I'm reading Leviathan by Scott Westerfeld, and I'm loving the Planescape-esque argot Deryn keeps using!!! :-D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
currently reading:
- For Your Own Good by Alice Miller
- The Princess Bride by William Goldman
|
Finished reading TIME SALVAGER, by Wesley Chu. Next, I will be mucking about in the Wheel of Time again, pushing to finish CROSSROADS OF TWILIGHT by the end of September. Series fatigue is definitly a presence in my WoT reading now, and the only thing keeping me going is the awareness that I am only two books away from where Brandon Sanderson took the helm, and from what I hear that is where things really start coming together.
That is not to say that this was a bad book, though. There were some pretty smart storytelling decisions. I liked that the semi post apocalyptic setting was not some vague "bad stuff happened" but actually a result of a rather detailed history of screw ups, wars and misfortunes that struck the human race. The best part about it is that the history is not just alluded to through dialog, but actually explored through time travel, helping even the "past" of the setting to be flashed out without any need for info dumping.
What I didn't like was the mechanics of time travel. The concept is sound - you only jump back in time to "dead timelines", that is to disaster zones where everybody and everything you are going to interact with is going to be dead/destroyed soon anyway, so your actions don't cause a change in the past. However, the details start getting really really fuzzy pretty fast. For example, every now and then someone screws up and "time ripples" expand forward in time, and someone else needs to step in and stop that before these ripples make it all the way to the present and change stuff - but what does that mean, exactly? at what "speed" do those ripples propagate? what does speed even mean, as a unit, when the movement is across time? (usually speed is unit/time, but time/time is unitless, which is a whole bag of weird). Further, at some point in the book it is discovered that a major historical event which played a big role in creating the crisis of the present in the book (that is the far future for the reader) is actually the result of a time traveller going back in time and planting a bomb somewhere. So we get a causality loop, which apparently isn't strange because the characters don't seem to be puzzled by this at all. But I thought the entire point of the mechanic of time travel was to prevent such causality loops so... what gives?
Anyway, despite not really having much fun reading the book itself, I'll probably read the sequel when it comes out, because the story really isn't done yet. It's in this uncanny valley of not-quite-bad-enough-to-abandon. Oh well.
The Tigress of Forli, a biography of Caterina Sforza by Elizabeth Ley. Because 15th century women did lead cavalry charges while pregnant.
Exercise is good for pregnancy.
Just finished Leviathan by Scott Westerfield, the first of a trilogy of alternate history of steampunk version of the Great War with genetically engineered airwhales in conflict with mechanical walking battleships and tanks.
About to start Devil Said Bang by Richard Kadrey, the fourth in the Sandman Slim series.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The latest in the continuing saga of Samnell Reads William W. Freehling. Fair warning: This chapter is deeply complicated. There are repeated references to "abolitionists" that one should take with a small mountain of salt. Freehling clearly knows they're not abolitionists in the Garriosnian sense, or even qualified antislavery, but "aboltionist" in the time and place tended to include anybody who expressed the slightest doubt about slavery, ever, no matter how tentatively. He forgets to make the distinction now and then between SC-sense abolitionism and the regular kind.
Also I think I got it at the end, but there's a point in the muddle where the plot is truly lost. I think Freehling gives a lot more credit than I would for impotent good intentions. There's probably a bit of an issue also in that he's writing before it was considered normal to delve into slave narratives to understand slavery. Not really his fault as a freshly-minded doctorate about five or six years before that started changing.
Section 1
Deep social anxiety shown in hysterical answer to harmless threat. SC lowcountry had “morbid sensitivity” to embryonic abolitionist movement in North. Actually distant threat even in ‘32. Still, lowcountry in regular uproar for decade before. Early 20s lowcountry into nullification “partly to win constitution protection against a nascent abolitionist crusade.” Hysteria served as measure of guilt & fear (probably more the latter) that made slavery disturbing.
Section 2
1820-32, very few saw robust future for antislavery movement. Entrenched reform movements in East more into temperance and Sunday schools. Those bothered by slavery usually joined American Colonization Society (ACS) and called it good. Society for removing free blacks, only “tangential interest” in freeing slaves.
Late 20s: a few antislavery types get a small movement going. ‘21: Benjamin Lundy starts The Genius of Universal Emanicpation newspaper. ‘28, William Lloyd Garrison takes over Bennington, VT Journal of the Times, writes first antislavery editorial & first petition. 2000+ signers. ‘29, David Walker, free black, publishes Appeal urges slaves to revolt. January 1, 1831, Garrison founds Liberator. By eve of crisis, Nat Turner and imagined connection with Garrison make the paper notorious.
But ‘32 Garrison has few supporters. New England Anti-Slavery Society founded at end of 1831, only gets 11 signatories to constitution. Fundraising: none bust $100 in contributions.
Bigger factor: “mounting evidence that the slavery issue could not be kept out of national politics.” 20s started with Missouri debates. Emotions raised scare pols, so leaders try to bury it. ‘24 OH legislature brings it back promoting national gradual emancipation. ‘26 presidential delegation to Panama Congress of Spanish-American nations causes freakout: delegates would have to deal with Haitian representatives. This would implicitly endorse slave revolts. ‘27 ACS asks congress for aid, bringing another fight. Hayne-Webster debates of ‘30 end up focused on slavery in this environment.
However, most Americans didn’t care. Even most Southerners not worked up. Slavery not a major national issue until gag rule controversy in mid-30s. SC unusual. So worked up “could not tolerate the slightest signs of a growing abolitionist attack.” Leading Charlestonian wrote in ‘23 “All the engines and all the means and machines, which talent, fanaticism, false charity, fashionable humanity, or jealousy or folly can invent, are in dreadful operation and array.”
SC especially saw ruin in emancipation. Abolition meant : plunder, rape, and murder. Slaves too savage and degraded for freedom, so ending slavery meant race war. Also, $80 million of slave property to lose. Upcountry might save themselves off land values, but tidewater had much larger investment, improved lands + slaves. Blacks could never work without the whip and the swamp would kill whites who tried to replace them. Frederick Dalcho of Charleston: “The richest, most productive land in the State, must be forever left waste. [...] Can we reasonably be expected to submit to this state of things? Certainly not by reasonable men.” Abolition bigger economic threat than any tariff.
Mere possibility of abolition enough to make slavery most explosive issue for Congress to face. Paranoia about it pervaded South throughout antebellum, becoming more intense with abolitionist successes. Lowcountry stubbornness in 20s “more explicitly a reaction to the first stages of the conflict over slavery.” Issue in transition era not whether slavery should be ended, but whether could even be discussed. If emancipation meant race war, then talk could incite servile insurrection. Abolitionists also forced defense of slavery, which many considered abomination they ought not defend.
Section 3
Late 18th century, Jefferson & Madison, other southerners, developed liberal philosophy still current in SC during Nullification. Pre-30s, often conceded slavery did not fit in land where men had natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Also insurrection legitimate when men deprived of those rights. Slaves listening to 4th July orations caused chills in bravest. Charlestonian: “The celebration of the Fourth of July, belongs exclusively to the white population. [...] In our speeches and orations, much, and sometimes more than is politically necessary, is said about personal liberty, which Negro auditors know not how to apply, except by running the parallel with their own condition.” Go figure.
