plausibility of the draka
anne marie talbott
Hello, out there. Here in the wilds of Tennessee, the discovery
of other folks who have read the Draka novels of Steve Stirling
is big news...
A few questions to ponder for those who have read the novels:
1. In terms of character, I find it interesting that Stirling
leaves hints throughout the start of The Stone Dogs that
Yolande is mentally unstable. Why is this? A personal thing
or an indication that the Draka society is starting to have
problems producing these sort of folks? Any ideas? In Under
the Yoke, Tanya V. S. worries about the effect that being
around the Security Directorate pens is having on Gudrun...
is the Draka society starting to notice something is wrong
with their children?
2. Why so little discussion in these groups about Thomas
Cairstens and Alice Wayne? I think they are interesting to
observe as Gwendolyn Ingolfsson ties them to her with
pheromones and some brainwashing techniques; on the other
hand, they are the two humans who know the most about the
former Archon. Both are sort of disconnected in many ways
from society, which made them more vulnerable to her
manipulation...
And finally,
3. Who would win: Gwen or Sh'kaira (from the 5th Millenium
series), given fairly equal terms. An idea: a molehole
deposits Gwen in the land of the Kommanza...instead of 20th
century USA...
I would be interested in seeing what people think. These novels
are certainly thought-provoking....
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tapio Erola
anne marie talbott <atal...@edge.net> wrote:
(cut)
: In Under
: the Yoke, Tanya V. S. worries about the effect that being
: around the Security Directorate pens is having on Gudrun...
: is the Draka society starting to notice something is wrong
: with their children?
Ahh, Tanya just knows and wants to avoid difference between
mastery and sadism in her kids. It is a difference which
Von Shrakenbergs take seriously. There is nothing wrong whatsoever
with their kids. (Given _their_ cultural viewpoint. I would have
pity for anyone who would have to rehabilitate that cute 12-year old
kid to _our_ cultural values.)
: 2. Why so little discussion in these groups about Thomas
: Cairstens and Alice Wayne? I think they are interesting to
: observe as Gwendolyn Ingolfsson ties them to her with
: pheromones and some brainwashing techniques; on the other
: hand, they are the two humans who know the most about the
: former Archon.
What's the interest there? Two brainwashed traitors to humanity.
If CIA ever realizes that they are alive, they will disappear.
After LaFarge left his datadump to those boys, they want to
do the 'snatch-squeeze-disposal' routine to them.
--
Tapio Erola t...@paju.oulu.fi (No mail to t...@sliver.oulu.fi please)
"I think; therefore, I can't be a Socialist."
-- Thomas Landsberger
anne marie talbott
Interesting thoughts abound...
>In article <590eqk$8...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>, Tapio Erola <t...@oulu.fi> wrote:
>
>is the Draka society starting to notice something is wrong
> : with their children?
>
> Ahh, Tanya just knows and wants to avoid difference between
> mastery and sadism in her kids. It is a difference which
> Von Shrakenbergs take seriously. There is nothing wrong whatsoever
> with their kids. (Given _their_ cultural viewpoint. I would have
> pity for anyone who would have to rehabilitate that cute 12-year old
> kid to _our_ cultural values.)
True enough...Gudrun is already marred by the Draka society, in
our terms, and may not be a candidate for successful rehab. I'm
not even sure how one would try, with her. But the V. S. family
does seem concerned about their children having the "right" set
of values re: the subject races.
Yolande, OTOH, seems marred by something more internal. Even her
family sees the problems...her brother threatening to banish her;
Gwen asking her to remove the cuff from Marya...why hadn't Yolande
done that already?
Also, Gudrun (even if she has been marred by the changing values
noted above) resents the "New Race" subordinates she has on her
ship, in the Final War, to some extent. I wonder what others like
her thought of people like Gwen.
>
> : 2. Why so little discussion in these groups about Thomas
> : Cairstens and Alice Wayne? ...they are the two humans who know the most >
> : about the former Archon.
>
> What's the interest there? Two brainwashed traitors to humanity.
> If CIA ever realizes that they are alive, they will disappear.
> After LaFarge left his datadump to those boys, they want to
> do the 'snatch-squeeze-disposal' routine to them.
>
OK, so they are "traitors", but they are also key elements in
the survival of Gwen2. And there's still the point that of all
the humans, Alice (amoral as she is.."Who do I have to kill?")
and Tom (the world run by nonhumans would be a better place)
are the two who knew Gwendolyn the best. I think that gives us
room to learn more about the Draka psychology. It's also kind
of interesting to note that Alice and Tom were disconnected
from our society as a whole for personal reasons, making it
easier for Gwen to win them over. I wonder if LaFarge's data
collection broke thru the secrecy of Gwen's safe house plans...
Anne Marie Talbott
atal...@edge.net
Robert A. Woodward
In article <850618...@dejanews.com>, anne marie talbott
<atal...@edge.net> wrote:
> Hello, out there. Here in the wilds of Tennessee, the discovery
> of other folks who have read the Draka novels of Steve Stirling
> is big news...
>
> A few questions to ponder for those who have read the novels:
>
<snip>
>
> And finally,
>
> 3. Who would win: Gwen or Sh'kaira (from the 5th Millenium
> series), given fairly equal terms. An idea: a molehole
> deposits Gwen in the land of the Kommanza...instead of 20th
> century USA...
>
Gwen. Sh'kaira is merely a female Conan. Gwen is a super-soldier.
Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
<minor spoiler for *Stone Dogs*>
In article <8506955...@dejanews.com>, anne marie talbott
<atal...@edge.net> wrote:
>Yolande, OTOH, seems marred by something more internal. Even her
>family sees the problems...her brother threatening to banish her;
>Gwen asking her to remove the cuff from Marya...why hadn't Yolande
>done that already?
Yolande's emotional problems pretty clearly stem from the violent death of
Myfanwy in front of her. (Granted that they were both soldiers and such
death in wartime happens all the time, but Yolande was still adolescent and
it hit her hard.) All her ugly actions are directed in some way at those
she considers responsible for Myfanwy's death.
In another society, her reaction to this trauma would have taken some form
other than sadistic abuse, most likely. But I don't see any reason to doubt
that the damage done her would have been as great if she'd been, say, an
American soldier who saw a lover killed.
--
Tools, not rules.
anne marie talbott
In article <jaed-ya02308000...@nntp.best.com>,
ja...@best.com (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) wrote:
> Yolande's emotional problems pretty clearly stem from the violent death of
> Myfanwy in front of her. (Granted that they were both soldiers and such
> death in wartime happens all the time, but Yolande was still adolescent and
> it hit her hard.) All her ugly actions are directed in some way at those
> she considers responsible for Myfanwy's death.
I'm not so sure all of her problems developed from this one
instance of trauma. In the first part of the book, when she
is going to the new school, she thinks about a fight she had or
a problem with another student at her old school, and how the
world is unfair to her. She also thinks about how adults are
constantly telling her to stop being so moody and dreamy. I
think these are hints or precursors of what is a major weakness
in her. The sadism towards Marya is another symptom of a deeper
disorder. I would love to give her an MMPI, normed of course,
for the Draka population as a whole. She is unbalanced enough
that even other Draka notice.
She seems able to conduct herself in a relatively normal
fashion for a Draka military commander, and as a Draka mother.
But the psychotic breaks seem to come upon her more and more
often as she ages.
BTW, what ever happened to Yolande's son Nikki and her other
children? I assume they, like Gwen, were NR folks, but they
are never referred to in Drakon. What did they get up to?
Wonder what a Ingolfsson/V. Shrakenburg family reunion would
be like to observe, (preferably from a safe distance...)?
Graydon
anne marie talbott (atal...@edge.net) wrote:
: Yolande, OTOH, seems marred by something more internal. Even her
: family sees the problems...her brother threatening to banish her;
: Gwen asking her to remove the cuff from Marya...why hadn't Yolande
: done that already?
Becuase Yolande is nutso-cuckoo?
Yolande is a dreamy, empathic, gentle, poetical person who'd been put
through the Draka education system; it drove her more than a little crazy,
trying to be appropriately ruthless. When her emotional anchor went, she
went, too, and she's *still* not good at being ruthless.
: Also, Gudrun (even if she has been marred by the changing values
: noted above) resents the "New Race" subordinates she has on her
: ship, in the Final War, to some extent. I wonder what others like
: her thought of people like Gwen.
That's not any sort of personal resentment, though, just 'damn youngsters'
grousing with a bit more bite to it.
--
Uton we hycgan hwaer we ham agen, | saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
ond thonne gethencan hu we thider cumen.
atal...@edge.net
In article <594718$7...@knot.queensu.ca>,
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
> Yolande is a dreamy, empathic, gentle, poetical person who'd been put
> through the Draka education system; it drove her more than a little crazy,
> trying to be appropriately ruthless. When her emotional anchor went, she
> went, too, and she's *still* not good at being ruthless.
Hmmmm....so here we see that the Draka system of education drives
people mad, especially if they are at all inclined towards the
fine arts? But the Draka appreciate art so much; it doesn't seem
like they would squash artistic people in their system...but maybe they do.
She's not good at being ruthless? I guess she could have been
worse, *somehow*, in the Pathfinder incident, but that would be
really stretching it... I think she is pretty darn ruthless,
and wouldn't want to be the Alliance newspaper reporter that
got assigned to interview her. I can see it now: Barbara Walters
interviews Strategos Yolande Ingolfsson..."Now, Yolande, why
did you aaarrrggghhhkkk..."
Basically, my premise is that Yolande has some deep personality
flaw (remember, too, she's a fictional character! :) ) that is
extremely exacerbated by the loss of her lover (who was on the
verge of leaving her anyway). She focused all her hatred on the
family or persons she perceived as the cause: the LeFarges. I
think Eric was NOT so far away from shooting her as an aberrant
Draka as he may have sounded in The Stone Dogs...
Her poetry seems to be an open window into her soul, as
chilling and heart-breaking as that may be. Even practical
Tanya V.S. uses her art work to depict, and possibly be
"cathartic" with, scenes of death and destruction you wouldn't
want on your preschooler's bedroom walls (even if you were
a politically correct Draka parent)... Gwen seemed to use
art as more of an historical tool, for rememberance sake
alone. Was she LESS scarred by the Final War and the
"killsweeps"? Or did she have less of a capacity to be scarred
that way? I enjoy thinking about the psychology and motives of
these characters because they challenge me to defend my value
set, I guess. And, as had been said before, the Draka are
mirrors of a sort.
You see the same sort of emotional scarring in Sh'kaira, in the
5th Millennium novels--her horrible childhood comes back to
visit her when she and Megan "adopt" the two children in one of
the books (can't remember which one, though...been awhile since
I read them). She makes attempts, pushed by Megan, to deal with
the past. Does Yolande ever?? Especially after the Marya-escape-
so-we-can-start-the-Final-War scene? It may be easier to just
hate, rather than try to process.
Does Gwen ever KNOW what happened to Marya, her "tantie-ma"? She
says in Drakon that she was closer to her than anyone else in
her life...but she brought Marya the disks with the info plague
code on them, to the Lunar colony, unknowingly, of course. What
would happen if she found out that the person she loved the
most was 1. a Yankee spy and 2. someone who used her as a mere
courier?
Graydon
atal...@edge.net wrote:
: In article <594718$7...@knot.queensu.ca>,
: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
: > Yolande is a dreamy, empathic, gentle, poetical person who'd been put
: > through the Draka education system; it drove her more than a little crazy,
: > trying to be appropriately ruthless. When her emotional anchor went, she
: > went, too, and she's *still* not good at being ruthless.
:
: Hmmmm....so here we see that the Draka system of education drives
: people mad, especially if they are at all inclined towards the
: fine arts? But the Draka appreciate art so much; it doesn't seem
: like they would squash artistic people in their system...but maybe they do.
Good art _requires_ effective ruthlessness; the problem with Yolande is
that she's completely terrible at it. (Unlike the entire rest of her
extended family, who are at least solidly competently ruthless. Karl and
the two of his children we see into the heads of at all are *extremely*
good at it.)
: She's not good at being ruthless? I guess she could have been
: worse, *somehow*, in the Pathfinder incident, but that would be
: really stretching it... I think she is pretty darn ruthless,
: and wouldn't want to be the Alliance newspaper reporter that
: got assigned to interview her. I can see it now: Barbara Walters
: interviews Strategos Yolande Ingolfsson..."Now, Yolande, why
: did you aaarrrggghhhkkk..."
It's an amusing image, especially when you think about what Yolande
*looks* like, but yes, Yolande really isn't good at being ruthless.
Ruthlessness isn't a capacity for attrocity - which is trivial, just head
in pretty much any direction without constraint, you'll get an attrocity -
but a willingness and capacity to require an understanding of the world to
conform to an external referent.
Sensible, useful, (all too rare), values of ruthlessness involve
referencing your _)own(_ world view to the observed, tangible world, and
finding a way to cope. (the entire Western world is *still* having
trouble with Darwin in philosophical terms, which is just plain silly.)
Yolande is _awful_ at this; she has terrible trouble naming her feelings
to herself, she's scarcely forthright about objectives, she can't make
herself face the likelyhood of Myfanwy getting married to someone else (or
that Myfanwy is Not A Kind Person), she won't admit to herself that she's
an empathic person in a society that detests such insight and that this is
consequential.
If she'd been a bit luckier about friends growing up, she might well have
turned out differently, but as it is, a considerably incompetence at being
ruthless with *herself*, which is what really counts if you're going to
start being ruthless with other people afterwards.
: Her poetry seems to be an open window into her soul, as
: chilling and heart-breaking as that may be. Even practical
: Tanya V.S. uses her art work to depict, and possibly be
: "cathartic" with, scenes of death and destruction you wouldn't
: want on your preschooler's bedroom walls (even if you were
: a politically correct Draka parent)... Gwen seemed to use
When did Yolande get a 'Young Draka's Illustrated Odessy'?
