Iain Banks - Inversions
Folk, Rhythm & Life
got a few questions...
SPOILERS...
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
OK, here we have the stories of two Culture agents infiltrating a primitive
society, the second tale serving as a 'counterpoint' to the first. Banks'
intention is clearly to compare and contrast the ethics of these two agents,
Sechroom (a.k.a. Doctor Vosill) and Hiliti (a.k.a. DeWar).
The basic issues are debated between the two as childhood friends, long
before the story starts. The young Doctor/Sechroom believes that it is
better to intervene in such primitive societies and "teach them better". But
DeWar/Hiliti believes this is arrogance and it is better to let societies
evolve on their own. Furthermore, DeWar/Hiliti believes it is sometimes
necessary to be "cruel to be kind" to achieve a greater good. The
Doctor/Sechroom rejects this.
THE DOCTOR
When the story starts, the Doctor is found in the court of King Quience in
Haspidus, where through healing the sick, she has worked her way up to a
position of favour with the King. She is opinionated - vocally opposing the
use of torturers by the King and nobles, having little time for the sexism
of
the society, actively promoting better knowledge of medicine, and in one
case trying (unsuccessfully) to save a girl from being forced into
prostitution
by her poor family.
She has many enemies however, some of whom are found mysteriously dead.
However, her plans finally come undone when she lets down her guard and
reveals her love for the King. She manages to get herself out of a sticky
situation when she is framed for murder by the conspirators and almost raped
and killed by the torturers, but in the end she has no choice but to resign
her
position and leave Haspidus.
She leaves behind a society undeniably improved by her work, as she has
taught her apprentice Oelph sufficient well for him to found a Royal College
of Medicine, and successfully convinced the King to abandon the practice of
torture.
It is also clear by the end that she (and her knife missile) are responsible
for the murders of Nolieti and Duke Walen, as well as the three in the
torture chamber at the end. While some or all of these murders can be
considered self-defence, she also has the death of Unoure (Nolieti's
apprentice) on her conscience (since he was blamed for Nolieti's death), and
whether it was luck or further progress in changing the King's mind on
torture that saved further innocent deaths after Walen's murder is
debatable. Furthermore, the Doctor was forced to poison the King at the end
(if only to cure him) to get herself out of jail.
Compare these events with Sechroom's stated ethics. One, she believes it is
better to intervene than not. She has certainly done this, and has achieved
undeniable improvement in Haspidus society. By implication, the murders
along the way are a necessary part of this program. Two, she believes it is
never justifiable to be cruel to be kind. Whether she has stood by this
ethic is debatable, depending on how one sees the death of Unoure, the
poisoning of the King, and even the lovesick agony of Oelph.
DE WAR
Despite DeWar/Hiliti's assertion that it is better not to intervene in
primitive societies, at the start of the book we find him ensconced as
bodyguard to UrLeyn, the military dictator of Tassasen. UrLeyn and his
generals have recently overthrown the corrupt King of Tassasen and set up a
more enlightened regime, and presumably DeWar has stretched his ethic
enough to decide that this regime is worth protecting.
Much of DeWar's story is taken up with his growing attachment to UrLeyn's
concubine Perrund, and DeWar's and Perrund's education of UrLeyn's son
Lattens, who becomes sickly to the point that UrLeyn is unable to govern his
realm. At the end of the story, Perrund murders UrLeyn and is revealed as
the poisoner of Lattens. She reveals to DeWar that UrLeyn is responsible for
the rape and murder of her family when she was a child. DeWar decides to run
off with Perrund and live happily ever after. Subsequently, a civil war
rages in Tassasen between one of UrLeyn's generals and those loyal to
Lattens. Lattens emerges triumphant, and is approvingly described by Oelph
as a 'scholarly' ruler.
The implication is that DeWar, by failing to intervene proactively in
Tassasen society, has left that society no better. There is a caveat in the
shape of Lattens (although much of DeWar's time was spent teaching Lattens
battle skills, the moral fables he told Lattens appear to have paid off by
imparting a similar interest to his protege).
Now, some questions:
1. What is Banks trying to say about the "can we be cruel to be kind"
question? The Doctor, who does not believe in being cruel to be kind, leaves
Haspidus with half-a-dozen murders, the consequent death of the innocent
Unoure, and the poisoning of her beloved King on her conscience. Conversely,
DeWar takes pity on Perrund, and takes no action against the generals who
wish him ill. On another level, he lets Lattens win a battle game (and be
happy) rather than play to the best of his ability and force Lattens to
learn better (but upset him).
2. What is DeWar even doing in Tassasen, if he believes it is better not to
intervene? Granted, trying to ensure the survival of UrLeyn (who has
apparently set up a more enlightened regime than his predecessor, the King)
is not 'pro-active' intervention like that of the Doctor, but still...
3. Are the Doctor's murders of Nolieti and Walen justified? And why did the
Doctor let Duke Quettil and the Guard Commander live, if she killed the
other two?
4. Banks seems to be saying something about "putting love ahead of duty"
(the Doctor ruins her plans by revealing her love for Quience; DeWar betrays
his duty by running off with Perrund). But what?
5. What was the story of Leleeril (Sechroom and Hiliti's childhood friend)
all about? (Leleeril sleeps with Hiliti but then runs off in tears when she
discovers her affections were the subject of a bet.)
6. What about the Doctor's admission to Oelph that she left the Culture and
came to Haspidus after she had an unhappy love affair? Does this have
anything to do with Leleeril?
7. And what on earth did the Doctor see in King Quience?
8. How critical should we be of DeWar, and the way he chooses to resolve
his dilemma? How would Banks judge DeWar? Is he saying that if we don't try
to teach others better, we will always end up doing the equivalent of
'protecting rapists'?
Any comments appreciated,
--
---
Marcus Ogden <f...@netspace.net.au>
PD Macfarlane
: Just finished Iain Banks' latest, "Inversions". I enjoyed it a lot, but I've
: got a few questions...
:
: SPOILERS...
:
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
:
: OK, here we have the stories of two Culture agents infiltrating a primitive
: society, the second tale serving as a 'counterpoint' to the first. Banks'
: intention is clearly to compare and contrast the ethics of these two agents,
: Sechroom (a.k.a. Doctor Vosill) and Hiliti (a.k.a. DeWar).
working for SC (or at least does he think he's working for SC)
<snip>: undeniable improvement in Haspidus society. By implication, the
murders
: along the way are a necessary part of this program. Two, she believes it is
: never justifiable to be cruel to be kind. Whether she has stood by this
: ethic is debatable, depending on how one sees the death of Unoure, the
: poisoning of the King, and even the lovesick agony of Oelph.
:
Leaving a society untouched was how I understood the cruel to be kind
stance of dewar. Any intervention by an outside force into a culture will
inevitably lead to the creation of plussess and minuses for said culture,
the balance of the Doctors actions is clearly on the side of improvements
in the planets culture, hence she satisfies her moral viewpoint.
: DE WAR
snip:
: The implication is that DeWar, by failing to intervene proactively in
: Tassasen society, has left that society no better. There is a caveat in the
: shape of Lattens (although much of DeWar's time was spent teaching Lattens
: battle skills, the moral fables he told Lattens appear to have paid off by
: imparting a similar interest to his protege).