Abolitionists held 4th for everyone, which turned any abolitionist tract “incendiary”. Must be kept from slaves. Declaration of Independence nearly as dangerous as Walker’s Appeal.
Lowcountry, high slave population and large number of recent imports, always most wary in whole South of revolts. Watched Missouri debates with concern. Governor John Geddes “the Missouri question ... has given rise to the expression of opinions and doctrines respecting this specie of property, which tend not only to dimiinish its value, but also to threaten our safety.” Calls for measures to oppose disruption of “our domestic tranquility.” Laws thus enacted to half increase of free blacks: no more freeing slaves, free blacks barred from state. Heavy penalties on selling “incendiary” papers.
Section 4
Nullification the work of many hands, but “most responsible” Denmark Vesey. (Section concerns Vesey as understood by SC whites, so more recent debates over just what, if anything, actually happened shouldn’t be relevant. Sources are white reports, accounting for some weirdness.)
Vesey bought self on lottery winnings. Did well as carpenter but “seethed” at slave status of “numerous” wives, children, and general white supremacy. Vesey “brilliant” well-read and traveled. Cited Bible, US political writings, Missouri debates to justify revolt. Since free, could move freely through black belt. Attacked blacks that endured insults. If slave stepped into street to let white by, Vesey “Would rebuke him, and observe that all men were born equal, and that he was surprised that anyone would degrade himself by such conduct; that he would never cringe to the whites, nor ought anyone who had the feelings of a man.” When told they were slaves, would answer that they deserved to remain so.
Vesey part of Africa Church. (AME of late shooting.) Slaves built it in December, 21. Connected to groups in Philadelphia, which informed Vesey’s politics alongside Missouri debates. Vesey considered blacks children of Israel, liked passages encouraging slaves to revolt. Joshua 4:21 “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”
Logic and preaching not working? No problem, Vesey used lies too. Said Congress freed slaves during Missouri debates, Haiti promised reinforcements to help revolt. Don’t want to join? Maybe he kills you. Had nasty temper. Conspirators claimed to fear him more than owners, Yahweh.
Vesey’s ideas fusion of Age of Reason, “ruthless savagery of a barbaric chief.” Lieutenant Gullah Jack, guy with tiny limbs, big whiskers, apparently creepy dude. Angola-born, came with other 40k imported to SC in early century. Worked as witch doctor. Vesey got him involved early on. Gave parched corn and ground nuts to eat on rebellion day, crab claw to carry. Would bring aid of African gods.
Vesey had more luck organizing in city than plantations. Country slaves heard about it, but communication with Charleston fell apart week before uprising. Vesey tried to help by scheduling revolt for Sunday, evening when some would come in canoes to sell in Charleston. Ultimately event mostly contained in city.
Country slave organization issues not determinative. Bigger issue: slaves of harsh masters not open to it. Too afraid. Slaves with “kindly” masters who felt something more like freedom more receptive. (Remember, this is the white SC POV.) Conspirators largely trusted house servants or mechanics who hired time and controlled shops. Risk inherent: better-treated slaves had more to lose. Might actually like owners in the qualified way a slave could. Recruiters told don’t trust slaves who have nice gifts from owners. Didn’t accomplish much. Most still trusted slaves.
Vesey depended on white carelessness. Patrols only armed with clubs and bayonets. Guard made cash selling alcohol to slaves and so didn’t enforce curfew. Go to the right bar and you’re fine.
Stables, arsenals unguarded. Slaves had access to horses. Some lived in livery stables. Easy mounts. Main door of arsenal easily forced. One guy had key to a store with 100s of muskets and powder. Neck arsenal, upper guardhouse, powder magazine all similarly easy.
Conspiracy meant to take advantage of previous. Rebels had six units for surprise attack. Gather separately but strike at once. Vesey, Peter Pyoas would pose as white. Vesey ordered two good wigs. Planned to just walk into guardhouse. If challenged, help already on the way. After guardhouse, would pass out guns from arsenal. Gullah Jack would take store with guns & powder. Ned Bennett, neck arsenal. Others major roads.
Attackers would face cavalry. Slaves would stand ready in gardens of mansions to kill owners who took to streets. Houses isolated from street would make easier. Revolt to begin at midnight.
To win, needed complete victory in first phases. If successful, almost all town arms all in slave hands. Plan geared for taking Charleston. Beyond that vague. Poyas wanted to hold town against whites. Vesey wanted to sail for Haiti.
Plans start in ‘17 when blacks opt to leave white churches for own. Delayed when whites break up church in 20. New church in 21, in suburbs, ideal meeting place. Late spring 22 Vesey makes tentative plans, set for Bastille Day. Divided units based on original tribal affiliations.
May 30, house servant talks. Fingers William Paul, secondary figure in plan. Paul confesses next morning. Implicates Mingo Harth, Peter Poyas, two major guys. Both laugh it off well enough to convince the whites. Paul in solitary.
June 8, Paul fingers Ned Bennett, trusted house servant of Gov. Thomas Bennett. Bennett cooperates, denies it all. Whites convinced Paul lying. Second close call in 10 days.
Conspirators worried. Can only get lucky so often. Vesey moved date up to June 16. June 14, second conspirator fesses up. Indendent Hamilton, Gov. Bennett in frenzy. Order our 5 companies on 16th, commanded by Col. Robert Y. Hayne. Vesey suspends plot. Uneasy night in the mansions. Lowcountry never forgot the close call. Edwin C. Holland: “Let it never be forgotten that “our NEGROES are truly the Jacobins of the country; that they are the anarchists and the domestic enemy; the common enemy of civilized society, and the barbarians who would, IF THEY COULD, become DESTROYERS of our race.”
Next 2 months, 35 blacks hanged, 37 others banished. Rebels wept openly. Poyas asked if wanted to murder his owner. Smiled. Leaders refused to name names, meaning Charleston knew conspirators still loose.
Planters had large numbers of slaves, believed Africans savages, now at Gullah Jack and tribal loyalty to remember. Charleston fretted over example of Haiti and possible connection with Vesey. Fact that most famous personal servants in state made it seem no one could be trusted. Gov. Bennett left wife and children with Rolla when away. Rolla in on conspiracy.
Biggest legacy: compulsion to answer abolitionist propaganda and stop slavery debates in Congress. Considered debates a cause of revolt. Fruits of abolitionism. Proved abolitionists wanted race war.
Section 5
Vesey set off “most serious” panic in lowcountry in decade before Nullification. X-mas even, 25, $80k in fire damages on King Street. Night after night for 6 months, arsonists torch buildings, sometimes 5 in a night. Late January, city council offers 1k reward for capture of arsonists. Mid-Feb, mobs lynch suspects. Slaves always blamed, at least three convicted. Before spree ended, 100k fire again on King street.
Charleston Fire Scare of 26 similar to Vesey scare. 22 conspiracy, despite planning, seemed bit wild. “Grotesque fantasy.” But if couldn’t buy race war, then all owners fretted by passive resistance, sabotage. Unorganized campaign to set fires fit in that. Fires kept Vesey fears alive.
