Posted by Dan Gunter on June 24, 1999 at 19:47:53:
In Reply to: Re: re:On the other hand, I'm not sure that Vance is a real right-winger.... posted by jezmo on June 24, 1999 at 15:21:20:
Well, I really woke up the bulletin board!
I apologize to the gentleman who read my e-mail as suggesting that I associate right-wing politics with despotism. I left out a few steps between a couple of sentences. It does seem to me that dictatorship is the ultimate right-wing philosophy. (And, yes, some of the most potent dictatorships in history have been formally left-wing. But I think that, ignoring the labels attached to the systems, they were at their core fascist.). Of course, different people attach different congeries of meanings, connotations, moods, mental representations of body-states--whatever: one loaded term (such as "conservatism") conjures up different things for different people.
As for Vance's politics: I think that the Cadwal Chronicles pose a particularly interesting place to explore that subject. Both parties on Cadwal, Peefers and Chartists, have qualities that would associate them with contemporary "liberals." (And "liberals" are not the other end of the continuum from "conservatives": radicals consider liberals to be little different from conservatives.) At least initially, the Peefers resemble certain liberals opposed to restrictions on immigration; the Yips (a term that may have been chosen to make good knee-jerk liberals uneasy) are the teeming masses, yearning to be free. But, of course, they're opposed by the good conservationists: the equivalent of other contemporary liberals. I don't know if Vance intended those connections seriously or at all; perhaps he's just playing games with us.
So, in the end, I don't want to assume too much about Vance's political philosophy. I think he's too adept at splitting things apart. But I do think that his works are based on certain deeply held moral beliefs. I'll leave the discovery or definition (or creation?) of those to others.
Interesting comment about Howard Alan Treesong ("HAT"?). I like the Demon Princes series a great deal, but I always thought (as others have) that the villains are not very impressive. Of course, they never get to spend any time on stage: the lesser villains are more interesting, and Gersen doesn't have any really good lesser villains to deal with in "The Book of Dreams."
But who is the great Vancean character? I assume that jackvance.com had a thread on that?
: Interesting how Vance appeals across the range of political opinions, perhaps because his underlying humanisism cuts across all political boundaries. I really like Dan's analysis, although i have agreat deal of sympathy for the protagonists in Gray (Grey) Prince...political or even moral affinities don't necessarily detract from good writing - I would cite 'Hannibal' as a splendid example of literature with a central character who is strangely admirable yet morally reprehensible. To me the great Vancian character is not Adam Reith or Kirth Gersen but Howard Alan Treesong; how disappointed I was when his wonderfully grandiose plans were dashed by the rather one-dimensional Gersen. Who is to say that a Gaean Reach controlled by his vision is worse than the rather banal vision of Gersen, for example, who has no ambition or goals left once the last Demon Prince is dead