Uncanny resemblance.

[CptWinters]

Yeah, I thought that whole show was pretty clearly a denouncement of the American/Western democratic ideal.

[discord]

well, i can't really disagree on the 'dislike democracy' thing, why you ask?
simple really, to actually understand what the hell you are voting on you basically need a degree in national economics, international politics and history, now if you have a heart problem, and you need heart surgery, who would you prefer a medical doctor or a politics Phd to perform the operation?

and that is still assuming that politicos don't lie, so you ALSO need a Phd in reading poker faces....it's just silly.

don't take me the wrong way, in any functional society the 'masses' need somewhere to make their voice heard, but using it to elect the only ruling body? that is crazy.

[TrashMan]

But if the characters are compelling, I think you can get away with an awful lot in storytelling.

I agree absolutely; it's all about the story and characters and whether it works. Crest of the Stars is really about Abriel (the Abh princess), and she's compelling enough to keep you interested. Unfortunately, the human character who is supposed to be the protagonist is not very compelling at all. But that's probably intentional... a lot of anime/manga properties have almost faceless teengage male protagonists, meant to serve as proxies for the teenage male viewers.

It irks me very much when an anime falls short of it's possible potential. Some f*** up the last few episodes, some f*** up the delivery, some the charaacters, some the narrative...
How many times did you go and say to yourself "this could have been soooooo much better if ..."

And LoGH was probably all about politics and governance....

[icekatze]

hi hi

Its not really that unusual of a character dynamic. If it had been a Hollywood action movie, the princess would have been the hero, and the boy would have been the attractive female tagalong.

[Alexandr Koori]

( by mr Chekov's voice )
In the first time blue-skinned aliens appear in Tolstoy's novel "Aelita" in 1923 year. What is interesting - Aelita - princess of Mars. She is tall, willed, and she have a bodyguard (and distant cousin) Iha - agile and positive girl.

[Zakharra]

IIRC obedience for Abh is actually genetic.

got that right, they were genetically alter to be obedient: however, they turn on their masters, because of fear. yet, they did regret it and pass on this part of the their history through the generations. As for Their conquered nations, I do recall some compliance, but the crown prince ( or first in line) said it very well, and to the order of: the governance of your planet is not your concern, we just want to take over the FTL sord next to your world. However, since your close to the Sord we would like your surrender he said it so much better than me.

That sounds like the Draka, from S. M. Stirling on the Domination of the Draka series, who genetically changed themselves into a super race and their serfs to Homo servus.

[NOMAD]

That sounds like the Draka, from S. M. Stirling on the Domination of the Draka series, who genetically changed themselves into a super race and their serfs to Homo servus.

I can see a resemblance too genetic engineering and some culture and history (conquering and belief superiority) but not to my understanding of the books (which is lacking in the extreme).

To me is sound more like the Britainia Rmpire from Code Geass but . . . unfamiliar to me.

nevertheless, good find, another book that I've been introduced to.

[TrashMan]

This thread needs

MHOAR SPACE ELVES!

[GOULimitingFactor]

If you surrender your people to a hostile power and you are rewarded by being made dictator for life and elevated to the enemy nobility, then that's called "selling out."

I don't mean to give the wrong impression -- the series is well worth watching if just for the space battles, which are quite interesting. (Heck, I watched all of Starship Operators for the space battles.) But the Abh are bat-shit-crazy tyrants and the attempts in the narrative to justify their actions are junk wonky. And as I pointed out, the main character is less than compelling.

It's hard not to see the show as revanchist, honestly, but that's probably affected by memetic spillover from watching _Riben Guizi_. I think it really confused the people I watched it with that I was rooting for the United Mankind - I enjoy stories about doomed armies a lot more than watching the author handing battles to the Abh left and right.

Agree about the space combat - and the small transport/landing craft were really beautiful, too.

[Zakharra]

I can see a resemblance too genetic engineering and some culture and history (conquering and belief superiority) but not to my understanding of the books (which is lacking in the extreme).

To me is sound more like the Britainia Rmpire from Code Geass but . . . unfamiliar to me.

nevertheless, good find, another book that I've been introduced to.

Glad to have helped. I have read most of that series and every time I read it I want to nuke the Dominion until it's literally glowing from radiation. They are EVIL!

[NOMAD]

I can see a resemblance too genetic engineering and some culture and history (conquering and belief superiority) but not to my understanding of the books (which is lacking in the extreme).

To me is sound more like the Britannia Empire from Code Geass but . . . unfamiliar to me.

nevertheless, good find, another book that I've been introduced to.

Glad to have helped. I have read most of that series and every time I read it I want to nuke the Dominion until it's literally glowing from radiation. They are EVIL!

Hey I like seeing other people interests, intro me to thing I find I like. and yeah I understand your feeling with the Dominion, I felt the same way with Code Geass, where the main character is the bad guy and we, the viewer, follow his path to vengeance and power. Sometime I routed for him, other times not so much.

