(no subject)

[owl]

I picked up The Mote in God's Eye from a second-hand bookshop. I'd seen it around before, but the odd title put me off. So far it seems good—Royal Navy in space, strange object to be investigated, crew with strong humorous Scottish accents. I'm beginning to see why this site makes fun of Neofeudalism and Empires in Space—they seem to turn up fairly frequently.

Comments

[leeflower.livejournal.com]

heh, thanks for both the book rec and the webiste link. Funny site!

Also, your icon is cool.

[owl]

Yeah, it's hilarious, isn't it?

[leeflower.livejournal.com]

It's a good one.

I love the sort of dry wit that goes into the definitions. They're both accurate and funny-- real encyclopedias should be like that (except when they shouldn't).

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Definitely a strange book. One of the best explorations of cultures that almost understand each other but not quite.

[owl]

I wonder why first contact stories have so much better aliens than the ones where they're already part of the milieu? Aliens With Forehead Ridges...

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Good question that I may consider more deeply when I am more sober. Probably because of the potential for conflict and hence for reconsidering assumptions; if they're part of the background, they are part of the assumptions.

[krpalmer.livejournal.com]

When I think about it, "The Mote in God's Eye" could be a look at a "Galactic Empire" that has to deal with something other, and something more complicated, than just a typical space war. I'm not the hugest fan of "Neofeudalism" and "Empires in Space"--my reaction to the systems presented in books such as the Foundation Trilogy and Dune has grown to be, "Yes, I know representative democracy can collapse under its own weight--I'd like to know what I can do about it"--but that could be just me.

[owl]

I prefer non-homogenous galaxies, myself, so there's a few planets with mad dictators, some democratic ones, bizarre little neofeudal ones, ones where the rich rule everything (actually, that could cover all the above), and something with the effectiveness of the UN trying to organise things. It just seems more fun to play with than The Great Galactic Empire. And the Great Galactic Republic is even more boring, all it seems to be able to do is fall.

[liadnan]

Mmm. That book drives me up the wall actually, by reason of the political philosophy it pushes. Although it's really the sequel, The Moat Around Murchesons Eye (1993, The Gripping Hand in the US) that usually ends up being flung against the wall when I pick it up.

[owl]

What, aristocracy=good? I'm still not very far into it—you'd think having no job at the minute would give me more time to read, wouldn't you?

I ecpect I've been accustomed to Space Aristocracies by much LM Bujold at an impressionable age. Though a theme of that is 'what happens to a feudal society when it finds itself suddenly in the 30th century'.

[liadnan]

It gets (if hazy memory serves me) a bit more dodgy than that. Though on reflection the more objectionable stuff is probably all in the sequel, which was written in a rather different world, nearly 20 years later.
Pournelle and Niven -and S.M Stirling, who I think has co-authored with both, all tend to a particular version of American right-wingery. Though to be fair Pournelle firmly distances himself from neo-conservatism. He keeps a blog (though one thing I agree with him about it that the term is awful, plus he points out that he's been doing it since before the web, let alone the rise of blogging) at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/

[owl]

I cannot understand American politics. Which sort of right-wing? The Ian Paisley-type religious right, or the sort that wants loads of oil, or what? (It seems to me that all British parties apart from the BNP would probably find themselves on the left of American politics. I know I turn out to be liberal in their political ticky-boxes tests, rather than slightly-right-of-centre where I am in NI politics).

[liadnan]

Non-neo-con Republican tending to the libertarian. I think. Not religiouos right but not out of sympathy with them either. There's a post on that site half-heartedly defending Intelligent Design.
(NB that Heinlein also rated The Mote in Gods Eye)

[owl]

Oh, well, those aren't my buttons. I believe in God, so intelligent design doesn't bother me.
Heinlein, mind you...too much sex and not enough story, IMO.