jimmyjoejangles  05-30-2017
02:47 UT
|
So just finished Four Day Planet. I couldn't help but notice that Oscar
and the bachelor officers of the Pequod were the only guys who had video
equipment on board. SO my real question is did Ralph Boyd run a
special Channel for "home videos"?
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-20-2017
03:23 UT
|
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote:
> You do not state, David, your timeline of events as to how the
> Thirty Days' War could happen in 1973. I believe I can make a
> good guess, but unless you can provide some evidence to
> support your reasoning, a 1973 date for the Thirty Days' War
> appears to be untenable. . . .
Really?
"Untenable"? You say that like it matters what my opinions about the
inconsistencies in "The Edge of the Knife" might be. It most assuredly
doesn't, at least not to anyone but me.
You've done a good job of
laying out many of the inconsistencies in the yarn which leaves us in
agreement on that point: the story contradicts itself, repeatedly,
leaving us to make our own assumptions and draw our own conclusions
about several points. I wouldn't make some of the same assumptions
you've made about some of the inconsistencies being instances of Beam's
intentional signalling of Chalmers' confused mental state but I can't
say your assumptions about this are wrong (much less "untenable"). We
merely have different opinions.
I think you'll find a fairly
consistent perspective from me, going back many years to our time
together on the old, defunct PIPER-L mailing list, which tends to resist
efforts to read more into the story, or the collection of stories, than
what is there explicitly from Beam. You seem to prefer a different
approach and that's a-okay with me.
As I mentioned in my last
message on this topic, whether the Thirty Days' War occurs in 1973 CE,
or 1974 (or even 1975) is fairly inconsequential. It doesn't really
help us connect the Terro-human Future History to the Hartley yarns
because the character of the Third World War / World War III itself is
so very different in the two settings, despite their proximity in
Christian Era dating. And as you rightly point out, the difference of a
year or two (or three) is essentially meaningless in the millennia
which comprise the Terro-human Future History.
Be well,
David
P.S. Fifty-three years ago today, Calvin Morrison accidentally stumbled into a paratemporal transposition conveyor.
P.P.S. I'm sorry I will miss the Irregulars' Muster tomorrow in State College. Best wishes to all who rendezvous in Hostigos.
--
"Considering
the one author about whom I am uniquely qualified to speak, I question
if any reader of H. Beam Piper will long labor under the
misunderstanding that he is a pious Christian, a left-wing liberal, a
Gandhian pacifist, or a teetotaler." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill
Symposium" interview
~
|
Calidore 05-19-2017
17:54 UT
|
David wrote,
>A close reading of “The Edge of the Knife” suggests there are several
>inconsistencies in the internal dating, as Beam mentions specific years,
>months, seasons, and university terms. One has to ignore some of these
>whether one decides the “Thirty Days’ War” occurs in 1973 or 1974 but
>my choices lead me to settle on 1973.
I
must respectfully disagree; a close reading of “The Edge of the Knife”
very strongly points to 1974. Almost all of Piper’s inconsistencies of
internal dating are easily explained, and don’t really matter, anyway.
Let’s look at the references; and if I’ve missed anything relevant,
please let me know.
Professor Chalmers precognitively states to
his class that Khalid ib’n Hussein is assassinated “In 1973, at Basra.”
(Empire, p. 13)
“Nineteen seventy-three—why, that was this year.
He looked at the calendar. October 16, 1973. At very most, the Arab
statesman had two and a half months to live.” (ibid., p. 15)
The
next day, which would be October 17, Dean Whitburn summons Professor
Chalmers to his office, where he requests his “immediate resignation”,
believing him to be insane. (ibid., pp. 19, 20)
A month later,
at the large roundtable conference discussing Chalmers’ precognition of
the assassination, which occurred just as predicted, Whitburn confirms
the date. “Yes, I demanded this man’s resignation on the morning of
October Seventeenth, the day after this incident occurred.” (ibid., p
45)
So the story opens in the fall of 1973. There seems to be
no question about that. Khalid is assassinated a month later (ibid., p.
30), making it mid-November, 1973.
After that occurs, the
future information that comes to Chalmers is “The period of anarchy
following Khalid’s death would be much briefer, and much more violent,
than he had previously thought…The revolt at Damascus would break out
before the end of the month [meaning late November 1973]; before the end
of the year [late December 1973], the whole of Syria and Lebanon would
be in bloody chaos, and the Turkish army would be on the march.” (ibid.,
p. 54)
“The period of anarchy following Khalid’s death” refers
to the Middle East, not the whole world, as evidenced by the subsequent
events in the quote, all of which refer to that region. In fact,
earlier on Chalmers said just that. “…period of anarchy in the Middle
East; interfactional power-struggles; Turkish intervention.” (ibid., p.
16) But though peace soon returns, and the murdered Khalid is
“eventually” succeeded as head of the Caliphate by his son Tallal
(ibid., pp. 16-17), it doesn’t last too long. For the short but
“general war in the Middle East” (ibid., p. 36), which presumably lasts
from late 1973 into the early months of 1974, is just a precursor to the
also-brief, but much more serious, Third World War.