If Vesey, Fires alarmed, then lack of spreading revolt reassured. Conspiracy easier in city, but easier to put down. In summer, Charleston almost half white. Out on plantations, overwhelmingly black. Conspiracy-free idea of plantation broken by discovery of plot in Georgetown. Jails packed with suspects. One guy advises to take care to keep enough slaves to bring in the rice. At least six rebels convicted and hanged, maybe more.
29: Georgetown council asks 5k of state for guard. Upcountry opposes heavily, but money sent. Year later, Georgetown asks more. Appeal essentially admits slaves almost out of control. Committee on Finance agrees, thinks if guard removed all the revolts come back. Committee list of issues: “The existence of insubordination among the slaves, the immense number of that class of population in the surrounding county, the sparseness of the White population, the extreme sickliness of the climate in the summer easy and consequently the almost total desertion of the Town during that period.” But upcountry blocks 30 appropriation.
Georgetown, like Vesey, pinned on Yankee abolitionists. Rice planters point to Yankee peddlers who meet slaves in night, trade alcohol for stolen supplies, talk of civil rights. Charles C. Pinckney (Constitution signer), rice planter, estimates with 50 years experience that quarter of his rice stolen.
22, 26, 29 conspiracies worried lowcountry, but Nat Turner took the fear statewide in 31. Turner’s 70+ murdered almost 60 whites, most successful antebellum rebellion. Far from SC, never spread, but threat of good example made for panic. Columbia vigilance association: 1,500 reward for capture of any distributing “incendiary pamphlets”. Camden: patrol ordered maneuver “with added vigor”. Laurens: 2 slaves convicted of announcing what they’d do if Turner came by. Union: “a great many” jailed, women, children gathered together for better guarding. Charleston, rumors of bloody uprisings at Cheraw, Georgetown force Robert Y. Hanye, Henry L. Pinckney to issue calming statements. Legislature approves 100 man cavalry unit, Charleston Horse Guard. At least one upcountry county did similar.
To white SC, cause of Turner as scary as chance for spread. VA Gov John Floyd claimed Yankee peddlers at root of Turner, nurtured in black churches, slaves turned to “madmen” but Jesus + abolition tracts in public letter to SC Gov. Hamilton.
Decades of calm didn’t count for much in lowcountry due to high black population. Four serious insurrections in a decade pre-Nullification looked like a trend, especially coming after white attacks on slavery. Vesey two years after Missouri, Nat Turner less than year after Garrison’s Liberator. By 32 lowcountry convinced even slight antislavery growth leading to increasing revolts.
In long run, decade of Vesey-Turner “great period of slave conspiracies in SC.” Maybe abolitionists influenced slaves by making masters uneasy and thus vulernable-looking. Could have read into owners hesitancy in face of antislavery attack. After 35, “positive good” and tighter control, less dare revolt. By 60 SC probably less worried about it. Conspiracies and fear product zeitgeist of south in transition, as SC works up to defending an abomination against “outsiders who believed abominations should be abolished”
Section 6
Can read too much into slave revolts. Small minority engaged in overt resistance. Planters sometimes feared slaves, but also viewed as “their people” with affection and “parental duty”. Wasn’t all white-knuckle paranoia. BBQ, X-mas, homecoming exaggerated myth of plantation life, but met real need to read slaves with a kind of affection. Utopian myth reassured, but also expressed ideal vision of life. In myth, slaves love masters who love back. No tension, punishment, violence, master and slave live together happy.
But even if life imitated myth, slaveholders woul dhave had issues. 4th July would keep contradiction between freedom & slavery in mind. SC social code worked against idyllic myth. Insists on conversation between equals, condemning slave it also required to fawn. Slave hopelessly degraded. Even on own terms, utopian plantation illegitimate form of exploitation.
Reality rarely approached myth. Slaves could live up to fawning stereotype. Owners could indulge house servants and develop kind of friendship. But every planter had resistant slaves. Imposing discipline made for “grim, ugly way of life.” White lament, slavery subjected: “the man of care and feeling to more dilemmas than perhaps any other vocation he could follow.”
Dilemmas all about problem of control. Vesey showed indulged slaves could resist. Few went to Rolla Bennett extremes, but resistance through sabotage, laziness. Stock portrait of slaves: happy and banjo-strumming, bloodthirsty savage, outwardly innocent but cunning laborer who could cleverly misunderstand, loiter, destroy. A soft touch would not in itself stop rebellions or produce efficiency. Punishment, whipping, etc accepted as necessary.
Planters tried to escape reality. Pre-Vesey, owners bragged about progress in liberal slaveholding. Tried no whipping and positive incentives. In Charleston, slaves let gather without supervision for socialization, religion. Many given comforts, allowed education. Vesey proved this could not endure. Must crack down for, period quote “on the only principle that can maintain slavery, the principle of fear.”
Whipping distasteful to those who bought into myth of slave-as-friend. Upsetting to whip house slaves one was close to. issues most clear in Charleston, where many slaves personal servants and whipping had to be done by owner, not some overseer. Charleston council voted in 25 to built treadmill in workhouse masters could use instead of whipping. Very popular with them.
Large planter might be close to house slaves, but less issue with field workers. But still “his people”. Most successful rigid and strict rarely need to punish, but even they needed “break in” slaves. Overseers could never forgo lash for long.
Some planters had limits they couldn’t get past, even with tortured consciences. Cause of some lazy pace, inefficiencies on plantations in decline. But those who couldn’t go there often ende dup whipping all the same, often whipping more than the strict ones in the end. Weak discipline encouraged resistance, even occasionally to violence. James Edward Calhoun, in 26, sees James Kirk. Told by him if Kirk lives 10-15 years longer, slaves would take control over him. Whips in passion, often for no reason, then is guilty.
In late 20s, leading SC whites admit laxity frequent. Suspect covert abolitionists. Soil slave, then go severe, which prompts running. Smartest slaves sent out of state because can’t be governed. Southern Review argues “great evil of the system is its tendency to produce in process of time, laxity of discipline, and consequently, disorders and poverty … by the excessive indulgence of careless or too scrupulous masters...some of the worst symptoms of the time are owing to this ill-judged, but we fear, inevitable facility and indulgence.” (Terrible how slavery didn’t make people evil enough.)
Guilt more than philosophical. Gulf between myth and practice significant in every discipline issue. Planters who skipped fear for kindness courted bankruptcy, revolt. Inconsistent punishment had flareups, needed to sell rebellious. Consistent had least trouble long run, but always had to go through breaking-in people.
Many planters not fussed by this. Morality and discipline issues not a significant burden for them. Other extreme, few sold out to get out of driving slaves. Others managed by treating slaves kindly, discipline permitting. Plantations fall apart with control running on indulgence and incentive. Punishment and fear made kindness more effective. But kindness never quite enough.
