The Early Pohl

The Early Pohl

Frederik Pohl is a lesser Grand Master. Lifelong nerd, proto-fanboy, editor of old-timey pulp rags, union president, he is one of those eminently readable, largely innocuous fiction writers who has slogged his way into the canon via sheer persistence. I love Pohl, who has a beautiful imagination and a craftsman’s sense of story, but he is to folks like Heinlein and Clarke as a banana-flavored Mamba is to the fruit on the tree: delicious, but not quite the real thing.

Still, no tour of the space canon is complete without due diligence paid to the originals. And Pohl is an original, a founding father. Know your history, readers!

The Early Pohl is pleasantness embodied, a total comedown from my recent brush with the lunatic fringes. Pohl tells of his youngster’s love of science fiction, his work with the first glimmers of organized fandom, and his early career shilling and editing paperback pulp for a dime. He started the game young, editing two different science fiction magazines before he was twenty and heading up the local fanclub chapters like a champ. The Early Pohl is full of adorable details about what it was like to be a nerd before the word “nerd” existed: Cyril Kornbluth making cheap brandy with a homemade distiller in the bathroom of their shared house, putting together mimeographed fan mags, and hanging out at a soda fountain after the basement meetings of the Brooklyn Science Fiction League so much that the place named a sundae after them. Pohl lovingly recalls his involvement with the Futurians, a New York-based fan group that nurtured the careers of Kornbluth, Damon Knight, Hannes Bok, and Isaac Asimov, and their fierce competition with other fan groups for regional prominence.

Interspersed between these yarns — which detail his life from birth to just about after the war — are Pohl’s earliest stories, written in the late 1930s and early 40s for magazines like Amazing Stories, Astonishing Stories, and Planet Stories. They have scintillating titles like “Conspiracy on Callisto” and “Highwayman of the Void,” and march along diligently through picaresque tableaus with rough-around-the-edges/hearts o’ gold spacemen riding to neatly-wound conclusions. Still, they are clever and represent the pinnacle of genre at the time.

Of the glory days, Pohl writes:

“Science fiction was purely a pulp category in those days…I learned how to invent ray-guns and how to make a story march, but it was not for a long, long time that I began to try to learn how to use a story to say something that needed saying.

In fact, when I look back at the science-fiction magazines of the twenties and early thirties, the ones that hooked me on sf, I sometimes wonder just what it was we all found in them to shape our lives around. I think there were two things. One is that science fiction was a way out of a bad place; the other, that it was a window on a better one.”

Pohl’s early career unfolded over the background of the Great Depression and the Second World War, a climate of unimaginable fear and uncertainty. Yes, the science fiction of that era was glorified kiddie tales, but it hadn’t yet learned to pick up on the gloomy aspects of progress — to Pohl’s generation, science represented the potential for escape from the disaster of economic failure and war. No one was looking for a downside; they only saw the virgin capacities of uncolonized planets, and dreamt of a people united in the betterment of the species through new technology. “In those early days,” Pohl writes, “we were as innocent as physicists, popes and presidents. We saw only the promise, not the threat.” Incidentally, it’s telling of my own generational bias that the phrase “popes and presidents” inspires a completely opposite sentiment in my breast.

It’s fascinating to read about the actual birth of the thing. When Pohl was 13, science fiction as a popular genre was completely new; he helped construct its development, inventing its tropes, designing the first glimpses of alien civilization and rocket whiz-banggery. He and his friends took the structure of other pulp serials and applied layers of otherworldliness to it, changing the cowboys to cosmonauts, the untilled frontier to barren asteroids. Everything that came afterwards — from the golden age to the new-wavers, from the cyberpunks to the steampunks — issues from this genesis.

I find it beautiful and sad to read the evolution of science fiction from an essentially optimistic, escapist occupation into the primary expression for modern anomie. The more modern it is, the more it tends to be dystopian, or at least frank in its appraisal of technology’s complications and implications. In Pohl’s heyday, the future seemed unfettered and far off, a glamorous Valhalla for the warriors of efficiency. As the future catches up to us, and as we live with the consequences of the previous generation’s blind march towards progress, we just can’t feel that way anymore. Still, it only goes to show both the value and flexibility of science fiction that it can still feel relevant today despite what appears to be a complete reversal of its function.

