialist agendas.
> (Does this phrase, for example, describe effectively the
> anti-communist South Korean autoworkers' unions of the Cold War era
I
don't think "socialist" is the term which is mis-used. "Communist" is
the term which is mis-used. I'm sure we all know that Soviet-style
"communism" is actually a totalitarian supposedly socialist state
actually run by an oligarchy. That any union would oppose a
totalitarian state is hardly a surprise, nor does it make that union anti-socialist.
Over
on the Niven discussion list we recently had this argument come to a
head, with pro-socialist list members objecting to the term
"socialist"
when describing a form of government which denied ownership of personal
property. I pointed out that this is in fact the dictionary
definition, altho perhaps outside the U.S., "socialism" means something
else. The pro-socialist members agreed to use the term "democratic
socialism" to describe their preferred type of socialism. Would it be
helpful to make that distinction here, too? Big Unions in America
advocate an agenda of democratic socialism.
> today's UAW which is giving up all sorts of collectively-negotiated
> benefits while the federal government bails out shareholders in
> Detroit, and Poland's Solidarity of the 1980s?)
David,
are you *seriously* trying to claim that these organizations don't have
socialist agendas even if (as with the UAW's current dire straits)
they're being forced to give up rights they've negotiated in the past,
or because-- again-- they oppose totalitarian governments? The UAW is in
a much weaker bargaining position than they were, say, 40 years ago.
That doesn't mean their motives have changed.
> Similarly, describing the Hunter's Cooperative--essentially a
> producers cartel (think OPEC, but on a much smaller scale)--as "a
> collection of rugged individualists" ignores the genuninely
> _socialist_ aspects (in a descriptive political science sense, rather
> than in a pejorative ideological sense) of such an organization.
Actually
I agree. I'm familiar with the farmers' Co-op, or cooperative, and
these are indeed socialist organizations. They practice collective
bargaining and hold property in common for the benefit of all.
Presumably
this "hunters' cooperative" is similar. Just don't try to tell a
Midwestern farmer that he's a socialist because he joined the local
Co-op! He'd be likely to respond "Them's fightin' words!" Or just pull
out the rifle he has on the gun rack behind the seat of his pickup.
:-D
> It's true that Beam--and McGuire--portray the atomic workers' union
> with a great deal of contempt, yet at the same time Beam _celebrates_
> the Fenris Hunters' Cooperative. There is a stark difference in how
> the two groups are portrayed. But the truth is, from a
> descriptive_, political science or sociological point of view, the
> two organizations are more similar than they are different.
> Attributing both the negative portrayal of the atomic workers union
> _and_ the positive portrayal of the Hunters' Cooperative to the
> _same_ ideological orientation _makes_no_sense_ because they are so
> contradictory. Rather, the differences in portrayal are _dramatic_,
> not ideological.
No,
I entirely disagree. A farmer's Co-op is socialist, but not to the
degree that the UAW is. And I think Piper was able to justify his
opposing views of two similar organizations on that degree of
difference.
The Co-op doesn't try to lobby Congress for better wages and working
conditions; it doesn't offer pensions to its members; it doesn't offer
fringe benefits. *If* it offers a health plan, it's only because its
collective bargaining power gives it the ability to better negotiate
with an insurance company or HMO, not because a health plan is being
offered as part of workers' compensation for work.
My grandfather
and uncle were working farmers in western Kansas, and I worked on
their farm for a couple of summers and helped with a few harvests. I
think I understand the mindset which believes a farmer's Co-op is a
Good Thing while railing against Big Unions as a pinko socialist
affliction on American society.
> (Or, perhaps, it is _McGuire_ who is the source of the harsh anti-
> unionism we see in "Moron" while Beam's own views are a bit more
> nuanced when he portrays the Hunters' Cooperative in the solely-
> written _Four-Day_Planet_.)
I don't think so. Not from a writer who used the term "soft-headed liberal" in at least one of his stories, as Piper did.
>> I'm fairly certain there's a little speech in /Space Viking/ about
>> how democracy really doesn't work for human beings,
>
> Indeed there is, but on what grounds do we then take this view and
> paint the whole of the Terrohuman Future History--or all of Beam's
> fiction in its entirety--with this single "skeptical of democracy"
> brush?
Is
that really the only place that Piper questions the stability of
democracies? I don't think so. Again, it's difficult for me to
understand
how anyone can read the majority of Piper's works and *not* come away
with the idea that Piper didn't think much of modern
democratic governments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Pournelle still remembers many an evening spent with Piper
discussing
historical figures and events and how they might apply to the future.
Piper had many a keen insight into the past and often expressed a
longing that he had been alive in the simpler days of the Christian Era,
when Clausewitzian politics and nuclear war were a faraway nightmare.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
--"Introduction" to /Federation/ by John F. Carr
>> I'd like to *think* that most reasonably-hard SF is written in a
>> manner that no rational person will misinterpret, but it's just not
>> so.
>
> Perhaps this has nothing to do with "rationality." Rather, perhaps
> this is merely because, being a socialist, I don't _bring_ (your
> version of) this "self-reliant man" perspective to Beam's work.
Well
of course, I can't step outside myself and read Piper's works with an
objective eye. It's because my own personal politics are so close to
Piper's that I believe this gives me a personal insight into his
thinking. When I read certain passages in Piper's works which seem to
me especially persuasive, they read to me as though Piper is speaking
directly to the reader, speaking passionately because this is what he
really believes. Other characters, with other philosophies, speak less
persuasively in Piper's stories because that is *not* what Piper really
believes.
So perhaps it's my subjective viewpoint, and not
rational objectivity, which makes me think this passage sums up Piper's
view of governments:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It may just be," he added,
"that there is something fundamentally unworkable about government
itself. As long as Homo sapiens terra is a wild animal, which he has
always been and always will be until he evolves into something
different in a million or so years, maybe a workable system of
government is a political science impossibility..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--/Space Viking/, chapter Marduk-VIII
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-10-2009
15:25 UT
|
~
Re: Hartley's
Glenn "Gilmoure" Amspaugh wrote:
> For the 3rd level sector that resulted in Terro-Human future
> history,
Huh?
> would that be one that decended from the Hartley
> presidency?
Here's what I've managed to put together about the Harley yarns:
http://www.zarthani.net/hartley.htm
David
--
"_Space_Viking_
itself is . . . a yarn that will be cited, years hence, as one of the
science-fiction classics. It's got solid
philosophy for the
mature thinker, and bang-bang-chop-'em-up action for the space-pirate
fans. As a truly good yarn should have!" - John W. Campbell, 1962
~
|
|
Gilmoure
04-10-2009
14:05 UT
|
For the 3rd level sector that resulted in Terro-Human future history,
would that be one that decended from the Hartley presidency?
Gilmoure
|
|
David Johnson
04-10-2009
06:16 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
>> Compare, for
>> example, the way the atomic workers' union is treated in "Day of
>> the Moron" with the way the Hunters' Cooperative is treated in
>> _Four-Day_Planet_.
>
> Please refresh my memory. Right off the top of my head, the
> Atomic Workders' Union sounds like a typical union-- a
> socialist organization-- but the "Hunter's Cooperative" sounds
> like a collection of rugged individualists.
Are
you being _descriptive_ here, or rather "interpreting" what Beam was
writing through your own ideological lenses? To wit, I don't believe
"a typical union--a socialist organization," is a
_descriptive
phrase. It's an ideological judgment. (Does this phrase, for
example, describe effectively the anti-communist South Korean
autoworkers' unions of the Cold War era, today's UAW which is giving
up all sorts of collectively-negotiated benefits while the federal
government bails out shareholders in Detroit, and Poland's Solidarity
of the 1980s?) Similarly, describing the Hunter's
Cooperative--essentially
a producers cartel (think OPEC, but on a much smaller scale)--as "a
collection of rugged individualists" ignores the genuninely
_socialist_ aspects (in a descriptive
political science sense, rather than in a pejorative ideological sense) of such an organization.
> If I'm right,
> Piper would disapprove of the former (despite the fact that the
> very strong railroad union probably preserved his job longer
> than necessary), and applaud the latter.
It's
true that Beam--and McGuire--portray the atomic workers' union with a
great deal of contempt, yet at the same time Beam _celebrates_ the
Fenris Hunters' Cooperative. There is a stark difference in how the
two groups are portrayed. But the truth is, from a
_descriptive_,
political science or sociological point of view, the two organizations
are more similar than they are different.
Attributing both the
negative portrayal of the atomic workers union _and_ the positive
portrayal of the Hunters' Cooperative to the _same_ ideological
orientation _makes_no_sense_ because they are so contradictory.
Rather, the differences in portrayal are _dramatic_, not ideological.
(Or,
perhaps, it is _McGuire_ who is the source of the harsh anti- unionism
we see in "Moron" while Beam's own views are a bit more nuanced when
he portrays the Hunters' Cooperative in the solely- written
_Four-Day_Planet_.)
>> Or consider the paternalistic Terran Federation in comparison to
>> the anarchic Sworld Worlds. Most of the critiques offered by
>> Trask about the government of Marduk would apply equally well to
>> the monolithic Federation government Foxx Travis destroyed
>> entire worlds to defend.
>
> I'm fairly certain there's a little speech in /Space Viking/
> about how democracy really doesn't work for human beings,
Indeed
there is, but on what grounds do we then take this view and paint the
whole of the Terrohuman Future History--or all of Beam's fiction in
its entirety--with this single "skeptical of democracy" brush?
> While Foxx Travis is an
> admirable character, I'm not convinced that Piper is presenting
> the Federation as the best form of government for human beings.
I
think it depends upon which version of the Terran Federation we're
talking about. The early, "first" Terran Federation of "Edge of the
Knife" and "Omnilingual" is painted in very positive terms and seems
every bit as democratic as the contemporary United States Beam was
writing in. On the other hand, the "second" Terran Federation of
_Uller_Uprising_ or _Little_Fuzzy_ or "Oomphel in the Sky" seems
somewhat less democratic--and more monopolistically capitalist, by the
way--while at the same time is portrayed less favorably than is the
"first" Federation. By the end of the Federation, at the time of the
System States War and the post-war period of _Junkyard_Planet_, we see
a Federation that is painted even more darkly.
Put Edwards
Chalmers and Hubert Penrose in the same room with Rodney Maxwell and
Dolph Kelton--and Klem Zareff--and you'll get very
different views about "democracy" and the Terran Federation.
Likewise,
Lucas Trask takes the constitutional monarchists of Marduk to task as
easily as shooting fish in a barrel. But put him in the same room as
Major Cutler of the CIA--or even Tallal ib'n Khalid of the Islamic
Caliphate--of "Edge of the Knife" and he would likely get a much more
vigorous defense of democracy.
> I'd like to *think* that most reasonably-hard SF is written in
> a manner that no rational person will misinterpret, but it's
> just not so.