:
DeWar has interveined proactively in Tassasen by preserving the life of Ur
Leyn on a number of occasions. that he failed ultimately, and also his
subsequent elopement with perrund, do not devalue those actions.
Was the effect of DeWars presence on Lattens fortuitous or part of the
master plan? if Ur Leyn had been protected effectively up until the point
at which Lattens took over without a civil war, we would have assumed that
the aim of the Cultures intervention was to place a moderate (Lattens) in
charge of the kingdom by proping up the perhaps less than ideal Ur Leyen
in the mean time.
: Now,
some questions:
:
: 1. What is Banks trying to say about the "can we be cruel to be kind"
: question? The Doctor, who does not believe in being cruel to be kind, leaves
: Haspidus with half-a-dozen murders, the consequent death of the innocent
: Unoure, and the poisoning of her beloved King on her conscience. Conversely,
: DeWar takes pity on Perrund, and takes no action against the generals who
: wish him ill. On another level, he lets Lattens win a battle game (and be
: happy) rather than play to the best of his ability and force Lattens to
: learn better (but upset him).
:
Intervention can be succesfull if done carefully, and if we can do this
then we should?
: 2. What is DeWar even doing in Tassasen, if he believes it is better not to
: intervene? Granted, trying to ensure the survival of UrLeyn (who has
: apparently set up a more enlightened regime than his predecessor, the King)
: is not 'pro-active' intervention like that of the Doctor, but still...
:
De War is being proactive by doing anything at all, why he ends up working
for SC is not explained fully.
: 3. Are the Doctor's murders of Nolieti and Walen justified? And why did the
: Doctor let Duke Quettil and the Guard Commander live, if she killed the
: other two?
:
She killed those who were either an immeadiate threat to her life (the
torturer) or those whose removal was for the long term good of the society
(Nolieti and Walen) she is not indiscriminate in her killing
however-recall the story of the two would be rapists
: 4. Banks seems to be saying something about "putting love ahead of duty"
: (the Doctor ruins her plans by revealing her love for Quience; DeWar betrays
: his duty by running off with Perrund). But what?
:
Is he? DeWar runs off with Perrund after his mission has failed and after
he realises he has been protecting a monster. He might be saying something
about Human weakness in the Doctors case ~(or it could just be a plot
device)
: 5. What was the story of Leleeril (Sechroom and Hiliti's childhood friend)
: all about? (Leleeril sleeps with Hiliti but then runs off in tears when she
: discovers her affections were the subject of a bet.)
:
Dont Know
snip:
: 8. How critical should we be of DeWar, and the way he chooses to resolve
: his dilemma? How would Banks judge DeWar? Is he saying that if we don't try
: to teach others better, we will always end up doing the equivalent of
: 'protecting rapists'?
:
which Dilemma are you referring too? why DeWar ends up interfering is not
fully explained, his reason for running off with Perrund rather than
shopping her is probably due to; the percieved failure of his mission in
protecting UrLeyn, his revultion with UrLeyns previous actions and his
love for Perrund.
I would suggest that a mind judging Dewars action in not having Perrund
dead would be that he had made the correct choice. She did mess up the
cultures plans, but once she had done that, given her position, would
there be any point in killing her? her actions after all were at least
partially justifiable.
: Any comments appreciated, : : --
: ---
: Marcus Ogden <f...@netspace.net.au>
:
:
:
:
:
--
"But he had not brought anything. His hands were empty, as they had
always been." The Dispossessed, Ursula K. Le Guin
Peter Cash
Folk, Rhythm & Life <f...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>Just finished Iain Banks' latest, "Inversions". I enjoyed it a lot, but I've
>got a few questions...
I want to thank you for posting this thoughtful analysis of
_Inversions_. This book thoroughly puzzled me and stayed with me for many
weeks after I read it. I do have some disagreements with your analysis.
>SPOILERS...
(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>
>OK, here we have the stories of two Culture agents infiltrating a primitive
>society, the second tale serving as a 'counterpoint' to the first. Banks'
>intention is clearly to compare and contrast the ethics of these two agents,
>Sechroom (a.k.a. Doctor Vosill) and Hiliti (a.k.a. DeWar).
As another poster has pointed out, it's likely that only one of the
two--Dr. Vosill--is a Culture operative. DeWar is a rank amateur.
>The basic issues are debated between the two as childhood friends, long
>before the story starts. The young Doctor/Sechroom believes that it is
>better to intervene in such primitive societies and "teach them better". But
>DeWar/Hiliti believes this is arrogance and it is better to let societies
>evolve on their own. Furthermore, DeWar/Hiliti believes it is sometimes
>necessary to be "cruel to be kind" to achieve a greater good. The
>Doctor/Sechroom rejects this.
I think you are mistaken about which characters are referenced in the
story. As I recall, Sechroom appeared to be female in the parable, and
Hiliti male. However, I think this is a red herring. Vossil and DeWar may
have changed sex since the events in the parable (a small matter for any
Culture denizen), or DeWar may have felt no obligation to accurately report
the details of what really happened when he told the story (I don't think
he liked remembering these events). I base this hypothesis on the actions
of the Vossil and DeWar.
Doctor Vossil--the beautiful red-head--is pragmatic and ruthless in all her
actions. If someone gets in her way, he dies. Her political awareness and
actions are completely Machiavellian, and she does not hesitate to do
whatever her plans demand.
De War--the black-clad bodyguard and expert fighter--is a marshmallow. His
actions are guided by sentimentality and the unremitting compulsion to be
kind. He likes kids and falls for crippled women. He is politically blind.
>THE DOCTOR
>
>When the story starts, the Doctor is found in the court of King Quience in
>Haspidus, where through healing the sick, she has worked her way up to a
>position of favour with the King. She is opinionated - vocally opposing the
>use of torturers by the King and nobles, having little time for the sexism
>of
>the society, actively promoting better knowledge of medicine, and in one
>case trying (unsuccessfully) to save a girl from being forced into
>prostitution
>by her poor family.
Granted. She's not evil, she has moral feelings, but kindness is a hobby
with the good doctor.
>She has many enemies however, some of whom are found mysteriously dead.
>However, her plans finally come undone when she lets down her guard and
>reveals her love for the King.
This part puzzled me, and to an extent it still does. There are several
hypothesis I've entertained:
1. The way the story is told (a redaction of notes from a peripheral
character who was in love with Vossil) means that we see events and
characters from a very limited perspective. Perhaps the king was much more
sympathetic than Vossil's assistant leads us to believe, and thus a worthy
object of love.
I think it's clear that the account leaves out a lot of things that Oelph
could not have known about. For example, I think that there's a whole lot
of deep scheming between Vossil and the king. They must have discussed
strategy in regard with action against UrLeyn, for example.
2. Vossil was drunk and...well...sexually deprived. Even the most
intelligent people sometimes make utter fools of themselves when it comes
to alcohol and sex.
3. There was a deep political purpose. What better way for Vossil
to strenghten her influence and protect herself than to marry the king?
Vossil's willingness to poison the king at the end might be seen as
evidence that she did not care for him. However, it might be that she
judged the risk to the king's life small (she was bound to win).
>She manages to get herself out of a sticky
>situation when she is framed for murder by the conspirators and almost raped
>and killed by the torturers, but in the end she has no choice but to resign
>her
>position and leave Haspidus.
