Neuromancer

Neuromancer.jpg

I can’t imagine what it would have been like to read William Gibson’s Neuromancer in 1984. It’s so absurdly dense and riddled with cryptic terms which have since become commonplace, that it must have been virtually hieroglyphic at the time. Part of the experience of Neuromancer is this incredible recent-history disconnect: to know that the course of 24 years have brought us a substantial step closer to Gibson’s world than we might have anticipated, that it would make concepts like “cyberspace” and “matrix” the stuff of pop-culture movies and general, undisputed understanding. Is that the ultimate litmus test of science fiction, that it starts to come true while it’s still fresh in the memory of its readers? Or maybe it’s because of Neuromancer that any of these things happened. Either way, it’s almost shocking to see how heavy-handedly the novel’s themes have been borrowed over the years: The Matrix took most of it and tossed in some plagiarized Baudrillard, Blade Runner took Chiba, took Case, the look of the book and its the self-loathing antihero.

Whatever, I suppose that’s selling Gibson short: reading Neuromancer in the light of its descendants is hardly fair, and the book isn’t about extrapolation or future-conjecture anyway. It lacks the earnest explanatory nature of many “hard” sci-fi books or even the Popular Mechanics-zeal of Arthur C. Clarke, who always seems to be tugging on your t-shirt and whispering, “It could happen, and I’m going to kind of bore you with the details!” Gibson is just…already there, and he has little intention of drawing a reassuring point from A to B. In a way, that’s what advances him beyond the genre, and why it makes sense that he’s writing regular fiction now: he has nothing to prove. The world is fucked up and he knows it.

It’s hard to talk about how good it is without feeling like I’m two decades late to a party I forgot to go to.

Here is a really awesome Neuromancer-related art project, in the works, from Brody Condon, which is a really cyberpunk kind of name, if you ask me.

NEXT TOME: ARTHUR C. CLARKE’S IMPERIAL EARTH.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

Reading Notes: R.U.R.

RUR.jpg

The first book of the project is a play, which is an early indicator of how esoteric this list really is.

R.U.R. stands for Rossum’s Universal Robots, the latter term being coined by Karel Capek (an enigmatic Czech writer perhaps best known for his bizarre novel War With The Newts) as a derivation of the Czech word for “drudgery” or “labor:” hence, “Robot,” in this context, transcends and pre-dates the early century’s depiction of a tin man. Capek’s “Robots” are automats, workers, but they are biological in nature, built from manmade parts that are vat-grown in a factory by some unexplained scientific process invented by the elder Rossum, a tinkerer. In this sense, these Robots are like Golems, brought to life from primordial matter.

R.U.R. is a B-movie play. Romance and revolution happen automatically, with little precedent, almost as though the story were meant to be mythological, allegorical, a kind of passion play with stilted deliveries and exaggerated, iconic costuming. Although it was never meant to be, I’d like to see it as a shlocky Hollywood production — R.U.R.’s plot (robotic workers take over the world) is remarkably obvious. Still, its readers must always remember that Capek precedes Asimov, not to mention Ray Kurzweil. R.U.R. is the first in the genre: It formulates the fear of robots as well as naming it. It has no optimism about a future powered by automats, not even briefly: the manufacture of men is posited as a disaster before disaster even falls. These Robots, these workers, are not imbued with morality, or even a sense of physical pain, a combination which makes them ruthless from the start. Not to mention, of course, that the primary function of the manufactured men is as automatic soldiers, fighting human wars.

Summary:

RUR-Staging.jpg

The play occurs in three parts: first, the isolated Robot factory (an island), staffed by human scientists, facing criticism from a petulant politician’s daughter, representing some kind of humanity league. She is troubled by the emotionless treatment of the Robots, but her pleas for compassion sound too facile, and the male factory workers both deride and fawn over her, the first woman they’ve seen in ages. She is quickly subsumed, falling for the charismatic company president.

In act two, the Robots have already begun an insurgence, killing millions of humans — all of them, it’s implied — everywhere on Earth but the Robot factory. They surround the factory, armed to the teeth, psyching out the trembling scientists and their bride, who represent the very last dregs of humanity. The Robots have a manifesto, as well as a leader, and they aim to annihilate their creators. After a long stalemate, a blitzkrieg of violence finishes off the humans, all murdered save for one, spared because he was a worker himself.

