I wouldn't call the Gargoyles typical, even in Snow Crash's world. We meet all of one, and even other hackers consider Gargoyles bizarre and not-quite-right in the head.
Well, they've got a name for it, so it's a thing for them. When Hiro buys a top of the line system YT is all, "OMG, you're a gargoyle now." Except texting wasn't popular that she actually said OMG in the dialog.
My (ill-explained) point was that not even 20 years later we just do all that stuff on out cell phones instead of even having to worry about wearing anything large enough to deserve the name "computer."
Mind you, I'm still not sure if Snow Crash was written as near future science fiction, or if it was actually near past alternate reality, or something. I mean, Hiro's father fought in Word War II, and Hiro is young enough that he must have been born pretty late in his parent's fertility cycle, not that Stephenson puts a date on it. "The sunday morning hangover follow the saturday night party of his youth," (or something like that) is the most specific description I remember of Hiro's age.
Edit: Of course, he did buy his mother an apartment in an assisted living community with his Black Sun payout, so there's that. God, why am I even bothering to post this? I should go re-read Snow Crash right now!
Edit to the edit: Speaking of assisted living, I just read Can't We Talk About Something More Pleasant?. It was very good, funny and somber, sometimes at the same time.
Finished The Dragon. Started Sidney Hook's From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx because I don't have enough headaches as it is.
Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner and Ludwig Feuerbach, oh my!
I read Stirner when I was 21 and thought it was very convincing, which may have also had something to do with the <bubble bubble bubble>
After the fumes wore off I decided that neither <bubble bubble bubble> nor Stirner were really for me, and gave up anarchism entirely shortly afterwards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace [bubble bubble bubble] with wine and that sounds roughly like Marx's (and Engels') take on Stirner, too.
Did start Ancillary Sword as planned. It's not going as well as I'd like, but I'll chalk that up to RL stuff rather than the book.
I'm about midway, though. The planet Our Hero is on has some pretty familiar features to me. Imagine that's the something in the middle that got the series recommended to me. I think there's also a bit of roman a clef here if you know much about how tea gets harvested.
|
I finished Bring Up the Bodies. Now the wait begins... I guess I could watch the t.v. show of Wolf Hall, but I doubt the show will end before Mantel writes the last book, and I wouldn't want to watch the ending before reading it anyway.
I'm reading stuff for work right now, but also Walter Mosley's A Red Death. I wish my co-workers would leave me alone on my break so I can read. They're normally pretty good about that, but this week everyone has been chatty in the break room and I can't focus.
Finished Ancillary Sword. I liked it well enough, but I'm not completely sure that the book actually had a plot. One does come in, but it's very understated and much of the book is about Our Hero developing some loyal followers. I feel like most of the plot went on in the first and last three or four chapters, with the middle a combination of developing a power base (well written, all the same), dealing with some slavery, and what's pretty clearly setup for the next book. I don't mind any of that exactly, but it's a big shift from the very strong plot orientation of the first book.
Next up: Starrise at Corrivale by Diane Duane, first book of the Harbringer Trilogy. Tie-in fiction for TSR's late-90s scifi setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Section 1
SC politics reflect “high-toned conservatism of entrenched landed aristocracy.” Ideal was House of Lords, not Congress. Assumptions derive from “elitist cult of the English country gentry.” Unique in US in successful conspiracy to keep power from common whites
SC gentleman: democrat with reservations. Only for right kind of republic: the kind with the rich enslaver in charge. Accepted democracy in sense that plebs could choose which aristo to rule them. James Hamilton, Jr: “the people expect that their leaders in whose … public spirit they have confidence will think for them-and that they will be prepared to act as their leaders think” (Very 18th century.)
SC constitution of 1790, with amendments, entrenched limited democracy ideas. White males with two years residence could vote for legislators, but they leg elected almost all rest of government from governor to taxman, plus senators (per US Constitution) and presidential electors. (This went on up through 1860.) To be legislator, must meet high property qualification. (Including slave property.) Lower class thus kept from office. Power uniquely focused on leg. of large propertied men, set policy for themselves to administer.
Apportionment contributed. Pre-upcountry plantations, lowcountry planters controlled most seats despite upcountry farmers outnumbering. Upcountry insisted on change, argued for 20 years+. 08 compromise: lowcountry gave due to pressure, but also because upcountry plantation development reduced differences, aligned sections and because actually needed make few concessions. Lowcountry parishes with tiny white population still controlled Senate, disproportionate influence in House.
Upcountry vs. lowcountry conflict still present in 20s, but lost urgency. 08 settled tempers, continued spread of plantations further aligned sections. Upcountry thought more like low, lowcountry less worried about sharing power. With state political class relatively united, easy to get together against outside foes in mostly lowcountry dominated crusades.
Features of SC politics ensure complete control by rich planters. Leg elections, only popular input, often uncontested. When contested, rarely gave clear choice of alternatives between party or policy. Even in leg, pols reject organized parties. Imagined coalitions would corrupt debates between “disinterested” leaders. Also a good party org might develop statewide ticket, make issues, encourage plebs to “overreach”. Demagogues would use “rabble”, bribing and lying their way into control and turn gov. into fight for patronage. Parties would end rule of rich and well-born, turn democracy against patricians.
(Sounds familiar.)
Loose coalitions did happen, post 16, but many pols shunned faction entirely. Elections about personalities, not issues. (Reality TV politics.) Popular individuals with unpopular policies frequently win high office. Others obscure, but powerful because could charm peers rather than rely on programs, patronage. Narrative of SC politics 16-27 hangs on two factions developing and their issues, but neither entirely eclipsed “unorganized” coalitions that perpetuated as a matter of course.
Section 2
War of 12 made for “fervent American nationalism” that defined generation, influenced politics. Jackson took New Orleans, but redcoats burned Washington. (And we burned Toronto.) Treaty of Ghent did not erase knowledge that poor roads, finance, insufficient industry and arms nearly let British win outright.
Nation looked vulnerable, especially since Ghent looked like armistice rather than peace. In 16, looked like wars of past 25 years might reopen at any time.
SC liked the war, leading war hawks included Calhoun, William Lowndes, David R. WIlliams, Langdon Cheves. Pushed Madison for declaration. Calhoun, Lowndes still in congress in 16, natural leaders of postwar nationalism. (Calhoun’s understanding of embattled nation seems essentially the same as his of embattled SC slavery.) November 17, Calhoun joins Madison Cabinet as SecWar. Used position to advance nationalism, eyes on White House.
Major theme of age of Jackson: how nullification changed Calhoun’s career, then wrecked it. But before then, very much man on make. Son of moderately well-off enslaver, went to Yale, Litchfield Law, made fortune. In Congress before 30, running for presidency before forty. Married into money (contradiction with previous sentence in Freehling: C both made his money and married it). Ambitions factored into war hawk activity and nationalist enthusiasm. Cabinet post “just reward” for service accepted after agonizing indecision. From post, could realize major assumption: peace required strong army for deterrence. With post could also learn federal office with eyes on future advance and keep tabs on rivals JQ Adams SecState, William H. Crawford, SecTreas.
Description of Calhoun: tall, gangling, high cheekbones, deep-set burning brown eyes, unruly chesnut hair. Looked vigorous, “untouched by defeat or tragedy”. Sharp mind attuned to logic, but sensitive to pragmatism. Politics not yet all about abstractions. Easy to get along with, good talker, debater. JQ Adams: “above all sectional and factious prejudices more than any other statesmen of this Union with whom I have ever acted.” (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Nationalism best for nation, state, and Calhoun’s career.
Case for nationalism built on national defense. Unstable currency made it hard to pay for war, so national bank. Poor roads poorly move armies, so internal improvements. Reliance on foreign factories dangerous when enemy controlled seas, so protective tariff. Weak militia invite attack, so strong national army.
Appeal in SC for strong government not unqualified or unlimited. Program always restricted by motives impelling. SC enslavers not financially into nationalist program. Roads and canals in state required no federal aid. National roads unlikely to reach state. Thus development more for other states than them.
But as long as projects “truly national”, SC nationalists all for them. Calhoun endorsed project to House. “Let us conquer space.” But perfect system required few big projects, no little local things which others signed on for and thought deserved national money. Early as 25, before SC states rights resolutions, Calhoun “vigorously” against “local”, “piecemeal” internal improvements.
SC nationalists tariff support even more qualified, directly about defense. SC export-based staple crop economy argued for free trade. Colonial rice oversupplied English markets, so SC got freedom to sell elsewhere. 1790, free trade so big that Pierce Butler told Congress tariff would produce disunion. SC endorsement of War of 12 partially about planter upset at Jefferson’s embargo, infringement on freedom of seas. Postwar not inclined to throw away victory in high tariffs.
Historians “long assumed” SC supported tariff in 16 with eye to making own textile factories, but argument no more than faith in economic causation of everything. SC documents on subject never hint of SC turn to factories. Rep. William Mayrant, factory owner, could have benefitted from rates, but he was exception. By 16, SC giving up on textile factories, abandoning them in favor of more cotton fields. Considered economic interests best served by low tariff.
Calhoun, Lowndes for tariff of 16, but very clear on defense alone justifying it. Paying off debt and raising army required high taxes. Also chance of war with naval power required domestic manufactoring.
Dues moderate, which helped sell the tariff. While protective, actually too low to do job. Cottons, woolens set at 25%, automatic reduction to 20 in 19. But SC in congress votes heavily to chop those immediately to 20, cut iron in half. When efforts fail, SC delegation supports tariff 4-3, two abstaining.
In context of traditional free trade, vote on 16 tariff illustrates special commitment to postwar nationalism. But also a close vote and nationalists tried for lower rates. Even at high tide, lots of misgivings about mild protection.