“There
would be an Eastern-inspired uprising in Azerbaijan before the middle of
the next year [meaning before July 1974]; before autumn [early to
mid-September 1974], the Indian Communists would make their fatal
attempt; the Thirty Days’ War would be the immediate result.” (ibid., p.
55)
“And Blanley College was at the center of one of the areas
which would receive the worst of the thermonuclear hell to come. And it
would be a little under a year…” (ibid., p. 56) A little under a year
from the story’s current date of mid-November 1973 would be about
mid-October 1974. This squares with WWIII beginning “before autumn”,
because it means the Thirty Days’ War lasts from about mid-September to
mid-October 1974.
In sum, we have two specific references placing
“The Edge of the Knife” in the fall of 1973, and two specific
references placing the Thirty Days’ War in the following year, which is
1974.
Now let’s look at the inconsistencies.
1) Ed tells
his attorney, Stanley Weill, that his ability to prehend future events
“started a little over three years ago…Just after New Year’s, 1970.”
(ibid., p. 21) That would seem to suggest “Edge” begins in February or
March, 1973, rather than October.
2) This appears to be
supported by “He came into his office that morning tired and unrefreshed
by the few hours’ sleep he had gotten the night before, edgy from the
strain, of trying to adjust his mind to the world of Blanley College in
mid-April of 1973.” (ibid., p. 29) If Chalmers predicted in mid-March
that Khalid would be murdered, then a month later would indeed be
mid-April.
3) As well as, “But I knew, in the spring of 1970,
that the first unmanned rocket would be called the Kilroy, and that it
would be launched sometime in 1971…I knew about it over a year in
advance.” (ibid., p. 22) This seems to hint that Ed received the
information about the Kilroy only a few months after his precognitive
gift appeared, and this is roughly three years before “Edge” begins,
placing the story likewise in the spring.
4) At the end of the
story, Chalmers tells Max Pottgeiter, “you remember what I told you
about the Turks annexing Syria and Lebanon?...When that happens, get
away from Blanley.” (ibid., p. 59) This makes it sound like the
thermonuclear hell will hit the Blanley area not long afterward, rather
than nine months later.
So, what gives? Are we in the fall of 1973, or the spring of 1973?
The
important point here is that it doesn’t really matter. Because
Chalmers quite clearly states, not once but twice, that the Thirty Days’
War occurs in the NEXT year, not the current one.
Nevertheless, let’s see if we can explain the inconsistencies.
2)
Even if we grant Chalmers’ “mid-April of 1973” reference, “a little
under a year” from that time would place WWIII in mid-March 1974. So
the Thirty Days’ War occurs in 1974 either way. However, mid-March is
late winter, which does not square with his clear statement that WWIII
begins in late summer.
The mid-April reference therefore appears to be erroneous.
That
this is so is supported by the fact that, at this point in the story,
Professor Chalmers is at his lowest ebb. Right after the “mid-April of
1973” quote, Marjorie asks Ed if he has seen the morning paper
(describing the assassination of Khalid, which has just happened). “He
shook his head. He ought to read the papers more, to keep track of the
advancing knife-edge that divided what he might talk about from what he
wasn’t supposed to know, but each morning he seemed to have less and
less time to get ready for work.” (ibid.)
The strain of being
thought of as insane by the Dean, by the students, some of the faculty
and even his lawyer—and not being sure they aren’t right, since he
couldn’t find the note on the Kilroy, which would have proven that his
precognitive ability was real (ibid., p. 27)—have caused Ed to lose more
and more sleep, and drink more and more heavily. He fears he may have
become deluded, and tries to suppress his precognitive gift, even to the
extent of seriously considering destroying all the future history notes
he made; not once, but twice. (ibid., pp. 27, 28)
This
combination of pressures has caused Ed to become detached from the
everyday world. Indeed, it may have “become unreal and illusory”, just
as Weill warned him. “But I’ll say, now, that you’re losing your grip
on reality. You are constructing a system of fantasies, and the first
thing you know, they will become your reality, and the world around you
will become unreal and illusory. And that’s a state of mental
incompetence that, as a lawyer, I can recognize.” (ibid., p. 24)
So
Ed is simply confused, disoriented, because he’s so tired and worn
down. It’s not mid-April, it’s mid-November. (This seems to be based
on Piper himself, who kept odd hours, and so occasionally became
confused. “Got up around noon, and back to bed—seemed to have forgotten
what day it was.” PBIO, p. 105) Chalmers is therefore LOSING TOUCH
WITH TIME ITSELF, as suggested by the fact that he is not keeping “track
of the advancing knife-edge that divided what he might talk about from
what he wasn’t supposed to know”. Ironically, though, it was Ed’s
attempt to suppress his precognitive ability that caused his slide into
mental detachment, not his harboring of it. This confirms he was sane
to begin with.
That Ed has become confused is supported by
his two mistakes on the page just previous to the April 1973 quote.