Section 7
High concentration of slaves in lowcountry SC made for uprising fears, but might also have increased guilt, largely around malaria. Masters feel obligation to slave health, but know working them in swamps puts at risk of debilitation and death. Many probably ignored it, but others managed it by hiring doctors. Some couldn’t get past it even with doctors, since they put slaves at risk to start. Reveal doubts with frequent false claims that blacks outirght immune to swamp disease. Protesting too much. One wrote it down in journal. Lengthy quote from James Hammond about how he tended to sick and fretting about how they’ll get sick again. Includes line “Feel uneasy about it.” Later on notes his slaves dying faster than new are born. “One would think from this statement that I was a monster of inhumanity. … Yet this one subject has caused me more anxiety and suffering than any other in my life.”
Disease pushed planters to rely on overseers, raises other issues. Contracts required overseers to treat slaves moderately. Overseers often fired for failing to do so, too much whipping and too little medicine given out. But real metric of overseer success always crop yield. Like slave traders, overseers more involved in brute capitalist side of slavery than paternalism. Helped earn them loathing. Young, often incompetent, and on their own, probably made slavery worse. Hammond specifically blames cruelty on absentee enslavers, overseers.
Absenteeism puts planters in paradox. Shielded from how they make their money during summer and so able to ignore cruelty more, owners of hundreds who rarely saw them also had few personal ties that might mitigate worse of exploitation. But also had the leisure and cash to spend on moral debates. Less refined planters with personal engagement less likely to have doubts. Possibly explains why Charleston interested in “liberal” discipline.
Freehling calls whole section speculative. (Telling he only has Hammond quotes.) Thinks diseases, overseers, and absenteeism might have intensified guilt in lowcountry. However, still less important than intense fear of revolt. Unease either way.
Section 8
SC insecurity factored into debate over religious training of slaves in 20s, 30s. Southern divines insist salvation rests on conversion in life. But need to know Bible to convert for real. THus enslavers have to teach. But religion open to liberationist readings, as VEsey and Turner demonstrate. And literate slaves could read Garrison as easily as Paul. Dilemma between personal religious obligation and personal property defense, SC “writhed over the subject of religion for slaves until well into the 1830’s.”
Pre-Vesey, many indifferent to religious education. Some slaves learned to read for Bible. Others run classes out of white churches. Others form own churches. But Vesey demonstrated risk. Classes and churches disbanded. Rev. Richard Furman: Bible approves of slavery, but Gospel for everyone regardless of status. Reading Bible required of all. Teaching literacy largely over by 22, but not legally forbidden for a decade thereafter. Even oral instruction frowned on. Some slaves go to church with owners, but no missionaries going out into swamp to find the majority. Slave preachers fill the cap, but soon discouraged by planters. Most lowcountry planters consider Christian slaves laziest and hardest to manage. Thus most slaves in lowcountry de facto left without.
Late 20s suppression uncomfortable for whites. Charles C. Pinckney requested a missionary for his slaves, caused controversy. He argued slave preachers bring persecution, secret meetings. Best way to fight slave preachers was with white preachers.
Pinckney reaction minor compared to Beaufort planters two years after. Caught up in revival, several form association to support traveling missionaries. As slaves “dependent” planters must train slaves in religion. Call for crusade to save souls. Henry L. Pinckney (relation to Charles?), editor Charleston Mercury, toned down association’s plea before publication. Plan widely condemned. Still attacking idea 3 years later. Idea did not spread to other parishes. Mercury never prints anything about it again.
Now and then someone started sunday school for slaves, but planters usually got in the way. In 33, Francis Goulding founded one in Columbia. Slaves needed written permission to come, classes open to white observation. Goulding started with pictures instead of text, but community realized that’s how children learned. Demanded something else. Goulding switched to slips of paper with quotes, which slaves had to give to owners. Owners would read aloud until slaves memorized. Slaves figured out how to recognize words, ended up literate. Goulding finally gave over to strictly oral instruction and no homework. Even then often called to answer city council. Late 33, forced to give itup when locals learn he’s a colonizationist.
Basic problem: planters did not trust clergy and teachers who volunteered. Had a point: no other SC or US group criticized slavery so severely. Synod of SC, GA ministers in Columbia, Dec 33, demanded slaves be taught Gospel and spoke of institution:
“We are chained to a putrid carcass; it sickens and destroys us. We have a millstone hanging about the neck of our society, to sink us deep in the sea of vice. Our children are corrupting [sic] from their infancy; nor can we prevent it. … If that were all, it would be tremendous. But it follows us into youth, into manhood, and into old age. And when we come directly in contact with their depravity in the management of them; then comes temptations and provocations and trials that unsearchable grace only can enable us to endure.”
Planters not fond of this stuff, unlikely to trust slaves with authors even if clergy big on how bible loves slavery.
Early 30s, Thomas Clay of GA argues clergy shortage requires planters to run nightly services. Late antebellum, people adopt idea but in 30 SC, angrily opposed. Inspired one lowcountry planter to wonder if he was really himself a planter. Evangelical preaching big on inspiration and persuasion, planters reply on discipline, command. Also Baptist/Methodist minister more exhorter than commander. Good slave management required complete supremacy. Overseer/owner turned preacher risked ambiguity, undermined authority. Whitemarsh Seabrook (future secession conspirator in 50, 51) thought whole thing designed to undermine slavery.
Discipline prevents planters from solving religious problem, even if they preached themselves. Most argue special education for slaves if preachers orthodox on slavery, oral-only. Clergy too suspect for much ground to be gained until late 30s. By 33, only 12 white men n whole South working entirely to minister to slaves. Only one in 20 member of white church. Sermons pitched to well-educated whites, so often lost on slaves. (Curious if Freehling would stand by that today.) Slaves in white churches noted for “their stupid looks, their indifferent staring, their profound sleeps, and their thin attendance.” With revivals sweeping South, contradiction heightened.
Section 9
After 36, few admit openly that slaveholding presents moral problems. But in 20s, frequent condemnations. Even defenders of slavery in Congress, in 28, do not defend institution itself. Don’t even make argument for amelioration by compassion, religion. Instead “bitter draught, and the chalice which contains the nauseous potion, is, perhaps, more frequently pressed by the lips of the master than of the slave.”
Though a curse, per SC of 20s, necessary evil which South did not originate, could do nothing to end. Villains were yankee slave traders, who “forced slaves on resisting southerners in colonial days.” Victims not slaves, but planters who had to enslave them to avoid race war. Yankees treat free blacks worse than South does slaves. Slaves protected from sickness, old age, unemployment vulnerabilities.
SC admitted slavery evil in 20s, tolerated idealists publishing emancipation. Lesson of Vesey, per 22 pamphlet, was “indulgent masters were the first sacrificed”. Slaves needed “great severity” but “God forbid that such a plan be adopted! Humanity forbids it.” Way out of dilemma: convert sand hills and pine barrens to wineries, cultivating white population sans slavery that would make space for emancipation. Robert Mills, future Washington Monument architect, suggests draining swamps. Lowcountry would be healthy for whites then. Profits from white labor then used to emancipate, colonize. Frederick Dalcho, Charleston minister, in 23, hopes free states would buy plantations and slaves, send slaves off to Africa. Expected SC planters to sell eagerly, even at a loss. Yeah, right.