>
> For instance, someone on this forum has read Piper and claims
> that there's no predominance of the "self-reliant man"
> protagonist in Piper's writings. ;-)
Perhaps
this has nothing to do with "rationality." Rather, perhaps this is
merely because, being a socialist, I don't _bring_ (your version of)
this "self-reliant man" perspective to Beam's work.
Remember Ashmodai! Remember Belphegor!
David
--
"John Campbell . . . is almost as big a fascist sonofabitch as I am. . . ." - H. Beam Piper
~
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 01-24-2014 06:09
|
|
Gilmoure
04-09-2009
23:36 UT
|
Well, they talk about collapsium plating. I wonder if they have some way
of laying down iron or nickel 'dust' in an orderly procedure? Am
picturing something similar to powder coating today.
G
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM, QT - Jack Russell <
qtopic-42-tnfVKeAH3s4T@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Jack Russell
04-09-2009
23:31 UT
|
I make no claims of expertise in this matter, but basically, 10 tons of
iron run through the collapsium treatment is still 10 tons of iron.
Same mass, same weight, just way less volume. Now, just for giggles,
say 1" iron plating is collapsed to 1/2", then the density is 2x. How
does that effect the hardness ratio? Does it become 2x as hard, or 4x
due to the tighter interlocking of the molecular structure. How for
down can matter be collapsed and how much greater does its hardness
factor become? For that matter, how much harder than diamonds are we
looking at? I suspect ready answers will not be forthcoming as Mr.
Piper was rather vague on these kinds of details.
Next logical
question becomes: How the aetch-ee-double toothpics do you weld or
shape this stuff once it is collapsed? Is it pre-shaped then collapsed?
And can they control the matter compression so that it retains it's
shape in the process? Collapsium has been used in statures,
hyper-ships and super-duper refrigerators. Y-not make bullet-proof
vests out of it, too?
Jack
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
| |
Spam messages 205-204 deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 02:16 AM |
|
Lensman
04-09-2009
20:23 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
>> For most writers, when they consistently write stories with
>> strong philosophical and political views, as Piper did,
>
> It's not at all clear to me that Piper did this. Compare, for
> example, the way the atomic workers' union is treated in "Day of
> the Moron" with the way the Hunters' Cooperative is treated in
> _Four-Day_Planet_.
Please
refresh my memory. Right off the top of my head, the Atomic Workders'
Union sounds like a typical union-- a socialist organization-- but the
"Hunter's Cooperative" sounds like a collection of rugged
individualists. If I'm right, Piper would disapprove of the former
(despite the fact that the very strong railroad union probably preserved
his job longer than necessary), and applaud the latter.
> Or consider the paternalistic Terran Federation in comparison to
> the anarchic Sworld Worlds. Most of the critiques offered by
> Trask about the government of Marduk would apply equally well to
> the monolithic Federation government Foxx Travis destroyed
> entire worlds to defend.
I'm
fairly certain there's a little speech in /Space Viking/ about how
democracy really doesn't work for human beings, and I think at least one
other similar one elsewhere. I think I've read a commentary-- perhaps
one of Carr's-- which says Piper didn't think much of democracy.
While Foxx Travis is an admirable character, I'm not convinced that
Piper is presenting the Federation as the best form of government for
human beings.
>> But we certainly should make an effort to
>> distinguish between the objective and the subjective-- between
>> what Piper actually wrote and what we're inferring into it.
>
> We should also make an effort to distinguish what we "find" in
> Beam's work from the subjective, ideological perspectives which
> we _bring_ to it. For example, for a lot of the political views
> which I believed I "found" in Beam's work as a teenager, it's
> now clear to me as an adult they aren't there at all, or are
> there in much more ambiguous and even ambivalent forms.
> Down Styphon!
One
thing which has become depressingly clear to me, by participating in
forums such as these Piper forums and the Larry Niven discussion list,
is that there is practically no passage in any canon which *someone*
won't interpret in a contrary manner, or at least one which seems
contrary to me. I'd like to *think* that most reasonably-hard SF is
written in a manner that no rational person will misinterpret, but it's
just not so.
For instance, someone on this forum has read Piper
and claims that there's no predominance of the "self-reliant man"
protagonist in Piper's writings. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-09-2009
20:04 UT
|
Gilmoure wrote:
> Collapsium. For smaller things, like recon car skins, they had a
> layer just a few molecules thick (if remembering correctly).
The
recon car in /The Cosmic Computer/ has collapsium armor "only a couple
of micromicrons thick" --chapter VI. I haven't researched just how
many molecules thick that would be-- especially for "collapsed matter,
the electron shells of the atoms collapsed against the nuclei, the
atoms in actual contact"-- but my guess is it would be a large number.
My guess is that if it were *really* that thick a layer of collapsium
with the atoms in physical contact (which sounds like it might indeed
be full-out neutronium, as one forum member suggested) that it would be
a heck of a lot heavier than "a ten-foot-square of thin steel that
weighed almost thirty tons" --/The Cosmic Computer/ chapter XXI.
> What about larger things like large power cartridges or starship
> skins/power systems? Any idea how thick of collapsium shielding
> they used?
I
haven't found any passages indicating other thicknesses, but it may be
possible that collapsium plating isn't all the same thickness.
> And would a thick layer of collapsium have a
> noticeable gravity field?
"Noticeable"
in the sense that if you put your hand on it, it feels like it's being
sucked against the plating? I doubt it, not at less than 0.3 tons per
square foot. If you could touch the actual collapsium itself, it
might indeed feel sticky, or maybe even rip the surface of your skin
off. Presumably that's one of several reasons it's sandwiched between
two layers of sheet steel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-09-2009
18:40 UT
|
Gilmoure wrote:
> Any chance these outlines and work notes will be published?
> Thanks!
I'd love to see scans posted to Zarthani.net, if Terry McGuire approves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Jay P. Hailey
04-09-2009
08:46 UT
|
> I think it would be a mistake to limit our discussion to
> only
> what Piper actually *wrote*. The implications of what
> Piper
> wrote, and our inferences into what he wrote, are also
> worthy
> of discussion. But we certainly should make an effort to
> distinguish between the objective and the subjective--
> between
> what Piper actually wrote and what we're inferring
> into it.
Agreed. I was not suggesting that we limit conversation, only that we label our own opinions clearly.
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
David Johnson
04-09-2009
06:14 UT
|
~
Re: Collapsium
Gilmoure wrote:
> What about larger things like large power cartridges or starship
> skins/power systems? Any idea how thick of collapsium shielding
> they used?
I seem to recall it still being a very small thickness. . . .
> And would a thick layer of collapsium have a
> noticeable gravity field?
Presumably
yes, given that even small devices coated in collapsium were
significantly heavier. On the other hand, I always had the impression
that "think" was not a characteristic usually associated with
collapsium coatings.
David
--
"Computermen don't like to hear computers called smart." - Conn Maxwell (H. Beam Piper), "Graveyard of Dreams"
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-09-2009
05:02 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
> Andray Dunann is certainly "possessed of a sense of
> determination" in pursuing Lucas Trask's fiancee! That doesn't
> make him either admirable or a protagonist.
No. What it does is makes him an excellent _antagonist_!
David
--
"You
know, most of the wars they've been fighting, lately, on the
Europo-American Sector have been, at least in part, motivated by
rivalry for oil fields." - H. Beam Piper, "Temple Trouble," 1951
~
|
|
John Carr
04-08-2009
22:55 UT
|
IRREGULAR'S MUSTER -- MAY 16th, 2009
This year we have a very
special event lined up for the 2009 Muster: we will be meeting with two
of Beam's Williamsport friends. Piper researcher David Hines just
informed me that they are willing to meet with the whole bunch of us!
Here's what David had to say:
I gave John Hunsinger a call
yesterday -- he's the busiest 80-year-old I've ever known. He's started
the biography and is working his way through: so far, his major
annotation has been that Beam told John's friend Bob that he had been
expelled for shooting oil drums in front of the high school. But of
course, John realizes from your book, Beam told lots of stories.
Anyway, I mentioned to John that you and some other folks, including me,
were going to be doing a Piper ramble at some point, and I asked if
he'd be willing to reminisce for us. He said he'd be delighted, and
he'd also bring his friend Bob (whose last name, alas, I didn't catch,
but John will be emailing before long) -- John didn't drink, so Bob was
the one who used to go out drinking with Beam, and they talked about
writing a good bit. So, yeah, guests at Piperminicon 2009!
May
16th was not the idea date, but David's coming from Florida to set this
up and it was the only time he had available. The only problem is that
it is Penn State's Graduation weekend! Therefore, any out-of-towners,
will have to make accommodations for rooms in Williamsport instead of
State College. Other than that, it should work out just fine.
Please
let me or Dennis Frank (djfrank@penn.com) know if you are planning to
attend. We don't want to spring any surprises on our guests. I look
forward to seeing many new faces and meeting you all!
John Carr
Otherwhen@aol.com
|
|
David Johnson
04-08-2009
22:32 UT
|
~
Jack Russell wrote:
> Frankly, I think everybody's view of the self reliant man has
> less to do with Piper's views and more with what each person
> believes for himself.
[snip]
> Piper doesn't have to defend his position, but many of
> us do.
Hear, hear! :)
David
~
|
|
Jack Russell
04-08-2009
20:38 UT
|
Frankly, I think everybody's view of the self reliant man has less to do
with Piper's views and more with what each person believes for
himself. I think everybody should sit down and write their own
version, then see how it compares to what Piper wrote. Piper doesn't
have to defend his position, but many of us do.
Jack
|
|
David Johnson
04-08-2009
20:19 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
>For most writers, when they consistently write stories with
>strong philosophical and political views, as Piper did,
It's
not at all clear to me that Piper did this. Compare, for example, the
way the atomic workers' union is treated in "Day of the Moron" with the
way the Hunters' Cooperative is treated in _Four-Day_Planet_.
Or
consider the paternalistic Terran Federation in comparison to the
anarchic Sworld Worlds. Most of the critiques offered by Trask about
the government of Marduk would apply equally well to the monolithic
Federation government Foxx Travis destroyed entire worlds to defend.
There are many other examples. Consider the Federation-era Banking Cartel. . . .
>I think it would be a mistake to limit our discussion to only
>what Piper actually *wrote*. The implications of what Piper
>wrote, and our inferences into what he wrote, are also worthy
>of discussion.
Agreed.
>But we certainly should make an effort to
>distinguish between the objective and the subjective-- between
>what Piper actually wrote and what we're inferring into it.
We
should also make an effort to distinguish what we "find" in Beam's work
from the subjective, ideological perspectives which we _bring_ to it.
For example, for a lot of the political views which I believed I "found"
in Beam's work as a teenager, it's now clear to me as an adult they
aren't there at all, or are there in much more ambiguous and even
ambivalent forms.
Down Styphon!
