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



## Felix (Feb 21, 2005)

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?


----------



## ragboy (Feb 21, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Why?




I was so enthralled in that story that it didn't even register. Now I'll have to read it again...


----------



## Mallus (Feb 21, 2005)

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...


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 21, 2005)

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?


----------



## Felix (Feb 21, 2005)

ragboy said:
			
		

> I was so enthralled in that story that it didn't even register. Now I'll have to read it again...



Yeah, I cought it on my third read.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> It was just another way to invoke the Canterbury Tales?



Who was nameless in CT?


----------



## Ibram (Feb 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## Felix (Feb 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## Lazybones (Feb 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## Ibram (Feb 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## Felix (Feb 22, 2005)

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.


----------



## Ibram (Feb 23, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> 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?




Probably because he couldnt think of a good name



> He was
> a) well known... so he _does_ have a recognizeable name.




I'd question how well known he was, he always seemed to be more of a backroom dealer then a front line tyep (remember how he was the one who sold New Bessad the torchships so they could provoke the Ousters.  Not even the Col. knew about that).  Plus with the use of the hawking drive the events he had the most influence on were decades old.



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




which is why they called him by his title rather then "Hey Bob!"



> 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.




yes, but he didnt learn this until near the end of the second book.



> 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.




It was his perception that he was a rogue agent, even though he was a quadruple agent in reality.


----------



## Felix (Feb 23, 2005)

> Probably because he couldnt think of a good name



 



> I'd question how well known he was, he always seemed to be more of a backroom dealer then a front line type.



Well known by the Senate, the CEO, everyone on Hebron he convinced to join the WorldWeb, his former aide on Hyperion. Meaning that he was well known by many of the other characters we run into in the books.



> which is why they called him by his title rather then "Hey Bob!"



You explain it as a term of respect? So you always call him "Ambassador" and not "Ambassador Brown"? Would a last name reduce the respect?



> It was his perception that he was a rogue agent



Ok, but how does his perception make everyone else not say his name?


----------



## Krieg (Feb 23, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> You explain it as a term of respect? So you always call him "Ambassador" and not "Ambassador Brown"? Would a last name reduce the respect?




It refers to the Consul being respected, but not particularly liked.

Using his name would denote familliarity which people are loathe to do with folks they aren't fond of, even if the are forced to respect them.


----------



## Ibram (Feb 24, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Well known by the Senate, the CEO, everyone on Hebron he convinced to join the WorldWeb, his former aide on Hyperion. Meaning that he was well known by many of the other characters we run into in the books.




remember that where he went was always outside the WorldWeb, so he had to travle by hawking drive.  He had a lot of time debt (though not as much as the poet), I dont remember how long it was exactly but i think it was over 20 years.  Thus he was probably not that well known by the current political structure, though some might remember him.



> You explain it as a term of respect? So you always call him "Ambassador" and not "Ambassador Brown"? Would a last name reduce the respect?




because they didnt like him.  just about everyone knew that he was a turncoat, so they wernt lacking in the loathing department.



> Ok, but how does his perception make everyone else not say his name?




because when he "wrote it down" he'd be more likely to say "They called me over" rather then "The templar said 'hey Mr Smith come over here'"


----------



## Felix (Feb 24, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> It refers to the Consul being respected, but not particularly liked.





			
				Ibram said:
			
		

> because they didnt like him.



Ok, so you're saying the signifigance of not saying his name... the conspicuous absence of any name whatsoever... is because people "didn't like him"?

Hid aide on Hyperion didn't like him?
His _grandfather_ didn't like him?

There should be a better reason than that for not mentioning his name. Ever. It seems to me too big an absence in the books for it to be explained away with that.

If it's drawing a comparison with Canterbury Tales, Ok, gotcha. But what does it _mean_?



> because when he "wrote it down" he'd be more likely to say "They called me over" rather then "The templar said 'hey Mr Smith come over here'



When he "wrote what down"? He didn't write anything down... He didn't even tell Merin Aspic's part of the story... that was on the data chip, and recorded by Merin. And even if the book focuses on him more than others, he's still not the narrator.


----------



## Ibram (Feb 24, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Ok, so you're saying the signifigance of not saying his name... the conspicuous absence of any name whatsoever... is because people "didn't like him"?
> 
> Hid aide on Hyperion didn't like him?
> His _grandfather_ didn't like him?




His grandfather never refered to him in the book, and his aide always called him Sir.



> There should be a better reason than that for not mentioning his name. Ever. It seems to me too big an absence in the books for it to be explained away with that.
> 
> If it's drawing a comparison with Canterbury Tales, Ok, gotcha. But what does it _mean_?




I dont know what it means, and franlkly I never thought about it much.



> When he "wrote what down"? He didn't write anything down... He didn't even tell Merin Aspic's part of the story... that was on the data chip, and recorded by Merin. And even if the book focuses on him more than others, he's still not the narrator.




but its through his eyes that the interludes between the tales is seen.


----------



## Felix (Feb 24, 2005)

> His grandfather never refered to him in the book



His grandfather does refer to him. He says "[Merin's surviving son's name], his daughter Liri, and her brother." That brother is the Consul at 10 years old.



> and his aide always called him Sir.



Yeah, _everybody_ calls him something other than his name. That's why I'm asking the question. 



> but its through his eyes that the interludes between the tales is seen.



The Prelude is the only time when the consul is alone. And in most other interludes no one is not present, so it's hard to say it's from his own eyes. 

But even if he were the reader's eyes, don't you think that's signifigant in some way for that particular character to be nameless beyond "they didn't like him"? The complete lack of a name was done on purpose by Simmons. What is that purpose?


----------