SC strongly against higher tariff 4 years later, nationalists included. Proposed Baldwin Tariff of 20, passed House but died in Senate, would put cotton, woolen to 33.33%. Lowndes spoke against, SC voted against almost to a man. In Charleston, Robert Y. Hayne, rising young nationalist, led public protest. Calhoun also openly opposed.
But early 20s nationalists in SC didn’t think antitariff meant anti-nationalist. High tariffs, like piecemeal improvements, not understood as truly national. Not general welfare, someone else’s specific welfare. Would cause “jealousies” and “hostilities”. Risked peace and harmony of Union. (They should know, since they had the jealousy and hostility.)
Most SC enslavers all on board for Calhoun-Lowndes nationalism. For the war, pleased by patriotism after peace, enjoying economic boom, SC men high in Congress, Cabinet. State and nation seemed to have same destiny, with program designed to ward off foes without risking Southern interests. Everyone all happy together.
Consensus had one dissenter, most dedicated states rights man of the era: William Smith, Senator.
Smith: born 1762, educated Mt. Zion College, spent youth “gay young blade”. Then married and got ambitious. Judge in 08, Jeffersonian and “somewhat tyrannical but scrupulously fair”. In 16, elected to Senate as upcoutry man, defeating James J. Pringle of Charleston.
In washington, Smith got attention of Senate visitors. Fat, medium height, but angelic face, wide-eyed, innocent stare. Appearance deceiving. In age of fiery personal controversy, stood second to none “in the malignity with which he carried on a personal attack.” Rude, sarcastic in public, ill-natured, insolent in private, turned petty slights into lifetime feuds. Pols avoided getting on his bad side.
Maybe jerk, but also most committed ideologue in politics. Calvinistic faith in Constitution and states rights, spoke with evangelical fervor. When Jefferson drifted toward nationalism, took as political calamity and dedicated career to turning back clock. Cross between brawling frontiersman and Bible-belt divine.
Smith only in congress a few months before going anti-Calhoun. More than 20 years Cal’s senior, expected JC to defer to him. Also might have expected to be appointed minister to Russia, but did not get job. Other guy might have gotten on Calhoun’s recommendation. Cal ignored Smith, rose to greater prominence. By 18, Smith set on destroying Cal’s career.
Smith built up band of supporters, especially in upcountry east of Congaree. Thomas Cooper, David R. Williams, Stephen D. Miller, Josiah Evans. By 21, engaged in lively debate on C+L nationalism. But Lowndes and Hayne rival Smith & Cooper in denouncing 20 tariff. Bank not big in SC in 20s. Biggest disputes between factions over internal improvements, broad construction of Constitution.
CL nationalists supported a few roads for military, but rejected local appropriations in fear of economic consequences to SC. Smith, et al, consider the whole thing illegitimate and local. Smithites didn’t think roads would ever be of important military value. National schemes would only suck away enslaver profits. State had no need for federal aid, so all money leaving and none coming in. With improvements costing money, debt would grow. This justified higher tariffs, which in turn enabled more projects. At best, “onerous” present tariffs remain in force. At worst, higher duties in future.
Debate over improvements turned, as most early 19th c arguments between nationalists and sectionalists, into constitutional debate. Smith, Calhoun agree that compact gave up some state power to feds, reserved rest for use of states. Powers included enumerated, but also vague, elastic prerogatives. Power to raise armies clear, but authority to tax, provide for common defense, general welfare, ambiguous. Necessary and proper even more debatable.
Broad guys like Calhoun considered elastic clauses to give Congress new authority for new problems. Common defense, general welfare justified any truly national purpose. Necessary, proper gave Congress ability to do anything connected with enumerated powers. Congress could charter bank or finance improvements because bank would help collect taxes and roads further common defense.
Strict Smithites held Congress had only expressly enumerated powers, elastic clauses no source of authority. List is exhaustive in ways Congress could promote general welfare, national defense. Necessary proper only allowed means indispensibly needed to carry out enumerated powers. No bank because you could tax without one, no roads because no authority to appropriate money to build them.
SC nationalists think strict construction made Const sterile, confining, took from gov. creative ability to solve new problems in new ways necessary for nation to endure. Smithites (subject of rest of paragraph) thought broad destroyed essence of government, threatened power of states. Constitutions in general to restrain majorities, US in particular to check encroachments on states. If majority in Congress could exercise any power if claimed related to listed, the Constitution at mercy of majorities instead of checking. Feds could take rights states never surrendered.
(Smithite view is more or less right-leaning pop culture consensus on things, but worth noting that it had serious critics and was not universal at time.)
16-23, Smith made little progress against improvements or broad construction in SC> Smithite Pleasant May tried to turn anti-tariff positions into broad construction opposition, put up resolution in 20 to state House, declaring protective tariffs unconstitutional. Committee reported against and sustained by House. Committee admitted tariff “premature and pernicious” but clearly among powers expressly given over by states. Committee further deplored “the consequences likely to result from the practice, unfortunately become too common, of arraying upon questions of national policy, the states as distinct and independent sovereigns, in opposition to, or what is much the same thing, with a view to exercise control over, the General Government.” Year later, committee helmed by Hamilton sees no danger from exercise of Congress powers. SC leg used Smithite principles as toilet paper, basically.
Smith had little support in SC. But got backing of William H. Crawford in Washington. Obscure dude now, but seemed leading figure then. Good looking, big guy, coarse manner, politically shrewd. Became senator, minister to France, SecWar, SecTreas, came close to winning (Democratic- because 19th century political nomenclature is evil) Republican nomination in 16. Monroe’s SecTreas, bent on making it to big chair.
Smith-Crawford alliance inevitable. Both had similar principles on states rights, hated Calhoun. Crawford saw as presidential rival, wanted to take SC out from under him. Smith wanted SC patronage from Crawford administration to break Cal. (Bitter old dude vs. bitter old dude: Fight!)
Crawford alliance injects more ibtterness into biggest feud in Washington. Crawford won presidency in 20s, and he seemed likely, then Calhoun’s immediate prospects limited. Nation would not love two deep south men on ticket. However, if Cal lost to JQ Adams, Clay, or Andrew Jackson, could join administration as way forward. (Which he did. Twice.)
C-C struggle over Cal’s army plans. SecWar wanted big army. Treas wanted tight economy, small army. War of 12 showed need for prepardness, gave Cal advantace. But Panic of 19 made demand for low taxes, gave Crawford opening. Need for retrenchment, danger of standing armies talking points for cutting army in half and blocking several Monroe’s army appointments. Suck it, Calhoun.
Smith going in with Crawford made him less popular in SC. Crawford group themselves admitted most of SC saw him as “a sort of unfeeling monster.” As son of Georgian frontier, also seen as uncouth brawler to lowcountry types. Opposing army soon after war made him seem like a serious danger, ready to sacrifice nation for his personal power. SC thus preferred an SC nationalist like Calhoun or Lowndes. Smithites connected to Crawford harmed them in SC, especially when SC chose nationalist Hayne to oppose him in 22 senate election.
Profile of Hayne: fast riser, like Clahoun. Born 1791 to respected but impoverished Colleton family. Grew up in Beaufort, studied law in Charleston when family could not afford to sent him to college. (SC has some weird pronunciation of Beaufort. I think like Buford? Kirth?) Hayne ambitious, good at “practical enterprise” did well in law. Family connections made it easy for him to set up as a lowcountry gentleman.
Breeding + hard work put him in aristocracy fast, very Horatio Alger. studied under Langdon Cheves, Charleston’s richest lawyer. Admitted to bar before 21, immediately took over Cheves huge business when he left for Congress of 1812. Next year married a Pinckney, daughter of Charles, rice planter and lowcountry leader. Before 23, inherited one of town’s biggest law businesses, married to one of richest heiresses. After first wife died, remarried to another rich heiress, Rebecca Motte Alston.
Political success too. First in leg in 14, at head of Charleston ticket, relected every two years until 18, when sent to speakership and then made attorney general. Boyish looking, looked very part of exuberant young nationalist. Gestured too much, spoke too fast, sometimes analyzed too sloppily. Practical, not philosophical, sometimes lost way in metaphysical arguments. Defect became apparent when he debated Webster in 30. (He’s the Hayne of “Reply to Hayne”.)
Not into theory, also not good at political management. Always gentleman type, not into party intrigue, demagogy, aloof even to members of own party. Politics solid, not brilliant, after clash with Webster faded into obscurity. But still on the rise in 22, very attuned to lowcountry moods. Ideal guy to knock Smith out of Senate.
Election early climax of nationalist-Smith fight, comes with bitter campaign. Took place in leg, not hustings, as usual. Voters almost never trusted with choice between Smithite or Hayne candidate. Leg gathered, soon clear Hayne couldn’t be beaten against economic nationalism and for Crawford. In last days before election, Smithites tried to deny Crawford connection. No one bought it. Votes for Hayne, 91-74. Nationalists displace states rights man in Senate. Smith traveled country denouncing partisanship of SC press, vowing revenge on Calhoun.
Section 3
Nationlists vs. Smithites dominate SC politics 16-23, but not erlaly two-party system. Leg split with lots of factions, many/most uncommitted. Show by Dec 21 meeting to pick electors for presidency. Opted for Lowndes instead of Calhoun or Crawford.