I think she had accomplished a major portion of what she was sent to do,
and so could well afford to leave. I also don't think she was really in
danger for a single moment. She had the big artillery: a set of very nice
matched miniature knife-missiles, and a superb pharmacopia.
>She leaves behind a society undeniably improved by her work, as she has
>taught her apprentice Oelph sufficient well for him to found a Royal College
>of Medicine, and successfully convinced the King to abandon the practice of
>torture.
Again, I think these things are incidental to her purposes. Nice fringe
benefits, but not all that important to Vossil.
>It is also clear by the end that she (and her knife missile) are responsible
>for the murders of Nolieti and Duke Walen, as well as the three in the
>torture chamber at the end. While some or all of these murders can be
>considered self-defence, she also has the death of Unoure (Nolieti's
>apprentice) on her conscience (since he was blamed for Nolieti's death), and
>whether it was luck or further progress in changing the King's mind on
>torture that saved further innocent deaths after Walen's murder is
>debatable. Furthermore, the Doctor was forced to poison the King at the end
>(if only to cure him) to get herself out of jail.
>Compare these events with Sechroom's stated ethics. One, she believes it is
>better to intervene than not. She has certainly done this, and has achieved
>undeniable improvement in Haspidus society. By implication, the murders
>along the way are a necessary part of this program. Two, she believes it is
>never justifiable to be cruel to be kind. Whether she has stood by this
>ethic is debatable, depending on how one sees the death of Unoure, the
>poisoning of the King, and even the lovesick agony of Oelph.
I think you've made my argument for me. Vossil's actions are not consistent
with one who denies that the end justifies the means.
>DE WAR
>Despite DeWar/Hiliti's assertion that it is better not to intervene in
>primitive societies, at the start of the book we find him ensconced as
>bodyguard to UrLeyn, the military dictator of Tassasen. UrLeyn and his
>generals have recently overthrown the corrupt King of Tassasen and set up a
>more enlightened regime, and presumably DeWar has stretched his ethic
>enough to decide that this regime is worth protecting.
DeWar is a classic do-gooder. UrLeyn looks like a decent ruler who can
improve the conditions of his people, so DeWar whole-heartedly helps and
protects him.
>Much of DeWar's story is taken up with his growing attachment to UrLeyn's
>concubine Perrund, and DeWar's and Perrund's education of UrLeyn's son
>Lattens, who becomes sickly to the point that UrLeyn is unable to govern his
>realm. At the end of the story, Perrund murders UrLeyn and is revealed as
>the poisoner of Lattens.
She was part of the poisoning plot, yes. As was the nanny who actually
administered the poison. But tell me, who supplied this poison? A poison so
subtle that it would not kill its victim, but keep him at death's doorstep?
And how clever to poison but not kill the child: this paralyzed UrLeyn, and
caused him to lose the war. It was better than killing UrLeyn outright,
since another able general might have arisen who could successfully
prosecute the war. After the war is lost, UrLeyn's life became irrelevant.
I think only one person in this story could have been politically clever
enough and have the pharmocoligal means to accomplish this: Vossil.
>She reveals to DeWar that UrLeyn is responsible for
>the rape and murder of her family when she was a child. DeWar decides to run
>off with Perrund and live happily ever after. Subsequently, a civil war
>rages in Tassasen between one of UrLeyn's generals and those loyal to
>Lattens. Lattens emerges triumphant, and is approvingly described by Oelph
>as a 'scholarly' ruler.
Yes, and no threat to the King, whom Special Circumstances evidently wants
in control of the world.
>The implication is that DeWar, by failing to intervene proactively in
>Tassasen society, has left that society no better.
But he _did_ intervene. Without him, UrLeyn would have died much
earlier. His intervention failed.
>...
>Now, some questions:
>
>1. What is Banks trying to say about the "can we be cruel to be kind"
>question? The Doctor, who does not believe in being cruel to be kind, leaves
>Haspidus with half-a-dozen murders, the consequent death of the innocent
>Unoure, and the poisoning of her beloved King on her conscience. Conversely,
>DeWar takes pity on Perrund, and takes no action against the generals who
>wish him ill. On another level, he lets Lattens win a battle game (and be
>happy) rather than play to the best of his ability and force Lattens to
>learn better (but upset him).
The latter is a crucial clue. You do not teach a child how to win by
letting him win. This is kind, but not effective if you are training a
future ruler. The "cruel but kind" thing is to teach him to win by beating
him--and telling him why he failed--until he _does_ win. DeWar was the
softy; he doesn't believe that the end justifies the means.
>2. What is DeWar even doing in Tassasen, if he believes it is better not to
>intervene? Granted, trying to ensure the survival of UrLeyn (who has
>apparently set up a more enlightened regime than his predecessor, the King)
>is not 'pro-active' intervention like that of the Doctor, but still...
DeWar's motives are not completely clear. For example, does he even know that
Vossil is on the planet? Is he trying to show her up? Or is he just
free-lancing to carry out his idealistic aims (like "Zakalwe" in _Use of
Weapons_).
>3. Are the Doctor's murders of Nolieti and Walen justified? And why did the
>Doctor let Duke Quettil and the Guard Commander live, if she killed the
>other two?
Political expediency. Nolieti and Walen were stubborn and not too
bright--they would never cease their opposition to Vossil; this made them
dangerous. On the other hand, the guard commander was both intelligent and
pragmatic. He was one of the plotters who tried to have Vossil killed in
the end; but when he saw that the plan had failed, he quickly changed
sides. Vossil had no need to kill this man--he knew when he was outclassed.
>...
>5. What was the story of Leleeril (Sechroom and Hiliti's childhood friend)
>all about? (Leleeril sleeps with Hiliti but then runs off in tears when she
>discovers her affections were the subject of a bet.)
I don't have an answer for this one. (Surprise! 8^)
>6. What about the Doctor's admission to Oelph that she left the Culture and
>came to Haspidus after she had an unhappy love affair? Does this have
>anything to do with Leleeril?
Maybe. I think it may have been an affair with DeWar, however.
>7. And what on earth did the Doctor see in King Quience?
Pliability? A very clever man who could--like Claudius--act the fool?
>8. How critical should we be of DeWar, and the way he chooses to resolve
>his dilemma? How would Banks judge DeWar? Is he saying that if we don't try
>to teach others better, we will always end up doing the equivalent of
>'protecting rapists'?
Well, DeWar is definitely a nicer guy. I would invite him to dinner. I
would NOT invite Vossil to dinner. (And if I were eating in the same room
with her, I would watch my food carefully.) But if I had a job to do--one
that called for intelligence and ruthlessness--I'd hire Vossil over DeWar
any day.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.
(apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)
email: PTCash at ibm dot com (sorry, spam prevention)
Jacqui McKernan
Peter Cash wrote in message <7fqikt$3...@xena.rsn.hp.com>...
>In article <7fh7th$1nbr$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
>Folk, Rhythm & Life <f...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>Just finished Iain Banks' latest, "Inversions". I enjoyed it a lot, but
I've
>>got a few questions...
>
>I want to thank you for posting this thoughtful analysis of
>_Inversions_.
This has been really interesting, thanks guys. I have one minor point,
below
>
>>SPOILERS...
