Emberverse: The Golden Princess

I would be nice for some character to acknowledge that the fact that the "gods" killed billions for reasons unknown is kinda messed up. Nobody seems all that disturbed by that fact, they just go along with it.

Well to be fair they indirectly killed billions for reasons unknown...but I see your point.

Mind you this would require a rage against the heavens style character development which would derail the point of the story and ruin the whole 'good gods vs. evil gods' vibe we get.

Though the gods do point out that they aren't necessarily the good guys so that's something I guess.
 
One thing I find implausible (the irritating kind of implausible, since it's basically being pushed into the narrative/World for no real reason) is that the entirety of North America east of the Mississippi and south of Maine is, at best, small towns and villages or backwoods family-tribes. IOW, no significant civilizations.


Ah...here's how this works:

There are basically two* types of survivor clusters in the immediate post-Change world.

You have the McKenzie/Bearkiller/Corvallis type, where a coherent group makes it through the first Winter, with the necessary spread of skills to maintain a fairly high material culture. They then expand outward and absorb/hegemonize smaller or less well-off clusters. Barring disaster, they level out at a 1900's (without steam or electricity, of course) material culture (even if their military is phalangites and horse archers). By CY 30 or so, the only real limit on their expansion is peer neighbors or their birthrate.

OR

You have the Southsiders/Brushwood/Boy Scout type, where something went wrong (or they just got unlucky) and the group who survived 1998 lacked the skillset or toolset or something to retrench at a sustainable level of technology above Neo-Bronze Age.


IOW, it's really a choice between Victorian City-State (or Ranch-State, as the case may be) or Hunter-Gatherer. Barring freak accident (read: the exception), there really isn't any in-between option.

If a small community of any real size (a few hundred to a few thousand) survives 1998, by the time CY 23 rolls around, it should be at least as big and dynamic as the McKenzies or the Bearkillers.


Ergo, the East Coast (from North Carolina down to mid Georgia or so) should be pockmarked with pocket kingdoms at least equivalent to the McKenzies or the Sun Valley Buddhist Collective (or whatever they are calling themselves). Not just "small towns" (by implication much, much worse off than the Norrheimers) and hill clans.




Also, Stirling keeps referring to the "East Coast Megalopolis".....which is sort of (intentionally, on his part) misleading. Yes, there is a bona fide Megalopolis on the East Coast, but the East Coast is not a Megalopolis. The Megalopolis exists, but it's primarily in the Northeast, stretching down to northern Virginia.
Several of the South Atlantic States are extremely rural, once you are out of the few major cities. West Virginia, North and South Carolina, and parts of Georgia have many small population centers that are effectively unapproachable by refugee plumes** (which, as a very reliable rule, follow the roads and the gradient) and have natural geographic barriers between them and the cities. Agriculture (especially what remains of the US' subsistence agriculture) is widespread in those states.


Florida is screwed, though.


*-entities like the PPA are statistical outliers, since their behavior is markedly different (their expansive phase essentially kicks off immediately).

**-we've talked about this before, but it needs to be spelled out. You cannot simply draw a 150-200 mile radius around an urban area and say "refugee swarms hit everything in here, ergo Death Zone". That's not how it works, ever. Refugees follow the (main) road and the gradient (i.e. refugees almost always go downhill, absent people chasing them). They don't leave the road unless they get chased off of it (and then they attempt to get back on the road ASAP). Therefor, people fleeing the urban areas will form a "plume" that has a geometry controlled by geography, the major roads, and their endurance. Not a radial "blast zone".
Some small community 50km outside Atlanta or Aberdeen or Munich might never see a single refugee from the City, because a line of low hills/forest with no primary road (Highway/Interstate/Dual Carriageway) is shielding it. OTOH, columns of refugees moving down the Interstate or the M6 might go 100+ miles (more, if on bicycles) before they succumb to attrition.
 
Last edited:

Nice... The theory on Nantucket is interesting...and could mean some interesting developments down the line. Most likely not, of course, but...maybe.

This could all be leading up to some kind of epic reveal that all of Stirling's original works are linked, and that the Mind-factions are responsible for the Draka or the weird Russian telepaths of the cannibal-empire. Probably not, but it'd make a lot of things make more sense...