Lowndes nod blow to Calhoun, smells like Smith must have played part. However, looks like Smithites boycotted vote. Conflict between lowcountry (Lowndes) and upcountry (Calhoun) nationalists. Older tidewater/piedmont stuff still going on. Lowndes men: Hamilton, Hayne, Daniel Huger, William Drayton, all turn Calhounite after Lowndes dies in 22. Disagreement on men, not principles. 48-54 for Lowndes, then unanimous resolve that nominee should skip sectionalism be “Brought forth truly, strongly, and indubitably as well as the NATIONAL CANDIDATE”
Aside Lowndes, other pointers to personality-driven SC politics. Speer upcountry faction ignores national issues, men, all about cutting state budget to cut taxes. Charleston had 3 factions, none pledged for Crawford until late 24. Mercury Junto, after the paper, for Lownedes, Calhoun, then Jackson for president. Courier party, after paper, mercantile and neo-Federalist, JQ Adams. Geddes faction, with former Gov John Geddes, for Clahoun and considered Jcakson before going Crawford in 24. Pre-23 politics about qualified economic nationalism, firm opposition to Crawford, no parties per se.
Section 4
Mid-20s threats turn most SC against broad construction/nationalist ideas. Contemporary points to tariff of 24, antislavery, lead to thoughts state too reliant on nation, not jealous enough of own rights and interests.
Congress of 24, industrialists gurned by defeat of 20 tariff and foreign competition want protection. South objects, but protection wins. Woolen, cotton rates go from 25% to 33.3%, other dutues up proprotionate.
24, like 20, nationalists lead anti-tariff fight. Henry L. Pinckney’s Charleston Mercury suggests non-importation. Rep. McDuffie, Hamilton, Sen. Hayne speak against tariff. By 24, SC nationalists had developed argument against protection that would carry into nullification:
Assumptions all Adam Smith: left alone to pursue self-interst would inevitably further general interest. Invisible hand would point way to best for themselves and economy. If factories really better, they would profit more and so be created more. If not, then not and state could not save them. Protecting the inefficient prevented capitalists from doing better, slowed growth.
If tariff hurt whole economy, then could ruin enslavers. Protection was to prevent foreign underselling, but forced planters to buy goods at tariff-boosted prices. Others might hope better income would even out. Manufacturers, sugar planters, lead miners all expect better income. Laborers might get better wages, farmers more for food. But SC barely sold any staple crops domestically. No benefit for them.
Tariff would inevitably destroy foreign demand for rice, cotton. Retaliatory tariffs on US products could come. Even if not, they’d buy rice and cotton elsewhere and not sell goods to US market. England would get cotton from Brazil, Egypt. Best case, Europe buys staples at lower price. Worst, no foreign market at all. (And then your investment in slavery is underwater.)
By 24, threat of war fading and SC economy bad. Tariff would make things worse. Upland cotton already hard up. Also decline in wagon trade for merchants, retailers in Charleston. Lowcountry cotton enslavers didn’t yet know could escape upcountry glut with better techniques. Producers statewide fear loss of British market.
But 24 opposition tame compared to later. Calhounites say new tariff, not old ones, would make things worse. Nobody blames old duties. Hamilton, Hayne, make brief argument against tariff on constitutional grounds, but mostly an afterthought. McDuffie ended antitariff speech with patriotism. If Congress passed tariff: “I shall, as bound by my allegiance, submit to it as one of the laws of my country. I have endeavored, wtih zeal and fidelity, to discharge my duty as a Representative. I trust I shall never be found wanting in my duty as a citizen.” Lots of public meetings fall 24 not against tariff, but to jump on Andy Jackson bandwagon. Jackson pro-tariff.
Section 5
Slavery got lowcountry more immediately excited. In 20, nervous but not paniced by Congress slavery debates over Missouri. Lowndes fought for moderate compromise, majority of SC favors final settlement. (In Cabinet, Calhoun endorsed it.) Papers kept issue away from public eye. Calhoun thought issue settled “forever”.
One lowcountry guy did not agree. In House, Charles Pinckney of Charleston made big anti-Compromise speech. Leader in lowcountry for generation+, had been prominent in Constitutional Convention. Insisted Founders gave congress no authority over slavery. (He was there!) Settlement on Missouri unimportant small potatoes against keeping Congress hands off slavery. If Congress set precedent for hands-on, where would it end? (Northwest Ordinance doesn’t real?)
In 20, most SC for compromise, not Pinckney. Antislavery seemed weird aberration, soon over. Vesey changed that in 22, lots of second thoughts about slavery debates. Seemed clear “zeal” of NE gave Vesey the idea straight from Missouri debates. Pinckney ideas lowcountry dogma by 23. Whitemarsh Seabrook in mid020s “whoever remembers the inflammatory speeches on the Missouri bill, must be aware, that no subject, in which the question of slavery may be directly or incidentally introduced, can be canvassed, without the most malevolent and serious excitement.”
Anxiety post-22 over antislavery often about revolts. However, few thought insurrection would prevail. But conspiracies that failed seemed reasonable. Lowcountry slaves not clearly assimilated, huge majority, easily led by Gullah Jacks, easy enough to rise up again and again. Constant upheaval would make for scary place to live.
Also, numerous revolts could demoralize community. Revolts undermine paternalistic master, happy slave narratives. Even loyal servants would produce fear, hands reaching for whips more often. Revolt had unique power to sweep aside delusions, force facts. Also Congress debates could raise questions about permanency, morality of slavery, thus eroding confidence and undermining fight against antislavery. (Freehling anticipates part of his argument in Road.)
SC leaders in 20s stress confident issue as crucial economic deal. Worries about safety, moraltiy, permanency could induce enslavers to sell. Wave of acutions would drop prices, bankrupt enslavers who relied on selling a few for liquidity in face of debts. Universal bankruptcy would shake southern morale, give abolitionists victory. Thus small number of fanatics would snowball South into rolling over for freedom.
SC thought Constitution “Ark of the Covenant” (Hayne quote.) Only source of safety. Slavery clearly within reserved rights, Congress explicitly restricted authority of Congress to delegated powers, thus is Constitution to be preserved, could never get hands on slavery. Thus no compromise, ever.
Extreme constitutional commitment turned Hayne, Pinckney, other lowcountry nationalists into perverse broad constructionists. Many clauses, read generously, gave Congress power to debate slavery. William Smith: If Congress can appropriate for general welfare, why can’t Yankee majority appropriate to abolish? After 22, any nod toward antislavery turned lowcountry to strict construction.
After VEsey, overriding goal of Charleston: keep slaves from contact with “incendiary” ideas. Slavery debates most important way slaves got contact with idea of freedom. (Yeah, right.) Also worried about slave contact with black seamen from outstate.
Seaman issue came from Yankee, foreign ships docking at Charleston for days. In 22, black sailors who came ashore could do what they liked. Invited contact between black Yankee abolitionists, slaves. Even let Haitians walk unhindered through Charleston.
Gentry had long suspicion of sailors. Ever since enslavers by 100s came to Charleston to escape revolt, SC had strong memory of Haitian revolution. Vesey using West Indies as example for his revolt did not help. Vesey allegedly suggested Haitians would come over, kill all the whites if they rose up. One guy tried. Monday Gell, participant in Vesey conspiracy, admitted tried to get help from Haitian government via letters carried by black sailors.
Concern about sailor agitation got SC leg, to enact law requiring all black sailors seized, mailed while ships in port, Dec 22. From start, made trouble with feds. Law broke treaties with UK that gave inhabitants reciprocal free access to ports. Early 23, UK protests to SecState JQ Adams. JQ possibly got a suspension out of Charleston. By mid-23, sailors freely moving about.
Lowcountry enslavers not happy about suspension. July 24, 23, meet up in St. Andrew’s Hall, Charleston, in “one of most revleaing events of the period”. Form SC Association. Big Enslavers become officers, auxiliaries throughout lowcountry. Became permanent part of prewar SC establishment, constant watch over slaves and source of radicalism.
Main job of SC Association: insist authorities enforce antiblack laws. Members formed permanent standing committees for day to day supervision of BLack Codes. Close eye on slaves, demand arrests for slightest thing. Committees report back at annual meetings, well-attended, great social event for Charleston. Continued vitality of vigilante org shows best concern over revolts post-22.
SC Association barely formed before demanded sheriff enforce seamen law. Free Jamaican, Harry Eklinson, imprisoned until ship left town. He applied to Supreme Court Justice William Justice for habeas corups. Got immediate hearing. Arugment: Constitution’s Supremacy clause applies to treaties. He had treaty rights that the law violated. Thus unconstitutional.
Benjamin F. Hunt, Isaac E. Holmes argued for association. Admit breaking treaty, but argue treaty itself unconstitutional. Treaty power extended only to delegated powers, they say. States remain sovereign. Government that can’t protect against revolution no longer sovereign. Thus US action against state police power unconstitutional. Any law against servile insurrection busted all treaties. So there.
Johnson took technicality way out. Elkinson held under state law, SCOTUS has no power to issue writes except to federal prisoners. But then wrote dictum ripping apart SC argument. Const made federal law, treaties, supreme. If state could pass any law in defiance of feds, whenver deemed necessary, then state law became supreme. “Where is this to land us? Is it not asserting the right in each state to throw off the federal constitution at its will and pleasure?” (Spoiler: Yes and always.)
Decision caused sensation. Seabrook’s take: SC has no right to enact laws against corruption, insubordination of slaves. Other Charlestonian: decision recalls Haiti, remembers how Haiti got the way it is by a distant government interfering with slavery.
SC ignored decision, British protests continue. In May, 24, Adams asks US Attorney-General William Wirt for opinion on law. Wirt argued law broke treaty and Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce also. In July, Adams forwards UK proests, Wirt argument to SC Gov John L. Wilson, with request leg fix it.