And Tanya's art wouldn't much bother me on a kid's wall; the meaning in it
isn't apparent without considerable life experience, and scary images do
children no harm in moderation, fairy tale bowdlerizers nothwithstanding.
: art as more of an historical tool, for rememberance sake
: alone. Was she LESS scarred by the Final War and the
: "killsweeps"? Or did she have less of a capacity to be scarred
: that way? I enjoy thinking about the psychology and motives of
: these characters because they challenge me to defend my value
: set, I guess. And, as had been said before, the Draka are
: mirrors of a sort.
Gwen has an edetic memory and always has had; her greiving process is
going to be something *very* different from a human's, she can still
remember perfectly what it felt like when anything she might have cause to
grieve over happened.
: Does Gwen ever KNOW what happened to Marya, her "tantie-ma"? She
: says in Drakon that she was closer to her than anyone else in
: her life...but she brought Marya the disks with the info plague
: code on them, to the Lunar colony, unknowingly, of course. What
: would happen if she found out that the person she loved the
: most was 1. a Yankee spy and 2. someone who used her as a mere
: courier?
She knows. Where Marya went is not something Yolande would or could lie
about to her daughter; the consequences of it she probably got later, but
I'd take a bet that Eric left his descendants some notes on the subject,
and that Gwen read most of the Archonal files while she had the chance.
And I can't imagine Gwen thinking less of Marya for trying that hard to do
her duty; it's not something she'd take personally. And, well, the person
*really* responsible is her mother, not her tantie-ma.
atal...@edge.net
In article <597d01$e...@knot.queensu.ca>,
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>> : Does Gwen ever KNOW what happened to Marya, her "tantie-ma"? She
>> : says in Drakon that she was closer to her than anyone else in
>> : her life...but she brought Marya the disks with the info plague
>> : code on them, to the Lunar colony, unknowingly, of course. What
>> : would happen if she found out that the person she loved the
>> : most was 1. a Yankee spy and 2. someone who used her as a mere
>> : courier?
> She knows. Where Marya went is not something Yolande would or could lie
> about to her daughter; the consequences of it she probably got later, but
> I'd take a bet that Eric left his descendants some notes on the subject,
> and that Gwen read most of the Archonal files while she had the chance.
> And I can't imagine Gwen thinking less of Marya for trying that hard to do
> her duty; it's not something she'd take personally. And, well, the person
> *really* responsible is her mother, not her tantie-ma.
Gwen would feel okay about the one person she felt closest to
being a Yankee spy? Hmmm...I don't understand. I also don't
grok why Yolande is *really* responsible for the info plague.
Please enlighten me! ;)
I think having a perfect memory of events, including emotional
memory, could be more of a handicap than a bonus for Gwen or
anyone for that matter. Our memory clouds over time, sometimes
obscuring the pains we have encountered (as well as some of the
joys; it's a double-edged blade). Remembering all the pain in
life could be crushing. I guess Gwen can control how much she
reacts to the memories she has.
She seemed to do the art as more of a "I'm a bored superhuman with
time on my hands, so here are some doodles" kind of thing...although
her art gallery certainly had its, um, uses when she was seducing
Jennifer. She mentions having some interesting "etchings" later on,
to Jennifer; I wonder if she was just using the old line, or if she
really had some new artwork...<grin>
Graydon
atal...@edge.net wrote:
: In article <597d01$e...@knot.queensu.ca>,
: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
: >> : Does Gwen ever KNOW what happened to Marya, her "tantie-ma"? She
: >> : says in Drakon that she was closer to her than anyone else in
: >> : her life...but she brought Marya the disks with the info plague
: >> : code on them, to the Lunar colony, unknowingly, of course. What
: >> : would happen if she found out that the person she loved the
: >> : most was 1. a Yankee spy and 2. someone who used her as a mere
: >> : courier?
:
: > She knows. Where Marya went is not something Yolande would or could lie
: > about to her daughter; the consequences of it she probably got later, but
: > I'd take a bet that Eric left his descendants some notes on the subject,
: > and that Gwen read most of the Archonal files while she had the chance.
:
: > And I can't imagine Gwen thinking less of Marya for trying that hard to do
: > her duty; it's not something she'd take personally. And, well, the person
: > *really* responsible is her mother, not her tantie-ma.
: Given the intense hatred the Draka feel for the "damnyanks",
: Gwen would feel okay about the one person she felt closest to
: being a Yankee spy? Hmmm...I don't understand. I also don't
: grok why Yolande is *really* responsible for the info plague.
: Please enlighten me! ;)
Yolande, rather than taking responsibility for the mess that discovering
Marya is a spy throws her, personally into, decides to use the information
to force Eric to start the Final War. (Wanna bet that the Draka couldn't
have fixed their fire control problems and had a much better war, from
their POV, in a month or so? Yolande's actions aren't at all ideal from
the POV of the Race.) So, yeah, in a lot of ways it *is* Yolande's fault,
as well as it being Yolande who lets Marya get away.
Nor is it obvious that Gwen feels particularly strongly the hereditary
dislike of Americans; it's not clear that the majority of the Draka feel
that for any reason stronger than habit.
: I think having a perfect memory of events, including emotional
: memory, could be more of a handicap than a bonus for Gwen or
: anyone for that matter. Our memory clouds over time, sometimes
: obscuring the pains we have encountered (as well as some of the
: joys; it's a double-edged blade). Remembering all the pain in
: life could be crushing. I guess Gwen can control how much she
: reacts to the memories she has.
Or something. Or when, maybe?
: She seemed to do the art as more of a "I'm a bored superhuman with
: time on my hands, so here are some doodles" kind of thing...although
I think she does art because it's a thing Draka do, it's culturally
considered an acceptable use of time. (Plus, where *else* is she going to
get something she consideres good decorating done on that Earth? :)
: her art gallery certainly had its, um, uses when she was seducing
: Jennifer. She mentions having some interesting "etchings" later on,
: to Jennifer; I wonder if she was just using the old line, or if she
: really had some new artwork...<grin>
I don't think there is any point in the whole book where Gwen lies
directly; I imagine that she had some etchings and was enjoying the chance
to make Jennifer blush.
atal...@edge.net
SOME SPOILERS ABOUT * UNDER THE YOKE * AND * DRAKON *,
so please be warned... :)
In article <59bs4e$9...@knot.queensu.ca>,
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
> Yolande, rather than taking responsibility for the mess that discovering
> Marya is a spy throws her, personally into, decides to use the information
> to force Eric to start the Final War. (Wanna bet that the Draka couldn't
> have fixed their fire control problems and had a much better war, from
> their POV, in a month or so? Yolande's actions aren't at all ideal from
> the POV of the Race.) So, yeah, in a lot of ways it *is* Yolande's fault,
> as well as it being Yolande who lets Marya get away.
OK, I can see that more clearly now, although I still feel kind of
bad for Gwen, who trusted Marya, and ended up being just as used
as Marya or anyone else. There was a scene where Marya and her
brother were being tested, to see who was loyal, before they were
inserted as spys into the Domination...Marya would have shot her
own brother to show how loyal she was to the Alliance, so I guess
using the daughter of her owner as a pawn wasn't too big a deal,
either.
The Draka aren't the only ruthless ones.
> Nor is it obvious that Gwen feels particularly strongly the hereditary
> dislike of Americans; it's not clear that the majority of the Draka feel
> that for any reason stronger than habit.
As opposed to the Samothracians, who have apparently * demonized*
the Draka completely? They (the Samos) are SO uptight about how
much they hate the Draka; I read somewhere (I'll have to look for
the ref) that a primary component of hatred is FEAR. Are the Samos
*that* afraid of the Draka, or is it something they don't really
think about much anymore?
> I think she (Gwen)does art because it's a thing Draka do, it's culturally
> considered an acceptable use of time. (Plus, where *else* is she going to
> get something she consideres good decorating done on that Earth? :)
Well, that's true...although she doesn't seem to go for really
exotic decorations in her home(s)...for some reason, when Stirling
describes her room after the seduction of Jennifer (done quite
well, I must add, IMHO), I keep seeing the scene in "The Hunger",
where the curtains are blowing all around the bed...
> I don't think there is any point in the whole book where Gwen lies
> directly; I imagine that she had some etchings and was enjoying the chance
> to make Jennifer blush.
Doesn't seem to hard to do (poor Jennifer!). No, Gwen doesn't ever
lie outright, but there are times when she just doesn't tell the
whole story, or at least not all at once.
It would have been interesting to see what tactic(s) she used on
Pat, the woman who she later had to dispose of; did she perfect
her spiel as she brought humans into her Household? She used the
environmental angle to hook Cairstens, and the eternal youth thing
with the Jane-Fonda-send-up, but what did she use with Alice, or
with Pat?
Why didn't Gwen's pheromonal control work quite right with Pat?
Did she have any intention of bringing Jennifer into the Household,
or was she used merely to get a line into NY and the money needed to
fund the Project?
Would the Draka society eventually keel over out of inertia? If
they ran out of enemies, I think that would be a possibility.
Thoughts on the above sundry silly hypothesizing?
A. M.
"It's astounding, time is fleeting..."
Leon Myerson
anne marie talbott <atal...@edge.net> wrote:
>1. In terms of character, I find it interesting that Stirling
> leaves hints throughout the start of The Stone Dogs that
> Yolande is mentally unstable. Why is this? A personal thing
> or an indication that the Draka society is starting to have
> problems producing these sort of folks? Any ideas? In Under
> the Yoke, Tanya V. S. worries about the effect that being
> around the Security Directorate pens is having on Gudrun...
> is the Draka society starting to notice something is wrong
> with their children?
Its only natural that Draka society would have some misfits, however
much they try to avoid them. Remember Gerraldson, their greatest
composer? He committed suicide at a relatively young age. The Draka
defector who trained the Lefarges never fit in, and the OSS of UTY had
defectors in its time as well. But they try a lot harder than we do
to raise their children well. Here's a thought, if Myfwany hadn't
been killed, if she'd left to get married, Yolande might have been
vulnerable to recruitment by a savy OSS operative.
>2. Why so little discussion in these groups about Thomas
> Cairstens and Alice Wayne? I think they are interesting to
> observe as Gwendolyn Ingolfsson ties them to her with
> pheromones and some brainwashing techniques; on the other
> hand, they are the two humans who know the most about the
> former Archon. Both are sort of disconnected in many ways
> from society, which made them more vulnerable to her
> manipulation...
The disconnected are always vulnerable that way, like David Ekstein in
TSD. Cairstens was very much the type that the Soviets used to find
in the old days of ideological struggle before they decided it was
easier to go with purely mercenary turncoats. Gwen did such a good
job of playing the Messiah for Cairstens that in reading _Drakon_ I
really thought he might turn on her, violently, when he learned how
he was being used. I don't think Gwen ever told him about the lethal
biobomb, I'm not sure he was THAT alienated. Apostles have something
of a Messiah complex themselves, they're just not intense enough for
the central role, so they'll wholeheartedly join with someone who is
up to it. They can hang on to the bitter end if it comes about
incrementally, as did some of Hitler's inner circle, but the sudden
revelation of betrayal of the _theme_ can spark violent rejection.
OTOH, Alice saw Gwen far more accurately, but wasn't remotely up to
thinking of herself as capable of opposing her in any way.
>And finally,
>3. Who would win: Gwen or Sh'kaira (from the 5th Millenium
> series), given fairly equal terms. An idea: a molehole
> deposits Gwen in the land of the Kommanza...instead of 20th
> century USA...
I never read the 5th Millenium books, I probably will eventually. As
for comparisons between Gwen and other Stirling characters, I noted
that noted that Raj Whitehall, the hero of the Stirling/Drake _The
General_ series, had beautiful, brave, ultra-crafty wife explicitly
described as having red/brown hair and striking green eyes. Probably
Stirling's personal taste in fantasy women.
Leon Myerson
Tapio Erola <t...@oulu.fi> wrote:
>anne marie talbott <atal...@edge.net> wrote:
>(cut)
>: In Under
>: the Yoke, Tanya V. S. worries about the effect that being
>: around the Security Directorate pens is having on Gudrun...
>: is the Draka society starting to notice something is wrong
>: with their children?
>Ahh, Tanya just knows and wants to avoid difference between
>mastery and sadism in her kids. It is a difference which
>Von Shrakenbergs take seriously. There is nothing wrong whatsoever
>with their kids. (Given _their_ cultural viewpoint. I would have
>pity for anyone who would have to rehabilitate that cute 12-year old
>kid to _our_ cultural values.)
Do you think that would even be possible? And if not, what would have
to be done following an Alliance victory? Especially with the New
Race?
Would the shock of losing a war leave even adult Draka open to
positive change, or would the majority suicide with their families?
Against the prospect of finding themselves thrown to the serfs, family
suicide seems reasonable, but if defeated Draka had the option of
placing themselves and their children under the protection of
Alliance(American) troops, would they choose to live, especially for
the children's sake. After getting the homeland nuked, could
Americans possibly be as magnanimous towards former enemies as we were
towards the defeated Axis powers? The American troops might hand feed
Draka survivors to the serfs out of sheer vengeance.
Leon Myerson
anne marie talbott <atal...@edge.net> wrote:
>Yolande, OTOH, seems marred by something more internal. Even her
>family sees the problems...her brother threatening to banish her;
>Gwen asking her to remove the cuff from Marya...why hadn't Yolande
>done that already?
If you read the cuff removal scene carefully, I think its clear that
it was staged. Yolande ASKED Gwen to bring it up, so she'd have a
comfortable opening to do what she'd already decided to do anyway.
Remember Yolande forgetting to bring the controller she and Marya left
the Moon, saying she hadn't thought about it in years? Yet she
obtained another one on Earth to slip in her bag before they went to
the beach that day. After it was done, Yolande said to Gwen, _That
seemed to go well_. Of course, Gwen did slip in a bit of editorial
comment of her own.