There, he mentions “the space-pirates in the days of the dissolution of
the First Galactic Empire, in the Tenth Century of the Interstellar
Era”, and that the Uller Uprising in the Beta Hydrae system occurs “in
the Fourth Century of the Atomic Era.” (ibid., p. 28) Both of these
statements contain errors.
The Interstellar Era begins circa AE
200, just after the “First expedition to Alpha Centauri, 192 A.E.”
(PBIO, p. 213) Ten centuries after that would be the Twelfth Century
AE, which is a couple of centuries after the Second Terran Federation
begins breaking up, not the First Galactic Empire. (Alternately, if the
Galactic Empire is indeed meant, then it should presumably read “in the
Tenth Century of the Imperial Era”, not Interstellar.)
And Uller Uprising takes place in AE 526 (ibid.). This is the Sixth Century AE, not the Fourth. (1)
Thus,
at Ed’s lowest point in the story, he not only doesn’t know what month
it is, he has even become confused about his memories of the future.
But the confirmation of Khalid’s assassination quickly brings him back
from the edge of mental incompetence, and from then on, Chalmers is his
normal, rational, precognitive self.
“At least, this’ll be the
end of that silly flap about what happened a month ago in Modern Four.”
(ibid., p. 30) Placing the story at this point, as stated, in
mid-November 1973.
In the case of Khalid, “It gratified him to
see that his future “memories” were reliable in detail as well as
generality.” (ibid., p. 37) Ed’s vindication is a spectacular
prediction of “uncanny accuracy” (ibid., p. 38), being correct in ten
primary details. “Event of assassination, year of the event, place,
circumstances, name of assassin, nationality of assassin, manner of
killing, exact type of weapon used, guards killed and wounded along with
Khalid, and fate of the assassin.” (ibid., pp. 45)
Notice that
if we turn it around, Ed’s memories of the future are ‘reliable in
generality as well as detail’. This supports his two references placing
WWIII in 1974, particularly since he is perfectly rational again when
he makes them.
3) As for the reference to knowing about the
Kilroy over a year in advance, Chalmers does not actually state that
this is exactly three years before “Edge”. The reference therefore
works just as well with the fall 1973 date, and does not contradict it.
4)
This is also true for the reference about Max Pottgeiter. Chalmers
does not explicitly say he wants Max to leave because the nukes are
about to fall. There are a number of good reasons to get him (and
Marjorie Fenner) away from Blanley as soon as possible, many months
before WWIII occurs. Moreover, since the Turks invade Syria and Lebanon
“before the end of the year”, that means Pottgeiter leaves Blanley in
late December 1973 or early January 1974. Thus, if WWIII were to break
out soon afterward, it would still occur in 1974; running from, say,
mid-January to mid-February.
1) Now, as for the “a little over
three years ago…Just after New Year’s, 1970” inconsistency, that one is a
puzzler, I admit. Chalmers is completely rational at that point in the
story, so he should have said “a little over three years and nine
months ago”, or “a few months less than four years ago”. My feeling is
that this is an example of Piper ‘muddying the waters’ (perhaps in
concert with the other inconsistencies); thereby throwing out false
leads to confuse his readers. This was something of a habit with him.
As Mike Knerr once said of Beam, “Like an old Indian scout, he was
forever covering his back-trail.” (PBIO, p. 97)
In sum, the
second inconsistency is erroneous, being easily explained by the fact
that Professor Chalmers was confused and disoriented at the time, due to
heavy drinking and lack of sleep (supported by the adjacent errors in
his memories of the future); the third is not really an inconsistency,
as it is not specifically related to the time of “Edge”; nor is the
fourth, since it is not specifically related to the date of WWIII. This
leaves the first as the only real inconsistency. And this one
reference to early 1973 is heavily outweighed by the two references
placing “Edge” in the fall of 1973, plus that they give specific dates
through two different characters (October 16 by Chalmers and 17 by
Whitburn), and—most importantly—that there are two references placing
WWIII in the following year, 1974, while none place it in the current
year, 1973.
You do not state, David, your timeline of events as
to how the Thirty Days’ War could happen in 1973. I believe I can make a
good guess, but unless you can provide some evidence to support your
reasoning, a 1973 date for the Thirty Days’ War appears to be untenable,
not to mention directly contradictory to clear dates and indications of
dates in Piper. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but the references in
“The Edge of the Knife” very strongly suggest—indeed, I believe they
prove—that the Thirty Days’ War occurs in fall 1974.
>Another complication is that in the essay “The Future History” Beam places
>the Thirty Days’ War in 32 AE which, according to the conversion he offers
>in that article would be 1975. But a close reading of “The Future History”
>itself suggests that Beam also may have “had to count on his fingers to
>transpose to Christian Era, and…usually remembered too late that there
>was no C.E. Year Zero.”)
I
agree that the AE 32 reference in “The Future History” is incorrect.
It should be AE 31. And you’re probably right that Beam simply
miscounted; another possibility is that he forgot 1975 was the date for
WWIII in the Hartley Future History, not the Terro-Human one. But there
are several other suspect dates in that document. (2)
We
therefore need to be careful when applying “The Future History”. It is a
summary of many events over many centuries, and by their very nature,
summaries are prone to include errors, or at least misrepresentations,
due to compression. In judging Piper’s dates, I believe we should give
precedence to the ones in his published stories, which are almost
certainly more accurate than the summary of “The Future History”.
