Talk:S. M. Stirling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

I want to rework this page, mentioning among other things Stirlings new "Island in the Sea of Times" series, his "Superman" style, and his approach to cultural and sexual issues (as in "there is sex", "homosexuality is quite normal in many societies", "there are good (and bad) people with different value sets") and so on. Also, I don't quite think "right wing" does describe Stirling adequately. Please comment. User:Stephan Schulz

Those all sound like good additions. It does sound like he has some kind of social or political agenda, but if it isn't strictly "right wing", is it "libertarian", perhaps even "authoritarian"? If not, we can NPOV it by saying "... seen by some as being right wing" or something like that. It would also be nice if there were a bit of biographical information. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've done some of the rewrite (in logged out state, by accident), salvaging some of the old material. It still is not perfect, and among other things bibliogtraphy and collaborators are missing. I'll try to do some more work on it if our firewall is fixed (it currently swallows most outgoing web traffic). User:Stephan Schulz

Nice work - things are much better. By the way, I checked the Library of Congress' online catalog to see if his books were registered under his full name, but they're all down as S.M. Sterling (which might mean that it's a pen name). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

His name is Steven Michael Stirling. His books are published as S.M Stirling because that is how he signs his checks, and when his first work was published he was asked "how do you want it credited?" and he replied "oh, do it as I sign my checks". Presumably there was some reason for the publisher to know what that was. Kd5mdk 22:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Killing male Muslims

What about when he said he was in favor of killing all male Muslims? Is that going to be in the article as well? -- Dissident 02:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

if there's a decent source we can cite for that, yes -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[1] -- Dissident 02:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly say that "many accuse Stirling of racism, both in his writings and public statements" or something like that. But the link you provided (thanks, by the way) isn't a terribly good source - it's hearsay, on the internet, and takes the quote out of context. Has he said the same (or similar) in one of his published books? Or in an interview with a journalist? Or on his website? Or at the very least is there a direct reference to his saying it (or something similar) rather than someone else reporting it? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That link includes the following quote: "And, in general, googling for Steve Stirling and Muslims reveals a lot of stuff that's, well, not good." I did the search and, frankly, found nothing objectionable-- at least, nothing objectionable about Muslims (S. M. Stirling being who he is, any google search involving his name is bound to turn up something controversial). Having read many of Stirling's novels (The Draka series, the Nantucket series, The Peshawar Lancers, Conquistador) as well as some of his online conversations, here's my impression of his political ideology: he is, quite simply, in love with modern civilization. He sees scientific progress, universal education, equal rights, and "law and order" as causes worth fighting and dying for. In and of itself, this is a largely uncontroversial viewpoint. However, Stirling takes this belief in some potentially troubling directions. For example, he seems to have nothing but scorn for multiculturalists, revisionist historians, and others who call the greatness of Western civilization into question. He also seems to have no problem with the idea of using military force to make other cultures accept "Western" values (see, especially, The Peshawar Lancers and the novella Shikari in Galveston). However, despite his love for certain elements of modernity, Stirling's view on life seems curiously old-fashioned in other regards. This is particularly true in terms of social organization. Although there is little doubt that he believes in equal rights for women, racial minorities, and homosexuals, there are times when he almost seems nostalgic for feudalism: many of his books feature societies characterized by charismatic gentlemen, well-ordered plantations, and loyal servants. Too sum up, Stirling's novels indicate a love for scientific, technological, and material progress accompanied by a seemingly antiquated set of social values. Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm reading too much into S. M. Stirling's writings-- it's entirely possible that the content of his books is meant entirely for dramatic purposes, and does not reflect on the author's personal beliefs. However, his works as a whole seems to share a fairly consistent set of values. Perhaps I'll organize these thoughts at some point, and add them to the article itself-- but for now, feel free to use them or ignore them as you choose. -- Jeph (jephgord@hotmail.com)

This seems a propos:
In the Acknowledgements of Conquistador:
And a special acknowledgement to the author of Niven's Law:
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author.
"The term is 'idiot.'" RickK 07:35, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Right

When rereading the whole article, I found the following two statements:

• He holds right wing opinions in many areas, agreeing with the aggressive neoconservative position on the Middle East and supporting neoliberal economics.
• However, as an atheist he opposes the Christian right which currently has a heavy influence in the Republican party, and thus supports the Democrats.

