4 ms·

The Culture wiki [0] talks in more detail about how the Culture's decentralised existence worked in their favour, compared to the Idirans' territorial and relig

by n4r9 2y ago

The Culture wiki [0] talks in more detail about how the Culture's decentralised existence worked in their favour, compared to the Idirans' territorial and religious philosophy: > The initial stages of the war were defined by a hasty withdrawal of the Culture from vast galactic spaces invaded by the Idirans, who tried to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible in the hope of making the Culture sue for peace. However, the Culture was able—often by bodily moving its artificial worlds out of harm's way—to escape into the vastness of space, while it in turn geared up its productive capabilities for war, eventually starting to turn out untold numbers of extremely advanced warships. > The later stages of the war began with Culture strikes deep within the new Idiran zones of influence. As the Idirans were religiously committed to holding on to all of their conquests, these strikes forced them to divide their attentions. It also cites the Culture's more liberal attitude to AI as a deciding factor. [0] https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Idiran%E2%80%93Culture_War https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Idiran%E2%80%93Culture_Wa...

tivert 2y ago
My point was to note that Banks's works are fiction, so the usefulness of citing outcomes in his fictional universe is very limited, because they're almost certainly more of an expression of his biases than anything else (and IIRC, his biases could be cartoonish). The Culture basically had god (Banks) on its side, to ensure its victory, just like Skywalker had god (Lucas) on his side, who made it so the stormtroopers could never shoot straight when he was around. I bet Banks, consciously or unconsciously, played up the Culture's strengths, and played down the strengths of its adversaries (or engineered them with exploitable weaknesses).
- n4r9 2y ago
  I mean, I take it for a given that we're discussing this purely in the context of Banks' imagination. No qualms there. I just interpreted your comment as making out like Banks gives no real justification for why the Culture won the war.

by n4r9 2y ago

tivert 2y ago

My point was to note that Banks's works are fiction, so the usefulness of citing outcomes in his fictional universe is very limited, because they're almost certainly more of an expression of his biases than anything else (and IIRC, his biases could be cartoonish). The Culture basically had god (Banks) on its side, to ensure its victory, just like Skywalker had god (Lucas) on his side, who made it so the stormtroopers could never shoot straight when he was around. I bet Banks, consciously or unconsciously, played up the Culture's strengths, and played down the strengths of its adversaries (or engineered them with exploitable weaknesses).

n4r9 2y ago
I mean, I take it for a given that we're discussing this purely in the context of Banks' imagination. No qualms there. I just interpreted your comment as making out like Banks gives no real justification for why the Culture won the war.