Hyperion Series by D. Simmons -- Why no name for the Consul?

Felix

Explorer
I just re-read Hyperion by Dan Simmons (and recommend it for any who haven't) and I was wondering about one of the main characters... perhaps the main character. The Consul is always refered to by his title, both by other characters and the narrator.

Why?

What is the signifigance of not giving a name to this particular character given his place in the story? We know the names of his grandparents, his father, his deceased sister and uncle, but not his. What does this do to modify the story? What is Dan up to here?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It was just another way to invoke the Canterbury Tales?

Of course, that doesn't explain why the others get names, and only the Consul remains identified solely by his occupation...
 

Mallus said:
It was just another way to invoke the Canterbury Tales?

That'd be my guess.

I'd have to go back and re-read both books (or at least the cliff notes versions) to figure out who the Consul was an anaologue for.

Weren't most of the people in CT just designated by profession?
 


Top notch series, though the follow up series kinda fell through.

Thinking back I do realize that they never give him a specific name, it seems to fit well with his backstory as an outsider/rogue agent.
 

Ibram said:
...it seems to fit well with his backstory as an outsider/rogue agent.
Yeah, if he were any kind of a James Bond, ok. But he's not. He's a well known diplomat. And he wasn't an outsider; he was the Hegemony of Man's salesman. They would send him in to convince the indiginies that joining the WorldWeb was the way to go.
 

Typically such a strategem is used to provide an emphasis on what the character does, rather than who he is. Maybe Simmons did it to subtly stress C's role as the go-between between two realities... that of the civilized world and that of the uncivilized Ousters. Clearly he's not so subtle about his feelings about modernity (man is quite literally consumed by his creations in this work), so maybe the Consul represents man's step forward from his mundane world of machines and technology to a world of deeper meanings, represented by the Ousters.
 

Felix said:
Yeah, if he were any kind of a James Bond, ok. But he's not. He's a well known diplomat. And he wasn't an outsider; he was the Hegemony of Man's salesman. They would send him in to convince the indiginies that joining the WorldWeb was the way to go.

He was always an outsider, he hated the Hegemony with a passion few could match and he tried to use his position to destroy it. Not only that but everyone knew he was a traitor, they used him as a double agent, each side knowing that he would betray them.
 

Lazybones said:
so maybe the Consul represents man's step forward from his mundane world of machines and technology to a world of deeper meanings, represented by the Ousters.
Maybe so. But the same treatment could have been given any of the other characters and that theme would have translated. What about the Consul in particular, or his story, makes Simmons render him nameless?

Ibram said:
He was always an outsider, he hated the Hegemony with a passion few could match and he tried to use his position to destroy it. Not only that but everyone knew he was a traitor, they used him as a double agent, each side knowing that he would betray them.
He was
a) well known... so he does have a recognizeable name.

b) well respected... even by the people he "betrays".

c) he might have thought he was betraying people, but they knew what he was going to do, and that's why he was chosen for those missions. He didn't betray the CEO's or the Ousters' ends... he furthered them.

So forget the "rogue agent" title; that implies he's working for no one besides himself. He was used by the CEO and the Ousters for the specific purpose to do exactly what he did to "open" the Time Tombs.
 

Remove ads

Top