SC leg chambers couldn't agree on tone to adopt, but agreed not to fix anything. Senate: “The duty of the state to guard against insubordination or insurrection … is paramount to all laws, all treaties all constitutions. It arises from the supreme and permanent law of … self-preservation; and will never, by this state, be renounced, compromised, controlled, or participated with any power whatever.” House: “The measures directed towards colored persons brought within the territory of this state are simply part of a general system of domestic police, defensible as such, and absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the citizens.” SC kept on imprisoning despite protests. Hayne later cites successful nullification.
Johnson opinion, Adams letter raise nullification issues in SC for first time. In 23, SC rely on reserved rights of states to nullify federal treaty. In 32, SC used same to nullify federal law judged unconstitutional. Seamen Controversy served lowcountry as lesson in necessity of strict construction if feds to be kept off slavery. SC Association in 25: “The State Sovereignties-the ark to which we must ultimately look to our safety. Let it not be engulfed in the constructive powers of Congress.”
Ohio Resolutions of 24 further stressed broad construction danger. Jan 17, 24, Ohio suggests to states and Congress mild emancipation plan. Admitted slavery “national” evil urged mutual participation in removal. Capstone, requiring southern consent before federal action, national law freeing all slaves born after enactment when they turned 21 if agreed to foreign colonization. 8 other Northern states endorse Ohio. Six Southern denounce.
(Denouncers essentially committing to slavery forever, aren’t they? Refuse federal help even when contingent on Southern consent.
(Spot Research: Freehling doesn’t list which six. Cites Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations. PDF on Internet Archive. Stuff starts on 203 of orginal pagination, 219 BW PDF. Endorsers by June 25: PA, VT, NJ, DE, IL, IN, CT, MA. Opposers: GA: 12/7/24, SC 12/24, MO 1/22/25, MS 2/25 and 1/23/36 [presume an election between] LA 2/16/26, AL 1/1/27. Had to know. Subject of blog post?)
Implications of Ohio, like seamen, that feds could constitutionally go against slavery. At least, Congress could discuss before South gave ok. New debate might bring new revolts. Gov Wilson sent resolution with cover letter against Ohio: “a firm determination to resist, at the threshold, every invasion of our domestic tranquility.” Senate called Ohio “very strange and ill-advised communication” protested “any claim of right, of the United States, to interfere, in any manner whatever.” House called on Gov to tell Ohio leg “that the people of this state will adhere to a system, descended to them from their ancestors, and now inseparably connected with their social and political existence.”
Section 6
By 24, SC enslavers have lots of reasons to flip on nationalism: OH resolutions, Seamen controversy, 24 tariff all seem pointed at vital interest. Danger of war less an issue, Vesey and depression further direct focus on insular issues. First time since 16, Smithites might gain ground.
Smithites take the openiong. Thomas Cooper writes Consolidation pamphlet vs. Calhoun nationalism. Stephen Miller puts up resolutions in State Senate for strict construction, declare protective tariff, internal improvements unconstitutional. David R. Williams supports, Senate passes over strong Calhounite protest. House tables Miller’s resolutions and Calhounite counter-resolutions by Samuel Prioleau, BIL of James Hamilton, Jr.
25 turned things around for resolutions. Congress appropriations up, more states endorse OH resolutions, Rufus King puts resolutions out in Senate for using land sales to fund compensated emancipation. (Vesey conspirators claimed King as a friend.) Seabrook pamphlet: A Concise View of the Critical Situation and Future Prospects of the Slaveholding States in Relation to their Colored Population told planters of upcoming danger. Most important: huge English cotton speculation drives prices to worst of decade. Upland down from 32 cents in June to 13 in Oct. White SC seemed under siege.
Leg meets at end of year. Smith, now in State House, calls up Miller resolutions from 24. Subsequently called Smith Resolutions. Days of debate, strong Calhounite protest, resolutions passed 73-28. Senate agrees 29-14.
Likely lowcountry went for strict construction more for slavery than tariff. Upcountry less fussed by seamen, more about tariff. Smithite speeches stress both. Smith argues general welfare clause brought tariff to enrich manufacturers on back of enslavers. Threatens when internal improvements done, North will tear apart government and make slaves into masters. (Always race war with these guys.)
National alliances of SC changing, opening up room for Smith. Calhoun lost PA to Jackson, had to leave race in 24. Took uncontested VP spot instead. Crawford lost momentum when had a stroke, out of politics by 25. No majority of 24 electoral votes, so election tossed to House. Clay swung House for JQ Adams, then got SecState job. Therefore new party for losers, centered on making Jackson president.
Adams-Clay connection, Jackson’s popularity in SC, Calhoun’s inclinations put him into Jackson camp. Became major critic of “corrupt bargain”. Newspaper war between Calhoun and JQ Adams.
Calhoun with Jackson put Crawfordites like Willliam Smith in bind. Hated the guy and his ideas, but not much choice. States rights guys could hardly go for nationalists. More important, Jackson huge in SC and Smith already lost once with Crawford. Not eager for a sequel.
Smith signs on with Jackson, beats Daniel Huger 83-81 in Senate election of 26. Smith went to DC on first coach, arrived to find warm welcome from Calhoun: “treated me with so much kindness and consideration that I could not hate him as I wished to do.”
Smith’s principles, man himself on rise, but hardly wrecked Calhoun. Loose factions, weak connection between issues and election results prevented sweep. Factions continue into 26, major figures like William Campbell Preston, William Harper “somewhat” free of all. Death of Lowndes, geddes ends their personality-driven coalition. Lowndes men go to Calhoun, make lowcountry wing of Mercury Junto. Geddes men, despite Smithite connections, go to Courier party. Four surviving factions: Mercury Junto (Calhoun, big in upcountry along Savannah and in Charleston), Smith: upcountry east of Congaree, Speer: upcountry ignoring national politics interested in cutting state budget, Courier: Charleston, big with merchants and for JQ Adams.
Leg elections still about personalities more than issues. Leg passed Smith Resolutions then picked nationalists gov, Richard Manning, and Speaker, John B. O’Neall. Majority of votes to nationalists Daniel Huger, Warren L. Davis instead of states rights Johan Gaillard on first senate ballot in 24. 26 leg, ended up more overwhelmingly states rights in 27, came two votes shy of putting Huger over Smith for Senate. Leg of 28, militant SR, still elected O’Neall to important judgeship over Smithite Josiah Evans.
Nationalist-SR fight even less important on popular elections to Congress and leg. Calhounites McDuffie, Hamilton, Drayton re-upped sans contes in 26. Calhounites, Smithites split two elections contested, nat Warren L Davis over John L Winston but Smithite William D. martin over Andrew Govan. Leg elections of 26 usually uncontested. When contest existed, personal issues decided things.
26 electorate discovers issues, finally, does not reutrn half of leg. Victor not Calhoun, Smith, but Alexander Speer’s budget cutters. Decade-long fight finally won over 10k vote for debt relief of Thomas Jefferson’s daughter. Speaker O’Neall unseated, new leg cuts budget 20%. Retrenchment of 28 one of best signs to irrelevance of Cal-Smith fight in 20s.
Superficial C-S fight not organized party fight for support because despite rhetoric, few actual policy differences. After 19, both against higher tariffs, 22 both firm proslavery. Cal favor for “national” improvements still denounced ~everything proposed since 24. Difference never serious enough to risk presenting voters with a real choice. 30s would show only fundamental difference could bust aristo distrust of “demagogues, electioneering, and popular political parties.” (So politics.)
Section 7
27 turned Calhounites into sectionalists. American Colonization Society asks for public money, woolen manufacturers try to raise tariff, Harrisburgh Convention tries to organize protectionist movement. Firm opposition from Hayne, Pinckney, McDuffie, Hamilton, increasingly hostile response in state.
ACS petitioned Congress for cash, opening regular campaign for it. Hayne, Smith denounce in Senate, causes intense lowcountry excitement. ACS on right of antislavery movement, supported by many who oppose abolition. All hoped to send free blacks back to Africa. Abolitionists hoped resistance to emancipation weakened when freedpeople could be deported. ACS immediate goal innocuous. Some white southerners want to improve slavery by removing free blacks. Project also totally impractical. Thus why the fuss?
In lowcountry, colonization looked like thin end of wedge. Beat it then or it would open the door to abolition. ACS money from Congress would set precedent. If could promote general welfare through colonization of free blacks, could also by freeing blacks. Hayne: only safety of section in inability of feds to touch slavery.
Lowcountry suspected colonization was front for abolitionists. Thought abolitionists knew any sudden move would not work, but being sneaky would. Colonization thus preliminary agitation, laying groundwork for next steps when South would be asleep at wheel and helpless.
SC radicals swore not to tolerate Congress discussion of issue. Debate colonization and you’d debate slavery. Renewed slavery debate might soften resolve of enslavers. Robert J Turnbull:
“The claims of the Colonization Society can not possibly be discussed, without giving to Congress an occasion, officially to express its opinion against slavery as an evil. … The interference of Congress … would alarm the timid amongst us. It would cause those, who are wavering from investments in plantations and negroes. … As regards our domestics, the effects upon their minds, by any such opinion by the National Legislature, would be such, as to fill us all with the DEEPEST apprehensions.”
Gentry also worried about England, playing into ACS fears. They read English papers, knew about Wilberforce’s campaign against British slavery. By 27, looked like he would win.
Lowcountry fears abolition in England opens door for stronger campaign in US. Read parallel between early Wilberforce and colonizers. Turnbull: Wilberforce opened by abolishing slave trade, even more cautiously than ACS. Took care not to endorse abolition then, even as potential first step. Trade discussion led to slavery debate. British enslavers got nervous, slave prices dropped. If UK bought the slaves, easy to rattle confidence in slave property, dropping value to nothing. (The UK did buy the slaves in the 30s.) Thus had to fight now or West Indies’ fate would come to Dixie.