On a different note, what is it with Stirling and having Christian factions uniting under Catholic leadership? He did it in Nantucket, and then again in having the Church of England rejoin the Catholic Church. Surely a Cataclysm anything like the Change would lead to people cleaving more strongly to their own faith and being more intolerant of others (which would marginalise the Mackenzies, but I'll let them slide given the large numbers of young people they absorbed, who wouldn't necessarily have fully-fledged belief systems). I'd have thought that the Change would be more likely to lead to English people and surviving Scots Presbyterians being afraid of 'Papist plots' again than re-uniting... This isn't me being anti-Catholic, by the way, just pointing out that a reunification of churches - particularly after an event that would inevitably be seen by some as God smiting the unrighteous - requires massive handwavium. Plus, the authority of the monarch of Britain is still fairly closely linked with the headship of the Church of England, and renouncing that could make a lot of people unhappy...
 
With the Greater Brittania the Anglicans will certainly have most sway in the New Catholic Church
 
Anyone think Stirling should try making some game books? It seems like he could go nuts with various details without needing to bother with personalities then. Plus hand waving is easier if you don't see the details.
 
With the Greater Brittania the Anglicans will certainly have most sway in the New Catholic Church

I'm wondering. Anyone know about the Latin American remnants around? I imagine that they would provide the majority of cardinals from now on.
 
On a different note, what is it with Stirling and having Christian factions uniting under Catholic leadership? He did it in Nantucket, and then again in having the Church of England rejoin the Catholic Church. Surely a Cataclysm anything like the Change would lead to people cleaving more strongly to their own faith and being more intolerant of others (which would marginalise the Mackenzies, but I'll let them slide given the large numbers of young people they absorbed, who wouldn't necessarily have fully-fledged belief systems). I'd have thought that the Change would be more likely to lead to English people and surviving Scots Presbyterians being afraid of 'Papist plots' again than re-uniting... This isn't me being anti-Catholic, by the way, just pointing out that a reunification of churches - particularly after an event that would inevitably be seen by some as God smiting the unrighteous - requires massive handwavium. Plus, the authority of the monarch of Britain is still fairly closely linked with the headship of the Church of England, and renouncing that could make a lot of people unhappy...


Well, post-Change, a lot of things have.....changed. Most importantly, you can simply decide a lot of stuff by getting a few Leaders together and issuing a fiat ("We're re-uniting with the Church!")...and public input simply isn't much of a factor unless it's just that unpalatable.

Moreover, given that the "reunification" between England and Rome was tied up with the pan-European war against the Moors, and King William was simultaneously "elected" (i.e. Him, the Pope, and the Italians declared it so) Western Emperor.....it's possible that Reunification was a very small (see below) investment on a very large deal.

Lastly, post-Change...there simply aren't a lot of serious issues between the Church and the Anglicans (if there is such an organization, in any real sense, after the Change). The somewhat reactionary/"Deep England" culture that crops up in the UK is very unlikely to have any issues with the Church (like ordaining women, homosexuals, etc), and the Church (even before the Change) was comfortable adopting Anglican parishes that were appropriately conservative.

IOW, the UK rejoining the Roman Church is not a huge hurdle in the post-Change world.


Note that the Lutherans, in the Midwest, seem to be going strong. It's unknown what denomination is predominant in Norland. The Greek/Hellenic states in the Eastern Med are going to be Orthodox (as are the Russian/post-Russian states).


With the Greater Brittania the Anglicans will certainly have most sway in the New Catholic Church

As I noted above, due to the Change cutting a swathe through the population, Britain might not be Anglican in any real sense (due to loss of the clerical class) that would make "Anglicanism" a particular force in the greater Church. IOW, "Anglican" might simply mean "Catholic Christians from the UK", rather than its current meaning.

Will British clerics (or laymen, for that matter) be a force? Yes. Simply by virtue of numbers (the UK is the largest single post-Change population in Europe). Whether or not that turns into a coherent "Anglican position" on anything within the Church is going to be due to post-Change factors (ex: maybe the UK clerics think the Holy See should move to Gibraltar, since it's already left Rome).