>
>(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>
>Vossil's willingness to poison the king at the end might be seen as
>evidence that she did not care for him. However, it might be that she
>judged the risk to the king's life small (she was bound to win).
>
Is it not possible that Vossil was poisoning the king all along? He's a
strong man, from an extremely healthy family, yet he's plagued by niggling
illnesses which throw him continually off-balance and make him unsure of his
own strength. This leaves him mentally and physically dependent on Vossil,
the only one who can make him feel better, and allows Vossil to make herself
indispensable and ensure her continued presence at the centre of events. I
can't quite remember, and don't have the book to hand, but doesn't Oelph
make some throwaway comment at the end about the King continuing to reign in
excellent health, post-Vossil?
I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
Cheers
Jacqui
Lars Syrstad
> Peter Cash wrote in message <7fqikt$3...@xena.rsn.hp.com>...
> >In article <7fh7th$1nbr$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> >Folk, Rhythm & Life <f...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> >>Just finished Iain Banks' latest, "Inversions". I enjoyed it a lot, but
> I've
> >>got a few questions...
> >
> >I want to thank you for posting this thoughtful analysis of
> >_Inversions_.
>
> This has been really interesting, thanks guys. I have one minor point,
> below
> >
> >>SPOILERS...
> >
> >(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
> >this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
> >
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>
>
> I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
Sounds likely. Notice the differnece in approach between Vossil and
DeWar in how they make themselves indispensible for the person they
want to endear themselves to: DeWar by being the Bodyguard, preventing
harm, Vossil by being the Doctor, also preventing harm, but only first
after causing the harm...
Another matter: Provided that Vossil indeed was a Special
Circumstances or at least Contact agent, and not as I thought when I'd
finished the book, just another amateur like DeWar, why did they send
a woman? It seems that most of the problems Vossil experienced in her
mission were caused by her gender, so why choose that gender? (Or, if
she refused to change it for the mission, why not send another agent?)
Of course, sowing a seed of gender equality most likely was an
intended part of the mission, but surely not the primary one.
Allowing the pursuit of a secondary or tertiary goal to generate so
many problems for the primary makes very little sense tactically.
Then again, maybe they were so sure of themselves that this was all
routine.
However, I do think this caused way too much stir, lacking the
elegance I'd expect from a well executed SC mission. Also, while I've
only read the book once, and may have missed something, it strikes me
that Vossil seems to have little in the way of intelligence (eh, the
CIA kind of intelligence, that is, not IQ). She seems to rely mostly
on her own devices when it comes to gathering information, while you'd
expect SC at the very least to outfit her with a drone to hover
invisble somewhere nearby, listening in to everything, if not place a
GCU in a nearby solar system.
Given the above, I still prefer to think that Vossil and DeWar both
were in on this on their own, with no SC or Contact backing. I see
some deal between them, like a bet, where they both go to the planet
and try out their own beliefs in how this should be done, for later to
assess who did better.
Would SC allow DeWar to be on the planet on his own, if they
themselves had plans for it? Would they allow him to actually be on
opposite sides of their agent, risking that he react by doing
something stupid that would break their cover, causing no end of
problems? Sounds unlikely. Either none of them were agents, or both
of them were. And since I strongly doubt that DeWar was an SC agent
willingly participating in this operation, and since I can't see any
reason for SC to force or trick him into participating in a similar
setup as in _The Player of Games_, the option of them both working on
their own seems the most likely.
- Lars.
--
xGSV When I Grow Up I Want To Be An Airport.
PD Macfarlane
: "Jacqui McKernan" <mcke...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
:
: > >this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
: > >
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>
: >
: > I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
:
: Sounds likely. Notice the differnece in approach between Vossil and
: DeWar in how they make themselves indispensible for the person they
: want to endear themselves to: DeWar by being the Bodyguard, preventing
: harm, Vossil by being the Doctor, also preventing harm, but only first
: after causing the harm...
:
: Another matter: Provided that Vossil indeed was a Special
: Circumstances or at least Contact agent, and not as I thought when I'd
: finished the book, just another amateur like DeWar, why did they send
: a woman? It seems that most of the problems Vossil experienced in her
: mission were caused by her gender, so why choose that gender? (Or, if
: she refused to change it for the mission, why not send another agent?)
into the kings affections?
: Of course, sowing a seed of gender equality most likely was an
: intended part of the mission, but surely not the primary one.
: Allowing the pursuit of a secondary or tertiary goal to generate so
: many problems for the primary makes very little sense tactically.
: Then again, maybe they were so sure of themselves that this was all
: routine.
:
: However, I do think this caused way too much stir, lacking the
: elegance I'd expect from a well executed SC mission. Also, while I've
: only read the book once, and may have missed something, it strikes me
: that Vossil seems to have little in the way of intelligence (eh, the
: CIA kind of intelligence, that is, not IQ). She seems to rely mostly
: on her own devices when it comes to gathering information, while you'd
: expect SC at the very least to outfit her with a drone to hover
: invisble somewhere nearby, listening in to everything, if not place a
: GCU in a nearby solar system.
a)she had an extraction plan
b)she had enough assets to covertly gather info on major figures
c)she had the offensive capability to deal with most threats
d)you crave subtlty and then ask for a GSV
: Given the above, I still prefer to think that Vossil and DeWar both
: were in on this on their own, with no SC or Contact backing. I see
: some deal between them, like a bet, where they both go to the planet
: and try out their own beliefs in how this should be done, for later to
: assess who did better.
:
: Would SC allow DeWar to be on the planet on his own, if they
: themselves had plans for it? Would they allow him to actually be on
: opposite sides of their agent, risking that he react by doing
: something stupid that would break their cover, causing no end of
: problems? Sounds unlikely.
locate Zakalwe
Either none of them were agents, or both
: of them were. And since I strongly doubt that DeWar was an SC agent
: willingly participating in this operation, and since I can't see any
: reason for SC to force or trick him into participating in a similar
: setup as in _The Player of Games_, the option of them both working on
: their own seems the most likely.
:
: - Lars.
: --
: xGSV When I Grow Up I Want To Be An Airport.
:
Dr.Strangeglove-Nothing Explains A Lot
Craig
wrote:
>"Jacqui McKernan" <mcke...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Peter Cash wrote in message <7fqikt$3...@xena.rsn.hp.com>...
>> >In article <7fh7th$1nbr$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
>> >Folk, Rhythm & Life <f...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>> >>SPOILERS...
>> >
>> >(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>> >this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>> >
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>:
>> >>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
>
(snippage)
>on her own devices when it comes to gathering information, while you'd
>expect SC at the very least to outfit her with a drone to hover
>invisble somewhere nearby, listening in to everything, if not place a
>GCU in a nearby solar system.
>
I think there probably was a GCU insystem in order to extract her from
the ship at the end, plus she did have a knife missile with her at all
times, the dull dagger she always carried in her boot and was the
whirring and thudding heard in the torture chamber.
>Given the above, I still prefer to think that Vossil and DeWar both
>were in on this on their own, with no SC or Contact backing. I see
>some deal between them, like a bet, where they both go to the planet
>and try out their own beliefs in how this should be done, for later to
>assess who did better.
>
I admit that this does sound like a reasonable explanation why they
are both on the planet (assuming DeWar was giving an accurate telling
in his stories to Lattens)
>Would SC allow DeWar to be on the planet on his own, if they
>themselves had plans for it? Would they allow him to actually be on
>opposite sides of their agent, risking that he react by doing
>something stupid that would break their cover, causing no end of
>problems? Sounds unlikely.
