Retrospective: Postman, The (1997)
mike stone
>The villain in THE POSTMAN, played by
>Will Patton, is much more interesting and realistic. The acting in
>general is much better in THE POSTMAN - Olivia Williams is very
>convincing in otherwise thankless role of The Postman's obligatory
>love interest; Larenz Tate is wonderful as The Postman's enthusiastic
>follower and even Tom Petty leaves good impression in small cameo
>appearance.
>Major flaw of THE POSTMAN was actually inherited from David
>Brin's novel -naive, idealistic and almost messianic belief that it takes
>only one spirited individual to reverse decay of civilisation.
Is that realy so naive?
The word that sprang to my mind was "catalyst". The survivors of WW3 had been
"in shock" for 15 years or so, too numbed by what had happened to them to
effectively resist Bethlehem and his cohorts. But the various townspeople
almost certainly outnumbered the Holnists, and once they "got their breath
back", would be able to defeat them. We aren't told whence the Holnists got all
their artillery etc, but it was most likely pilfered from Army and National
Guard arsenals; no obvious reason why others couldn't arm themselves from the
same source.
Gordon Krantz got to be The Postman because he happened along at the
psychological moment. Had he pulled the same stunt ten years earlier, he would
have been turned over to Bethlehem (or to Nathan Holn if the latter were still
alive then) by demoralised survivors and probably shot out of hand. Ten years
_later_, he wouldn't have gotten he chance because, almost certainly, someone
else would have already done it. As it was, he makes his move just when the
people are ready - with the result that it takes off like wildfire, and even
when The Postman himself tries to call it all off, he is unable to do so. His
"disciples" won't take no for an answer
I quite agree that Bethlehem is an engaging villain, but must confess to some
bewilderment at his being so "down" on the United States and in particular its
flag. I should have thought that a warlord in his position would have
_embraced_ the idea of restoring the American nation (with a few leetle reforms
of course - no more of this nonsense about race or gender equality) and ridden
into the townships waving Old Glory and summoning the young men to put their
country back on its feet. He probably wouldn't even have needed to conscript.
He would have got plenty of volunteers. The loyalty which The Postman won could
easily have been pre-empted by Bethlehem - and I'm pretty sure a _real_ warlord
would have seen the opportunity
> This
>messianic message was wholeheartedly embraced by Costner who
>probably saw himself in the character of Postman and decided to fill
>the film with as much positive, uplifting and life-changing messages
>as possible. The result is a film that mixes realism with sentimental
>pathos and flag-waving that could be quite annoying to non-
>American audiences.
It may have struck a chord with some older viewers. The scene where Bethlehem
shoots the hostages in Pineview (including the Sheriff who tried so hard to
find a middle way) could easily have come from any of a hundred WW2 films. On
a visit to Rotterdam in 2002, I saw a memorial to twenty men who died in
precisely that way. They weren't in the Resistance, they were just picked at
random in reprisal for its actions. And a couple of days later I talked to a
young Dutch woman who lived next door to the _daughter_ of one of those
victims. It brough that scene very "close to home" for me, esp as I was born in
1948, so grew up in the shadow of World War II
Is this perhaps a clue to why the movie failed? Was most of its audience simply
too young to get (or at least to really appreciate) the message? If so, I find
that sad
>Costner often gets lost in pathos and some of
>the scenes often look like the unintentional parody of the movie; the
>epilogue of the film is just one of many examples. Before the
>audience reaches that finale, it would have to endure three hours of
>film - Costner, just like in DANCES WITH WOLVES, shows that he
>has some problems with pacing films. But those who are patient and
>those who are forgiving would at least appreciate THE POSTMAN as
>overambitious yet noble failure.
>RATING: 3/10 (+)
Oh come on. I'd give it 6 or 7 at the very least - and would feel mean-spirited
at that
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
mike stone
>> The word that sprang to my mind was "catalyst". The survivors of WW3
>> had been "in shock" for 15 years or so, too numbed by what had
>> happened to them to effectively resist Bethlehem and his cohorts. But
>> the various townspeople almost certainly outnumbered the Holnists, and
>> once they "got their breath back", would be able to defeat them. We
>> aren't told whence the Holnists got all their artillery etc, but it
>> was most likely pilfered from Army and National Guard arsenals; no
>> obvious reason why others couldn't arm themselves from the same
>> source.
>
>Unless there was nothing left in the same source because the Holnists
>took all the stuff first?
>
Could be, but in the final scene of the movie, The Postman comes against
Bethlehem with an army which, if not necessarily equal, is at least comparable
in strength to the Holnist one. Presumably its arms and ammunition must have
come from somewhere
>> Gordon Krantz got to be The Postman because he happened along at the
>> psychological moment. Had he pulled the same stunt ten years earlier,
>> he would have been turned over to Bethlehem (or to Nathan Holn if the
>> latter were still alive then) by demoralised survivors and probably
>> shot out of hand. Ten years _later_, he wouldn't have gotten he chance
>> because, almost certainly, someone else would have already done it. As
>> it was, he makes his move just when the people are ready - with the
>> result that it takes off like wildfire, and even when The Postman
>> himself tries to call it all off, he is unable to do so. His
>> "disciples" won't take no for an answer
>
>Does this remind anyone else of Life of Brian? ;)
>
In some ways. But Costner had too big a streak of earnestness (as someone put
it on another ng) to play it that way. Praps you might call it _Life of Brian_
played with a straight face
>> I quite agree that Bethlehem is an engaging villain, but must confess
>> to some bewilderment at his being so "down" on the United States and
>> in particular its flag. I should have thought that a warlord in his
>> position would have _embraced_ the idea of restoring the American
>> nation (with a few leetle reforms of course - no more of this nonsense
>> about race or gender equality) and ridden into the townships waving
>> Old Glory and summoning the young men to put their country back on its
>> feet. He probably wouldn't even have needed to conscript. He would
>> have got plenty of volunteers. The loyalty which The Postman won could
>> easily have been pre-empted by Bethlehem - and I'm pretty sure a
>> _real_ warlord would have seen the opportunity
>
>Good point. I haven't reached this part of the book yet, but your
>description just makes me wonder "what if he had more delusions of
>grandeur than the average warlord?" Old Glory might not have that much
>appeal to someone who wants to summon the young men by waving the flag of
>the Emperor Bethlehem of the United Bethlehemvilles of Bethlehemland or
>something.
Or possibly he preferred being absolute ruler of a small pond to being the even
slightly more limited monarch of a big one (since my proposed strategy would
involve him in more persuading and less ordering) In which case the
cartoonist's "Oh Ye Little Mind Of Bethlehem" got the man about right
>
>>> This
>>>messianic message was wholeheartedly embraced by Costner who
>>>probably saw himself in the character of Postman and decided to fill
>>>the film with as much positive, uplifting and life-changing messages
>>>as possible. The result is a film that mixes realism with sentimental
>>>pathos and flag-waving that could be quite annoying to non-
>>>American audiences.
>>
>> It may have struck a chord with some older viewers. The scene where
>> Bethlehem shoots the hostages in Pineview (including the Sheriff who
>> tried so hard to find a middle way) could easily have come from any of
>> a hundred WW2 films. On a visit to Rotterdam in 2002, I saw a
>> memorial to twenty men who died in precisely that way. They weren't in
>> the Resistance, they were just picked at random in reprisal for its
>> actions. And a couple of days later I talked to a young Dutch woman
>> who lived next door to the _daughter_ of one of those victims. It
>> brough that scene very "close to home" for me, esp as I was born in
>> 1948, so grew up in the shadow of World War II
>>
>> Is this perhaps a clue to why the movie failed? Was most of its
>> audience simply too young to get (or at least to really appreciate)
>> the message? If so, I find that sad
>
>I was born in 1978 and I'm getting it so far. The book doesn't seem
>quite so pathos-laden and flag-waving to me. I mean, Gordon's in a
>*mailman* uniform, not a military one.
>
>The book actually reminds me of some of that Michigan Militia/sympathetic
>survivalist/etc. hype in the 1990s, only Brin has the idea of a
>centralized Federal government symbolizing freedom and the survivalists
>symbolizing oppression. So there are these interesting contrasts too.
>
>Anyway, is this one of the points of departure between the book and
>movie?
Not really. The Holnists are unsympathetic in both.
The biggest change is in The Postman's strategy. The notion of Gordon
successfully challenging for the Holnist leadership is Costner's, not Brin's.
In the book, he is rescued partly by a force of genetically "augmented" men (if
you like, real supermen as opposed to the Holnists' phoney ones) and partly by
the Holnists coming under attack on another front from an area (California of
course) where Civilisation really _has_ survived. The former is totally omitted
from the movie, while the latter only gets a "bit part", when it is discovered
that a "Restored Republic of California" has also set up a postal service - but
in the movie this would appear to have been inspired by The Postman's example,
whereas in the book it has happened quite independently, and indeed apparently
predates him
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>mws...@aol.comnotripe (mike stone) wrote in
>news:20040224161430...@mb-m04.aol.com:
>
>>>The villain in THE POSTMAN, played by
>>>Will Patton, is much more interesting and realistic. The acting in
>>>general is much better in THE POSTMAN - Olivia Williams is very
>>>convincing in otherwise thankless role of The Postman's obligatory
>>>love interest; Larenz Tate is wonderful as The Postman's enthusiastic
>>>follower and even Tom Petty leaves good impression in small cameo
>>>appearance.
>
>BTW, how accurate was it to the book? I didn't see the movie and just
>started the book.
>
Not very. Or, to be honest, the movie chose to concentrate on only
certain themes in the book, and dropped others entirely. I'm still a
bit miffed that they dropped all the Amazon bits out of the movie, in
favor of giving the Postman an adoring female love interest. These
comments will make more sense to you as you get further into the book.
Rebecca
mike stone
>successfully challenging for the Holnist leadership is Costner's, not Brin's.
>In the book, he is rescued partly by a force of genetically "augmented" men
>(if
>you like, real supermen as opposed to the Holnists' phoney ones) and partly
>by
>the Holnists coming under attack on another front from an area (California of
>course) where Civilisation really _has_ survived.
So that in some degree Gordon was telling the truth all along, and didn't know
it
In addition to the above he also acquired some militant "womens-libbers" as
allies. I'm not sure of exactly how as I loaned out my copy of the book some
time ago and haven't retrieved it yet. On the whole, though, I feel Costner was
justified in omitting most of these angles , as their inclusion would have made
for a rather confused and disjointed movie. And his alternative solution made
for a very dramatic ending
John M. Gamble
>>>The biggest change is in The Postman's strategy. The notion of Gordon
>>>successfully challenging for the Holnist leadership is Costner's, not
>>>Brin's. In the book, he is rescued partly by a force of genetically
>>>"augmented" men (if you like, real supermen as opposed to the
>>>Holnists' phoney ones) and partly by the Holnists coming under attack
>
>
I believe the non-Holnist augmented character explicitly denied it.
