The Soul of Haven

cthia wrote:
Here's my disconnect. Wasn't the Old Republic — Pericard's Republic that Eloise and Thomas are so passionate about — a government that Esther loved as well? Before the graft and corruption set in. Didn't she also see that the problem was the disease of corruption that had gripped those in power and not the Republic itself?

Nope. What she saw was inefficiency and personal corruption destroying the power of the state, not the constitution.

cthia wrote:
Any government is only as good as its strongest link and as weak as its most corrupt.

ldwechsler wrote:

cthia wrote:
Here's my disconnect. Wasn't the Old Republic — Pericard's Republic that Eloise and Thomas are so passionate about — a government that Esther loved as well? Before the graft and corruption set in. Didn't she also see that the problem was the disease of corruption that had gripped those in power and not the Republic itself?

Any government is only as good as its strongest link and as weak as its most corrupt.

feyhunde wrote:I mean Napoleon was a member of the Jacobin clubs and wrote pamphlets in favor of the Republic. Napoleon justified his later overthrow of The Directory on the grounds of the corruption of the members of the Directory.

It is pretty clear that years ago, RFC was still hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm. That has changed.

You are in error. I was never "hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm" at all. I was headed in another direction from the get-go; I just didn't want the reader to realize where I was going before I got to Tom's final move. So I waved the Tennis Court Oath, the Committee of Public Safety, Rob. S Pierre, and Naomi Bonaparte (aka Esther McQueen) at you with my left hand to keep you looking in one direction until I got ready to show you where I'd really been going with my write hand [sorry; couldn't resist] the entire time. If you look closely, you should see the Old Republic peeking through in the perspectives of people like Wu and Theismann from the outset, though.

It is a serious mistake to look too closely for historical models in my writing. I love to take bits and pieces of historical societies and governments and use them to build my literary universes, but if you look under the hood, you'll usually see that I'm building quite a different animal.

When people do look for historical parallels, it does help that, in a literary sense, so many historical herrings are bolsheviks, though.

cthia wrote:So the MA definitely knows about the existence of Bolthole? Is that in UH? Not just the location, but even the existence of Bolthole would still be classified info, no?

I forget whichbook but if I recall the MA knew about as much as the SEM. That it existed but that was it. I’m sure Nesbit new about it’s existence and pass that along at the very least.

ywing14 wrote:I forget whichbook but if I recall the MA knew about as much as the SEM. That it existed but that was it. I’m sure Nesbit new about it’s existence and pass that along at the very least.

They knew because their agents knew. None of their agents knew where it was, just what it was.

And if IIRC the existence was disclosed to the legislature as they kind of wanted to know where all the money was going.

And it was fun for you to watch us go after the red herrings.

runsforcelery wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:It is pretty clear that years ago, RFC was still hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm. That has changed.

You are in error. I was never "hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm" at all. I was headed in another direction from the get-go; I just didn't want the reader to realize where I was going before I got to Tom's final move. So I waved the Tennis Court Oath, the Committee of Public Safety, Rob. S Pierre, and Naomi Bonaparte (aka Esther McQueen) at you with my left hand to keep you looking in one direction until I got ready to show you where I'd really been going with my write hand [sorry; couldn't resist] the entire time. If you look closely, you should see the Old Republic peeking through in the perspectives of people like Wu and Theismann from the outset, though.

It is a serious mistake to look too closely for historical models in my writing. I love to take bits and pieces of historical societies and governments and use them to build my literary universes, but if you look under the hood, you'll usually see that I'm building quite a different animal.

When people do look for historical parallels, it does help that, in a literary sense, so many historical herrings are bolsheviks, though.

DrakBibliophile wrote:And it was fun for you to watch us go after the red herrings.

Would he do that?

DrakBibliophile wrote:And it was fun for you to watch us go after the red herrings.

ldwechsler wrote:
It is pretty clear that years ago, RFC was still hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm. That has changed.

runsforcelery wrote:
You are in error. I was never "hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm" at all. I was headed in another direction from the get-go; I just didn't want the reader to realize where I was going before I got to Tom's final move. So I waved the Tennis Court Oath, the Committee of Public Safety, Rob. S Pierre, and Naomi Bonaparte (aka Esther McQueen) at you with my left hand to keep you looking in one direction until I got ready to show you where I'd really been going with my write hand [sorry; couldn't resist] the entire time. If you look closely, you should see the Old Republic peeking through in the perspectives of people like Wu and Theismann from the outset, though.

It is a serious mistake to look too closely for historical models in my writing. I love to take bits and pieces of historical societies and governments and use them to build my literary universes, but if you look under the hood, you'll usually see that I'm building quite a different animal.

When people do look for historical parallels, it does help that, in a literary sense, so many historical herrings are bolsheviks, though.

Well, yeah . . . .

And your point was what again . . . ?

kzt wrote:

ywing14 wrote:I forget whichbook but if I recall the MA knew about as much as the SEM. That it existed but that was it. I’m sure Nesbit new about it’s existence and pass that along at the very least.

They knew because their agents knew. None of their agents knew where it was, just what it was.

And if IIRC the existence was disclosed to the legislature as they kind of wanted to know where all the money was going.

Thanks, y'all. I'm pretty sure it's me holding the clock with the crooked hands, but something seems fishy about the timeline. The RMN didn't find out about it until just before the war, right? IINM. And if the MA's agents knew, yet were all purged when Eloise stepped aboard ship. . .then mustn't there still be flies on the wall? Even with the disclosure to the legislature - which would still be classified, no?

ldwechsler wrote:

cthia wrote:
Here's my disconnect. Wasn't the Old Republic — Pericard's Republic that Eloise and Thomas are so passionate about — a government that Esther loved as well? Before the graft and corruption set in. Didn't she also see that the problem was the disease of corruption that had gripped those in power and not the Republic itself?

Any government is only as good as its strongest link and as weak as its most corrupt.

feyhunde wrote:I mean Napoleon was a member of the Jacobin clubs and wrote pamphlets in favor of the Republic. Napoleon justified his later overthrow of The Directory on the grounds of the corruption of the members of the Directory.

It is pretty clear that years ago, RFC was still hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm. That has changed.

runsforcelery wrote:You are in error. I was never "hung up on the Brit/French Revolution paradigm" at all. I was headed in another direction from the get-go; I just didn't want the reader to realize where I was going before I got to Tom's final move. So I waved the Tennis Court Oath, the Committee of Public Safety, Rob. S Pierre, and Naomi Bonaparte (aka Esther McQueen) at you with my left hand to keep you looking in one direction until I got ready to show you where I'd really been going with my write hand [sorry; couldn't resist] the entire time. If you look closely, you should see the Old Republic peeking through in the perspectives of people like Wu and Theismann from the outset, though.

It is a serious mistake to look too closely for historical models in my writing. I love to take bits and pieces of historical societies and governments and use them to build my literary universes, but if you look under the hood, you'll usually see that I'm building quite a different animal.

When people do look for historical parallels, it does help that, in a literary sense, so many historical herrings are bolsheviks, though.

Naomi Bonaparte? Esther McQueen?

Don't worry my dear Esther. They'll never get me to believe those awful lies about you. Never! I'll always remember, you were woman enough to be the first to expose your balls.

Two centuries is a very long time for Haven's soul to have been sold to the devil. If not for prolong, the fire would have been long extinguished before any chance of reigniting in patriotic catalysts like Pritchart and Theisman.

Makes me wonder if Democracy here in America is strong enough to survive being put on ice for 200 years, even with prolong.