Most SC whites reject “utopian” schemes. Committee of state House argued government can’t confiscate, must buy. Thus freedom would cost SC 80mil, before colonization costs. Abolition right in theory, impossible in practice. Thus no sense in allowing antislavery talk. Committee concluded slave unrest because of such talk.
Necessary evil argument lacked persuasive foundation. SC mind divided against self. Evil rests on idea that utility appropriate standard for politics, expediency chief restraint. But SC whites, as Chrisitans and Americans, argued action must derive from the right, a priori postulates. SC wanted to believe slavery should remain because necessary, but couldn’t overcome argument that if wrong, must be abolished on natural rights grounds. Even if could settle on South preserving the evil, could not escape personal responsibility for involvement. They could have lived in some other place, away from slaves. Chose to stay.
Planters in contact with Yankees, often beat in debate, sometimes persuaded to covert abolitionism. Yankee peddlers lead planters astray too, or so claimed by other planters. Fears of intellectual colonization by antislavery north. Lowcountry moderate, John Townsend: “The chances are as ten to one” abolitionists could “exhort” “some admissions which are neither true in principle or in fact...witness the effects of the too easy acquiescence of Planters in the doctrines and schemes of these wily plotters. … What means the womanish qualms of conscience which we so often witness among many of our own citizens, as to the justice and morality of keeping men in bondage?” Argues every planter should devote himself to proslavery dogmas. (If this guy is moderate, suggests Freehling read way too much into some pro forma doubts.)
Several SC whites publish proslavery polemic in 20s. Early versions of positive good argument. Indicate sensitivity to undeveloped abolitionist movement before 32. Small number arguing for positive good demonstrate unease which kept SC high-strung and sensitive. Most advanced proslavery men reluctant to call slavery good in 20s. Lots of qualifiers.
Theorists often ministers, see abolitionists as threat to their congregations’ orthodoxy. In answer to Vesey, Richard Furman 23 argues planters “embarrassed” by moral arguments, slaves denied permission to read. Both problems fixed if community accepts slavery as Biblically “lawful and right.” Then planters could let slaves read and hear preaching, since would not be perverted by abolition ideas.
But in 20s, still qualifiers. Lot of the oppressed should everywhere be ameliorated. Frederick Dalcho prayed slaves eventually freed, colonized. Furman saw liberty still as big deal, even if slavery right.
Secular defenses also qualified. 22, Edwin Holland argues slavery ancient institution, approved in Bible, necessary for lowcountry, but slavery “an evil, the curse of which is felt and acknowledged by every enlightened man in the Slave-holding States.”
Whitemarsh Seabrook publishes tract pointing to worldwide antislavery advance, argues planters must gird for fight. But confesses southerners “detest” slavery.
Edward Brown 26 publishes similarly. Slavery necessary step to civilization. Universal quality “barbarism”. But also attacks southerners who argue slaves have it easy. Slavery “alien to the feelings and principles of the human mind”. Praised societies free from it.
Gov. Stephen D. Miller, 29, calls for tariff fight to check abolitionists. Goes beyond necessary evil. Slavery “national benefit.” “Upon this subject it does not become us to speak in a whisper, betray fear, or feign philanthropy.”
Benefit is rice and cotton. Slavery no worse than free labor, philosophically. Slavery better “from a political POV.” When laborers slaves, poorer classes have no vote, thus not “bribed to disturb property relations.” More an argument for restricting suffrage than slavery. Also, same speech, calls for bankruptcy legislation to bribe debt-ridden farmers to stay in state, against creditor property rights. (These guys do not do consistency, do they?) Argument did not go far. Mostly ignored, now and then hostility.
Proslavery argument in 20s getting stronger, but fragmentary, qualified, not widely accepted. Few convinced many that slavery a blessing, just as few SC “abolitionists” did. “Huge majority” “distressed” but see no way out. Stick with necessary evil until after nullification.
Section 10
20s, early 30s public reaction most telling in neither necessary evil nor positive good contexts, but rather attempt to silence debate. Enslavers worry that barrage of unanswered, even unanswerable criticism would turn wavering against slavery, or at least not fight as hard as they ought to. Also likely to lay off discipline of slaves. Courting revolt on both counts.
SC worked to keep discussion buried. Mere presence of antislavery lit, or even “a handkerchief stamped with Negroes in a state of defiance” could cause panic. Charleston papers don’t report on conspiracies, upcountry papers only give limited coverage. Lowcountry editors refuse to engage on issue. Pre-33, editorials all about necessary evil, emancipation too dangerous to broach.
32, VA leg does month of debate on slavery. Richmond paper makes worse by printing them, shocking even SC unionists. Benjamin F. Perry, moderate, would not “comment on a policy so unwise, and blended with so much madness and fatality”. “Sober” Camden Journal refuses essay against VA debates because it would raise the subject. These were the moderate, restrained types.
Fire-eaters flip out, denounce VA printer as “the apostate traitor, the recreant and faithless sentinel, the cringing parasite, the hollow-hearted, hypocritical advocate of Southern interests … who has scattered the firebrands of destruction everywhere in the South.” Up in DC, Duff Green thought printer deliberately making trouble. Charleston Mercury calls discussion “fraught with evils of the most disastrous kind.”
Maynard Richardson dares raise issue in early 32. Son of judge, editor of Southern Whig, invited “liberal and guarded” discussion of slavery. Argued that silencing invited Yankee attack, suggests weak cause, unwillingness to face scrutiny.
Prints letter from “W.E.” Discusses issue in abstract, thus safest: Is it a good argument for slavery that Yankees abuse free blacks? Invited tu quoque. ALso should not blame slave traders for creating slavery, since just passing buck. Does black intellectual inferiority justify slavery? Blamed that on slavery itself, keeping them from reading, learning. Why do so, except that they know the injustice? (This at least sounds like something antislavery in a national sense, if really aimed more at debating tips for slavery’s defense.)
Rival paper strikes back, calling for greater vigilance in patrols. Refuses to answer WE. Too many slaves too close to allow discussion of any kind. Even a refutation would risk too much.
Richardson answered that the sensitivity on display looked guilty as hell, challenged rival’s manhood. But backed off on printing more slavery discussion, picked newspaper fight with rival to hide how many he’d alienated. Dirk vs. pistol fight ensues, people turn out to watch, want to join in. Richardson’s father, a judge, started mixing it up. Many walk away with bloody heads, torn clothes, but spectacle gets discussion away from slavery.
Fight most dramatic repression display, but hard to reconcile silence with “virgorous defense” in DC. SC leaders convinced always must suppress smallest indications of antislavery movement. Otherwise would sweep north and provoke revolts in South. Needed support at home to sustain fight in Congress. Had to propagandize for slavery to get that. Would end up talking slavery either way.
Conflict between Washington militancy and repression in SC essence of SC 20s dilemma. Keeping it buried back home prompted strident attacks at mildest proposals of 20s. Crucial appeal of nullification over tariff: way to check abolitionists without slavery debates, or so they imagined.