Bio-feedback resulting in *really good* control of ATP and whatever
else that gave you really good reflexes. One suspects some sort
of enhancement with biologicals though. Paraphrasing the character,
"The process requires lots of oxygen."
--
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
Dave Goldman
Gamble) wrote:
> In article <Xns949B42D5...@130.133.1.4>,
> Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >mws...@aol.comnotripe (mike stone) wrote in
> >news:20040225125247...@mb-m26.aol.com:
> >
> >>>The biggest change is in The Postman's strategy. The notion of Gordon
> >>>successfully challenging for the Holnist leadership is Costner's, not
> >>>Brin's. In the book, he is rescued partly by a force of genetically
> >>>"augmented" men (if you like, real supermen as opposed to the
> >>>Holnists' phoney ones) and partly by the Holnists coming under attack
> >
> >? Weren't both augmented groups cyborgs?
> >
>
> I believe the non-Holnist augmented character explicitly denied it.
> Bio-feedback resulting in *really good* control of ATP and whatever
> else that gave you really good reflexes. One suspects some sort
> of enhancement with biologicals though. Paraphrasing the character,
> "The process requires lots of oxygen."
Doesn't anyone around here ever check a book before getting into arguments
about it?
I have no idea what they did in the movie, but in the book it was
explicitly a Version 1.0 augmented Good ex-soldier (just one, not a
"force") who fought with and defeated the Version 2.0 augmented Evil
ex-soldier (also just one guy).
The non-augmented protagonist, IIRC, did manage to kill the Evil
second-in-command by taking him by surprise.
(Not that _I'm_ actually checking the book for this post...)
- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
A.C.
> Doesn't anyone around here ever check a book before getting into arguments
> about it?
>
> I have no idea what they did in the movie, but in the book it was
> explicitly a Version 1.0 augmented Good ex-soldier (just one, not a
> "force") who fought with and defeated the Version 2.0 augmented Evil
> ex-soldier (also just one guy).
>
> The non-augmented protagonist, IIRC, did manage to kill the Evil
> second-in-command by taking him by surprise.
Huh? If by version numbers you mean the good augmented guy came
first, that's not right, Powhatan explicitly states that his augmented
generation came after.
Dave Goldman
nomadi...@hotmail.com (A.C.) wrote:
OOPS! (Thus once again demonstrating the folly of posting (a) without
first doing a sanity-check with the book, and (b) at early-morning hours
while one's brain is only partly functional.)
J.B. Moreno
> jga...@ripco.com (John M. Gamble) wrote:
>
> > Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-snip-
> > >? Weren't both augmented groups cyborgs?
> > >
> >
> > I believe the non-Holnist augmented character explicitly denied it.
> > Bio-feedback resulting in *really good* control of ATP and whatever
> > else that gave you really good reflexes. One suspects some sort
> > of enhancement with biologicals though. Paraphrasing the character,
> > "The process requires lots of oxygen."
>
>
> Doesn't anyone around here ever check a book before getting into arguments
> about it?
>
> I have no idea what they did in the movie, but in the book it was
> explicitly a Version 1.0 augmented Good ex-soldier (just one, not a
> "force") who fought with and defeated the Version 2.0 augmented Evil
> ex-soldier (also just one guy).
Uhm, you need to rethink your criticism: (a) the above paraphrase shows
that Gamble has read the book, although perpahs not real recently and
(b) you have the version numbers reversed; the bad guy was the 1.0
version, which had some bugs (namely that they tended to go a bit crazy
and throw their weight around), which was fixed in the version 2.0
release (by using a bunch of hippy peaceniks as their soldier).
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
A.C.
And just to turn the thumbscrews a bit more, there were actually a
couple of evil, augmented guys.
Dave Goldman
Well, yeah, but the second one was the Evil second-in-command one, right?
Killed by the protagonist rather than the Version 2.0 ex-soldier?
[At this point, I would be ashamed to look this up rather than just
posting! :) ]
AJ Denny
her role was not even cardboard, but newspaper thin.
The film was alright until the end. We are supposed to believe that within a
couple of decades, society would have rebuilt enough to allow there to not
just be television, but multiple networks there to commemerate the Postman.
That got a laugh from the people I was watching it with.
mike stone
>The film was alright until the end. We are supposed to believe that within a
>couple of decades, society would have rebuilt enough to allow there to not
>just be television, but multiple networks there to commemerate the Postman.
>That got a laugh from the people I was watching it with.
I'm not too surprised. I didn't take the epilogue too seriously either. Imho
the book was better in leaving it fairly open as to what was going to happen.
But a "positive" ending of that sort, leaving the world (or at least America)
essentially recovered to pre-disaster levels, seems to be popular in these sort
of films. Most of the divers "asteroid impact" ones do the same, iirc
A.C.
> In article <a4bef640.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> nomadi...@hotmail.com (A.C.) wrote:
> > And just to turn the thumbscrews a bit more, there were actually a
> > couple of evil, augmented guys.
>
> Well, yeah, but the second one was the Evil second-in-command one, right?
> Killed by the protagonist rather than the Version 2.0 ex-soldier?
>
> [At this point, I would be ashamed to look this up rather than just
> posting! :) ]
Alright, now I'll refrain from looking it up too, though I'll probably
regret it. I THINK, but I may be wrong, that there were a few evil,
augmented guys(like 3 or 4) in the main evil guy's crew, but they all
bought it off-stage, either at the hands at the good augment or the
protagonist's non-augmented second-in-command, or a combination of the
two. I think the book was unclear on that post. Now I think the guy
the protagonist killed was non-augmented.
J.B. Moreno
> The film was alright until the end. We are supposed to believe that within a
> couple of decades, society would have rebuilt enough to allow there to not
> just be television, but multiple networks there to commemerate the Postman.
> That got a laugh from the people I was watching it with.
That's not totally unbelievable -- while society and technology crashed,
the knowledge is still there and there's nothing fundamentally standing
in the way of an recovery of that magnitude in that time.
Also, the recovery should accelerate as it grows -- when you can send in
an army of five thousand as your first contact, you don't have to ask a
town of a thousand to abide by the rules, nor do you have to spend time
convincing them that you are not out to get them; the fact that you
don't run roughshod over them even though you can is self-evident.
mike stone
>
>AJ Denny <ada...@kooee.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The film was alright until the end. We are supposed to believe that within
>a
>> couple of decades, society would have rebuilt enough to allow there to not
>> just be television, but multiple networks there to commemerate the Postman.
>> That got a laugh from the people I was watching it with.
>
>That's not totally unbelievable -- while society and technology crashed,
>the knowledge is still there and there's nothing fundamentally standing
>in the way of an recovery of that magnitude in that time.
>
You can't rebuild with knowledge alone. If virtually all industry is gone, and
nearby oilfields etc are out of commission (Mideast ones, of course, might as
well be on the Moon) then a quick recovery is not likely to be on the agenda
>Also, the recovery should accelerate as it grows -- when you can send in
>an army of five thousand as your first contact, you don't have to ask a
>town of a thousand to abide by the rules, nor do you have to spend time
>convincing them that you are not out to get them; the fact that you
>don't run roughshod over them even though you can is self-evident.
Of course that makes two assumptions
1) That there is only one such army. Over a continent, one could easily get two
or three such armies forming - each one with about as good a claim to be the
"Restored US" as any other
2) That it does indeed resist the temptation to ride roughshod over those it
meets. The Postman himself might be too smart for that, but who knows what his
successor will be like
J.B. Moreno
> >From: pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno)
>
> >
> >AJ Denny <ada...@kooee.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> The film was alright until the end. We are supposed to believe that
> >> within a couple of decades, society would have rebuilt enough to allow
> >> there to not just be television, but multiple networks there to
> >> commemerate the Postman. That got a laugh from the people I was
> >> watching it with.
> >
> >That's not totally unbelievable -- while society and technology crashed,
> >the knowledge is still there and there's nothing fundamentally standing
> >in the way of an recovery of that magnitude in that time.
> >
>
> You can't rebuild with knowledge alone. If virtually all industry is gone,
> and nearby oilfields etc are out of commission (Mideast ones, of course,
> might as well be on the Moon) then a quick recovery is not likely to be on
> the agenda
No immediately recover, but it only took decades to do in the first
place, but it only took a couple of decades to do the first time.
> >Also, the recovery should accelerate as it grows -- when you can send in
> >an army of five thousand as your first contact, you don't have to ask a
> >town of a thousand to abide by the rules, nor do you have to spend time
> >convincing them that you are not out to get them; the fact that you
> >don't run roughshod over them even though you can is self-evident.
>
> Of course that makes two assumptions
>
> 1) That there is only one such army. Over a continent, one could easily
> get two or three such armies forming - each one with about as good a claim
> to be the "Restored US" as any other
No, it assumes that they possess good will and really *do* want to
restore the US -- if they encounter another "restored US" then they
check each other out and join forces. Also, as of the time of the
writing, we know of only one group that could even possibly be
comparable (the Californian's).
> 2) That it does indeed resist the temptation to ride roughshod over those
> it meets. The Postman himself might be too smart for that, but who knows
> what his successor will be like
This is a restoration movement, which so far has been received with open
arms -- it's not too much to expect a general lack of violence; in
Oregon, the mere hint of a restored US got people wanting to get back
into it. If they continue with the letter writing campaign, and can
clearly demonstrate that they both have real power and are using that
power for the common good, then it's quite possible for them to succeed
without running into any major problems.
mike stone
>This is a restoration movement, which so far has been received with open
>arms -- it's not too much to expect a general lack of violence; in
>Oregon, the mere hint of a restored US got people wanting to get back
>into it. If they continue with the letter writing campaign, and can
>clearly demonstrate that they both have real power and are using that
>power for the common good, then it's quite possible for them to succeed
>without running into any major problems.
Initially I could agree - but I'm beginning to wonder a bit about the "morning
after"
Frex, that place in Oregon, where they put up the monument, appears to be quite
a prosperous one - lots of boats in the harbour, and most people decently
dressed. Would a restored government expect such a better off community to
share its resources with a possibly much poorer one which has just been
contacted a few hundred miles away? And if so, what will the reaction be from
people who for much of their lives were barely surviving (and not being too
particular about how they did it) and are now enjoying a halfway decent
standard of living for the first time in most of their lives? I could see the
celebratory binges for the restoration of the US ending in a distinct
"hangover" for a lot of folks.
OTOH, I suppose that if the fastest available transport is by horse and cart,
over roads which probably ain't in the greatest condition, then it might not be
possible to redistribute very much, even if those who had were willing. So
might we get the slightly paradoxical situation that the _political_
restoration of the US goes more smoothly if technology (and particularly
transport) _doesn't_ recover too fast?
SkyeFire
da...@remove-this-bit-ResearchSoftwareDesign.com (Dave Goldman) writes:
>
>> And just to turn the thumbscrews a bit more, there were actually a
>> couple of evil, augmented guys.
>
>Well, yeah, but the second one was the Evil second-in-command one, right?
>Killed by the protagonist rather than the Version 2.0 ex-soldier?
Nope, IIRC the protagonist never killed any of the augments -- one of his
friends, the black Marine, managed to take out the number-two Evil Augment, but
got killed himself in the process -- Number One made a little "respect for the
fallen foe" speech about it. There was a third Evil Augment as well, but I
don't recall who got him.
Dave Goldman
skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) wrote:
All right, that does it! I'm getting the book off my shelf...
Hmm. Yes, I see that you are absolutely correct!
Time, I think, for me to slink away from this thread, chastened but wiser...
JoatSimeon
> Would a restored government expect such a better off community to share its
resources with a possibly much poorer one
-- generally speaking, Americans are less prone to redistribution than most.
There's a very low social envy quotient here.
A recent survey found that 10% of the American population think they're in the
top 1% of the income pyramid, and another 30% _expect_ to be in the top 1% at
some point in their lives... 8-).
mike stone
Agreed, in general - and that is certainly how the more successful survivors
would look at it
But in both versions of _The Postman_, people seem to be expecting a _lot_ from
the "Restored United States", and if the less successful communities felt that
their better off counterparts were "betraying the dream" by not contributing as
much as they could, then I could see things turning ugly. Raising hopes
sky-high and then disappointing them can be dangerous
Mikestone
Imho, the whole business points up a subtle difference between the
book and movie versions
In the book, salvation seems to depend very heavily on a few "great
men" types (with the obligatory great woman thrown in). Apart from the
Postman himself, there's that bunch who set themselves up as oracles
by pretending that the intelligent computer is still running, and that
Superman who comes down off his mountain in the nick of time to take
on those other, flawed supermen who presumably would otherwise have
won. The clear implication is that if these saviours hadn't come along
when they did, the rest of the survivors would have just continued
their despairing slide into a Dark Age. Carlyle would have loved it
The film's message is a shade less elitist. While The Postman's
"catalyst" role is still crucial in getting things _started_, his
importance rapidly declines thereafter, as the people whom he has
inspired grab the ball and run off with it. This is made explicit when
he tries to close down the entire "Postal Service", but finds he can't
because his "followers" just won't accept the decision, and insist on
continuing the fight - as they would probably still have done even if,
say, the Holnist assassin had killed him. And while he plays a pivotal
role in bringing a quick end to the fighting, by his one-on-one duel
with Bethlehem, it seems highly probable that the "civilised" folk
would have continued the war - and most likely won it in the end -
even without him. As played by Costner, he is a "trigger" and rallying
point rather than a controller of events. The more overtly "super"
types are omitted altogether; and for me, at least, the story's
message is better without them
J.B. Moreno
> >From: pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno)
>
> >This is a restoration movement, which so far has been received with open
> >arms -- it's not too much to expect a general lack of violence; in
> >Oregon, the mere hint of a restored US got people wanting to get back
> >into it. If they continue with the letter writing campaign, and can
> >clearly demonstrate that they both have real power and are using that
> >power for the common good, then it's quite possible for them to succeed
> >without running into any major problems.
>
> Initially I could agree - but I'm beginning to wonder a bit about the "morning
> after"
>
> Frex, that place in Oregon, where they put up the monument, appears to be
> quite a prosperous one - lots of boats in the harbour, and most people
> decently dressed. Would a restored government expect such a better off
> community to share its resources with a possibly much poorer one which has
> just been contacted a few hundred miles away? And if so, what will the
> reaction be from people who for much of their lives were barely surviving
> (and not being too particular about how they did it) and are now enjoying
> a halfway decent standard of living for the first time in most of their
> lives? I could see the celebratory binges for the restoration of the US
> ending in a distinct "hangover" for a lot of folks.
They aren't going to have to worry about prosperous areas resenting the
less prosperous for a decade at least -- and the prosperous areas are
going to get that way by being part of the restored US.
The restored government will naturally have taxes eventually, but in the
short term this isn't going to amount to much -- on the other improved
trade, and the ability to draw taxes from a larger base, will allow them
to help out the truly desperate to at least some extent.
Also in the short term, their greatest contribution is probably going to
be as a facilitator -- knowing who to put in touch with who.
I think a hangover is unlikely.
> OTOH, I suppose that if the fastest available transport is by horse and
> cart, over roads which probably ain't in the greatest condition, then it
> might not be possible to redistribute very much, even if those who had
> were willing. So might we get the slightly paradoxical situation that the
> _political_ restoration of the US goes more smoothly if technology (and
> particularly transport) _doesn't_ recover too fast?
Horse and cart transport can be more than adequate -- and the roads
probably won't be any worse than they were in 1890, and they did just
fine.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
> >From: mws...@aol.comnobliar (mike stone)
>
> > Would a restored government expect such a better off community to share its
> resources with a possibly much poorer one
>
> -- generally speaking, Americans are less prone to redistribution than most.
>
> There's a very low social envy quotient here.
if tehre was low social envy
people wouldnt be concerned what percentile they are in
> A recent survey found that 10% of the American population think they're in the
> top 1% of the income pyramid, and another 30% _expect_ to be in the top 1% at
> some point in their lives... 8-).
the more accurate statement is there a higher expectation of social mobility
whether that expectation is justified
decides the stability of the country
JoatSimeon
>if tehre was low social envy people wouldnt be concerned what percentile they
are in
-- no, envy is expressed as hostility. Admiration and desire to emulate/push
your way into are quite different things.
To use a Commonwealthism, Americans are less given to "tall poppy syndrome".
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
> >greykitten tomys des anges mair_...@yahoo.com
>
> >if tehre was low social envy people wouldnt be concerned what percentile they
> are in
>
> -- no, envy is expressed as hostility. Admiration and desire to emulate/push
> your way into are quite different things.
envy is expressed as envy
mike stone
>The restored government will naturally have taxes eventually, but in the
>short term this isn't going to amount to much -- on the other improved
>trade, and the ability to draw taxes from a larger base, will allow them
>to help out the truly desperate to at least some extent.
>Also in the short term, their greatest contribution is probably going to
>be as a facilitator -- knowing who to put in touch with who.
>
>I think a hangover is unlikely.
If they are smart, though, I suspect they may try to keep expectations within
bounds by emphasising self-sufficiency and promoting local autonomy as a virtue
in itself, not merely a necessity imposed by circumstances "Look - we got into
the habit of relying on things brought in from hundreds of miles away - and
look what it did to us. Let's not fall into that trap again" There may be a
semi-official "cult" not so much of States Rights as of "County Rights" or
"Township Rights" a bit like the set up in Poul Anderson's _No Truce With
Kings_
Passing thought. Assuming a restored US, to what extent will the States revive
in their old form? They probably don't, in most cases, have the same emotional
appeal as the Restored US would have. How many State flags pluck at emotional
heart strings the way the Stars and Stripes does?
Some of the littler ones, like Vermont, make reasonable sense as units of local
government, and Utah would probably come together again for "cultural" reasons
(though perhaps calling itself Deseret), but I wonder if some of the others
might not fall between two stools - too big to be really local, but too small
to be "countries". A township up by Niagara Falls might be loyal to the RUS,
but would it want to take orders from an intermediate layer of government in
the Hudson Valey? Or would the Idaho panhandle look to a Governor right down in
Boise, when geographically it is closer to adjoining parts of Montana and
Washington?
Thoughts?
J.B. Moreno
-snip-
> The film's message is a shade less elitist. While The Postman's
> "catalyst" role is still crucial in getting things _started_, his
> importance rapidly declines thereafter, []
>
> As played by Costner, he is a "trigger" and rallying point rather than a
> controller of events.
That's exactly as it was in the book -- he's never in control. It's the
people that he cons that run with restoring civilization, he's only
responsible for getting the general off his mountain in a second hand
manner (he inspires the girl who convinces the women to put the pressure
on him).
And he's not even a great con-man.
mike stone
>Mikestone <mws...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>-snip-
>> The film's message is a shade less elitist. While The Postman's
>> "catalyst" role is still crucial in getting things _started_, his
>> importance rapidly declines thereafter, []
>>
>> As played by Costner, he is a "trigger" and rallying point rather than a
>> controller of events.
>
>That's exactly as it was in the book -- he's never in control. It's the
>people that he cons that run with restoring civilization, he's only
>responsible for getting the general off his mountain in a second hand
>manner (he inspires the girl who convinces the women to put the pressure
>on him).
>
Yet at Harrisburg (Pt II, Ch 4, in the copy I've just borrowed from my Public
Library) he has to threaten townsfolk with the anger of his non-existent
government in order to persuade them to turn out the Militia, when "in their
stubborn rural obstinacy" they are unwilling to heed his warnings. He feels
"the potent anger of a Servant of the People, thwarted in his high purpose by
little men"
I don't recall anything similar in the movie. There, the "stubborn rural
obstinacy", where it exists,seems to operate entirely the other way, with
townsfolk being _too_ eager to resist the Holnists, and the Postman having to
try and "cool it" in the hope of avoiding a massacre
I agree it's a subtle difference, but imho a crucial one. In the book, he is
having to _push_ unwilling people into action, (albeit partly because he cannot
"abdicate" without ruining himself) whereas in the movie once his initial story
has been swallowed, he is the one being pushed. He is sometimes pushed in the
book as well, but not so consistently
>And he's not even a great con-man.
Good enough, evidently
Aaron P Brezenski
mike stone <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote:
>
>Passing thought. Assuming a restored US, to what extent will the States revive
>in their old form? They probably don't, in most cases, have the same emotional
>appeal as the Restored US would have. How many State flags pluck at emotional
>heart strings the way the Stars and Stripes does?
>
>Some of the littler ones, like Vermont, make reasonable sense as units of local
>government, and Utah would probably come together again for "cultural" reasons
>(though perhaps calling itself Deseret), but I wonder if some of the others
>might not fall between two stools - too big to be really local, but too small
>to be "countries". A township up by Niagara Falls might be loyal to the RUS,
>but would it want to take orders from an intermediate layer of government in
>the Hudson Valey? Or would the Idaho panhandle look to a Governor right down in
>Boise, when geographically it is closer to adjoining parts of Montana and
>Washington?
>
>Thoughts?
Difficult to say; was California really united at the end, or were the Holnists'
foes just using the Bear as a convenient symbol of their origins, while they were
really just an army of NoCal belligerents "mad as hell and not gonna take it
anymore"? If I recall correctly, the book never says (although the fact that
they are organized enough to kick the Holnists' ass may imply government of
a higher order).
Anyway, along those lines, if California has indeed reunited, it's entirely
likely (to me) that the New USA will look quite a bit different than the Old--
a lot of the government we have today is based on historical geography. For
example, a state the size of California does not wield today, IMO, the power
it would have as one of the founding members of a new federal body.
Would New California be content to subjugate itself to the older federal model
where it could be outvoted in the Senate by Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho,
or would the Golden State let loose it's teeming hordes to "civilize" the
surrounding lands in the formation of Greater California?
I'm thinking the latter is much more likely. California is in some ways a
nation in itself already (as are all US states; that was the original intent);
I suspect that California 2.0 would be more imperial than 1.0 is.
You could end up with something like Heinlein touches on in _Friday_, where
you have the Chicago Imperium, Texas, and California as the three large
governmental bodies in the former US.
--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way.
mike stone
>Difficult to say; was California really united at the end, or were the
>Holnists'
>foes just using the Bear as a convenient symbol of their origins, while they
>were
>really just an army of NoCal belligerents "mad as hell and not gonna take it
>anymore"? If I recall correctly, the book never says (although the fact that
>
>they are organized enough to kick the Holnists' ass may imply government of
>a higher order).
>
According to the Holnist General Macklin, California was a loose confederation
which would soon break apart if the Holnists moved further way and no longer
menaced it. Of course he may have been lying
>Anyway, along those lines, if California has indeed reunited, it's entirely
>likely (to me) that the New USA will look quite a bit different than the
>Old--
>a lot of the government we have today is based on historical geography. For
>example, a state the size of California does not wield today, IMO, the power
>it would have as one of the founding members of a new federal body.
>
>Would New California be content to subjugate itself to the older federal
>model
>where it could be outvoted in the Senate by Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, and
>Idaho,
>or would the Golden State let loose it's teeming hordes to "civilize" the
>surrounding lands in the formation of Greater California?
>
Of course we don't know what its current population _is_. My impression was
that population everywhere is only a fraction of the prewar
J.B. Moreno
> >From: pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno)
>
> >The restored government will naturally have taxes eventually, but in the
> >short term this isn't going to amount to much -- on the other improved
> >trade, and the ability to draw taxes from a larger base, will allow them
> >to help out the truly desperate to at least some extent.
>
> >Also in the short term, their greatest contribution is probably going to
> >be as a facilitator -- knowing who to put in touch with who.
> >
> >I think a hangover is unlikely.
>
> If they are smart, though, I suspect they may try to keep expectations
> within bounds by emphasising self-sufficiency and promoting local autonomy
> as a virtue in itself, not merely a necessity imposed by circumstances
> "Look - we got into the habit of relying on things brought in from
> hundreds of miles away - and look what it did to us. Let's not fall into
> that trap again" There may be a semi-official "cult" not so much of States
> Rights as of "County Rights" or "Township Rights" a bit like the set up
> in Poul Anderson's _No Truce With Kings_
Well, except that's not how they got into that mess -- in fact that
attitude was in part responsible for the mess, it's more likely that
they'll have a backlash against that. It was the survivalist that many
of them blame (rightly or wrongly) for the breakdown that followed the
wars and the plauges -- they'd survived the wars, they'd survived the
plauges, and then these "we don't need anyone, the strong will survive"
wacko's came out of the woodwork and there wasn't enough order left to
put them down. And then look at what happens when the restoration gets
started -- the wacko's come back, trying to tear things down again, but
this time there *is* enough cooperation to put them down, and
civilization wins.
Cooperation will be a byword.
> Passing thought. Assuming a restored US, to what extent will the States
> revive in their old form? They probably don't, in most cases, have the
> same emotional appeal as the Restored US would have. How many State flags
> pluck at emotional heart strings the way the Stars and Stripes does?
Sub-groupings against because of lack communication and control -- which
they've got big time. While I wouldn't put any money on them having the
exact same boundaries as before, I'd expect the city, county, state,
nation ordering to be used - it's useful.
Mark Atwood
>
> Would New California be content to subjugate itself to the older
> federal model where it could be outvoted in the Senate by Montana,
> Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho, or would the Golden State let loose it's
> teeming hordes to "civilize" the surrounding lands in the formation
> of Greater California?
I'm suddenly thinking of why Miles Vorkosigan felt that, all things
considered, that it be better that the Ceta Empire have only *only*
center of power...
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
mike stone
>mws...@aol.comnobliar (mike stone) wrote in
>news:20040302041816...@mb-m12.aol.com:
>
>> Some of the littler ones, like Vermont, make reasonable sense as units
>> of local government, and Utah would probably come together again for
>> "cultural" reasons (though perhaps calling itself Deseret), but I
>> wonder if some of the others might not fall between two stools - too
>> big to be really local, but too small to be "countries". A township up
>> by Niagara Falls might be loyal to the RUS, but would it want to take
>> orders from an intermediate layer of government in the Hudson Valey?
>> Or would the Idaho panhandle look to a Governor right down in Boise,
>> when geographically it is closer to adjoining parts of Montana and
>> Washington?
>
>Good question. Meanwhile, what about Hawaii and Alaska?
In the book, we are told that nothing has been heard from Alaska (or Florida)
since the war. The Holnist commander interprets this to mean that his people
are in charge there, though he doesn't seem to have any particular evidence for
this, and it may be purely wishful thinking. By the end of the book, the
Oregonians have successfully flown a blimp, so might be able to investigate
either that way or by sea.
As for Hawaii, if Pearl Harbour was the prime target that one would expect,
there won't be much left of Oahu, and the other islands may have suffered badly
from fallout. However, it is enough of a geographical unit that I would expect
it to organise as one state if/when it organisies at all
mike stone
>would the Golden State let loose it's
>> teeming hordes to "civilize" the surrounding lands in the formation
>> of Greater California?
How "teeming" are the hordes likely to be?
Iirc, the bulk of California's present huge population is in the metropolitan
areas around LA and SF. How many of them are likely to have survived the war?
For much of the later 19C and early 20C, Cal's population was only around four
times that of Oregon, starting to really pull ahead from about WW1. With the
metropolitan areas gone, I could envisage it returning to about that in the
"Postman" era. Given that Oregon alone was able (if it pulled together) to put
up serious resistance, the resources of _four_ Oregons would more than suffice
to explain California's success against the Holnists.
But would that really be enough to impose a political settlement on distant
regions? My guess is it would still have to be done by agreement,with much the
same sort of haggling as you got in 1787
Jim Lovejoy
>>From: Mark Atwood m...@pobox.com
>
>>would the Golden State let loose it's
>>> teeming hordes to "civilize" the surrounding lands in the formation
>>> of Greater California?
>
> How "teeming" are the hordes likely to be?
>
> Iirc, the bulk of California's present huge population is in the
> metropolitan areas around LA and SF. How many of them are likely to
> have survived the war?
>
Good point. Add to that, that Greater LA has the bulk of California's
population, and is heavily dependant on water from Northern California, as
well as most of Greater LA needing air conditioning to make it human
friendly.
The troubles would likely have reduced the whole LA-San Bernidino area
population to less than post trouble Portland (Oregon). I could easily see
Early Reconstruction California at less than two Oregon's in population.
One of the 'more populous' States in the reconstruction, but not the
overwhelming force we see in our time.
Mikestone
> It was the survivalist that many
> of them blame (rightly or wrongly) for the breakdown that followed the
> wars and the plauges -- they'd survived the wars, they'd survived the
> plauges, and then these "we don't need anyone, the strong will survive"
> wacko's came out of the woodwork and there wasn't enough order left to
> put them down.
This raises an interesting point, on which I am prepared to do some
WSOD for the sake of a great read, but which nags just the same
Having refreshed myself by rereading the book, I get the impression
that Brin assumes survivalism on a _grand_ scale - whole armies of
them coming out of the woodwork almost as soon as the fallout has
settled
Is this likely? I have of course heard of such people, but thought
they were relatively few, save possibly in odd corners of Idaho etc. I
should also have thought that when the general population started
getting seriously hungry, even well-armed survivalists would most
likely be swamped by sheer weight of numbers, and their hoards
grabbed.
About the only way I can envisage it is by assuming that the
survivalists we _hear_ about are only the tip of an iceberg - that a
much larger number are operating "below radar", getting on with their
preparations without saying anything to the neighbours, never mind the
media - with whom they have about as much dealings as an Orthodox
Rabbi has with a pork butcher. Indeed when I stop to think about it, I
tend to feel that a publicity-seeking survivalist is almost a
contradiction in terms, and that serious ones would do their best to
be invisible. The best chance to keep their hideaways and food stores
ia to ensure that _nobody_ knows where they are. The survivalists who
_actually_ survived might be not so much the best at fighting as the
best at hiding
Any thoughts on this? Do we have any notion how many such characters
there actually are?
J.B. Moreno
> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote
>
> > It was the survivalist that many of them blame (rightly or wrongly) for
> > the breakdown that followed the wars and the plauges -- they'd survived
> > the wars, they'd survived the plauges, and then these "we don't need
> > anyone, the strong will survive" wacko's came out of the woodwork and
> > there wasn't enough order left to put them down.
>
>
> This raises an interesting point, on which I am prepared to do some
> WSOD for the sake of a great read, but which nags just the same
>
> Having refreshed myself by rereading the book, I get the impression
> that Brin assumes survivalism on a _grand_ scale - whole armies of
> them coming out of the woodwork almost as soon as the fallout has
> settled
That depends upon what you mean by grand scale -- a dozen or two little
such armies at the most, each with less than a thousand people, would be
my guess, wouldn't surprise if some of them had less than 50 people.
Under ordinary circumstances, they'd be nothing, even if they all acted
together instead of independently -- but after the wars and the plague's
circumstances are far from ordinary. And these little armies are little
pockets of chaos -- where they've been, order breaks down, leaving the
survivors no choice but to act independtly even after they are long
gone. They break the essential trust necessary for things to operate
smoothly, without which you have to assume that every mans hand is
against you.
mike stone
> I get the impression
>> that Brin assumes survivalism on a _grand_ scale - whole armies of
>> them coming out of the woodwork almost as soon as the fallout has
>> settled
>
>That depends upon what you mean by grand scale -- a dozen or two little
>such armies at the most, each with less than a thousand people, would be
>my guess, wouldn't surprise if some of them had less than 50 people.
>
>Under ordinary circumstances, they'd be nothing, even if they all acted
>together instead of independently -- but after the wars and the plague's
>circumstances are far from ordinary. And these little armies are little
>pockets of chaos -- where they've been, order breaks down, leaving the
>survivors no choice but to act independtly even after they are long
>gone. They break the essential trust necessary for things to operate
>smoothly, without which you have to assume that every mans hand is
>against you.
Could be, though I would have thought the "Three Year Winter" would force an
end to the "campaigning season" in a lot of places
After all, a post-WW3 America, hit by a really savage winter, is going to have
a job even keeping the Interstates open, never mind lesser roads . I should
have thought many, if not most places, would soon find themselves cut off from
help and harm alike
The sort of mental picture I am getting is of three groups, a little community
of survivors, a bunch of Holnist-type "predators" who will, if given the
chance, descend on the village, and a remnant of the Army or National Guard who
would love to sort out the Holnists. All three are in the same County, within a
few miles of one another, but with the onset of winter they are now snowed in,
so that none of them is able to make contact with either of the others. And
this is how it is going to stay for about the next three years
In this situation, I wonder if, though any or all of them may starve/freeze to
death if their supplies are inadequate, whether other people might soon be the
_least_ of their worries. Would "cop", "robber" and "citizen" just be unable to
get at each other?
J.B. Moreno
-snip Holnist on a grand scale? Nope, bunch of small scale-
> Could be, though I would have thought the "Three Year Winter" would force an
> end to the "campaigning season" in a lot of places
I think you're imagining the winter as being harsher than it probably
would have been. Average snowfall for the year probably only doubles,
but it stays cold all year and the crops don't grow that well if at all.
> After all, a post-WW3 America, hit by a really savage winter, is going to have
> a job even keeping the Interstates open, never mind lesser roads . I should
> have thought many, if not most places, would soon find themselves cut off from
> help and harm alike
You're looking at it the wrong way -- the harm is semi-local, the help
is what will need to use the Interstates, because it's more centralized.
-snip-
> In this situation, I wonder if, though any or all of them may
> starve/freeze to death if their supplies are inadequate, whether other
> people might soon be the _least_ of their worries. Would "cop", "robber"
> and "citizen" just be unable to get at each other?
Sure, that'd happen some places, but you can't really do a lot about it,
and it doesn't effect other people -- until those that are about to
starve decide that /other/ people that are about to starve (or not) can
supply them with their food. And this is probably the first option of
the Holnist, not the last.
Everytime that happens, it starts a little domino effect leading to it
happening elsewhere. *That's* what killed civilization.
John Schilling
There are probably several hundred thousand survivalists of the classic
hoard-of-canned-goods-and-an-assault-rifle variety. Mostly alone or in
small groups, very rarely do you find more than a few dozen cooperating
here and now. The question of how well and how quickly they would gang
up in the post-apocalyptic scenario is the big unknown here - several
hundred thousand armed men is a force to rival most armies, weaker on
heavy weapons and organizational structure but better prepared to operate
when their logistical tail is severed. I'm skeptical of big Holnist-style
survivalist armies, I think they'd turn to infighting long before they
could reach that scale, but the raw materials are there.
The two wild cards are the Mormons and the Army. The Mormons have the
hoards of canned goods and the organization, but not (except insofar as
individual taste dictates) the assault rifles. The Army has the assault
rifles and the organization, but not the hoards of canned goods, so the
big unknown there is the extent to which the organization will hold when
chow is scarce and paychecks meaningless.
If the proto-Holnists get the subset of Mormons with assault rifles, and
the soldiers who'd rather be well-fed raiders than hungry peacekeepers,
that could turn into something like Brin's scenario. But there's little
sign of either Mormon or military culture in the depiction.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
lal_truckee
> The Army has the assault
> rifles and the organization, but not the hoards of canned goods,
MREs?
Dreamer
"lal_truckee" <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c35bdl$247gj8$1...@ID-90251.news.uni-berlin.de...
The Armed Forces do not stockpile these in any meaningful quantites. Troops
on-base, especially but not limited to troops in CONUS, do not eat them
except on training exercises. They're very expensive compared to contracted
food services and living off them is bad for morale. I would be very
surprised to find that any US base had more than a month's supply of food on
hand, even counting MRE's.
At least, that is my understanding. I know a little bit about these issues
in general, but not much about current logistic patterns in the Armed
Forces. I am certainly willing to be proven wrong.
D
mike stone
>
>If the proto-Holnists get the subset of Mormons with assault rifles, and
>the soldiers who'd rather be well-fed raiders than hungry peacekeepers,
>that could turn into something like Brin's scenario. But there's little
>sign of either Mormon or military culture in the depiction.
Yes. I was rather nettled that we never hear anything about what has happened
in Utah. Maybe I'm prejudiced but I don't see why the surviving Saints couldn't
collar enough weapons to defend themselves - and I should expect some at least
of them to be as motivated as any Holnist. Yet Gordon has wandered through
Idaho - the second most LDS state in the US - without noticing a thing
As for the Army, I should think that if the LDS have anything like a
functioning government, most soldiers in the vicinity will attach themselves to
it. Afaik, the days are long gone when there was any particular antagonism
between the Church and the US Army. And while I'm not sure how many troops
there are in Utah and the adjoining states, I'm pretty sure they would be
heavily outnumbered by the local civilians, and face a very uncertain future if
they tried to set up on their own as bands of freebooters, with every man's
hand against them. This goes particularly for those with families, but even the
single ones probably won't do it if there is any alternative. Unless the Church
does something _really_ stupid, like trying to forcibly convert them (and I
credit my Spiritual leaders with more sense than that) I don't see why the two
couldn't combine
And Utah ought to be defensible. Iirc, most of its population (and arable land)
is in a strip of territory running roughly SSW from the Salt Lake are down to
the SW corner of the state, and flanked by desert and scrub which would be a
formidable barrier to an invader without motor transport. (I think Colorado is
somewhat similar, but has more in the way of ICBM bases etc so has probably
been more heavily bombed). So if its people stick together they should be able
to see off any attackers
Assuming that Church and Army do reach a modus vivendi, I should expect the
Army element to be gradually assimilated. A lot of the soldiers will be single
men, and will likely end up married to Mormon girls. Living in an LDS community
and belonging to half-LDS families, I should expect most of their children to
be either raised in the Church or to eventually join it.
It isn't a very big "Empire" but it is reasonably secure on all flanks. And at
some point, when confident enough, it will want to know how its co-religionists
in Idaho and Wyoming are making out - -
JoatSimeon
>Yes. I was rather nettled that we never hear anything about what has happened
in Utah.
-- Southern Idaho is indeed swarming with Mormons -- it's been an extension of
the Wasatch Front settlement area since the 1880's.
Jim Battista
> Yes. I was rather nettled that we never hear anything about what
> has happened in Utah. Maybe I'm prejudiced but I don't see why the
> surviving Saints couldn't collar enough weapons to defend
> themselves
Them doing so would interfere with Brin's points, so it's probably safe
to assume that the Mormons got All Wiped Out by some disease or
another, in combination with being nuked. Say it's some communicable
disease, and that Mormon tendencies to take care of each other just end
up helping the disease spread faster in their community.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
mike stone
Conceivable, I suppose, but it does require some exterme assumptions
I am assuming that the SLC metropolitan area (basically Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, iirc) has been bombed out (as the biggest city for about 400 miles
around, it can scarcely hope not to be) and that the surviving Utahns are
basically rural and small town - "ranches and villages" as Brin puts it early
in the book. Most of those rural counties are _very_ heavily Mormon - around
85% is common - even now, and the destruction of cities, where minorities tend
to be concentrated, would skew it even further. I should expect Utah survivors
to be upwards of _90%_ LDS in most places
If this is so, then the only way to wipe out the Mormons is the literal
depopulation of the entire state, not to mention adjoining bits of Idaho and
Wyoming. Yet the region concerned probably has fewer prime targets than many
adjoining areas, and there seems no reason why it should be in any worse shape
than, say, Oregon. Indeed istr a comment at the beginning of the book that
Idaho, at least, was in _better_ shape than Oregon, and a reference to
"prosperous ranch communities" in Wyoming. All in all, unless things suddenly
get _much_ worse south of the state line, it sounds as though the "Mormon
Country" has gotten off lighter than many places.
Whilst I agree that we would do our best to take care of our sick, I can't
believe we'd carry this to the point of suicide. Expect some _very_ tough
isolation rules to come in once virulent diseases are detected
Still, like you say, Brin is the author. If he wishes to stack the deck, I
suppose he's within his rights
mike stone
>
>The two wild cards are the Mormons and the Army. The Mormons have the
>hoards of canned goods and the organization, but not (except insofar as
>individual taste dictates) the assault rifles.
Maybe not entirely true. I don't have stats on the makeup of the Utah _National
Guard_, but would be rather surprised if it isn't pretty heavily Mormon. And in
a WW3 situation, where the US Military is fighting a foreign power, I should
expect the NG to outnumber the Regular Army in much of the CONUS. And the
National Guard would surely have access to assault rifles and worse
The Army has the assault
>rifles and the organization, but not the hoards of canned goods, so the
>big unknown there is the extent to which the organization will hold when
>chow is scarce and paychecks meaningless.
>
John Schilling
>>From: schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>>The two wild cards are the Mormons and the Army. The Mormons have the
>>hoards of canned goods and the organization, but not (except insofar as
>>individual taste dictates) the assault rifles.
>Maybe not entirely true. I don't have stats on the makeup of the Utah
>_National Guard_, but would be rather surprised if it isn't pretty heavily
>Mormon. And in a WW3 situation, where the US Military is fighting a foreign
>power, I should expect the NG to outnumber the Regular Army in much of the
>CONUS. And the National Guard would surely have access to assault rifles
>and worse
The National Guard, on a local scale, has assault rifles but no bullets.
Ammunition storage has been centralized to the point where, "civilization
has collapsed - let's head for the local Armory" no longer works.
If, during the collapse, the government wants the National Guard to be a
viable combat force, it will probably be called up and integrated into
the regular Army, which has already been discussed. Otherwise, the Army
will probably take the National Guard's central ammunition stockpiles for
safekeeping and/or regular Army use farily early in the process.
And the usual disclaimer - there are fifty United States, each of which
does things a little differently, and I can't positively rule out the
Utah National Guard still storing ammunition at local armories. But I
wouldn't bet on it.
Mark Atwood
> hoards of canned goods
Now there is a mental image that made my whole day!
mike stone
>The National Guard, on a local scale, has assault rifles but no bullets.
>Ammunition storage has been centralized to the point where, "civilization
>has collapsed - let's head for the local Armory" no longer works.
Don't suppose you know _where_ it is centralised? Would they be out of state or
something more accessible? And are the stockpiles in places likely to be
bombed?
>If, during the collapse, the government wants the National Guard to be a
>viable combat force, it will probably be called up and integrated into
>the regular Army, which has already been discussed. Otherwise, the Army
>will probably take the National Guard's central ammunition stockpiles for
>safekeeping and/or regular Army use farily early in the process.
>
Assuming at least some prior warning about the attack (there was mention of a
notice board at Oregon SU having stuff about "the emergency") I should expect
the NG to be mobilised, whether for foreign service, if the Regular Army was
overstretched, or more likely for keeping order at home in the aftermath.
Somehow I don't see local police being able to cope with post-WW3 conditions on
their own
It will probably have been Federalised, but that isn't necessarily bad from the
Church's pov. Assuming a significant number of Regulars (how many are there
likely to have been in peacetime Utah?) have already gone abroad, the "US Army"
in the state may largely consist of Federalised Utah Guardsmen, so that even if
its CO is a Gentile, the bulk of his officers and men may well be LDS. If he is
struggling to keep his forces together in the postwar chaos, a quarrel with the
Church will be the last thing he needs, and close cooperation would seem the
logical way to go
Dreamer
"mike stone" <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote in message
news:20040317032811...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >From: schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>
> >The National Guard, on a local scale, has assault rifles but no bullets.