(While keeping an eye out, of course, for his false trails.)
John
(1)
That the Sixth Century is correct is confirmed by the inclusion of
Kent Pickering, who was on Uller during the Uprising, in First Cycle.
(FC, p. 199) First Cycle was intended as a sequel of sorts to Uller
Uprising—being written close in time and slated to be published in the
next Twayne Triplet (PBIO, p. 103)—and takes place “in the 572nd year of
the Primary Dispersion” (FC, p. 4). Primary Dispersion seems to refer
to the primary dispersion of electrons, or ‘first chain reaction’.
Thus, Primary Dispersion is an alternate name for Atomic Era, which
begins when Enrico Fermi initiates the first chain reaction at the
University of Chicago, on December 2, 1942. (PBIO, p. 212)
Kent
Pickering is therefore on Uller in AE 526, and Thalassa in AE 572,
placing both stories in the Sixth Century. Incidentally, the difference
of 46 years should make Pickering an old man in First Cycle, but this
is probably alleviated by the “time-differential for hyperspace trips”.
(Fuzzy Sapiens, p. 85) For men like Jack Holloway, who has been on
many planets, the alleviation can be a lot. Jack is 74, but doesn’t
look “much over sixty.” (ibid.) His actual age is therefore about ten
years less than his numerical age. (Perhaps not coincidentally making
Holloway close in age to Piper himself, who turned sixty in 1964, the
year Fuzzy Sapiens came out.)
(2) One is the date for Four-Day
Planet, which Beam says takes place in the “Mid-IV Century” (PBIO, p.
213). It does not; it takes place in the late-V Century. Walter Boyd
says that Fenris was colonized “at the end of the Fourth Century A.E.”,
or about AE 399. (FDP, p. 6) The first city the colonists built was
“conventional…the buildings all on the surface. After one day-and-night
cycle, they found that it was uninhabitable. It was left unfinished.
Then they started digging in. The Chartered Fenris Company shipped in
huge quantities of mining and earth-moving equipment…and they began
making burrow-cities”. (ibid., p. 31)
That had to have taken at
least a year; sixth months to Terra, and sixth months back with the
equipment. (ibid., p. 6) Port Sandor is one of the burrow-cities, and
was therefore built circa AE 400. According to Walt, this was “close to
a hundred years ago” (ibid., p. 30), making the date of Four-Day Planet
circa AE 497. That’s the late-Fifth Century, not mid-Fourth.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-12-2017
17:20 UT
|
~
Found the reference for Jack Holloway's hyperspace time-differential effect:
"Seventy-four: I was born in 580. I couldn't even estimate how much to allow for on time-differential for hyperspace trips."
This
is from ~Fuzzy Sapiens~, when they're trying to sort out if the
veridicator will work on a Fuzzy. Doesn't really give any details yet
on what the time-differential is at this stage of hyperdrive technology
but does make clear that Beam still considered hyperspatial
time-dilation to be an important element of the Future History setting
at the late stage at which ~Sapiens~ was written.
'Ware the damnthings!
David
--
"We
talk glibly about ten to the hundredth power, but emotionally we still
count, 'One, Two, Three, Many.'" - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper), ~Space
Viking~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-12-2017
05:56 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> Is there other stuff? Fuzzy stuffed animals or something?
This was amusing:
http://www.leviathanstudios.com/figures/fuzzy.html
Yeek!
David
--
"Why not everybody make friend, have fun, make help, be good?" - Diamond Grego (H. Beam Piper), ~Fuzzy Sapiens~
~
|
jimmyjoejangles 05-11-2017
23:44 UT
|
~
David "Piperfan" Johnson wrote:
"I have to admit that's one of the most unusual bits of Piper-abilia I've seen in a while."
Is there other stuff? Fuzzy stuffed animals or something?
Also grandma(my) was a Johnson from New Brunswick, Canada. Probably doesn't mean much though.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-11-2017
15:03 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> Just was browsing through ebay in search of any interesting
> Piperabilia and came across a metal sign with the cover of Cosmic
> Computer on it. Kind of cool, not the Ace the original.
Here is is:
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/122469881503
I
have to admit that's one of the most unusual bits of Piper-abilia I've
seen in a while. It's a reproduction of the cover art from the 1964 Ace
publication with Ed Valigursky's illustration (as opposed to the 1980s
reprint with the Whelan cover illustration).
Good luck.
David
--
"Why
Walt Disney bought the movie rights to ['Rebel Raider'], I've never
figured out. Will Colonel Mosby be played by Mickey Mouse, and General
Phil Sheridan by Donald Duck? It's baffling. However, I was glad to
get the check." -- H. Beam Piper, The Pennsy interview, 1953
~
|
jimmyjoejangles 05-11-2017
01:04 UT
|
Just was browsing through ebay in search of any interesting
Piperabilia and came across a metal sign with the cover of Cosmic
Computer on it. Kind of cool, not the Ace the original. Also it seems
like someone stumbled into an old Ace warehouse. There are a number of
the Ace eighties aditions on ebay now being billed as new and unread.