[discord]

on the subject of bat shit crazy tyrants, i am kinda strange that i find democracy as ruling system insane, hey don't get me wrong it has a PLACE in a good government, everyone needs some place to voice concerns, but not as THE method of ruling.

why you ask? simple really, if someone you care about has a heart problem, do you want a heart surgeon to perform the operation or a national economics major with a minor in international politics to do it? cause that is just about what you need to understand what the hell is going on, and what you are voting about, and the consequences of that voting.

or have 120+ IQ and some interest in politics, but that is about 5% of the population that qualifies for that, and therefor CAN learn enough about politics without actually seriously studying it.

imho democracy should be one third of the system, with nobility(aka rich people) being another third, and some sort of monarchy(emperor whatever) as one third, requiring a majority to do anything above the use of designated budgets and all in agreement to do anything major(declare war or similar.), with a law about rich people caught interfering in the little peoples pond being summarily executed, they have their way of doing things.


but as mentioned before, i am kinda strange.

[Arioch]

Enlightened despotism would be the ideal form of government, except that despots are rarely enlightened (and even when they are, they don't stay that way... the successor of a just ruler is almost always a tyrant).

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." - Dalberg-Acton

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill

[Trantor]

...why you ask? simple really, if...

Oh. THE dangerous word in politics...

imho democracy should be one third of the system, with nobility(aka rich people) being another third, and some sort of monarchy(emperor whatever) as one third, requiring a majority to do anything above the use of designated budgets and all in agreement to do anything major(declare war or similar.), with a law about rich people caught interfering in the little peoples pond being summarily executed, they have their way of doing things.

Where´s the difference between money and money?
That´d be 2:1 for money vs people anyway.

I´d say our todays democrazies are flawed, but they´re still the best form we can have (see Churchill).
Minimum IQ for politicians and more transparency would solve 2/3 of our todays problems.



And for the US-americans here: Vote Colbert!

[fredgiblet]

Enlightened despotism would be the ideal form of government, except that despots are rarely enlightened (and even when they are, they don't stay that way... the successor of a just ruler is almost always a tyrant).

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." - Dalberg-Acton

Which is why I'm voting Denton-Helios in 2052

[GOULimitingFactor]

Well, the big problem with any despotism is structural - there are still internal power-plays, but they're much, much worse than in a democracy (where power plays are openly acknowledged and governing bodies are structured to control them) - part of it is how much more power is at stake, and part of it is how openly that power is or can be contested. There's a late-Cold-War paper floating around (not sure it's been digitized) that details the structural advantages of democracies in negotiating with authoritarian systems - one of them is that it's much harder to put pressure on a democratic society in negotiations, because decision-making takes longer and so many more interested parties have to be satisfied (which also means more people to buy off, manipulate or blackmail). Some of you may see this as a bug, but it's definitely a feature.

There's a certain strain of naive-left (the naive-right tends to buy it wholesale, as they do everything else) political analysis that holds that the power-hungry are only in it for the money - the truth is that there are easier ways to make money. The money is part of it, but they're in it to be power players. Authoritarian systems look nice, and they have a lot of advantages from a narrative standpoint, but in the real world they're riddled with factionalism and massively unstable, and because they tend to brutal enforcement, internal power struggles are more likely to result in violence. If you think a nobility is a good idea, you're probably beyond saving, or at least grossly ignorant of history.

[TrashMan]

Meh...I tend to partially disagree with that.


I recommend everyone watch Legend of Galactic Heroes.... a 110 episode documentary on politics and government systems.

[discord]

goul: one of the things i tried to point out, but utterly failed apparently, was that i think democracy as it is today is TOO stable in many ways, it becomes seriously entrenched and after a while(about a hundred years or so) any alternative is unthinkable, since it creates chaos and disturbs the all important peace....at which point the ruling system will grow more and more corrupt.

imho the ruling govenrment should undergo significant change every 50-100 years just to keep things fresh and new, keep it interesting, there is always room for improvement, and ANY government with a bureaucracy will add branches to solve problems, while old ones do not always go away when effectively superseded, this creates extra weight, and makes things less effective....

just saying things need to be shaken up every now and then.

and the classic question when it comes to ruling, it's not important to choose a good leader, it is important how to get rid of a bad one, now how do you do that in a democracy? although to be honest, what does the great leader do really? not much it seems, and if they do anything it seems to get worse for it.

http://corneralley.comicgenesis.com/d/20070905.html <---- so nicely put...

trantor: simple is acceptable in politics as long as it is not touted as a simple SOLUTION, cause that is bad, simple problems, or simple definitions of problems are another matter entirely.

[Trantor]

...
and the classic question when it comes to ruling, it's not important to choose a good leader, it is important how to get rid of a bad one, now how do you do that in a democracy?

Simple Solution, no?

[Karst45]

Simple Solution, no?

That a dangerous path, though we all may have wished that on a really really bad political leader. that kind of thing usually create chaos that "worst" people will use to get more power.