> >Ammunition storage has been centralized to the point where, "civilization
> >has collapsed - let's head for the local Armory" no longer works.
>
> Don't suppose you know _where_ it is centralised? Would they be out of
state or
> something more accessible? And are the stockpiles in places likely to be
> bombed?
>
> >If, during the collapse, the government wants the National Guard to be a
> >viable combat force, it will probably be called up and integrated into
> >the regular Army, which has already been discussed. Otherwise, the Army
> >will probably take the National Guard's central ammunition stockpiles for
> >safekeeping and/or regular Army use farily early in the process.
> >
>
> Assuming at least some prior warning about the attack (there was mention
of a
> notice board at Oregon SU having stuff about "the emergency") I should
expect
> the NG to be mobilised, whether for foreign service, if the Regular Army
was
> overstretched, or more likely for keeping order at home in the aftermath.
> Somehow I don't see local police being able to cope with post-WW3
conditions on
> their own
A common theme in survivalist literature is that if the fecal matter hits
the rotary impeller on a nationwide basis, especially if the regular armed
forces are out of country, the National Guard won't be very effective
because many of its members will resist mobilization to stay with their own
families.
Now, this is certainly a debateable point. But look at the trouble they're
having now - including a few highly public deserters - when callups "only"
mean severe financial hardship for Guard members' families. I can see a
*lot* of people saying, "Screw this, I'm not going" if it means leaving
their wives and children alone in a World Gone Mad.
D
mike stone
>
>A common theme in survivalist literature is that if the fecal matter hits
>the rotary impeller on a nationwide basis, especially if the regular armed
>forces are out of country, the National Guard won't be very effective
>because many of its members will resist mobilization to stay with their own
>families.
>
>Now, this is certainly a debateable point. But look at the trouble they're
>having now - including a few highly public deserters - when callups "only"
>mean severe financial hardship for Guard members' families. I can see a
>*lot* of people saying, "Screw this, I'm not going" if it means leaving
>their wives and children alone in a World Gone Mad.
Agreed, if they were likely to be posted overseas
My assumption, though, was that initially at least they would be called out to
maintain public order. After all, to strip the country of both regulars _and_
guardsmen in such a crisis would be a plain invitation to anarchy
I don't see the Guardsmen resisting callup at this stage. They would _want_ to
be armed, precisely in order to protect their families. I quite agree that any
subsequent attempt to send them abroad might indeed trigger a mutiny -
perhaps this is a way to get the Holnist movement started. But my impression
from the book was that the war ended too quickly to give much time for this.
Dreamer
"mike stone" <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote in message
> >From: "Dreamer" dre...@dreamstrike.com
>
> >
> >A common theme in survivalist literature is that if the fecal matter hits
> >the rotary impeller on a nationwide basis, especially if the regular
armed
> >forces are out of country, the National Guard won't be very effective
> >because many of its members will resist mobilization to stay with their
own
> >families.
> >
> >Now, this is certainly a debateable point. But look at the trouble
they're
> >having now - including a few highly public deserters - when callups
"only"
> >mean severe financial hardship for Guard members' families. I can see a
> >*lot* of people saying, "Screw this, I'm not going" if it means leaving
> >their wives and children alone in a World Gone Mad.
>
> Agreed, if they were likely to be posted overseas
>
> My assumption, though, was that initially at least they would be called
out to
> maintain public order. After all, to strip the country of both regulars
_and_
> guardsmen in such a crisis would be a plain invitation to anarchy
>
> I don't see the Guardsmen resisting callup at this stage. They would
_want_ to
> be armed, precisely in order to protect their families.
But they *aren't,* most likely, going to be protecting *their* families.
(See below.) And quite a few of them are *already* armed.
> I quite agree that any
> subsequent attempt to send them abroad might indeed trigger a mutiny -
> perhaps this is a way to get the Holnist movement started. But my
impression
> from the book was that the war ended too quickly to give much time for
this.
The Guard would be deployed, presumably, in the areas which are most likely
to experience civil disorder: large cities.
IME, a disproportionate amount of Guard (and Reserve) members are not *from*
large cities. The thought process envisioned by advocates of the position is
something like "Why should I go and try to a) protect rich city slickers who
probably hate soldiers, or b) keep the ghettos from burning themselves out,
when I have a family here in Smallville who will be lucky if Deputy Fife
stays on the job?"
In a massive war scenario, as in _The Postman,_ you're probably right that
there wouldn't be time to worry about this anyway. But in a slower motion
scenario, you'd get both resistance to callup and desertions as the
situation deteriorates, is the theory.
D
mike stone
>"mike stone" <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote
>> I don't see the Guardsmen resisting callup at this stage. They would
>_want_ to
>> be armed, precisely in order to protect their families.
>
>But they *aren't,* most likely, going to be protecting *their* families.
>(See below.) And quite a few of them are *already* armed.
Agreed, but I was taking John Schilling's point about the "centralisation" of
ammunition stocks for assault rifles etc. Presumably they would have to answer
the callup in order to be issued with this
Also, I am a bit sceptical about any overt defiance of orders _before_ the
nuclear attack. The threat of nuclear war has hung over our heads for so long
(all of my lifetime, and I am 56) without ever actually happening, that imho it
has acquired an air of incredibility. My feeling is that right to the final
moment, most people just wouldn't believe that it was really going to happen,
and it would take that blinding flash of light from over where the State
Capital used to be, to "break the spell" and convince everyone that "My God,
this is for real". I see no particular reason to think that the average
National Guardsman would be an exception to this pattern of thought.
After that, I agree that anything could happen. If both State and Federal
authorities are gone, or (what amounts to the same thing) cannot be contacted,
there might well be a collapse of morale, and with it of discipline, very
possibly leading to mass desertions. However, I suspect that the natural
reaction would be to head for home in order to _protect_ their families,
neighbours etc, rather than run around the country preying on strangers, while
their home towns are going through God knows what.
Also ("Here he goes again. All together - groan!") I wonder if religious
factors might make Utah a special case. Taking your point that the Guardsmen
are disproportionately rural and small town boys, that means, in a Utah
context, they are virtually the Nauvoo Legion. Any non-LDS among them will be
few, scattered and probably demoralised. And the LDS majority, with no civil
authority to claim their obedience, might well turn to the _Church_ to guide
them in this scary time. Whilst the old saw about "no atheists in foxholes" is
a gross oversimplification, this scenario would look a _lot_ like Armageddon,
and set a lot of these young Saints to thinking on Eternity.
This could be reinforced by another factor. If most of them are the kind of
age that I imagine them to be, they are likely either to have recently served a
Mission for the Church, or to be getting ready for one. So they are more
focused on Church matters, and accustomed to taking orders from Priesthood
leaders, even than LDS in general. If a Stake President, Seventy or, still
more, a surviving _Apostle_ appears and tells them "This may well be the Last
Days. It may be that all of us will _very_ soon be face to face with our Maker.
If you turn tail now, and leave your families and your fellow Saints in the
lurch, what will you say to Him?" I can well imagine half of them (maybe more)
being persuaded, and the other half simply tagging along for lack of any better
suggestions. And that man may suddenly find himself commanding the only
military force with>From: "Dreamer" dre...@dreamstrike.com
>"mike stone" <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote
>> I don't see the Guardsmen resisting callup at this stage. They would
>_want_ to
>> be armed, precisely in order to protect their families.
>
>But they *aren't,* most likely, going to be protecting *their* families.
>(See below.) And quite a few of them are *already* armed.
Agreed, but I was taking John Schilling's point about the "centralisation" of
ammunition stocks for assault rifles etc. Presumably they would have to answer
the callup in order to be issued with this
Also, I am a bit sceptical about any overt defiance of orders _before_ the
nuclear attack. The threat of nuclear war has hung over our heads for so long
(all of my lifetime, and I am 56) without ever actually happening, that imho it
has acquired an air of incredibility. My feeling is that right to the final
moment, most people just wouldn't believe that it was really going to happen,
and it would take that blinding flash of light from over where the State
Capital used to be, to "break the spell" and convince everyone that "My God,
this is for real". I see no particular reason to think that the average
National Guardsman would be an exception to this pattern of thought.
After that, I agree that anything could happen. If both State and Federal
authorities are gone, or (what amounts to the same thing) cannot be contacted,
there might well be a collapse of morale, and with it of discipline, very
possibly leading to mass desertions. However, I suspect that the natural
reaction would be to head for home in order to _protect_ their families,
neighbours etc, rather than run around the country preying on strangers, while
their home towns are going through God knows what.
Also ("Here he goes again. All together - groan!") I wonder if religious
factors might make Utah a special case. Taking your point that the Guardsmen
are disproportionately rural and small town boys, that means, in a Utah
context, they are virtually the Nauvoo Legion. Any non-LDS among them will be
few, scattered and probably demoralised. And the LDS majority, with no civil
authority to claim their obedience, might well turn to the _Church_ to guide
them in this scary time. Whilst the old saw about "no atheists in foxholes" is
a gross oversimplification, this scenario would look a _lot_ like Armageddon,
and set a lot of these young Saints to thinking on Eternity.
This could be reinforced by another factor. If most of them are the kind of
age that I imagine them to be, they are likely either to have recently served a
Mission for the Church, or to be getting ready for one. So they are more
focused on Church matters, and accustomed to taking orders from Priesthood
leaders, even than LDS in general. If a Stake President, Seventy or, still
more, a surviving _Apostle_ appears and tells them "This may well be the Last
Days. It may be that all of us will _very_ soon be face to face with our Maker.
If you turn tail now, and leave your families and your fellow Saints in the
lurch, what will you say to Him?" I can well imagine half of them (maybe more)
being persuaded, and the other half simply tagging along for lack of any better
suggestions. And that man may find himself commanding the only military force
within hundreds of miles. From there on, anything could happen.
mike stone
Jim Lovejoy
news:20040315191106...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>>From: schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>
>>
>>If the proto-Holnists get the subset of Mormons with assault rifles,
>>and the soldiers who'd rather be well-fed raiders than hungry
>>peacekeepers, that could turn into something like Brin's scenario.
>>But there's little sign of either Mormon or military culture in the
>>depiction.