Do we have any sources for them? While I consider both quite possible (the second more so than the first), I have not found anything supporting them. --Stephan Schulz 18:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

These statements were based on his Usenet postings. On globalization:

For a market economy to function efficiently, there has to be competition in all areas -- the factors of production, labor and capital, have to move according to pricing signals. For an individual employee, that means a strict focus on maximizing income and looking out for #1 -- ready to switch occupations or move physically at the drop of a hat. Nobody owes you anything that isn't bought and paid for, and vice versa.

That's what "globalization" is all about. Capital is now almost infinitely mobile, which enables it to reach previously inaccessible pools of labor, doing software research in Bangalore, India... which puts Californian programmers in competition with those of India.

I read an interview with a Geman industrialist not too long ago. He was asked why German industry wasn't creating jobs.

He replied:

"That is a lie. We are creating millions of jobs; jobs in Poland, jobs in the Czech Republic, jobs in Brazil, jobs in America. And when they make it worth our while, we'll create jobs here. Until then, the working class can kiss our ass." [2]

On unemployment and cheap illegal-immigrant labor:

"He who does not work, does not eat." Otherwise you get absurd situations like that in much of Europe, where "unemployment" is over 10%, and yet thousands upon thousands of outsiders sneak in and find work immediately, while 35-year-old "students" live on disguised charity.

Why aren't those unemployed Spaniards down picking lettuce in Andalusia, instead of Moroccans? If they were cut off without a penny they'd be there, soon enough, and thankful for whatever they could get. [3]

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

The Palestinians have consistently, for over 80 years, rejected every compromise proposal, and have killed every Jew they could regardless of age or sex. Can any rational person doubt that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews if they could?

It is demonstrable fact that the Israelis _could_ destroy the Palestinians any time they wanted to; two weeks later, the only Arabs left west of the Jordan would be the dead. There would be an international hoo-haw for a couple of months, and then World Public Opinion, that fickle whore, would find something else to be concerned about. Nobody messes with a nuclear power.

They have the power and haven't used it, despite massive provocation. This shows the Israelis are more mild and considerate than common sense would dictate.

In 2000 the government of Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state roughly on the 1948 boundaries, and the Palestinians rejected it and launched a campaign of indiscriminate terrorism.

They deserve anything they're getting, and more. [4]

On Islam:

There is nothing in the basic texts of Christianity which presupposes agression or theocracy. You can twist them to support such abominations, and Ghu knows they have been so twisted in the past and by dwindling bands of nutbars in the present, but in and of itself Christianity is harmless enough as religions go. Rather quietistic and pacifistic, in fact, on a plain straightforward reading of the New Testament.

Mind you, I think Christianity is false-to-fact; I don't think Jesus was the son of God or rose from the dead on the third day. But in and of itself, it's a harmless enough religion, and in the past some sub-varients of it have played a role in Western civilization's break-through to a scientific worldview.

Islam, on the other hand, is just an enormous mistake; one of humanity's bigger ones. It's also extremely effective _as a religion_, that is, as a self-perpetuating set of memes. That's another reason it would be a good thing for humanity if it were to Go. [5]

GCarty 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The above is certainly evidence of forceful (and in my mind rather imature) opinions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It also displays a strong dislike for Islam and a disbelieve in a literal interpretation of the new testament. It does not imply support for e.g. the war in Iraq, or Atheism (in fact, the term "I don't think Jesus was the son of God" implies accceptance of the existance of "God", although this may just be a misstatement). --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, on Iraq specifically we have this:

Iraq is the road to Saudi Arabia; control of the Iraqi oil reserves destroys the Saudi position, both economically and politically.

Saudi Arabia has an enormous debt load and her per-capita GDP has declined by about 75% since the 1980's. Once the Iraqi fields are back on-line, and under the control of a government beholden to the US, prices will fall -- and the Saudis will be compelled to pump more oil to preserve market share and meet their repayment schedules.

Which will drive the price down further and wipe out OPEC's ability to control production, and give every member an incentive to maximize production. Think of it as a "virtuous circle".

[6]

on atheism we have:

I'm an atheist; I think all religions are so much twaddle. Some are more pernicious twaddle than others; ideas do have consequences. Of those with significant followings, Islam is without doubt the most harmful.

[7] - GCarty 18:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced on the atheism point and sufficiently convinced on the other points. Thanks for the research! BTW, why does he post as JoatSimeon (sp?)? --Stephan Schulz 19:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Joat" and "Simeon" are the two major characters in The City who Fought, Stierling's contribution to the "Ship who sang" series. Formaly this is co-authored with McCaffery, the original author of the series -- on internal evidence (my personal judgement of style, that is) it is largely Stirling's work. He has been using this handle since shortly after that book was published. DES 00:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Depiction of Psychopaths

I believe that a lot of the problems people have with Stirling's books, come from his use of multiple points of view, including those of psycopaths. He recounts the thoughts and motivations, not just the actions, of villains like Gwendolyn Ingolffson, Skilly and William Walker, without any "editorializing", relying on readers to make their own judgement of the character. And some of his readers, including some respected SF critics, have been silly enough to interpret the lack of authorial condemnation as approval.

So I suggest adding to the article something like:

Most of Stirling's novels use a psychopathic villain as a point of view, leaving it to readers to form their own judgements about characters.

This might be too POV or even come too close to original research. Does anyone agree with putting it in? Any other comments?

(Aside: Stirling is reported[8] to have said of the Draka series, "it's a dystopia, you twit".)

Chris Chittleborough 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What irritates me about Stirling is that he seems to take a certain pleasure in describing the psychopatic killer. Walker (from Island in the Sea of Time) is a reasonably believable villain. But Alice Hong is simply sick. She adds nothing but a slight nausea for me. Turtledove uses the "multiple viewpoints" technique much more extensively in the World War/Great War series. And his viewpoints include people like Molotov and equivalents to Hitler and Höß. Still, I never have the same kind of bad aftertaste when I read him that I have after reading some of the books of Stirling.--Stephan Schulz 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are so right about the bad aftertaste. I actually think that Stirling wants to generate that reaction; maybe I'm being naive. Chris Chittleborough 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that's his way of pushing his POV ("Western civilization is good, look how bad people act without it"). I have some sympathy with the first point (Gandhi jokes asside), but I think he overdoes it. --Stephan Schulz 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's just a problem of his use of POV characters. If you read enough of Stirlings work there are certain themes that pop up and are usually described positively, which we would object to, such as clientage. The use of these IMO goes beyond merely the disinterested portrayal of different societies.

Nantuckars = Colonial Imperialists?

Adam Keller (talk · contribs) added the following to the "Nantucket Series" section:

By the end of the third book, Nantucket is already in possesion of a sizeable and expanding colonial empire rather reminiscent of the British Empire (though Britain itself is here but one of Nantucket's protectorates and a source of "warrior tribes" to be enrolled as mercenaries in its armies), and in North America the "Nantuckars" seem well on their way to re-enact Manifest Destiny three thousand years earlier.

I've added a spoiler warning and rewritten that paragraph:

By the end of the third book, Nantucket is the dominant member of a sizeable and expanding network of allies, rather reminiscent of the British Empire (though Britain itself is here but one of Nantucket's protectorates and a source of "warrior tribes" to be enrolled as mercenaries in its armies), and the "Nantuckars" seem well on their way to re-enact Manifest Destiny three thousand years earlier.

Comments, please? Corrections and edits etc are also welcome, of course. Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I stick to the position that what the Nantuckars are depicted as doing is building up a colonial empire, which has all the political and economic hallmarks of one. After all, they are building up theur industrial base, and where are the markets to be found? (That, if you open any history textebook, is the basic function of a colony, whether or not you call it by that name.)

It is sometimes diffiuclt for people to admit that building an empire is what they are doing, especially for republics (it took the Romans some two centuries to admit that they were building and maintinaing an empire, and the Nantuckars are only one decade about it).

I admit, as empires go the Nantuckars are not the most cruel and ruthless (except towards the American Indians, towards whom they are clearly in the process of committing genocide). Many of them are decent and well-meaning persons (but you find these in the annals of all colonial empires).

But still, they don't lack for cruelty and ruthlessness. For example, bobmbing the Assyrians from the air, who were completely helpless against it. (Yes, the Assyrians themselves were quite cruel people - so were the nice friendly Babylonians. If you read the Book of Kings in the Bible, which was written by people who were on the receiving end of military campaigns by both Assyrians and Babylonians, you will find little difference between their methods.)

And there is the little matter of writing off Troy as expandable ater egging on its king to reject Walker's terms, by which they could have at least saved his and his people's their lives.

The saving grace which makes the reader identify with them is their outspoken opposition to slavery. But the British Empire took over much of Africa in the Nineteenth Century while making a real and sincere effort to stamp out slavery. I am not cynical, it was a real and sincere and quite succesful fight to destroy slavery, many British lives were lost in it - but the countries concerned ended up as colonies for the next century or so, and were subject to all kinds of opression and expoloitation less brutal than slavery, but highly unpleasant in themselves at times to those on the receiving end.

Anyway, by the end of the third book the Nantuckar have to compromise about slavery, too. Their friend Ulysess is a more pleasnt charcter than Walker (and certainly than Walker's consort) but is he going to close down the slave markets? Not bloody likely.

Styrling makes an enormous effort to make the left-wing woman protagonist in the first part look not only repulsive but also ridiculous. (She wants to help the Indians and they get her raped by a TIGER, ha ha ha, very funny!). But the misgivings which she voices when Nantucket embarks on this road were quite cogent.

But anyway, you accepted that the "sizeable and expanding network of allies" of which Nantucket is "a dominant partner" is indeed compareable to the British Empire. This seems to concede my point. A rather clumsy euphmism...

Adam Keller (Adam Keller 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)).

The analysis, regardless of its merits, sounds like something you would find in a review or a critical paper rather than an encyclopedia. Wouldn't [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Wikipedia is not: a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews] apply? Ahasuerus 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that User:Adam Keller's comments are relevant to the article, albeit for rather circuitous reasons. Many readers of Stirling's books come away wondering whether he's a ruthless racist. Even The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, whose authors are normally very perceptive, wrote that Stirling presents the Draka occupation of Europe "with seeming affection" (quoting my 1993 edition). That's the big question the many people coming to the article Stirling will want information on, IMO, so we should something about his politics. We do have some stuff that shows (IMO) that he's not advocating Nazi-style racism. (As discussed above, people are disconcerted by the way he uses ruthless racists as POV characters with no editorializing.) But he might still be a America-uber-alles type, or maybe he's a Libertarian, or even in the political middle. As I understand it, Adam Keller and I are trying to work out how the article should describe — or hint at — his politics.

(From what I remember from reading his newsgroup, I'm pretty sure Mr Stirling would be happy to have provoked this discussion, and happier that it is so hard to characterize his politics.)

Actually, I think I had better re-read the books before I reply to Adam Keller, which will take me a few days.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the question is about Stirling's politics, then we can simply quote him, e.g. he is generally pro-market God save us from a government that "creates jobs" or "protects jobs", but at the same time he is an environmentalist, pro-gay rights and a self-described Democrat. He has posted so much over the years that you can make the politics section as detailed as you want without being forced to resort to hints.

As far as that Encyclopedia of Science Fiction quote goes, the article already has Stirling's response (the quote about "idiots") in Conquistador, doesn't it? Ahasuerus 15:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Adam Keller

By the end of the third book, Nantucket is already in possesion of a sizeable and expanding colonial empire rather reminiscent of the British Empire... Adam Keller

Certainly comparisons to the British Empire can be drawn, but the differences are more important than the similarities, so that saying they have such an empire is misleading. At the end, Nantucket controls a largish territory in NE North America, a nascent colony in South America, and an expanding network of bases and trading posts around the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. And then there's Britain, where Nantucket does have a considerable of control. But it seems to me that, after the generation of Americans dies, the Britons are as likely to absorb Nantucket as the reverse.

While Nantucket has relationships with and some influence over its wartime allies (Babylonia and Hatti) and its defeated enemies (Tartessos, Greece, and Egypt), it doesn't control any of them. The main difference from the British Empire is that, with a population of only 30k or so, Nantucket can't seriously expect to dominate the Great Kingdoms, each of which have populations in the millions.

After all, they are building up theur industrial base, and where are the markets to be found? (That, if you open any history textebook, is the basic function of a colony, whether or not you call it by that name.) AK

But they're also building up the industrial base (and agricultural, intellectual, medical, etc. bases) of friendly nations, knowing that richer trading partners are better trading partners.

I admit, as empires go the Nantuckars are not the most cruel and ruthless (except towards the American Indians, towards whom they are clearly in the process of committing genocide). AK

Huh!?!? They're clearly doing what they can—which is not much—to stop the spread of epidemic diseases among the Indians. And they have laws against stealing lands from the Indians. What are you calling "genocide"?

And there is the little matter of writing off Troy as expandable ater egging on its king to reject Walker's terms, by which they could have at least saved his and his people's their lives. AK

It seems to me they supported Troy with as much firepower as they had within reach. Maybe it was a long shot, but the city might have held out. In hindsight, they might have used the airship's return trips to evacuate some of the women and children.

Anyway, by the end of the third book the Nantuckar have to compromise about slavery, too. Their friend Ulysess is a more pleasnt charcter than Walker (and certainly than Walker's consort) but is he going to close down the slave markets? Not bloody likely. Adam Keller

All of the Great Kingdoms still have slavery. That simply shows that Nantucket doesn't control them. Getting rid of slavery is a long-term proposition, mostly done by replacing slave labor with machines.

(By the way, IIRC, "Nantucktar" was just the Babylonian term, not in general use.)

—wwoods 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "ally"

Ordinary countries have allies, Empires very often have allies, too. But is is not exactly the same. Being an empire's ally is not exactly an equal relationship. Rome had many allies which ended up being provinces. Judea was originally the ally of Rome, the Romans helped the Judeans get free of Seleucid rule; it ended with the Romans destroying Jerusalem and the Temple, when the Judeans took their wish to be free too seriously. (This is part of my own history, so my history teacher in the school at Tel-aviv went through it at length). Corinth in Greece also started as an ally of Rome (liberated by Rome of Macedonian tyranny) and in the end was destroyed and razed to the ground by the Romans, to be re-founded a century later as a Roman colony pure and simple.

In more modern times, Egypt was officially an ally of the British Empire, never a colony. Actually, Britain and Egypt were (in theory) co-equal rulers of the Sudan. But nobody was really deceived, neither the British nor the Egyptian - certainly not when the British flung so many Egyptian nationalists into prison for wanting to be independent.

Also, throughout British rule in India, half the territory of India was ruled by "native rulers" who were supposedly the allies of Britain, not her subordinates.