Sounds exactly like something SC would do, if you're going to be
investigating a planet and trying to steer the entire worlds history
then you're going to have agents on all sides. Chances are good that
they weren't the only two agents on the planet either, there was
probably a SC agent working closely in every ruling state. That would
explain why the barons had such good defences, if they had a military
leader like Zakalwe in their forces such a sweeping victory is
extremely likely.
>Either none of them were agents, or both
>of them were. And since I strongly doubt that DeWar was an SC agent
>willingly participating in this operation, and since I can't see any
>reason for SC to force or trick him into participating in a similar
>setup as in _The Player of Games_, the option of them both working on
>their own seems the most likely.
I got the impression that they were both SC agents and that DeWar
chose to spend the rest of Perrund's life with her and was only
extracted after a convenient avalanche when she was at the end of her
lifespan.
>
> - Lars.
>--
>xGSV When I Grow Up I Want To Be An Airport.
>
Craig
ROU If Brains Were Dynamite
Keith Rogers
> SC are not omniscient or omnipotent, ref Use of Weapons, attempts to
> locate Zakalwe
I seem to remember Skaffen-Amtiskaw saying that some Minds at the scene
thought it sporting to let him get a head-start after all the effort he put
in to trash the knife missile. So, not omniscient or omnipotent, but
probably near enough as makes little difference (especially with a single,
low tech planet).
Peter Cash
Jacqui McKernan <mcke...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Peter Cash wrote in message <7fqikt$3...@xena.rsn.hp.com>...
>>In article <7fh7th$1nbr$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
>>>SPOILERS...
>>(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>>this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>>
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>
>
>Is it not possible that Vossil was poisoning the king all along? He's a
>strong man, from an extremely healthy family, yet he's plagued by niggling
>illnesses which throw him continually off-balance and make him unsure of his
>own strength. This leaves him mentally and physically dependent on Vossil,
>the only one who can make him feel better, and allows Vossil to make herself
>indispensable and ensure her continued presence at the centre of events. I
>can't quite remember, and don't have the book to hand, but doesn't Oelph
>make some throwaway comment at the end about the King continuing to reign in
>excellent health, post-Vossil?
>
>I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
Perhaps, but I don't see any compelling reason to adopt this hypothesis. My
take on this was that the king was a sniveling hypochondriac.
Peter Cash
PD Macfarlane <pm5...@ncs.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>Women not perceived as a threat? woman more likely to invaginate herself
^^^^^^^^^^
>into the kings affections?
This is either one of the more amusing and improbable Freudian slips of
recent internet history, or a particularly bad neologism.
PD Macfarlane
: In article <FAqv3...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>,
: PD Macfarlane <pm5...@ncs.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
:
: >Women not perceived as a threat? woman more likely to invaginate herself
: ^^^^^^^^^^
: >into the kings affections?
:
: This is either one of the more amusing and improbable Freudian slips of
: recent internet history, or a particularly bad neologism.
(After looking up neologism)
;-), Invaginate-to put in a sheath, to sheathe, to turn or double vack
within itself, to introvert
(the compact edition of the OED)
I tend to use in in its specialised (reproductive) sense, which I wont go
into here, The only reason it sprang to mind was too many cans of red bull
and a looming repro exam. No Freudian slip intended
Dr.Strangeglove-Nothing Explains A Lot
:
: --
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.
: (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)
: email: PTCash at ibm dot com (sorry, spam prevention)
--
PD Macfarlane
: On 25 Apr 1999 02:54:43 +0200, Lars Syrstad <la...@tihlde.hist.no>: >
: >> Peter Cash wrote in message <7fqikt$3...@xena.rsn.hp.com>...
: >> >In article <7fh7th$1nbr$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,:
: >> >>SPOILERS...
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
: >> >>:
:
: Sounds exactly like something SC would do, if you're going to be
: investigating a planet and trying to steer the entire worlds history
: then you're going to have agents on all sides. Chances are good that
: they weren't the only two agents on the planet either, there was
: probably a SC agent working closely in every ruling state. That would
: explain why the barons had such good defences, if they had a military
: leader like Zakalwe in their forces such a sweeping victory is
: extremely likely.
rather than stated) might have had something to do with it.
Loznik
suggested:
>In article <7fsbfv$sdb$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>,
>Jacqui McKernan <mcke...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Peter Cash wrote in message <7fqikt$3...@xena.rsn.hp.com>...
>>>In article <7fh7th$1nbr$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
>
>>>>SPOILERS...
>
>>>(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>>>this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>>>
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>
>>
>>Is it not possible that Vossil was poisoning the king all along? He's a
>>strong man, from an extremely healthy family, yet he's plagued by niggling
>>illnesses which throw him continually off-balance and make him unsure of his
>>own strength. This leaves him mentally and physically dependent on Vossil,
>>the only one who can make him feel better, and allows Vossil to make herself
>>indispensable and ensure her continued presence at the centre of events. I
>>can't quite remember, and don't have the book to hand, but doesn't Oelph
>>make some throwaway comment at the end about the King continuing to reign in
>>excellent health, post-Vossil?
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
>
>Perhaps, but I don't see any compelling reason to adopt this hypothesis. My
>take on this was that the king was a sniveling hypochondriac.
>--
I shared a very similar reaction to Peter Cash's, that of skepticism
as regards Vossil's possible poisoning of King Quience.
Then, today, I read Page 138 of the hardback edition, concerning
Vossil's predecessor, Tranius -
- "Yes," Duke Quettil said ..."Tranius. What of him?"
- "He fell prey to shaking hands and blurred sight", the King told
him. "He retired to his farm in Junde."
- "Apparently the rural life suits him," Adlain added. "For by all
accounts the old fellow has made a full recovery."
Hmm, mighty convenient for Vossil if she wanted to become the Royal
Physician, that Tranius should become temporarily unfit for the job.
Banks throws out these little morsels for us to chew over, and then
claims, innocently, "Why do people read *so much* into my writing, I
never meant all *that*!". Ha!
Another subtle beauty ...
Page 28, when DeWar is relating to Perrund the tale of Munnosh and his
family. I received a strong impression that Perrund could not rest
until she had received confirmation from DeWar that the architect's
family might not necessarily have been assassinated. She made up
reasons why the family might have survived as if it were very
important to her personally. A case of identification with her own
former family, perhaps? She displayed signs of agitation immediately
after the end of DeWar's tale.
The significance of this seemingly minor event, the relating of this
story to Perrund, only be appreciated (by me, anyway) after a second
reading.
Loznik
"No, Mr Bond, I expect you to *die*."
James Youngman
> I wonder how emigration from the Culture works. It seems that leaving with a
> knife missile and a module is not one of the choices a citizen is allowed to
> make.
Read Excession.
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
Damien Raphael Sullivan
>pho...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Raphael Sullivan) writes:
>> I wonder how emigration from the Culture works. It seems that leaving with a
>> knife missile and a module is not one of the choices a citizen is allowed to
>> make.
>
>Read Excession.
I've read all the Culture works. I don't remember anything directly relevant
to my question.
-xx- Damien X-)
Ian Galbraith
:>Read Excession.
One of the stories in The State of the Art deals with it. The protagonist
leaves The Culture to live on a primitive planet and takes a forbidden
weapon.
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination
is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world." - Albert Einstein
Graeme Lindsell
>On 4 May 1999 01:53:56 GMT, Damien Raphael Sullivan wrote:
>:>> I wonder how emigration from the Culture works. It seems that leaving with
> a
>:>> knife missile and a module is not one of the choices a citizen is allowed
> to
>:>> make.
>
>leaves The Culture to live on a primitive planet and takes a forbidden
>weapon.
>
IIRC the protagonist is given the weapon by the people who want him
to use it, after he's left the Culture. The weapon would only let itself be
used by people with Culture genetic signatures, which is why they needed
him. (Is the story called "A Gift from the Culture?")
Graeme Lindsell | Computer Support Entity and Post-
Research School of Chemistry | Graduate Student
Australian National University |"I was 17 miles from Greybridge before
Ph:(06) 249 5653 Fax:(06) 249 0750 | I was caught by the school leopard"
Loznik
Lindsell) suggested:
> IIRC the protagonist is given the weapon by the people who want him
>to use it, after he's left the Culture. The weapon would only let itself be
>used by people with Culture genetic signatures, which is why they needed
>him. (Is the story called "A Gift from the Culture?")
>
>
>Graeme Lindsell | Computer Support Entity and Post-
That's right, "A Gift from the Culture". You recall the details
correctly.
Loznik {:-)>
"All the lies, all the truth,
All the things that I offer you."
Ian Galbraith
:On Tue, 04 May 1999 02:56:43 GMT, lind...@rsc.anu.edu.au (Graeme
:Lindsell) suggested:
:> IIRC the protagonist is given the weapon by the people who want him
:>to use it, after he's left the Culture. The weapon would only let itself be
:>used by people with Culture genetic signatures, which is why they needed
:>him. (Is the story called "A Gift from the Culture?")
:That's right, "A Gift from the Culture". You recall the details
:correctly.
Yep I read it again last night. It does imply pretty heavily that people
leaving The Culture weapons are not allowed to take weapons. There is a
reference to not using Culture artefacts since he left The Culture though
which does imply they are allowed to take some items.
Gerry Quinn
>
>>>>SPOILERS...
>
>>>(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>>>this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>>>
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>:
>>>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Vossil was the root of the Kings ill health.
>
>Perhaps, but I don't see any compelling reason to adopt this hypothesis. My
>take on this was that the king was a sniveling hypochondriac.
I just read this book today at one sitting.
My take:
Sech - intervention - Vossil
Hil - no intervention - deWar
Proof of identity: Sech has scar over left ear, noted by torturer. Hil has
wooden ring, later used as symbol in trading empire.
Vossil continually intervened to influence events, and carried a powerful
sentient weapon which she used to bug the Dukes, kill the torturers and (to
escape from the torture chamber) poison the king. Up to then he was just a
hypochondriac. Vossil intended - but failed - to marry the king, and did
succeed in influencing him towards a somewhat more progressive stance.
King Quience was quite capable of destabilising the Protectorate, arming the
barons, and organising the poisoning of the child all by himself. Vossil did
not care about the Protectorate.
The only question is why deWar was there at all. He used no technical
resources other than his considerable skill and intelligence to do his job.
They weren't enough. Perhaps he was playing out a game with his counterpart.
They may even have communicated.
As for the asteroid strike, it is likely that that may have been the major
intervention by Vossil, with the rest (comprising the subject matter of the
novel) being somewhat of a sideshow.
Don't be too hard on Vossil. They were tough times and she did some good,
albeit a tad ruthlessly...
- Gerry Quinn
snark^
warbled on about "Re: Iain Banks - Inversions" in alt.books.iain-banks <<=
> King Quience was quite capable of destabilising the Protectorate, arming the
> barons, and organising the poisoning of the child all by himself. Vossil did
> not care about the Protectorate.
I agree with you here. SC must have thought that Quience's kingdom
represented the best opportunity for this planet to advance morally and
intellectually. Thus Vossil's attempts to ingratiate herself with the King.
She might have been meant to fail, and then another SC agent comes in to
take up where she left off.
> The only question is why deWar was there at all. He used no technical
> resources other than his considerable skill and intelligence to do his job.
> They weren't enough. Perhaps he was playing out a game with his counterpart.
> They may even have communicated.
I think it's merely a coincidence that they're on the same planet. I don't
think DeWar has any official Culture backing at all - he's just interfering
as he personally sees fit - and his choice is to support the burgeoning
republic amidst a sea of hereditary monarchies. I wondered when reading the
book if SC knew about his being on planet?
> Don't be too hard on Vossil. They were tough times and she did some good,
> albeit a tad ruthlessly...
In the story DeWar told I gathered the impression that he was the ruthless
one originally and she the more diplomatic thinker. But now that both are
down on-planet, working toward whatever goals they have, their political and
philosophical positions have inverted - now DeWar takes the
non-interventionist approach while Dr. Vossil is actively and violently
pushing the Culture's ideals on a populace that doesn't appear to want them.
--
Last book(s) read: Three Hands in the Fountain (Lindsey Davis).
Unicorn's Blood (Patricia Finney).
Currently reading: Foucault's Pendulum (Umberto Eco).
Next from heap: Ex Libris (Ross King).
Gerry Quinn
>
>In the story DeWar told I gathered the impression that he was the ruthless
>one originally and she the more diplomatic thinker. But now that both are
>down on-planet, working toward whatever goals they have, their political and
>philosophical positions have inverted - now DeWar takes the
>non-interventionist approach while Dr. Vossil is actively and violently
>pushing the Culture's ideals on a populace that doesn't appear to want them.
>
It's clear who was who, because of the scar and the wooden ring. 'Ruthless'
has two meanings - you can ruthlessly intervene, or ruthlessly let the
society fight among themselves. Vossil was the interventionist, and
ruthlessness was thrust on her.
The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
destroyed the old Empire. The rest was small beer by comparison.
- Gerry Quinn
http://bindweed.com
Peter Cash
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>>>>SPOILERS...
>>
>>>>(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>>>>this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>>>>
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>I just read this book today at one sitting.
Has the Valium hit yet? 8^)
>My take:
>Sech - intervention - Vossil
>Hil - no intervention - deWar
I'm not sure if this is the real contrast between the two. I thought the
proposition that "sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind" was the
crucial controversy between the two. In other words, one of them (and I
think it's clearly the good doctor Vossil) thinks that The Ends Justify the
Means, and that You Have to Break Eggs to Make Omelette. DeWar disagrees.
There's little doubt that Vossil's school of thinking is more apt to be
effective if you want to achieve political ends. Nice guys finish last, and
all that.
>Proof of identity: Sech has scar over left ear, noted by torturer. Hil has
>wooden ring, later used as symbol in trading empire.
Not sure why you think this is important. Care to refresh memory?
>Vossil continually intervened to influence events, and carried a powerful
>sentient weapon which she used to bug the Dukes, kill the torturers and (to
>escape from the torture chamber) poison the king. Up to then he was just a
>hypochondriac. Vossil intended - but failed - to marry the king, and did
>succeed in influencing him towards a somewhat more progressive stance.