>
> Yes. I was rather nettled that we never hear anything about what has
> happened in Utah. Maybe I'm prejudiced but I don't see why the
> surviving Saints couldn't collar enough weapons to defend themselves -
> and I should expect some at least of them to be as motivated as any
> Holnist. Yet Gordon has wandered through Idaho - the second most LDS
> state in the US - without noticing a thing
>
>snip<
>
> And Utah ought to be defensible. Iirc, most of its population (and
> arable land) is in a strip of territory running roughly SSW from the
> Salt Lake are down to the SW corner of the state, and flanked by
> desert and scrub which would be a formidable barrier to an invader
> without motor transport. (I think Colorado is somewhat similar, but
> has more in the way of ICBM bases etc so has probably been more
> heavily bombed). So if its people stick together they should be able
> to see off any attackers
>snip<
>
> It isn't a very big "Empire" but it is reasonably secure on all
> flanks. And at some point, when confident enough, it will want to know
> how its co-religionists in Idaho and Wyoming are making out - -
Suppose the Holinists are smarter than they are in the movie.
They poke into Utah, see what's there, and have read enough history to
figure that they *don't* want to mess with the Mormons, at least not until
they've consolidated the rest of the region.
At the same time, they don't want the Mormons interfering with the
Holonists.
Here, the isolation would help the Holonists. Keep a watch, and if anyone
trys to go into or out of Utah, kill them. Pretty soon, the people in Utah
figure that the outside world is hostile, and they'd better stay put, and
people in neighboring areas figure that Utah's a deathtrap, stay away.
Utah won't figure into the story at all. Afterwards, when the Holinists
are defeated, the two groups can join up, and probably figure out what
happened to keep them apart.
Mikestone
> Suppose the Holinists are smarter than they are in the movie.
>
> They poke into Utah, see what's there, and have read enough history to
> figure that they *don't* want to mess with the Mormons, at least not until
> they've consolidated the rest of the region.
>
> At the same time, they don't want the Mormons interfering with the
> Holonists.
>
> Here, the isolation would help the Holonists. Keep a watch, and if anyone
> trys to go into or out of Utah, kill them. Pretty soon, the people in Utah
> figure that the outside world is hostile, and they'd better stay put, and
> people in neighboring areas figure that Utah's a deathtrap, stay away.
>
> Utah won't figure into the story at all. Afterwards, when the Holinists
> are defeated, the two groups can join up, and probably figure out what
> happened to keep them apart.
This is possible. Main doubtful bit is that SE Idaho and SW Wyoming
are heavily LDS - almost as much so as Utah, and geographicaly closer
to the Salt Lake Basin than southern UT is - so are pretty certain to
be included in whatever Mormon state exists.
However, we aren't told exactly _where_ Gordon crosses form Idaho
intio Oregon, so it could be far enough north to have missed them
If the Holnists are strongest in south Oregon, then the most likely
pace for them to collide with the Saints is somewhere like NW Nevada.
It's not clear from the book how strong they are in the states
immediately eastward
Mark Atwood
>>
>> Here, the isolation would help the Holonists. Keep a watch, and if anyone
>> trys to go into or out of Utah, kill them. Pretty soon, the people in Utah
>> figure that the outside world is hostile, and they'd better stay put, and
>> people in neighboring areas figure that Utah's a deathtrap, stay away.
>> Utah won't figure into the story at all. Afterwards, when the Holinists
>> are defeated, the two groups can join up, and probably figure out what
>> happened to keep them apart.
>
>
> This is possible. Main doubtful bit is that SE Idaho and SW Wyoming
> are heavily LDS - almost as much so as Utah, and geographicaly closer
> to the Salt Lake Basin than southern UT is - so are pretty certain to
> be included in whatever Mormon state exists.
Plus, Mormons are spread around the world, and it is an *inherently*
centralized organization. Without that organization, over the course
of a generation or so, they "decay" into almost ordinary
Protestant-oids. And they know that, and so resist it.
(Capitalized terms are the names of formal offices.) Wards *must* have
Bishops, Elder Quorum Presidents, and High Priest Group Leaders, and
the holders of those offices *are* selected by Stake Presidents, and
SPs *are* selected by General Authorities, and GAs *must*
inter-coordinate between themselves and are subservient to the 12+3.
If the Deseret Mormons still exist post-war, the Mormons inside
Deseret will be moving heaven and earth to open channels of regular
communication out to the ones "outside", and the ones outside will be
moving heaven and earth to make contact with Deseret.
Plus, the US Federal Government *today* does not have the firepower
and manpower to close even smallish parts of inhabited "Deseret" to
foot traffic. A ragged "army" of survivalists wouldn't have a prayer
doing the whole thing, let alone pull it off without the knowledge of
the fact that it was being done, and who was doing it, sweeping the
Mormon community.
It is a strange fact, but true, but the Mormon culture thrives best
and gets the strongest when it's being oppressed in some way, and gets
most..., um, let us say, it's faults start outshining it's virtues,
when it's not.
If the Holinists try to enclose Deseret, what will happen is a
combination of the heirs of the legacy of Orrin Porter Rockwell will
come out of the woodwork, of the reconstitution of the Mormon
Battalion, and the Holinists will start dying in reprises of the
Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Hell, I might even join them. It's not my faith anymore, but it *is*
the culture of my birth, it would be my best chance of survival, and
it's where my family would be (or would gather to).
mike stone
>If the Deseret Mormons still exist post-war, the Mormons inside
>Deseret will be moving heaven and earth to open channels of regular
>communication out to the ones "outside", and the ones outside will be
>moving heaven and earth to make contact with Deseret.
I should suspect that most of those from outside the Rocky Mountain region will
be trying to make it _to_ Deseret . Even in the US we would be a very tiny
minority many places, and the instinct to "gather" (if physically possible)
would be extremely strong. And while it wouldn't be easy, Gordon makes it from
Minnesota to Oregon, so it can probably be done, esp if you are in a party
rather than a lone individual
Even within the Mountain area, there may well be some consolidation. Frex,
Arizona is likely to be copping the fallout from San Francisco, Las Vegas and
other former metropolitan areas, so it (and at least the southwest corner of
Utah - maybe more) is going to be distinctly unhealthy at leat in the immediate
aftermath. This could lead to some migration northwards
>If the Holinists try to enclose Deseret, what will happen is a
>combination of the heirs of the legacy of Orrin Porter Rockwell will
>come out of the woodwork, of the reconstitution of the Mormon
>Battalion, and the Holinists will start dying in reprises of the
>Mountain Meadows Massacre.
>
>Hell, I might even join them. It's not my faith anymore, but it *is*
>the culture of my birth, it would be my best chance of survival, and
>it's where my family would be (or would gather to).
>
I suspect smart Holnists (or ones who might have _become_ Holnists in other
places) might develop a sudden interest in Baptism. After all, the survivalist
side of Holnism is only a more extreme form of what the Church teaches anyway.
The other main feature of Holnist philosophy, rule by the strongest, doesn't
match up so well, but in that neck of the woods, the Saints would certainly be
the strongest element _collectively_, if not always as individuals - and I dare
say a proto-Holnist would _love_ Porter Rockwell <g>
Jim Lovejoy
news:ae91a74c.04032...@posting.google.com:
A lot of the *movie* was filmed in, I think it was Newport Washington,
quite a bit North of Spokane. Of course it's folly to try to figure from a
movie location where the book has the protaganist coming from.
On the other hand, if he came from Minnesota, I didn't remember that part
of the book, he'd have probably come along a northern route. Did the book
say that he'd crossed directly from Idaho to Oregon? If it did that puts
it pretty far south. The northern part of Oregon's eastern border is the
Snake River Canyon, and it's deeper than the Grand Canyon.
If the book didn't specifically say that he crossed directly from Idaho to
Oregon, I'd suggest the most likely route would be generally following I 90
into Washington, and down 395 to the Tri-Cities. From there he'd have a
lot of friendly routes to Southern Oregon. Again the question comes up, is
Southern Oregon specified? I remember the Willamette Valley, which I
believe ends sometime before Grant's Pass. (Googling) Yep. Quite a bit
before Grant's Pass. The Willamette Valley reference would seem to center
the Postman's base in Northern Oregon. That suggests an entry point by way
of the Columbia, or one of the Cascade passes just south of the Columba.
Which again suggests that he came by way of the Idaho panhandle (Northern
Idaho).
mike stone
>Did the book
>say that he'd crossed directly from Idaho to Oregon?
Not in so many words, but it seemed to be rather implied. He is being robbed by
survivalists (_not_ Holnists) and remarks to himself "And I thought Idaho was
bad". There is no mention of having gone through Washington, OTOH there _is_
mention of his having been through Butte, Montana, which is compatible with a
fairly northerly route
>If the book didn't specifically say that he crossed directly from Idaho to
>Oregon, I'd suggest the most likely route would be generally following I 90
>into Washington, and down 395 to the Tri-Cities. From there he'd have a
>lot of friendly routes to Southern Oregon. Again the question comes up, is
>Southern Oregon specified?
No. In fact much of south (or at least southwest) Oregon is indicated to be
Holnist territory - to be avoided
Iirc, the first _named_ Oregon town which I could find in my atlas was
Oakridge, which is about halfway up. Unfortunately, it is also well to the
west, over in the Cascades a bit SE of Eugene, so he could have got there from
Idaho by more than one route.
Digging out my road atlas, the options seem to be
i) Leaving Butte on Interstate 90 (which he could have followed all the way
from Minnesota, as far as our information goes. The only other datum I recall
is that he crossed Wyoming) to around Missoula, then turning west on US12
across the Panhandle, then south into Oregon on US395. That does take him
through Wash, but only across one corner of it, which he might not have
mentioned.
ii) Ditto as far as Grangeville, Idaho, then south along US95 as far as Payette
or Fruitland, then across the Snake River ( There seem to be several bridges in
that area, one of which might have survived), into Oregon .This puts him on
roughly the right latitude - about half way up, close to Ontario. From there he
probably follows US20 across central Oregon, until at some point (there seem to
be quite a few possibilities) he turns south or SW to find himself at Oakridge.
iii) The remaining possibility is a _southern_ route, leaving Butte on I15 and
either following it to Idaho Falls and turning west, or else switching to US43
and 93, then onto US75 through central Idaho. The latter seems more likely,
since sticking to the Interstate would take him directly into "Mormon country"
(the counties in the SE end of Idaho are _majority_ LDS) and it becomes
inexplicable that he never encounters the Saints. Even assuming the other route
it is a bit surprising, but conceivable if we assume that Holnist pressure has
caused the local LDS to move eastward, nearer to their compatriots
Either way, at some point he should find himself on Interstate 84, which would
take him through Boise (can't remember if that place is mentioned in the book)
and to the Oregon line at about the same point as in (ii). Theoretically, there
are turnoffs futher south which he could take, but these would bring him into
_Southern_ Oregon - probably taking him straight into the arms of the Holnists
I remember the Willamette Valley, which I
>believe ends sometime before Grant's Pass. (Googling) Yep. Quite a bit
>before Grant's Pass. The Willamette Valley reference would seem to center
>the Postman's base in Northern Oregon. That suggests an entry point by way
>of the Columbia, or one of the Cascade passes just south of the Columba.
>Which again suggests that he came by way of the Idaho panhandle (Northern
>Idaho).