In the last act, the Robots have been ruling the world for some time, actively building and fixing everything, until they have worked themselves to exhaustion. With no human scientists to repair them and the secret of their genesis murdered with the scientists who invented it, the Robots turn to the only surviving human, the worker, who has devoted his life to cracking the secret of life, to no avail. It seems the Robots are facing extinction, as they were never designed to last much longer than twenty years. As the story winds down, a pair of young Robots are introduced, expressing an as-yet-unseen romantic fervor for one another. Although R.U.R. never states it, it’s implied that this couple will be the Adam and Eve of the Robot generation, a fortuitous return to biological reproduction. There’s a kind of horror to it, like at the end of Jurassic Park when it becomes apparent that the dinosaurs are reproducing, despite being bred genderless.

I do wonder if Kapek was influenced by Freud’s essays on the uncanny — it seems that R.U.R. is largely about the human, sterile, too-similar faces of the robots as they stand in silent mutiny along the edges of civilization, clutching rifles. Although Rossum’s Robots are created with a utopian vision in mind (“In ten years’ time Rossum’s Universal Robots will be making so much wheat, so much material, so much of everything that nothing will cost anything,” a character proclaims in the play’s opening scene), they quickly turn into a threat, tearing through the Robot factory like stylized automat hellions, stabbing all the remaining humans.

Newyork1.jpg

Freud wrote that the human desire to create a “double” — a catchall phrase covering all likes of dopplegangery, and a mantle which fits nicely the human-looking Robots — is a kind of insurance against the destruction of the ego, a preservation against extinction. Certainly this is the initial Rossum motive. However, the double is both comforting and alarmingly uncanny precisely because it is not human, not the self. The Robots lack all the fears that make humans tick; at one point, a baffled woman asks a servant Robot, “Aren’t you afraid of death?” Coldly, the Robot answers, “No.”

Freud writes of the double’s ambiguous position between comfort and terror, that “from having been an assurance of immortality, it [the double] becomes the uncanny harbinger of death.” Freud was thinking of puppets imbued with mysterious animism, and disembodied human hands dancing across the floor, but Capek’s Robots are the ultimate doubles: manlike in almost every capacity, but manmade and precisely inhuman.

During the play’s final stand between Robots and humans, a scientist remarks, “We made the Robot’s faces too much alike. A hundred thousand faces all alike, all facing this way. A hundred thousand expressionless bubbles. It’s like a nightmare.”

NEXT BOOK: WILLIAM GIBSON’S NEUROMANCER.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Arthur C. Clarke in Playboy

ClarkePlayboy.jpg

The great (now late) Arthur C. Clarke had a longstanding relationship with Playboy magazine: they published the first excerpts of 2010: Odyssey Two, as well as a plethora of his short works, musings, and technical papers. It wasn’t until 1986 that the magazine ran a full-length “Playboy Interview” with Clarke, then living in Sri Lanka in a compound next-door to the country’s prime minister. Perhaps because of the nature of the magazine, Clarke was at his most liberal, going to far as to openly admit — perhaps for the first time in the press — his “relaxed, sympathetic” attitude about bisexualism.

I recently picked up the July 1986 Playboy at an estate sale, and have transcribed the better segments of the interview here.

ON EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT:
CLARKE: I would like to live until we’ve made contact with some extraterrestrials — at least know if they’re there. I’ve had fantasies about that a lot — a spaceship comes down and the first guy off the ship says, “Take me to Arthur C. Clarke.”
PLAYBOY: Meaning that they’ve read your books, so they’re saying the proverbial “Take me to your leader” line.
CLARKE: Yeah. But then again, of course, he might say, “Take me to Isaac Asimov” — that’s the nightmare, isn’t it?

ON MYSTICISM:
PLAYBOY: You write about the mind’s transcending, leaving behind, its material organic base, as you put it. Why do you regard the departure for the physical realm — leaving planet Earth — as desirable?
CLARKE: I guess that it’s just hard to imagine another direction in which to go. I hope I’m making sense. I guess it’s just pure laziness on my part — I should think of a new evolutionary outcome. But I’m very much against any form of irrationality and mysticism. I guess I’m a mystic who’s against mysticism.
PLAYBOY: What does that mean?
CLARKE: I’m so very sorry you asked that question.
PLAYBOY: Why?
CLARKE: It’s tough to explain. This universe is so incredible, and we constantly find new things out; but what we know may be such a small part of reality, if, indeed, reality is finite — it may be infinite. But one must always allow for the totally unexpected. So, in a way, talking about things that could be called mystical — well, I guess, I do try to allow for the idea that, as the famous scientist J.B.S. Haldane once said, “The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it’s queerer than we can suppose.” I’ve changed the word queer to strange, because, of course, the word queer has taken on a different context. And that calls to mind what I call Clarke’s Third Law, which is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” — by which I mean things we take for granted now, such as transistor radios, that would be totally baffling, totally magical to even a man like Thomas Edison. I mean, if he saw a pocket computer, Edison would go totally crazy. He’d spend his whole life trying to figure out, “How does this work?”