From the Archives:

Space Canon review of Pohl’s JEM (in limerick, haiku, and sonnet format)
Space Canon review of Frederik Pohl and Jack Williamson’s The Reefs of Space
Space Canon review of Frederik Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth’s Search The Sky
Bonus: Frederik Pohl’s first ever published work, a poem called Elegy to a Dead Planet: Luna

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Margaret Atwood & Ursula K. Le Guin

The marquee for Atwood and Le Guin's lecture.

Earlier this year, when I went to an event to meet NASA astronaut Jim Dutton at my local science museum, I was the only person in attendance over twelve. Last night, when I went to see Ursula K. Le Guin and Margaret Atwood chat on stage as part of the Portland Arts and Lectures 2010 series, I felt like the only person there under forty. Alas, this is my life: the aspirations of a child and the literary interests of a middle-aged woman.

Pairing Margaret Atwood with Ursula K. Le Guin was smart: they come from similar backgrounds, both attended Radcliffe in the pre-Second Wave years, both are very prolific writers of indefinable genre fiction, and they’ve evidently been friends for years. Seated on little divans in front of over 2,000 people (yes, “only in Portland,” I know), they seemed like two old school chums swapping gossip even when they were deconstructing modern realism and debating whether or not the human race is doomed. The effect was intimate, convivial — Le Guin giggling uncontrollably, for example, when Atwood discussed how writing is like building a boudoir for the reader. Atwood making endless Twitter jokes.

Le Guin works very comfortably under the mantle of science fiction, having penned some of the classics of the genre, while Atwood waffles, preferring to stay in the mainstream literary conversation. In an often-cited Guardian review of Atwood’s The Year of the Flood, Le Guin wrote:

This arbitrarily restrictive definition [not science fiction] seems designed to protect her novels from being relegated to a genre still shunned by hidebound readers, reviewers and prize-awarders. She doesn’t want the literary bigots to shove her into the literary ghetto.

Who can blame her? I feel obliged to respect her wish, although it forces me, too, into a false position. I could talk about her new book more freely, more truly, if I could talk about it as what it is, using the lively vocabulary of modern science-fiction criticism, giving it the praise it deserves as a work of unusual cautionary imagination and satirical invention. As it is, I must restrict myself to the vocabulary and expectations suitable to a realistic novel, even if forced by those limitations into a less favourable stance.

Perhaps because of this disagreement, the two writers crept around the issue of science fiction all evening (Le Guin: “it’s just so complicated!”), preferring rather to discuss the motivations and morality of fiction-writing, until an audience member made a comment about their works falling between “literary fiction” and “science fiction.” Le Guin immediately took exception to this confluence of “literary” with “realistic,” arguing that realism is a genre like any other, and that all writing is by definition literary, except that some is better than others. It’s Le Guin’s belief — and Atwood seemed to be in cahoots — that realism is limited in terms of what it can actually discuss. The modern realistic novel, she lamented, has devolved into tales of well-off East Coast people with problems, and this form of novel can’t “bear witness” to anything but that particular condition. Both women were fierce in their conviction, however, that speculative and not-quite-real fictions have more freedom to tackle sweeping subjects unavailable to the realist.

This sparked a lively back-and-forth between Atwood and Le Guin regarding the lineage and definition of science fiction. Atwood saw it this way: you have science fiction over here, grandaddy H.G. Wells, speculative fiction over there, grandaddy Jules Verne, and fantasy off to another side, grandaddy Tennyson. At this, Le Guin — a frequent penner of fantasies — added wryly that fantasy is “the old grandmama that just keeps going.” They agreed that the key distinction between fantasy and science fiction was one of possibility: fantasy could never happen, while science fiction could.