Therefore, Wilberforce example and lowcountry own anxiety over discussion drove to imagine that petition was consciously aimed at them and a grave threat. Dec 27, SC leg said as much in militant report against ACS:
“Should Congress claim the power to discuss and take a vote upon any question connected with domestic slavery … it will be neither more nor less than the commencmeent of a system by which the peculiar policy of SC, upon which is predicated her resources and her prosperity, will be shake to its foundations. … It is a subject upon which no citizen of SC needs instruction. One common feeling inspires us all with a firm determination not to submit to a species of legislation which would light up such fires of intestine commotion in our borders as ultimately to consume our country.”
(It really says intestine. Literally said they’d s$%% themselves. Also I’m 12.)
SC answer to ACS, like OH resolutions, important to understand both Nullification and subsequent sectional strife. Some historians argue if Yankees offered constructive proposals instead of attacks, maybe abolition without Civil War. But SC response, rigidity in 20s to mid suggestions before major abolitionist attack shows otherwise. (Freehling must have Craven in mind here?) Some feared moderate positions more than radical attacks, because fairminded might take an interest in practical means of emancipation. Editor, Columbia Telescope, Aug 20, 33 stressed risk of internal dissent in face of outside persuasion. (Foreshadows Road again.)
Emancipation entailed social revolution that would have to have long debate, months or years. 20s show SC too worried about debate, too insecure, to accept any debate, let alone action. Had the wolf by the ears, so even tame suggestions prompt more defensiveness.
27 US Senate tabled ACS petition, but almost passed woolens bill.Would have jacked tariff on imported woolens from 33.3% to 50%ish actual value. Passed House, over SC protests from McDuffie, fast turning militant sectionalist. Called duties worse than taxes that provoked revolution. Government could not endure like this, system “perverts the powers granted for national objects to the oppression” of South. Tie vote in Senate put Calhoun into decisive role. Voted to table. Most nationalist guy in SC now going sectional.
Looked soon after like Calhoun only delayed protection. Summer 27, tariff convention in Harrisburgh, PA resolves for more protection for all major industrial stuff, and raw materials: sugar, hemp, lead. Bid for western support with votes for roads in trade for votes for tariff. For first time, SC suspects majority, maybe forever, of Yankees out to get them.
Section 8
24, SC a bit apprehsnive. 27, “acutely alarmed” going to mass meetings, hearing strong orations, reading violent editorials, told nation SC would not stand for this. Turnbull most responsible for new militancy. Lowcountry enslaver, writer. Essay series The Crisis makes hero of nullifiers.
Biography of Turnbull: FL born, raised Charleston, educated England, Scottish father, got best medical ed in Europe. Married Grecian. Went to US, director of colony at St. Augustine. Chased out by revolutions and found asylum in Charleston, got rich in medicine. Robert, 2nd son, trained for law, worked it until 40 with success, traded up to sea island enslaving. Ex-federalist, own career followed path where slavery turned lowcountry strict construction. Member of court that tried Vesey, wrote seamen law, founder and secretary of SC Association, with Isaac E. Holmes wrote articles against Johnson’s opinion on seaman case. ACS law straw, set him to Crisis essays.
Turnbull’s case for strict construction on careful read of inexpediency of internal improvements, protective tariff. Gives evidence lowcountry enslavers most concerned with slavery also worry on tariff, especially chance for retaliation. But thought ACS more serious threat to SC. Tariffs, improvement dangerous mostly in precedents set, with general welfare opening door to abolition. Quotes stress question not merely roads, commerce, out of SC pockets, nor unending taxation, but whether Union could endure “free from the rude hands of innovators and enthusiasts, and from the molestation or interference of any legislative power on earth but our own? Or whether, like the weak, the dependent, and unfortunate colonists of the West-Indies, we are to drag on a miserable state of political existence, constantly vibrating between our hopes and our fears, as to what a Congress may do towards us, without any accurate knowledge of our probable fate, and without hope of successful resistance”
(Massive pile of 18c manhood stuff here. Weak, dependent, like women and slaves, etc.)
Turnbull’s solution: SC sovereign, could resist federal law by force if it tread on reserved right of states. Scorned talk of opposition “by all constitutional means”. All hands off, mind your own business. No negotiation, no reasoning. “It must be a word and a blow.”
(Wild stuff. Doc free on Gbooks: https://books.google.com/books?id=uofICHdr0zsC&hl=en)
Turnbull widely read, both in Mercury and subsequent pamphlet. Sensation in lowcountry. James Hamilton, Jr endorses as first warning to South. Woke section to danger, etc. But Turnbull himself owns up, ACS issue only big in lowcountry. Upcountry more on woolens bill, just as were more up about tariff than seamen in 24.
Thomas Cooper was Turnbull for upcountry. President of SC College, leader of Smithites. Gave big speech July 2, 27, opening militant upcountry antitariff movement. For rest of year, decade, kept on most extreme SR end of SC.
Bio of Cooper: Not likely radical in SC. Not native, not a big enslaver. But didn’t need self-interest to pick a fight. Fought authorities in Europe, US in many crusades from liberalism to reaction. Cooper well-born, educated, conventional British liberal, went in for Jacobins. Burke denounced him in Commons in 1792. Cooper answered with “scathing attack” on Lords, clergy. Found England less welcoming, also didn’t want to join in developing Terror, so best off to Philadelphia in 1794.
Came to US in middle of Jeffersonian-Federalist clash. By 99, thick with the Jeffersonians. Got jailed briefly in 00 for breaking Sedition Law. Stayed on in PA, won judgeship in 04. PA interested in judicial reform. Cooper draw attacks from reformers for arbitrary decisions. Got strong vote of censure against, driven from bench in 11. Decided even in US, democracy went Jacobin.
Suspended political career, went into academia: chemistry at Carlisle College and UPA 11-19. Got post at SC College. Next year, elected president. Stayed in Columbia until death in 39. Happiest, most powerful in SC. Until mid-30s, college did well. Cooper big on SC aristocracy. Soon leading Jeffersonian in defense of slavery. Early proslavery writer, strong tariff critic, wrote endlessly on SR throughout era.
Was 73 in 32, stooped, hard to breathe, but still lively. Managed both teaching duties and leading nullifiers, crusader against clergy. Good chunk of SC leadership went through his college.
Speech at antitariff meeting, July 2, 27, Cooper reminded that tariff put southern money in Yankee hands. Wealth is power, every year of submission further chains South. Needed to act instead of just protest or soon would have no option for action. Spelled out dire economics of tariff to SC, predicted enactment of woolens bill. Then: “We shall, before long, be compelled to calculate the value of our union; and to inquire of what use to us is this most unequal alliance?” Hamburg two days later, McDuffie almost as bad: Union could not endure 20 years as-is, with laws tampering in distribution of property.
If SC went against feds, seemed necessary coordinate with other slave states. Columbia calls for southern convention. Upcountry meetings endorse in late 27. But most SC not in for conventions or Cooper-Turnbull radicalism. Future looked bad, but not much had yet actually happened. Hoped Jackson as president in 28 would reverse trend, especially if Calhoun ran things. Leg adopted another set of resolutions on construction, tariffs, improvements, ACS.
Section 9
27 uproar helps explain 28 militancy. SC on verge of action even before Tariff of Abominations. SR campaigns of 27 important because Calhounites on board and leading, not opposing. But qualified sectionalism just like qualified nationalism. Old SC in favor of bank still, still accept “truly national” projects, if against local, still for protection if war incoming and for essential industry. Even sectionalism nationalistic, since Calhoun and company think high tariff and antislavery will destroy Union. (Consistent thing with Calhoun: his radicalism is fundamentally counter-revolutionary, always about preserving the Union.) With nationalists still on old program, Cal-Smith fight continues well into 30s.
Still, serious change. In 16, SC in prosperity, nationalism, even for protection. By 27, slaves restless, economy bad, enslavers put section (slavery) over nation. McDuffie went from nationalist pamphlet in 21 to sectional oration in 27. Pinckney of 25, firm nationalist. Publishing Turnbull, defending Cooper in 27. Hamilton, nationalist in 21, agitated against woolens bill. Hayne, who resisted anti-Seamen movement, now leading vs. ACS. Even Calhoun moving toward nullification in 27. Not long until James Hammond would declare SC better than Union.
Even abjuring old broad construction, Calhounites argue nationalism changed as much as exponents. Had a point. Argued that inconsistency came from older fondness for a system that seemed national (for them), newer hostility to one that was not but sectional (against them) and corrupt. Even back in the day, argued national laws must hit each section the same. As sectionalists, said tariffs, piecemeal improvements, antislavery all sectional. Supporting 20% rate in 16 not same as supporting 50% in 27, support for a few projects did not make for general support of all projects.
SC nationalism always qualified, soon junked because too disinterested, too much proejct of temporary crisis. SC had little to get out of improvements. Problem of Republic in 20 how to survive European wars. After 20, much more about tariffs, banks, slavery. To Clay-Adams, economic program better than ever in 20s, but harder they push, the more war faded into history, the more SC decided it had all changed. SC depression got worse, anxiety over slavery grew, expanding government seemed more threatening. By 25, majority of white SC against broad construction. By 27, Calhounites shopping for new theories to solve their problems.
In the first book, I found the flashback sequences much more interesting than the present time ones, at least up until the final confrontation, after the flashbacks caught up. The past was where all the interesting stuff was. This one had me interested the whole way.
I felt somewhat the other way around about Ancillary Justice. It wasn't a huge difference, but I felt the present-day plot was usually stronger. Also way less confusing to read until you figure out how she's marking ancillaries vs. the Ship AI and shifting POVs.
Started All the Light We Cannot See. Only about 10% through so it's kind of tough to tell if I will end up liking it a lot, though it's interesting so far. There seem to be lots of WWII themed works of fiction about lately.
