4 ms·

The foreground message is quite blunt >> Here, Verne was a narrator of global integration. His heroes were compelled by a quest to resist politics and oppose i

The foreground message is quite blunt >> Here, Verne was a narrator of global integration. His heroes were compelled by a quest to resist politics and oppose it: their triumphs relied on private sponsors, gentlemen’s clubs, scientific associations, millionaires – not governments. They ventured afar in spite of government, not because of it. Global order likewise rarely ever featured states, empires, or political actors. Private actors were the chief benefactors, beneficiaries, and interlocutors. But I found this article useful for the perspectives on 'worldmaking'. This helps to understand the elements in game dev (immersion) and speculative fiction (narrative transport) that make (or not) a successful game or book. Something that I find fascinating

delichon 2y ago
I long used Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon: A Direct Route in 97 Hours, 20 Minute" as evidence that privately funded space flight isn't so unimaginable. In that case by the Baltimore Gun Club. Then there is The Man Who Sold the Moon by Heinlein where the moon is first visited by "the last of the Robber Barons". Of course here in the real world space exploration is too costly and complex a game for any organizations other than governments to play, and Verne and Heinlein were optimists with stars in their eyes. Or that's what it seemed like in the seventies when it was pretty much true.
- notarobot123 2y ago
  It turns out that commanding the resources extracted through private monopolies isn't so different from deciding how to spend the revenues of taxation.
ocschwar 2y ago
Mind you, this is because Verne loathed the British Empire, and his heroes using private means to challenge its authority is meant as a rebuke to his own government for not challenging Britain enough.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
Political parties often take credit for social advancements, but if you look closely it was break through technology that made the advancements possible, not some social rights protest as the politicians would have you believe
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  What technological breakthrough made, for example, women's suffrage possible?
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Antibiotics and vaccines. If you need to give birth to 8 kids so that 2-3 of them could live into the reproductive age, fighting for equal rights is neither possible nor relevant.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      At the time (late 19th, early 20th century) antibiotics weren't a thing and vaccines, to the extent that they were there (not quite in the modern sense), had been around for a long time.
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        Cowpox variolation was around for longer, but vaccines in the modern sense were pioneered by Pasteur in 1880s. This is also the time when the first antibiotics (not penicillin) were developed, even though they reached marked later in 1900s. The late 19th and early 20th century is exactly when the dramatic (around 4x) drop in child mortality took place. It wasn't of course only vaccines but also a general increase in healthcare and living standards. Without that drop I highly doubt that suffrage movement would gain any traction.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        Broad vaccination of populations against a variety of diseases wasn't a thing until a lot later. The antibiotics at the time were very limited and selective. Btw., the protests still were the thing that got the change at the time, not the technology! Seems to me any causal link is weak at best. Claiming that humans have no agency when it comes to society is rather a very strong claim that needs a lot of evidence. Usually people make the change, not technology (it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example).
nosianu 2y ago
I don't understand this "in spite of" and "vs." narrative. As far as I know my history the goals were aligned, not least because government was some of the same people, or connected people, and the goals were aligned. The functions were different. Where does this either-or (private/government) come from? I look at Gregor Mendel as an example for how many different parties worked as one. (Biology) professor Eric Lander of MIT mentioned in one biology/genetics intro course lecture video (on edX) that Mendel was not some lone figure, but that he got the task to do his research from his boss, who as representative of the church was in turn part of a local group consisting of important figures from local business and government. They talked about economics and decided that they needed better sheep - for better wool. Back then clothing was the big important business, the technical revolution and also new science was very important for it. So I don't think there was a situation as described in that quote. I think they all worked along and with one another in those days. The entire expansion of empires and colonies was not driven by some government officials who were bored, commerce, industry and politics were aligned.
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  > "in spite of" and "vs." narrative The point was that Verne's fictitious heroes were acting independently of government, real or fictional. For example using fictitious, privately funded super-technology (rockets, aircraft, submarines, etc), or emerging from their exclusive gentlemen's clubs to which they returned when the adventure was over.
  - nosianu 2y ago
    And I responded to the clear statement you quoted from the submission: > His heroes were compelled by a quest to resist politics and oppose it... > ...They ventured afar in spite of government, not because of it. :) Granted, reading the full piece shows a more complex picture, but I'm not sure it supports its own assertion that there is meant to be this "vs" towards nations and governments. The text later contradicts itself too: > In part, this betrayed how much Verne and his readers took a world of empire for granted: after all, circumnavigation with the ease described in Around the World in Eighty Days was only possible because of empire. Verne depicted a journey that simultaneously relied on a velocity and connectivity only possible because of globe-spanning imperial transport and communication networks, and a journey where – in stark contrast with most actual circumnavigatory voyages – the travellers return home alive and well. So the text admits the entire private enterprise is only made possible by the global reach and security provided by empire in the first place. That clearly contradicts the earlier statement of "They ventured afar in spite of government, not because of it." The world the stories play in are based no the existence of that political structure and require it.

delichon 2y ago

I long used Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon: A Direct Route in 97 Hours, 20 Minute" as evidence that privately funded space flight isn't so unimaginable. In that case by the Baltimore Gun Club. Then there is The Man Who Sold the Moon by Heinlein where the moon is first visited by "the last of the Robber Barons". Of course here in the real world space exploration is too costly and complex a game for any organizations other than governments to play, and Verne and Heinlein were optimists with stars in their eyes. Or that's what it seemed like in the seventies when it was pretty much true.

notarobot123 2y ago
It turns out that commanding the resources extracted through private monopolies isn't so different from deciding how to spend the revenues of taxation.

ocschwar 2y ago

Mind you, this is because Verne loathed the British Empire, and his heroes using private means to challenge its authority is meant as a rebuke to his own government for not challenging Britain enough.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

Political parties often take credit for social advancements, but if you look closely it was break through technology that made the advancements possible, not some social rights protest as the politicians would have you believe

RandomLensman 2y ago
What technological breakthrough made, for example, women's suffrage possible?
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  Antibiotics and vaccines. If you need to give birth to 8 kids so that 2-3 of them could live into the reproductive age, fighting for equal rights is neither possible nor relevant.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    At the time (late 19th, early 20th century) antibiotics weren't a thing and vaccines, to the extent that they were there (not quite in the modern sense), had been around for a long time.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      Cowpox variolation was around for longer, but vaccines in the modern sense were pioneered by Pasteur in 1880s. This is also the time when the first antibiotics (not penicillin) were developed, even though they reached marked later in 1900s. The late 19th and early 20th century is exactly when the dramatic (around 4x) drop in child mortality took place. It wasn't of course only vaccines but also a general increase in healthcare and living standards. Without that drop I highly doubt that suffrage movement would gain any traction.
      - RandomLensman 2y ago
        Broad vaccination of populations against a variety of diseases wasn't a thing until a lot later. The antibiotics at the time were very limited and selective. Btw., the protests still were the thing that got the change at the time, not the technology! Seems to me any causal link is weak at best. Claiming that humans have no agency when it comes to society is rather a very strong claim that needs a lot of evidence. Usually people make the change, not technology (it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example).

nosianu 2y ago

I don't understand this "in spite of" and "vs." narrative. As far as I know my history the goals were aligned, not least because government was some of the same people, or connected people, and the goals were aligned. The functions were different. Where does this either-or (private/government) come from? I look at Gregor Mendel as an example for how many different parties worked as one. (Biology) professor Eric Lander of MIT mentioned in one biology/genetics intro course lecture video (on edX) that Mendel was not some lone figure, but that he got the task to do his research from his boss, who as representative of the church was in turn part of a local group consisting of important figures from local business and government. They talked about economics and decided that they needed better sheep - for better wool. Back then clothing was the big important business, the technical revolution and also new science was very important for it. So I don't think there was a situation as described in that quote. I think they all worked along and with one another in those days. The entire expansion of empires and colonies was not driven by some government officials who were bored, commerce, industry and politics were aligned.

KineticLensman 2y ago
> "in spite of" and "vs." narrative The point was that Verne's fictitious heroes were acting independently of government, real or fictional. For example using fictitious, privately funded super-technology (rockets, aircraft, submarines, etc), or emerging from their exclusive gentlemen's clubs to which they returned when the adventure was over.
- nosianu 2y ago
  And I responded to the clear statement you quoted from the submission: > His heroes were compelled by a quest to resist politics and oppose it... > ...They ventured afar in spite of government, not because of it. :) Granted, reading the full piece shows a more complex picture, but I'm not sure it supports its own assertion that there is meant to be this "vs" towards nations and governments. The text later contradicts itself too: > In part, this betrayed how much Verne and his readers took a world of empire for granted: after all, circumnavigation with the ease described in Around the World in Eighty Days was only possible because of empire. Verne depicted a journey that simultaneously relied on a velocity and connectivity only possible because of globe-spanning imperial transport and communication networks, and a journey where – in stark contrast with most actual circumnavigatory voyages – the travellers return home alive and well. So the text admits the entire private enterprise is only made possible by the global reach and security provided by empire in the first place. That clearly contradicts the earlier statement of "They ventured afar in spite of government, not because of it." The world the stories play in are based no the existence of that political structure and require it.