David
~
|
|
Gilmoure
04-08-2009
19:46 UT
|
Collapsium. For smaller things, like recon car skins, they had a layer
just a few molecules thick (if remembering correctly). What about larger
things like large power cartridges or starship skins/power systems? Any
idea how thick of collapsium shielding they used? And would a thick
layer of collapsium have a noticeable gravity field?
G
|
|
Lensman
04-08-2009
19:17 UT
|
Jay P. Hailey wrote:
> Thank you. Piper was writing *stories*. Although I think it may be
> fair to say he was talking some of his ideas about history and human
> nature in those stories, I think it's a mistake to view anyone's
> fiction as a road map of their ideology.
<snippage>
> So I may well write about man who earnestly believes something I
> don't. If I am doing it well, you should be able to believe that the
> character feels that way and believes that way, even though I don't.
> If that's all you have left of my thought process, how could you
> tell what was me actually expressing beliefs and me drawing a
> character for some story driven point or other?
A
good author can certainly write characters whose philosophy is very
different from his own. Tom Clancy has proved particularly adept at
that, writing different parts of his novels from *very* different points
of view (altho his last few, poorly written and perhaps ghosted, fail
at that). Heinlein proved his own ability to do that in /The Number of
the Beast/, which has received poor reviews but the first half of
which I found reasonably interesting.
For most writers, when
they consistently write stories with strong philosophical and political
views, as Piper did, then I think we are seeing an insight into the
writer's ideology. That doesn't mean the writer himself always lived
*up* to this ideology; we're talking about ideals, not reality.
I
think it would be a mistake to limit our discussion to only what Piper
actually *wrote*. The implications of what Piper wrote, and our
inferences into what he wrote, are also worthy of discussion. But we
certainly should make an effort to distinguish between the objective and
the subjective-- between what Piper actually wrote and what we're
inferring into it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-08-2009
19:01 UT
|
David Wright Sr. wrote:
>> the term "self-reliant" is a sort of short-hand that,
>> unfortunately, means different things to different people--even
>> among those who are comfortable using the term.
>
> If I am not mistaken, neither Heinlein nor Piper used the term to
> refer to their characters. As far as I can determine, John W.
> Campbell's 'competent man' concept morphed into 'self-reliant' and
> was used primarily by reviewers of their works. There is one instance
> I know of that Heinlein used the term and that was in a letter to
> Poul Anderson's wife in 1961 where he described Anderson's characters
> as 'self-reliant'.
Sounds
right to me. I don't recall that Heinlein or Piper ever used the term
"self-reliant man" in any story, and so far as I know that's a term
originating in fandom and/or literary criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-08-2009
18:48 UT
|
John F. Carr wrote:
> PIPER'S SELF-RELIANT MAN
>
> This argument is getting ridiculous. Did Beam have an ideal
> protagonist, a self-reliant man? Yes, of course, he did. He
> even describes him in "Oomphel in the Sky:" "...a person who
> actually knows what has to be done and how to do it, without
> holding a dozen conferences and round-table discussion and
> giving everybody a fair and equal chance to foul things up for
> him." There it is, his definition in a nut shell. Many of
> Beam's characters live by that credo.
>
> Was Piper a self-reliant man? Sometimes, yes. Sometime, no.
> It was an ideal he tried to live up to. Beam had his quirks
> and deficiencies, like spending too much to keep up
> appearances. Still, all in all, he lived by his code and when
> he couldn't: he went out sideways, instead of being a burden on
> friends or the state.
>
> John F. Carr
Thank you, John. As usual, you have expressed what I was trying to say much better than I could.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-08-2009
18:44 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
> This gets to the heart of my disquiet over attempts to shoehorn
> Beam's work into the foreign concept of "self-reliance." Doing
> so is not merely a descriptive enterprise but also an attempt
> to attribute a particular _ideological_ perspective or belief
> to Beam's characters--and, by "extension," to Beam himself. Yet no
> obvious evidence for this sort of ideological characterization
> exists in Beam's work or commentary. Rather, the concept is
> forced upon Beam (and us) by those who hold this particular
> political orientation.
I
must say, David, that I am *very* surprised that any long-time member
of the Piper forums would make such a claim. I don't think there are
any of Piper's novels, and few of his short stories, that one can read
without perceiving the philosophical foundation of Piper's world-view,
including his obvious contempt for those who fail to take responsibility
for themselves, and his admiration for those who practice
self-reliance to the greatest degree possible while still supporting
human civilization.
Piper's contempt for those who won't try to
better themselves or their community, who will sit around doing nothing
while their community goes to pot around them:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[...]
just like all these old cranks that sit around drinking brandy and
mooning about what Merlin's going to do for them, and never doing
anything for themselves."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--/The Cosmic Computer/ ch. IV
Piper's contempt for those who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, who try to make excuses:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I
suppose it's silly to ask if you're paying these people anything for
the work they do or for the things you take from them," Harkaman said.
From the way the Space Scourge and Lamia people laughed, it evidently
was. Harkaman shrugged. "Well, it's your planet. Make any kind of a mess
out of it you want to."
"You think we ought to pay them?" Spasso was incredulous. "Damn bunch of savages!"
"They
aren't as savage as the Xochitl locals were when Haulteclere took it
over. You've been there; you've seen what Prince Viktor does with them
now."
"We haven't got the men or equipment they have on Xochitl," Valkanhayn said. "We can't afford to coddle the locals."
"You can't afford not to," Harkaman told him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--/Space Viking/ ch. Tanith-II
Do I really need to pull more quotes, David? I think you can find other examples just as easily as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-08-2009
18:10 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
>> but I think it is more accurate to describe his characters a
>> "Men with a mission", even if they don't start that way.
>
> I agree something like "possessed of a sense of determination"
> is a better description of many of Beam's protagonists. It
> also has the advantage of being purely descriptive, thereby
> lacking the attribution of a particular political orientation which is
> subtly embedded in the term "self-reliant."
Andray
Dunann is certainly "possessed of a sense of determination" in
pursuing Lucas Trask's fiancee! That doesn't make him either admirable
or a protagonist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-08-2009
18:00 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
>> Is the concept of Heinlein's (and by extension, Piper's)
>> "self-reliant man" really something over which there is
>> confusion?
>
> What confuses me is this "by extension, Piper's" part. On what
> grounds does one make such an "extension"? Where is the
> citation from Piper indicating that he had any such
> "extension" in mind? (It certainly never appears in John's
> biography, for example.) Where is the subtle homage in Beam's
> work which might suggest an effort on his part to emulate any
> such theme from Heinlein?
>
> In absence of any such evidence, why seek to colonize Beam's
> work with this foreign idea?
I
thought Heinlein's influence on Piper was very obvious. Certainly
many SF authors of Piper's era acknowledged Heinlein as "The Master of
Science Fiction". I don't know if Piper ever acknowledged Heinlein's
influence in writing. But Piper's /Four Day Planet/ reads to me like a
very overt, very obvious homage to Heinlein's juveniles.
When I
wrote "by extension, Piper's" (self-reliant man archetype) I didn't so
much mean that Piper had slavishly copied the idea from Heinlein, but
that Heinlein popularized the use of this archetype in SF stories. I
think what SF fans *mean* when they refer to "the
self-reliant man"
comes mainly from Heinlein. I think there's room for debate on how
much Piper using the same archetype was Piper's own personal
philosophy, and how much of it was Piper following the trend set by
John W. Campbell and Robert Heinlein.
I'd be interested to hear
from others on this subject. I believe I'm expressing the opinion of
the majority of fans who have read both Heinlein and Piper, but I could
be mistaken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Jay P. Hailey
04-07-2009
23:32 UT
|
> I still have a few of the idea pads. Beam and my father
> wrote in
> different color ink so the other could see corrections,
> suggestions, ideas, etc.
> Terry McGuire (John J McGuire's daughter)
Neat! Thank you for sharing this with us.
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
Gilmoure
04-07-2009
15:35 UT
|
Ah, totally understand. Hope will be long time before they're made available.
Gilmoure
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:24 AM, QT - Terry M <
qtopic-42-tnfVKeAH3s4T@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Terry M
04-07-2009
15:24 UT
|
My Mother has asked me not to make them public till after her death.
Then the originals will be donated to Shippensburg College (my father's
alma mater) After, of course, I give copies to John Carr.
Terry
----- Original Message -----
> Any chance these outlines and work notes will be published?
> Thanks!
>
> Gilmoure
|
| |
Spam messages 183-182 deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 02:16 AM |
|
Terry M
04-07-2009
14:14 UT
|
When Beam and my father wrote:
1. Story outlined chapter by chapter.
2. Main Characters outlined and all basic information outlined, including physical characteristics.
3. Extensive research with professionals in certain fields. Many letters to people in the rocket science world.
4. A doctor and an engineer friend sat in on their circle to bat around possible medical and engineering ideas.
I
still have a few of the idea pads. Beam and my father wrote in
different color ink so the other could see corrections, suggestions,
ideas, etc.
Terry McGuire (John J McGuire's daughter)
> I don't know about Piper's writing style. some are outliners.
> Some are discovery writers.
> Some like extensive background and very carefully thought out
> detail. Some just let their subconscious run and see what
> happens.
Apparently he
> wrote lots of notes and worked out the details carefully.
> Did he do this for *characters*? Were there, are there notes
> about the life and times of Jack Holloway?
> Was he as detailed about his characters as he was about his
> worlds and his political institutions?
>
|
|
Jay P. Hailey
04-07-2009
14:04 UT
|
> This gets to the heart of my disquiet over attempts to
> shoehorn
> Beam's work into the foreign concept of
> "self-reliance." Doing
> so is not merely a descriptive enterprise but also an
> attempt
> to attribute a particular _ideological_ perspective or
> belief
> to Beam's
> characters--and, by "extension," to Beam himself.
Thank
you. Piper was writing *stories*. Although I think it may be fair to
say he was talking some of his ideas about history and human nature in
those stories, I think it's a mistake to view anyone's fiction as a
road map of their ideology.
The reason - some times you make up imaginary people and sometimes the imaginary people take on lives of their own.
I don't know about Piper's writing style. some are outliners. Some are discovery writers.
Some
like extensive background and very carefully thought out detail. Some
just let their subconscious run and see what happens.
As I was writing this, an interesting question came to mind...
We know that Piper was a superb world builder, Apparently he wrote lots of notes and worked out the details carefully.
Did he do this for *characters*? Were there, are there notes about the life and times of Jack Holloway?
Was he as detailed about his characters as he was about his worlds and his political institutions?
Anyway
- When you make up a character, you're imagining someone different
from you. You imagine a different history and different experiences and
try to put your self into the shoes of someone who has been in
different places.
When you can do this well, you can believably write some one whose point of view is radically different from yours.
When
I make up a story or a role playing game scenario, I like to be able
to picture the antagonist in such a way as I can believe he feels that
way. I dislike straw-man ideological and physical antagonists.