SC has some weird pronunciation of Beaufort. I think like Buford? Kirth?
If you go to Columbia, SC, one of the main thoroughfares is "Huger Street." It's not pronounced like "more big," the way it looks. It's pronounced "YOU-Gee."
So, yeah, SC.
SC has some weird pronunciation of Beaufort. I think like Buford? Kirth?If you go to Columbia, SC, one of the main thoroughfares is "Huger Street." It's not pronounced like "more big," the way it looks. It's pronounced "YOU-Gee."
So, yeah, SC.
I'm going to blame it on customary Anglophilia. Any institution must baffle foreigners. :)
Poems About Fairies
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finished DEAD BEAT (Dresden Files #7), which also happened to complete my first Goodreads reading challenge - 20 books. I was curious to see how much I actually read each year, so I set a conservative number and wanted to see if I can actually match it. Well, seems like I can. Next year I'll set it to 25 and see where it goes from there.
Next up is a classic: Childhood's End by Clarke. Prompted to read this by the fast approaching miniseries adaptation by Syfy, and also this review, which tickled me the right way.
It is becoming increasingly evident to me that Butcher has Harry's future mapped with great detail, perhaps even up to it's very end. Increasingly while reading this book I began to feel that every single scene was either pay off from a previous one (in this book or in those that came before) or a set up for a future scene. In previous books I used to feel like the story is self contained. This time, so many open questions are left dangling by the end that the story doesn't even make sense with the information available to the reader (and to Harry). This isn't a bad thing, just a change in how the series works.
And it is far from the only change. Harry too seemed to have changed over the course of these last few stories. He has collected an ensemble of loyal allies which he slowly learns to trust and lean on when he needs it, a huge step froward from his former lone wolf attitude. His position in the world change as the notoriety he accumulated with his successive adventures reached the point where it affects the way people think of him - in this book we discover that young apprentices grew up admiring his work and attitude, and he is recognized by strangers (from a young MD in a hospital who doesn't even believe in magic all the way up to the Erlking himself). Another memorable section has him listening in to a conversation between his werewolf friends where we get to see how other beside himself conceive of him - and they seem to be intimidated by him and what he can do. To read Harry's description of events you can imagine him as somewhat of a slouch who lucks his way through dire situations, but when the werewolves describe his involvement in the war between the Winter Court and the Summer court (in book 4), they say he "mowed through an army of faeries". That's definitely not how I remember Harry describing that encounter a couple of books ago, but I'll take their words for it over his.
Overall it is apparent how much bigger the story is now than it was to start with, and Butcher handles this shift of scale with style. He also finds smart and convincing ways to keep developing his characters while keeping true to the core of who they are. So even though I liked a lot of the choices made in the book and some moments were downright incredible, I have a couple of gripes:
1) People arch eyebrows at each other in this book all the time. Somehow every single character uses this body language quirk multiple times per conversation. Should have been toned down with editing. I usually don't mind this kind of thing, but i'm deep into my reread of the Wheel of Time and every time I see a repetitive description I feel the start of a pounding headache as images of Aes Sedai smoothing their skirts dance behind my eyes.
2) I still don't get why Harry can't approach Michael about the Denarious coin he has in his basement. It seems like he wants its influence removed from his life, and we've seen that the Knight order Michael serves in forces him to extend help to the path of redemption to anyone who has a coin but willingly gives it up. Feels like Harry is looking for trouble for no good reason.
3) I appreciate the whole riding an undead dinosaur thing, but one section of the book where Harry is told of the incredible, world shattering latest events from the war between the White Council and the Red Court left me feeling somewhat cheated. There was a direct confrontation between hundreds of wizards and vampires summoning Lovecraftian beings in the realm of the Fae and we are reading about some necromancers scuttling about in Chicago? I feel like I missed up on the really great action and the really important parts of the story.
The Shepherd's Crown by Terry Pratchett.
It's already sad ;_;
Welp. Finished it. It's done. That's it. Except for rereads somewhere down the line, I suppose.
Rest in peace, Sir Terry, whist we rejoice for all the tales you have given us and lament the stories you never got a chance to tell.
Switched back to Andre Norton for a bit. Her prose is even worse than Butcher's, but at least some of her ideas were pretty cool, so last night I started The Jargoon Pard (1974), in honor of that critter appearing in the Bestiary 4 (2013).
It just occurred to me that I neglected to follow up on this post. To my disappointment, the titular "pard" is simply a mountain lion. No phasing attack, nothing that would imply damage reduction, or energy resistance, or telepathy, or being a magical beast rather than an animal.
I'd assumed that, given the name and general status as a cat monster, Paizo had taken the Bestiary pard from the novel, so I googled it. Imagine my surprise that the pard appeared in a old bestiaries, as a spotted, cheetah-like great cat. Supposedly a pard and a lion would mate to produce a leopard. Still nothing about phasing attacks or energy resistance or telepathy, so I assume Paizo tacked all that on arbitrarily, because someone thought it sounded cool.
Finished DEAD BEAT (Dresden Files #7), which also happened to complete my first Goodreads reading challenge - 20 books
Butcher eventually decided he would alternate between more personal-scale stories and epic stuff. He gets fairly good at making the more personal stuff not seem like a step down from the blockbusters.
With regard to why Harry doesn't get help with the spoiler problem, I think it's explained a book or two down the line that
I often joke about waiting until I retire and re-reading the SoIaF series, but now I can't wait to re-read all the Dresden Novels in a row. And the Taltos novels too. :-D
|
|
Finished DEAD BEAT (Dresden Files #7), which also happened to complete my first Goodreads reading challenge - 20 booksButcher eventually decided he would alternate between more personal-scale stories and epic stuff. He gets fairly good at making the more personal stuff not seem like a step down from the blockbusters.
With regard to why Harry doesn't get help with the spoiler problem, I think it's explained a book or two down the line that
** spoiler omitted **
Well I can't read that spoiler yet :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah!
Toss your steaming paga in his face, then ravage him like the frenzied he-sleen you are!
More book stuff as I wile away the morning with a live 1975 Black Sabbath performance:
I just finished Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. I couldn't tell if the supposed Sumer term me was a riff on meme, but it seemed like he had no idea about actual brain structures or linguistics.
It was a pretty good story, but it seemed kind of disjointed from time. It was supposed to be futuristic, but there were a bunch of WWII vets who were not totally venerable. Even in 1992, when it was published, they would have been old men.
And it kind of ended pretty abruptly.
Anyways, I'm going back to Devil Said Bang by Richard Kadrey.
Still with Starrise at Corrivale. This thing starts off achingly slow. The back cover tells us that Our Hero got kicked out of the space marines. So we have about seventy or eighty pages before that happens...out of a book of less than four hundred. I appreciate that Diane Duane wrote his military life as mostly tedious duties strung together, with his wishing he saw more action and simultaneously having some bad memories about a time when he did instead of the standard action movie stuff. However, it's still a good quarter or so of the book to get us to the point where the story really begins.
I'd be more charitable here if it were framed as a mystery where he would clear his name and get his revenge...but as soon as he's acquitted (the three judge panel couldn't agree he was guilty) of the crime we know he was framed for the POV shifts to the guy who really, really obviously set him up. So not much mystery. I know it's game tie-in fiction and I shouldn't expect anything too ambitious, but it feels like this could all have been done by starting with the trial and doing a few flashbacks.
Probably also I'm a bit spoiled by reading higher-end stuff right before. Might have done better if I didn't know for a fact that none of the established status quo was going to matter much.
Well I can't read that spoiler yet :(Finished DEAD BEAT (Dresden Files #7), which also happened to complete my first Goodreads reading challenge - 20 booksButcher eventually decided he would alternate between more personal-scale stories and epic stuff. He gets fairly good at making the more personal stuff not seem like a step down from the blockbusters.
With regard to why Harry doesn't get help with the spoiler problem, I think it's explained a book or two down the line that
** spoiler omitted **
You know, I didn't mean that teasingly at all. Sorry. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before the above I read John Le Carre's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. That's a good read. If there are any fans of his work out there, what else do you recommend of his (Le Carre)?
I'm tempted to say "they're all good!" but the obvious place to continue would be with the next two books in the Smiley trilogy: The Honourable Schoolboy, and Smiley's People.
From there I'd either go back and read The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (the movie starring Richard Burton ain't bad either), or forward and check out his late-period novels which, starting with The Constant Gardener, in my opinion are his best works.
The Tailor of Panama is a fun homage to Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana.
A Perfect Spy is excellent, and partly based on the life of le Carré and (more overtly) his father, the confidence man Ronnie Cornwall.
The Little Drummer Girl is maybe the only one I'd not recommend - it's not bad, but it's a bit bloated and too long as a result.
My absolute favourite, however, is probably The Mission Song.
I think the ones I've read were: The Honourable Schoolboy, Smiley's People, A Perfect Spy, The Russia House and A Murder of Quality. Immensely enjoyed 'em all.
As for myself, bogged down in the controversies between Karl and Arnold Ruge leavened with Irish ghost stories and poems about banshees.
Just finished Starrise at Corrivale. It's...ok. The last plot twist involved the protagonist knowing what was up and not telling the reader. I'm fine with that when well-executed, but this one felt a bit pat. The sequel hook felt a bit forced, I think mostly because Our Heroes find out about 2/3 of the way through the book that these unknown aliens turn people into slave soldiers, but then can't do anything with it so the thread just stops. Then some other people find out the same and the thread also stops. They put on an appearance for the climax, but are largely off-screen.
Found a bit of paper from the past owner's school in my copy of Storm at Eldala.