Atwood: “What about Star Wars?”
Le Guin: “There have been really few science fiction movies. They have mostly been fantasies, with spaceships.”

It’s funny, because Atwood wrote in her essay collection, Moving Targets, that “the science fiction label belongs on books with things in them that we can’t yet do, such as going through a wormhole in space to another universe; and speculative fiction means a work that employs the means already to hand, such as DNA identification and credit cards, and that takes place on Planet Earth.”

So perhaps the breakdown is as follows: could happen (speculative fiction), couldn’t happen yet (science fiction), could never happen at all (fantasy).

Of course, isn’t it all kind of ridiculous, since the thing we’re talking about is the future?

From the Archives:

My interview with Ursula K. Le Guin on Universe!
Space Canon review of Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Lathe of Heaven
Space Canon review of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale

Ed: Thanks to io9 for the repost!

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Semiotext(e) SF

“What’s the most cyberpunk Photoshop filter?” “Oh, definitely Find Edges.”

[Before I even begin, let me say this.

BUY THIS BOOK

BUY THIS BOOK RIGHT NOW!

Honestly, if you’re not willing to drop $20 on a piece of pure, actual counterculture, get out of here. Semiotext(e) SF is an arcane book! Even in 2010, it feels like a relic from the future history of a parallel world where thieves, gnostic shamans, and cyberpunks were set free to run things. It’s like Again, Dangerous Visions, except instead of Harlan Ellison it’s Robert Anton Wilson (and Rudy Rucker and Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson), and instead of “dangerous” it’s “probably against existing obscenity laws” and instead of Way Bwadbuwy and Tewwy Carr it’s William S. Burroughs, J.G. Ballard, and Philip José Farmer at their weirdest. I hold Semiotext(e) SF in my hands and I can’t believe the authorities aren’t knocking down my ceilings and walls, flakes of plaster flying everywhere as the sun spills into my darkened room, to come take it away. Semiotext(e) SF feels the same way about itself. In its own pages, it lovingly refers to itself as a “fucking crazy anthology” exploring the “lunatic fringes” of science fiction.]

When I saw Transformers 2 last summer, I marveled at its visual complexity. The proportions were inconceivable: millions of shards of metal, each individually rendered in gleaming chrome, assembling at impossible speeds into loathsome erectile machine-men, whipping the sands of the actual world around them into fluff. I wondered, if I had trouble even identifying what was happening in front of me, what if some person from the 1800s were teleported into this movie theater? Would they even be able to see anything? Wouldn’t the overwhelming visual stimulus just be an undifferentiated slop to them?

I became somewhat obsessed with the idea of being blinded by modernity. To understand the future, you can’t just be transported into it without reference — it would be meaningless and terrifying. A man born in 1790 is no less neurologically equipped than I am to operate an iPad, but his lack of familiarity with the incremental developments in technology that led to such a thing would render him gaga. Most science fiction doesn’t alienate the hell us because it tends to have an extrapolative quality: we recognize the present day, strung through time to some strange conclusion. Good science fiction takes us far away while still leaving us crumbs of context; bad science fiction is fantasy.

Ergo:

a) I think Semiotext(e) SF would just be carbon-based runes on paper to someone without context for it.
b) This is a cyberpunk anthology, and as such is almost more about the present than the future.

Cyberpunk — which this book is all about — is science fiction that doesn’t point up, up, and away; rather, it’s science fiction that spreads out laterally, in layers of increasing density. The crumbs of context, if you will, are piled up into rotting mounds all around us. This is SF of the visceral now, the encroaching slums, the increasing integration of biology and technology, the degradation of flesh, vacuity, political corruption, the corporatization of the world, social disorder, dark alleyways, new drugs, etc, etc.

The earnest (and archaic) belief that science holds the keys to a rational future — which permeates “Golden Age” science fiction — was shattered by the cyberpunks, because they realized that technology was only getting more populist, more ubiquitous, and more personal. “Science,” in this anthology and in so much cyberpunk writing, doesn’t belong to authorities or professionals; it’s found in secret sex clubs and experimental drugs, abandoned artificial intelligences, personal software and filthy hacker warrens. It may still be the most viable framework for discussing our the dark perimeters of our world — the medium most fit for the moment.