I'm wondering. Anyone know about the Latin American remnants around? I imagine that they would provide the majority of cardinals from now on.

There are multiple Central/South American polities (very few details, as of yet). The one in northern Brazil is a "weird Candomble/Catholic hybrid", though.
 
Huh. I didn't know that. I thought Tiphaine and Delia's kids via the father-by-turkey-baster method were fathered by one of her peasants at her request, or something along those lines. That's how I read it in Sunrise Lands but yeah apparently I'm wrong. My bad. That's 2 Homosexual males, one semi-villain.

Also a guy in the Bearkillers was mentioned as having a crush on their first leader, but I believe he was not mentioned until they brought up that crush. A book or two after the other man had died.
 
Also a guy in the Bearkillers was mentioned as having a crush on their first leader, but I believe he was not mentioned until they brought up that crush. A book or two after the other man had died.

A male homosexual couple (McKenzies) are part of Orlaith's crew in the new book.
 
A male homosexual couple (McKenzies) are part of Orlaith's crew in the new book.

It's true that Stirling has far fewer gay male characters than gay female characters. At the same time, though, this is progress - used to be that the only time you had gay characters in anything they were either villains (Eiger Sanction, Red Sonja the movie) or they died horribly...or indeed, both. Also, compare ISOT to 1632. In ISOT, we have...OK, they're Mary Sues, but they're portrayed as genuinely nice characters, even if Marian can be a bit of a pain. In the 1632 series, there are no LGBT characters, references are made to one masculine-looking woman being mistaken for being gay, and one main character says a guy with long hair looks like a 'f*gg*t hairdresser'. Charming...
 
Well, post-Change, a lot of things have.....changed. Most importantly, you can simply decide a lot of stuff by getting a few Leaders together and issuing a fiat ("We're re-uniting with the Church!")...and public input simply isn't much of a factor unless it's just that unpalatable.

Moreover, given that the "reunification" between England and Rome was tied up with the pan-European war against the Moors, and King William was simultaneously "elected" (i.e. Him, the Pope, and the Italians declared it so) Western Emperor.....it's possible that Reunification was a very small (see below) investment on a very large deal.

Lastly, post-Change...there simply aren't a lot of serious issues between the Church and the Anglicans (if there is such an organization, in any real sense, after the Change). The somewhat reactionary/"Deep England" culture that crops up in the UK is very unlikely to have any issues with the Church (like ordaining women, homosexuals, etc), and the Church (even before the Change) was comfortable adopting Anglican parishes that were appropriately conservative.

IOW, the UK rejoining the Roman Church is not a huge hurdle in the post-Change world.


Note that the Lutherans, in the Midwest, seem to be going strong. It's unknown what denomination is predominant in Norland. The Greek/Hellenic states in the Eastern Med are going to be Orthodox (as are the Russian/post-Russian states).

That's another way of looking at it, I suppose. And you make good points - at the time I read it, I suppose it just seemed a bit forced, like he was dead-set on bringing back Robin Hood/Coeur-de-Lion era Merrie Englande and was being as much of a Period Nazi as Norman Arminger. But on reading your argument it makes more sense.
 
It's true that Stirling has far fewer gay male characters than gay female characters. At the same time, though, this is progress - used to be that the only time you had gay characters in anything they were either villains (Eiger Sanction, Red Sonja the movie) or they died horribly...or indeed, both. Also, compare ISOT to 1632. In ISOT, we have...OK, they're Mary Sues, but they're portrayed as genuinely nice characters, even if Marian can be a bit of a pain. In the 1632 series, there are no LGBT characters, references are made to one masculine-looking woman being mistaken for being gay, and one main character says a guy with long hair looks like a 'f*gg*t hairdresser'. Charming...


I don't really use "# of homsexuals" as a litmus test for anything. If a writer doesn't put them in organically...I can't think of any benefit from him/her going "Man...I need like 3-5 homosexual characters". It all too often ends up as "HERE IS GAY-MAN, RIDING IN HIS GAY CAR, TO HIS GAY HOUSE, WITH HIS GAY DOG!". A lot of authors have that sort of blind spot, where they just don't gin up gay characters naturally. That's OK. It doesn't make them a bad person. I'd rather have decent characters the author can flesh out than try to whip the author into forcing a statistical ~5-8% homosexual character density. Hell, Lord of The Rings didn't even have any. Or did it.....