Crazy longshot: Was anybody here out of school sick for two days in April, probably just before the 20th, circa 1999 or 2000? Did you have something called "Key", Algebra, English, Earth [Sciences], and Social Studies that year? Were you into game tie-in fiction?
If so, I may have your old book and a slip of paper that tells me your makeup work. You used it as a bookmark. Hi. :) I have your first name and last initial too, but I don't want to out your long-ago reading habits to the internet. That would be jerky.
Anyway, you took much better care of Storm at Eldala than the library patrons did for my copy of Starrise at Corrivale. Thanks for that.
It does smell of smoke, though. I don't know if that happened after it went to a secondhand joint or at home. If it was at home, no hard feelings, Past Owner. However, anybody have good ideas on how to de-smoke a paperback?
'Guardsman of Gor' - a half decent adventure story spoiled by the usual dribbling about perverted modalities of unisexual identities, love employees and so on
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After I get done with this silly game tie-in trilogy, and a couple of other books I anticipate next month, I think I might do a horrible thing. I want to ground myself better in the deep antebellum, evolution of the Second Party System, all that stuff. There are two major recent surveys, Sean Wilentz's Rise of American Democracy and Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought.
I understand that Howe's is by a fair margin the superior work. Wilentz is one of those throwbacks to "only white guys matter" history and his Whiggish (teleological Whiggish, not Whig Party Whiggish...very much the opposite) rendition pretty much demands he ignore the deeply racialized nature of Jacksonian Democracy. Howe wrote in part as answer to him, but Howe himself is possibly a bit too anti-Jackson and overfond of John Quincy Adams.
So they both have different things to offer and I'll be better for reading both. Probably together. But they're both as much weapons as books, huge things it would take forever to get through. (I tend to read history fairly slowly.) I desperately don't want to spend the next six months on the project. Therefore, I need to plan it. Neither one has Freehling's merciless 50+ page chapters, so I might organize them on a chapter a day thing. Probably with some post-reading writeups.
This is a terrible idea. Talk me out of it. Or into it.
Howe himself is possibly overfond of John Quincy Adams.
Sounds like I'd best not read him, as he'd simply reinforce my existing opinion of JQA. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Howe himself is possibly overfond of John Quincy Adams.Sounds like I'd best not read him, as he'd simply reinforce my existing opinion of JQA. ;)
JQA: Trolling the proslavery caucus since 1836.
Here we are again. Just part of a chapter this time. I'm also trying to be a bit more summary since these chapters are massive. Interesting disjunction in SC's argument from past states rights theorists in this. One of many ways the reactionaries proved pretty innovative when push came to shove.
Section 1
Cong session 27-7 turning point in SC nationalist-to-sectionalist shift. Nationalist-Smith issues more irrelevant since Calhounites fighting against broad construction. Increasingly looked like SC had consistent hostile and tyrannical majority. Slavery debates in House, ACS asking harder for cash, internal improvements up and *fanfare* highest antebellum tariff passed. Most SC voted for tariff.
Section 2
Another SC freakout at open of 27 session. Most of Jan had House fighting over petition of Marigny D’Auterive asking cash compensation for property damaged in War; a slave. Issue: could man be property in land of natural rights? North says giving compensation endorses property in man.
SC reps argue in defense: Constitution sanctioned slavery, defended private property against taking without compensation. Therefore, give the money. If Cong debates whether right to slave property exists, then no southerner would remain. If enslavers owned enslaved at whim of state, SC needed “calculate upon the value of the Union.”
Charleston papers spread the story, celebrate defiance in defense. North opposition, Henry L. Pinckney’s Mercury says, work of very few “benevolent, misguided men.” But SC lowcountry could not afford risk. Danger had nothing to do with number of antislavery men, because region a powderkeg “may create an explosion, as great as the best concerted undermining.” Southern Patriot paper: Congress arguing for no property in men would “shake the Union to its centre.”
Late Jan, House grants cash. Vote close, not everyone in SC happy. Judge William Harper fretted issue would soon become insoluable. Also concerned over higher tariffs, improvements, Missouri, Seamen, ACS. But petition was worst storm yet. Only one course available when slavery “directly or incidentally” challenged.
Section 3
Post-petition, months over tariff in House. As debate went on, clearer that protection very likely to win. Supporters: miners, hemp growers, sugar planters, wool producers plus manufacturers. (Hemp and sugar Southern products.) Lots of lobbyists at work. Turned into bidding war over who would give the most. Had to look to SC like majority would never stop.
Lobbyists did well, but don’t read into it economic heft of industries. In 28, Ind Revolution only starting. (That is a periodization mess. So many different metrics…) For 50 years hereafter, average person still rural, sold farm goods on world market. Southerners more into antitariff than west, but both worried.
Protectionists strong for political reasons. Election year promises from Adams and Jackson to win manufacturing states PA, NY. Both also keen on support from raw materials interests.
South, West antitariff people but very firmly for Jackson. Westerners like one of their own. South very against New England JQAdams. Van Buren, NEast Jacksonians had no problem courting protectionists given this. Tariff would make presidents, not cloth and blankets.
Impossible situation for SC. Only hope: divide raw materials tariff types from manufacturing tariff types. Keep raw wool high to alienate woolen manufacturers. High duty on molasses to turn NE distillers against. So SC could vote targeted poison pill rates through to kill whole thing.
Risk: industrialists might take the flawed bill instead of no bill. If factory guys vote for tariff in light of all that, then enslavers would give the nation high taxes. McDuffie called “fighting the devil with fire.” South voted consistently against amendments to lower rates. But Northern Jacksonians, with Van Burenites, vote to lower enough so industrialists take flawed bill over no bill. Tariff becomes law, with SC votes.
Calhounites later say Van Burn in on plan and stabbed them in back. VB denied, Calhoun didn’t prove. Freehling things was genuine Southern plot that backfired. Either way, incident turned SC against VB, convinced many that Jackson party would never go back on rates.
Next 4 years, SC argue tariff twice-over bad. Raised duties from 33.3% to 50% despite SC economic slump. Second, unconstitutional because broke clauses that prevented slavery debates.
SC const argument did not rely on traditional strict construction. SR types big on exact language of document. Criterion of simple clarity, power is or is not specifically enumerated. Tarrifs were as regulation of commerce. Started argument from original intent. Congress then, for the first time, not only restricted to enumerated powers but also to to using those powers only for ends specifically named in text. Power to tax only for revenue. No clause authorized promotion of industry, therefore out of bounds.
Perverting of Const especially bad in illegitimate assumption of authority undermined stated purpose. Since tariff 28 protected industry, intentionally cut imports and thus revenue that tariff was to raise. Destroyed commerce supposed to regulate.
Power to use for unsanctioned ends, like general welfare, gave feds infinite chance to ignore restraints, seize state rights. Under precedent here, taxes could go to do anything, like ACS, even direct antislavery effort.
SC argument drew in revolt-anxious enslavers and empty-pocketed planters. But only in SC. Logic couldn’t even sell strict constructionists Dems elsewhere. Argument undermined by own premise: since revolved around intent of duties, Calhounites had to prove intentions of pro-tariff legislatures. Not going to happen. Nobody writes down how they intend to destroy commerce or wreck revenue. Few spoke on subject at all, many with mixed motives. Some thought of it as revenue bill, others like Jackson thought national defense needed protection.
Dubious to us, but SC argument convincing to SC at time. New duties greased wheels for slavery debates. Also sure 50% rate would lead to disaster for them. SC resolved not to accept. But Calhounites especially stuck in dilemma. Leaders of Jacksonian party could wreck his campaign on tariff. But SC loved Jackson. Maybe radical action only way out.
SC stays with Jackson, hopes Calhoun will control Jackson. By 28, clear VB main rival. VB for tariff.
SC also hated JQA. Jackson mildly pro-tariff. JQA, with Henry Clay, huge pro. Also suspect on slavery. As SecState, asked repeal of Negro Seamen Law. New Englander also, so inherently untrustworthy. Named Rufus King, antislavery leader in Missouri times, minister to England. To lowcountry, still worse that JQA participating at Panama Congress of Spanish-American Nations in 26.
Haitians expected to attend. Haitian Revolution may see discussion. To SC, looked like another dangerous slavery debate. Hayne warned in debate: South can’t permit any touching of slavery, period, or would be driven from Union.
More reason to hate JQA: Some SC fear JQA could subvert democracy. SC reflexively hated political operatives of popular style. Used demagoguery to sway “rabble”, patronage to buy votes. Crawford denounced for trying that, failed. JQA might win. JQA made Clay SecState to buy presidency, so obviously a smooth operator. Clay and Adams proposed buying not just pols, but sections with tariff, improvements, public lands.
Jackson safer. Enslaver himself so would not mess with. Patriotic general, not spoilsman, so would turn back clock and get rid of corruption, patronage, partisanship. Calhounites dream he would flip on tariff. But Jackson big on tariff since 24, in coalition with protectionists. So really at best neutral to start. If SC in Cong could keep down appropriations, could deny him reason to keep rates high.
In 28 SC thought spending might be cut. Payment of debt, half of revenues, nearly done. If Jackson insisted on it fast, and against new projects, would have surplus before 32 elections.
Southern, Western Jackson men could make it happen. Enslavers thought of moving west, so in favor of free lands. West sold goods to world market, so could get together against tariffs. Ending land salves (and revenue from) plus low tariff would force Jackson to cut. Calhounite Duff Green very in favor of plan.
Not everyone on board with Green. SC radicals not interested in short-term considerations that produced tariff. Convinced was complete end of South’s control of nation. North had permanent majority, paid for out of their pockets. Tariff would suck away their cash for North. South being in congress and elections only lent legitimacy to exploitation. Needed minority check on majority to save section and Union.