So I
may well write about man who earnestly believes something I don't. If I
am doing it well, you should be able to believe that the character
feels that way and believes that way, even though I don't.
if that's
all you have left of my thought process, how could you tell what was
me actually expressing beliefs and me drawing a character for some story
driven point or other?
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
Jack Russell
04-07-2009
14:04 UT
|
If it is that important, I'll go with my proper name. But please, no
"Werewolf by Night" or terrier jokes. And people wonder why I use a
pseudonym.
I like John's assessment of self-reliant. As I said
before, nobody exists in a vacuum. The ability to get things done
without agonizing over what everybody else will think, like a
committee, says it all. And it is impossible to be totally self
reliant at all times, unless you plan on living like Robinson Crusoe,
and I would rather be stuck in a committee than on an island alone.
Jack
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 07:16
|
|
David Johnson
04-07-2009
06:17 UT
|
~
John F. Carr wrote:
> This argument is getting ridiculous. Did Beam have an ideal
> protagonist, a self-reliant man? Yes, of course, he did. He
> even describes him in "Oomphel in the Sky:" "...a person who
> actually knows what has to be done and how to do it, without
> holding a dozen conferences and round-table discussion and
> giving everybody a fair and equal chance to foul things up for
> him." There it is, his definition in a nut shell. Many of
> Beam's characters live by that credo.
I
agree this is a great description of Beam's ideal protagonist yet it
doesn't include many of the aspects of "self-reliant" offered by
others in this discussion so far. (In particular, it foregoes the
ideological undertones of "self-reliant" which have been suggested by
some folks.) The problem, as I see it, is that the term "self-
reliant"
is a sort of short-hand that, unfortunately, means different things
to different people--even among those who are comfortable using the
term.
I believe we're better off doing as you have done, John:
sticking to the work itself, using Beam's words and concepts as much
as possible to describe Beam's ideas.
Thanks,
David
--
"And
when somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him
he's crazy. Ask him what he means." - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper),
_Space_Viking_
|
|
David Johnson
04-07-2009
05:52 UT
|
~
Jack "Holloway" Russell wrote:
> The "Lensman" objects to my nom de voyage? Can you say kettle?
Now _that_ was funny!
Still, it raises an important point. I must confess I am
uncomfortable
with the use of aliases here, in large part because I think such
practices puts us more at risk of discourteous behavior-- something I'm
committed to preventing. (It's easier to be unpleasant when you
believe no one knows who you are.) This has from time to time
troubled me so that I've toyed with the idea of prohibiting the use of
pseudonyms and aliases here--and requiring sign-in in order to post
in order to enforce it. (You will recall that those of you who were
initially invited to join this reincarnated List were also asked to
introduce yourselves, though few actually did so.)
On further
reflection though it occurs to me such provisions would be impossible
to enforce--how can anyone know if one of us uses a
pseudonym that
is "ordinary"? Still, I think it would behoove us to strive for
authenticity here. We are, after all, a very special sort of
community. No one has gone by a pseudonym when we've sat around the
table for breakfast at the Pancake House in State College during the
Irregulars' Muster nor used an alias as we've scrambled over the talus
to get a better look at that small cliff where Calvin Morrison sat
and considered his fate after his transposition to Hostigos. So why
should we do so here?
Let me ask all of you, in the spirit of our
shared appreciation for H. Beam Piper, to forego the pseudonyms and
aliases here and instead simply be yourself, as you would be if we
were scrunched three-across in the back-seat of some fellow Piper
fan's car while meandering along the streets and alleyways of Hostigos
Town.
Be well,
David "Piperfan" Johnson
--
"Would
it have hurt us, I wonder, just to have gathered a few laurel leaves?"
- Captain Kirk, _Star_Trek_, "Who Mourns for Adonais?"
~
|
|
Otherwhen@aol.com
04-07-2009
05:45 UT
|
PIPER'S SELF-RELIANT MAN
This argument is getting
ridiculous. Did Beam have an ideal protagonist, a self-reliant man?
Yes, of course, he did. He even describes him in "Oomphel in the
Sky:" "...a person who actually knows what has to be done and how to
do it, without holding a dozen conferences and round-table discussion
and giving everybody a fair and equal chance to foul things up for
him." There it is, his definition in a nut shell. Many of Beam's
characters live by that credo.
Was Piper a self-reliant
man? Sometimes, yes. Sometime, no. It was an ideal he tried to live
up to. Beam had his quirks and deficiencies, like spending too much
to keep up appearances. Still, all in all, he lived by his code and
when he couldn't: he went out sideways, instead of being a burden on
friends or the state.
John F. Carr
Where does this concept of _Piper's_ "Self Reliant Man" come
from? I must confess I've never seen it in anything which
survives from Beam himself, nor any obvious indication of such a concept in any of his work.
David
|
|
David Johnson
04-07-2009
05:27 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
>>> But I *am* saying they don't see charity as an unlimited thing--
>>> they don't agree with the socialist ideal that wealth should be
>>> redistributed equally to everyone.
>>
>> So, basically, "self-reliant" means someone who believes in charity
>> but not in any government-backed redistribution? I suppose that may
>> be, but I don't see how this has much relevance to Piper's fiction.
>> Piper was content to have his characters criticize "socialists"
>> outright.
>
> Perhaps the difference is best illustrated in the saying "Give a
> man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you
> feed him for a lifetime." Or, as the self-reliant man would put
> it, "...he feeds *himself* for a lifetime."
This
gets to the heart of my disquiet over attempts to shoehorn Beam's
work into the foreign concept of "self-reliance." Doing so is not
merely a descriptive enterprise but also an attempt to attribute a
particular _ideological_ perspective or belief to Beam's
characters--and,
by "extension," to Beam himself. Yet no obvious evidence for this
sort of ideological characterization exists in Beam's work or
commentary. Rather, the concept is forced upon Beam (and us) by those
who hold this particular political orientation.
As Piper fans, we
are all free to hold whatever political views we choose, but I don't
believe it's accurate--nor appropriate--to
attempt to expropriate
Beam's own political identity through ill- considered efforts to "find"
our subjective political views in his work.
David
--
"I hope I've made the point, without over-making it, that the
proletariat aren't good and virtuous, only stupid, weak and
incompetent." - H. Beam Piper (on "A Slave is a Slave")
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-07-2009
05:12 UT
|
~
Glenn "Gilmoure" Amspaugh wrote:
> . . . a really good example of Piper's Self Reliant Man.
Where
does this concept of _Piper's_ "Self Reliant Man" come from? I must
confess I've never seen it in anything which survives from Beam
himself, nor any obvious indication of such a concept in any of his
work.
David
--
"You know, it's never a mistake to take a
second look at anything that everybody believes." - Rodney Maxwell (H.
Beam Piper),
"Graveyard of Dreams"
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-07-2009
04:53 UT
|
~
Someone called "Ben2K" wrote:
> My impression of Piper is that his characters are better described as
> people who see an unacceptable situation, and move to change the
> circumstances and improve their lives. If a planet or three gets
> dragged into their improvements, so be it. The emphasis is less on
> self-reliance than on the motivation and drive to accomplish
> tasks.
This seems a more useful description than an imported short-hand for an idea found in the works of some other author.
> Piper's image of himself seemed to require self-reliance,
That's
not the lesson I'm left with after reading John's biography. This
may have been something like the image Beam attempted to project to
others but it doesn't describe the actual choices he made in his life
himself. On many occasions Beam's misfortunes were more the result of
poor judgment than due to any sort of prideful desire not to ask
others for help. Take, for example, the way he would often splurge
the bulk of the proceeds of a manuscript sale despite the fact that he
had been in dire financial straits up until the moment the check
arrived in the mail. . . .
> but I think it is more accurate to describe his characters a "Men
> with a
> mission", even if they don't start that way.
I
agree something like "possessed of a sense of determination" is a
better description of many of Beam's protagonists. It also has the
advantage of being purely descriptive, thereby lacking the
attribution of a particular political orientation which is subtly embedded in the term "self-reliant."
David
--
"_Space_Viking_
itself is . . . a yarn that will be cited, years hence, as one of the
science-fiction classics. It's got solid
philosophy for the
mature thinker, and bang-bang-chop-'em-up action for the space-pirate
fans. As a truly good yarn should have!" - John W. Campbell, 1962
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-07-2009
04:44 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
> Is the concept of Heinlein's (and by extension, Piper's)
> "self-reliant man" really something over which there is
> confusion?
What
confuses me is this "by extension, Piper's" part. On what grounds
does one make such an "extension"? Where is the citation from Piper
indicating that he had any such "extension" in mind? (It certainly
never appears in John's biography, for example.) Where is the subtle
homage in Beam's work which might suggest an effort on his part to
emulate any such theme from Heinlein?
In absence of any such evidence, why seek to colonize Beam's work with this foreign idea?
David
--
"Heinlein can do what he likes. I prefer to keep my heroine
_virgo_intacto_ until the end." - H. Beam Piper
~
|
|
Jack Holloway
04-06-2009
19:19 UT
|
Well, I don't mind, and I don't see a cause for confusion, though I
think of myself as somewhat self-reliant. But any discussion of "Jack
Holloway" will have a context, and since I've never been off-planet or
worked with diminutive hirsute aborigines, I don't picture myself as
being confused with the fictional character. My real name of Jack
Russell has often been a source of chagrin as I am often compared to a
comic-book character of the same name, not to mention the breed of dog.
For a while it was cool, and I even went by "Wolf" or "Wolfman" in
posts, but after a while the novelty wears thin. Since Holloway and I
share a first name, I just nabbed it as a screen name. It never
occurred to me that it would be a source of contention.
Jack
Not the fictional character.
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Lensman
04-06-2009
19:01 UT
|
The post-er calling himself "Jack Holloway" wrote:
> The "Lensman" objects to my nom de voyage? Can you say kettle?
>
> Jack
"Jack",
if you look back thru the posts you'll see I'm not the only one who
thinks your screen name is confusing. The problem is, we talk about
Jack Holloway as a *character*, and if you ID yourself with the same
name it will create confusion over whether we mean the character, or
you.
Regarding my own pseudonym, I'd go by my real name David Sooby,
except that-- as on most lists-- there are already too many Davids, so
again it's confusing. I don't think "Lensman" creates confusion
here-- this is not an E.E. Smith discussion list. And if we did talk
about a /Lensman/ universe character, it would be Kinnison or Worsel or
whoever, it wouldn't be someone identified only as "Lensman".
But if I've given offense, then I apologize.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Jack Holloway
04-06-2009
18:26 UT
|
The "Lensman" objects to my nom de voyage? Can you say kettle?
Jack
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Lensman
04-06-2009
18:09 UT
|
The post-er who confusingly identifies himself as "Jack Holloway" wrote:
> Actually, the non-humans are fairly self reliant until "Big
> Brother" terrans come in and muck with their culture. In
> Naudsance the aliens were managing pretty well for themselves
> until they got addicted to the noise the terran equipment was
> producing. Fuzzies got by for "steen-thousand" years before
> Jack Holloway showed up. Granted, they were headed for
> extinction, but then so are we, it can be argued. Even the
> Yggrasil Khooghras managed for themselves, if not very well by
> our standards. For that matter, is Lord Kalvan the only self
> reliant man in all of Hos-Hostigos? He could make fireseed
> without the Styphoni, something nobody else could do.