>Also, Gudrun (even if she has been marred by the changing values
>noted above) resents the "New Race" subordinates she has on her
>ship, in the Final War, to some extent. I wonder what others like
>her thought of people like Gwen.
Inevitable tension born of envy. And yet, Gudrun would be in her
early sixties, her own children probably weren't New Race, but she'd
probably have her first grandchildren by then, they certainly would
be. Neat little way of making the Final War real to the reader,
killing off a character one remembers as a child from an earlier book.
Then Stirling does it on a much bigger scale with Gwen herself.
atal...@edge.net
In article <59earn$d...@camel5.mindspring.com>,
lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) wrote:
> >rehabilitate that cute 12-year old kid to _our_ cultural values.)
>
> Do you think that would even be possible? And if not, what would have
> to be done following an Alliance victory? Especially with the New
> Race?
>
> Would the shock of losing a war leave even adult Draka open to
> positive change, or would the majority suicide with their families?
> Against the prospect of finding themselves thrown to the serfs, family
> suicide seems reasonable, but if defeated Draka had the option of
> placing themselves and their children under the protection of
> Alliance(American) troops, would they choose to live, especially for
> the children's sake. After getting the homeland nuked, could
> Americans possibly be as magnanimous towards former enemies as we were
> towards the defeated Axis powers? The American troops might hand feed
> Draka survivors to the serfs out of sheer vengeance.
I think the "loss" of a war to the Draka means that the * last *
Draka has died, fighting off the Allies. You would see the
_cute twelve year old_ kids fighting alongside their
parents and any loyal serfs. The Alliance would probably have to
resort to a scorched-earth policy; the mopping-up action would
make Finland and the problems the Draka had there seem like a
walk in the park. I don't think surrender is in their vocabulary.
For instance, see Gwen's reaction to LaFarge when he asks her
if she's going to surrender...and Gudrun's "pillbox/bunker/hero"
analogy.
Interestingly, I heard the same little speech Gudrun used in a
movie about the Soviets in the Afghanistan conflict, called
"The Beast". It is an interesting movie, but with very graphic
violence. I am sure Tanya VS, a former tanker, would identify
quite well with it. If you have seen the movie, or after watching
it, tell me (anyone) if you think the Draka, with their unique
code of honor, would have something akin to "nana watay" (sp??),
the term used in the movie... won't tell you more in case I
would spoil things. :) Sorry I can't spell in Afghani! But that's
what it sounds like.
A.M.
Graydon
atal...@edge.net wrote:
: SOME SPOILERS ABOUT * UNDER THE YOKE * AND * DRAKON *,
: so please be warned... :)
: In article <59bs4e$9...@knot.queensu.ca>,
: saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
: bad for Gwen, who trusted Marya, and ended up being just as used
: as Marya or anyone else. There was a scene where Marya and her
: brother were being tested, to see who was loyal, before they were
: inserted as spys into the Domination...Marya would have shot her
: own brother to show how loyal she was to the Alliance, so I guess
: using the daughter of her owner as a pawn wasn't too big a deal,
: either.
She would have shot him if he had proved to be a Domination spy. A
_leetle_ difference there.
I can't say as I think Marya owes either Yolande or Gwen anything,
although I think she really does love Gwen.
: The Draka aren't the only ruthless ones.
Far from it, although there are more effectively ruthless Draka than there
are effectively ruthless Alliance personnel.
: > Nor is it obvious that Gwen feels particularly strongly the hereditary
: > dislike of Americans; it's not clear that the majority of the Draka feel
: > that for any reason stronger than habit.
:
: As opposed to the Samothracians, who have apparently * demonized*
: the Draka completely? They (the Samos) are SO uptight about how
: much they hate the Draka; I read somewhere (I'll have to look for
: the ref) that a primary component of hatred is FEAR. Are the Samos
: *that* afraid of the Draka, or is it something they don't really
: think about much anymore?
I don't think it's debated, and of course they're scared, they're the
descendents of a small group of refugees who watched their cities burn and
then nearly died.
: > I think she (Gwen)does art because it's a thing Draka do, it's culturally
: > considered an acceptable use of time. (Plus, where *else* is she going to
: > get something she consideres good decorating done on that Earth? :)
:
: Well, that's true...although she doesn't seem to go for really
: exotic decorations in her home(s)...
I think putting murals of goulons up is pretty exotic. Plus a portrait of
Mom with her back to a moonscape. :]
: for some reason, when Stirling
: describes her room after the seduction of Jennifer (done quite
: well, I must add, IMHO), I keep seeing the scene in "The Hunger",
: where the curtains are blowing all around the bed...
Gwen is a convincing vampire in many respects. If Stirling ever writes a
vampire novel, I'd expect it to be too creepy to sell.
: > I don't think there is any point in the whole book where Gwen lies
: > directly; I imagine that she had some etchings and was enjoying the chance
: > to make Jennifer blush.
:
: Doesn't seem to hard to do (poor Jennifer!). No, Gwen doesn't ever
: lie outright, but there are times when she just doesn't tell the
: whole story, or at least not all at once.
Sure; she's not an idiot, she's only making the game more fun by putting a
constraint on herself, in one sense, and in the other, she's acting as
much as possible in a way that makes it easy to keep liking herself.
: It would have been interesting to see what tactic(s) she used on
: Pat, the woman who she later had to dispose of; did she perfect
: her spiel as she brought humans into her Household? She used the
I think it got better over time, but the individual seductions seem to be
just that, individual.
: environmental angle to hook Cairstens, and the eternal youth thing
: with the Jane-Fonda-send-up, but what did she use with Alice, or
: with Pat?
Alice seems to have been plain greed.
: Why didn't Gwen's pheromonal control work quite right with Pat?
'cause normal humans aren't designed to be controled by phermones, and
it's not that reliable with them. Servus could be tweaked into very
specific states, humans it's mostly just simple things like lust and fear,
very little subtlety.
: Did she have any intention of bringing Jennifer into the Household,
: or was she used merely to get a line into NY and the money needed to
: fund the Project?
Probably hadn't made up her mind, but the invitation certainly seemed to
be one to join the household.
: Would the Draka society eventually keel over out of inertia? If
: they ran out of enemies, I think that would be a possibility.
Take away the external enemies and they fight each other, so they don't
get *completely* complacent, but I think they're much too stable in
evolutionary terms, the _idea_ of a Final Society betrays strong
creationist axioms which aren't going to do well in the truly long term.
: Thoughts on the above sundry silly hypothesizing?
I think you are somewhat too ready to tell yourself you're silly.
atal...@edge.net
SPOILER warning...
In article <59f3f2$3...@knot.queensu.ca>,
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
re: Marya's morals:
> She would have shot him if he had proved to be a Domination spy. A
> _leetle_ difference there.
She would have shot her brother; she used Gwen, the child she
bore and raised; what's the difference? I think Marya is pretty
darn tootin' ruthless.
> I can't say as I think Marya owes either Yolande or Gwen anything,
> although I think she really does love Gwen.
Maybe has affection for Gwen, but love?
re: Samos and hatred/fear:
> I don't think it's debated, and of course they're scared, they're the
> descendents of a small group of refugees who watched their cities burn and
> then nearly died.
The fear, at least before the moleholes are completely developed
("Oops, sorry, Archon, we just sent a legion to nanospace instead
of Samothrace!"), is memory only. Kind of like the "big bad boogey
man" fear. And of course, that breeds hatred. What the Samos need
to watch out for is the contempt that hatred breeds.
> I think putting murals of goulons up is pretty exotic. Plus a portrait of
> Mom with her back to a moonscape. :]
Well, like, o--kay, ok? As if! No, seriously, she doesn't seem
to go for unusual decorations in the sense of having people fall
over when they walk into the mansion. No, her "exotic" decorations
seem to be placed in rooms where only a few * ferals * will see
them. The other banker type people never got to see Gwen's mom
on the moon, or the ghouloons...
She's very tasteful in general, at least in front of feral humans. Her
brooches (sp?), like the one Cairstens notices on her dress as they eat
dinner, celebrating the incorporation of Ingolftech, and the one that
Jennifer notices (again, at dinner...do the Draka wear their jewels to
dinner?) at the first dinner for the bankers--the jewelry isn't "whack
your eye out with those diamonds" variety. It's more restrained and (I
guess) aristocratic.
> : the scene in "The Hunger",
> : where the curtains are blowing all around the bed...
>
> Gwen is a convincing vampire in many respects. If Stirling ever writes a
> vampire novel, I'd expect it to be too creepy to sell.
Oooooooo...<shiver>. I hadn't actually thought about it like that.
I was just thinking of the scene, not the meaning of it.
Thanks for the nightmares! :)
> Sure; she's not an idiot, she's only making the game more fun by putting a
> constraint on herself, in one sense, and in the other, she's acting as
> much as possible in a way that makes it easy to keep liking herself.
Nope, Gwen's no idiot. We are all agreed.
Gwen's weakness is that she sees the whole thing as a game, which sometimes
leads her to make decisions she may not have made if she was a bit
more realistic about things. Although, as she tells LaFarge, living
for 400 years does give one the *game* perspective.
re: controlling humans/ bringing them into Household
> Alice seems to have been plain greed.
Is it that simple? I was hoping there was more there than dollar
signs. "Here's double your salary, I'm a time travelling nonhuman
who's going to take over the world." "Ok!"
> Probably hadn't made up her mind, but the invitation certainly seemed to
> be one to join the household.
Or the "harem", as Dolores put it?
> : silly hypothesizing?
> I think you are somewhat too ready to tell yourself you're silly.
Well, *really*, old boy. I mean, we are discussing novels, and ideas,
something I haven't done since honors english in undergrad. It
just feels a little "silly". Sorry. I will avoid the use of that
word from now on. <grin>
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>She's not good at being ruthless? I guess she could have been
>worse, *somehow*, in the Pathfinder incident, but that would be
>really stretching it... I think she is pretty darn ruthless,
No, Yolande is given to fits of cruelty and vindictiveness, driven by
her inability to express grief or admit unpleasant facts. That's very
different from the kind of ruthlessness the Draka prize. (so do I,
when used on the right side of a confrontation) In the Pathfinder
incident, Yolande started something without thinking it through, then
did her best to minimize it after it was too late to really undo it.
That's just plain flakey, a really sharp psychologist might have
realized from the incident that Yolande is too dangerously unstable
for command authority. Especially if compared to her earlier sadism
towards Marya, but that was probably a family secret that does NOT
appear anywhere in Yolande's records.
>Does Gwen ever KNOW what happened to Marya, her "tantie-ma"? She
>says in Drakon that she was closer to her than anyone else in
>her life...but she brought Marya the disks with the info plague
>code on them, to the Lunar colony, unknowingly, of course. What
>would happen if she found out that the person she loved the
>most was 1. a Yankee spy and 2. someone who used her as a mere
>courier?
I doubt Gwen knows the whole truth, I can't imagine Yolande telling
her. In that context, would you tell your favorite daughter that you
broke all the rules starting the Final War to protect her? That her
beloved Tantie-ma was a spy who had used her against the Domination
itself? I think she'd have just told her Marya was killed in the
fighting. I don't know if one could really lie to a New Race young
adult, but maybe Gwen caught enough of Yolande's gestalt not to push
it. I think that if Yolande told Gwen at all, it would have been in a
letter opened after her death.
I was a little disappointed that Lefarge didn't hit her with some
revelations when they had that brief meeting in _Drakon_. Perhaps
even Marya's memoirs? I was surprised that he never seemed to
recognize Gwen at all, her being a former Archon. The book stated
that there was always some exchange of purely scientific information
between the systems, and possibly some coordination of colonization
efforts after the one clash between simultaneous expeditions. (Who
won that one?) I would think both sides would at least know who the
opposite head of state was, indeed, both intelligence services should
have specialists who study the other side's leadership looking for
early warnings of hostile policies. So Lefarge should have had that
info in his AI, even if he didn't recognize Gwen directly from his own
studies of Domination history.
Unless.... Samothrace restricts all information about the Domination
to a strict _need to know_ basis. To truly know the Draka would mean
moving away from the pure demonization that forms the basis of
Samothracian society, or worse, a rising temptation to embrace genetic
modification of themselves. The way he walked off when Gwen mentioned
life extension was such a knee-jerk reaction as to make me wonder if
it wasn't a deliberately conditioned response.
Leon Myerson
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>She knows. Where Marya went is not something Yolande would or could lie
>about to her daughter; the consequences of it she probably got later, but
>I'd take a bet that Eric left his descendants some notes on the subject,
>and that Gwen read most of the Archonal files while she had the chance.
>And I can't imagine Gwen thinking less of Marya for trying that hard to do
>her duty; it's not something she'd take personally. And, well, the person
>*really* responsible is her mother, not her tantie-ma.
I hadn't thought of Archonal files. OTOH, once the war was over and
done with EvS would probably have absorbed the obligation of
protecting Gwen into own commitments. Indeed, I wonder how he
presented the crisis to his war council. He obviously told them the
military situation, that the Stone Dogs would be soon be revealed, and
that Alliance has been playing with their computers, but he did not
necessarily explain Yolande's actions. Why give Gaynor's faction an
opening to challenge him, to accuse him of setting this up with his
niece? (even though the outcome is the one they wanted)
As far as Domination records are concerned, Marya's last name was
Lentis. Those records didn't show her true identity as an OSS
officer, or her relationship to General Lefarge of the starship _New
America_.
You are quite right that better use might have been made of Marya.
She could have been the conduit for clever disinformation, or served
as the carrier of a disease that would have wiped out the starship's
crew. OTOH, any attempt by the Domination to rectify the info-plague
might have been detected, and provoked IMMEDIATE all-out attack.
A big part of Stirling's whole conception of the Final War is that
what happened turned out to be pure chance. NOTHING was the result of
any _laws of history_, or moral superiority, or strength over
decadence. Just random luck, and that's the scariest thought of all.
atal...@edge.net
In article <59i2ra$g...@camel5.mindspring.com>,
lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) wrote:
My point exactly: "just plain flakey", although not a term used a great
deal by psychologists as a diagnosis, definitely describes Yolande.
