The High Crusade, Poul Anderson (1960; Baen Books, 2010). The year is 1345. In the tiny Lincolnshire village of Ansby, Sir Roger de Tourneville is gathering men to join King Edward III on campaign in France. And then, suddenly, an enormous metal ship comes hurtling down through the sky at tremendous speed and lands in a pasture. Its blue-skinned occupants, rapidly disgorged and armed with rayguns, turn out to be a scouting expedition of the Wersegorix Empire, here to evaluate Earth’s suitability for colonization — after the subjugation or annihilation of its primitive inhabitants, of course. Unfortunately (for them), they’re utterly unprepared for English longbows or mounted knights charging up their gangway. Sir Roger prevails upon the sole survivor to pilot the ship, intending to use this fully armed and operational spacecraft to conquer the French and then liberate the Holy Land, and packs up the entire village in its capacious hold — who knows what they’ll need. Inevitably, of course, he is betrayed: the truculent Wersgor instead programs the autopilot on an unalterable course to his people’s nearest colony world. The English find themselves trapped on a distant planet, battling a vicious foe with dramatically superior technology, when it suddenly occurs to the young monastic narrator that under the two alien suns they have no way of determining the date of Easter. And
What a delightful review. Thanks for reminding me of how great this book is. I haven’t read it for years but now I need to dig it out of storage and give it to my sons to read. Thanks.
"Nerds are still capable of telling stories about friendship or self-actualization or rebellion against oppression, but fantasy in particular is so deeply occupied with kings and wars and high politics that the inability to come to terms with why those things matter leaves the genre empty."
My favorite telling of how jarring it is to displace a king, even a bad king, is Shakespeare's Richard II. I've only seen the Hollow Crown production, so that's what I'm going with, but they made the scene where Richard is dispossessed of his crown excruciating. And the production in no way believes he's a good king or even a tolerable one! But you get such a clear sense that the king that follows cannot be king in the same way, and that removing a bad king badly breaks something.
The other good example of how different a king might be than "the one who is currently in charge" comes in Macbeth, when Edward the Confessor never appears on stage, but he is curing scrofula nearby off stage when Malcolm is in England, and it's Malcolm's reverence for/awe of Edward that establishes he might be able to restore his nation, not just remove Macbeth.
Alan is discussing this part of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell
"Lascelles laughed. 'Far be it from me, Mr Childermass, to disparage your quaint country sayings. But surely it is one thing to pay lip-service to one’s history and quite another to talk of bringing back a King who numbered Lucifer himself among his allies and overlords? No one wants that, do they? I mean apart from a few Johannites and madmen?'
'I am a North Englishman, Mr Lascelles,' said Childermass. 'Nothing would please me better than that my King should come home. It is what I have wished for all my life.'"
And the idea that the more attenuated our idea of kings, the harder it is to engage with who God tells us He is. (I've heard this point made much more often in the context of people with bad fathers may have such a hard relationship with the concept that they don't know how to know God as father.)
I read this book completely by chance. Library of America had a sale on books and I picked up the four volume 1950's and 1960's Sci Fi collections. I have since pushed it on a number of people (And I seldom read science fiction). But it is just good story telling with a highly entertaining cast and story arc. Interesting tidbit about SCA, had no idea.
What a delightful review. Thanks for reminding me of how great this book is. I haven’t read it for years but now I need to dig it out of storage and give it to my sons to read. Thanks.
"Nerds are still capable of telling stories about friendship or self-actualization or rebellion against oppression, but fantasy in particular is so deeply occupied with kings and wars and high politics that the inability to come to terms with why those things matter leaves the genre empty."
My favorite telling of how jarring it is to displace a king, even a bad king, is Shakespeare's Richard II. I've only seen the Hollow Crown production, so that's what I'm going with, but they made the scene where Richard is dispossessed of his crown excruciating. And the production in no way believes he's a good king or even a tolerable one! But you get such a clear sense that the king that follows cannot be king in the same way, and that removing a bad king badly breaks something.
The other good example of how different a king might be than "the one who is currently in charge" comes in Macbeth, when Edward the Confessor never appears on stage, but he is curing scrofula nearby off stage when Malcolm is in England, and it's Malcolm's reverence for/awe of Edward that establishes he might be able to restore his nation, not just remove Macbeth.
One more citation on baffled relationships to kingship: https://blog.ayjay.org/the-return-of-the-king-2/
Alan is discussing this part of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell
"Lascelles laughed. 'Far be it from me, Mr Childermass, to disparage your quaint country sayings. But surely it is one thing to pay lip-service to one’s history and quite another to talk of bringing back a King who numbered Lucifer himself among his allies and overlords? No one wants that, do they? I mean apart from a few Johannites and madmen?'
'I am a North Englishman, Mr Lascelles,' said Childermass. 'Nothing would please me better than that my King should come home. It is what I have wished for all my life.'"
And the idea that the more attenuated our idea of kings, the harder it is to engage with who God tells us He is. (I've heard this point made much more often in the context of people with bad fathers may have such a hard relationship with the concept that they don't know how to know God as father.)
I read this book completely by chance. Library of America had a sale on books and I picked up the four volume 1950's and 1960's Sci Fi collections. I have since pushed it on a number of people (And I seldom read science fiction). But it is just good story telling with a highly entertaining cast and story arc. Interesting tidbit about SCA, had no idea.