An illuminating 1999 interview with the author of THE DARK IS RISING series.
RT: The books comprise a series. Did you find that what you had written in the earlier books committed you to directions that you subsequently regretted, or wished you had more freedom to change?
SC: No. It was wonderful. It was like writing a symphony, in which each movement is different and yet they all link together. I wish my imagination would give me another shape like that because there are all kinds of satisfactions inside it. Things link together, an early book leads to something in a later book. When I wrote the first book, of course, I didn’t envision a series, but later, when I first had the idea of writing, not just the second book, but the whole sequence, I drew up a plan on a piece of paper. I had little notes written down: I had the four times of the year–focused upon the solstices, Beltane, and such festivals–I had places, and, very roughly, the characters who were in each book. I remember that under The Grey King there was a boy called Bran, but I didn’t know who he was. So that was the only thing that limited me.
There were things I had to remember from early books that had to be either resolved or referred to in later books. Once in a great while some particularly bright child will write me a letter saying, you never said what happened to . . . . But I didn’t find it restricting. No.
RT: Are there any particular details you would like to change, looking back in retrospect?
SC: I would like to have developed the three Drew children more fully in the first book. They develop as the series progresses, but they’re very corny kids’ book characters in Over Sea, Under Stone, it seems to me. I hadn’t gotten to know them.
RT: As the series progresses, Jane in particular grows more interesting, doesn’t she?
SC: Yes. Jane is someone I always wanted to write about again. Silver on the Tree suffered from being the last book where I was tying up all the ends. It has too much in it. My head was going off in all directions. Its structure is not terrific. There was even more in it, but I took some out. Of course when you’re dealing with the substance of myth, which is the fight between good and evil, I suppose, you have to provide the ultimate, terrific, enormous climax. It’s almost impossible.
I’m not promising anything, not yet, but I am optimistic that we may eventually be able to release a Castalia Library edition of the series. And if so, the bar will be a fairly high one to clear, as the Easton Press edition is arguably the most beautiful set that Easton has ever produced.
After an email conversation with a Castalia Library subscriber who was disappointed with the fact that we are doing second editions, thereby theoretically reducing the value to collectors who would prefer the supply of Library books to be as limited as possible, it occurred to me that in addition to changing the color of the second editions, we could follow the lead of Franklin and Easton by changing the artwork on the covers and spines.
For example, Easton actually has five different editions of Plutarch’s Lives in addition to its Deluxe Limited Edition, which has a limited print run of 1,200 volumes. The editions, with one exception, feature different artwork.
While I would prefer to keep the artwork more or less the same from one edition to the next, thereby maintaining some degree of continuity for those who start collecting the books later, I can understand why some might prefer different covers. So, I thought it best to survey the people whose opinions matter most, which is to say the Library subscribers.
Also, I should point out that while we value the opinions of the collectors and we are pleased to have piqued their interest, they are not our primary market nor is serving their needs our primary objective. Castalia Library, first and foremost, is about the preservation of knowledge in a beautiful and timeless manner. Therefore, our motivations and our decisions may, at times, not be aligned with the preferences of those who are buying our books.
Regardless, let us know your opinion on SocioGalactic.
Castalia Library is presently offering its subscribers first shot at THE BLACK SWAN by NN Taleb. We’re also planning to release second editions of the sold-out THE MISSIONARIES and MEDITATIONS, both of which will be very similar to the first editions, although they will be clearly denoted as second editions and will feature different color leathers in order to clearly distinguish the different editions.
Please drop a note on SG or to my email if you are interested in either second edition, as well as if you are interested in the Library or Libraria versions as we will offer second editions of both. We’re asking the subscribers now because we need to decide the size of the print runs for both second editions. We expect that these print runs will be smaller than the initial print runs, but it’s theoretically possible they will be larger, depending upon the demand.
Please note that we are not taking any orders for them yet; next month will be the soonest that we will do so.
While we’re on the subject of sold-out first editions, I should probably mention that RHETORIC is down to the last five copies in stock, for those who are interested in obtaining one before it sells out also sold out. However, we won’t contemplate a second edition of it until we see how ETHICS and POLITICS do.
The 16th book in the Castalia Library subscription (May-June) is ANTIFRAGILE, by bestselling author Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It’s arguably Taleb’s most important book, given the challenges presented in this day and age, and I consider it to be an absolutely essential read.
Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better.
NN Taleb
If you are a May-June subscriber, you will receive ANTIFRAGILE when it is produced. If you wish to buy a copy but do not have a subscription, you will have to either a) subscribe or b) wait until the books are bound and the unsold portion of the print run goes on sale. A limited print run of 900 Library and 100 Libraria editions of ANTIFRAGILE will be bound.
Also, for the first time, Castalia House is offering an individual deluxe, leather-bound edition as part of the Castalia Library that is not included in the Library subscription. This is Taleb’s first bestseller, THE BLACK SWAN, which is available at the subscription price for subscribers using the subscription discount code. Please note that the image on the page is merely a placeholder, as we have not yet designed the cover or the spine of the Library edition. A Libraria edition is also available.
A limited print run of 900 Library and 100 Libraria editions of THE BLACK SWAN will be bound. Both books will be part of a four-volume deluxe INCERTO collection.
RHETORIC by Aristlotle is now available from Castalia Library in both Castalia Library and Libraria Castalia editions. It’s one of our fastest-selling books, as we’d already be sold out if we hadn’t boosted the print run to 850. There are currently just 937953 30 copies left in stock. In addition to featuring our most Franklinesque spine – which you can see above in between SUMMA ELVETICA and HEIDI on the left – it also features a preface by yours truly.
Preface to Rhetoric
Aristotle’s Rhetoric is one of the most useful and important analyses of human communication ever written. It is also one of the great philosopher’s least appreciated works, as it is easily mistaken for a mere technical breakdown of the various forms of persuasion rather than what it truly is, a brilliant conceptual guide to understanding and anticipating human behavior.
While a considerable portion of the text is devoted to the mechanics of the syllogism and the enthymeme, as well as the presentation of the inevitable lists which Aristotle characteristically constructs, by far the most important element of this little book is the philosopher’s division of humanity into two fundamental classes: those who are capable of learning through information and those who are not.
This is such an important distinction that it is remarkable for its complete absence from the schools and universities today. The distinction calls into question everything from modern pedagogical systems to personal conversations while simultaneously explaining the mystery that has confounded every intelligent individual who has ever tried, and failed, to explain the obvious to another person.
Indeed, it is comforting to have one’s long-held suspicions about the intrinsic limitations of one’s fellow man confirmed so comprehensively. More importantly, Aristotle’s rhetorical framework provides those who understand and apply it the ability to effectively communicate to the full spectrum of humanity, in effect permitting the reader to transcend his natural psycho-linguistic instincts and attain true intellectual polylingualism.
It must be admitted that Rhetoric would be considerably more accessible if the terminology utilized was a little more expansive and a little less imitated. Even though his definition makes sense when the relevant terms are analyzed in detail, it is not exactly conducive to comprehension for Aristotle to define the two subsets of rhetoric to be dialectic and rhetoric, therein requiring a casual distinction between rhetoric and rhetoric-rhetoric, or capital-R Rhetoric and lowercase-r rhetoric. Adding to the confusion is the fact that both Hegel and Marx subsequently attempted to redefine the term dialectic, although there is precious little in common between Aristotelian dialectic, Hegelian dialectic, Marxian dialectic, and the current dictionary term.
However, once the reader grasps that in this context, Rhetoric simply means persuasion, which is divided into a) fact-and-reason based persuasion, or dialectic, and b) emotion-based persuasion, or rhetoric, the basic framework becomes clear. The philosopher explains that while some people can be persuaded by information and logical demonstrations, people are most readily persuaded by emotional manipulation. Moreover, some people can only be persuaded by emotional manipulation, as Aristotle observes in what may be the most important sentence in the book.
Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.
What Aristotle is observing is that some of those who are limited to rhetoric are immune to dialectic. Such individuals cannot be swayed by facts or reason, no matter how exact the knowledge provided, no matter how impeccable the logic presented. Those who are immune to dialectic can only be reached through rhetoric, which is to say by manipulation that plays upon their emotions more effectively than whatever feelings inspired them to be convicted of their current beliefs.
While this manipulation may strike some readers as unethical, it is justified by necessity, as the duty of rhetoric requires addressing those “who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning.” While the enthymeme resembles the logical syllogism, it is not, in fact, logic, and the truths that it proves are only apparent truths.
Which, of course, is another way of saying that they are literal untruths.
This is why people whose natural preferences incline toward dialectic have a strong tendency to regard rhetoric as being fundamentally dishonest, and to consider the emotional manipulation involved in utilizing rhetoric to be intrinsically wrong. This distaste for rhetoric among those capable of utilizing dialectic is common, but it is nevertheless false. First, because even the most logically correct dialectic can be entirely false if the premises upon which the syllogisms are constructed are false. Second, because the more that the rhetoric incorporates and points toward the truth, the more effective it tends to be.
Neither dialectic nor rhetoric are inherently true or false; the very attempt to distinguish them in this manner is to make a category error. It might help to think of them as languages; just as one could not reasonably describe English as honest while insisting that German is deceptive and morally wrong, one should not assign morality to either of the two subsets of Rhetoric.
It is more correct, more practical, and more effective to apply the principle of utilizing the form of communication best understood by the listener. Just as one would not speak Chinese to an individual who only understands English, one should not rely upon rhetoric when speaking to a dialectic-speaker, or expect a rhetoric-speaker to be persuaded by dialectical arguments.
Aristotle himself believed it was vital for a man to be able to employ both arts, not so much for the purposes of persuasion, but rather, to avoid being deceived.
We must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.
Aristotle’s Rhetoric is every bit as useful and valid today as it was when it was first written more than 2,300 years ago. It is less a work of philosophy than a treasure chest of practical information for the individual who seeks to pursue the Good, the Beautiful, and the True.
How much literary “assistance” was being provided to GRR Martin by his assistants?
One of the assistants to George R. Martin left him to write the sci-fi series The Expanse. When he left was when George R Martin began spinning his wheels in terms of getting stuff done and/or quality. Is there a connection? I don’t know. I do like how in this interview, the assistant says Martin was a great mentor not in writing but in getting deals with Hollywood and other studios.
It wouldn’t be a massive surprise to learn that Martin, rather like FW Dixon and JK Rowling, eventually turns out to have been a committee effort. Although it must be admitted that his complete inability to finish his once-popular series tends to support the idea that it was solely his own work.
Then again, the fact that he has multiple “assistants” raises the question of what, precisely, those assistants were doing? While there’s nothing wrong with having co-writers and collaborators, a dependence on them tends to significantly reduce an author’s ability to write on his own.
That’s a rather click-baity way to inform potential Castalia Library subscribers that today is the last day to subscribe to the Library and receive POLITICS by Aristotle without needing to make a catch-up payment.
And since several people have asked, this is what presently comprises the Library series, here is the list. The books marked by strikethrough are sold out. HEIDIand SUMMA ELVETICAare the two books that are closest to selling out next, although I’m pretty sure we have more than two copies of HEIDI left in stock.
The Missionaries by Owen Stanley, limited edition of 500
The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, limited edition of 650
Awake in the Night Land by John C. Wright, limited edition of 650
The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, limited edition of 750
Lives, Vol. I by Plutarch, limited edition of 750
Lives, Vol. II by Plutarch, limited edition of 750
Summa Elvetica by Vox Day, limited edition of 750
Heidi by Johanna Spryi, limited edition of 750
Rhetoric by Aristotle, limited edition of 850
Discourses on Livy by Niccolo Machiavelli, limited edition of 850
A Throne of Bones Vol. I by Vox Day, limited edition of 850
A Throne of Bones Vol. II by Vox Day, limited edition of 850
Ethics by Aristotle, limited edition of 750
The Jungle Books by Rudyard Kipling, limited edition of 750
Now that the Arkhaven site has been stabilized, we’ve been able to get the Castalia Library store updated and make some of the books that had not been available to purchase available again. We even managed to find a few copies of THE MISSIONARIES and AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND squirreled away; please don’t get too excited, as both books are already out of stock again. So the first three books in the Library series are now sold out.
The more significant news is that both Library and Libraria editions of THE DIVINE COMEDY are available, as are DISCOURSES, RHETORIC, ETHICS, andTHE JUNGLE BOOKS. The cover on the latter is especially fine, as a comparison with the more expensive Easton Press edition tends to demonstrate.
The next book in the Castalia Library series is POLITICS by Aristotle, which will complete the three-volume ersatz trilogy that we are publishing. While we may one day publish a Complete Works set of Aristotle, we will not do so as part of the main subscription. And don’t forget, subscribers can utilize their Library discount to purchase additional volumes at the subscription price.
On the production side, we’re now working on getting ATOB Vol. I, ATOB Vol. II, and DISCOURSES shipped in April and May. The bindery is having compressed air and water installed in preparation for the arrival of the machines, most likely in May.
The Minarian Legends represent the collected stories about the many great kingdoms and celebrated heroes of Minaria, a continent of epic adventure. In these pages are presented the histories of the many kingdoms, heroes, and tribes that comprise a fantasy world full of merciless war, powerful magic, and intrepid adventure, the world of the classic 1979 TSR wargame, Divine Right.
The ancient tomes of the Minarian past have been mined to provide readers with the backstory of many kingdoms and heroes of the world of Divine Right. Among the latter are royalty, thieves, warriors, priests, adventurers, treasure hunters, werewolves, dragons, assassins, conquerors, wizards, rogues, barbarians, and pirates.
This comprehensive edition of Minarian legends offers the largest and most expanded collection of Minarian tales ever told, many of which are presented here for the first time by author Glenn Rahman, the designer of Divine Right.
Dominic Cummings’s blog is one of the more fascinating sites you can read these days, given the rare combination of his proximity to power and ruthless willingness to share his unadorned opinions. His perspective on War and Peace is particularly intriguing.
Tolstoy describes a meeting with the Tsar to discuss goals and strategy. There are many factions. There are those who want to follow ‘the pseudo-theory of war’, those who think the opposite, and courtiers who try to effect a compromise between the two — ‘Though by this course neither one aim nor the other could be attained, this seemed to the party of compromise the best line to adopt’.
I’ve heard such arguments so often over twenty years. It is quite normal for those at the centre of power to be unable to define their goals and for someone trying to seem ‘sensible’ to argue for a ‘compromise’ that guarantees only chaos. The inability of senior people to be rigorous in their thinking about goals, and the failure of institutions to force clarity, is one of the most under-appreciated aspects of politics and government. For example, if you trace the history of the Prussia-Austria conflict 1862-6 through the famous Schleswig-Holstein affair to the decisive battle of July 1866, a conflict so crucial in shaping the modern world, one of the most important features is that Emperor Franz Joseph would not and could not prioritise the conflicting goals of a) retaining Austria’s position in Germany and b) regainining her position in Italy. On the other side, Bismarck knew exactly what his priorities were. This fundamental fact lies behind the hugely complex diplomacy and Austria’s disaster. And exactly the same failure to prioritise goals recurs over and over — you see it around the Cabinet table before August 1914 and I saw it around the Cabinet table in 2020. Assuming wrongly that ‘at least those in charge know what they’re trying to do’ is one of the biggest errors made by the media and high status, often highly competent, observers.
Another faction wants to promote X, another wants to promote Y. But most are thinking mainly about their own career, about money, decorations and promotions.
The eighth and largest group, numbering ninety-nine to every one of the others, consisted of men who were neither for peace nor for war, neither for offensive operations nor a defensive camp at Drissa or anywhere else; who did not take the side of Barclay or of the Emperor, of Pfuhl or of Bennigsen, but cared only for the one thing most essential — as much advantage and pleasure for themselves as they could lay hold of.
In the troubled waters of those cross-currents of intrigue that eddied about the Emperor’s headquarters it was possible to succeed in very many ways that would have been unthinkable at other times. One courtier simply interested in retaining his lucrative post would today agree with Pfuhl, tomorrow with Pfuhl’s opponents, and the day after, merely to avoid responsibility or to please the Emperor, would declare that he had no opinion at all on the matter. Another, eager to curry favour, would attract the Tsar’s attention by loudly advocating something the Emperor had hinted at the day before, and would dispute and shout at the Council, beating his breast and challenging those who did not agree with him to a duel, thus displaying his readiness to sacrifice himself for the common weal. A third, while his enemies were out of the way, and in between two Councils, would simply solicit a special gratuity for his faithful services, well aware that it would be quicker at the moment to grant it than to refuse it. A fourth would contrive to be seen by the Tsar quite overwhelmed with work. A fifth, in order to achieve his long-cherished ambition to dine with the Emperor, would vehemently debate the rights and wrongs of some newly emerging opinion, producing more or less forcible and valid arguments in support of it.
All the members of this party were fishing after roubles, decorations and promotions, and in their chase simply kept their eye on the weathercock of Imperial favour: directly they noticed it shifting to one quarter the whole drone-population of the army began buzzing away in that direction, making it all the harder for the Emperor to change course elsewhere. Amid the uncertainties of the position, with the menace of serious danger which gave a peculiarly feverish intensity to everything, amid this vortex of intrigue, selfish ambition, conflicting views and feelings, and different nationalities, this eighth and largest party of men preoccupied with personal interests imparted great confusion and obscurity to the common task. Whatever question arose, a swarm of these drones, before they had done with their buzzing over the previous theme, would fly off to the new one, to smother and drown by their humming the voices of those who were prepared to examine it fully and honestly.
From the euro campaign in 1999 to the Department for Education to the referendum campaign meetings to the Cabinet room and Chequers, this buzzing has been the background noise to my twenty years in politics.
Prince Andrei watched the debate and ‘could only wonder in amazement’. After listening, he asked to serve with the army instead of remaining near the Emperor and thereby ‘lost his standing in court circles for ever’.
Focus on the actual job, rather than the courtier game, is often a disaster for one’s status and career.
Cummings and Tolstoy are both right. I’ve twice been bitten by a foolish focus on the actual job rather than the courtier game. In fact, in order to be able to do the actual job, it’s often necessary to first solidify your political flanks within the organization.
