THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/07/14 -- Vol. 33, No. 19, Whole Number 1831
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.
Topics:
Alternate History Interview
How Long Can a Knock Be? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Disconnected Life (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Magazine Editor Round-Table (report by Evelyn C. Leeper)
CONSIDER PHLEBAS by Iain M. Banks (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
PELICAN DREAMS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (BURMESE DAYS, THE HISTORY OF THE SIEGE
OF LISBON, and THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SCIENCE FICTION)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Alternate History Interview
An interview of Evelyn by Matt Mitrovich for "Alternate History
Weekly" may be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/void-ah-weekly
==================================================================
TOPIC: How Long Can a Knock Be? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In UP THE LINE Robert Silverberg has a character hide in a bathroom
and told, "don't let anybody in unless he knocks two longs and a
short." Can anyone tell me what a long knock sounds like? [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Disconnected Life (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was visiting Monticello, the home that Thomas Jefferson designed
and built for himself, and that incorporated many design ideas that
Jefferson had seen in Europe. Now one feature of the grounds is a
huge garden with many of the same varieties of flowers and plants
that Jefferson had planted. It occurred to me to ask how much of
the garden was the original plants planted in Jefferson's time, but
I stopped myself when I realized I was not sure what that actually
even meant.
Why is there such a question? We are used to thinking about non-
human organisms to some extent as being like humans. We think of
plants as being the way humans are but things are much different
with plants. We are used to the concept that we are individuals.
Humans are mostly in one piece. A given human is entirely in one
piece more or less. There is only one Barak Obama and he is in one
place at a time. If he is visiting France he cannot be in
Washington at the same moment. He is an individual. Plants are
not individuals. A plant can be in France and Washington at the
same instant. A single plant can be growing both places due to
extension by cuttings.
Consider the seedless navel orange, one of my favorite fruits by
the way. How many seedless navel orange plants do you think there
are in the world? Most people would guess that there are hundreds.
In truth there is exactly one. A seedless orange tree is...
well... seedless. It can never have offspring the way humans can.
A seedless orange tree is a mutant that cannot reproduce sexually.
There is only one in the world. It was born a mutant. Something
went wrong (or from my point of view it went unexpectedly right) in
its DNA and it produced oranges that have no seeds. The mutation
also for some reason creates a smaller enclave sub-orange within
the larger one. That does not seem to bother people and
seedlessness of the orange is a definite benefit. This plant
spreads by cuttings, not by being pollinated naturally.
So if there is only one seedless orange tree, can I visit it?
Where is it located? It is many places in the world. There is at
most one seedless orange plant that was grown from seed. That tree
may or may not still be alive. (Wikipedia claims that it was in
Bahia, Brazil, by the way.) But while it was alive someone took a
cutting from it and grew a whole new plant. And cuttings from
those plants started other new plants. So there are many seedless
orange trees, but in all of history only one was ever grown from
seed.
That orange plant could be and is many places in the world right
now, but only one came from the process of pollination to produce
offspring. Barring mutation I guess they would all have identical
genomes.
Now the question I would have had at Monticello would have been
were these plants the originals or not? But what does that mean?
If the plant has been alive and living in Monticello the whole time
I think most people would agree that it is the same plant. What if
a cutting was taken from it and grown right there? I think most
people would accept that it is the same plant. Though it really is
no longer an individual. It has been divided. It is able to live
in disconnected pieces.
Are plants grown from two different cuttings of the same plant
growing elsewhere still the same plant? I would say probably they
are, though it may come down to a question of semantics. Of course
you could have different plants of the same species. You can grow
them from seed. If you do that you have a whole different plant of
the same species. But growing from a cutting does not change the
genome so you just have another copy of the same plant.
But it is strange to think of one plant that can be alive,
disconnected, and growing in different locations. We tend to think
of animals to each be connected. We have the word "individual"
which literally means a human or creature that cannot be divided.
You cannot break a piece off of a person and get a new person. But
as I said above you can do that with plants and plants are
"dividuals" to coin a new word.
