Honorverse Odds and Ends

My brother loaned me the latest Honor Harrington novel, so I've been reading that and had some thoughts.

For those who have never heard of this series, it's military science fiction. 14 books in the main series, as well as a number of spin-offs and anthologies. I have to admit, it sometimes goes a little bit into the 'science fiction' side of things for my taste - given that wormholes, faster than light technology, and various other things are all fiction I don't actually care to read in depth technical reports on things that don't really exist. And yet, I do find it fascinating how he uses those things to create rather plausible military scenarios.

14 books, well...it's a very looooong series. It's also fascinating if you know your history, because there's some very clear parallels (and differences). David Weber also does a rather excellent job of showing both sides of the story, with both sides having their talented and incompetent people.

Regarding that history... the main character is an officer in the navy for a star nation - Manticore - that has many similarities to England. A monarchy, parliament, etc. (Not exact, by any means!) It begins just before they wind up in a very long shooting war with a neighboring star nation that has some similarities to, well...at one point they had something like the French revolution (including a character, Rob S. Pierre, which is rather obviously similar to Robespierre)

At other times, the history of that star nation was more like the Soviet Union.

There was another, much larger star nation that was mostly irrelevant for the first, I dunno, 10 books or so? The Solarian League, which also has striking parallels to the United States.

Except, well...in a series that spans this much history, things change quite a bit. The Manticore and Haven war had it's ups and downs, the war pushing both sides to make all sorts of technological innovations that changed the nature of the war.  While I didn't need too many of the technical details, I could see clear parallels to...well, 'wet-navy' warfare. In particular the development of a space equivalent to aircraft carriers.

And after decades of fighting, things started to finally settle down between Manticore and Haven, and a new enemy appeared. Now, I haven't been as interested in the later books in part because the new enemy is... I dunno. I guess it interrupts my 'suspension of disbelief', which seems funny when referring to science fiction in the first place, but this new opponent is almost too sneaky to be real. Or at least, I sure as heck hope there's never a real world group like this!

Anyways, this new opponent is stirring up trouble and helping lead to war between Manticore (now in a tenuous alliance with their long-time enemies) against the Solarian League.

And that sort of gets at why I decided to write this post. The Solarian League...

Well, it originally had good intentions, I guess you could say. The original systems are centered around Earth, they've got a constitution and democracy, and all that. This Solarian League, though, has grown rather corrupt. Particular with systems on the fringe, 'neo-barbarian' frontiers, places where certain bureaucratic organizations have had free reign to do what they want.

I suppose, in some ways, the Solarian League is also more reminiscent of the Roman Empire, as the fringe systems have various governors who generally enrich themselves... one way or another. The governing class is pretty much a techno-bureaucratic class (labeled the 'Mandarins') and there's all sorts of bureaucratic infighting, corruption, connections to various businesses, etc. I know I said there's some parallels between the Solarian League and the United States, but I sure as hell hope that our system isn't nearly as bad as the Solarian one.

So one of the themes, you might say, with this new scenario is 'when has a system become so corrupt that it's irredeemable?' The Solarian League were the first proponents of some various rules of warfare that our original combatants respected (in part out of fear for how the Sollies would react.) In particular, the Eridani Edict, laying out restrictions on attacking a planet's surface.

Part of what we are seeing is the Solarian League, the creator and enforcer of the Eridani Edict, is now setting themselves up to be the biggest violator of their own edict.

When a system stops standing for what it used to stand for, becomes blatantly self-interested to the point where they're now justifying things they used to vociferously oppose...

What does that mean? And when various members decide it's gone too far and decide to leave (consider that Texas stipulated their right to secede when they joined the United States, and just what a disaster it would be if they ever seriously wanted to do so) where do you stand?

'You' being the fictional characters in the series, many of which choose different stances, most of which are believable. There's the ones who worry about the end of the existing Solarian League, who don't think it's as bad as people think, love their star nation and bitterly resent the people trying to leave... and there are the ones who are fed up, don't see any other way of fixing things, and are pretty much done with it all.

And, of course, the whole point of reading the book is to see how it all plays out.

I do like how we get to peek inside the various decision-makers meetings and councils, in part because you can see how otherwise intelligent people wind up making horrible choices. That happened a lot with the Havenites, as you see the pressures leading towards decisions.  Things tied in to maintaining public support, economic pressures, and so on and so forth. And now we see something similar with the Sollies.

Of particular interest, to me at least, is the role that information plays in all this. Coming from an American background (and the First Amendment which values free speech, and the desire for 'truth, justice and the American Way' for all), I almost immediately think 'bad idea' every time one of these organizations decides that they need to 'spin' events by outright lying to their people in order to...