This cybernetic sex joke plays out along the bottom corner of each page, flip book-style.

In other words, as Bruce Sterling wrote in the introduction to his celebrated Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology, “for the cyberpunks…technology is visceral. It is not the bottled genie of remote Big Science boffins; it is pervasive, utterly intimate. Not outside us, but next to us. Under our skin; often, inside our minds.”

Hence the Ballard story which details, with clinical precision, Jane Fonda’s boob job. And the stories about de-evolution, Frankenpenises, cyborg sex clubs, televisual grotesque, erotic space colonization, re-programmed minds, brain parasites, and techno-psychedelic scrying, too. Stories with titles like, “I Was a Teenage Genetic Engineer” and “Gnosis Knows Best.” If any one adjective could sum up this mad compendium, it might be “physical,” but the kind of physical that can’t exist without its opposite, transcendence — because that’s what a merger of technology and humanity is essentially about, wires that lead to abstract space. Hardware and software. Wet and dry.

There is a kind of fucked hope in this. Yes, modes of being are being profoundly altered by hacked software and unnatural invasion of machinery into the human body, but at least the individual has control over their subjective reality. It’s liberation through modification of the individual. Mind over matter, right? At least in Semiotext(e) SF, this is cause for joy because it’s truly and totally anti-authoritatian to refuse everything but your own cybernetic pleasure — and to build a literature of the future that is good and blinding for everyone but those living right in the middle of it.

“Science fiction is liberation. Reality in the old Aristotelian sense is a crutch for those who are afraid to walk alone on their own feet, above the Abyss that yawns when we begin to break our mental sets and pause to wonder–really wonder.”

Robert Anton Wilson, “ever eager for new dimensions of insanity,” from the Introduction

Supplemental Materials:

Full text of J.G. Ballard’s Jane Fonda’s Augmentation Mammoplasty
Full text of J.G. Ballard’s Report on an Unidentified Space Station, a kind of Borgesian Big Dumb Object tale
Rudy Rucker’s envy-inducing recollection of the early days of cyberpunk
Full Archives of Bruce Sterling’s early cyberpunk zine, Cheap Truth
“The Future of Sex,” a 1975 article for Oui by Robert Anton Wilson
Book: Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology
Book: Semiotext(e) U.S.A.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Greks Bring Gifts

Greks.gif

I had planned, for this review, to fall asleep reading Murray Leinster‘s 1963 novella The Greks Bring Gifts and write about my dreams immediately the next morning. As it turns out, I’ve woken up fuzzy; not only do I not remember my dreams, but I can hardly place where I was yesterday, or where I am now. I feel densely packed, as though with cotton-wool.

In retrospect, though, I’m glad. If I had dreamt about The Greks Bring Gifts, there’s no way I wouldn’t have woken in a panic; the story plays into all kinds of human paranoid fantasies, and my subconscious would have undoubtedly have had a field night with it. Grey-faced aliens with blank expressions + Who bring technological innovations to Earth that no one can understand yet everyone suddenly feels they can’t live without + Who herd and enslave another race of sentient aliens like so much cattle = Nightmare. I already have a recurring dream (so transparent I hesitate to relate it here) about grey-faced aliens. In this dream, which miraculously didn’t befall me last night, the alien is always standing on the other side of a curtain, window, or wall from me. Perhaps it hasn’t noticed me yet, but it’s looking to find me. We’re so close I could reach out and touch it, but I simply hold my breath behind the curtain and wait for the inevitable moment where it will draw aside that which obscures me and I will be forced to gaze directly into its completely inscrutable expression. I try to savor those last moments of my life before I see this unforgettable, horrifying face. The profundity of this other’s unknown! What unimaginable torture will it submit me to? Is it contemptuous of me, or simply indifferent?