By the way, I lied above. Seedless oranges are not seedless. They
have some seeds but the seeds themselves are scrawny and no good
for reproduction. You have to pick out two or three when you eat a
so-called seedless orange. It is worth it. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Magazine Editor Round-Table (report by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Last Saturday (November 1) at the Old Bridge Public Library, the
Garden State Speculative Fiction Writers sponsored a panel on the
future on the future of magazine publishing. On the panel were
Ellen Datlow (many anthologies, Tor.com), Gordon Van Gelder (THE
MAGAZINE OF FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION), and Sheila Williams
(ASIMOV'S SCIENCE FICTION MAGAZINE). About twenty people
attended.
Van Gelder started by saying that from 1950 to almost 2000 there
was very little change in magazine publishing, but from 2000 on
there has been great change. Up through the 1990s books of advice
for writers had large sections on the care of typewriters and how
to handle carbons. Then the books started giving new advice, such
as that authors should keep their stories short for on-line
publication. Datlow said that the rule used to be no fiction
longer than 3000 words. (Under Hugo rules, a piece of fiction can
be up to 7500 words before it moves from short story to novelette.)
However, she ignored the rule when buying pieces. Williams used to
get shorter pieces (short stories and short novelettes) for the
magazine, but now gets mostly longer works.
Datlow said that Tor.com has always done novellas, and Tor is now
buying novellas, which they are calling "short novels" and are
being sold as novels. Other publishers that have been publishing
novellas in stand-alone book form are PS Publishing, Subterranean,
Cemetery, and Dark Fuse.
Williams said that writers are being told by their writing groups,
"Short sells better," but this is not necesarily true. Datlow said
the truth is that groups just don't want to critique longer stuff.
Williams said that she finds that she spends more time downloading
submissions and opening the folder than she does in deciding
whether to buy something.
When Datlow edited OMNI, she said, they had "short-shorts"
(originally 500 words, later increased to 1500 words). [NATURE has
something similar, I think.] She diverged into talking about the
difference between soliciting a story and commissioning one, which
applied to both OMNI and her anthologies. (She also commissioned
stories for DISCOVER.) She mentioned she only ever had to pay one
"kill fee" for a story she had commissioned, and said it was very
important for writers to understand the difference between a story
being commissioned and being just solicited: the former is a
promise to buy the story, the latter is not. Van Gelder added that
editors should never promise a writer that they would buy a
rewrite.
Datlow noted that she had commissioned both Joan Vinge and John
Varley but neither submitted a story. (Vinge told her that short
stories were not worth it timewise, since creating a world for a
short story takes as long as for a novel.) Van Gelder wanted to
know if there was something about the initials "JV".
Williams said that she likes the sense that someone really put time
in a story, regardless of length. Van Gelder said that so many
stories do not feel as if they have a real lived experience behind
them--they seem to have time on the computer behind them. Williams
said that Jack Dann observed that authors write about authors
(which is similar to the observation that Hollywood writers make
all their characters ad executives, lawyers, accountants, and other
professions they are familiar with). Van Gelder said that writers
need to expand their (social) circles and life experiences.
Datlow said that she does not read unsolicited manuscripts.
Williams said that everything she gets is unsolicited, but some
authors give her higher expectations than others (she feels "more
relaxed" when she starts to read them).
Datlow said she often finds herself asking the author, "Why did you
write this story?" (Well, she does not actually ask the author,
but she symbolically addresses him through the manuscript pages.)
"It's not about anything." She says this is more common in fantasy
and horror than in science fiction.
Williams said that someone (Jeff Ford?) said that in ghost stories
all the ghosts have a reason to hang around as ghosts, but this is
not true in real life. That is, when someone relates that they saw
the ghost of their dead grandmother, or the previous tenant of
their apartment, the ghost just *is*--she never has a reason for
being there. However, Williams said, she would not buy a ghost
story unless the ghost had a reason.
Van Gelder said that in terms of length, "flash fiction" didn't
exist ten years ago. But while short stories are stories, flash
fiction pieces are usually just vignettes or scenes. [Where is
Fredric Brown when you need him?] Datlow and Williams added that
flash fiction is often a joke. Van Gelder should be able to relate
to that: F&SF regularly used to publish Reginald Bretnor's
"Ferdinand Feghoot" tales. Van Gelder did say that the author of a
very short piece will sometimes say something like, "This [flash
fiction] is brimming with potential," to which Van Gelder's
response is "Fulfill the potential."