Section 11
Conclusion: slavery always more disturbing in lowcountry than upcountry. Dense slave population, Vesey, Charleston fires, Georgetown plot, and Nat Turner all make for shit bricks there. Malaria, absentee ownership, need to rely on overseers might have burdened the consciences of the sensitive types. Tidwater by far greatest economic stake in slavery. But conversely upcountry, Charleston mechanics + retailers most sensitive to tariffs economically.
But slavery tensions in upcountry too. Nat Turner sets off scares all over. Goulding school in Columbia, up country, and shut down. Richardson fight in upcountry. Prosperous lowcountry still had mortgage issues enough to get upcountry squeeze. Upcountry, though less slavery-tense, afraid enough to get lowcountry. Further, excellent communication between groups.
Yeomen and mountain types, plus Charleston merchants, not fussed by depression or abolitionists. Both did well in 20s and neither relied on slavery for profits. Natural foes of nullifiers in 20s and 30s.
That was a bear to write, but I think I got a fair bit out of it all the same. I'm four or five chapters on from here now and I had no memory of this one at all until going back through.
Next up, the move from qualified nationalism to qualified sectionalism. It's only...about fifty pages.
Pre-[18]30s, often conceded slavery did not fit in land where men had natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Also insurrection legitimate when men deprived of those rights. Slaves listening to 4th July orations caused chills in bravest.
When spelled out this way, this seems like a very obvious connection to make -- however, given the power of selective blinders to avoid cogitive dissonance, I'm actually somewhat surprised that slaveholders of the time actually figured it out.
BTW, Samnell, you got me all fired up to pick up a copy of Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 for myself, but sadly there appears to be no Kindle edition. There are kindle editions of both volumes of Freehling's Road to Disunion, however. Still, they lack the SC focus, which I'm finding interesting.
And if I buy any more dead tree books, the floor of my attic will collapse under the weight, and Mrs Gersen
|
|
Now reading Bring up the Bodies by Hilary Mantel. This one is more straightforward in its chronology than Wolf Hall, but I find it leads to a slower pace and drags a bit. Even though Mantel's dialog is witty and there's lots of nice irony. I'm kind of impatient to read the downfall of the Boleyns. I hope Mantel's next book (the last in the series) picks up the pace a bit - it ought to, with the dissolution of the monastaries and such providing lots of room for action.
My copy of A Red Death by Walter Mosley also came in. Haven't started it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. It'll be less complex than Mantel, I hope, judging by Devil in a Blue Dress.
Pre-[18]30s, often conceded slavery did not fit in land where men had natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Also insurrection legitimate when men deprived of those rights. Slaves listening to 4th July orations caused chills in bravest.When spelled out this way, this seems like a very obvious connection to make -- however, given the power of selective blinders to avoid cogitive dissonance, I'm actually somewhat surprised that slaveholders of the time actually figured it out.
It is. There's a weird kind of doublethink going on with the political rhetoric. I've seen cases where they very much take the universality of rights talk for granted and appear somewhat sincere in trying to work around it. But then there are also the ones who are very clear that rights are a whites only business. Of course universal rights were far more contested in the early 19th century, what with the serious fights over whether or not all white men really deserved the vote...or freedom. There's a tendency for those who invest more heavily in defending slavery to increasingly view white male egalitarianism as also a problem they need to fix, which becomes especially pronounced in SC and Tidewater Virginia. This matched what often happened in practice in practice when white dissent threatened slavery: lynchings for white people.
In the endnotes for one of the Road to Disunion volumes (I think the first.) Freehling suggests that he and others have probably overplayed the political contradiction and somewhat underplayed the religious causes for doubt. He might be right, but I'm not sure. It's true that religious dictates could undermine systems of slave control, but it's also true that most enslavers don't seem to have struggled too hard to integrate skirting the rules a bit to let them read Bibles with their paternalistic self-image.
BTW, Samnell, you got me all fired up to pick up a copy of Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 for myself, but sadly there appears to be no Kindle edition. There are kindle editions of both volumes of Freehling's Road to Disunion, however. Still, they lack the SC focus, which I'm finding interesting.
Yeah...he wrote it in '66, so I doubt a quality ebook is forthcoming. :( I was stunned it was still in print. Road has a lot of SC content, including a discussion of what made SC the odd state out so often, but it's necessarily less deep since it's got to cover so much more ground. Nullification is only a chapter or so and, while it hits all the high points, can't really dig into the subject like Prelude could. Also the first volume is an often frustrating read because of some writing ticks that got much worse between the mid-60s and 1990.
There's some Freehling CSPAN (Tried to do a link, but it's got brackets in it that confused the board. They're all filed under his surname.) but it looks like it's all about Road and his later work. Fie on them for not covering content produced fifteen years before they went on the air.
You might have luck with Richard Ellis' book. I've heard good things secondhand, including some nice things Freehling said in his Road notes. To judge from the table of contents and preface, however, Ellis is more interested in the constitutional theory and the national stage than SC specifically. Also it's $30 for the ebook, which strikes me as absurd.
There's a very good chance that I'll read Ellis in the future (ordered a used copy while writing this post) and I might make notes with him as I've started with Freehling. Getting more than I expected out of the exercise. :)
And if I buy any more dead tree books, the floor of my attic will collapse under the weight, and Mrs Gersen ** spoiler omitted **
Sounds like you need more house so you can get more books. I'm always in favor of more books; it's how we fight off that Fahrenheit 451 future that so terrifies me...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
especially pronounced in SC and Tidewater Virginia.
In a previous life, I taught high school in the Tidewater area. When I first moved there (from NY), my friend offered to check my Confederate green card for me, to make sure I was eligible to work. This same fine fellow was always trying to get me to help out in his Civil War "re-enactments."
So far we've got 600 brave Confederates signed up and no Yankees! How are we supposed to win at Vicksburg if the cowardly Yellowbellies never show up?!"
Needless to say, I never did take him up on that offer; I felt it might put a strain on our friendship if I singlehandedly besieged him and 599 of his associates.
'Schools and Masters of Fencing, from the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century', by Egerton Castle. Interesting and reasonably clearly written - more immediately comprehensible that Richard F. Burton's stuff, anyway, if a bit less fun to read.
I think I have a copy of Burton's Book of the Sword in the attic somewhere. I never realized what an interesting fellow he was!
Burton was a prehistoric rock star.
especially pronounced in SC and Tidewater Virginia.In a previous life, I taught high school in the Tidewater area. When I first moved there (from NY), my friend offered to check my Confederate green card for me, to make sure I was eligible to work. This same fine fellow was always trying to get me to help out in his Civil War "re-enactments."
So far we've got 600 brave Confederates signed up and no Yankees! How are we supposed to win at Vicksburg if the cowardly Yellowbellies never show up?!"Needless to say, I never did take him up on that offer; I felt it might put a strain on our friendship if I singlehandedly besieged him and 599 of his associates.
I knew a reenactor briefly. Was wounded while filming Gettysburg, even. (Bayonet to underarm, the triangular bladed kind. I'm reasonably sure it was during shooting the one scene where the confederates are rounding a fence, but it's been ages and I can't be asked to sit through that movie again.) He wasn't quite satisfied with the "living historian" line that a lot of them preach and don't practice beyond trifles of militaria, so he ended up writing a real history that demanded actual research. Sadly it's out of print and obscure, so by the time I wanted a copy it was too late.