Well, they always sugarcoat it with some sort of unselfish reason, like preserving their government, but honestly the government would probably survive if they were honest about what happened, so it's really about them not wanting to face the consequences of their bad decisions. It's just, well, as Upton Sinclair apparently said - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Or rather, in this case you could rephrase it to say 'it is difficult to get people in power to understand that the nation/government/party will be fine when their ability to stay in power depends on not understanding it.'

In other words, it's the classic fallacy of inflating what's good for you with what's good for everyone else. And so these organizations justify editing video to make it look like the other side was lying, setting out a narrative that makes them look good, and doing all sorts of other various things that essentially demonstrates just how much they've lost their way.

If you need to lie about what's going on in order to maintain your grasp on power, then maybe it's a sign that you shouldn't be in power. But good luck getting anyone in that position to admit that.

Anyways. Reading this book has been especially interesting in the current political climate, especially Donald Trump's latest claim of being a 'nationalist'.

There are quite a few people who want him to be a nationalist, and yet I can't help thinking that it's like the exact opposite of what America always stood for.

Hmmm. Let me back up a bit. I was actually thinking about that in a different context, namely Trump's love of various dictators. The Philippine President Duterte, cozying up to North Korea, and his flat out refusal to speak anything bad about Putin. (You can add in the current situation in Saudi Arabia, if you want.)

I won't outright say it's a bad idea, in that I'm sort of a believer that whatever works, works. He's definitely thrown out conventional wisdom on foreign policy, and shaken things up...and the situation in North Korea has been sort of an ugly stalemate for decades.  Honestly, his policies remind me of Nixon's madman theory, and while I don't really agree with that policy, I understand intelligent people believe in it and it's the sort of thing we probably won't know whether its a good idea until decades after the fact. If even then, since people are masters at finding evidence to support their take on things.

I mean, we could learn sooner if he lands us in World War Three, of course, but for now that hasn't happened. And it seems silly to alienate all sorts of long time allies, kind of reminds me of Wilhelm Kaiser II before World War I, but again... we probably won't know the real fallout until decades later. Or unless World War III breaks out and we're left high and dry by those former allies.

Anyways, I digress. He's been speaking highly of dictators, which seems the exact opposite of what America has always stood for. It's a far cry from Ronald Reagan, who firmly stood against the Soviet Union.

And when Trump, and the Republicans, now stand for the exact opposite of what previous Republican greats (like Ronald Reagan) did...

What does it mean?

When someone claims to be a 'nationalist', and throws out all the things that made America great. Throws out the ideals we always stood for (at least in part... there's definitely been some self-interest in our foreign policy)...

Well, what makes America any different from Russia, or the Philippines, or North Korea any more?

The Art of the Impossible

I read an article the other day that was thought provoking for a variety of reasons.  I clicked on it for the title, of course ("Sci-Fi, Fantasy and the Status Quo").  I stayed with it despite the discussion on Hillary Clinton.  Or perhaps because of it.  It was one of those articles I didn't necessarily agree with, but didn't necessarily disagree with either. 

I know I've wondered, myself, at the appeal of monarchy in the sci-fi/fantasy world...though I assumed it had to do with making relatable characters.  That is, it's kind of hard to have a hero off fighting the evils of bureacracy.  And it's hard to make a President quite as much of a character as a King or Queen. 

I've also wondered, sometimes, at (what sometimes appears to be the left's) obsession with creating dynasties.  That is, the Kennedy family seemed to keep coming up in politics ever since JFK, and now we've got the Clintons.  Whereas Reagan, revered by the right though he is, has not had his children enter politics.  So far as I know.  I have to admit, while there may be more political dynasties than I'm really aware of (families more under the radar unless you know who is who) I've always thought the presumption on a family name to smack of something - unAmerican.  Like aristocracy or something.  Yes, we had John Adams and John Quincy Adams; George Bush and George W. Bush.  And FDR was related to Teddy Roosevelt to a certain degree.  That's quite enough, to be honest.  (I also wonder about that article some time ago, how Democratic donors met and decided to back Kamala Harris.  I haven't fully made up my  mind on her yet, but it seems sort of premature/presumptuous and a sign that the Democrats haven't really learned that it's a mistake to crown someone 'heir' before we've even started the primaries.  I dunno, I suppose I can't blame them for doing what they can given their political preferences and resources, but it again smacks of the oligarchy I'm afraid we're becoming.)

But those are all sidebars to conversation I wanted to have.  Namely, the point this article made that science fiction and fantasy are the art of the impossible.  I could make my own guesses as to why dystopian fantasy is so appealing right now, but again it's not the discussion I wanted to have. 

See, I've sometimes thought about how capitalism is just one more 'ism in the world's history.  That is, we had feudalism, we had the Roman system (with it's slaves), and there's no reason to believe capitalism is the end all and be all in terms of socio-economic structures. 