Of course, most of the Draka fall somewhere into the realm of psycho-
pathology, in our terms, at least. But she falls further than the
majority. Do you think Eric VS knows about the Marya period?
> That's just plain flakey, a really sharp psychologist might have
> realized from the incident that Yolande is too dangerously unstable
> for command authority. Especially if compared to her earlier sadism
> towards Marya, but that was probably a family secret that does NOT
> appear anywhere in Yolande's records.
>>>Does Gwen ever KNOW what happened to Marya, her "tantie-ma"?
So, one opinion is:
> I doubt Gwen knows the whole truth...
Another (Graydon, I believe) thinks that Gwen knew, and was okay with it.
Or at least that she found out when she was Archon and had access to files
she might not have had access to before.
Good point:
> I was a little disappointed that Lefarge didn't hit her with some
> revelations when they had that brief meeting in _Drakon_. Perhaps
> even Marya's memoirs? I was surprised that he never seemed to
> recognize Gwen at all, her being a former Archon.
and this blew me <away>...
> Unless....Samothrace restricts all information about the Domination
> to a strict _need to know_ basis. To truly know the Draka would mean
> moving away from the pure demonization that forms the basis of
> Samothracian society, or worse, a rising temptation to embrace genetic
> modification of themselves. The way he walked off when Gwen mentioned
> life extension was such a knee-jerk reaction as to make me wonder if
> it wasn't a deliberately conditioned response.
Gwen seemed to have a much wider viewpoint than did LaFarge, who seemed to
react to her in a very one dimensional way, as discussed above. I never
really thought about it being a conditioned reflex that was deliberately
built in, though...just thought he couldn't see her as a person, not a
devil/Draka, no matter how hard he tried.
The Draka may have their social order hardcoded in, but the Samos are
* just * as rigid in their viewpoints, which leads me to think that both
groups are going down the merry, primrose path to eventual obliteration,
since they can't adapt very well. If adaptation is the name of the game.
I like the line in Drakon, after LaFarge walks away from Gwen in the park.
"Humans. So emotional!" As if she isn't?? Hello? Ms. Growly...oh, well,
it's probably off with my head time now. Gee. Sorry, Ms. Snarly on the
rooftop... <grin, duck>
Hmmm...could LaFarge ever overcome the training, and see Gwen as a person,
not an "it", a devil? Surely, still a mortal enemy, but a person?
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <8512277...@dejanews.com>, <atal...@edge.net> wrote:
>In article <59i2ra$g...@camel5.mindspring.com>,
> lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) wrote:
>
>> Unless....Samothrace restricts all information about the Domination
>> to a strict _need to know_ basis. To truly know the Draka would mean
>> moving away from the pure demonization that forms the basis of
>> Samothracian society, or worse, a rising temptation to embrace genetic
>> modification of themselves. The way he walked off when Gwen mentioned
>> life extension was such a knee-jerk reaction as to make me wonder if
>> it wasn't a deliberately conditioned response.
>
>Gwen seemed to have a much wider viewpoint than did LaFarge, who seemed to
>react to her in a very one dimensional way, as discussed above. I never
>really thought about it being a conditioned reflex that was deliberately
>built in, though...just thought he couldn't see her as a person, not a
>devil/Draka, no matter how hard he tried.
>
I think Samothracean society would naturally tend to train its members
to think of the more tempting aspects of the Draka as very bad indeed.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>She seemed to do the art as more of a "I'm a bored superhuman with
>time on my hands, so here are some doodles" kind of thing...although
>her art gallery certainly had its, um, uses when she was seducing
>Jennifer. She mentions having some interesting "etchings" later on,
>to Jennifer; I wonder if she was just using the old line, or if she
>really had some new artwork...<grin>
Gwen picked up really well on our colloquial expressions, and enjoyed
using them. Examples: not even in your dreams (Captain Lowe), nothing
gets by you (agent Dubrowski), been there - done that (Jennifer).
Lots of word games with Jennifer. I guess Gwen must be one of those
_cunning linguists_ one hears about. <grinning/ducking>
atal...@edge.net
In article <59nqep$u...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Oh, you cad!
Yes, she does seem to enjoy learning 20th c. lingo; she feels
proud when she does well with the guy who takes her to JoJo, who
provides her with false ID...because she speaks his version of
English...also, when she is approaching the would-be muggers,
and notes that their leader can't be "dissed" by a white woman.
OTOH, LaFarge doesn't seem to do as well in this regard. Several
times, Henry and Jennifer both feel like slapping the poor
schmuck because of his perceived attitude...the guy just doesn't
have the charm Gwen does...let's see, how about a "Draka School
of Poise and Charm"?
atal...@edge.net
In article <59joan$o...@universe.digex.net>,
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>
> In article <8512277...@dejanews.com>, <atal...@edge.net> wrote:
> > lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) wrote:
> >
> >> Unless....Samothrace restricts all information about the Domination
> >> to a strict _need to know_ basis. To truly know the Draka would mean
> >> moving away from the pure demonization that forms the basis of
> >> Samothracian society, or worse, a rising temptation to embrace genetic
> >> modification of themselves. The way he walked off when Gwen mentioned
> >> life extension was such a knee-jerk reaction as to make me wonder if
> >> it wasn't a deliberately conditioned response.
> >
> >Gwen seemed to have a much wider viewpoint than did LaFarge, who seemed to
> >react to her in a very one dimensional way, as discussed above. I never
> >really thought about it being a conditioned reflex that was deliberately
> >built in, though...just thought he couldn't see her as a person, not a
> >devil/Draka, no matter how hard he tried.
> >
> I don't think it would need to be a *deliberately* conditioned response--
> I think Samothracean society would naturally tend to train its members
> to think of the more tempting aspects of the Draka as very bad indeed.
and mentally. They have demonized the Draka, and will eventually
underestimate them. Fear-->hatred-->contempt. Ideas?
Where Gwen falls short is where she gets caught up in the "games" aspect.
Of course, having a perspective of someone who is 400+ years old would
make things seem a *bit* different, but she made several tactical errors
because of that "games" mindset.
I think it's funny when she says, "Humans. So emotional!" as LaFarge
stalks off from their meeting in the park. Like she's not??!! Excuse me,
Ms. Growly? Ms. Snarly on the rooftop?! She is just as emotional as
LaFarge; if anything, she's less inhibited about displaying it, although
she does try to *mask* in front of humans not in the Household.
DnA Dvorkin
> >3. Who would win: Gwen or Sh'kaira (from the 5th Millenium
> > series), given fairly equal terms. An idea: a molehole
> > deposits Gwen in the land of the Kommanza...instead of 20th
> > century USA...
Sh'kaira (is that where the apostrophe goes in her name? I can't
remember) would win that one, seems to me. Gwen's training in
hand-to-hand combat, while impressive, surely wouldn't be any match for
the skills of someone who fights at arm's length almost every day of her
life.
Give them both rifles, of course, and the situation would be reversed.
--
Daniel Dvorkin
Stuart Drucker
atal...@edge.net wrote:
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>OTOH, LaFarge doesn't seem to do as well in this regard. Several
>times, Henry and Jennifer both feel like slapping the poor
>schmuck because of his perceived attitude...the guy just doesn't
>have the charm Gwen does...let's see, how about a "Draka School
>of Poise and Charm"?
That's probably because Gwen came from a culture so different from
ours that she had to adapt to survive (and she was genetically
engineered from quick adaptation at that, plus she had 400 years of
experience to draw from).
LaFarge was an "evolved descendant" of an Alternate America, so he had
less culture shock than her, and thus less need to change his way of
thinking and speaking. Plus, he sees himself as being in permanent
combat mode, unlike Gwen. Maybe that's the only way that he can
compete with her. Just a thought, anyway.
Stuart Drucker
sdru...@pipeline.com
Mary Clare Eros
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>In article <59i2ra$g...@camel5.mindspring.com>,
> lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) wrote:
>
>
>Gwen seemed to have a much wider viewpoint than did LaFarge, who seemed >to react to her in a very one dimensional way, as discussed above. I
>never really thought about it being a conditioned reflex that was
>deliberately built in, though...just thought he couldn't see her as a
>person, not a devil/Draka, no matter how hard he tried.
>
>* just * as rigid in their viewpoints, which leads me to think that both
>groups are going down the merry, primrose path to eventual obliteration,
>since they can't adapt very well. If adaptation is the name of the game.
>
>I like the line in Drakon, after LaFarge walks away from Gwen in the park.
>"Humans. So emotional!" As if she isn't?? Hello? Ms. Growly...oh, well,
>it's probably off with my head time now. Gee. Sorry, Ms. Snarly on the
>rooftop... <grin, duck>
>
>Hmmm...could LaFarge ever overcome the training, and see Gwen as a person,
>not an "it", a devil? Surely, still a mortal enemy, but a person?
>
things, an assassin. If he has any difficulty killing people he's
ordered to kill, he should get a new job. However, we know very little
about how he conceives of his job, what exactly he does to find Gwen,
etc. I think this is quite unfortunate. Seeing more of what a
Samothracian is like would be interesting. Once you know Gwen is the
Draka's own idealization of themselves (more or less) you know pretty
much what she's like. But Lefarge is much newer.
However, it should be noted that Gwen is, in fact, superhuman in quite a
few ways, and that one must constantly bear that in mind. Also, the
whole "Gwen's not a _she_, Gwen's an _it_" thing may be intended for
Lefarge's human allies (who are very vulnerable to Gwen) as for himself.
---
MCE
atal...@edge.net
In article <dvorkin-2412...@news.minot.com>,
dvo...@minot.com (DnA Dvorkin) wrote:
>
> > >3. Who would win: Gwen or Sh'kaira (from the 5th Millenium
> > > series), given fairly equal terms. An idea: a molehole
> > > deposits Gwen in the land of the Kommanza...instead of 20th
> > > century USA...
>
> Sh'kaira (is that where the apostrophe goes in her name? I can't
> remember) would win that one, seems to me. Gwen's training in
> hand-to-hand combat, while impressive, surely wouldn't be any match for
> the skills of someone who fights at arm's length almost every day of her
> life.
>
> Give them both rifles, of course, and the situation would be reversed.
that's for sure. If I could watch from a *safe* distance, I would. Maybe
it would be a draw...although I think it would be a win/lose situation.
I just thought it would be an interesting combination. They sort of mirror
each other. "Knives at dawn"?
atal...@edge.net
In article <69pc8g$i...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
he is constantly amazed at the America he's in. In fact, after he first
arrives, his AI tells him he's in shock, basically, and zaps him with
some feel-good stuff. He sees things on TV that would "shock a Draka", so
to him, our culture must be pretty darn tootin' racy. The America he
evolved from was SO completely different from ours that there's not much
left to remind him of home, except for certain things like Times Square.
You're right: he does see himself in permanent combat mode, unlike Gwen.
She seems able to switch it off and on again, which must save energy. He
is unable or unwilling to do that...I wonder which?
It's interesting...Gwen is very paternalistic to "her" humans, and is
quite comfortable with it, as any Draka should be. LaFarge is just as
paternalistic, but doesn't see it...and he must wonder why some of the
humans bristle at his tone of voice or attitude. I guess it would be hard
to go back in time and *not* be that way, but at least he should be more
honest about it. Or maybe he just doesn't see it. The exchange of
"humans working under..." "...with..." between Gwen and LaFarge was quite
interesting, but further goes to show: LaFarge doesn't see the point. He
*does* have humans working "under" him, not "with" him; he used them as
cannon fodder (Henry should have known this after his war experiences) in
the park. I see a bit of hypocrisy in the Samothracians, I guess, and it
bugs me. Oh, well...they'd probably burn me as a heretic, anyway. <grin>
And what would some classes be in the "Draka School of Charm and Poise"? :)
atal...@edge.net
In article <59pn18$e...@news3.texas.net>,
LaFarge (or however you spell his name...the book's in the other room and
I don't want to go ratch for it) is "superhuman", too, with all his little
tentacled blue crawly thingamabobs. Made me think of H. P. Lovecraft when
I first read the description by Stirling. Anyway...Is LaFarge an "It" as
well, then? I mean, neither of them are what you'd call human.
I also think Gwen may be a bit different from the run-of-the-mill Draka.
She is old enough to remember the Final War (funny how none of our "final"
wars are ever "final", there's always something worse waiting ahead), she
had *human* caregivers, which most of the Draka apparently don't, and she
has a fairly broad knowledge of humans...I think it's interesting when she
thinks about how lost Legate Tamarindus would be in the 20th century, while
Gwen, although a bit discombobulated, manages to pull things together in
a few days and start her plans.
I guess it's a good thing she landed in NYC; if she landed somewhere else,
she might have been even more lost than what she was to begin with. Even
LaFarge notes that he'd go crazy here...I guess it's a good thing that he
saw his mission as basically a suicidal one, then. Ideas?
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>Hmmm...could LaFarge ever overcome the training, and see Gwen as a person,
>not an "it", a devil? Surely, still a mortal enemy, but a person?
It occurred to me that perhaps they weren't really killed at the end,
just moleholed off to yet another timeline. Imagine one where Earth
had been conquered by aliens, or some such thing so objectionable to
both of them that they'd actually consider teaming up to do something
about it.
But it'd have to be REALLY bad, for Lefarge to think it worse than
Gwen. Entertaining as Gwen could be, that lethal biobomb deal was a
bit much. Still, I imagine it might have occurred to her that if
Lefarge won, he could conceivably turn that Earth into a staging area
for a back-door attack on her own world. After more than three
decades, we're still putting the screws to Cuba, because it was once
used as a forward base for missiles pointed at the USA. Would you
destroy an innocent world to protect this one?