So if that interests you, and you would like to pay seventy dollars or
so go check them out on EBay. Edited 05-11-2017 01:30
|
jimmyjoejangles 05-06-2017
18:42 UT
|
I knew it wasn't that kind of forum. Thanks though.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-06-2017
16:43 UT
|
~
[A bit of List housekeeping here.]
James,
> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> --
> "And just how do you define the term 'fool', Mr. Melroy?"
> -- Doris Rivas (H. Beam Piper), "Day of the Moron"
I
want to be clear that this quote was not meant to be any sort of a
response to what you had written. It was just the only Hartley yarn
quote I had handy. Looking at it in hindsight I can see that it might
have been interpreted differently than it was intended and I apologize
for any offense which might have been taken. Please rest assured no
offense was intended.
Sorry,
David
--
"Why not everybody make friend, have fun, make help, be good?" - Diamond Grego (H. Beam Piper), ~Fuzzy Sapiens~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-06-2017
16:27 UT
|
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote:
> But as [Carr] points out, “Piper is clearly working out
> some of the background he used in later TFH stories.” (FED,
> pp. xxiv-xxv) So I consider the Hartley yarns to be a sort of
> ‘proto-Future History’. A preliminary attempt, superceded by
> the more firmly grounded and thought-out THFH.
I
agree this is a reasonable assumption. Beam was writing lots of
different stuff in the period when he wrote the Hartley yarns including
the first several Paratime yarns and even they went through some
"growing pains." (I'm thinking here of things like the multiple
"para-peeping" Verkan Valls in "Police Operation" and the way the origin
of the different Paratime Levels changes from that yarn to ~Lord
Kalvan~.)
> As a proto-THFH, Piper could have easily adapted certain
> elements from the ‘Hartley Future History’ (or HFH, if I may
> call it that) into his main Future History at some later date.
Another reasonable assumption.
> Particularly because, as you noted in your post, the
> Philadelphia Project has the same name in the THFH as in
> the HFH. In the HFH, the Philadelphia Project is presumably
> begun under President Hartley, who hails from Pennsylvania,
> and therefore steered the project to his home state.
Perhaps.
Or, perhaps as Beam often did, he simply placed the Hartleys _and_ the
Philadelphia Project in _his_ home state. (I am reminded here of the
Penn State scientist in "Omnilingual" and, of course, of a particular
Pennsylvania state trooper.)
> > but "The Edge of the Knife" dates this war in 1973.
>
> It actually dates it in 1974. According to Professor Chalmers’
> calendar, “Edge” begins on “October 16, 1973” (EMP, p. 17).
A
close reading of "The Edge of the Knife" suggests there are several
inconsistencies in the internal dating, as Beam mentions specific years,
months, seasons and university terms. One has to ignore some of these
whether one decides the "Thirty Days' War" occurs in 1973 or 1974 but my
choices lead me to settle on 1973.
(Another complication is that
in the essay "The Future History" Beam places the Thirty Days' War in
32 AE which, according to the conversion he offers in that article would
be 1975. But a close reading of "The Future History" itself suggests
that Beam also may have "had to count on his fingers to transpose to
Christian Era, and . . . usually remembered too late that there was no
C.E. Year Zero.")
Bottom line, I think, is that the dating of the
"Third World War" is one place where the Hartley yarns might be
shoehorned into the Terro-human Future History (though the _character_
of the Wars in each setting is much more difficult to reconcile).
> I agree about the significant lack of linkages in the THFH to
> the HFH, but would discount the lack of linkages in the other
> direction. The Hartley stories were written, and take place,
> before Piper’s acknowledged THFH tales. It is therefore not
>surprising that these earlier tales don’t mention future events
> and projects, especially those which are classified.
Actually,
Beam was pretty good at this sort of thing. Consider, for example, his
depictions of the Sword Worlds and the Space Vikings in "Ministry of
Disturbance" and "A Slave is a Slave," both written before ~Space
Viking~ and yet both set _after_ that yarn in the Future History.
YMMV,
David
--
"You
had a wonderful civilization here. . . . You could have made almost
anything of it. But it's too late now. You've torn down the gates; the
barbarians are in." - Lucas Trask (H. Beam Piper), ~Space Viking~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-06-2017
04:56 UT
|
~ James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote: > THe Mercenaries deals directly with collapsed matter. IT's one of > the secrets they are trying to protect because they invented it. What? There's _science_ in "The Mercenaries"? I guess I missed that trying to figure out the mystery. ;) I stand corrected. David -- "As
to Heisenberg compensators . . . I'd rather rely on reversing the
polarity of the neutron flow." - Tom Rogers, H. Beam Piper Mailing List
and Discussion Forum, July 15, 2015 ~ Edited 05-06-2017 04:57
|
Calidore 05-06-2017
01:34 UT
|
A delayed response to David Johnson’s earlier post on the Hartley stories.