He was forthcoming about how while he would pull out a separate uniform and go over to the other side to get the numbers more even, most play Confederates would not. They ran more to the kind of guys who would go and pay their respects at the grave of the guy who ran Andersonville. Many were downright unwilling to lose battles. Also there were regular problems with too many General Lees showing up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Burton was a prehistoric rock star.
Have any of y'all read any of Hodder's steampunk chronicles featuring Burton and Swinburne? The first 3 are pretty good. Haven't read the last 2, though. Lots of crazy time traveling shenanigans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but it sounds like a hoot. Thanks for the suggestion!
|
|
Settled down yesterday and read for what must have been a total of about 6 hours with some unavoidable breaks, and finished Crossroads of Twilight (Wheel of Time #10). Next choice of book is the result of math. I am reading both the Repairman Jack cycle and the Dresden Files series. I've read 6 books from each of these, which leaves me with 12 books to read yet in Repairman/Adversary, and at least 12 more Dresden Files too. Up till now I've been reading the books at a mean rate of about 1 - 1.5 per year in each of the two series. Quick arithmetic shows that if I continue at this pace I'll still be reading these characters for 8 years. Not that I mind, precisely, they feel like old friends at this point, but I dislike the idea of dragging my feet trough an entire decade reading them. So, I'm going to push to reading two books from each of those each year.
All of that just means I'll either be reading DEAD BEAT or GATEWAYS next, haven't quite decided yet which goes first.
As a matter of fact, what I realized when I put the finished book down was that absolutely nothing happened. There's some political maneuvering, a bit of scheming and a tiny bit of off-screen character development, but that's really all I have to show for these 700 pages I've read. Perrin is still hunting for Faile (which is a freaking side plot to his side plot of dealing with the Prophet!), Mat takes his turn traveling with some circus or whatever, Elayne likes wine but can't drink it because she is pregnant and that means that legendary warrior Birgitte becomes a frowny mother figure to her, and Egwene has an unstable stool in her tent. I want to pause on that last one for a second here - I'm pretty sure the unstable tent chair was mentioned for the first time when she was raised as Amyrlin back in Lord of Chaos. I've been reading about this rickety piece of furniture for five whole books by this point.
In some ways, I think this encapsulates how dreadfully stale the series has become by this point. So very little has actually happened in over four thousands pages of epic fantasy that the problem one of the most major characters in one of the most important story lines is dealing with is a chair. The chair has been present in a greater part of the series than Trollocks have (anyone notice they sort of disappear after book 5? there hasn't been any actual monster in this sagging middle part of the series). Ewgene has become one of my favorites after she got away from the terrible influence of Elayne and Nynaeve, and yet still I find myself wishing that the chair will break one day as she sits on it causing her to break her nack, just to get some payoff for tracking the increasingly perilous state it has been in for those past 5 books. I am perfectly willing to give up Egwene just to get rid of her chair.
How messed up is that?
House of Shattered Wings by Aliette de Bodard; which about 1/3 through is excellent.
Previous to the novel's beginning, God has thrown several angels out of heaven and they've taken up positions of power throughout the Christian world, dividing into houses, and pretty much setting things up like how things were at the height of colonialism.
Then infighting broke out, and when the novel begins in a post-apocalyptic Paris, travelling from there to London is a month-long, dangerous journey, the city is divided between Houses less powerful than they used to be, and street gangs.
And then people start dying mysteriously...
** spoiler omitted **...
A bunch of stuff about a chair.
Every time I read someone's reaction to that WoT series, I am so grateful I never fell into the trap of reading it. No offense, but it seems like some kind masochistic reading torture a lot of fantasy fans seem obligated to endure.
I think I might want to check out this Repairman Jack you are reading, though.
|
|
I probably shouldn't point this out, but Butcher at least is still writing Dresden books. In 8 years when you finish those 12, you'll probably have 4 or 5 new ones to read. :)Settled down yesterday and read for what must have been a total of about 6 hours with some unavoidable breaks, and finished Crossroads of Twilight (Wheel of Time #10). Next choice of book is the result of math. I am reading both the Repairman Jack cycle and the Dresden Files series. I've read 6 books from each of these, which leaves me with 12 books to read yet in Repairman/Adversary, and at least 12 more Dresden Files too. Up till now I've been reading the books at a mean rate of about 1 - 1.5 per year in each of the two series. Quick arithmetic shows that if I continue at this pace I'll still be reading these characters for 8 years. Not that I mind, precisely, they feel like old friends at this point, but I dislike the idea of dragging my feet trough an entire decade reading them. So, I'm going to push to reading two books from each of those each year.
All of that just means I'll either be reading DEAD BEAT or GATEWAYS next, haven't quite decided yet which goes first.
Added a bold to my original comment. I am aware that the Dresden Files are still being written - when I calculated I have at least 12 books left that's assuming he immediately starts his trilogy after the next one comes out. But yeah, that's another reason to stop dragging my feet.
Every time I read someone's reaction to that WoT series, I am so grateful I never fell into the trap of reading it. No offense, but it seems like some kind masochistic reading torture a lot of fantasy fans seem obligated to endure.
I think I might want to check out this Repairman Jack you are reading, though.
That chair... I reached the part when it was mentioned after hours of reading and it was almost too much at that point. I soldiered on though. You are right that this series is in some way pure torture - I'm going through with it because of how hugely influential the first few books have been in my childhood. I'll just never be completely at peace with myself if I don't see the story through to it's conclusion, now that I know it has a conclusion, and supposedly a good one at that, given that Sanderson was the one to write it.
As for Repairman Jack - good series, even if the writing is on the lower end of the spectrum, filled with a very nice mix of suspense, horror and action. I have interviewed the author about the series, so you could check that out to learn more about it if you are considering to pick it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Witch World' by Andre Norton. It was smashing.
Knocked on the door of Part Three of Prelude to the Civil War last night. I'm quite a bit ahead of the notes.
After this I'm looking at a fiction break. Probably Ancillary Sword followed by a trilogy from TSR's Star*Drive setting that I picked up on a semi-whim. One of them is still in the mail to me, but it'll be here by then. Thinking about using the setting to run a PBP, but also been curious for fifteen years about what the first two books really involved. I guess it set up the setting metaplot. Actually read the last book back in 2000, but remember little of it except that it felt more like a standalone than the end of a trilogy.
Mrs Gersen e-sent me a copy of the new Lee Child book, so of course everything else got put on hold.
Mrs Gersen e-sent me a copy of the new Lee Child book, so of course everything else got put on hold.
Boo or Rooney L- Oh right, that's an author's name. :)
Gonna take a break from Devil Said Bang by Richard Kadrey because the library finally has Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, but it's on the 7 Day list for some reason.
The library also had Behemoth by Scott Westerfeld (more Great War steampunk genetic engineered vessels!) and Kill City Blues & The Getaway God, both also by Richard Kadrey.
So I'm gonna be busy for a while....
Poems About Fairies
Finished Make Me. A lot weaker than the last one by Child, but then again, he's churning them out 1/year like clockwork, and that's bound to take a toll on consistency of quality.