OTOH, there's a bunch of (male) authors who have their female protagonists as lesbians, because they (I suspect) cannot do heterosexual romance (much less sex scenes) from a POV other than male. Girl-girl is much more comfortable for them than "The penis moved toward me in a threatening manner!".


Oddly, there are several good female authors who basically write their female POV characters as effectively asexual. Elizabeth Moon, for instance, had this issue for a loooooooong time.
 
I don't really use "# of homsexuals" as a litmus test for anything. If a writer doesn't put them in organically...I can't think of any benefit from him/her going "Man...I need like 3-5 homosexual characters". It all too often ends up as "HERE IS GAY-MAN, RIDING IN HIS GAY CAR, TO HIS GAY HOUSE, WITH HIS GAY DOG!". A lot of authors have that sort of blind spot, where they just don't gin up gay characters naturally. That's OK. It doesn't make them a bad person. I'd rather have decent characters the author can flesh out than try to whip the author into forcing a statistical ~5-8% homosexual character density. Hell, Lord of The Rings didn't even have any. Or did it.....


OTOH, there's a bunch of (male) authors who have their female protagonists as lesbians, because they (I suspect) cannot do heterosexual romance (much less sex scenes) from a POV other than male. Girl-girl is much more comfortable for them than "The penis moved toward me in a threatening manner!".


Oddly, there are several good female authors who basically write their female POV characters as effectively asexual. Elizabeth Moon, for instance, had this issue for a loooooooong time.

Oh, I don't insist that authors include any form of character or set quotas. My issue was more with that 1632 has no such characters but in a couple of places includes pejorative language. I mean, heck, I'm a (bad, aspiring) writer and I don't create any characters for reasons beyond 'I think this character works'. And I totally agree that any time writers include characters because they feel they should things work out...badly.

That's a a hilarious description of male writers writing lesbian characters. Completely true in many cases, though. Though not in Stirling's, interestingly, for all his other kinks...
 
It's true that Stirling has far fewer gay male characters than gay female characters. At the same time, though, this is progress - used to be that the only time you had gay characters in anything they were either villains (Eiger Sanction, Red Sonja the movie) or they died horribly...or indeed, both. Also, compare ISOT to 1632. In ISOT, we have...OK, they're Mary Sues, but they're portrayed as genuinely nice characters, even if Marian can be a bit of a pain. In the 1632 series, there are no LGBT characters, references are made to one masculine-looking woman being mistaken for being gay, and one main character says a guy with long hair looks like a 'f*gg*t hairdresser'. Charming...

There have been quite a few homosexuals in the Grantville Gazettes. Well, a few amongst the up timers. It was much more pedophiley with beating for an attractive downtimer who some noble and others took a liking too. They did also bring up Charles I's 'favourite' in 1632. Really, it seems realistic in that time for most people to keep their heads down unless they were rich and powerful enough to get away with it. Focussing on it and having a happy ending would stretch the suspension of disbelief, at least if was well known in that day and age.
 
There have been quite a few homosexuals in the Grantville Gazettes. Well, a few amongst the up timers. It was much more pedophiley with beating for an attractive downtimer who some noble and others took a liking too. They did also bring up Charles I's 'favourite' in 1632. Really, it seems realistic in that time for most people to keep their heads down unless they were rich and powerful enough to get away with it. Focussing on it and having a happy ending would stretch the suspension of disbelief, at least if was well known in that day and age.

Oh right - I'm less familiar with the Gazettes, I've read individual stories on-line but I've only bought the novels. So yeah, fairly ignorant comment on my part - mea maxima culpa :eek: And that makes sense. In Europe, anyway, I'd say things will be different with the Japan thread (on an unrelated subject, Rising Sun had issues but I enjoyed it overall and it was really cool seeing how the spectre of Grantville is hanging over everything, even the far side of the world).
 