The problem with having this conversation, however, is that it is bogged down in all the Cold War baggage.  That is, the fight between capitalism and communism has made it pretty much impossible to suggest alternatives without sounding like you are, again, unAmerican (since support for capitalism goes hand in hand with being American) or a commie, or what-have-you.

And to be honest, there are some things I think capitalism does very well.  Better than some.  I kind of like having continuously better technology.  Smarter, faster smartphones and computers that can store all kinds of things.  I see the importance of incentivizing people by allowing them to benefit from the risks involved in building a business, investing, researching, etc.

Yet I feel like the Cold War era politics have made it impossible to discuss some of the flaws in our socio-economic system.  The loneliness endemic to our modern way of life.  The throw-away-culture that doesn't bother learning how to make things last. 

And the perennial challenges of fairness, justice, and the distribution of power.  That is, do we truly have a level playing field when certain companies dominate their industries to an overwhelming degree?  And how can we say it's a meritocracy when so many people are disadvantaged in terms of their school choices and more, all before they've even reached maturity?  (That's not even getting into larger issues). 

The funny thing is, the critiques are not actually new to me.  I learned some of them through the Catholic schools my parents sent me to, where we were taught how sad it is that our pop culture is so focused on superficial things (like appearances, designer clothes, etc.) 

Which happens to be some of the same criticisms the jihadists have of Western society, tbh.  See, while I vehemently disagree with their tactics and old-school beliefs (killing innocent people, believing women should wear veils, etc) I do see the appeal of trying to build a community dedicated to serving God (i.e. "Muslim" means "one who submits or serves God", shari'a law is supposed to describe the path required to build a community of faith.  There are different interpretations of all of this, though the hardcore jihadists tend to believe the harsher, less forgiving, and more brutal forms.) 

I underlined, bolded, and italicized 'community' because that's the key draw, I think.  The thing we ourselves (and outsiders) see missing in our modern society.  That loss of connection.  And the importance of serving something greater than ourselves, though I don't necessarily feel it has to be God.  Or rather, there are very good historical reasons why we have a separation of church and state and I don't feel like repeating the religious wars of the 1600's, so I'm emphasizing the universal bits.  Humans are social, and they need to feel a sense of purpose. 

So if we accept the criticism from the article I originally linked to, if we say that science fiction/fantasy is the art of the impossible and that we should let our imagines run wild, to picture what could be (but isn't), what would I come up with?

Science Fiction, Frontiers and Second Sons

I love reading science fiction, and much of the genre deals with 'frontier' issues.  That is, people moving out into uninhabited planets.  In science fiction, often for reasons people came to the US: Opportunity, religious freedom, etc.

I know I've heard, peripherally, some discussion of what it meant when we were a frontier society.  And how that has changed as we expanded to the limit, and the frontiers closed.  A frontier was a place where people could have opportunities unavailable back home.  In our own history, that's part of what the second sons of Europe did...the ones who were never going to inherit (what with the law of primogeniture and all that.  It's different in societies, like Afghanistan, where the sons are expected to split the inheritance entirely.  Causes problems all its own, as the land they inherit keeps getting smaller.)

Anyways.  I wonder, sometimes, if the class wars of today are related to that.  Talented people don't have as many opportunities, because they have to advance within an already established system.  One where they start out disadvantaged to begin with.

The American dream is tied to that notion - the idea that hard work and talent can get you somewhere, regardless of who you were back in the Old World.

I don't think the closing of the frontier, in and of itself, means that the dream is dead.  But...

Well, it's kind of like a discussion I had with someone in Afghanistan about water usage.  Water is pretty scarce over there, and some of the so-called 'squatters' were basically the disadvantaged (i.e. people with little access to the crucial water necessary for farming) finding creative ways to succeed.  Creative, and perhaps not quite legal, of course.  Anyways.  I was talking with a hydrologist, working with USAID, and he insisted that there really was enough water to go around.  It's just that the Afghans had to cooperate and work together to portion it out appropriately.  The people up river couldn't be planting crops that required a lot of water, since it didn't leave as much for those downstream.  Management was important - and practically impossible in a society with little reason to cooperate. 

They had a history of zero-sum games w/regards to water, and the ones who 'won' and had access had no reason to limit themselves for the sake of the losers who didn't.

To bring this back to America, and class warfare - the winners of our system see no reason to limit themselves for the sake of everyone else.  (And, with the set of beliefs allowing them to feel like they earned and deserve their status, they feel unfairly put upon when others argue they should.) 

Yet, at the end of the day, there are still a LOT of disadvantaged people who just don't have the opportunities that used to be available. 

It's hard to address the problem when the winners aren't even willing to admit that there IS a problem.