--
Jim Lovejoy
>>From: Jim Lovejoy nos...@devnull.spam
>
>>Did the book
>>say that he'd crossed directly from Idaho to Oregon?
>
> Not in so many words, but it seemed to be rather implied. He is being
> robbed by survivalists (_not_ Holnists) and remarks to himself "And I
> thought Idaho was bad". There is no mention of having gone through
> Washington, OTOH there _is_ mention of his having been through Butte,
> Montana, which is compatible with a fairly northerly route
First thanks for your comments. I don't have a copy of _Postman_
available, AFAIK (if you saw my library you'd understand). So I'm going on
my recollections, supplemented by your postings..
The remark about Idaho suggests a Northern Idaho route. There were some
racist groups north of I-90 that Brin was probably aware of. OTOH Ruby
Ridge isn't that far north of Boise.
But, in summary, the most probable reason that Brin didn't mention any
gathering of the Saints, is that it would have put a severe cramp in the
story. Get a good, strong governmental or quasi government group that the
Holinists can't cow, and his story kinda fizzles.
I guess the best you can get is some post _Postman_ fan-fic, in which the
ReUniting States meet the government of Deseret, and the difficulties in
getting them into the fold, or maybe the way some of their ways are
accepted a little too enthusiastically (after the Troubles I could see
people really going for the reserves, and the book mentioned that the
biological/chemical warfare made some of the men sterile, so this time
around might we see the wider society accepting polygamy and the Saints
saying it shouldn't be allowed.)
Again, thank you for some informative and thought provking posts.
Sincerely,
Jim Lovejoy
mike stone
>But, in summary, the most probable reason that Brin didn't mention any
>gathering of the Saints, is that it would have put a severe cramp in the
>story. Get a good, strong governmental or quasi government group that the
>Holinists can't cow, and his story kinda fizzles.
Or at least would need some fairly major rewriting. Basically, the early
chapters would need to be set further east, in places like Iowa and Nebraska,
with the main action set in Colorado or thereabouts. Alternatively, the book
could have Gordon _starting_ from the Pacific, and moving _eastward_ rather
than west. The Saints are then encountered, or at least discovered, toward the
end, as the Californians were in the actual book
However, that would make it rather unusual for this type of novel. Apart from
the special case of OSCs _Folk of the Fringe_, we don't seem to get many
post-disaster stories set in the "heartland". About the only ones that spring
to my mind are _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ (New Mexico iirc) and Paul Williams'
_Pelbar Cycle_ (Illinois/Missouri)
My impression is that these stories usually exhibit a distinct "West Coast"
bias, with a preference for California. Apart from _The Postman_, the same goes
for Stewart's _Earth Abides_ (Northern California), Poul Anderson's _No Truce
With Kings_ (set in California, within a nation embracing the whole Pacific
coast) and _Orion Shall Rise_ (The Good Guys live in the Pacific Northwest[1]),
Wren's _Gift From The Shore_ (Oregon iirc), Coppel's _Dark December_
(California), and Niven/Pornelle's _Lucifer's Hammer_ (California again). Also,
in Steiber's _Warday_, California is the only part of the US to have
providentially survived the disaster unscathed. I don't know if there is a
particular reason for the choice, or if it's just because a lot of sf writers
happen to _live_ there, but Brin followed tradition in his choice of locale
>
>I guess the best you can get is some post _Postman_ fan-fic, in which the
>ReUniting States meet the government of Deseret, and the difficulties in
>getting them into the fold, or maybe the way some of their ways are
>accepted a little too enthusiastically (after the Troubles I could see
>people really going for the reserves, and the book mentioned that the
>biological/chemical warfare made some of the men sterile, so this time
>around might we see the wider society accepting polygamy and the Saints
>saying it shouldn't be allowed.)
>
Indeed - nice historical irony
>Again, thank you for some informative and thought provking posts.
Steady on. Too much of this and I may have to stop sending, because my head has
got too big to get into the "computer room"
[1] iirc, Anderson's Northwest Union included British Columbia (and Alaska?) as
well as the PNW. That makes OSR afaik the only such case where a US author has
the surviving society even partially located in Canada
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<mws...@aol.comnobliar> writes
>
>However, that would make it rather unusual for this type of novel. Apart from
>the special case of OSCs _Folk of the Fringe_, we don't seem to get many
>post-disaster stories set in the "heartland". About the only ones that spring
>to my mind are _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ (New Mexico iirc) and Paul Williams'
>_Pelbar Cycle_ (Illinois/Missouri)
>
For a non-West Coast story, see "The Chrysalids" (Labrador).
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
mike stone
>we don't seem to get many
>>post-disaster stories set in the "heartland". About the only ones that
>spring
>>to my mind are _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ (New Mexico iirc) and Paul
>Williams'
>>_Pelbar Cycle_ (Illinois/Missouri)
>>
>Would "The Amtrak Chronicles" count, or Adams's series?
Not sure. I don't think I've read them
>
>For a non-West Coast story, see "The Chrysalids" (Labrador).
I did remember that one, but of course Wyndham was British, so it doesn't
really apply to him. Most of his disaster stories wern't set in North America
at all. Ditto John Christopher, of course
James Nicoll
mike stone <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote:
>
>However, that would make it rather unusual for this type of novel. Apart from
>the special case of OSCs _Folk of the Fringe_, we don't seem to get many
>post-disaster stories set in the "heartland". About the only ones that spring
>to my mind are _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ (New Mexico iirc) and Paul Williams'
>_Pelbar Cycle_ (Illinois/Missouri)
>
>My impression is that these stories usually exhibit a distinct "West Coast"
>bias, with a preference for California. Apart from _The Postman_, the same goes
>for Stewart's _Earth Abides_ (Northern California), Poul Anderson's _No Truce
>With Kings_ (set in California, within a nation embracing the whole Pacific
>coast) and _Orion Shall Rise_ (The Good Guys live in the Pacific Northwest[1]),
>Wren's _Gift From The Shore_ (Oregon iirc), Coppel's _Dark December_
>(California), and Niven/Pornelle's _Lucifer's Hammer_ (California again). Also,
>in Steiber's _Warday_, California is the only part of the US to have
>providentially survived the disaster unscathed. I don't know if there is a
>particular reason for the choice, or if it's just because a lot of sf writers
>happen to _live_ there, but Brin followed tradition in his choice of locale
>
>[1] iirc, Anderson's Northwest Union included British Columbia (and Alaska?) as
>well as the PNW. That makes OSR afaik the only such case where a US author has
>the surviving society even partially located in Canada
Ing's "Streamlined America" has the US write off the East coast
below New England and the West coast below Northern California, with an
eastward Zone of Atomic Death along the US/Mexican border. The north from
Washington over to New England Is taken under the wing of a benevolent
Canada, which makes the maps much prettier, I think. Very oddly, despite
the fact that Canada's population distribution sucks from the POV of
surviving something like WWIV as a coherent nation, in Ing's trilogy we
not only survive but punch well out of our weight class in WWIV. I think
the Sino-Ind nuclear forces must have used US maps, with big blank areas
to the North. The so-called heartland is all that is left and the Mormons
play important roles, both as grey hats and black hats.
The idea that once WWN eliminates the effete city dwellers the
USA's politics will take an abrupt swing towards conservative land turns
up a few times in Ing's writing, but I think it's descriptive rather than
prescriptive.
_The Last Canadian_ (who is a naturalized Canadian who was born in
the USA somewhere) has long stretches in Canada before the protagonist
decides to make the trek the first visitors to NorAm did, in reverse. It's
a bit weak on NorAm (Indeed, on New World) survivors, though.
_The Chrysalids_ is set in one of the Atlantic provinces well
post some sort of big oops involving radiation.
_Surreal 3000_ is set long after a nuclear has made the surface
of the Earth uninhabitable, or so the survivors in a city under Montreal's
Mount Royal [1] think.
I wouldn't burst into flames if Vonarburg has set something
post-oops in Canada.
I am sure there are other examples.
James Nicoll
1 I am rather embarrassed at how long it took me to put "Montreal" and
"Mount Royal" together in my head, kind of like the total lack of association
between Acadian and Cajun.
--
"Thousands of people will be exposed to Shakespeare who normally wouldn't. Now
everyone will be able to enjoy 'Hamlet'. That's the way it should be." "But
don't you see? Don't you understand what you are doing?" "Oh, yeah. I'm
destroying Shakespeare's snob appeal." "You _fiend_." [Lenny and Cowboy Wally]
J.B. Moreno
> mike stone <mws...@aol.comnobliar> writes
> >
> >However, that would make it rather unusual for this type of novel. Apart
> >from the special case of OSCs _Folk of the Fringe_, we don't seem to get
> >many post-disaster stories set in the "heartland". About the only ones
> >that spring to my mind are _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ (New Mexico iirc)
> >and Paul Williams' _Pelbar Cycle_ (Illinois/Missouri)
> >
> Would "The Amtrak Chronicles" count, or Adams's series?
I think the Amtrak was more in the middle (I think I remeber colorado
being mentioned, but perhaps not).
Adam's is an interesting case -- the clansmen are *told* they are going
back to LA, but are instead taken to the East Coast.
> For a non-West Coast story, see "The Chrysalids" (Labrador).
Don't know that one...
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
mike stone
>
>> For a non-West Coast story, see "The Chrysalids" (Labrador).
>
>Don't know that one...
An old (1950s) John Wyndham. One of his best imho
Robert A. Woodward
mws...@aol.comnobliar (mike stone) wrote:
> >From: pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno)
>
> >
> >> For a non-West Coast story, see "The Chrysalids" (Labrador).
> >
> >Don't know that one...
>
> An old (1950s) John Wyndham. One of his best imho
Published in the USA as _Re-Birth_.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <20040327040955...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> mike stone <mws...@aol.comnobliar> wrote:
> >
> >However, that would make it rather unusual for this type of novel. Apart from
> >the special case of OSCs _Folk of the Fringe_, we don't seem to get many
> >post-disaster stories set in the "heartland". About the only ones that spring
> >to my mind are _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ (New Mexico iirc) and Paul Williams'
> >_Pelbar Cycle_ (Illinois/Missouri)
> >
snip
>
> >[1] iirc, Anderson's Northwest Union included British Columbia (and Alaska?) as
> >well as the PNW. That makes OSR afaik the only such case where a US author has
> >the surviving society even partially located in Canada
>
>
> I wouldn't burst into flames if Vonarburg has set something
> post-oops in Canada.
>
> I am sure there are other examples.
The Pelbar Cycle itself has a few scenes set in Canada, somewhere
around book five or so.
Sterling Lanier's (to me, regrettable) "Hiero's Journey" starts in Manitoba,
doesn't it? ("He utilized the stream", ugh). Leiber's "A specter is haunting
Texas) makes a brief stop in Winnipeg, though most of Canada is inhabited
by furry Russians.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University