David wrote,
>>Some
enthusiasts argue that Piper's Hartley yarns are part of his
Terro-human Future History despite the fact that Piper himself does not
mention any of the Hartley yarns in his delineation of the Terro-human
yarns in the article "The Future History." The principal reason one
might be inclined to include Piper's Hartley yarns in his Terro-human
Future History is the mention of an "Islamic Caliphate" in the
Terro-human yarn "The Edge of the Knife" and the mention of an "Islamic
Kaliphate" (sic) in "The Mercenaries." But the Islamic Caliphate of "The
Edge of the Knife" is friendly to the United States and eventually
joins the U.S.-led Terran Federation while the Islamic Kaliphate of "The
Mercenaries" is an adversary of the U.S.-led Western Union. (These two
different U.S.-led blocs, Terran Federation and Western Union, suggest
distinct settings too.)
Your post is a very good summary of the
differences, and similarities, between the Hartley tales and the THFH. I
agree that, as published, the three Hartley tales do not belong in the
Future History. John Carr says as much in his Introduction to
Federation. But as he points out, “Piper is clearly working out some of
the background he used in later TFH stories.” (FED, pp. xxiv-xxv) So I
consider the Hartley yarns to be a sort of ‘proto-Future History’. A
preliminary attempt, superceded by the more firmly grounded and
thought-out THFH.
As a proto-THFH, Piper could have
easily adapted certain elements from the ‘Hartley Future History’ (or
HFH, if I may call it that) into his main Future History at some later
date. And since he names no American presidents in the THFH (nor
Federation presidents, for that matter), this could actually include the
Hartleys themselves. Particularly because, as you noted in your post,
the Philadelphia Project has the same name in the THFH as in the HFH.
In the HFH, the Philadelphia Project is presumably begun under President
Hartley, who hails from Pennsylvania, and therefore steered the project
to his home state. This parallels how Mission Control ended up in
Houston because Vice President Johnson was a Texan, as well as, not
coincidentally, the head of NASA. It is therefore not outside the realm
of possibility that, in the THFH, the Philadelphia Project is a Hartley
creation as well.
Incidentally, given the fact that the Hartley
tales were written and published in chronological order, one might infer
that Beam’s original intent was to write all his future history stories
in order, from the near to far future. But if so, this changed when he
was approached with the idea of contributing a story to a Twayne
Triplet, based on Dr. John D. Clark’s essay. A story which became Uller
Uprising, the first true tale of the THFH, and in which Beam ‘jumped
ahead’ several centuries.
>>Another possible commonality
between the Hartley Yarns and the Terro-human Future History is the
Third World War, which occurs in Allan Hartley's "original timeline" in
1975. A Third World War is also mentioned in several Terro-human Future
History yarns but "The Edge of the Knife" dates this war in 1973.
It
actually dates it in 1974. According to Professor Chalmers’ calendar,
“Edge” begins on “October 16, 1973” (EMP, p. 17). Khalid ib’n Hussein
is assassinated a month later, in mid-November, 1973. In the months
that follow, the UN falls apart, there is “general war in the Middle
East”, the Terran Federation is organized, and finally Tallal ib’n
Khalid brings the Islamic Caliphate into the Federation just about when
the Thirty Days War breaks out. (ibid., pp. 30, 36) This occurs in
mid-September, 1974. “There would be an Eastern-inspired uprising in
Azerbaijan by the middle of the next year [around June 1974]; before
autumn [which begins around September 20], the Indian Communists would
make their fatal attempt; the Thirty Days’ War would be the immediate
result.” (ibid., p. 55) WWIII would then roughly run from mid-September
to mid-October, 1974.
>>Another possible connection
between Piper's two future history settings is the centrality of the
U.S. Philadelphia Project, an effort to launch a spaceship to the Moon
and build a lunar missile base. In "The Edge of the Knife" the
Philadelphia Project was also the name of the effort by the United
States to launch a spacecraft to the Moon. The successful launch of the
Philadelphia Project's _Kilroy_ spacecraft leads to an effort to
construct a lunar missile base and, ultimately, enables the U.S. to
prevail in the Third World War. Likewise, the Philadelphia Project is
mentioned in both "The Mercenaries" and "Day of the Moron" and is
described in "The Mercenaries" as a U.S.-led effort to launch a
spaceship to the Moon and to build a lunar military base. But there is
an important difference. While several competing Moon efforts by U.S.
adversaries are mentioned in "The Mercenaries" (even the Islamic
Kaliphate has one) there is no mention of any competing efforts in "The
Edge of the Knife." Indeed, one of the provocations that lead to the
Third World War in "The Edge of the Knife" are protests on the part of
its adversaries about U.S. efforts to build a military base on the Moon.
One would hardly expect such protests if those adversaries, as is the
case in "The Mercenaries," were themselves involved in their own lunar
base undertakings.
His four power-blocs in “The Mercenaries” may
have been intended to clearly differentiate his fictional proto-future
history from the real world, while also giving him more room to
creatively maneuver. Four competitors going to the Moon certainly makes
the race more interesting than two. Or, perhaps he had a historical
model in mind which he never revealed. But in the later THFH, he
brought his near-term future history more closely in line with the
bipolar real world, in which the West and East (US and USSR) were
dominant.