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>And what would some classes be in the "Draka School of Charm and Poise"? :)
Interesting thought. Draka society seems to have very definite ideas
regarding manners, and a dueling tradition for those who seriously
offend. But their boys and girls go to separate schools, so when do
they learn to deal with each other socially? Especially as the boys
acquire _bad habits_ dealing with serf women _who cannot tell them
NO_. It must be a family responsibility, because the first time their
youngsters mingle away from home is during their military service.
And clearly, its the women who have to catch the men, and reel them
in.
Tapio Erola
atal...@edge.net wrote:
: Ah, yes, but when we *do* get to see inside LaFarge's head, via Stirling,
: he is constantly amazed at the America he's in. In fact, after he first
: arrives, his AI tells him he's in shock, basically, and zaps him with
: some feel-good stuff. He sees things on TV that would "shock a Draka", so
: to him, our culture must be pretty darn tootin' racy. The America he
: evolved from was SO completely different from ours that there's not much
: left to remind him of home, except for certain things like Times Square.
I always thought that his attitudes were like fifties cold war with
vengeance and as such, understandable.
: You're right: he does see himself in permanent combat mode, unlike Gwen.
: She seems able to switch it off and on again, which must save energy. He
: is unable or unwilling to do that...I wonder which?
Both, I think. Remember: This is a kamikaze saboteur regarding his location
as hostile territory. Person programmed in such way could find rest on
this globe with about 10-20 years of peaceful acculturation (no gwen to
hunt down) or in grave.
(random thoughts about working under snipped to save bandwidth.)
LaFarge had people working with him AND under him: He is the cyborg
who has trained his whole life for this and is eminently the best man
to do the leadership.
: And what would some classes be in the "Draka School of Charm and Poise"? :)
Postures, Dance as part of Martial Arts, Falling gracefully, Seduction,
Emotional manipulation, muscle- and lip reading, psychology, etc...
In fact, I _would_ try to enroll such school if available... ;-)
If those creeps have anything redeeming in their society, this is part
of it.
--
Tapio Erola t...@paju.oulu.fi (No mail to t...@sliver.oulu.fi please)
"I don't give a damn how scrubbed or perfumed he may be, a slaveowner is
subhuman." -- Lazarus Long
atal...@edge.net
In article <5a0q2o$g...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>,
Tapio Erola <t...@oulu.fi> wrote: re: the Samothracian:
> I always thought that his attitudes were like fifties cold war with
> eminently the best man to do the leadership.
Yeah, but even 50's cold war vengeance had more substance or dimensionality
than LaFarge does...or maybe that's just the way I see him. Another facet of
Mr. Stirling's writing abilities...as to the under/with thing, my point was
that he was rather hypocritical about not having humans working <under> him
and then criticizing Gwen for her choice of wording about humans working
under her. The Samothracian struck me as someone who can't see too far past
his own mission, which is a strategic if not tactic error. He makes no
attempt to understand his enemy, which leaves him open for defeat.
> : And what would some classes be in the "Draka School of Charm and Poise"? :)
> Postures, Dance as part of Martial Arts, Falling gracefully, Seduction,
> Emotional manipulation, muscle- and lip reading, psychology, etc...
> In fact, I _would_ try to enroll such school if available... ;-)
> If those creeps have anything redeeming in their society, this is part
> of it.
What would a Samothracian School of Charm and Poise be like, then? They do
a lot of the same things...A school like that would be quite interesting, if
only to observe; I would like to have a Draka teach me posture (as well as
some other things, I'm sure)! :) (As I curl up in my old, ratchety computer
chair). The Samothracians might have some interesting things to offer, too...
atal...@edge.net
In article <59vms1$1...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
lmye...@mindspring.com wrote:
> atal...@edge.net wrote:
> >And what would some classes be in the "Draka School of Charm and Poise"? :)
>
> regarding manners, and a dueling tradition for those who seriously
> offend. But their boys and girls go to separate schools, so when do
> they learn to deal with each other socially? Especially as the boys
> acquire _bad habits_ dealing with serf women _who cannot tell them
> NO_. It must be a family responsibility, because the first time their
> youngsters mingle away from home is during their military service.
> And clearly, its the women who have to catch the men, and reel them
> in.
Their society does appear to have some fairly strict rules of behavior,
especially between Draka. The rules about behavior toward servus are
possibly less structured, but they still have some. And I think you are
correct that a lot of the training must come from the family units, since
the kids don't really mix (except at various social functions, and not
really too much there) until they have left home. This could lead to some
interesting difficulties: Yolande's attitude towards serfs versus Mywany's.
When Gwen talks about having their social order hard-coded into their
genes, I wonder how much (if any) of the social behavior has been? I know
that's getting into the sometimes sticky realm of sociobiology, but it is
an interesting idea.
Gwen, being among the first NR folks, might have a more divergent view on
behaviors than those of the drakensis generations that have followed her.
The Draka women certainly have more of a choice or a job capturing Draka men,
anyway. Gwen mentions that the birth rate has dropped for Draka (somewhere
in the first part of the book) but there are still lots of Draka to choose
from. I wonder if courtship rituals are any different for Draka (NR versus
drakensis, NR versus old Draka, Draka in general versus everyone else). I
really enjoyed it when Stirling described the wedding of Yolande's serf, and
Gwen and Yolande's reactions to it. That sort of stuff--how they related to
each other--is interesting to me.
Yes, it would have to be something REALLY bad to link Gwen and LaFarge as
allies (in response to the other entry you had). They are such mirrors of
each other, in so many ways. Gwen saw the use of a biobomb as something
rather uncouth, something she'd do only as a last necessity. I don't think
LaFarge would bat an eyelash of by biobombing the earth he could destroy a
Draka. Even Gwen knows that...her discussion about an antimatter bomb with
Vulk and Tom as evidence. I think LaFarge would destroy anything he had to
in order to destroy her, or any other Draka, big or little. The Draka, at
least the Gwen/VS types, would at least *think* about it before pulling
the trigger.
Dan Swartzendruber
In article <32cb1522...@news.airmail.net>, sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam
Hall) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 19:31:02 -0600, atal...@edge.net wrote:
>
>>In article <5a0q2o$g...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>,
>> Tapio Erola <t...@oulu.fi> wrote: re: the Samothracian:
[snip]
>In the fifties, we could have destroyed the USSR with nuclear weapons
>at either no, or little, cost to ourselves. We never seriously
>considered a first strike. LaFarge would have done it, regardless of
>the price. Gwen was much more loyal to her race than LaFarge was to
>his and therefore, IMHO, more moral.
I think this is somewhat simplistic. In the 50's we were never really
in serious danger of being conquered by the Soviet Union, so the political
will to do this was absent. On the flip side, consider the history of
the other timeline - you have a race which has proven that Homo Sapiens
is no more than another race of animals, albeit more intelligent, and
useful, once properly domesticated. I also think you're giving him less
credit than is fair. In his analysis, an unopposed Gwen was absolutely
sure to result in Earth II (or is that I?) being conquered and domesticated,
whether by her bringing in the Domination via molehole, or the slow way
(by reproducing her own kind and gradually taking over). Given his tech
abilities, he clearly could have taken her out "to save the Earth", even
if it was largely/mostly destroyed as a result. He didn't, but rather,
took an extremely risky gamble to stop her and abort her Doomsday bomb.
--
Dan Swartzendruber
atal...@edge.net
In article <59vms1$1...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
lmye...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Draka society seems to have very definite ideas regarding manners, and a
> dueling tradition for those who seriously offend. But their boys and girls go
> to separate schools, so when do they learn to deal with each other socially?
Good point. Perhaps the Draka School of Poise and Charm would have a waiting
list from Draka families...
Here's another question, this one more philosophical in nature.
What is the sense of self like in 2442's Draka society, or in the Samothracian
society of the same time line?
By sense of self, I mean the consciousness of individuality and being a
separate, discrete individual from the rest of the society. Having been reading
some philosophy and whatnot during the break gave rise to these thoughts.
Specifically, reading John Allen Paulos' *A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper*:
"...the self as merely a particular embodiment of social reality...
(increasingly,) basic units of society are ethnic groups, corporations,
organizations of various kinds...corresponding to this growth in the importance
of the organization is a diminution in that of the individual..." (p.111).
As a hasty example, (there are several more I can think of):
Look at Gwen's attitude when LaFarge threatens the "doorway": "...the maximum
priority is protecting the signaling apparatus. The child comes second, and
myself third." (p.362) LaFarge's attitude towards self is surprisingly similar
in nature (or maybe not so surprisingly, since they seem to be mirror images of
each other in many ways).
Draka society subsumes the individual to the needs of the State and the Race; I
suspect Samothracian society does the same thing, to other entities, perhaps.
Any thoughts?
Also, I find it interesting to note a correspondence between Huxley's *Brave New
World* and *Drakon*, as unusual as that may sound; in the dystopian view Huxley
took, genetic engineering (or meddling, whichever way you want to look at it)
had removed creativity from the human being, much the same way it seemed to
happen in Stirling's world of the Draka. And both societies got stuck with the
consequences.
Troy Stribling
Sam Hall <sam...@dkdavis.com> wrote in article 27 Dec 1996 19:31:02 -0600,
> Gwen was much more loyal to her race than LaFarge was to
> his and therefore, IMHO, more moral.
In every Draka book I have read I find myself preferring the Draka
characters to the "righteous" Draka world Americans. I have wondered if
Stirling is just poor at developing empathy for the characters who on the
surface
you should empathize with or he wants you to perfer the Draka. If
the later is the case he could be trying to say something about the
ideals held by western cultures by contrasting them with values considered
repugnant by the culture.
T. Stribling
Graydon
Troy Stribling (tstri...@radix.net) wrote:
: In every Draka book I have read I find myself preferring the Draka
: Stirling is just poor at developing empathy for the characters who on the
: surface
: you should empathize with or he wants you to perfer the Draka. If
: the later is the case he could be trying to say something about the
: ideals held by western cultures by contrasting them with values considered
: repugnant by the culture.
I think it's rather more straightforward than that.
All the Draka protagonists are _extremely_ exceptional people, and,
despite their significantly horrible culture, actually good and honourable
people in their own proper person and (even in Yolande's case) fairly
concious of who they are and what they are doing.
This is _not_ true of the American/Alliance characters in general; Marya
Lefarge is the only really significant exception to this, and they
_really are_ less likeable people as a result.
Which can certainly be taken as a statement about cultures not being
uniform things - the Draka culture has its virtues, which show in
individual Draka - and the Alliance culture has its flaws, which also show
individual citizens of the Alliance countries - and Stirling is a very
good writer indeed to show Draka society naturally enough that the reader
can see that individual Draka can be and are likeable people, and clearly
enough that the society and the same people can still give the reader the
appropriate case of the shudders.
Mister Skin
In article <5aj5mu$5...@knot.queensu.ca> Graydon,
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca writes:
:Which can certainly be taken as a statement about cultures not being
:uniform things - the Draka culture has its virtues, which show in
:individual Draka - and the Alliance culture has its flaws, which also
show
:individual citizens of the Alliance countries - and Stirling is a very
:good writer indeed to show Draka society naturally enough that the reader
:can see that individual Draka can be and are likeable people, and clearly
:enough that the society and the same people can still give the reader the
:appropriate case of the shudders.
All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character I
respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the Stone
Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for them.
Graydon
Mister Skin (mrs...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: In article <5aj5mu$5...@knot.queensu.ca> Graydon,
Such a quaintness of prudery.
Or way too many women with spine, hard to say.
Jo Walton
In article <5akke6$2...@camel2.mindspring.com> ** none ** writes:
>
> All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
> likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
> treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
> pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character I
> respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the Stone
> Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for them.
Did you really find nothing to like in them? For me one of the things
that make these books compelling is the way the individual draka are
in many ways admirable, even enviable, as individuals, and yet they
have such utterly sickening attitudes towards other people as to turn
any liking for them on its head. This is least true of :Under the Yoke:
where I hate them all, which is why it is the one I like least and
find least successful. But you don't find anything likeable about
Eric? Or Gwen?
--
Jo J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen, Let Nothing You Dismay
For Christ Our Saviour Was Born On Christmas Day
To Save Us All From Sacred Cows, For We Had Gone Astray."
(Tidings of Comfort and Joy as sung by Sasha Walton, age 6)
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>Gwen, being among the first NR folks, might have a more divergent view on
>behaviors than those of the drakensis generations that have followed her.
I would think that likely, as Gwen has seen a far greater diversity in
people, behaviors, and whole societies, than most of her fellow
Drakensis citizens. By her time, surviving members of her generation
may be quite rare. I wonder how much of Marya rubbed off on her in
her formative years.
>The Draka women certainly have more of a choice or a job capturing Draka men,
>anyway. Gwen mentions that the birth rate has dropped for Draka (somewhere
>in the first part of the book) but there are still lots of Draka to choose
>from. I wonder if courtship rituals are any different for Draka (NR versus
>drakensis, NR versus old Draka, Draka in general versus everyone else). I
>really enjoyed it when Stirling described the wedding of Yolande's serf, and
>Gwen and Yolande's reactions to it. That sort of stuff--how they related to
>each other--is interesting to me.
A hard question posed to me from elsewhere: was Hans, Yolande's serf
executive assistant on the Mars colony, a _colaborator_, for helping
the Race? My best judgement on that is to hold him blameless for
trying to make the best life he could for himself and his own family.
I say this for one reason only: the Alliance was not engaged in active
warfare against the Domination, which it SHOULD have been from 1945.
For the same reason, I cannot fault those in our own timeline who've
cooperated with the Soviets and their puppet states, or the Bejing
regime, or other miscellaeneous dictatorships around the globe.
Leon Myerson
sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall) wrote:
>In the fifties, we could have destroyed the USSR with nuclear weapons
>at either no, or little, cost to ourselves. We never seriously
>considered a first strike. LaFarge would have done it, regardless of
>the price. Gwen was much more loyal to her race than LaFarge was to
>his and therefore, IMHO, more moral.