In Leinster’s story, the Greks are aliens who come to Earth in a five-mile ship and hover in front of the moon just long enough to send the population of the planet into rioting pandemonium. Then, they decode our language, effortlessly. Side note: they communicate through cut-up fragments of recorded human voices culled from our broadcasts, an effect which is so pragmatic as to be creepy, and also very Ginsberg! They express a desire to land and share with the people of Earth their magnificent technologies; foolishly, we let them. They explain that they’re a merchant ship, just passing through the neighborhood, with a crew of Aldarian cadets — another, more immediately friendly-seeming alien race. The technologies in question all use a kind of wireless energy that revolutionizes production and promises a massive upswell in human leisure, so everyone quits their job in anticipation of a completely mechanized future where everyone is a millionaire. The Greks then leave humanity to enjoy their newfound “wealth.”

The alien of my nightmare is much like these Greks. Through the curtain, I cannot read its intentions, and so I fervently hope that it is altruistic, binding myself to the belief, holding desperately. I rationalize: it can’t control the effect its mask of a face has, but, being a creature of higher intellect, it must be benevolent. This hope keeps me from losing my mind. Humanity, in Leinster’s story, is just as profoundly naïve. It not only accepts but celebrates the Greks, showering them with gifts which the aliens, without emotion, leave piled up in the garbagey rubble of their ship’s departure. The new technology displaces all human labor, and yet the Greks leave before it is fully implemented; the result is widespread famine, looting, chaos. Addicted to the vision of a utopian future, everyone refuses to work, but nothing is left to fill the chasm between the human and Grek modes of production. “We were intoxicated by the gifts they brought us,” writes Leinster, “we hadn’t discovered that unearned riches are as bad for a race as for a person.”

The result? Humanity voluntarily enslaves itself. It clamors for the return of the Greks, willingly placing itself under the steely dominion of its alien overlords. No one is willing to imagine that their benefactors might be liars, that the cadet Aldarians might actually be slaves, that the Grek devices are simple receivers, only elaborately made to look complicated. They only want the glorious future they caught glimpses of in the alien technology. This book is scarier than a full-scale Mars Attacks! invasion, because the Greks do nothing but impassively sow the seeds of a destruction that we, gladly, willingly, bring to fruition. Their frightening force is not in nuclear ray-guns or spindly-legged robots. Its in their complete indifference to our well-being; unbearably calculating, they stand before us with expressionless faces and simply wait for our civilization to completely unravel.

War of the Worlds doesn’t scare me because it’s absurd. This scenario, however, of human foolishness — motivated by a fear of the unknown — caving in on itself in a giant compounded mass of idiotic fucked up-ness…it already happens every day, and it doesn’t need Greks to fuel it. It’s always-already directed at any and all “other” the universe can provide, including the fundamental disinterest of the universe itself. We would fall prey to such a conqueror.

And the Freudian transparency of my alien dream is this: that true awfulness is the inscrutable, the oblivion, the void. I would rather whip the curtain aside in a witless fit of hope, a self-destructive swan song, than come to terms with the total nothingness that permeates actual reality.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Moon Pool

MOONPOOL.jpg

Allow me to test a loose theory.

Imagine a speculative fiction graph with “Distance in Time” along one axis, and “Distance in Space” along the other. Classic science fiction, indisputable science fiction, the Platonic form, if you will, of science fiction, lives on the far right corner of this graph: distant in both time and space. A galaxy, far, far away, a time beyond our own, Asimov’s Foundation novels, or the future-histories of Olaf Stapledon. Of course, there’s ample science fiction which is distant only in time, not space; Nineteen Eighty-Four, for example, or some such other Terran dystopia. Some, too, takes place in the current moment, or even the past, in extrasolar space — say, Star Wars. And still yet more is so psychedelically transcendent that it takes place nowhere and nowhen. Still, the sweeping tendency with sci-fi is the desire to get the hell off the planet and the hell away from now: it’s designed to relieve the anxiety of present existence, or to sublimate it into art through de-familiarization. More can (and has been) said on this subject, but I digress.

sfgraph.jpg

The graph. If science fiction flies to the top right-hand side, then what dwelleth on the lower left-hand side? Writing that is grounded on Earth, or below it. Writing that is about the present, or even the past. While it may offer us estrangement, it is rooted to our time and place in a profoundly physical way. In my opinion, it’s horror.