I fear I must disagree with your last sentence
about protesting the US lunar base. In light of the fact that getting
there first allows the winner to annex the Moon (WHBP, p. 54), and thus
all its resources; and, even more importantly, the lunar base insures
world supremacy over all the nations of Terra (which is why the four
power-blocs are “racing” to get there and build it in the Hartley
yarns), one would expect just such protests from the losers.
Particularly because in the THFH, the United States wins, and the loser
is its main enemy, the Soviet Union. It is therefore highly probable
that the Axis did in fact have its own lunar project, just as the Fourth
Komintern does in the HFH (and just as the USSR did in the real world,
though they denied it). But once the Kilroy won the race for the United
States—and presumably enabled America to annex the Moon, as in the
HFH—they were forced to change tactics. With Luna in American hands,
the Eastern Axis began its two-pronged political campaign at the UN “for
the demilitarization and internationalization of the United States
Lunar Base”. (EMP, p. 30) These are “demands” (ibid.), not requests,
and they certainly wouldn’t demand demilitarization if they didn’t
consider the US Lunar Base a serious military threat—which supports its
‘world supremacy’ aspect.
The Axis may reckon with the
possibility that the demilitarization demand will fail; that’s where the
second prong, internationalization, comes in. If successful, that
would place the base under UN control, which would give the USSR veto
power over its use—thereby politically neutralizing the military threat
it poses. UN control would certainly also entail allowing other
countries to station personnel at the base. Thus, the Soviets could get
some military officers and other agents up there. Even if the base
were politically neutralized, however, its military importance—world
supremacy—would remain. So the Soviet personnel could have a hidden
agenda—to take over the base themselves. And if they did seize control,
it would transfer world supremacy to the Eastern Axis at a stroke.
>>Other
than the Philadelphia Project, nowhere in the Terro-human Future
History yarns Piper identifies in his essay "The Future History" do we
see references to any of the characters or events portrayed in the
Hartley Yarns. No mention of Allan Hartley or his father Blake. No
mention of the MacLeod Research Team nor of the "free scientists"
phenomenon more generally. No mention of the Melroy Engineering Company
nor the disaster at the Long Island Nuclear Reaction Plant. And the
Islamic Kaliphate notwithstanding, there is no mention of the Western
Union or its other competitors: the Fourth Komintern or the
Ibero-American Confederation. Likewise, there is no mention in any
Hartley yarn of the Terran Federation, the Thirty Days War, the secret
U.S. "Operation Triple Cross" plan to build redundant launch facilities
to supply the Lunar Base, nor the lunar spaceship _Kilroy_ from "The
Edge of the Knife." The absence of such linkages, which are so very
characteristic of Piper's Terro-human Future History yarns, confirm what
Piper himself implies in "The Future History": the Hartley yarns are
distinct from his Terro->human Future History.
I agree about
the significant lack of linkages in the THFH to the HFH, but would
discount the lack of linkages in the other direction. The Hartley
stories were written, and take place, before Piper’s acknowledged THFH
tales. It is therefore not surprising that these earlier tales don’t
mention future events and projects, especially those which are
classified. For example, the last Hartley story, “Day of the Moron”,
takes place in 1968, but in the 1973 of “The Edge of the Knife”, Major
Cutler says that the Terran Federation and Operation Triple Cross are
“hush-hush” topics. (EMP, pp. 47-48) So the TF and OTC could exist in
the Hartley Future History, but are simply unknown to the general
public; plus there was no reason to mention them in “Day of the Moron”,
which is a story about civilian nuclear power, not geopolitics. They
might have been mentioned later, had Piper written a fourth HFH tale set
in the 1970s. A story, by the way, which could have answered the
question of whether Allan Hartley was actually successful in preventing
WWIII. And one which Beam probably intended to write, given that he
included the Hartleys in three consecutive tales.
And
finally, the Philadelphia Project is probably an outgrowth of Allan’s
statement to Blake in “Time and Time Again” that “I think President
Hartley can be trusted to take a strong line of policy.” (WHBP, p. 28)
This implies that in Allan’s ‘first’ life, the American president
elected in 1960 took a weak line of policy, which enabled the Fourth
Komintern to gain the strategic upper hand. Thus, the lack of an
American lunar base can help explain why the communist invasion in
Allan’s ‘first’ life was successful, at least as far as Buffalo. By
extension, it suggests the Soviets don’t have one either, just as in the
THFH. Otherwise, they could have simply issued an ultimatum to the
capitalist West: “Surrender, or be destroyed.”
Thus, possessing a
Lunar base would have saved the US in Allan’s ‘first’ life, and may
well do so in his second. This matches “The Edge of the Knife”, in
which the US will be saved by missiles from the Lunar fortress, which
obliterate the USSR. (EMP, p. 56) Though Piper has Dean Whitburn say
“Operation Triple Cross…saved the country” (EMP, p. 47), OTC is simply a
triplicate set of rocketports which keep the Lunar fortress supplied,
and therefore keep its world supremacy role intact. OTC is an extension
of the Philadelphia Project, which is what really saved the country.