Yes...I've toyed with the notion that Vossil viewed marriage as a way to
get better grip on His Majesty.
>King Quience was quite capable of destabilising the Protectorate, arming the
>barons, and organising the poisoning of the child all by himself. Vossil did
>not care about the Protectorate.
Really? He didn't strike me as particularly bright...but again, that's as
seen through the apprentice's eyes.
>The only question is why deWar was there at all. He used no technical
>resources other than his considerable skill and intelligence to do his job.
>They weren't enough. Perhaps he was playing out a game with his
>counterpart.
I think he was interfering in his own way, using methods he considered
morally good--I.e., protecting someone's life, not killing people, trying
to use persuasion not deception, being a good influence on the young
prince, etc.
>They may even have communicated.
I doubt it. If they had, DeWar wouldn't have been so totally surprised when
he found out what was really going on. Then again, Vossil may have been
lying to him.
>As for the asteroid strike, it is likely that that may have been the major
>intervention by Vossil, with the rest (comprising the subject matter of the
>novel) being somewhat of a sideshow.
It's possible, but there's really no evidence for the hypothesis that the
Culture trashed the planet with rock.
>Don't be too hard on Vossil. They were tough times and she did some good,
>albeit a tad ruthlessly...
Er, yes. If it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight...call
Dr. Vossil.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.
(apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)
email: PTCash at mindspring dot com (sorry, spam prevention)
Ken MacLeod
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>destroyed the old Empire.
Is there any evidence for this in the book?
It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
--
Ken MacLeod
Gerry Quinn
>In article <gm5Z2.1623$yr2...@news.indigo.ie>,
>Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>>>>>SPOILERS...
>>>
>>>>>(Yes, really bad ones. Since this is a very plot-centric novel, reading
>>>>>this WILL ruin it for you if you haven't already read it)
>>>>>
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I just read this book today at one sitting.
>
>Has the Valium hit yet? 8^)
>
>>My take:
>>Sech - intervention - Vossil
>>Hil - no intervention - deWar
>
>I'm not sure if this is the real contrast between the two. I thought the
>proposition that "sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind" was the
>crucial controversy between the two. In other words, one of them (and I
>think it's clearly the good doctor Vossil) thinks that The Ends Justify the
>Means, and that You Have to Break Eggs to Make Omelette. DeWar disagrees.
>
>There's little doubt that Vossil's school of thinking is more apt to be
>effective if you want to achieve political ends. Nice guys finish last, and
>all that.
>
>>Proof of identity: Sech has scar over left ear, noted by torturer. Hil has
>>wooden ring, later used as symbol in trading empire.
>
>Not sure why you think this is important. Care to refresh memory?
>
Just that there was speculation here about who was who. DeWar's story
mentioned the scar and the wooden ring, and Banks takes care to note who was
carrying each at the end. (Of course assuming that they didn't both change
sex gives the same result...)
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
Purely circumstancial evidence. Rocks hit, unchanging Empire collapses into
political ferment, Culture agents pop up everywhere.
One thing is certain - if the asteroid was natural they could have stopped
it. Clearly they knew of the asteroid strike in advance. So actually firing
it is not so morally different from the best-case assumption as it might
seem...
- Gerry Quinn
R P H Boyce
>>>
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
Big snip
>
>>Vossil continually intervened to influence events, and carried a powerful
>>sentient weapon which she used to bug the Dukes, kill the torturers and (to
>>escape from the torture chamber) poison the king. Up to then he was just a
>>hypochondriac. Vossil intended - but failed - to marry the king, and did
>>succeed in influencing him towards a somewhat more progressive stance.
(Snip)
>
> I think [DeWar] was interfering in his own way, using methods he
considered
> morally good--I.e., protecting someone's life, not killing people, trying
> to use persuasion not deception, being a good influence on the young
> prince, etc.
This is a nice contrast: Doctor Vossil being violent, interventionist, a
poisoner, killer (albeit in self-defense); and DeWar the war minister
(IIRC) being peaceful, non-interventionist, and generally positive means.
Seems like they're both in completely the wrong careers :o) (although
totally the right place socially to complete their goals).
>
> Er, yes. If it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight...call
> Dr. Vossil.
LOL!
Rich
Paul Clarke
wrote:
>In article <iJXk5DAq...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>, Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <DNAZ2.1821$yr2...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
>><ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>>
>>>The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>>>but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>>>destroyed the old Empire.
>>
>>Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>>
>>It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
>
>Purely circumstancial evidence. Rocks hit, unchanging Empire collapses into
>political ferment, Culture agents pop up everywhere.
Everywhere? We have evidence for two people from the Culture, and my
reading is that only one of them is an agent - the other is a
free-lance interferer.
>One thing is certain - if the asteroid was natural they could have stopped
>it. Clearly they knew of the asteroid strike in advance. So actually firing
>it is not so morally different from the best-case assumption as it might
>seem...
Assuming that the Culture found the planet before it was hit by the
asteroid strike. I can't remember whether there's evidence of that or
not.
I can imagine SC arranging the asteroid strike in an extreme case, but
you'd think they could come up with something more subtle and less
destructive.
Ken MacLeod
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>In article <iJXk5DAq...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>, Ken MacLeod
><k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <DNAZ2.1821$yr2...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
>><ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>>
>>>The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>>>but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>>>destroyed the old Empire.
>>
>>Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>>
>>It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
>
>Purely circumstancial evidence. Rocks hit, unchanging Empire collapses into
>political ferment, Culture agents pop up everywhere.
>
For small values of 'everywhere' :-)
>One thing is certain - if the asteroid was natural they could have stopped
>it. Clearly they knew of the asteroid strike in advance. So actually firing
>it is not so morally different from the best-case assumption as it might
>seem...
>
This assumes that they knew about it, and (if they knew about it) had
the forces in place to do something about it in time. Neither of which
is borne out by the text.
--
Ken MacLeod
Jo Walton
k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk "Ken MacLeod" writes:
> In article <DNAZ2.1821$yr2...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
> <ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>
> >The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
> >but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
> >destroyed the old Empire.
>
> Is there any evidence for this in the book?
Not directly, it just seems awfully convenient.
> It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
Could have been De War, I suppose.
I just remember when I was reading it and the stuff about that was
mentioned and I suddenly thought: "Oh!"
Is the paperback out yet?
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ; etc.
Loznik
suggested:
>In article <iJXk5DAq...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>
> k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk "Ken MacLeod" writes:
>
>> In article <DNAZ2.1821$yr2...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
>> <ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>>
>> >The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>> >but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>> >destroyed the old Empire.
>>
>> Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>
>Not directly, it just seems awfully convenient.
>
Contact may have been using a natural event and turned it to their
advantage.
>> It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
>
>Could have been De War, I suppose.
>
I would have thought that subtlety and finesse would be as much a part
of The Culture's ethos as the interference a deliberate asteroid
srtrike would represent. I can't imagine that the Culture would use
such indiscriminate force against such a substantially lesser culture.
It is equally inconceiveable that an individual, even an SC operative,
would be able to order such an action without some sort of consensus.
>I just remember when I was reading it and the stuff about that was
>mentioned and I suddenly thought: "Oh!"
>
>Is the paperback out yet?
>
The paperback is being released in the UK in June - see
http://members.xoom.com/TheCulture/frameset.html
for details of the accompanying tour by the author.
aRJay
>Is the paperback out yet?