Look at H.P. Lovecraft, who essentially defines the genre: everything important in Lovecraft is both terribly ancient and terribly below ground. In horror, the shock of difference doesn’t come when we launch ourselves out of the solar system and into the arms of waiting little green men; it comes when incomprehensibly ancient monstrosities come bellowing out of the black maw of our very own planet. It is the compounded hideousness of our own past and place embodied. One could say that the difference between science fiction and horror is simply a question of direction: while they both speak to a fear of the unknown, science fiction deals with the unknown above us, and horror with the unknown below us. Metaphysically, y’know…

A. Merritt’s The Moon Pool lives on the lower left-hand side of that graph, nestled right up to Lovecraft’s canon. It takes place not only on Earth, but within it, in a moon-formed chasm populated by an ancient, advanced race that has developed deep within the planet’s core, a classic “Lost World” scenario. It’s a beautiful book, full of bogglingly detailed passages about iridescent rocks and filmy curtains of mist-laden light, ebon bulwarks of mighty stone and cyclopean pillars of indefinite ancientness. Sample sentence: “The many-coloured rays darted across the white waters and sought the face of the irised veil; as they touched, it sparkled, flamed, wavered, and shook with fountains of prismatic colour.” But it’s complex, too. Forces of dark and light, of above Earth and below it, battle in grandiose style, and the central monster — a created spiritual entity called the Dweller — is characterized as striking its victims with a grotesque combination of rhapsodic pleasure and terror. Merritt calls this the “unhuman mingling of opposites,” a combination of “ecstasy unsupportable and horror unimaginable.” As the poet Rainer Maria Rilke famously wrote, “beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror which we are still just able to endure.” This, too, seems distinctly and classically horror: like the call of the sirens, the call of Cthulu, Lovecraft’s The Tomb, the impossibility of turning away from something frightful once discovered, the compelling quality of true awfulness, the rapture of fear. Fantastic.

A. Merritt is not widely read today, but his baroque fantasy capers were really popular in the 1920s and 30s. In my estimation, there’s no real reason his work can’t stand up in the canon against his better-known contemporaries. It has the highfalutin lyrical stuffiness of H.P. Lovecraft, or the Gothics, and the same ambitious earnestness about science that you see in H.G. Wells — a quality that, if it wasn’t so pre-Modernist, would seem designed for comedy, especially when Merritt’s characters size up, say, giant mutant frogs with unflappably prim scientific curiosity. Because it’s so invested in science, The Moon Pool is usually categorized as very early science fiction novel (for the record, 1919).

But its place on the graph — underground, and forgotten by time — makes it patently horror.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Strange Relations

strangerelations.jpg

This book is about alien sex.

Not imperialist, colonial sex, with human male astronauts dominating winsome green-skinned babes à la Captain Kirk. Nor is it bestial. This is real mutual discovery and understanding between sentient beings. It’s not something you see much in science fiction — in Tiptree’s short stories, admittedly, and to a lesser extent with Heinlein and Delany, although that’s mostly human-on-human stuff. Not that I’m a connoisseur.

In Strange Relations, a little collection of early, thematically related short stories by Philip José Farmer, man loves plant, man caresses worm. On a perpetually dusky planet named Baudelaire, a shipwrecked spaceman named Ernie Fetts is tentacularly absconded into the roomy womb of a plant-like gastropod. Recognizing nothing, feeling nothing but the soft warmth of fleshy walls and various holes from which warm liquids pour and sweep, he learns to communicate with his captor. A she. Marooned on a Mars base, Cardigan Lane meets an alien biologist, pink and symbiotic with an ungainly worm, who houses and feeds him deep underground. A she.

