Talk:The Domination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Is it just a coincidence that 'Oceania' from Nineteen Eighty-Four and the 'Alliance for Democracy' in The Domination occupy almost identical territories?
Oh, and by the way, wasn't "Drakon" also a Draka novel? That makes it a four-book series, not a trilogy.
- Isn't it odd how in real life, the nations with the greatest appetite for conquest are invariably those with the least ability to conquer? Pretty convenient the way that works out... Iceberg3k 23:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Marie Curie's maiden name
The article originally claimed that "Sokolowska is the maiden name of Marie Curie". Well, it's not Sokolowska, but Skłodowska (not even Sklodowska). The problem here is that that remark was about a character in the story - a certain "Marya Sokolowska"; the note goes on to say that "it is not clear whether the fictional character is intended to be an alternate-history version of the chemist, but from the description of her intelligence, it seems likely".
Well... was Marya's last name Sokolowska or Skłodowska? If it was Sokolowska, does the note still make sense? How should it be phrased now, in the case it should still be there?
I've corrected it to look like this, but I'm sure there is a better way of putting it:
- Her slaves include Marya Sokolowska and Chantal Lefarge, formerly a Polish nun and a French Communist respectively. (Note that Skłodowska is the maiden name of Marie Curie; it is not clear whether the fictional character is intended to be an alternate-history version of the chemist, but from the description of her intelligence, it seems likely).
--Fibonacci 08:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- There's also the fact that Marie Skłodowska/Sokolowska/Curie was born in 1867 and would have been over eighty by the time this novel was set in (in reality, she died years before even the first book in the series began). The character is several decades younger. MK2 01:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Plus, something called the Curie Institute is mentioned in Under the Yoke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.33.187 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ending
Can someone clue me into what happened at the end of The Stone Dogs? I've reread it atleast a dozen times and I don't understand. The U.S. President gets the message from LeFlarge and that's it. Thanks.
[edit] Biological superiority
There's a great deal made in the later books of how the Draka superclass are biologically engineered to actually become supermen. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pointless trivia
In Marching Through Georgia the author has a prop-driven plane taking off on coarse pitch. This is a big no-no especially given that Draka planes don't have a massive power edge over the Luftwaffe - fine pitch exerts maximum leverage and is mandatory for take-offs. It's like pedalling a bicycle uphill - no matter how good your muscles, no sane person uses high gear from a standing start.
In both Under The Yoke and The Stone Dogs, Stirling flagrantly abuses chess notation - neither "Knight to Queen's Pawn Four" nor "King's Pawn to Knight Four" are actually possible (and the first is a grammatical nonsense in descriptive notation). Captain Pedant 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dystopia or Utopia?
One key feature of a dystopia is that the author and his intended audience see the society it depicts in strongly negative terms - I however see very little evidence that Stirling is repulsed by the Draka and there are certainly a great many neo-Nazis who would see it as a positive utopia - and some of them have published articles saying so.
This comes across most strongly in Drakon where on multiple levels the Drakan visitor is able to contrast the happy state of the world in her future (with even the slaves being well-fed cared-for and genetically selected to be content with their lot) to the chaotic and degenerate real twentieth century.
Arguably the series is nothing more than racist and fascist propaganda very thinly-disguised as alternate history SF and should be criticised as such.
[edit] What, no signature?
Arguably so. But it can also be viewed as another literary device - the reader is invited to remind himself that he is seeing the world through Drakan eyes and observe the smug conceit and bias of the Drakan viewpoint, and reflect on whether it is really better to be well-fed cattle with no real will for self-improvement, or to live in an admittedly imperfect world where, for all its faults, it is still possible to strive for self-improvement. Sort of like the case Captain Kirk makes out for disposing of Vaal in the Star Trek episode "The Apple" (q.v.) - a sterile Utopia in which the people (or a majority of the same) are merely existing without ambition or hope of advancement is no utopia at all. Captain Pedant 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Draka military hardware in the Eurasian War
I think a couple of the points of comparison slightly overstate Draka technological superiority: while the Hond III is a superb tank, it may be a stretch to put it on a par with the Abrams, given that it is stated that the German Elefant is almost on a par with it for firepower and armour, and that American tanks of the same era saw the introduction of the gyrostabiliser. True, it is a better piece of kit all round than any real-world tank of the mid-1940s, but perhaps not decades more advanced. Similarly, though the Rhino ground-attack aircraft is good, it shouldn't be forgotten that, say, the Beaufighter could deliver cannon, machine-gun and rocket fire all in one handy package, that some marks of B25 mounted twelve forward-firing .50-cals, that other aircraft like the Hawker Typhoon, Il-2 and Ju87 and even some marks of Hurricane had either anti-tank cannon or unguided rockets (and the Il-2 in particular was well armoured). Comparisons with the A-10 aren't quite warranted - excellent as the Rhino's firepower is for the era, it doesn't match up to the Warthog's vicious Gatling gun, and a Rhino is seen to be downed after a single head-on pass with a Fw-190, which an A-10 would probably have shrugged off. Captain Pedant 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stirling Copied Draka Tech From American Gulf War 1 Hardware
The Hond III tank was said in Stirling's book to be armed with a smooth bore, high velocity 120mm gun firing an APFSDS (armor piercing fin-stabilized self discarding sabot) with a depleted uranium penetrator. This happens to be exactly what the Abrahms M1A1 was firing in 1991! The APFSDS wasn't fully deployed in our timeline until the late 1950s. The APDS (without the fin-stabilizer) was first developed by the Brits in 1943 and used for its famous 17 pdr anti-tank gun (found on the equally famous Sherman Firefly). While it had excellent penetration, it was inaccurate beyond 900 meters because it didn't have the fin-stabilizer (which would have spun it around like an arrow in flight making it more accurate). Depleted uranium penetrators weren't developed in OTL until the 1970's by the USSR and the US. Also, the gyrostabilizers some advanced Shermans and the Pershings had in WW2 only had a single axis stabilization, not the X and Y axis stabilization of today's gyrostabilizers. The single axis stabilizers were only useful on low speed on terrain that's not too rough. This didn't appear to be the case with the Hond III.
In Stirling's books, the Draka also had air cavalry and attack helicopters in the late 1940s, early 1950s. In OTL, the helicopters of the Korean War could barely lift one pilot and one wounded soldier, which was why it was only used to ferry wounded to the MASH or rescue downed pilots. The UH-1 Hueys and Apache helicopters didn't appear OTL until the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s.
I find it hard to believe that a Spartan society like the Draka could be ahead technologically in any front. The original Spartans also had an approximately 10 to 1 ratio slave/serf to citizen. The Spartans dominated at first with their small but highly disciplined and very ferocious hoplite phalanxes. However, they were brought down by the Thebans because the Spartans, not a people of great innovators, stuck to tried and true military tactics and technology while the Thebans innovated by developing combined arms tactics with cavalry, missile troops, and infantry all fighting together. Societies like the Draka and the Spartans would be weak at improving their tactics and technology because they make most of their citizens into soldiers and prize excellence in warfare over science, technology, trade, and innovation. Also, keeping the vast majority of their population dirt poor and uneducated kept both these societies from harnessing the full power of their entire population. Who knows what brilliant tacticians, strategists, and inventors those slaves/serfs would have become had they been given the opportunity? The Spartans overspecialized in warfare at the expense of flexibility and adaptability. They paid the price in the end, and so would have the Draka, had they been living in a real world, instead of Stirling's fantasy world.
True, that's why Samothrace may beat them in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.107 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
I'd like to propose merging this article with Draka, with the latter article the survivor. Information in each article is pretty much the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