Well
said. We admire Piper's heroes not merely, or perhaps not even
mainly, for the fact that they're self-reliant. We admire them mainly
for what they *achieve*. But the fact that they manage to achieve their
goals while still largely remaining true to the ideal of self-reliance
makes their achievements all that much greater and more admirable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Jack Holloway
04-06-2009
17:54 UT
|
Actually, the non-humans are fairly self reliant until "Big Brother"
terrans come in and muck with their culture. In Naudsance the aliens
were managing pretty well for themselves until they got addicted to the
noise the terran equipment was producing. Fuzzies got by for
"steen-thousand" years before Jack Holloway showed up. Granted, they
were headed for extinction, but then so are we, it can be argued. Even
the Yggrasil Khooghras managed for themselves, if not very well by our
standards. For that matter, is Lord Kalvan the only self reliant man
in all of Hos-Hostigos? He could make fireseed without the Styphoni,
something nobody else could do.
Jack
|
|
Lensman
04-06-2009
17:37 UT
|
QT - David Johnson wrote:
>> If the non-humans were self-reliant, they wouldn't *need* the help
>> of the Terrans.
>
> This is the aspect of this term "self-reliant" that makes no sense to
> me. No Piper protagonists are "self-reliant" in this manner either--
> they all received "help" from others in their communities, it just
> comes at an earlier stage in their lives than those events we see in
> their respective yarns. Trask is sent to university on Excalibur.
> Morrison is trained by the Marine Corps. Holloway wasn't born a
> crack shot nor with a nose for sniffing out fossilized Zarathustran
> jellyfish.
David,
perhaps it would help if you were to think of Heinlein's and Piper's
protagonists not as "self-reliant men", but as characters who *aspire to
be* self-reliant men, and work toward that goal.
No one could
possibly be fully self-reliant his entire life. Every one of us is born
as a helpless infant, utterly dependent on others for even our most
basic needs. We can't even feed ourselves except at the level of
sucking on a nipple.
I've seen objections that Conn Maxwell can't be considered a
self-reliant
man because his community contributed to his education. But I see that
as merely the last phase of his training to *be* a self-reliant man, a
process that began when Conn could do no more than suck at his mother's
breast.
Even after "graduating" into self-reliance, the
self-reliant man may still occasionally "fall from grace" to the point
he's only "getting by with a little help from my friends". If he
develops a serious illness, or breaks both his legs, he's going to be
dependent upon others for awhile. During that period, we cannot
honestly describe such a person as a self-reliant man. Does that mean
suddenly he's a different person, or that he's any less worthy of
admiration? No. It just means that no one can live up to a high ideal
*all* the time.
> This is perhaps the main reason why this terms seems so useless to me
> as a term to describe any of Piper's characters. It requires that
> we only consider them during that snapshot of their lives we see in
> the specific work in which they appear, while ignoring the earlier
> life events which brought them to that point. It's Martha Dane
> "coming to life" just at the moment she stumbles upon the Martian
> periodic table. . . .
Okay.
So perhaps it would help if you consider that we admire Piper's heroes
not because they *are*, inherently, self-reliant men, but rather admire
them for the degree to which they achieve their own ideal of *becoming*
a self-reliant man.
If this doesn't work for you, then why don't
you propose an alternative description that explains just how Piper's
heroes are different from those around them, and why we find them
admirable? But "a man with a mission" isn't sufficient. Andray Dunnan
was "a man with a mission", too. A couple of "missions", but he's
very far from a man we admire!
>> as if it's something extraordinary that *any* group of non-humans
>> would be able to get along just fine without the helping hand of
>> the superior Terrans.
>
> Agreed, but this is Beam showing us the attitudes of his characters,
> not his authorial view. If we pay attention to how the non-humans
> _act_--as opposed to how they are _described_ by the Terrans--we get
> a very different picture.
Exactly!
Clearly the Svants were getting along just fine until the Terran
survey/contact team arrives. Indeed, it's not really clear that half
the Svants actually *did* show up the next day with thumbs
bandaged,
proving that they are too foolish or stupid to be trusted with sharp
objects. It may be that the narrator was just relating the general
attitude of the Terrans *toward* the Svants.
Likewise, the
Fuzzies really only *need* a number of titanium "salt licks" distributed
thruout their territory, and the areas they're expanding into. Despite
the patronizing attitude of Pappy Jack and the other Terrans, the
Fuzzies can get along perfectly well in the wild all by themselves, as
illustrated in /Fuzzies and Other People/. Of course, this was quite
obvious to anyone with a moment of thought; if the Fuzzies couldn't get
along without help from the Terrans, they'd have died out long before
the Terrans ever arrived on Zarathustra.
>> But I *am* saying they don't see charity as an unlimited thing--
>> they don't agree with the socialist ideal that wealth should be
>> redistributed equally to everyone.
>
> So, basically, "self-reliant" means someone who believes in charity
> but not in any government-backed redistribution? I suppose that may
> be, but I don't see how this has much relevance to Piper's fiction.
> Piper was content to have his characters criticize "socialists"
> outright.
Perhaps
the difference is best illustrated in the saying "Give a man a fish,
and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a
lifetime." Or, as the self-reliant man would put it, "...he feeds
*himself* for a lifetime." Note this is the same thing as educating
someone when they're young: It's helping them towards the goal of
self-reliance. It's not making them dependent upon you, like giving
someone a welfare check every month for the rest of their life.
>> Self-reliant people need help from others, too. But they try not
>> to put themselves in a situation where they are *dependent* on that
>> help.
>
> If this is the case, then why didn't Trask refuse to accept his
> education on Excalibur? (Or must we suppose he paid for it himself
> with student loans or something?)
Trask
most definitely did *not* start out the story as the ideal Piper hero.
He was born into wealth and was clearly callous about the fact that
much of that wealth came from killing and robbing many others of their
rightful possessions. Trask was "the man who learned better" over the
course of the story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Gilmoure
04-06-2009
16:14 UT
|
Now that I think about it, Conn Maxwell and his father seem a really
good example of Piper's Self Reliant Man. The entire planet seemed to be
waiting for better days to return, without really doing anything about
it themselves. Except for Blacky Pearl. He also had a plan. I guess
Cosmic Computer provides a good contrast between the self reliant 'might
makes right' man vs the self reliant 'healthy community is good for me'
man. G
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:06 AM, QT - Lensman <
qtopic-42-tnfVKeAH3s4T@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Lensman
04-06-2009
16:06 UT
|
Ben2K wrote:
> Heinlein's "self reliant" man is defined by Lazurus Long as "... able
> to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship,
> design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall,
> set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
> act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
> program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
> gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Correction:
That's what Heinlein wrote that a *human being* should be able to do.
And at the risk of contradicting the Master of Science Fiction, I think
very few people will be able to do a good job of both planning an
invasion and programming a computer. Perhaps back in the days when
"programming a computer" mean flipping bit switches, this might have
been true. These days, it's a highly specialized skill. And so is, and
was, planning an invasion. That's not for amateurs; a poor job is
going to get a lot more people killed than necessary.
Certainly being able to handle a wide variety of tasks is *part* of being a self-reliant man. But it's far from the totality.
> There is nothing about being a leader, or responsibility to the
> community, although many of Heinlein's characters are (or become)
> leaders, and always display some degree of social responsibility.
Responsibility
and leadership are two very different things. The self-reliant man is
more likely to act independently than to act as a "leader". If he's a
leader, it's more likely that this occurs because others see him doing
the "right thing" and decide to follow along. Not because he's
persuaded others to help carry out his plan.
And I don't at all
agree that there's nothing about responsibility to the community in the
"self-reliant man". Heinlein's characters may *talk* anarchy and
preach that no man should be responsible for another, but actions speak
louder than words-- and by their actions, they *do* support the larger
community.
Look at it this way: If Heinlein's ideal of the
"self-reliant man" was only about taking care of oneself, and not about
responsibility to the community at large, then the "self-reliant man"
would be entirely selfish-- likely to live by the credo of "Might makes
right", the philosophy of a thug or a criminal gang.
> FWIW, Heinlein's own political adventures were dismal failures.
The
"self-reliant man" is an ideal. As with most ideals, few people live
up to it completely, or at all times. And in general, we're talking
about idealized fictional heroes, not real people.
> My impression of Piper is that his characters are better described as
> people who see an unacceptable situation, and move to change the
> circumstances and improve their lives. If a planet or three gets
> dragged into their improvements, so be it. The emphasis is less on
> self-reliance than on the motivation and drive to accomplish tasks.
> Piper's image of himself seemed to require self-reliance, but I think
> it is more accurate to describe his characters a "Men with a
> mission", even if they don't start that way.
Most
people with a "mission" go about it by trying to convince others to go
along with their plan. Heinlein's self-reliant man does it largely
thru his own resources.
The difference is neither unimportant nor subtle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-06-2009
13:53 UT
|
~
Lensman wrote:
>> Can it be that we have "self-reliant men" helping "self-reliant non-
>> humans"? If so, what does "self-reliant" mean in this context?
>
> If the non-humans were self-reliant, they wouldn't *need* the
> help of the Terrans.
This
is the aspect of this term "self-reliant" that makes no sense to me.
No Piper protagonists are "self-reliant" in this manner either-- they
all received "help" from others in their communities, it just comes at
an earlier stage in their lives than those events we see in their
respective yarns. Trask is sent to university on Excalibur. Morrison
is trained by the Marine Corps. Holloway wasn't born a crack shot
nor with a nose for sniffing out fossilized Zarathustran jellyfish.
This
is perhaps the main reason why this terms seems so useless to me as a
term to describe any of Piper's characters. It requires that we only
consider them during that snapshot of their lives we see in the
specific work in which they appear, while ignoring the earlier life
events which brought them to that point. It's Martha Dane "coming to
life" just at the moment she stumbles upon the Martian periodic table.
. . .
> In fact, I can think of only one group of non-humans in the
> entire THFH series which is presented as *not* needing the help
> of Terrans: The Kragans of Uller.
As
races, yes. But individuals such as Hesto, Gilbert's driver, are not
often not described as being in need of Terran "help."
> Even those are described in
> somewhat condescending terms, as if it's something extraordinary
> that *any* group of non-humans would be able to get along just
> fine without the helping hand of the superior Terrans.
Agreed,
but this is Beam showing us the attitudes of his characters, not his
authorial view. If we pay attention to how the non-humans _act_--as
opposed to how they are _described_ by the Terrans--we get a very
different picture.
> But I *am* saying they don't
> see charity as an unlimited thing-- they don't agree with the
> socialist ideal that wealth should be redistributed equally to
> everyone.