John
|
jimmyjoejangles 05-05-2017
13:04 UT
|
THe Mercenaries deals directly with collapsed matter. IT's one of the
secrets they are trying to protect because they invented it.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-05-2017
03:56 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> Also I would have to say that the Hartley yarns are firmly outside
> THFH. No mention of collapsium in all the elaborate shielding of
> Nif space craft in Uller Uprising.
I
agree that the Hartley yarns are not Terro-human Future History yarns
but I'm not sure collapsium is a good indicator because all of the
Hartley yarns occur before collapsium would have been invented anyway.
I
think perhaps the best indicator of the difference is the Islamic
Caliphate/Kaliphate. The Caliphate of "The Edge of the Knife" is an
ally of the U.S.-led first Terran Federation while the Kaliphate of "The
Mercenaries" is an adversary of the U.S.-led Western Union.
Cheers,
David
--
"And just how do you define the term 'fool', Mr. Melroy?" -- Doris Rivas (H. Beam Piper), "Day of the Moron"
~
|
Jon Crocker 05-05-2017
00:39 UT
|
I think you`re right, it`s not a consistent trend.
|
jimmyjoejangles 05-04-2017
21:08 UT
|
Also I would have to say that the Hartley yarns are firmly outside THFH.
No mention of collapsium in all the elaborate shielding of Nif space
craft in Uller Uprising.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-04-2017
14:44 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> Just finished Junkyard Planet. Nothing there.
Sort of makes sense because most of the story takes place entirely within the Gartner Tri-System.
Thanks for checking!
David
--
"A
girl can punch any kind of a button a man can, and a lot of them know
what buttons to punch, and why." - Conn Maxwell (H. Beam Piper),
~Junkyard Planet~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 05-04-2017
14:41 UT
|
~
Jon Crocker wrote:
> Ha, found one. Uller Uprising, p. 67 in my copy, in chapter five.
>
> "Well, it takes six months for a ship to go between here and Nif
> [Niflheim]," Prinsloo considered. "Because of the hyperdrive
> effects, the experienced time of the voyage inside the ship, is of
> the order of three weeks."
Three-weeks-to-six-months
is awfully difficult to reconcile with "about double" from ~Four-Day
Planet~, especially given that the yarns occur relatively near to each
other in the Future History timeline (though Beam wrote them nearly a
decade apart).
Thanks for this one!
David
--
"We
talk glibly about ten to the hundredth power, but emotionally we still
count, 'One, Two, Three, Many.'" - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper), ~Space
Viking~
~
|
jimmyjoejangles 05-03-2017
22:02 UT
|
Just finished Junkyard Planet. Nothing there.
|
David Sooby 05-02-2017
05:01 UT
|
Jon Crocker said:
> With a little rounding, the 6 months above equals one hundred eighty days compared to 21 days, so a factor of nine?
Depends
on where you do the rounding. If you take a "month" as exactly 4 weeks,
then a 6 months to 3 weeks ratio would be exactly 8:1, not 9:1.
But
in either case, it's rather distant from the "...everything speeds up
about double in hyperspace" reference. And anyway, what does that
actually mean? Is it the hyperspace travelers who experience everything
at double the rate, or is it that everything in normal space seems
speeded up to them? A straightforward reading suggests the former, but
what Piper writes in the stories seems to suggest the latter.
Seems
like a real can of worms. We might suggest that the hyperdrive used in
different periods had different ratios of time dilation. Those who argue
that different ships have different hyperdrive speeds (I am definitely
*not* one of them, but there are those firmly in the other camp) might
suggest that the time dilation depended on the speed of the individual
ship.
Stepping back and looking at it from the outside, it looks
like one of many cases where Piper didn't think it was important enough
to be consistent about it.
|
David Sooby 05-02-2017
05:00 UT
|
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson said:
> Ah, yes, the "whisper mouthpiece." Clever, that.
I'm
not even sure that's science fiction anymore. Note the "throat
microphone" used by US. Special Forces. That picks up throat vibrations,
and will indeed pick up whispers.
Not quite the same idea, but similar in effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone
|
Jon Crocker 05-01-2017
23:31 UT
|
Ha, found one. Uller Uprising, p. 67 in my copy, in chapter five.
"Well,
it takes six months for a ship to go between here and Nif [Niflheim],"
Prinsloo considered. "Because of the hyperdrive effects, the
experienced time of the voyage inside the ship, is of the order of three
weeks."
It would probably be a fairly straightforward conversion
factor - people are noted to have to stop and think to have to convert,
but no one reaches for pencil and paper to do square roots or the like.
With a little rounding, the 6 months above equals one hundred eighty
days compared to 21 days, so a factor of nine?
I can't think of any other explicit statement of timescales, maybe Piper got tired of it?
Hope this helps plot the tech curve.
|
Jon Crocker 05-01-2017
03:39 UT
|
That time dilation will take some checking.
Oh no, another excuse to look through my Piper books...
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
35310
(Unique:
9358
) / Subscribers:
27 | What's this?