I am wowed by the honesty, the sheer get-to-the-pointness of these stories, because what is our anxiety w/r/t the alien about but sex? If intimacy, pleasure, and reproduction make up the evolutionary (and hence primitive) core of our psyche, then we must necessarily desire to be familiar with those aspects of an alien before we could truly know it. Or love it. Or make love to it.

In the 1950s, when Philip José Farmer was starting out, these ideas were nauseating, even to heads. Today, there’s alien-human sex in Avatar. Alien reproductive systems, though never presented winningly, are a common science-fiction trope — babies hatching out of human chests in Alien, the writhing cesspool of reptilian eggs in the remade V series. What this implies, I’m not sure; perhaps we’ve become more comfortable with sexuality in general, or less rigidly puritanical about our own bodies and choices. Because the idea of becoming intimate with an alien being necessarily implies a certain level of self-knowledge, and free will.

And, of course, since the alien has always, in some way or another, been a placeholder for the “other” (communists, gays, women, etc), maybe it just means that we’re more tolerant, more aware that the oppressed and marginal have sexual lives like the rest of us — and that they’re almost certainly more interesting.

In any case, I feel like it’s really important. Imagine encountering a completely alien being — in Farmer’s world, maybe a mountain-sized gastropod, or a five-legged football sized thing with beaks — and spending enough time with it to eventually overcome your deep-set revulsion towards it. That’s what the characters in this collection of short stories do: stranded with only the company of an alien, they come to know, understand, then love, their partners. They manage to take that herculean conceptual step away from themselves, to know the other as equal, in the only real way. They face the anthropocentric prejudice deep within themselves and prevail over it. They go native. And it gets to an incredibly sensitive, raw place after that because to love something is to lose a little of yourself to it.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Science Poem Manifesto

sciencepoemscover.jpg

Earlier this year, I received a charming email from a pair of Helsinki-based artists and designers who work under the name of OK DO. OK DO is a socially-minded design think tank and online publication, and they wanted to know if I’d contribute to a new publication and exhibition project they were working on. The project, Science Poems, was perfectly up my alley: a variety of articles and work loosely structured around the “poetry and multi-sensorial aesthetics of natural sciences rather than their functionality and logic.”

For the occasion, I wrote a short piece about the aesthetics of Science Fiction: The Science Poem Manifesto. Banged out in a lucid forty-five minutes, it was my most effortless piece of writing in recent memory, presumably because the themes had been banging around in my head, unexpressed, for a decade.

SciencePoems.jpg

As Stanislaw Lem wrote, science fiction “comes from a whorehouse but…wants to break into the palace where the most sublime thoughts of human history are stored.” Within the shadowy, grimacing frame of its own poetics, it does. Because the sublime thoughts of human history have always been projected outwards, to the vastness outside of our minds. Science fiction is a movement outwards, not inwards: “up, up, and away.”

Science fiction knows, like the science poets do, that the sky begins at our feet.

The science poets look at our sky and they see three moons, or a ringed planet in sultry sunset; they hear a voice whispering across the void, hear the malice in its tone, but still find how to forgive it. Science poets see a tentacle and know its embrace. Science fiction is the grief of tomorrow and the horror of today. Science poetry makes no illusions.

The finished Science Poems book is an honest-to-goodness marvel, marrying interviews with chemists, astronomers, curators, and fashion designers with short fiction, photography, and aesthetic references to everything from John Cage to electromagnetism. It features discussions with Marc-Olivier Wahler, curator of Palais de Tokyo in Paris, Cosmic Wonder, Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, and Paola Antonelli, senior curator of Art and Design at the Museum of Modern Art. I am proud to have been involved.

Read the entire Science Poem Manifesto here.

As far as I know, the Science Poems book itself is only available for sale online via Napa Books in Helsinki. If you live in Europe, a list of available booksellers can be found here. Also, a lot of the content — all exceptional — is available for free online. Lastly, a note to our continental readership: OK DO will be having a book party for Science Poems next Thursday, August 5th at Berlin’s Do You Read Me?! bookshop.