So,
basically, "self-reliant" means someone who believes in charity but
not in any government-backed redistribution? I suppose that may be,
but I don't see how this has much relevance to Piper's fiction. Piper
was content to have his characters criticize "socialists" outright.
> As I said, the self-reliant man is one who does
> not rely upon others to do what he can do himself. That doesn't
> mean any one person can possibly do everything. Self-reliant
> people need help from others, too. But they try not to put
> themselves in a situation where they are *dependent* on that
> help.
If
this is the case, then why didn't Trask refuse to accept his
education on Excalibur? (Or must we suppose he paid for it himself
with student loans or something?)
David
--
"And you know
what English is? The result of the efforts of Norman men-at-arms to
make dates with Saxon barmaids. . . ." - Victor Grego (H. Beam Piper),
_Fuzzy_Sapiens_
~
|
|
Jack Holloway
04-06-2009
02:19 UT
|
There is something to this, but also, Jack was their "friend". We all
want to find our way back to those we know and trust. Even Jack wanted
to find the Fuzzies. Is he less self-reliant simply because he likes
having them around and seeks to protect them? Lots of busy-body
do-gooders do the exact same thing for people they never met.
Jack
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Ben2K
04-06-2009
01:49 UT
|
Heinlein's "self reliant" man is defined by Lazurus Long as " ...
able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship,
design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a
bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly." The
point being that he is a generalist, flexible, and able to deal with
life's normal challenges. There is nothing about being a leader, or
responsibility to the community, although many of Heinlein's characters
are (or become) leaders, and always display some degree of social
responsibility. FWIW, Heinlein's own political adventures were dismal
failures. My impression of Piper is that his characters are
better described as people who see an unacceptable situation, and move
to change the circumstances and improve their lives. If a planet or
three gets dragged into their improvements, so be it. The emphasis is
less on self-reliance than on the motivation and drive to accomplish
tasks. Piper's image of himself seemed to require self-reliance, but I
think it is more accurate to describe his characters a "Men with a
mission", even if they don't start that way. Edited 04-06-2009 01:50
|
|
Lensman
04-05-2009
23:05 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
> So, in this context, "self-reliant" means pretty much the same thing
> as "responsible"? Would it be fair to say then that a "self-reliant
> man" is just someone who is a (perhaps unconventional or
> iconoclastic) responsible member of a community?
No,
it is not *just* being responsible. There could certainly be a
"responsible" teenager who nonetheless still lived with his parents and
was dependent upon them.
Is the concept of Heinlein's (and by
extension, Piper's) "self-reliant man" really something over which there
is confusion? Or are you just trying to "nail down" a detailed
definition of a somewhat nebulous ideal?
Let me try this: "The
self-reliant man is one who is responsible for himself, is largely
reliant upon his own resources, seeks to minimize his dependence upon
others as much as is practical, accepts
responsibilities for his own
actions, and acts as a responsible member of the larger community. He
does not allow himself to be bound by convention (or if the situation
is important enough, not even the law) if he finds it necessary to take
decisive action which benefits the larger community."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
22:24 UT
|
~
Lensman wrote:
>> help me to understand how the concept of a "self-reliant man,"
>> in the specific contexts we're supposed to find in Beam's work,
>> differs simply from the concept of a "man" (or "person"). Is
>> there a meaningful distinction we might draw here between,
>> say, Lucas Trask
>> and Andray Dunnan? Between Trask and Garvan Spasso?
>
> I don't recognize some of the others you mention,
Edvard
was crown prince of Marduk, the "bleeding heart" who agreed to be
prime minister when Makann was elected chancellor. Viktor was the
Space Viking ruler who eventually assisted Omfray of Glaspyth in his
assault on Angus of Gram.
> but at least
> for these, I think we can clearly draw three distinctions:
So,
in this context, "self-reliant" means pretty much the same thing as
"responsible"? Would it be fair to say then that a "self-reliant man"
is just someone who is a (perhaps unconventional or
iconoclastic) responsible member of a community?
David
--
"Our rulers are the barbarians among us. There isn't one of
them
. . . who is devoted to civilization or anything else outside
himself, and that's the mark of the barbarian." - Otto Harkaman (H.
Beam Piper), _Space_Viking_
~
|
|
Lensman
04-05-2009
22:16 UT
|
QT - David Johnson wrote:
> Lensman wrote:
>
>> The Fuzzies are presented as children, and thus unable to care for
>> themselves. The Fuzzies are *lovable*, as children are, but they
>> are not fully "free"-- as in "Freedom means taking responsibility
>> for your own actions."
>
> It's clear some characters _perceive_ Fuzzies in this manner but I
> don't believe it's accurate to say that Beam portrayed them this way.
> Here, for example, is Beam's portrayal of Little Fuzzy upon his
> abduction by the deputy marshals:
>
> "The others were near, in bags like the one in which he had been put;
> he could hear them, and called to them. Then he felt the edge of the
> little knife Pappy Jack had made. He could cut his way out of this
> bag now and free the others, but that would be no use. They were in
> one of the things the Big Ones went up into the sky in, and if he
> got out now, there would be nowhere to go and they would be caught at
> once. Better to wait.
>
> "The one thing that really worried him was that he would not know
> where they were being taken. When they did get away, how would they
> ever find Pappy Jack again?"
>
> This is hardly the thought process of a child or a being unilling to
> take responsibility for his own actions.
Why
is Little Fuzzy so "really worried" that they could never find Pappy
Jack again? Because he's become *dependent* on Pappy Jack.
Try
substituting the word "grown-ups" for "Big Ones", and "mommy" for "Pappy
Jack" in the above excerpt, and see if it doesn't work every bit as
well for expressing Little Fuzzy's state of mind.
As far as the
Fuzzies' perception of their own perception of dependence, or lack of
independence, we need look no farther than the very last paragraph of
/Little Fuzzy/:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And soon all the people would
find Big Ones to live with, who would take care of them and have fun
with them and love them, and give them the Wonderful Food. And with the
Big Ones taking care of them, maybe more of their babies would live and
not die so soon. And they would pay the Big Ones back. First they would
give their love and make them happy. Later, when they learned how, they
would give their help, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Sonny is likewise presented as less than an adult.
>
> Again, I think this is how Sonny is _perceived_ by other characters,
> not how he is _portrayed_ by Beam.
>
> Can it be that we have "self-reliant men" helping "self-reliant non-
> humans"? If so, what does "self-reliant" mean in this context?
If
the non-humans were self-reliant, they wouldn't *need* the help of the
Terrans. Are the natives in "Naudsonce" portrayed that way? I don't
think so.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give them presents and send them home, Paul."
"Sheath-knives; they'll have to be shown how sharp they are," he suggested.
[...]
The
natives started off toward the village [...] trying out their new
knives. This time tomorrow, half of them would have bandaged thumbs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, I can think of only one group of non-humans
in the entire THFH series which is presented as *not* needing the help
of Terrans: The Kragans of Uller. Even those are described in somewhat
condescending terms, as if it's something extraordinary that *any*
group of non-humans would be able to get along just fine without the
helping hand of the superior Terrans. The Kragans are, indeed, a
"credit to their race."
> Trask doesn't treat the Tanith "natives" with compassion out of any
> sense of responsibility but rather out of self-interest--it will make
> his conquest of their planet go more smoothly.
So
Trask tells himself, anyway. But note a bit earlier he had no
intention of building a base on Tanith. It's only after he sees the
plight of the natives that he decides to take over from the "chicken
thieves".
/Space Viking/ is in part about the moral journey of
Lucas Trask. Trask does not start out as a responsible member of the
interstellar
community. He was an aristocrat whose wealth is at
least partially built on the space vikings' banditry, robbing and
murdering on other planets, and taking the fruits of *others* labors.
Then Trask briefly turns to being a space viking himself. But he
doesn't like it; he's uncomfortable with it; and as soon as possible, he
gets out of that business and starts doing constructive things.
Did
Trask build the base on Tanith merely to benefit his own operations?
Well, that's one interpretation. My interpretation is that was his
rationalization for doing what in his heart he knew was the *right*
thing to do.
> And it seems simple altruism is what leads Roger-fan-Morvill
> Esthersan to give aid to the "natives" on Tetragrammaton who had been
> raided by Dunnan.
Likewise,
Jack Holloway's acceptance of the responsibility of running the Native
Affairs bureau on Zarathustra seems to be altruism. It certainly wasn't
something he aspired to! I'm not saying Piper's protagonists don't
believe in charity when there's a real *need* for it. But I *am*
saying they don't see charity as an unlimited thing-- they don't agree
with the socialist ideal that wealth should be redistributed equally to
everyone.
> Trask is also a member of a "team." (Where would he be without
> Harkaman's tutelage?
That's
right. As I said, the self-reliant man is one who does not rely upon
others to do what he can do himself. That doesn't mean any one person
can possibly do everything. Self-reliant people need help from others,
too. But they try not to put themselves in a situation where they are
*dependent* on that help. Trask needed help from an "older, wiser"
space viking to "show him the ropes". But Trask got the help he needed
in a responsible manner-- by *hiring* Harkaman to be his
executive
officer. Not by going around and begging for help, and not by using his
political influence to get himself assigned as a supernumerary officer
aboard a working space viking ship.
> Rathmore's political acumen? Valkanhayn's courage?) How would
> Holloway have prevailed against Victor Grego-- and the Chartered
> Zarathustra Company--without the assistance of Gerd van Riebeek and
> Gus Brannhard and Ben Rainsford (and Ruth Ortheris and her military
> colleagues)? Von Schlichten commands an entire military force which
> is loyal to him even when he supercedes the civilian authorities.
That's right. "Self-reliant" doesn't mean Omnipotent.
> "A girl can punch any kind of a button a man can, and a lot
> of them knew what buttons to punch, and why." - Conn Maxwell (H.
> Beam Piper), _The_Cosmic_Computer_
Yah.
A lot of them-- translation, only a minority of them-- are "a credit
to her sex." Not exactly up there with the gender equality of Asimov's
Susan Calvin.
But that's being unfair. Most of Piper's readers
or editors would not have expected or wanted a depiction of full gender
equality in the era in which these stories were published.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
22:11 UT
|
~
Gilmoure wrote:
> I think self reliant, in Piper's context at least, means someone
> who does not follow conventional wisdom, and, even though
> everyone says they're crazy to try, still goes and does it.
Like Andray Dunnan, then? Leonard Kellog? Anton Gerritt?
> Of
> course, they succeed, too. At least in Piper's worlds.
Perhaps
only in the short term though? The Maxwells and Merlin are
apparently unknown to the Old Federation peoples of the Viking era and
Trask and Tanith seem to be unknown to the people of the Empire era.