We should have done it, we took an awful chance letting them build up
to virtual parity. I've never decided whether we chauvinistically
underestimated the Soviets' potential to become a real threat back in
the late forties, or whether the more paranoid scenario, that the
nascent military-industrial complex NEEDED an enemy, is closer to the
truth.
OTOH, should Lefarge have tried to use Earth/2 as the staging area for
some sort of attack on the Domination's homeworld via the backdoor
Gwen's arrival had created?
If Lefarge couldn't use nukes for fear of detection by the Domination,
couldn't Gwen have simply set some off? And shouldn't she have
realized that after she grasped it as far as her would-be assassin was
concerned? Or is only Lefarge _incongruent with the reference frame_
because his arrival was in some manner piggy-backed off Gwen's
transition? Perhaps Gwen just didn't want to do anything overtly
hostile until she was sure the Domination could come through. She
wasn't quite ready to take on the whole world just then.
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>What is the sense of self like in 2442's Draka society, or in the Samothracian
>society of the same time line?
>By sense of self, I mean the consciousness of individuality and being a
>separate, discrete individual from the rest of the society. Having been reading
>some philosophy and whatnot during the break gave rise to these thoughts.
>Specifically, reading John Allen Paulos' *A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper*:
>"...the self as merely a particular embodiment of social reality...
>(increasingly,) basic units of society are ethnic groups, corporations,
>organizations of various kinds...corresponding to this growth in the importance
>of the organization is a diminution in that of the individual..." (p.111).
>As a hasty example, (there are several more I can think of):
>Look at Gwen's attitude when LaFarge threatens the "doorway": "...the maximum
>priority is protecting the signaling apparatus. The child comes second, and
>myself third." (p.362) LaFarge's attitude towards self is surprisingly similar
>in nature (or maybe not so surprisingly, since they seem to be mirror images of
>each other in many ways).
>Draka society subsumes the individual to the needs of the State and the Race; I
>suspect Samothracian society does the same thing, to other entities, perhaps.
>Any thoughts?
Here a line that hit me emotionally. Gwen: _I'll see you all, my
brothers, my sisters, and we will hunt together, forever._
I envy her that sense of attachment to her people. I feel only mild
affection for my own countrymen. I do believe I'd fight to the death
for this country, but my loyalty is all cold conviction, a thing of
the mind, not the _heart_ or the _soul_. Its the _idea_ of America,
perhaps even the _myth_, that has a hold on me.
For Gwen, and all the Draka, its much more concrete. They ARE the
Race, each individual Draka is precious as an instance of it. When
they say the Service/Glory phrase, they link the two hierarchically.
The State is the instrumentality of the Race, the means to which the
Race's Glory is the end. The accomplished individual is the
absolutely vital expression of that glory, his/her own pleasures and
satisfactions are the only ones the Race itself has, it has none of
its own apart from these, and unlike the average collectivist, the
Draka have never lost sight of this. Thus they maintain a delicate
balance of highly efficient solidarity without wholesale destruction
of individuality.
To be sure, its not an easy balance, Gaynor's militants were one
example of how it could unravel. The pacifist trend alluded to in
_Drakon_, that the spacefleet was in decline until Samothracian
molehole research was detected, proves that the balance does need the
pressure of an external enemy, as EvS predicted.
I think Sister Marya was right in saying the Draka view of the Race
functions as their religion. It is their ultimate source of moral
direction, and the balm for their own sense of personal mortality.
Even ageless Drakensis know they are not truly immortal, some manner
of death finds each individual eventually, they are simply free of
considering the passing of time alone, apart from the content of that
time, a threat.
OTOH, Samothrace reminds me of Israel in lot of ways.
>Also, I find it interesting to note a correspondence between Huxley's *Brave New
>World* and *Drakon*, as unusual as that may sound; in the dystopian view Huxley
>took, genetic engineering (or meddling, whichever way you want to look at it)
>had removed creativity from the human being, much the same way it seemed to
>happen in Stirling's world of the Draka. And both societies got stuck with the
>consequences.
Both made the same mistake in that the drive for perfection, against a
single standard, leads to uniformity. The New Race was to have had an
average IQ of 140, - Mensa level as the baseline. But there would be
few if any below 130, OR above 150. So much for the true geniuses.
(Though it wouldn't surprise me at all if an Einstein did poorly on a
standard IQ test) In any case, the great insights come from the
unexpected connections, and these are best provoked in the spontaneous
order of chaotic diversity.
Leon Myerson
"Troy Stribling" <tstri...@radix.net> wrote:
>In every Draka book I have read I find myself preferring the Draka
>characters to the "righteous" Draka world Americans. I have wondered if
>Stirling is just poor at developing empathy for the characters who on the
>surface
>you should empathize with or he wants you to perfer the Draka. If
>the later is the case he could be trying to say something about the
>ideals held by western cultures by contrasting them with values considered
>repugnant by the culture.
The appeal of these books is precisely the extent to which they seduce
one to sympathize with the _bad guys_. A healthy exercise of the
imagination, that leaves one much better prepared to resist the _bad
guys_ in real life.
As for the America of TSD, it had already compromised so many of its
own core values that I'm not sure I'd think of it as my own country if
I fell through a molehole into that world. Would you?
Would you choose that America if the Domination were offering Metic
Citizenship?
Would you join the Domination if the Alliance rejected you, if it
couldn't get past thinking you were a some sort of spy, or treating
you as a scientific curiousity to be held under wraps permanently?
Leon Myerson
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>In article <59i2ra$g...@camel5.mindspring.com>,
>> lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) wrote:
>>
>>> Unless....Samothrace restricts all information about the Domination
>>> to a strict _need to know_ basis. To truly know the Draka would mean
>>> moving away from the pure demonization that forms the basis of
>>> Samothracian society, or worse, a rising temptation to embrace genetic
>>> modification of themselves. The way he walked off when Gwen mentioned
>>> life extension was such a knee-jerk reaction as to make me wonder if
>>> it wasn't a deliberately conditioned response.
>>
>I don't think it would need to be a *deliberately* conditioned response--
>I think Samothracean society would naturally tend to train its members
>to think of the more tempting aspects of the Draka as very bad indeed.
At the end of TSD there's a quote from a book by one of General
Lefarge's daughters, written a hundred years after _the Fall_, in
which she states that her people _renounce the temptations of the
trans-human, whether electronic or biological_.
Cyber-warrior Kenneth Lefarge seems a rather large departure from that
taboo. That's why I wonder whether they didn't condition him not to
make further departures. I would also venture the opinion that his
modifications are available ONLY to those members of the Interstellar
Service who are going directly against the Domination, and aren't ever
expected back.
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>LaFarge (or however you spell his name...the book's in the other room and
>I don't want to go ratch for it) is "superhuman", too, with all his little
>tentacled blue crawly thingamabobs. Made me think of H. P. Lovecraft when
>I first read the description by Stirling. Anyway...Is LaFarge an "It" as
>well, then? I mean, neither of them are what you'd call human.
I wonder if one vital distinction for Lefarge and his fellow
Samothracians is that the installation of his cyber-warrior equipment
might NOT be irreversible. The fluid nature of his softsuit, and the
self-assembling characteristics of some his other nanotechnolgy
equipment, might indicate the ability to quit his body if told to do
so.
If Lefarge were killed, would the equipment bail out and seek another
host? Would it have to be a volunteer, or pass a test of worthiness?
Or would it impose its mission? What if it lost control of an
unwilling host? Imagine a dying Lefarge holding out his hand to
Detective Carmaggio, or perhaps Jennifer. Hmm, Jennifer confronting
Gwen on equalized terms...interesting thought. Its not everyday that
one sees a trans-dimensional, interspecies catfight. <g> Remember
Jennifer yelling, _The Bitch! I want her dead!_ Could get messy.
Personally, I'd prefer paravirus transformation into a Drakensis, but
I'd try to combine both given a chance. Imagine all those
cyber-warrior enhancements overlaid on top of a Drakensis physiognomy.
(Oh, all right, if you folks must know, my REAL first choice would be
to have come from the planet Krypton. <grin>)
atal...@edge.net
In article <5aml65$n...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
lmye...@mindspring.com wrote:
> As for the America of TSD, it had already compromised so many of its
> own core values that I'm not sure I'd think of it as my own country if
> I fell through a molehole into that world. Would you?
>
> Would you choose that America if the Domination were offering Metic
> Citizenship?
>
> Would you join the Domination if the Alliance rejected you, if it
> couldn't get past thinking you were a some sort of spy, or treating
> you as a scientific curiousity to be held under wraps permanently?
The America of TSD is completely different from the one that we are in,
even though they fly the same flag. A siege mentality has developed for
them; a sort of moral prudery (is that a word?) against the evil Draka.
Individual freedoms we take for granted have been taken, period, in that
America. I am pretty sure *I* wouldn't care to live there.
But would I care to be a metic Citizen? That's what I am *not* sure about.
Even as a Citizen of the Domination, you still don't have a lot of the
rights we Americans have today, like reading (relatively uncensored)
newspapers and exercising our right to yammer on about the goofballs in
our government. In the Domination, that would qualify you for a "pill",
as the Draka term execution by the SD. Unless you managed to be a member
of the Von Shrakenberg mafia.
If the Alliance thought you were a spy, or a scientific curiousity,
wouldn't the Draka??? "Let's see what this does..." I don't know how you
could ever "prove" to the Draka leadership, even someone like EVS or Gwen,
that you weren't a spy for the Alliance or an "interesting specimen of
feral sapiens". Leaving you between a rock and a hard place, basically.
Mary Clare Eros
sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall) wrote:
>
>The phrase "appropriate case of the shudders" fits the Draka series in
>more than one way.
Agreed, although I suspect we'd disagree about what the reader should
shudder about. (In my case, it's the idiocy of the Alliance, and the
historical, technological, and social implausibilities).
>In the first book, the American war correspondent
>noted that, given an open choice, many of the poor in the US would
>decide to become Draka serfs. After deciding that he was probably
>right, I had to ask myself how that fit in our definition of slavery.
>Also, would we have the moral right to stop people who wanted to make
>that choice? (we are talking about the poor here, not people with
>information useful to the military). The Draka missed a great
>propaganda tool.
>
First, I don't remember Dreiser saying that, although he certainly might
have. If he did, I think he was wrong--and his making the statement (if
he did) would be a good demonstration of why the Draka picked him as
their stooge. There is abundant historical evidence that people do not,
in general, like to be enslaved. Or even to be treated as slaves,
although one does not always get a choice in the matter. The experience
of the freedmen in the USA is relevant here--they accepted living
conditions much worse in some measurable ways than their former state of
slavery rather than go back on the plantations.
The Draka did not advertise for serfs in the Alliance because they knew
this fact very well.
---
MCE
Mister Skin
In article <32cf6242...@news.airmail.net> Sam Hall,
sam...@dkdavis.com writes:
::All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
::likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
::treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
::pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character
I
::respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the Stone
::Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for them.
:Please explain to me the difference between the Draka's solution to
:the underclass and LBJ's War on poverty. They both are about the
:control of the everyday life of the underclass, but the Draka's system
:worked. Not because they cared about the people, but because not
:taking care of your property was not "nice."
No, I think you'd better explain to me why there's any kind of
equivalence to be found between a social program designed to boost people
out of poverty and protect them from the worst effect of its privations,
and mass torture, murder, and enslavement. You either have not been
paying attention to the book, or you have a very different view of
history than I do. I don't think our understandings are close enough for
us to communicate successfully as yetg.
Mister Skin
In article <852410...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> Jo Walton,
J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk writes:
>> All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
>> likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
>> treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
>> pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character I
>> respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the Stone
>> Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for them.
>
>that make these books compelling is the way the individual draka are
>in many ways admirable, even enviable, as individuals, and yet they
>have such utterly sickening attitudes towards other people as to turn
>any liking for them on its head. This is least true of :Under the Yoke:
>where I hate them all, which is why it is the one I like least and
>find least successful. But you don't find anything likeable about
>Eric? Or Gwen?
Of course, Stirling wrote his Draka characters with certain qualities
that people might find admirable when you separate them out from what a
Draka is. The Draka are trained to be resourceful, self-sufficient,
brave, courteous -- regular Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts, if Girl Scouting
embraces the same values). But tigers are fierce, brave, determined, etc.
I don't LIKE them for these qualities, I just recognize them for what
they are. What a Draka is, because of the nature of Draka culture, makes
them too dangerous to be liked by any thinking non-Draka. I'm with
LaFarge -- kill all the snakes.
Probably total military conquest and thorough reindoctrination under
force of arms over two generations or more would be enough to change
Draka culture enough to make them safe. Worked in Germany and Japan. So
killing them all isn't something I feel would be absolutely necessary.
But there's no sense of quarter in me about them -- that goes for Eric
and Gwen as well. So Eric let some villagers go when he could just as
easily let them get ground down between the Draka and the Nazis. He had
strategic reasons for doing so, and knew their eventual fate would be
death or slavery if he succeeded. Whoopee. Putting a bullet between his
eyes and any other Draka's eyes would be a good thing for the human race
in general. Gwen's just a monster to me as well -- killing her seems more
like a civic duty than anything else.
Of course, if one is enslaved by the Draka, one would probably find the
von Shrakenbergs better masters than many other Draka. But that isn't
really a matter of liking the Draka, it would be making the best of a
very bad situation.
Mary Clare Eros
sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall) wrote:
>On 4 Jan 1997 03:56:54 GMT, Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
>>likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
>>treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
>>pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character >>I respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the
>>Stone Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for
>>them.
>
although the rest might merely need to be militarily defeated and
occupied, as with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
>Please explain to me the difference between the Draka's solution to
>the underclass and LBJ's War on poverty. They both are about the
>control of the everyday life of the underclass, but the Draka's system
>worked. Not because they cared about the people, but because not
>taking care of your property was not "nice."