I have a copy in what I call softback, paperback book but the size of a
modern hardback.
ObOfftopic>
For years all hard back books were about the same size (ignoring
thickness) about 8" by 6" now they seem to be about 10" by 7" why the
change, they keep reminding me of the large print shelves at the village
library before it closed.
--
aRJay
Ken MacLeod
<J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <iJXk5DAq...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>
> k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk "Ken MacLeod" writes:
>
>> In article <DNAZ2.1821$yr2...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
>> <ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>>
>> >The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>> >but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>> >destroyed the old Empire.
>>
>> Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>
>Not directly, it just seems awfully convenient.
>
>
>Could have been De War, I suppose.
>
De War brings on Da Revolution.
>I just remember when I was reading it and the stuff about that was
>mentioned and I suddenly thought: "Oh!"
>
You just have a suspicious mind. Iain looks all innocent when asked
about this.
>Is the paperback out yet?
>
Next month. Another joint tour beckons. Wah-hey!
--
Ken MacLeod
Jens Kilian
> The paperback is being released in the UK in June - see
> http://members.xoom.com/TheCulture/frameset.html
> for details of the accompanying tour by the author.
*A* paperback is out and available (even) here in Germany.
Jens.
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-14-7698 (HP TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-14-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Gerry Quinn
>>> >The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>>> >but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>>> >destroyed the old Empire.
>>>
>>> Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>>
>>Not directly, it just seems awfully convenient.
>>
>Contact may have been using a natural event and turned it to their
>advantage.
>
>>> It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
>>
>>Could have been De War, I suppose.
>>
>I would have thought that subtlety and finesse would be as much a part
>of The Culture's ethos as the interference a deliberate asteroid
>srtrike would represent. I can't imagine that the Culture would use
>such indiscriminate force against such a substantially lesser culture.
>
>It is equally inconceiveable that an individual, even an SC operative,
>would be able to order such an action without some sort of consensus.
>
We know they were ready to hop in right after the event. Therefore they knew
of it in advance. Diverting a smallish asteroid would not have been difficult
for any Culture vessel.
So, at best, they just let it hit and took advantage of the consequences. It
hit just right to wreck the Empire too. Are you quite sure they didn't give
it a nudge? Might have saved lives overall, for example, while still making
sure the centre of the Empire got it, and outlying places with potential were
spared...
Even if it was pure luck that the thing was aimed right by chance, it's a bit
like allowing (say) a famine to happen while sitting on one's hands, then
jumping in to teach the survivors improved farming methods.
- Gerry Quinn
Loznik
suggested:
>In article <3738a25d...@alpha.news.global.net.uk>, loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>>>> >The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
>>>> >but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
>>>> >destroyed the old Empire.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>>>
>>>Not directly, it just seems awfully convenient.
>>>
>>Contact may have been using a natural event and turned it to their
>>advantage.
>>
>>>> It seems to run against the Culture ethos.
>>>
>>>Could have been De War, I suppose.
>>>
>>I would have thought that subtlety and finesse would be as much a part
>>of The Culture's ethos as the interference a deliberate asteroid
>>srtrike would represent. I can't imagine that the Culture would use
>>such indiscriminate force against such a substantially lesser culture.
>>
>>It is equally inconceiveable that an individual, even an SC operative,
>>would be able to order such an action without some sort of consensus.
>>
>
>We know they were ready to hop in right after the event. Therefore they knew
>of it in advance. Diverting a smallish asteroid would not have been difficult
>for any Culture vessel.
>
Granted.
>So, at best, they just let it hit and took advantage of the consequences. It
>hit just right to wreck the Empire too. Are you quite sure they didn't give
>it a nudge? Might have saved lives overall, for example, while still making
>sure the centre of the Empire got it, and outlying places with potential were
>spared...
>
Not sure - either way. Opinions only at this stage and in the absence
of evidence, one way or the other.
>Even if it was pure luck that the thing was aimed right by chance, it's a bit
>like allowing (say) a famine to happen while sitting on one's hands, then
>jumping in to teach the survivors improved farming methods.
>
>- Gerry Quinn
>
I have no information with which to support or refute your argument.
My impression of The Culture leads me to suggest that they would only
interfere directly with a relatively non-threatening lesser culture in
*subtle* ways, and not by manipulating the kind of destructive event
the asteroid strike represented.
Whether The Culture sat back and "allowed" a natural disaster to occur
on the planet - well, again, I have no specific information that
suggests that The Culture routinely interferes with the *natural*
processes of any or all star systems within their influence.
In short, "too many unknowns".
Sod Enfopol98
the Wed, 12 May 1999 11:57:42 GMT. In doing so, they felt we would all
like to know:
>Even if it was pure luck that the thing was aimed right by chance, it's a bit
>like allowing (say) a famine to happen while sitting on one's hands, then
>jumping in to teach the survivors improved farming methods.
Why would that be a 'bad' thing? One of the causes of a faimne would
be a larger population than previous farming techniques could support,
and allowing the population culling effect of such an event also means
that there is slack within the system when you introduce improved
farming methods.
The loss of life would also serve to neutralise any threat posed by
traditionalists who would strive to return to previous methodologies
for various irrational reasons, as they would have a very nasty, very
recent reminder of why the previous methodologies should be avoided.
__
***Currently Playing: FF6 using SNES emulation
***Desperately Seeking: Eng lang trans of Secret of Mana 2
***Don't point me to: The boys at RPGe... they ain't got it
***Contact me at: flat...@freeuk.com (PGP key available)
"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace"
- Homer Simpson, 'Simpson Tide'
"I guess being paranoid is kind of like being psychic."
__
Peter Cash
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
...
>We know they were ready to hop in right after the event. Therefore they knew
>of it in advance. Diverting a smallish asteroid would not have been difficult
>for any Culture vessel.
>
>hit just right to wreck the Empire too. Are you quite sure they didn't give
>it a nudge? Might have saved lives overall, for example, while still making
>sure the centre of the Empire got it, and outlying places with potential were
>spared...
>
>like allowing (say) a famine to happen while sitting on one's hands, then
>jumping in to teach the survivors improved farming methods.
You make a very good point. The culture obviously had an interest in this
place, and was watching it. Therefore, they knew that the big rock was
going to hit. They could have prevented it, but they let it
hit. Alternatively, the Culture threw the rock to begin with. So, the
Culture is at the very least guilty by reason of inaction. Yes, I do think
you're correct. Not very nice people, are they?
snark^
warbled on about "Re: Iain Banks - Inversions" in alt.books.iain-banks <<=
> "Ken MacLeod" writes:
> > Gerry Quinn writes
> > >The most ruthless intervention by 'Lavishia' (we assume it was the Culture,
> > >but it might have been another similar entity) was the asteroid strike that
> > >destroyed the old Empire.
> >
> > Is there any evidence for this in the book?
>
> Not directly, it just seems awfully convenient.
Why would the Culture want to split up a large empire that probably
contained a wonderfully convenient monster-bureaucracy? Surely they'd find
it easier to subvert and control the development of a large centralised
paper pushing organisation rather than a multitude of smaller independant
kingdoms (and one republic).
--
snark^ leonidas(at)
ICQ No.: 1471203 earthlight(dot)co(dot)nz