I've complained before that the empire in Baru Cormorant is just kind of a hodgepodge of the very worst aspects of like a dozen different colonizing states from different times, which makes them a very simple villain that's always doing the worst possible thing to everyone at all times. Which ironically means they don't really look anything like the real life empires they're drawing from, cuz if there's one thing empires had to figure out to succeed it's that you can't keep pissing off everyone all the time and not have things go to hell. Also Baru's economics don't make sense.
For a couple of similar (and also queer) books, Memories of Empire and The Jasmine Throne both have a lot more subtlety in how they approach ideas about empire.
Granted usually when I complain about Baru most people disagree with me, so it's a minority opinion.
why doesn't it make sense?
and yeah, empires are vile. The british empire alone was cartoonishly evil in so many ways. I don't know if that makes them a 'simple villain.'
I thought Baru's empire was cartoonishly evil, but if you disguised a non-fiction summary of the British Empire as a historical fiction I would say the book was unrealistic because they were just too evil. I don't know how to thread the needle of making a colonial empire realistic but also not ridiculously over-the-top evil.
Did someone say cartoonishly evil? I know it's a popular sport in Britain to sulkily mutter about other people claiming the credit for ideas that were had here, but...
From Thucidydes The History Of The Pelopenisian War, The Athenian's Address to the Miletans:
"Despite being one of the few island colonies of Sparta, Melos had remained neutral in the struggle between Sparta and Athens. Its neutrality, however, was unacceptable to the Athenians who, accompanied by overwhelming military and naval power, arrived in Melos to pressure it into submission. After strategically positioning their powerful fleets, the Athenian generals sent envoys to Melos to negotiate the island's surrender.
The commissioners of Melos agreed to meet the envoys in private. They were afraid the Athenians, known for their rhetorical skills, might sway the people if allowed a public forum. The envoys came with an offer that, if the Melians submitted and became part of the Athenian empire, their people and their possessions would not be harmed. The Melians argued that by the law of nations they had the right to remain neutral, and no nation had the right to attack without provocation. Having been a free state for seven hundred years, they were not ready to give up that freedom. Thucydides, an Athenian historian, captures the exchange between the Melian commissioners and the Athenian envoys:
Melians: "...all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery."
Athenians: "...we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses---either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of the wrong that you have done us---and make a long speech that would not be believed; and in return, we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although they are colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, ...since you know as well as we do the right, as the world goes, is only in question between equal power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."2
The Melians pointed out that it was to the interest of all states to respect the laws of nations: "you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right...." They reminded the Athenians that a day might come when the Athenians themselves would need such protection.
But the Athenians were not persuaded. To them, Melos' submission was in the interest of their empire, and Melos.
Melians: "And how pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule?"
Athenians: "Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you."
Melians: "So [that] you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side?"
Athenians: "No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness and your enmity of our power."
When the Melians asked if that was their 'idea of equity,' the Athenians responded:
"As far as right goes...one has as much of it as the other, and if any maintain their independence, it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them, it is because we are afraid..."
My word, doesn't that line of reasoning just sound extremely familiar from somewhere?
Same thing got brought up with the enemy empire in Poppy War when it was just straight up WWII Japan.
With Poppy War it's not so much that it was WW2 Japan on its own, but that
the book is like "no they're all literally emperor-worshipping fanatics without exception and the only way to solve the problem is to nuke their entire civilization"
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Same thing got brought up with the enemy empire in Poppy War when it was just straight up WWII Japan.
With Poppy War it's not so much that it was WW2 Japan on its own, but that
the book is like "no they're all literally emperor-worshipping fanatics without exception and the only way to solve the problem is to nuke their entire civilization"
Oh yeah that part was stupid. I meant specifically when they found the book equivalent of the Nanjing Massacre.
I forgot this happened, but I’m pretty sure I watched it when it went out. Anyway, thirty five years ago someone got Roger Corman, John Carpenter, Clive Barker, Ramsey Campbell and Lisa Tuttle (and another guy whose name escapes me) round a table for the ostensible reason of discussing a new horror movie, but which has just as much general discussion about horror in general, both literary and cinematic.
The second omnibus of Savage Sword of Conan. Almost exclusively John Buscema art this time around, and he's so good he has now probably supplanted BWS as the definitive Conan artist for me. It's not fair to judge his B&W stuff against the colour Conan the Barbarian comics, as the colour in those is designed for cheap, shitty paper and not the glossy, shiny pages of the omnibuses, but dang if the B&W pages of Savage Sword aren't some of the best I've ever seen.
I think the Conan stories are also some of the few examples of older comics where lots of narration, in Roy Thomas's epic style, help the comic rather than hinder it. It's a very tricky thing to pull off but Thomas didn't write thousands of pages of Conan without being very good at it.
They're not perfect (these are comics from the seventies, with unsurprising attitudes and blind spots), but the Conan comics are probably the single best and most consistent thing Marvel were putting out that whole decade. I can't think of many other runs to touch it for length and quality that hold up outside of the absolute top tier occupied by rare things like Claremont's Uncanny X-Men or Ed Brubaker's eight year stint on Cap.
Shorter runs like Fraction and Aja on Hawkeye, the classic Daredevil runs, Morrison's New X-Men and so forth match it for quality but Thomas, BWS and JB were knocking it out of the park for a dang decade across two comics and thousands of pages (with occasional other artists).
Side question: has any character had more classic runs from different creators than Daredevil? Miller, Bendis and Lark, Waid and Samnee, Zdarsky and Checchetto, Nocenti and JRJR.