ON THE MOON LANDING:
PLAYBOY: Let’s go to the moon.
CLARKE: Fine with me.
PLAYBOY: You made a bet with the chairman of the Interplanetary Society, of which you were a member in the thirties, about when the first landing on the moon would occur.
CLARKE: Yes, I wasn’t very clever. I never really thought a moon landing would occur in my lifetime. But, you know, even the space enthusiasts of my youth didn’t believe it would be in this century. When I wrote my book Prelude to Space in 1948, I put the landing 30 years in the future, in 1978. I remember thinking when I wrote it, “This is hopelessly optimistic.”
PLAYBOY: As it turned out, during the moon landing in 1969, you were a commentator for U.S. television, along with your friend Walter Cronkite. You cried then, didn’t you?
CLARKE: When you go to a launch, it is an emotional experience. Television doesn’t give you any idea of it, really. Walter wiped away a tear or two, as well — as did Eric Sevareid. The last time I’d cried was when my grandmother died, 20 years before.
PLAYBOY: The crew of Apollo Eight circled the moon on Christmas eve, 1968 — the first men ever to see the dark side of the moon. Didn’t the commander of the mission later tell you they’d been tempted to radio back to earth that they’d discovered a large black monolith, as in 2001?
CLARKE: Alas, discretion prevailed.
PLAYBOY: How do you think 2001, which you began envisioning with director Stanley Kubrick in 1964, inspired actual space exploration?
CLARKE: Although most people thought space travel was inevitable by then — President Kennedy had called for a moon landing before the end of the Sixties — I think the movie did stir people’s imaginations about the future. I’m especially proud of how well the film stands up — even the moons-of-Jupiter stuff. The only thing we were wrong about scientifically — everybody was wrong, because the information was incomplete — was the surface of the moon as we depicted it in the film.
PLAYBOY: What do you mean?
CLARKE: We never dreamed it would be so smoothed.

Posted in Science | 5 Comments

The Project

I’ve been reading science fiction novels for most of my life; as a kid, consuming them breathlessly on my parents’ couch, clammy-palmed and haunted by the unreal; furtively, in college, instead of the recommended canon, which was, of course, markedly devoid of classics in the genre. What began as a diversion, as a love of pulp, has in recent years mutated into a genuine theoretical obsession. As a future I could never have imaged in my childhood becomes increasingly palpable, I feel overwhelmed by the majesty of science fiction’s seeming dominion over truth. A powerful science fiction novel can change your life. It urges you to look forward, to look around, and, perhaps most importantly, to look again.

SF.jpg

It is in this spirit that I am embarking on this project, which a total self-education in science fiction. It may take a very long time, but that’s the nature of a canon. Thanks to the Center for the Studies of Science Fiction, I’ve found a kind of “master list” of classic novels which constitute a basic, but thorough, primer on the genre. They are almost all award winners of some variety — Hugos, Nebulas, Campbells — and they include some, but surprisingly few, books I’ve already read. They run the gamut from the late 1800s to the present day, some fantasy, some hard-boiled, women, men, novellas, feminist utopias, Space Operas, experimental, and four-part epics.

The idea is this: read them all. Read them all. Read others too, even if they aren’t on the list, if they strike me.

Why? Because I would like to become a kind of expert on the subject, and because there are no genuine, bricks-and-mortar institutions where a person can do such a thing. Because I would like to continue striding straight and calm into the future, assured of all possible realities, of how to foil the pitfalls of humanity when faced with sentient clouds, steel planets, and moon pools. And, while the canon of traditional literature forms a majestic, complex image of humanity, the space canon as a culture is as yet lightly-trodden, but full of important, and undoubtedly prescient, ideas.

This website is the basecamp: it’s where the master list (below) will live, and where all my observations, reviews, and speculative insights will live. I invite reading suggestions, comments, and guest entries from SF fans of all stripes. Let us cease our fear of being labeled as escapists and revel in the weird intellectual potency of our chosen genre. Let’s get deep into extrapolation and analysis of these books. Onward!

Continue reading

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments