More on pre-electricity lighting.
Interesting to see this one pop up again after nearly two years - courtesy of @dduane, too! :->
*****
After experiencing a couple more storm-related power cuts since my original post, as well as a couple of after-dark garden BBQs, I've come to the conclusion that C.J. Cherryh puts far too much emphasis on "how dark things were pre-electric light".
For one thing eyes adjust, dilating in dim light to gather whatever illumination is available. Okay, if there's none, there's none - but if there's some, human eyes can make use of it, some better or just faster than others. They're the ones with "good night vision".
Think, for instance, of how little you can see of your unlit bedroom just after you've turned off the lights, and how much more of it you can see if you wake up a couple of hours later.
There's also that business of feeling your way around, risking breaking your neck etc. People get used to their surroundings and, after a while, can feel their way around a familiar location even in total darkness with a fair amount of confidence.
Problems arise when Things Aren't Where They Should Be (or when New Things Arrive) and is when most trips, stumbles, hacked shins and stubbed toes happen, but usually - Lego bricks and upturned UK plugs aside - non-light domestic navigation is incident-free.
*****
Here are a couple of pics from one of those BBQs: one candle and a firepit early on, then the candle, firepit and an oil lamp much later, all much more obvious than DD's iPad screen.
Though I remain surprised at how well my phonecam was handling this low light, my own unassisted eyes were doing far better. For instance, that area between the table and the firepit wasn't such an impenetrable pool of darkness as it appears in the photo.
I see (hah!) no reason why those same Accustomed Eyes would have any more difficulty with candles or oil lamps as interior lighting, even without the mirrors or reflectors in my previous post.
With those, and with white interior walls, things would be even brighter. There's a reason why so many reconstructed period buildings in Folk Museums etc. are (authentically) whitewashed not just outside but inside as well. It was cheap, had disinfectant qualities, and was a reflective surface. Win, win and win.
*****
All right, there were no switches to turn on a light. But there was no need for what C.J. describes as stumbling about to reach the fire, because there were tinderboxes and, for many centuries before them, flint and steel. Since "firesteels" have been heraldic charges since the 1100s, the actual tool must have been in use for even longer.
Tinderboxes were fire-starter sets with flint, steel and "tinder" all packed into (surprise!) a box. The tinder was easily lit ignition material, often "charcloth", fabric baked in an airtight jar or tin which would now start to glow just from a spark.
They're mentioned in both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". Oddly enough, "Hobbit" mentions matches in a couple of places, but I suspect that's a carry-over from when it was just a children's story, not part of the main Legendarium.
Tinderboxes could be simple, just a basic flint-and-steel kit with some tinder for the sparks to fall on...
...or elaborate like this one, with a fancy striker, charcloth, kindling material and even wooden "spills" (long splinters) to transfer flame to a candle or the kindling...
This tinderbox even doubles as a candlestick, complete with a snuffer which would have been inside along with everything else.
Here's a close-up of the striker box with its inner and outer lids open:
What looks like a short pencil with an eraser is actually the striker. A bit of tinder or charcloth would have been pulled through that small hole in the outer lid, which was then closed.
There was a rough steel surface on the lid, and the striker was scraped along it, like so:
This was done for a TV show or film, so the tinder was probably made more flammable with, possibly, lighter fuel. That would be thoroughly appropriate, since a Zippo or similar lighter works on exactly the same principle.
A real-life version of any tinderbox would usually just produce glowing embers needing blown on to make a flame, which is shown sometimes in movies - especially as a will-it-light-or-won't-it? tension build - but is usually a bit slow and non-visual for screen work.
*****
There were even flintlock tinderboxes which worked with the same mechanism as those on firearms. Here's a pocket version:
Here are a couple of bedside versions, once again complete with a candlestick:
And here are three (for home defence?) with a spotlight candle lantern on one side and a double-trigger pistol on the other.
Pull one trigger to light the candle, pull the other trigger to fire the gun.
What could possibly go wrong? :-P
*****
Those pistol lanterns, magnified by lenses, weren't just to let their owner see what they were shooting at: they would also have dazzled whatever miscreant was sneaking around in the dark, irises dilated to make best use of available glimmer.
Swordsmen both good and bad knew this trick too, and various fight manuals taught how to manage a thumb-shuttered lamp encountered suddenly in a dark alley.
There's a sword-and-lantern combat in the 1973 "Three Musketeers" between Michael York (D'Artagnan) and Christopher Lee (Rochefort), which was a great idea.
Unfortunately it failed in execution because the "Hollywood Darkness" which let viewers see the action, wasn't dark enough to emphasise the hazards / advantages of snapping the lamps open and shut.
This TV screencap (can't get a better one, the DVD won't run in a computer drive) shows what I mean.
In fact, like the photos of the BBQ, this image - and entire fight - looks even brighter through "real eyes" than with the phonecam. Just as there can be too much dark in a night scene, there can also be too much light.
*****
One last thing I found when assembling pics for the post were Folding Candle-lanterns.
They were used from about the mid-1700s to the later 20th century (Swiss Army ca. 1978) as travel accessories and emergency equipment, and IMO - I've Made A Note - they'd fit right into a fantasy world whose tech level was able to make them.
The first and last are reproductions: this one is real, from about 1830.
The clear part was mica - a transparent mineral which can be split into thin flexible sheets - while others use horn / parchment, though both of these are translucent rather than transparent. Regardless, all were far less likely to break than glass.
One or two inner surfaces were usually tin, giving the lantern its own built-in reflector, and tech-level-wise, tin as a shiny or decorative finish has been used since Roman times.
I'm pretty sure that top-of-the-line models could also have been finished with their own matching, maybe even built-in, tinderboxes.
And if real ones didn't, fictional ones certainly could. :->
*****
Yet more period lighting stuff here, including flintlock alarm clocks (!)
2K notes
·
View notes
What would you recommend as a good intro to CJ Cherryh? You've several times talked very highly of her work, and I'm curious now.
Depends on your preferences.
If you're a fantasy fan, I'd start with The Dreamstone and/or Tree of Swords and Jewels. If you prefer fantasy that's edging a bit toward SF, then you want the "Morgaine Cycle" of books that begin with Gate of Ivrel, a great favorite of both mine and @petermorwood's . (Don't be weirded out by the first-edition Mike Whelan cover on Ivrel: Mike was being fabulously subversive on that.) If you prefer straightforward unambivalent hard SF, try the "Company Wars" books that begin with Downbelow Station. And there are the fabulous "Chanur" books, featuring an interstellar trading family of lioness-like hominids who get caught up with a member of the weird "human" species...
And all of that said: I have favorites among these that are standalones, or are "off the beaten track" of one or another of her major universes. My absolute favorite of the favorites is Hunter of Worlds, which is one of the best get-into-your-aliens'-minds books I know—unquestionably an influence on my Rihannsu work for Star Trek.
So there you have it. Pick a spot and jump in! You've got so much terrific reading ahead of you. :)
286 notes
·
View notes
where would you recommend starting with cj cherryh's work?
Cherryh has a tremendous body of work, of which I have read only a small portion, so my answer to this question may change quite soon as I continue to work my way through her novels.
I am currently in the process of very gradually reading through Cherryh's sprawling Alliance-Union series, which is an ongoing assortment of several dozen SFF novels taking place in the same shared universe. With a few exceptions, they can be read in any order and are not directly narratively linked.
At this point, I would probably suggest that others start the same place I did, with the masterwork of the Alliance-Union series, Cyteen, which I found utterly spectacular. Content warning for sexual violence and a lot of exploration of questions of coercion, manipulation, and agency. I'd recommend avoiding spoilers or really reading much about the premise in advance.
Cyteen is also long and intense and could be intimidating. I imagine that Forty Thousand in Gehenna could also be a good starting point for someone who likes anthropological sci-fi, or Heavy Time (which I just read this week) if a tighter hard sci-fi narrative sounds appealing.
12 notes
·
View notes
Hello, I've been a massive fan of your Star Trek novelizations since the moment I discovered them. You write Star Trek like no one else and, if you'll forgive the overgeneralization your approach to the sci-fi genre is just absolutely incredible in its sheer originality. The way you seem you develop forms of life so different from humanity, is so unbelievably innovative. You seem to look at the limitations of organic life as we know it, and use it as a spring board to create the most fantastical life forms. I've only ever seen it echoed in Catherynne Valente's Space Opera in all my years of consuming sci-fi. The way you write makes want to weep with joy! And your world building!!! The societies you develop and build and evolve, I am in unabashed awe at the work of such a master!!! I have yet to delve into your original fiction, but I hope to have the time to do so soon!!
Thanks so much for all the kind words!
As usual, I have to say that if I’m any good at these things, it’s because I’m standing on the shoulders of a lot of the old greats in the field, and some of the newer ones. I grew up reading (and taking to heart) a lot of the better-known names along the Heinlein / Asimov axis as regards hard SF, so their influence is definitely there.
But as inspiring for me at the SF end of things, if not more so, was C. J. Cherryh… who has a gift for devising and writing aliens that takes some matching. Carolyn’s skill at building alien cultures and civilizations is surpassed only by how easy she makes it look, and I paid really close attention to her writing for her first decade or two in the field. What I know about writing aliens, I learned second-hand from CJ’s work… and sometimes first-hand, at conventions and on the odd trip “out west” to see her. I have to particularly recommend a novel of hers called Hunter of Worlds… by the end of which the attentive reader has picked up significant vocabulary in an alien language, and more to the point, in the psychology of the species that speaks it. Carolyn’s shadow lies long over the Rihannsu books (and it was a pleasure to stuff her, very thinly disguised, into one of them).
…Anyway: thanks again. :) Always nice to hear I’m getting the job done.
141 notes
·
View notes