Someone asked what genres and themes are currently popular. Van
Gelder said he is seeing the move away from core science fiction
accelerating. Datlow said that she was happy that William Gibson
has gone back to science fiction (with PERIPHERAL). However, she
fears that "[his audience in] the mainstream won't know what the
f*** is going on" in it. Van Gelder added, "But they'll pretend
they do."
Van Gelder and Datlow say they are seeing stories with one token
science fiction element. Williams said she is getting more near-
future stories, with emphasis on cultural changes, etc. Van Gelder
said that he spoke to a technologist recently who talked about all
the latest news in robotics, medicine, physics, etc., that he could
not even keep up with, and all Van Gelder could think was why
wasn't he getting stories about all that stuff? Lots of areas of
science are busy, but there are no stories about them. Williams
thought that workshops like Clarion should require a week of
science and technology in addition to all the creative writing
aspects. Writers need both idea and narrative skills.
[I just finished reading ARROWSMITH, which lists Sinclair Lewis as
the sole author. However, Lewis readily acknowledged the aid he
got from Paul de Kruif, and gave de Kruif a share of the royalties,
indicating that for this book at least, there was a union of author
and scientist.]
Regarding how long it takes to write a story, Van Gelder talked
about Daniel Keyes's account of writing "Flowers for Algernon".
Keyes was a teacher, and at one point one of his lower-IQ students
asked, "If I work real hard in this class, can I get to be smart?"
This idea got filed away in Keyes's mind, but the story actually
came much later.
Van Gelder also gave one answer to his own question about why there
are so few cutting-edge science stories: one author told him that
it was hard to get all the science right--he could write two or
three non-technical stories in the same time it took to write a
cutting-edge science story. Williams agreed that a good
science/technical story does take a lot of work. But Van Gelder
said, "Writing should be hard." He said he feels "that the
barriers have gotten so low to being published."
Williams gave the example of two authors. One made a reference to
"the three moons of Mars." The other was Joe Haldeman who for "The
Hemingway Hoax" pedaled his bicycle to the Harvard Library so that
he could look up the exact titles of the courses offered in the
English department in a given year.
Regarding how she assembles her "Year's Best", Datlow said that she
reads for those anthologies with a purpose, not for enjoyment. So
she tends to read the first couple of pages and then the end of
every story she is considering, and this tells her if she should
read the rest. She does not trust other editors to tell her which
stories in their magazines or anthologies she should read, and in
particular, "Gardner Dozois does not know what horror is."
Williams said there seem to be more stories with the style of the
mainstream. In particular, a recent acquisition is a story about a
blue-collar worker in a space station, alcoholism, and
Christianity. (The latter as a positive force is something she
rarely sees in submissions.) Datlow said that there are several
"mainstream" outlets for speculative fiction, e.g., GRANTA,
CONJUNCTIONS, and TIN HOUSE.
Someone asked about humor. Williams said that she recently bought
a droll David Gerrold story, and Datlow likes black humor, but they
all agreed that comedy is hard, and is very particular and
personal. You need to work hard at humor to make it look casual.
Regarding horror, Datlow said that horror is "really horrifying in
a disturbing sort of way ... nasty." (The French term is "conte
cruelle".)
There was some discussion of novels. Van Gelder said that in the
1960s and 1970s science fiction novels were less than 220 pages and
were very effective. Someone asked if DUNE had problems being
published because of its length, and Van Gelder pointed out that it
was accepted and published serially in ANALOG with no problem, but
the glue used for paperbacks then was so bad that a book that long
would fall apart. Chilton eventually published it because 1) the
son of the owner was a fan, and 2) they published automobile
manuals and knew how to publish thick books that would not fall
apart.
Datlow said that bloat these days is also a problem. Williams
added that it was not necessary to see all the author's research in
the book.
Van Gelder thought that new writers were usually okay at under
15,000 words, but above that, they often have problems until they
become more experienced. Also, some writers start with too short a
story and have to build it up, while others write too long and need
to pare it down.
Williams said that she got a story that she really liked but the
ending was very unclear. She asked the author about it and he said
that it had had more explanation at the end, but his writers group
told him to stay under 5000 words so he took out all the stuff that
made it clear.
Datlow observed that sometimes the author's explanation is less
interesting than the one you think up. [The question of which is
"valid" touches on the intentional fallacy.]
What are they reading for enjoyment? Datlow reads Jonathan
Carroll, Elizabeth Hand, and William Gibson. Williams is currently
reading ENDURING LOVE by Ian McEwan. Van Gelder read the non-
fiction in THE NEW YORKER. [It sounds as though being a science
fiction editor means you do not have much time (or inclination?) to
read outside of work.]
Are science fiction writers still optimistic about the future? Van
Gelder says that obviously some are and some are not, and now he
thinks we are actually pretty much in the middle (though he also
said there are fewer optimists than pessimists among writers in
general). He feels that there is plenty of room for both.
Williams said that readers like to read positive stories, but
writers like to write negative ones. A recent story by Elizabeth
Bear, he said, looked at the real negative repercussions of what is
going on, but also found positive elements in it.
Van Gelder said it was a literary versus commercial split: the
literati prefer negative stories, but positive stories are more
commercial. Datlow said that as far as horror goes, she feels it
is somewhat the reverse, and that to be successful (and to get
included in the "Year's Best") a horror story needs to be
negative/pessimistic. (Somehow, a horror story with a happy ending
does seem a contradiction in terms.)
What is the future for short fiction? The first word Van Gelder
came up with was, "SNAFU." Obviously electronic publication (on-
line, Kindle, etc.) is the 500-pound gorilla. But "interactive
fiction", once considered up and coming, is not going to happen.
(Williams noted that" Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" novels have died
out, although Van Gelder pointed out that there was one designed
for 20-somethings who were nostalgic for the form.)
What should we be looking forward to? Van Gelder recommends "I'll
Follow the Sun" by Paul de Filippo the November/December issue of
F&SF. Datlow said there is a story coming up about the toilets in
Versailles (by Kelly Robson?), and also Eugene Fischer's "The New
Mother" and Carmen Maria Machado's "The Husband Stitch". Williams
recommended Dominica Fett's (?) "95% Safe".
Asked for advice, Van Gelder said, "Don't try to do what everyone
else is doing." He said there seems to be a huge herd mentality
online these days. Williams said to have a good opening, write
well, and work hard--there is always hope. Datlow said that you
need a hook: a strong character, situation, or background. And Van
Gelder and Datlow agreed that you should never say your character
is bored, because that will bore the reader. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: CONSIDER PHLEBAS by Iain M. Banks (copyright 1987, Orbit,
$14.99, 527pp, ISBN 978-0-316-00538-8) (excerpt from the Duel Fish
Codices: a book review by Joe Karpierz)
One of my friends once said to me, "You've never read any Culture
novels? At least one of them had to be nominated for a Hugo,
right." Well, wrong. It's not that I've never wanted to read a
Culture novel. It's that I've got so many books on my to-read list
that I've just never quite gotten around to reading even the first
one, CONSIDER PHLEBAS. I *have* read one Iain M. Banks SF novel,
THE ALGEBRAIST, which was nominated for a Hugo in 2005 (One might
think it odd that Banks' famous Culture novels never got a sniff of
a Hugo, but that one of his books outside the series did.) I
enjoyed it well enough, as I remember--I did not go back to look at
my review of it--but not so much that I was going to run out and
start reading the Culture novels.
After my friend made that comment, I decided that it was time to
take the plunge. I bought CONSIDER PHLEBAS and put it on my to-
read list. And there it sat. For a very long time. Then, Loncon
3 announced that Banks was going to be a Guest of Honor at their
convention, and this was all I needed to get myself kick-started
into reading the book. I knew I was going to Loncon, and I thought
it would be a decent idea to read the novel and maybe get it
signed.
We all know that Banks' life was tragically cut short so that he
could not attend the convention. Nonetheless, I vowed that I was
going to read it--as soon as I finished reading those darned Hugo
nominees and anything else I was in the middle of. I *finally*
started the book a couple of days before Loncon ended--and just
finished reading it the other day. Yeah, over two months. To be
fair, my schedule has been absolutely crazy, and my reading time
has been limited--as you can tell by my lack of reviews recently--
but there was more to that, I think. We'll follow up on that
later.
CONSIDER PHLEBAS tells an account of one small incident in the
Idiran-Culture war. A Culture Mind has escaped a battle and ended
up on a planet called Schar's World, a place where there is a
colony of Changers. Our lead character, Horza, is a changer. He
allies himself with the Idirans in the war, as he doesn't believe
in anything the Culture stands for. As we meet Horza, he is
undergoing a nasty bit of torture at the hands of the Culture, and
is rescued by the skin of his teeth by an Idiran agent that he
works for. The agent, Xoralundra, sends Horza on a mission to
retrieve the Mind before the Culture can get to it. And thus,
CONSIDER PHLEBAS is the story of that quest to retrieve the Mind.
I wanted to really love this book, but all I did was really like
the book. The reasons are varied, but the main issue I had is that
the book never held my interest. A really good book will grab me
by the throat and make me want to pick it up at any possible
reading moment. This book did not do that. Much like Horza on his
quest, this book meandered all over the place, and it felt padded.
For example, Horza found himself as a crew member on an independent
ship called the Clear Air Turbulence (to be honest, Banks comes up
with the most terrific names for his space-faring vessels. While
some may think them trite, or an example of Banks trying to be
cute, I found them clever and engaging.) The captain hires the CAT
and its crew out to do various jobs in order to keep themselves
going--a typical but reasonable thing. The captain has an
addiction for the game Damage, which is played on a galactic scale
for very high stakes. Apparently there is going to be a Damage
game on an Orbital that is going to be destroyed at a particular
date and time, and the game is scheduled to be played near the time
of the Orbital's destruction. All well and good, but I did not see
much point in this particular episode in the novel. It did not
particularly advance the plot along, in my opinion. Also on the
Orbital, Horza was held captive by a bunch of undernourished humans
called Eaters, whose leader was a grossly fat individual. The
leader would not let his people escape, even though there was a
shuttle on the island where the episode played out. I enjoyed the
Damage game, but I can't say as much for the Eater episode. I just
don't understand what those episodes added to the story.
Oddly enough, though, I did enjoy the novel as a whole. I'm a
sucker for Space Opera anyway, and CONSIDER PHLEBAS is Space Opera
on a grand scale. Particularly enjoyable was the section entitled
Appendices: the Idiran-Culture War. Banks gives the reader a more
detailed look into the war and the two civilizations that were
involved, as well as the people that were involved in the episode
detailed in CONSIDER PHLEBAS.
It wasn't outstanding, but it was serviceable. I will, at some
point, move on to the second book in the Culture Series. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: PELICAN DREAMS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Judy Irving (writer/director of this film and of THE WILD
PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL) returns to her study of birds. The
story begins when a pelican lands on the Golden Gate Bridge, ties
up traffic, is captured, and is taken to a seabird rescue center.
Irving tracks the bird's probable origins and examines the lives of
these awkward and graceful birds. As is almost de rigeur for
wildlife documentaries there is a lament for how human effects on
nature are destroying animals' lives. This film has a sort of
laid-back quality following the lives of pelicans Gigi and Morro.
There is plenty of footage covering the birds in flight, but
nothing amazing. It is not as focused as WILD PARROTS and it
certainly is not one of the technological wonders that cutting edge
nature films have become. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
In the final moments of JURASSIC PARK we see what appear at first
to be graceful pterosaurs in flight. After a moment we realize
what we are seeing is pelicans in flight. They are no less
graceful and there is no less wonder that there is an animal living
in our world which looks so much like a beautiful prehistoric
flying reptile. On the ground a pelican seems a little ungainly
and even humorous with the long neck needed to swing the long beak.
They look like they have been pulled through a keyhole. The
appearance is deceiving. In flight they are glorious figures.
Pelicans have always been a fascination of Judy Irving, the writer
and director of this film. (She also filmed it, produced it, and
edited it.) But to make another film like her WILD PARROTS OF
TELEGRAPH HILL she needed a story to make the subject of her film.
Then a four-month-old pelican landed on the roadbed of the Golden
Gate Bridge, snarling traffic. Attempts to rescue this bird
suggested to Irving that this was how to begin a film that told
about the lives of pelicans. This one was dubbed Gigi--a name
suggested by the abbreviation of Golden Gate. Gigi had not been
able to hunt enough fish to stay healthy and was also suffering
from dehydration. Later a second pelican also was the subject of
the film. Morro had a broken wing that would not heal and was
forever exiled from the skies. We follow the lives of these birds
and are told about the life cycle and society of pelicans.
Pelicans themselves are fascinating to watch. They are a strange
combination of awkward and graceful. They have that humorous-
looking long beak and the longer neck to accommodate it. Not only
can they see 360 degrees around them, they can turn that neck so
the beak and eyes can point almost full circle, 360 degrees around
their bodies. In flight their wings can span to six or seven feet.
In WILD PARROTS Irving was able to bring us into the lives of
parrots and to make us feel for them. That is the mode here also.
Morro was one of three pelicans brought to a wildlife hospital with
injured wings. Two healed but Morro can never fly again. Morro
sees birds recover and go flying off, but her wing cannot heal so
she can only watch other birds come, heal, and regain the sky while
she is lonely and earthbound.
We take a time-out in the story and nature photography to see what
human-despoiled nature is doing to pelicans, formerly with DDT and
now with overfishing, pollution, dumping, oil spills, and climate
changing. There are so many threats and so little time for Irving
to spend on each.
It has been eleven years since Judy Irving released her documentary
THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL. PELICAN DREAMS is her new
release and again it is looking at the lives of birds. Her earlier
film was, for the time, a special nature documentary. PELICAN
DREAMS is not quite as good a film, taken on its own merits. In
the interim, however, technology has completely transformed nature
documentaries. Now if you want to see a bear cub's first emergence
from his hibernation, that is on film. Do you want a penguin's eye
view of the huddle of penguins huddled and waiting out the long
Antarctic winter? That is on film also. PELICAN DREAMS is an old-
fashioned documentary, not so cutting edge. It shows you a lot of
footage of pelicans in flight and gives you some information about
mankind's threat to pelicans. Technology has raised the bar on
nature films, and it is hard to make this kind of film compete with
documentaries one can see free on PBS. But at least PELICAN DREAMS
has a natural style of nature filmmaking.
When it looks at the plight and prospects for the species the film
might better have been called PELICAN NIGHTMARES. This species of
majestic birds is all too probably in its final years, one more
species dying from the effects on the environment of human contact.
The brown pelican has been removed from the endangered species
list, but the struggle is far from over. I rate PELICAN DREAMS a
+1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3907674/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pelican_dreams/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
BURMESE DAYS by George Orwell (ISBN 978-0-156-14850-2) is a sort of
"reverse-Jane-Austen" novel. Like Austen's novels, in this the
characters are concerned with marriage and station in life; unlike
Austen's novels, in this things do not end well for everyone. John
Flory is an Englishman stationed in a small town in Burma (then
part of British India, now Myanmar), where his social circle
consists of his club (which allows only whites) and one Indian
doctor. The club's members are both racist and petty, and everyone
is scheming. When Elizabeth Lackersteen comes to Kyauktada from
England, it is clear that this is her last chance to find a husband
and avoid spinsterhood and penury. She has some interest in Flory,
but only until Verrall, a high-society British officer, shows up.
Then she throws herself at Verrall, but he is even more a cad than
Austen's Willoughby.
In all this, one sees glimpses of Orwell's work to come:
"It is a stifling, stultifying world in which to live. It is a
world in which every word and every thought is censored. ... Free
speech is unthinkable. All other kinds of freedom are permitted.
You are free to be a drunkard, an idler, a coward, a backbiter, a
fornicator,; but you are not free to think for yourself. Your
opinion on every subject of any conceivable importance is dictated
for you by the pukka sahibs' code."
"The time comes when you burn with hatred of your own countrymen,
when you long for a native rising to drown their Empire in blood.
And in this there is nothing honorable, hardly even any sincerity.
For, au fond, what do you care if the Indian Empire is a despotism,
if Indians are bullied and exploited? You only care because the
right of free speech is denied you."
THE HISTORY OF THE SIEGE OF LISBON by Jose Saramago (translated by
Giovanni Pontiero) (ISBN 978-15-600624-8) is yet another example of
unrecognized "fantastika" (to use John Clute's coinage for works of
science fiction, fantasy, horror, or the surreal). Raimundo Silva
is a proof-reader who one day impulsively inserts the word "not"
into a sentence, changing it from saying that the Crusaders will
help the Portuguese retake Lisbon from the Moors to saying that the
Crusaders will *not* help the Portuguese retake Lisbon from the
Muslims. The result is an examination of counterfactuals
(alternate histories).
(Actually Silva is more a copy editor, since his function seems
more to be finding and correcting such errors as anachronistic
coats of arms and flags, inaccurate descriptions, and so on.)
The counterfactual element is actually somewhat limited. Silva's
alteration is discovered, and his publisher suggests/orders him to
write "The History of the Siege of Lisbon" assuming the Crusaders
*had* abandoned it. [Slight spoiler] But Silva feels obliged to
have the end result be the same--Lisbon is taken by the Christians
from the Moors. [End spoiler]
The development of the alternate history is told in parallel with
the story of Silva's own life and relationship with Dr. Maria Sara,
his new supervisor, though when I say "in parallel" I do not
necessarily mean that there are parallels between the two, just
that the novel alternates back and forth. These plotlines are
interspersed with musings on history, and on cause and effect.
For example, "Going further, somewhat rashly, these authors argue
that all the visible and recognizable causes have already produced
their effects, and that now we need only wait for them to manifest
themselves, and they also insist that all effects, whether manifest
or about to be made manifest, have their inevitable causality,
although our manifold limitations may have prevented us from
identifying it in terms of establishing the respective
relationship, nor always linear or explicit, as we said at the
outset." [page 104]
Saramago seems more conscious of cause and effect in history than
many authors of alternate history. He has Silva think, "... there
must have been some serious motive behind their refusal to assist
the Portuguese with the siege and capture of Lisbon." He then goes
through a list of possibilities: climate, dryness of the land,
pestilence. None of these will serve, so Silva concludes that it
must have been something in the king's speech, and then works out
what that might (must?) have been. [pages 111-114]
He also has a few comments on modern society, such as, "Throughout
the journey from the publishing house back to his apartment he had
managed not to think... For a few moments he had allowed his
thoughts to well on Sonhora Maria, but now his brain was vacant
once more. To make sure it stayed that way, he went through to the
sitting-room where he kept the television and switched on the set."
(page 80)
(The translation was done into British English, so Pontiero uses
the Anglicism "biro" rather than the more universal "pen", as well
as the British style of not using periods after most titles such as
"Mr" and "Dr".)
I had hoped for better things from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SCIENCE
FICTION: FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE TO THE FINAL FRONTIER by Gabriel
McKee (ISBN 978-0-664-22901-6). I was hoping for an in-depth
analysis of science fiction works that dealt with the themes of
Gospels (e.g., A CASE OF CONSCIENCE) or future Christianity (e.g.,
A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ). Instead, McKee darts from work to work,
choosing such a motley assortment of works that most readers will
be unfamiliar with a large proportion of them, and spending only a
page (or even just a paragraph) on most of them. Sometimes his
choices are just peculiar: he covers Arthur C. Clarke's "Nine
Billion Names of God" even though that is rooted in Buddhism rather
than Christianity, but omits Clarke's classic story, "The Star".
He also makes sweeping statements, such as, "The purpose of this
creation [science fiction] is to change *our* world. By creating
altered universes, science-fiction authors hold up a mirror to our
time, sometimes amplifying its best aspects, sometimes warning us
of its worst. In all cases, the goal of science fiction is to use
its imaginary worlds to create a *real* world of the future that is
better than our present." The idea that science fiction has a
single goal (other than perhaps to entertain) is misguided at best.
Every once in a while, someone decides science fiction is not doing
enough to make a better future and comes up with a project to
change this; the latest is HIEROGLYPH, an anthology edited by Neal
Stephenson. But this is a subset of science fiction; it is large,
it contains multitudes.
He also makes some basic logic errors. On page 1, for example, he
says "Space, [Han] Solo argues, conceals no spiritual secrets, no
answers to eternal questions, and no gods. But STAR WARS and its
sequels are an epic refutation of this statement. Powers beyond
our everyday understanding *do* exist, and there is mystery and
wonder to be found in the vast reaches of the universe." No, STAR
WARS is not a refutation of anything--it is a story, written by a
human being. (Similarly, the claim by someone in STARSHIP TROOPERS
that their system of flogging et al is good because it works is
*not* applicable to the real world. This ties in with the
discussion of "The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse" a few
weeks ago.) Is "The Nine Billion Names of God" a refutation of the
Christian view of the universe? [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
America had often been discovered before Columbus,
but it had always been hushed up.
--Oscar Wilde