With idea of permanent hostile majority, S-W alliance more a pipe dream. South could only deliver free land in an era of cheap land. Northwest could give millions for roads. Debt repayment might not help, since could always find projects to spend revenues on or even send the money straight to states. Cal saw last as worst danger.
Calhounite problem: make radical solution without wrecking hope of Jackson fixing things. Right after Tariff of 28 passed, SC caucus settled on making a united south bloc for protest. Most of South not on board, at least immediately. SC caucus meets again, goes it alone. SC back home already was.
Second caucus, “tempestuous secret”. Met at Hayne’s. Radical talk, conservative action. Hamtilon: resign in protest. McDuffie: rant against Union. Hayne: asks if US troops would be let march through South to put down uprising. But also moderates: William Smith didn’t go. Thomas Mitchell didn’t say anything. William Drayton, longtime Calhounite, admitted tariff bad but disunion worse. Eventual decision: wait until Jackson in office, keep SC quiet until then.
|
|
Finished reading "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke. Next up, "Knife of Dreams" (Wheel of Time #11) by Robert Jordan.
Making my way through Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom series. Currently on Drowned Wednesday.
Once I finish the series, moving on to Jim Butcher's The Aeronaut's Windlass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tess of the D'Urbervilles
Also, they did Red Sonja novels somewhen in the '70s/'80s, and I've got one. I'm going to read it this weekend.
Kill City Blues by Richard Kadrey.
More wiseass, tough guy urban fantasy in LA.
Tess of the D'Urbervilles
[Sobs]
Finished Storm at Eldala and its sequel, Nightfall at Algemron. The trilogy got quite a bit better as it went on, though there was still a clunky POV shift or two early on. I wonder if WotC editorial insisted since they appear in the same place and are similarly derailing in each book.
Supported the local bookstore with an order for Howe's What Hath God Wrought yesterday, but it shan't be in for a week. Opted not to read Wilentz just now after looking into a few more reviews. It seems he's into the habit of citing historians he disagrees with without telling you that he's doing so or engaging their arguments and he neglects quite a few significant things about which I don't feel grounded enough to immediately smell him out. Better to get the grounding first, then come back at a later date. Besides, I'm already broadly familiar with the Jackson as apotheosis of Democracy line.
So I've probably a week of open time. Unsure what I'll fill it with.
|
|
So, having had some days to process Childhood's End, I have somewhat more organized thoughts about it.
First, I enjoyed the imagining of the benevolent invasion by the omnipotent alien force. I think Clarke did a good job depicting the Overlords as clearly superior in every way to humans - mostly by having them show mostly amusement at any sign of resistance - a bit like how a human would react to a kitten attempting to escape the laundry room. A particularly memorable section has Karellen (Earth's supervisor) explaining to a human that every political problem can be solved easily with a correct application of force. The human replies that this method hasn't worked all that well in human history, to which Karellen retorts- "humans never had true power, or the understanding how to use it." I liked it that even towards the end of the novel, when it becomes clear that the Overlords themselves are as helpless compared to the Overmind as the humans are compared to them, they still keep secrets from the last human on Earth because they know he can't handle knowing certain truths.
Second, while the first half of the book is a bit low on action, with a bunch of incredibly polite humanoids who mildly disagree with each other about issues such as the scientific standing of telepathy or whether humans should be free of the Overlords or not, the second half was actually quite intense. Some of the planets that Jeremy dreams himself to are crazy inventive and awesome. the Athena/Sparta social experiment was an interesting idea, and Jan's idea of sneaking into an alien ship inside a whale replica tickled me in the right spot.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the sheer awesomeness of the very ending. I have not read 2001: A Space Odyssey, merely watched the movie, but the ending evoked a similar sense of awe, except this time I didn't feel like I took drugs accidently before experiencing it. Jan's final report to Karellen of the final seconds of Earth's existence was as moving as it was mind numbing.
But, as much as I liked certain aspects of the book, other things bothered me.
First is the fact that I don't really buy into Clarke's idea that if omnipotent aliens took over Earth humanity would lose it's curiosity and creative drive. Just because there clearly are beings considerably more advanced than us does not mean we get to stop trying! It's just now how humans work. Just because I will never be as fast or strong as other people doesn't mean I don't work out. Just because I have a friend who is an actual genius and can do in his sleep what I can barely manage on top form does not stop me from studying to satisfy my own curiosity. I would think that the arrival of the Overlords would actually revitalize all human endeavours, but the artistic and scientific ones especially. Hack, about 90% of the world's population believes in some sort of God anyway, and to them the presence of the super advanced aliens would not be all that conceptually different from what they are used to - they taught themselves to believe that there are things infinitely greater than us anyway. As an aside, I also find Clarke's belief that if religious people would be shown the actual past and could see that what's written in their bibles is clearly false they would quite their faith to be... hopelessly naive.
Second, a lot of the shock value of the later parts of the book is the end of the human race as we know it. That shock is lessened considerably, though, because to me the human race in "Childhood's End" is not the one I'm familiar with in real life - you see, there's only one sex in the book's human race. In a story about the entire world, there is very scant evidence for the existence of women, and when two of them do show up roughly halfway through (and remain the only two) they are the wives of the actual characters. I know it is unfair to judge a book of almost 70 years with today's standards, and I don't really, but I learned something important reading this - there was a time when women really were being silenced and marginalized in SF literature. I often ridicule those who claim that this is a serious issue today - but now that I have been exposed to how things used to be, I can understand such people better. I still don't think that they are right about things as they stand now, but I can also see that without some big mouthed protesters things might never have shifted away from the old paradigm.
One last thing that bothered me again has to do with a disagreement I have with Clarke's description of humanity and the race's emotional responses to events in the book. So the ending has to do with humanity (or Man, as Clarke refers to us) collectively deciding to suicide in response to the loss of an entire generation of children and the understanding that in the grand scheme of things, our role was solely to give birth to another, more important race, for reason we can never understand and because of powers that will forever remain outside of our reach. While this works well to end the story with a bang, I also find it entirely unbelievable. For sure, many would lose the will to live in front of such revelations (mass suicides are a real thing, and never in our history did we experience anything as cataclysmic as the events described in this book), and I can imagine that many parents who lost their children this way would be unable to recover given the complete lack of support from their surroundings... I still believe some would have chosen to carry on. I think some would have just gone on making new babies to replace the lost ones, would have begged the overlords to be taken with them when they left, and would have set out to make a new life in distant stars. The emotional punch of the end of the human race was lessened for me because I did not really believe that events could have unfolded that way.
This might be the longest review I have written of any book. This is not a coincidence as I did feel like Childhood's end is worthy of more thought that the usual popcorn entertainment I enjoy reading. In some ways, flawed as it is, I feel like it is closer to what truly great SF should be than perhaps any other book I have read in years (although Fire Upon the Abyss, Pushing Ice and Hyperion are up there with it, as are others I'm probably forgetting right now). Reading the book wasn't life changing or eye opening or anything like that (especially considering how much I disagreed with it), but it was more thought provoking than I've grown used to.
I know it is unfair to judge a book of almost 70 years with today's standards, and I don't really, but I learned something important reading this - there was a time when women really were being silenced and marginalized in SF literature.
They undeniably were, but there were nevertheless some big strides towards equality being made at the time of Childhood's End.
For example, my understanding is that Clarke deliberately chose to make the last (and smartest, and most adventurous) human, Jan, a black man. Only four years later, Philip K Dick would confront American racism head-on in Eye in the Sky, and stand unflinchingly for equality. Was he emboldened to make that step by Clarke, or just by methamphetamine? I don't know, but I think the ball was definitely rolling, so by the time we hit the '60s, we're not really shocked when Andre Norton ditches the male protagonist after the first couple of Witch World novels in order to focus on his daughter, a more interesting character overall.
Finished DEAD BEAT (Dresden Files #7), which also happened to complete my first Goodreads reading challenge - 20 books. I was curious to see how much I actually read each year, so I set a conservative number and wanted to see if I can actually match it. Well, seems like I can. Next year I'll set it to 25 and see where it goes from there.
Next up is a classic: Childhood's End by Clarke. Prompted to read this by the fast approaching miniseries adaptation by Syfy, and also this review, which tickled me the right way.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
I won't give out spoilers, but sufficient to say your issues with Dead Beat are addressed in later volumes I feel (well maybe not the repetitive quirks, although I never really noticed that particular problem).
Anyway, currently I am reading a horror anthology titled Bugs: Tales that slither, creep and crawl. I like horror anthologies, and I like monsters, so I thought this was an obvious choice. Unfortunately, all (or at least nearly all) of the stories are new, and mostly from authors I haven't heard of. For probably good reason, as generally speaking, writing ranges from rather average to subpar. There are so far a few okay stories, but also a lot of repetition. Now to some extent I expect that, but I have read enough themed anthologies to know that even in a tight framework a good editor can pull together an anthology with a diverse variety of stories. Too many of the stories here are body horror with swarms, or some apocalyptic bugs attack scenario, or some combination of the above, that it gets a tad annoying. John Skipp did some truly amazing themed anthologies lately, and I would love to see him tackle a similar theme.
Went through some recommendations I had and they were all $12 ebooks. That particular price point annoys the crap out of me, especially for a book that came out 18 years ago, so I looked at other options. Ended up with The Player of Games, which was totally reasonable at $10. I understand that as the second book, it's the best place to get introduced to The Culture. Not sure I need the introduction after reading so much about the series, but I took it anyway.
Was late so I only made it forty or so pages in. Not sure if I'm meant to take the protagonist's problem at face value or if it's intended to demonstrate that he's seriously messed up in the head. Suspect that's the point, but there's a few hundred pages yet to figure it out with.