Posted by Mark Adams on July 12, 1999 at 16:38:15:
I've followed the threads here debating Vance's political perspectives. I think the 1985 "Hour 25" interview is revealing in a couple of respects. His discussion & responses in this interview make it clear that Vance is:
1) Not a pacifist. In part one, he refers to a hypothetical "peace & freedom" party, and paraphrasing Heinlein, agrees that the two concepts (peace, & freedom) are possibly incompatible. He further states that "war is bad, and peace is sometimes good" - implying that although war is an undesirable turn of events, 'peace' can be unpleasant as well.
2) Vance is a "conservative" in the sense that he wants to "preserve old things", particularly traditions. He agrees that he has a bias which appears in his writing. Vance discusses this in the early "part 2" section of the interview.
Further, I remember reading a list of Vance's "likes & dislikes" in a preface to one or more of his books. He indicates that he doesn't like "progressives". I think he refers to "progressive" groups as those that interfere with or destroy the traditions of society that he believes are very valuable.
Often the progressive (or "liberal") factions in his stories meet a dismal or embarrassing fate. That having been said, his protagonist(s) overturn despots and tyrannical structures in the Durdane series, Emphyrio, To Live Forever, Tschai series, etc. So he clearly doesn't sympathize with fascism, communism or other totalitarian systems.
My impression from reading Vance's material is that he has a dislike for oppressive government or societal structures. On the other hand, his "conservative" desire to preserve societal traditions is a reappearing theme in his writing. I see plenty of evidence that he is NOT a pacifist, and is somewhat contemptuous of pacifism.
I think Vance tries to portray his ideal with the Connatic, who is reluctant to interfere with societal evolution (as in Trullion) using force, but does so decisively when conditions are serious enough. His opinion of "socialism" seems clear to me, in his portrayal of the (failed) "egalitarian" society in Wyst - where he demonstrates that human nature is antiposed to the theme of egalitarianism.
M Adams.