David
--
"You
know, it's never a mistake to take a second look at anything that
everybody believes." - Rodney Maxwell (H. Beam Piper),
"Graveyard of Dreams"
~
|
|
Lensman
04-05-2009
20:52 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
> help me to understand how the concept of a "self-reliant man," in
> the specific contexts we're supposed to find in Beam's work,
> differs simply from the concept of a "man" (or "person"). Is there a
> meaningful distinction we might draw here between, say, Lucas Trask
> and Andray Dunnan? Between Trask and Garvan Spasso?
I don't recognize some of the others you mention, but at least for these, I think we can clearly draw three distinctions:
1. The self-reliant man takes responsibility for himself.
2. The self-reliant man takes responsibility for his own actions.
3. The self-reliant man acts as a responsible member of the larger community.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
18:48 UT
|
~
Lensman wrote:
> The Fuzzies are presented as children, and thus unable to care
> for themselves. The Fuzzies are *lovable*, as children are, but
> they are not fully "free"-- as in "Freedom means taking
> responsibility for your own actions."
It's
clear some characters _perceive_ Fuzzies in this manner but I don't
believe it's accurate to say that Beam portrayed them this way. Here,
for example, is Beam's portrayal of Little Fuzzy upon his abduction
by the deputy marshals:
"The others were near, in bags like the
one in which he had been put; he could hear them, and called to them.
Then he felt the edge of the little knife Pappy Jack had made. He
could cut his way out of this bag now and free the others, but that
would be no use. They were in one of the things the Big Ones went up
into the sky in, and if he got out now, there would be nowhere to go
and they would be caught at once. Better to wait.
"The one
thing that really worried him was that he would not know where they
were being taken. When they did get away, how would they ever find
Pappy Jack again?"
This is hardly the thought process of a child or a being unilling to take responsibility for his own actions.
> Sonny is likewise
> presented as less than an adult.
Again, I think this is how Sonny is _perceived_ by other characters, not how he is _portrayed_ by Beam.
Can
it be that we have "self-reliant men" helping "self-reliant non-
humans"? If so, what does "self-reliant" mean in this context?
> There's certainly a strong streak of colonialism in Piper's
> works
[snip]
> The natives of
> Tanith and Uller are presented as being less than able to fully
> take care of themselves,
Actually,
I believe it's the _Terran_ locals on planets like Fenris and
Poictesme who are presented as subject colonials, moreso than the
non-human Ullerans or the Viking-era inhabitants of Tanith. The
people of Fenris and Poictesme are much more resigned to their
"dependent" status than are the Ullerans and the Tanith "barbarians."
> and thus it's the *responsibility* of
> their "betters" to help them. It's the same thing as treating
> the Fuzzies as children, just not quite as blatant.
Trask
doesn't treat the Tanith "natives" with compassion out of any sense
of responsibility but rather out of self-interest--it will make his
conquest of their planet go more smoothly. And it seems simple
altruism is what leads Roger-fan-Morvill Esthersan to give aid to the
"natives" on Tetragrammaton who had been raided by Dunnan.
>> Or even, for that matter, Hubert Penrose's subtle support for
>> Martha Dane in "Ominilingual"?
>
>
> Well, I think we can look at it in one of two ways:
>
> (1) Piper, like all good writers, is capable of writing a work
> with a different philosophy than that which underlies his usual
> writing style.
Actually,
I believe Dane is very much cut from the same mold as most of Beam's
other protagonists. It's just that we don't see the
assistance
that a Trask or a Holloway or Calvin Morrison gets from others because
it happens across a longer period of their lives. If "Omnilingual"
were to _begin_ the moment Dane stumbles upon that Martian periodic
table, her accomplishments would look every bit as "self-made" as do
Trask's or Holloway's or Morrison's. It's simply that we aren't shown
the corresponding "Penroses" who helped Trask and Holloway and
Morrison earlier in their lives, thereby giving them the wherewithal
to accomplish the specific things they do in their respective yarns.
> Note that most of Piper's works concern people
> in a frontier or colonial setting: The frontier areas of
> Zarathustra, the colonial setting of Uller, the "wild west"
> analog of /Lone Star Planet/. These are precisely the settings
> in which the "self-reliant man" is most needed, most valued.
> Contrariwise, "Omnilingual" concerned a *team* of
> archaeologists investigating a long-uninhabited site. Here
> there's no frontier hardship, no external threat, no natives to
> deal with.
> Cooperating with the team is what's valued in this setting, not
> "rugged individualism".
Trask
is also a member of a "team." (Where would he be without Harkaman's
tutelage? Rathmore's political acumen? Valkanhayn's courage?) How
would Holloway have prevailed against Victor Grego-- and the Chartered
Zarathustra Company--without the assistance of Gerd van Riebeek and
Gus Brannhard and Ben Rainsford (and Ruth Ortheris and her military
colleagues)? Von Schlichten commands an entire military force which
is loyal to him even when he supercedes the civilian authorities.
_Lone_Star_Planet_
is an interesting contrast; like "Moron" and _Null- ABC_, this yarn
was co-authored with McGuire. I suspect it's mostly McGuire who is
the true source of the most "rugged" (I would describe it as
"virulent") individualism we find in "Piper's" work.
> (2) Sexism. "Omnilingual" may be Piper's only work with a woman
> as the primary protagonist. (At least off the top of my head,
> I can't think of another.)
>
> Naturally I prefer the first interpretation, but perhaps there's
> some truth to the second, too.
I
don't think so. Dane is a pretty progressive character given the era
and venue in which she was published. (In fact, I think Beam
demonstrates a pretty intentional and consistent progression in the
role of women over the course of his Future History, from their
exanding roles in the early Federation era, to retrenchment in the
later Federation era, and finally back to "medievalist" submission in
the Viking and Empire eras.)
David
--
"A girl can punch any
kind of a button a man can, and a lot of them knew what buttons to
punch, and why." - Conn Maxwell (H. Beam Piper), _The_Cosmic_Computer_
~
|
|
Gilmoure
04-05-2009
18:15 UT
|
I think self reliant, in Piper's context at least, means someone who
does not follow conventional wisdom, and, even though everyone says
they're crazy to try, still goes and does it. Of course, they succeed,
too. At least in Piper's worlds.
G
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, QT - David Johnson <
qtopic-42-tnfVKeAH3s4T@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
17:46 UT
|
~
Someone masquerading as "Jack Holloway" wrote:
> Self reliant does not mean "lives in a vacuum." Jack Holloway
> was a self reliant man, but he still bought ammunition from the
> CZC. He didn't go out into the forest and build a home and
> contra-gravity vehicle from scratch.
If
this is the case, then help me to understand how the concept of a
"self-reliant man," in the specific contexts we're supposed to find in
Beam's work, differs simply from the concept of a "man" (or
"person").
Is there a meaningful distinction we might draw here between, say,
Lucas Trask and Andray Dunnan? Between Trask and Garvan Spasso?
Between Trask and Edvard of Cragdale? Trask and Viktor of Xochitl?
Or between Jack Holloway and Leonard Kellog? Between Martha Dane and
Tony Lattimer? How 'bout between Miles Gilbert and Edith Shaw (before
her odyssey on the _Hesperus_).
David
--
"John Campbell . . . is almost as big a fascist sonofabitch as I am. . . ." - H. Beam Piper
~
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 07:16
|
|
Lensman
04-05-2009
17:02 UT
|
Post-er "Jack Holloway" wrote:
> Self reliant does not mean "lives in a vacuum." Jack Holloway
> was a self reliant man, but he still bought ammunition from the
> CZC. He didn't go out into the forest and build a home and
> contra-gravity vehicle from scratch.
Exactly.
Heinlein's "self-reliant man" protagonist-- and equally Piper's-- is
not a hermit, is not someone who does *everything* himself; rather,
he's someone who is not *dependent* on anyone else, and who never
relies on someone else to do what he could do himself.
Frex if
the CZC stopped selling ammunition, Jack Holloway wouldn't let that
stop him from carrying on with his frontier lifestyle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-05-2009
16:44 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
>> Seems very much in keeping with Piper's philosophy to me. The
>> older, wiser man is advising the younger, slightly foolish man
>> *against* being too eager to help the underdog. He's certainly
>> not *encouraging* him to help the underdog.
>
> And yet, we have many examples of Beam's characters doing just this.
> Holloway on Zarathustra. Gilbert on Kwannon. Trask on Tanith--and on
> Khepera, and Amaterasu, and Beowulf (and don't forget Roger-fan-
> Morvill Esthersan on Tetragrammaton). Mark Howell on Svantovit.
>
> Indeed, no small part of what makes many of Beam's characters
> admirable is the subtle way in which he demonstrates their compassion
> for the less fortunate.
I
don't see this as a contradiction, but rather that it's not such a
simplistic attitude. Piper's attitude is the colonial one: "It's our
*duty* to help the poor backwards natives (while enriching ourselves, of
course), but you can't *trust* the ungrateful aborigines/geeks/[insert
ethnic slur here]." This is very much the attitude of /Uller Uprising/
and "A Slave Is a Slave" and "Oomphel in the Sky".
And Piper was entirely aware of this aspect of his own writings:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Now
it comes out," Travis said. "We won't be the lordly Terrans, any more,
helping the poor benighted Kwanns out of the goodness of our hearts,
scattering largess, bearing the Terran's Burden--new model, a give-away
instead of a gun. Now /they'll/ pity /us/; they'll think /we're/
inferior beings."
"I don't think the natives are inferior beings!" She was almost in tears.
"If you don't, why did you come all the way to Kwannon to try to make them more like Terrans?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
--"Oomphel in the Sky", /Federation/ p. 170
Are
there exceptions to the "Terran's Burden" attitude of most of Piper's
protagonists? Well, I can think of one: The Kragans. Ullerans who are
presented as having a culture which rejects superstition and has made
scientific advancements /on its own/-- with no help from the Terrans.
In other words, a self-reliant native culture! But Piper presents this
as very much the exception.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
04-05-2009
16:12 UT
|
David Johnson wrote:
> Lensman wrote:
>
>> Piper's philosophy celebrated the "self-reliant man", someone who
>> wouldn't *need* the help from his "betters".
>
> How do we explain, say, Sonny's help from the Terrans in "Naudsonce"
> in this context? How about Trask's assistance to the Tanith natives?
> Jack Holloway's efforts on behalf of Fuzzies?
The
Fuzzies are presented as children, and thus unable to care for
themselves. The Fuzzies are *lovable*, as children are, but they are
not fully "free"-- as in "Freedom means taking responsibility for your
own actions." Sonny is likewise presented as less than an adult.
There's
certainly a strong streak of colonialism in Piper's works, of
"Earthman's Burden" to quote an ironic Poul Anderson & Gordon
Dickson title (which reads as if it might be a parody of /Little
Fuzzy/, but was published earlier). The natives of Tanith and Uller
are presented as being less than able to fully take care of themselves,
and thus it's the *responsibility* of their "betters" to help them.
It's the same thing as treating the Fuzzies as children, just not quite
as blatant.