One of these days I'll learn to stop replying to flamebait. But not
today, apparently. If you apply more than 3 brain cells to thinking
about this, you might realize that LBJ never suggested that poor people
should be enslaved. There was no suggestion that the poor should be
anyone's property. And apparently my education has been sorely remiss,
since I don't know of huge deathcamp mines and large scale biowarfare
experiments existing in the US.
---
MCE
atal...@edge.net
As far as *hating* all the Draka, and wanting to *execute* them all, I find
that attitude to be a bit disturbing. Why? Because hatred comes from fear.
Hatred leads to dehumanizing the object of your hatred, and eventually
that means you will underestimate the "devils" or whatever you want to
call them. In this case, "snakes". We've always done this: gooks, the
boche, froggies, ad nauseum. Better to think of the object of your hatred
as an "it" rather than a thinking, feeling person. Makes it easier to kill
them. "Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a
rat." (Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Wages of Hate).
I don't think you can hate a whole race of people or a whole country. You
can hate a person, though, who has done something directly to you that was
terrible or something. The point Stirling makes (at least in my
estimation) is that we need to look in the mirror every once in a while to
remind us of what we *could* become. The Draka are mirror images of our
culture; they wouldn't be <so> shocking and disturbing if we didn't see
the similarities. "There but for the grace of God..."
It seems that people are saying that they hate the Draka because the Draka
stand for so much that to which they are *very very* opposed. That may be
true, but instead of hating them and dehumanizing them, how about trying to
understand their culture and their psychology. That, IMHO, is the road to
take to defeat the Draka politically and militarily in the fictional world
that Stirling has been so successful in creating. "One who knows the enemy
and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who
does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious,
sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy nor himself
will invariably be defeated in every engagement." (Sun Tzu).
This can be seen for both sides of the conflict in the Draka novels. The
Draka, for the most part, do not understand the Alliance's psychology. The
Alliance has become demonized as "damnyanks"; they are portrayed as weak
and morally reprehensible by the Draka. OTOH, the Draka are "snakes" and
are all morally degenerate, according to the Alliance, which uses
time-worn propaganda as easily as the Draka do, to reinforce stereotypes
and hatreds. Both sides seem to know themselves fairly well, but not the
enemy, and why? Because they can't *see* past the hatred. Eric VS tries, at
least; LeFarge does too, or at least a little. But neither side really
knew the other. And the result: the final war was just about that, the
truly "final" war.
So...*think* about why you feel so strongly about wanting to kill all the
(fill in the blank). In this case, the Draka. Think about hating a person
who has done something awful to you, directly; then about the idea that
you can't truly hate a whole country or a race of people. Both those
things are intellectual concepts, not individual people. Look beyond the
reasons of "they're awful, I hate them, they're pigs and should all be
hanged!"
Cultural relativism comes into play here, but I also think that there's
possibly a deeper message trying to get thru. I don't like the political
or moral philosophy of the Draka, wouldn't want to be one unless I could
make some major changes in how they treat other people (and then, would
they still be Draka?), and sure wouldn't trust some of them, like Gaynor
or Vashon. But I can say I admire the strengths they have, and the courage
shown by characters like Eric Von Shrakenberg and Gwendolyn Ingolfsson. I
also admire the American woman president, and General LeFarge, and Marya,
his sister.
Just some thoughts about why we hate and what we do to people of whom we
are afraid. Seeing your culture in a mirror is scary sometimes. And there
are some links to the Draka society and ours (slavery being one example;
the attempted genocide and cultural assimilation of the original
inhabitants of America being another: "The only good Indian..."). Being
honest about it helps healing, and helps us avoid repeating the mistakes we
have made in the past. Or at least I hope so.
Mary Clare Eros
sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall) wrote:
>On 5 Jan 1997 01:50:21 GMT, Mary Clare Eros <me...@jacksonkelly.com>
>wrote:
>
[on whether poor Alliance citizens would want to be Draka serfs]
>>There is abundant historical evidence that people do not,
>>in general, like to be enslaved. Or even to be treated as slaves,
>>although one does not always get a choice in the matter. The >>experience of the freedmen in the USA is relevant here--they accepted
>>living conditions much worse in some measurable ways than their former
>>state of slavery rather than go back on the plantations.
>>
>>The Draka did not advertise for serfs in the Alliance because they knew
>>this fact very well.
>>
>
[the following quote is said by Dreiser in MTG, proving (yet again) that
I have a faulty memory since I doubted he said it]
>"The Domination showed how much in common a left-wing Democrat like me
>had with Chamber of Commerce Republicans....
>
>There is no substitute for freedom; I kept my faith that we would
>solve our problems through it, but I was sometimes uneasily aware that
>there were some in the U.S.--sharecroppers, slumdwellers, the peons of
>the Guatemalan coffee fincas--who might have been willing to change
>places for the assurance of food and medicine and a roof."
>
> William A. Dreiser
> _Marching Through Georgia_ pp 129-130
>
>As you can see, he not only said it, but he was a left wing Democrat,
>certainly not the type the Draka would have chosen.
Well, they _did_ choose him. They couldn't choose somebody who too
obviously agreed with them or that person would have no credibility.
Choosing the messenger is an old problem in propaganda.
>
>You are correct that people do not like slavery, however history shows
>us that many, many people were willing to live that way. In the old
>South, there were few revolts or excapes. When Stalin killed 30
>million plus peasants in the USSR, the rest bowed down and did as they
>were told.
>
There is a world of difference between accepting slavery when you have
been born a slave (as effectively all slaves in the US were after 1840 at
the latest) and accepting enslavement if you are a formerly free person.
I also think it quite possible that Stirling meant for this quote to show
Dreiser's (qualified) opinion, and possibly suggest his (arguably)
less-than-acute observation skills, or possibly even some underlying
sympathy by him for the Draka system--a slight authoritarian streak
perhaps. I don't think this is the authorial voice speaking. Again, let
me point out sharecroppers deliberately avoided living arrangements
reminiscent of slavery, even at cost to themselves.
And Stalinism, although awful and worse in some ways than slavery, is not
slavery--the control mechanisms and the incentives are very different.
---
MCE
Leon Myerson
sam...@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall) wrote:
>Please explain to me the difference between the Draka's solution to
>the underclass and LBJ's War on poverty. They both are about the
>control of the everyday life of the underclass, but the Draka's system
>worked. Not because they cared about the people, but because not
>taking care of your property was not "nice."
Really, Sam, its hard to know where to start.
LBJ's War on Poverty was about the creation of a vast new layer of
Federal bureaucracy. The _poor_ serve as its justification, and their
status must therefore be preserved by the system, whose interests are
as radically different from society's as are any parasite from its
host . But this arrangement primarily exploits the taxpayer, for the
benefit of the bureacracy. There is no material benefit squeezed out
of the poor themselves, they are NOT turned into anyone's productive
resource. They are exploited to be sure, but as hostages to the
political sensibilities of the taxpayers.
The Draka clearly were the beneficiaries of their system, ours is more
like an autoimmune disease in a which an appropriate response in a
social context, charity, goes utterly perverse when transplanted to
the political sphere.
Above all, nothing stops the ambitious and resourceful welfare
recipients from changing their status by their own efforts. Yes,
there are pressures in place by the welfare system to discourage that,
but nothing remotely close to the organized, naked coercion of the
Domination. Indeed, it is the taxpayers who have the State's gun
pointed at their heads, not the welfare recipient. Only the State
benefits, this is costing Society a fortune. But of course, our
welfare recipients are a minority of the population. They have to be,
since the welfare system is an expense, not a source of income. The
serfs where the overwhelming majority of the Domination's population.
One sometimes hears the old argument that the poor are not free due to
_economic coercion_, though less often since the collapse and
discrediting of Marxism. Ayn Rand once wrote that anyone who can't
tell the difference between having to produce and trade voluntarily
with others, the condition of life imposed by nature itself, versus
compulsion by guns and whips, should learn the difference on his own
hide.
Graydon
Sam Hall (sam...@dkdavis.com) wrote:
: The next book should be interesting. One Drake against the whole
: world. BTW, why couldn't the clone modify regular human sprem to
One _bent_ Draka, with a smaller, potentially *much* smaller, tech
advantage.
: produce a male Drake, after all, they did it once?
Lack of infrastructure, and Gwen probably hasn't read the _entire_ human
genome, or, for that matter, the New Race one, so this wouldn't be
something she would remember. Cloning fertile female mammals is _easy_,
though.
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>As far as *hating* all the Draka, and wanting to *execute* them all, I find
>that attitude to be a bit disturbing. Why? Because hatred comes from fear.
>Hatred leads to dehumanizing the object of your hatred, and eventually
>that means you will underestimate the "devils" or whatever you want to
>call them. In this case, "snakes". We've always done this: gooks, the
>boche, froggies, ad nauseum. Better to think of the object of your hatred
>as an "it" rather than a thinking, feeling person. Makes it easier to kill
>them. "Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a
>rat." (Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Wages of Hate).
>I don't think you can hate a whole race of people or a whole country. You
>can hate a person, though, who has done something directly to you that was
>terrible or something. The point Stirling makes (at least in my
>estimation) is that we need to look in the mirror every once in a while to
>remind us of what we *could* become. The Draka are mirror images of our
>culture; they wouldn't be <so> shocking and disturbing if we didn't see
>the similarities. "There but for the grace of God..."
Here's an amusing quote from our own timeline - 1948. The speaker is
George Kennan, then head of the Policy Planning Staff of the State
Department, and one of the principle architects of the Cold War.
_We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its
population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of
envy and resentment. Our real test in the coming period is to devise
a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this
position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can
afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction -- unreal
objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and
democratization._
The Draka are Mr. Hyde to America as Dr. Jekyll. Simply the
unacknowledge heart of darkness America has always possessed allowed
to run rampant.
>It seems that people are saying that they hate the Draka because the Draka
>stand for so much that to which they are *very very* opposed. That may be
>true, but instead of hating them and dehumanizing them, how about trying to
>understand their culture and their psychology. That, IMHO, is the road to
>take to defeat the Draka politically and militarily in the fictional world
>that Stirling has been so successful in creating. "One who knows the enemy
>and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who
>does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious,
>sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy nor himself
>will invariably be defeated in every engagement." (Sun Tzu).
The ability to thought experiment what it would be like to be _of the
Race_ is not mirrored in any major Draka character by a similar
capacity to picture themselves as _Yankees_. EvS comes closest, but
falls far short. Gwen openly acknowledges that she has no such
capacity at all, but mistakes it for strength. I think its our
culture's greatest asset, and one that the other America of the books
threw away.
>This can be seen for both sides of the conflict in the Draka novels. The
>Draka, for the most part, do not understand the Alliance's psychology. The
>Alliance has become demonized as "damnyanks"; they are portrayed as weak
>and morally reprehensible by the Draka. OTOH, the Draka are "snakes" and
>are all morally degenerate, according to the Alliance, which uses
>time-worn propaganda as easily as the Draka do, to reinforce stereotypes
>and hatreds. Both sides seem to know themselves fairly well, but not the
>enemy, and why? Because they can't *see* past the hatred. Eric VS tries, at
>least; LeFarge does too, or at least a little. But neither side really
>knew the other. And the result: the final war was just about that, the
>truly "final" war.
I think only EvS understood that America could be destroyed, but never
subjugated. The others thought it could be stuffed into the same
pigeon hole as all previous conquests. But the Alliance was also
guilty of conventionalizing the Draka, believing that they could be
wooed away from mortal enemy status short of suffering total defeat in
an all out war.
The real danger of Alliance stereotyping of the Draka is that it
produced unreasoning hatred, which can't be maintained indefinitely,
when what is needed is fully reasoned anger, which can be sustained.
Where Draka openly boasted of putting the Yankees under the yoke, I'd
have wanted the Alliance to openly speak of throwing every last Draka
to the serfs, feeding their paranoia and thus discouraging higher
level use of those serfs. Not to mention the total re-distribution of
all citizen caste wealth to the aforementioned serfs.
>So...*think* about why you feel so strongly about wanting to kill all the
>(fill in the blank). In this case, the Draka. Think about hating a person
>who has done something awful to you, directly; then about the idea that
>you can't truly hate a whole country or a race of people. Both those
>things are intellectual concepts, not individual people. Look beyond the
>reasons of "they're awful, I hate them, they're pigs and should all be
>hanged!"
America was extremely generous to the defeated Axis powers, but only
AFTER quite literally beating the daylights out of them. After losing
a war, I think many human Draka would choose to live, especially for
the sake of their children, if some sort of livable existence were
available. Many would suicide, but not all. The first book of
Stirling's second _The General_ series, co-authored with David Drake,
presents a Draka-like group of humans on another world calling
themselves _the Chosen_. Far more Nazi-like than the Draka, with none
of the attractive qualities, but this bunch LOSES. At the end, many
do throw their lives away in pointless resistance, but many also
choose to build themselves a new society in a new land without slaves.
I wouldn't necessarily kill the Draka survivors of a war, once it was
over and they were truly under my hand, but prior to final victory,
anything and everything goes. But I'd have a hard time allowing ANY
of the New Race to survive. In creating them, the Domination really
did cross a line. I think I'd only agree to it if genetic enhancement
were to come into widespread usage in the Alliance countries. Not
necessarily into New Race, but something that restored a level playing
field.
Leon Myerson
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
>likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
>treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
>pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character I
>respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the Stone
>Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for them.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. <grin>
I've seen your homepage, the favorable references to John Norman's
_Gor_ novels, your own literary creation, _Karg_. Do you really see
NOTHING of yourself in the Draka, or too much for comfort? The
slavers of Gor are so clearly fantasy as to sidestep uncomfortable
questions, but the Draka do hit much closer to home.
Nothing about acknowledging one's darker impulses implies conscious
support for them. Indeed, repression is more likely to invoke their
subconscious expression.
If you truly felt nothing but hatred for the Draka, how did you manage
to enjoy the novels enough to keep reading?