So, Nantucket has allies. Are they equals? Obviously not. Babylon is not a sovereign state, and its king realizes as much and tries to make the best of it. It is also not precisely a colony. Babylon is a protectorate, run very much in the way that the British run their protectorates. (When Jordan was a British protectorate, King Hussein had a British wife and a British commander for his army. The thrifty Nantucket Yankees manage to make do with one person for both roles). If this King or his successor would take action which seems detrimental to Nantucket's interests, would he retain his throne? I rather doubt it. And Hatti seems headed the same way.

This does not mean that the Nantucket people are nasty, power-mad imperialists - far from it. Empire-builders often are not. The Romans did not want to found an empire, many of them felt (correctly) that it would destroy what they thought of as the best characteristics of Rome. Still, they did found an empire. It is the result which counts. "An expanding network of bases and trading posts around the Atlantic and Indian Oceans" is more or less what the Portuguese had established in the Sixteenth Century, and which is counted by historians as having been the world's first colonial empire. It took the Portuguese a century and half of constant exploration and expansion to achieve this much.

Nantucket has gained far more, after a mere ten years, and is in the process of constant expansion. Of course, the technological gap between them and the rest of the world is far wider than for the 16th Century Portuguese with the non-European world. Also, they have the whole history of the previous empires to learn from and improve upon.

For example, the British had (still have, though they don't really need it any more) the Rock of Gibraltar, a single spot on the strategic straits connecting the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. Nantucket goes one better and takes up the whole of the strait, with control of a continuous strip of territory on both sides. Then, the British had Malta, Nantucket has Sicily which is far bigger.

The next obvious step is to get at Egypt and dig the Suez Canal, in order to obviate the need of going around Africa (Stirling already has some experience in getting the the canal dug ahead of schedule...) In fact, this process already began. Ramses was conspicuously excluded omitted from the little summit held in Nantucket at the end of the last book, and Nantucket already started upon the task of subverting his generals. Probably Egypt is soon going to experience a "change of dynasty" which will make it Nantucket's ally, too...

True, Nantucket has a population of only 30k or so (though they are working hard to expand it, with all the immigrants coming in and trying so hard to learn the Yankee-accented English). Classical Athens did not have much more than that when it built itself a fair-sized empire, and that without having any special technological or scientific advantage over its subjects. (By the way, the term "Athenian Empire" was invented by modern historians. The Athenians called it "alliance" and everybody was their "ally", but modern historians, looking at the power relationships, decided that "empire" was the more correct term.)

Indeed, Nantucket has much less population than Britain at the 19th and early 20th Centuries. But then, the population of Babylon, Hatti etc. in the Bronze Age was only a small fraction of the population of India at the 19th and early 20th Centuries,when the British dominated it 9and a lot more around the globe). The ration of populations might be roughly the same.

Re the Indians. In the first book it appears that when a modern white person just accidentally sneezes on an Indian, the Indian falls down and soon dies, and nothing can save him. Given that situation, the only decent thing to have done is not go to the mainland at all, or - if some resources from there are needed for bare survival - to avoid all contact with the Indians and devise some kind of protective suits which Nantucket people would wear while on the mainland.

Obviously, Nantucket did nothing remotely the like. In the beginning of the second book we hear of diseases ravaging and decimating the local Indian population, and of a chief who succeeded in organizing the remnants and survivors into a kind of new tribe. He and his people are not regarded exactly as allies, more as potential enemies. (Which is perfectly understandable, given the the circumstances.)

Later on, there is the description of what a beautiful place the Nantuckars have made of Long Island, with the casual mention that only archaeologists could find traces of the Indians who used to live there (just ten years previously). This looks to me very like committing genocide and benfititng from the result.

In the third book, the ground rules are suddenly and inexplicably changed. The indians are no longer so vulnerable, a band of enterprising young Nantuckars can go right across the continent without spreading disease and death everywhere they go. An Indian woman is not harmed by living closely among them and even regularly having sex with one of them, and for sure being accidentally sneezed at more than once and getting big doses of their microbes in all kinds of intimate other ways.