> Or even, for that matter, Hubert Penrose's subtle support for Martha
> Dane in "Ominilingual"?
Well, I think we can look at it in one of two ways:
(1)
Piper, like all good writers, is capable of writing a work with a
different philosophy than that which underlies his usual writing style.
Note that most of Piper's works concern people in a frontier or
colonial setting: The frontier areas of Zarathustra, the colonial
setting of Uller, the "wild west" analog of /Lone Star Planet/. These
are precisely the settings in which the "self-reliant man" is most
needed, most valued. Contrariwise, "Omnilingual" concerned a *team* of
archaeologists investigating a long-uninhabited site. Here there's no
frontier hardship, no external threat, no natives to deal with.
Cooperating
with the team is what's valued in this setting, not "rugged
individualism". Note the villain of the piece is the team member who's
not really cooperating-- he's *competing* by trying to grab the credit
and glory for himself.
(2) Sexism. "Omnilingual" may be Piper's
only work with a woman as the primary protagonist. (At least off the
top of my head, I can't think of another.)
Naturally I prefer the first interpretation, but perhaps there's some truth to the second, too.
>> The self-reliant man does not perceive that anyone *is* his better!
>
> I think this quality is quite common among Piper's protagonists, but
> then gets mistakenly conflated with Heinleinish "self-reliance."
Interesting. What differences do you see between Heinlein's
"self-reliant man" and most of Piper's protagonists?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Gilmoure
04-05-2009
15:42 UT
|
Also, self reliant doesn't mean obligated only to their selves. Both
Heinlein and Piper recognized the obligation to civilization and
society. In fact, I'd put that down as an aspect of the self reliant
person; someone who does think and act beyond themselves for the
greater good, in spite of society's attempts to drag them down in to
mediocrity. Civilization's an insane 2 year old and someone has to
push it up the hill. Or something like that.
Gilmoure
On Apr 5, 2009, at 8:33 AM, QT - Jack Holloway wrote:
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Jack Holloway
04-05-2009
15:33 UT
|
Self reliant does not mean "lives in a vacuum." Jack Holloway was a
self reliant man, but he still bought ammunition from the CZC. He
didn't go out into the forest and build a home and contra-gravity
vehicle from scratch.
Jack
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
15:25 UT
|
~
Lensman wrote:
> Seems very much in keeping with Piper's philosophy to me. The
> older, wiser man is advising the younger, slightly foolish man
> *against* being too eager to help the underdog. He's certainly
> not *encouraging* him to help the underdog.
And
yet, we have many examples of Beam's characters doing just this.
Holloway on Zarathustra. Gilbert on Kwannon. Trask on Tanith--and on
Khepera, and Amaterasu, and Beowulf (and don't forget Roger-fan-
Morvill Esthersan on Tetragrammaton). Mark Howell on Svantovit.
Indeed, no small part of what makes many of Beam's characters
admirable is the subtle way in which he demonstrates their compassion for the less fortunate.
Death to the Masters!
David
--
"I mean, I know this world needs help. That's why some of my
generation are . . . kind of crazy and rebels, you know?" - Roberta Lincoln (Terri Garr), _Star_Trek_, "Assignment: Earth"
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
15:14 UT
|
~
Ben2K wrote:
> FWIW, a copy of the story, as well as most (all??) of
> Piper's work
> can be found at the Gutenberg Project.
I
was going to suggest a perusal of the Gutenberg works but was pleased
that Jon managed to find it in a hardcopy of _Empire_ first. ;)
One
of my many "blue sky" Piper projects is to put all of Beam's works at
Gutenberg into a single, searchable text file which would make it
very simple to find these sorts of things.
Death to the Masters!
David
--
"Do
you know which books to study, and which ones not to bother with? Or
which ones to read first, so that what you read in the others will be
comprehensible to you? That's what they'll give you [at
university] on Terra. The tools, which you don't have now, for
educating yourself." - Bish Ware (H. Beam Piper), _Four-Day_Planet_ ~
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
15:11 UT
|
~
Jon Crocker wrote:
> This does sound a bit off from Piper's usual theme of
> self-reliance. I wonder, was he just keeping the 'mood' of the
> piece intact - or had he had a crummy week when he wrote it?
"Slave"
is an ugly piece of fiction, if you think about it; there really are
no admirable characters in the story. Still, this sort of contempt
for the "unwashed masses" can be found in other bits of Beam's work,
mostly when he was collaborating with McGuire (e.g. "Day of the Moron"
or _Null-ABC_), but it's there even in yarns like _Space_Viking_.
This sentiment is also what leads Miles Gilbert and the young Foxx
Travis to have such initial contempt for Edith Shaw-- and her
"sociialst" compatriots back on Terra--and is in essence at the heart
of the "enlightenment" Paula Quinton experiences during the "geek"
uprising on Uller.
Death to the Masters!
David
P.S. Nice bit of detective work finding the original quote!
--
"Doctor,
these people are healthy and they are happy. Whatever you choose to
call it, this system works despite your emotional reaction to it." -
Mr. Spock, _Star_Trek_, "The Apple"
~
|
|
David Johnson
04-05-2009
14:57 UT
|
~
Lensman wrote:
> Piper's philosophy celebrated the "self-reliant
> man", someone who wouldn't *need* the help from his "betters".
How
do we explain, say, Sonny's help from the Terrans in "Naudsonce" in
this context? How about Trask's assistance to the Tanith
natives?
Jack Holloway's efforts on behalf of Fuzzies? Or even, for that
matter, Hubert Penrose's subtle support for Martha Dane in
"Ominilingual"?
> The self-reliant man does not perceive that anyone *is* his
> better!
I
think this quality is quite common among Piper's protagonists, but
then gets mistakenly conflated with Heinleinish "self-reliance."
> But certainly Piper has "underdog" characters. Kalvan may be
> Lord in Hostigos, but the little princedom, or later kingdom,
> he's running or helping to run is certainly the underdog in
> comparison to its enemies!
Agreed.
Trask in the early days of his conquest of Tanith is in a similar
position, but the point is Piper doesn't _portray_ these characters as
"underdogs," largely because they all share the belief in their own
self-worth that you've mentioned above.
Remember Ashmodai! Remember Belphegor!
David
--
"Heinlein can do what he likes. I prefer to keep my heroine
_virgo_intacto_ until the end." - H. Beam Piper
|
|
Ben2K
04-05-2009
07:28 UT
|
Having found the quote, just for fun I made up this sticker. Edited 04-05-2009 07:28
|
|
Lensman
04-04-2009
23:05 UT
|
Jon Crocker wrote:
> Hey, I found it!
Well done!
> "And, of course, their exploiters were a lot of heartless
> villians, so that made the slaves good and virtuous innocents.
> That was your real, fundamental, mistake. You know, Obray, the
> downtrodden and long-suffering proletariat aren't at all good or
> innocent or virtuous. They are just incompetent; they lack the
> abilities necessary for overt villany. You saw, this afternoon,
> what they were capable of doing when they were given an
> opportunity. You know, it's quite all right to give the
> underdog a hand, but only one hand. Keep the other hand on your
> pistol - or he'll try to eat the one you gave him! As you may
> have noticed, today, when underdogs get up, they tend to act
> like wolves."
Seems
very much in keeping with Piper's philosophy to me. The older, wiser
man is advising the younger, slightly foolish man *against* being too
eager to help the underdog. He's certainly not *encouraging* him to
help the underdog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Ben2K
04-04-2009
22:40 UT
|
Thank you!! My memory of the wording was a bit off, but I knew there was something like that. FWIW, a copy of the story, as well as most (all??) of Piper's work can be found at the Gutenberg Project. A Slave is a Slave can be found here. Apparently the copyrights have expired. Edited 04-04-2009 22:42
|
Jon Crocker  04-04-2009
19:02 UT
|
Hey, I found it!
It's from "A Slave is a Slave", a page or so
from the end where the experienced Jurgen, Prince Trevannion is
explaining the wicked ways of the galaxy to the young idealist Obray,
Count Erskyll, after the former head slaves of Aditya wipe out the Lords
Master and their families. Here's the whole, pithy paragraph:
"And,
of course, their exploiters were a lot of heartless villians, so that
made the slaves good and virtuous innocents. That was your real,
fundamental, mistake. You know, Obray, the downtrodden and
long-suffering proletariat aren't at all good or innocent or virtuous.
They are just incompetent; they lack the abilities necessary for overt
villany. You saw, this afternoon, what they were capable of doing when
they were given an opportunity. You know, it's quite all right to give
the underdog a hand, but only one hand. Keep the other hand on your
pistol - or he'll try to eat the one you gave him! As you may have
noticed, today, when underdogs get up, they tend to act like wolves."
That was on page 125 - 126 of my copy of "Empire".
This
does sound a bit off from Piper's usual theme of self-reliance. I
wonder, was he just keeping the 'mood' of the piece intact - or had he
had a crummy week when he wrote it?
I hope that this does not
double-post, I replied to an email with the above content, but a few
hours later it hasn't shown up yet.
Jon
|
|
Gilmoure
04-02-2009
16:12 UT
|
I do remember hearing it but most of my Piper books are in storage. Sounds like something from a short story but not sure.
Gilmoure
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:45 AM, QT - David Johnson <
qtopic-42-tnfVKeAH3s4T@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
Lensman
04-02-2009
15:56 UT
|
I agree that it doesn't sound like something a Piper character would
say. Piper's philosophy celebrated the "self-reliant man", someone who
wouldn't *need* the help from his "betters". The self-reliant man does
not perceive that anyone *is* his better!
But certainly Piper has
"underdog" characters. Kalvan may be Lord in Hostigos, but the little
princedom, or later kingdom, he's running or helping to run is certainly
the underdog in comparison to its enemies!
The Fuzzies are likewise "underdogs", and in their case they certainly *do* need outside help.
|
|
David Johnson
04-02-2009
13:45 UT
|
~
Re: Lending an underdog a hand
Ben,
Actually, that
quote doesn't ring a bell for me. In truth I can't even recall a
Piper character who ever expressed that sort of sympathy for an
"underdog.". Indeed, I can't think of a Piper yarn that has an
"underdog" character.
Perhaps someone else here has a better memory.
Keep your powder dry,
David
P.S. Apologies for top-posting. I'm away and using a mobile device.
> --QT---
>
> I'm looking for the source of a quotation I read in on of
> Piper's works. The quote is "Always lend the underdog a hand.
> Keep your other hand on your pistol." Kind of sums up Piper's
> philosophy on things. Anyone recall which character said it,
> ~
|
|
Ben2K
03-31-2009
21:51 UT
|
I'm looking for the source of a quotation I read in on of Piper's works.
The quote is "Always lend the underdog a hand. Keep your other hand on
your pistol." Kind of sums up Piper's philosophy on things. Anyone
recall which character said it, in which book?
Thanks.
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
35310
(Unique:
9358
) / Subscribers:
27 | What's this?