I decided to try out a few Pathfinder Tales novels, since I found them on sale. I read Called to Darkness a few months ago, and just finished Prince of Wolves. The former is very much a self-contained story, while the latter is part of a series.
Called to Darkness was a lot of fun, and generally managed to not seem too "gamey". The protagonist was likable, and the author deserves credit for writing a stoic, laconic female lead who still manages to be likable. Too often writers feel the need to soften this type of character to make them more relatable, often with a love interest, but instead Byers pairs her with a grandfatherly partner who keeps reaching out, regardless of how distant she remains. The slow process of an orphaned barbarian learning to accept new friendships feels more realistic and earned.
Prince of Wolves is one of two "Radovan and the Count" novels I have on my shelf; I decided to finish this one first since it's earlier in the series, though still not the first one. Split POV writing is a challenge, and while Dave Gross does an excellent job of varying the tone of his writing for each protagonist, I still have a hard time enjoying Varian Jaggare as a narrator. Part of it is his affected speech, but a bigger part is that despite his manners and education, he's simply not as likable as Radovan. I usually love bookish characters, but Varian's constant, entitled inner monologue acts as a barrier between him and the reader, and even when the emotional punch of the novel shows up for him, I didn't really feel empathy for him. By contrast, the mere threat of harm to the characters that Radovan cares for in the book struck me in a visceral way. Perhaps I'm biased; Radovan's "street slang" voice in the book brings back pleasant memories of Stephen Brust's Vlad Taltos novels, of which I'm a huge fan. I still enjoyed the book quite a bit, and softened toward Varian somewhat by the end, but I vastly preferred the Radovan chapters to Varian's.
Anyone else? Radovan or Jeggare?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still working on The Dragon (almost done--had an interesting evening in Brooklyn where I read aloud to La Principessa the scene where Cija and Smahil are joined in incestuous union; "That's terrible writing" she commented at one point) and the Irish fairy tale book (from which I learned why salamanders are a monster in Dungeons and Dragons). Finally got around to re-reading Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism, which is just as pleasant as I remember it being. [Shudders]
|
|
Prince of Wolves is one of two "Radovan and the Count" novels I have on my shelf; I decided to finish this one first since it's earlier in the series, though still not the first one. Split POV writing is a challenge, and while Dave Gross does an excellent job of varying the tone of his writing for each protagonist, I still have a hard time enjoying Varian Jaggare as a narrator. Part of it is his affected speech, but a bigger part is that despite his manners and education, he's simply not as likable as Radovan. I usually love bookish characters, but Varian's constant, entitled inner monologue acts as a barrier between him and the reader, and even when the emotional punch of the novel shows up for him, I didn't really feel empathy for him. By contrast, the mere threat of harm to the characters that Radovan cares for in the book struck me in a visceral way. Perhaps I'm biased; Radovan's "street slang" voice in the book brings back pleasant memories of Stephen Brust's Vlad Taltos novels, of which I'm a huge fan. I still enjoyed the book quite a bit, and softened toward Varian somewhat by the end, but I vastly preferred the Radovan chapters to Varian's.
Anyone else? Radovan or Jeggare?
Well, remember that Varian spent hundreds of years being a Chalexian noble. Instead of thinking of him as entitled, think how much of a mental reach it is for a person of his background to be able to see anyone of lesser status than him as deserving of anything. For me, what makes Varian the most interesting is exactly that. He is a good person used taught to think of himself as better than others by birthright. As an aside, the tension between this and the way he is perceived in Elvish society creates most of the personal journey he goes through in Queen of Thorns, the next book in the series.
Well, remember that Varian spent hundreds of years being a Chalexian noble. Instead of thinking of him as entitled, think how much of a mental reach it is for a person of his background to be able to see anyone of lesser status than him as deserving of anything. For me, what makes Varian the most interesting is exactly that. He is a good person used taught to think of himself as better than others by birthright. As an aside, the tension between this and the way he is perceived in Elvish society creates most of the personal journey he goes through in Queen of Thorns, the next book in the series.
Point taken; the other book in my collection is Master of Devils, but I'll likely get around to Queen of Thorns soon enough. I just found Radovan much more engaging as a narrator. Better stuff happened to him, though I guess that's to be expected, given his connection to the plot of Prince of Wolves.
Despite being an avid reader all my life (well, from 4 on up), I've never been to a book club meeting. That will change tonight. We're going to be... I don't know.... discussing? Mr. P's 24-Hour Bookstore. I'm getting very nervous. Am I supposed to prepare something? What if everyone is way better at dissecting the book than I am?
Gah! Performance pressure!
Despite being an avid reader all my life (well, from 4 on up), I've never been to a book club meeting. That will change tonight. We're going to be... I don't know.... discussing? Mr. P's 24-Hour Bookstore. I'm getting very nervous. Am I supposed to prepare something? What if everyone is way better at dissecting the book than I am?
You get up, flip over the table and spill mocha lattes all over them.
Finished Freehling's Prelude to the Civil War. Notes are likely to continue, but I'm not sure I'll do the full book. I know from his later work that he no longer entirely stands behind the interpretation of the gag rule that he puts forward as a kind of postscript. Also at some point you get into knowing exactly what Andrew Jackson is going to do. But I suspect at least another chapter or so is worth digging through.
You get up, flip over the table and spill mocha lattes all over them.Despite being an avid reader all my life (well, from 4 on up), I've never been to a book club meeting. That will change tonight. We're going to be... I don't know.... discussing? Mr. P's 24-Hour Bookstore. I'm getting very nervous. Am I supposed to prepare something? What if everyone is way better at dissecting the book than I am?
Can do! Thanks!
So far, Snow Crash is ADORABLE!!!!! They have fiber optic cables and explained what an avatar is. And they said the typical hacker is skinny! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
Technology-heavy books are a big gamble: first, to get the tech right, and second, to keep it from becoming obsolete fast. Remember how cool the guys in the movies used to look, chatting away on their shoebox-sized cell phones? Heck, even flip-phones look odd on screen now.
First book club meeting accomplished. I am not allowed to reveal anything beyond our next book: The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society.
So far, Snow Crash is ADORABLE!!!!! They have fiber optic cables and explained what an avatar is. And they said the typical hacker is skinny! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
To be far, the description of near-future pizza delivery was spot on. :P
Have you read Cryptonomicon? Pinoy-grams seemed like a genius level innovation at the time, but now I'm all, "Did he just say videotape?!"
The Shepherd's Crown by Terry Pratchett.
It's already sad ;_;
I don't like cheese, so I don't eat (or order) pizza.
:-P
But I have friends that used to live in a very rough neighborhood, and once they got their pizza delivered the next day.
So far, Snow Crash is ADORABLE!!!!! They have fiber optic cables and explained what an avatar is. And they said the typical hacker is skinny! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
The typical hacker in Snow Crash is fully immersed in VR for extended periods of time, not seated in front of a machine with snackfoods within arm's reach.
For me the weirdest part of the book was that the whole damn thing is written in the present tense.
Gargoyles, Spectrevk; they're called "Gargoyles" when they have a wearable system they can walk around in. /wink