The only thing threatening the Indians' health is now the introduction of severe plagues from which also white people can and do die in multitudes. Stirling offers no explanation for this drastic change. So, the third book thankfully does not have anything suggesting genocide. Still, the scenes in California suggest very strongly what Britain, France, Holland and others did with Indians in North America in the 17th and 18th Centuries - i.e., each power had its own pet tribes which were used against the other powers, which certainly was not to the Indians' ultimate advantage. (At the end of the California episode, Stirling indeed has one of the Indian allies of Nantucket perceptively question whether this alliance would be to his people's ultimate interest.)

Fortunately, in this world there are no hordes of land-hungry Europeans ready to flood North America (though intensive industrialisation might create them within some generations). So Indian tribes living inland are probably more or less safe from total dispossession for a considerable time. It seems the ones living near both the Alantic and Pacific shores are in for hard times.

Re Troy: There can be question that Nantucket is morally responsible for what happened. When somebody is getting the kind of threat which Walker made, you DON'T actively encourage him to resist unless you have a very good reason to think that you can REALLY help him. They should have known that it would take a considerable time to prepare the expedition in Britain and even more to fight their way through Tartessos (and, had they not thought up the ingenious way of getting rid of Walker, even much more time to fight through the whole of Walker's empire). They should have rrealised that there was a very strong possibility they might not get to troy in time.

Either they still thought they could do it, and encouraged the Trojans on this base, in which case they are culpable of a disastrous miscalculation which caused the death, suffering, torture and slavery of very many innocent people. Or they knew they might not not be able to do it, and encouraged the Trojans nevertheless because the siege would keep Walker busy and expand his resources - which would make them into real bastards.

Actually, I think the first is the more likely - or rather, that when Stirling wrote the second book he thought that Troy could be saved, and when starting to write the third and calculating all the factors he realized that it could not. That is probably why there are so few scenes taking place in the besieged troy and why Stirling takes care not to have any Trojans presented as real characters which the reader could get to like and would be shocked at what happens to them. The spotlight is placed elsewhere, on the typical "colonial outpost holding out against savage hordes" sequence which could be placed in the annals of any empire. Surely it would have been more interesting to show what a scholar who knows Homer by heart would make of the the actual Troy? (His later conversation with Ulysses is unquestionably one of the best part in the book).

And please don't get me wrong. Saying "colonial empire" does not mean that I say the Nantuckars are monsters. Far from it. I rather like the characters, and could to a considerable degree identify with them (why else should I read these books?). And at least in this series Stirling lets the Good Guys win in the end, as is expected in the genre. (I can also enjoy reading well-written books about the British Empire and identify with the protagonists to a considerable degree.)

I don't know if you know what Marx wrote about the British Empire of his time. In essence it was something like this: "The British are bringing railways and industrialization to India and creating there a modern society - that's good; the modern society which the British are creating will eventually kick them out - that's even better." This is pretty much what did happen in India, and that's what Marx would have probably said about Nantucket, too. Adam Keller 07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Emberverse series articles?

The pages for "Dies the fire," "The Protector's war," and "A meeting at Corvallis" have been deleted. They weren't exactly quality work, but they had a brief plot synopsis and a release date for the third book. Does anyone know what happpened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealhazel (talk • contribs)

• I checked the deletion logs and didn't find mention of these; are you sure they existed? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved

S.M. Stirling → S. M. Stirling – Naming conventions -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Yep, name violates Wikipedia conventions. CWC(talk) 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Moved. Teke ^(talk) 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of entire section from article

It appears that the entire section "Criticism of Stirling's Novels" has been removed. This is getting quite ridiculous! Are only panegyrics allowed here? I'm not being facetious but am seriously concerned. Here is the removed text:

[removed BLP violation --C S (Talk) 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)]

I think all these are fair criticisms and quite germane in the context of Stirling'sintensely controversial subject matter. --Stampcollector 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think about it. Source it, or don't bother including it. It doesn't seem to me you've even read the policy. Read it. There are plenty of links to it. --C S (Talk) 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1