Graydon
Nicholas Plummer (nplu...@umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <5ar0fr$f...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
: (Graydon) wrote:
: > Lack of infrastructure, and Gwen probably hasn't read the _entire_ human
: > genome, or, for that matter, the New Race one, so this wouldn't be
: > something she would remember. Cloning fertile female mammals is _easy_,
: > though.
: Cloning mammals by splitting early embryos is easy. Cloning female
: mammals by starting with an unfertilized ovum is AFAIK, impossible.
It is apparently possible to pull _exactly_ the trick Gwen pulled to clone
herself, and has been since the 60s. There's just very little use for it.
: Imprinting of various developmentally important genes necessitates
: contribution from both a male and a female parent. Parthenogenesis does
: not work in mammals. (Now if the "snakes" really are like reptiles, it
: might work...)
That female draka have been designed to simplify self cloning doesn't seem
inplausible to me, but IIRC, the nucleus swapping trick is known to work
in at least sheep and cattle.
Nicholas Plummer
In article <5atubr$7...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
(Graydon) wrote:
> Nicholas Plummer (nplu...@umich.edu) wrote:
> : Cloning mammals by splitting early embryos is easy. Cloning female
> : mammals by starting with an unfertilized ovum is AFAIK, impossible.
>
> It is apparently possible to pull _exactly_ the trick Gwen pulled to clone
> herself, and has been since the 60s. There's just very little use for it.
Any chance you could dig up some references for me? I suspect that those
experiments would involve switching the nucleus of one fertilized ovum (or
very early embryo) into the cytoplasm of a different embryo. IIRC, what
Gwen proposed was transplanting the nucleus of one of her other cells into
the cytoplasm of one of her ova.
Experiments in frogs have shown that while cells in an early embryo are
totipotent and can produce an entire organism when isolated, that ability
is lost during development, and nuclei from an adult frog cannot be
substituted. Differentiation appears to at least partially irreversible.
(see Gilbert, 1991, _Developmental Biology, 2nd edition._ pp334-36). As
far as I can tell from the description in Gilbert, experiments in mammals
have not progressed that far, although it is possible to transplant
pronuclei (the nucleus of egg and sperm before they fuse) from one egg to
another.
> : Imprinting of various developmentally important genes necessitates
> : contribution from both a male and a female parent. Parthenogenesis does
> : not work in mammals. (Now if the "snakes" really are like reptiles, it
> : might work...)
>
> That female draka have been designed to simplify self cloning doesn't seem
> inplausible to me, but IIRC, the nucleus swapping trick is known to work
> in at least sheep and cattle.
Of course, Gwen could have been engineered to make this procedure
possible, even with a nucleus from a centuries-old drakensis. It is
fiction, after all. But as far as I can tell, Gwen's technique is not
possible with our technology, except when the nucleus is derived from
another embryo. A possible exception to this is in the clawed frog,
Xenopus, where nuclei from irradiated intestinal cells can sometimes form
an entire frog when transplanted into enucleated eggs. Apparently, though
these results are somewhat controversial and have proven difficult to
replicate (Gilbert p 336-338).
Bottom line, unless I have missed something important, is that the
procedure Gwen uses may be possible in some amphibians but is currently
impossible in any mammals. I'd be fascinated to see contradictory
references, though.
cheers,
Nick
---------------------
Nicholas Plummer
nplu...@umich.edu
Nicholas Plummer
In article <5b03dd$a...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>, Tapio Erola <t...@oulu.fi> wrote:
> Nicholas Plummer <nplu...@umich.edu> wrote:
> (Biology snipped.)
>
> : Bottom line, unless I have missed something important, is that the
> : procedure Gwen uses may be possible in some amphibians but is currently
> : impossible in any mammals. I'd be fascinated to see contradictory
> : references, though.
>
> Nnah. Just assume that gwen has equivalent of a large library inside her
> implant. She _built_ the necessary tech. She had capacity to engineer
> all those minor toys like sterilizing virus and that purification
> algae. With that kind of tech cloning would be child's play.
> (No pun intended.)
But that's not what Graydon said. He said that Gwen's cloning technique
was possible with _our_ tech. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's
possible in the context of a SF novel, but I'm interested in Graydon's
assertion.
Nick
Tapio Erola
: Bottom line, unless I have missed something important, is that the
: procedure Gwen uses may be possible in some amphibians but is currently
: impossible in any mammals. I'd be fascinated to see contradictory
: references, though.
Nnah. Just assume that gwen has equivalent of a large library inside her
implant. She _built_ the necessary tech. She had capacity to engineer
all those minor toys like sterilizing virus and that purification
algae. With that kind of tech cloning would be child's play.
(No pun intended.)
--
Tapio Erola t...@paju.oulu.fi (No mail to t...@sliver.oulu.fi please)
'The greatest productive force is human selfishness.'
--Lazarus Long
Leon Myerson
atal...@edge.net wrote:
>In article <5aml65$n...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> lmye...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> As for the America of TSD, it had already compromised so many of its
>> own core values that I'm not sure I'd think of it as my own country if
>> I fell through a molehole into that world. Would you?
>>
>> Would you choose that America if the Domination were offering Metic
>> Citizenship?
>>
>> Would you join the Domination if the Alliance rejected you, if it
>> couldn't get past thinking you were a some sort of spy, or treating
>> you as a scientific curiousity to be held under wraps permanently?
>If the Alliance thought you were a spy, or a scientific curiousity,
>wouldn't the Draka??? "Let's see what this does..." I don't know how you
>could ever "prove" to the Draka leadership, even someone like EVS or Gwen,
>that you weren't a spy for the Alliance or an "interesting specimen of
>feral sapiens". Leaving you between a rock and a hard place, basically.
You're right, that scenario doesn't really fly. Here's a better one:
You fall thru a molehole into a world where AMERICA became all that
the Domination was. It still calls itself the USA, but there was NO
Civil War. Instead, the slave owners managed to win the political
struggle of the 1850's. One more errant Supreme Court decision along
the lines of the Dredd Scott case might have done it, by interpreting
the Constitution's requirement that all states respect laws and
contracts originating in other states to mean that the mere
transportation of slaves legally purchased in one state cannot nullify
the owner's property rights when they are brought into and KEPT in
non-slave states, not just territories.
The time period also saw Protestant America extremely uneasy about
granting full citizenship to Catholic immigrants, but needing cheap
labor for the expanding industries of the North. We also had the
influx of oriental laborers brought in to build the railroads as an
alternative example, and we had a Mexico ripe for imperialistic
conquest to the South. Easier target for us than for France.
So Manifest Destiny came to refer not just to expansion to the
Pacific, but to taking all of North America, then the whole
hemisphere, then everything else. Fresh from the Mexican conquest,
rather than damaged by civil war, in the late 1860's we accepted the
Czar's offer to add Siberia to the Alaska deal for a few extra
million. Russian aristocrats angered at the 1862 abolition of serfdom
came with it. Commodore Perry led the invasion and conquest of Japan.
Soon we were grabbing an evergrowing chunk of China. We continued
making states of every land we touched, once a suitable population of
the _right_ sort of people had settled and taken charge. Central
America, then South America were incorporated, not merely pacified
with puppet regimes. We learned the trick of recruiting expendable
soldiers from the various underclasses.
By the 1990's terrified Europeans lead a desperate coalition of the
last independent nations. Especially what's left of the British
commonwealth.
So you find yourself in a land that has all the trappings of the
America you know, the same flag (more stars), the same Constitution,
(some very different amendments, but there's still a President,
Congress, the courts, etc.), even that song about _the rocket's red
glare, bombs bursting in air_ is still the national Anthem. But the
citizens live like the Draka lording it over a vast population of
chattel slaves.
They accept you as an American. In fact, they value you. You are
encouraged to tell the media all about the world you came from, since
they take your truthful stories about the state of our America and our
world as the ulitimate validation of the their own historical choices!
You are to be handed all the privileges of this society for your help
in squashing its few remaining doubts.
Or would you defect to the coalition? Does the fact that this is a
version of America, not a _foreign_ country, make it easier to stay,
harder to turn against. My country, right or wrong? Isn't that the
notion that kept EvS on track?
Mister Skin
In article <5aspn8$s...@camel1.mindspring.com> Leon Myerson,
lmye...@mindspring.com writes:
>>All this is so weird. So many people have said they found the Draka
>>likable. I hated the Draka's guts, without exception, for the way they
>>treated non-Draka. I found the Shrakenbergs to be a bunch of disgusting
>>pigs, and they were the best of the Draka lot. The only Draka character I
>>respected was the one who "went over" to the American side in the Stone
>>Dogs. As for the rest, well, as they say, hanging's too good for them.
>
>Methinks thou dost protest too much. <grin>
As often as I've used that line on others, it's disquieting to find it
used on me. However, my honest feelings about the Draka are as described.
And if my response were some kind of attempt to hide knowledge of my
interest in B&D from myself, why am I so open about liking John Norman
... for all the wrong reasons. ;> ?
To me, the difference between Norman and Stirling is as night and day.
Norman's Gor novels are a series of pleasant erotic daydreams. Stirling's
Draka novels are a wrenching vision of a world gone horribly wrong. We
all have sadistic impulses and a certain amount of indifference to the
suffering of tohers as part of our psychological
>I've seen your homepage,
http://www.mindspring.com/~mrskin ::plug:: Look for pages about my new
novel, Siren7, coming soon. ::end plug
the favorable references to John Norman's
>_Gor_ novels, your own literary creation, _Karg_. Do you really see
>NOTHING of yourself in the Draka, or too much for comfort? The
>slavers of Gor are so clearly fantasy as to sidestep uncomfortable
>questions, but the Draka do hit much closer to home.
>Nothing about acknowledging one's darker impulses implies conscious
>support for them. Indeed, repression is more likely to invoke their
>subconscious expression.
Of course I see something of myself in the Draka. They're as human as you
can get. They torture, murder and enslave as a matter of routine. That's
what makes them so horrifying -- that Stirling had to invent NOTHING, no
new behavior, no new class or kind of human beings to create the Draka.
He had all the stuff he needed, right there in human history.
The behavior of Norman's characters, however, makes sense only within
the context of B&D fantasies.
I am quite willing to acknowledge my own interest in dominating women, in
large part because I agree that attempts to repress it would just invoke
its subconscious expression, as you say. In fact, I think that a lot of
otherwise bizarre human behavior can be explained in just that way.
(I.e., people who repress their feelings then behave in weird ways.
Classic case: the couple who called their neighbors for help because they
had shot and stabbed each other in an argument concerning who was more
beautiful -- Kate or Kelly Bundy from the Married With Children TV show.
Had to be some GREAT subtext there.)
>If you truly felt nothing but hatred for the Draka, how did you manage
>to enjoy the novels enough to keep reading?
I read them as horror novels. I never could get behind horror as a genre
-- bored me, for the most part. The only horror novels I ever enjoyed
were those that had strong adventure or SF elements -- like H.P.
Lovecraft's stuff. I just don't find the supernatural all that
believable. But the DRAKA -- I could believe in the Draka. At the same
time I could enjoy reading about them knowing that they really didn't
exist. This made the experience of reading the Draka novels exactly like
slowly driving past the scene of a really nasty auto accident, safe and
secure in your own uncrumpled car, knowing that such a thing COULD happen
to you, but that it has NOT happened to you.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <5aml62$n...@camel2.mindspring.com>, lmye...@mindspring.com (Leon Myerson) writes:
|> atal...@edge.net wrote:
|>
|> >What is the sense of self like in 2442's Draka society, or in the Samothracian
|> >society of the same time line?
|>
|> affection for my own countrymen. I do believe I'd fight to the death
|> for this country, but my loyalty is all cold conviction, a thing of
|> the mind, not the _heart_ or the _soul_. Its the _idea_ of America,
|> perhaps even the _myth_, that has a hold on me.
|>
|>
Yes; this is why I really don't understand all the comments that
Samothrace has to be a really terrible place to live.
For example, the anti-transhumanists on Samothrace can be mapped
to the Orthodox Jews in Israel. (We reject the temptations of the
transhuman, whether electronic or biological.) Clearly, they
have a lot of influence, but not enough to turn into a theocracy,
because Lafarge himself is very heavily modified.
There are probably a *lot* of Reform Samothracians there, and
they are likely more influential than their Jewish counterparts in
modern Israel, given the degree that Lafarge has changed himself.
If you compare Lafarge (assassinates Draka) to a Shin Bet assassin
(kills Nazis), you find that Samothrace has to be a hell of a
nice place to live.
Lafarge is an assassin willing to trade his life for the lives
of a few dozen drakensis. He is almost by definition one of the
most fanatical, cold-blooded, and intolerant people Samothrace
could produce. And he's not very intolerant at all. He is fair-minded,
just, and good to the very limits of his imagination; certainly his
imagination is a bit more limited than you might want, but given his
background, I think he does an awe-inspiringly good job.
I think that the Samothracian government is probably as intrusive
as, say, France's, but that's certainly no shabby accomplishment,
especially given the conditions the society formed in.
Neel
Mister Skin
In article <5bh5oj$g...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Neelakantan
Krishnaswami, ne...@athena.mit.edu writes:
:If you compare Lafarge (assassinates Draka) to a Shin Bet assassin
:(kills Nazis), you find that Samothrace has to be a hell of a
:nice place to live.
:
:Lafarge is an assassin willing to trade his life for the lives
:of a few dozen drakensis. He is almost by definition one of the
:most fanatical, cold-blooded, and intolerant people Samothrace
:could produce. And he's not very intolerant at all. He is fair-minded,
:just, and good to the very limits of his imagination; certainly his
:imagination is a bit more limited than you might want, but given his
:background, I think he does an awe-inspiringly good job.
A very well thought out post. Good point that LaFarge may well be an
atypical Samothracian. I think that many who have posted to this thread
may have tried so hard to keep their minds open about the Draka that they
let their brains fall out.