Reading Conan has reminded me of Thrud the Barbarian, a loving pisstake that appeared in White Dwarf many years ago.
More information about what went down behind the scenes of the Hugos last year has been released.
And it's not good.
Long and short of it is that the nomination committee compiled half-assed political dossiers of the western authors and passed them along to their Chinese counterparts of the con administration to give a ruling on if someone should get their award or not.
People are upset. And one of the people who did this is on this year's Hugo award committee.
*long sigh*
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Same thing got brought up with the enemy empire in Poppy War when it was just straight up WWII Japan.
With Poppy War it's not so much that it was WW2 Japan on its own, but that
the book is like "no they're all literally emperor-worshipping fanatics without exception and the only way to solve the problem is to nuke their entire civilization"
The protagonist is absolutely a murderous psychopath in the process of
being possessed by a demonic entity
and I don’t think you are supposed to take her point of view entirely at face value.
Part of the point was that a sympathetic character can be a monster which I feel like may have been missed a bit especially in the first book, because the book presents the protagonist as a standard author insert young adult protagonist at first so what is supposed to be a red flag showing the character is losing it can be interpreted as advocation of the character’s actions.
Edit: sorry didn’t realize this was the old thread and that discussion was a month old.
Posts
I thought Baru's empire was cartoonishly evil, but if you disguised a non-fiction summary of the British Empire as a historical fiction I would say the book was unrealistic because they were just too evil. I don't know how to thread the needle of making a colonial empire realistic but also not ridiculously over-the-top evil.
https://www.nku.edu/~weirk/ir/melian.html
From Thucidydes The History Of The Pelopenisian War, The Athenian's Address to the Miletans:
"Despite being one of the few island colonies of Sparta, Melos had remained neutral in the struggle between Sparta and Athens. Its neutrality, however, was unacceptable to the Athenians who, accompanied by overwhelming military and naval power, arrived in Melos to pressure it into submission. After strategically positioning their powerful fleets, the Athenian generals sent envoys to Melos to negotiate the island's surrender.
The commissioners of Melos agreed to meet the envoys in private. They were afraid the Athenians, known for their rhetorical skills, might sway the people if allowed a public forum. The envoys came with an offer that, if the Melians submitted and became part of the Athenian empire, their people and their possessions would not be harmed. The Melians argued that by the law of nations they had the right to remain neutral, and no nation had the right to attack without provocation. Having been a free state for seven hundred years, they were not ready to give up that freedom. Thucydides, an Athenian historian, captures the exchange between the Melian commissioners and the Athenian envoys:
Melians: "...all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery."
Athenians: "...we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses---either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of the wrong that you have done us---and make a long speech that would not be believed; and in return, we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although they are colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, ...since you know as well as we do the right, as the world goes, is only in question between equal power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."2
The Melians pointed out that it was to the interest of all states to respect the laws of nations: "you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right...." They reminded the Athenians that a day might come when the Athenians themselves would need such protection.
But the Athenians were not persuaded. To them, Melos' submission was in the interest of their empire, and Melos.
Melians: "And how pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule?"
Athenians: "Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you."
Melians: "So [that] you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side?"
Athenians: "No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness and your enmity of our power."
When the Melians asked if that was their 'idea of equity,' the Athenians responded:
"As far as right goes...one has as much of it as the other, and if any maintain their independence, it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them, it is because we are afraid..."
My word, doesn't that line of reasoning just sound extremely familiar from somewhere?
With Poppy War it's not so much that it was WW2 Japan on its own, but that
Oh yeah that part was stupid. I meant specifically when they found the book equivalent of the Nanjing Massacre.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Garth Marenghi.
I think the Conan stories are also some of the few examples of older comics where lots of narration, in Roy Thomas's epic style, help the comic rather than hinder it. It's a very tricky thing to pull off but Thomas didn't write thousands of pages of Conan without being very good at it.
They're not perfect (these are comics from the seventies, with unsurprising attitudes and blind spots), but the Conan comics are probably the single best and most consistent thing Marvel were putting out that whole decade. I can't think of many other runs to touch it for length and quality that hold up outside of the absolute top tier occupied by rare things like Claremont's Uncanny X-Men or Ed Brubaker's eight year stint on Cap.
Shorter runs like Fraction and Aja on Hawkeye, the classic Daredevil runs, Morrison's New X-Men and so forth match it for quality but Thomas, BWS and JB were knocking it out of the park for a dang decade across two comics and thousands of pages (with occasional other artists).
Side question: has any character had more classic runs from different creators than Daredevil? Miller, Bendis and Lark, Waid and Samnee, Zdarsky and Checchetto, Nocenti and JRJR.
Reading Conan has reminded me of Thrud the Barbarian, a loving pisstake that appeared in White Dwarf many years ago.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
And it's not good.
Long and short of it is that the nomination committee compiled half-assed political dossiers of the western authors and passed them along to their Chinese counterparts of the con administration to give a ruling on if someone should get their award or not.
People are upset. And one of the people who did this is on this year's Hugo award committee.
*long sigh*
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Whaaaaa? How'd I miss this? Remedying that ASAP.
The protagonist is absolutely a murderous psychopath in the process of
Part of the point was that a sympathetic character can be a monster which I feel like may have been missed a bit especially in the first book, because the book presents the protagonist as a standard author insert young adult protagonist at first so what is supposed to be a red flag showing the character is losing it can be interpreted as advocation of the character’s actions.
Edit: sorry didn’t realize this was the old thread and that discussion was a month old.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/249736/book-s-an-ancient-form-of-communication-where-humans-used-something-called-words