I would love for Stirling to make a return to the Bronze Age, seeing as I loved his Nantucket books...I mean, they're the namesake for the ISOT! But I'm terribly apprehensive that he's going to be influenced by the past 15 years of Emberverse novels and shoehorn in some magic/mysticism into Nantucket-verse, though the fact that it was a strictly practical ISOT scenario is what appealed to me. I feel like he retconned the Change into being linked with the Event, and if he ever goes back to Nantucket he'll have painted himself into a corner and be forced to address it on that end as well :(
 
I would love for Stirling to make a return to the Bronze Age, seeing as I loved his Nantucket books...I mean, they're the namesake for the ISOT! But I'm terribly apprehensive that he's going to be influenced by the past 15 years of Emberverse novels and shoehorn in some magic/mysticism into Nantucket-verse, though the fact that it was a strictly practical ISOT scenario is what appealed to me. I feel like he retconned the Change into being linked with the Event, and if he ever goes back to Nantucket he'll have painted himself into a corner and be forced to address it on that end as well :(

Two things pop to mind:


First, any return to the Nantucket-verse would require him to basically jump forward a few generations, since the finale of the trilogy sort of left the RON without a peer competitor (everyone remotely worth talking about is either beaten down, or a Nantucket ally). There won't be any real tension possible until the rest of the world begins catching up with Nantucket, unless you want stories that are basically "White hunters in Africa" genre novels.


Second, I doubt the link with the Emberverse would have any impact on the Nantucket-verse. The point where the two timelines re-intersect seems* to be very, very, very far in the Nantucket-verse's future.


*-The Powers seem to imply that it was the Nantucket-verse reaching across the inter-timeline barrier and pulling Nantucket backwards in the first place, that initiated the Change. Not to mention Marion and Swindapa being facets of a Universal Mind. Some of Rudi's visions seem to show Nantucket with floating cars, as well.
 
Two things pop to mind:


First, any return to the Nantucket-verse would require him to basically jump forward a few generations, since the finale of the trilogy sort of left the RON without a peer competitor (everyone remotely worth talking about is either beaten down, or a Nantucket ally). There won't be any real tension possible until the rest of the world begins catching up with Nantucket, unless you want stories that are basically "White hunters in Africa" genre novels.


Second, I doubt the link with the Emberverse would have any impact on the Nantucket-verse. The point where the two timelines re-intersect seems* to be very, very, very far in the Nantucket-verse's future.


*-The Powers seem to imply that it was the Nantucket-verse reaching across the inter-timeline barrier and pulling Nantucket backwards in the first place, that initiated the Change. Not to mention Marion and Swindapa being facets of a Universal Mind. Some of Rudi's visions seem to show Nantucket with floating cars, as well.

Agreed. Though mind you, that interpretation basically means that the RON will last forever, which kind of sucks... I mean, all empires (which is what Nantucket is) eventually fall. Nantucket can't be an exception... It'll have to be displaced by Babylon or someone eventually.
 
The Norrheimers are pretty much exactly at the precise Period material culture. I.e. they fell back (technologically) to a point that, coincidentally, exactly matched that of their historical model culture. We have to assume that the tech backslide was involuntary (the other option, that Erik the Strong basically intentionally hamstringed his own people just to get that Authentic Viking Village aesthetic....is too dumb to consider). Ergo, them dropping back to the exact historical material culture (rather than pasting their model culture onto whatever technological/material culture they could hang onto)....is a bit hard on the SOD.

Actually seeing as the Norrheimers are based on real people (the seeress is a real person who lives in the Bay Area) and knowing some of the folks involved in that scene if there ever WAS a world-ending catastrophe like the Change there's a few groups and individuals, more fringeish types, that probably would do that solely to get the authentic Viking feel.

I mean if you've got psycho Norman pulling his fallback to feudalism I fail to see how Norrheim couldn't be a repeat of something similar with the worst stuff happening so far in the past that it's largely been glossed over by the time Rudi shows up.
 

Lateknight

Banned
Am I the only one who finds the whole blood and soil thing of every character a bit much. I swear literally every character has some internal monologue about the land the people the people are the land. Ok we get they live in a world were farmers are the majority again but if you grew up in this world would be really think about how important the land all the time you wouldn't it would just be instinct. It's like if you wrote a book about America and had ever character commit on the greatness of democracy and they all had internal monologues about the subject .
 
Top