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Player Piano

PlayerPiano.jpg

One of the greatest tricks the great trickster Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. played on the world was convincing everyone he wasn’t a science fiction writer. Sure, lots of heads from our side claimed him as one of our own, but word somehow didn’t get out to the straight literary establishment. Lucky for him: it was probably hard enough coercing his cynical, anti-establishment (and yet lovingly perceptive) vision of the world into the canon.

Still, consider the facts. Classic, canonical Slaughterhouse-Five? Its protagonist is kidnapped by aliens from the planet Tralfamadore. Breakfast of Champions? A dark comedy about the machinations of a sci-fi writer, Kilgore Trout (whose name, incidentally, is based on that of OG science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon). The Sirens of Titan is about a Martian invasion and was nominated for a Hugo award. Ruptured timelines, atomic energy, questions of free will in a mechanized society, automata, apocalypse, alternate evolutionary histories…his themes could never be out of place in the landscape of science fiction. And yet Vonnegut was one of the most influential American writers of the 20th century, somehow free from the stigma of genre. Kudos, Kurt!

Player Piano is his first novel, and hence lacks the dark irreverence of his later works, which — dotted with bawdy illustrations and fourth wall-breaking asides — never seem to give much of a damn about anyone’s expectations. Player Piano, on the other hand, does: it is a very earnest little tale, a little too serious, not quite believable with its glib attacks on the idea of a mechanized, corporatized future society. It takes place in Ilium, New York, a manufacturing center among many; America’s workforce has become almost entirely automated, eliminating the need for any human laborers. Everyone with an IQ below a certain point is relegated to the army or a corps of make-work laborers who don’t do much other than dig holes and fill them; intellectual standards on punch-cards dictate men’s fates like hellish fortune cookies. The result is a profound socio-economic disparity between the “managers and engineers,” the elite class who design and maintain the machines, and the common folk, whose new leisure and convenience has cost them their sense of purpose in the world. With no place for their skills, no way to earn their living, the working class is set adrift — with no real passion left but to destroy the machines who have replaced them.

This is not so much of a tale about man vs. machine: there’s no sentient computer here, no singularity, no robotic despots. Humans are very much still in control. Rather, Player Piano is about the cost of efficiency — at a certain point, a totally efficient means of production leads to the displacement of an entire class of people, and destroys the human sense of accomplishment, of “job well done,” of manual craft. And idle hands etcetera. Of the novel’s premise, Vonnegut noted:

Player Piano was my response to the implications of having everything run by little boxes. The idea of doing that, you know, made sense, perfect sense. To have a little clicking box make all the decisions wasn’t a vicious thing to do. But it was too bad for the human beings who got their dignity from their jobs.

Near the novel’s close, the protagonist Paul Proteus notes that the end result of this engineering — this creation of “more durable and efficient images” of man — can only result in “eliminat[ing] any justification at all for his own continued existence.” We design things to replace their designers, which is a fairly natural gesture for us as we are accustomed to producing children. Of course, kids aren’t lathe-cutters and vacuum tubes: they replace, but they don’t displace.

Of course, the other extreme — of reactionary Ludditism — is equally disastrous, and in Player Piano, the revolutionaries succeed, eventually, in “overthrowing” the machines, only to find that their simplistic us-vs-them rhetoric was overly ambitious. In a world with no modern conveniences, no standards, and the solid crutch of mechanized production kicked zealously out from beneath…well, nobody wants to be replaced by a machine — but, as it turns out, nobody wants to farm the land for sustenance, either. Maybe there’s no way to make a real compromise between efficiency and humanity; Vonnegut seems to suggest that once society started on such a path, there would be no way to prevent it from devolving into a nightmarish techno-dystopia. Small conveniences would lubricate the way for greater ones, for further and further detachment from the making of things, until production became an abstraction and the function of the proletariat would return to the root of that word: those who are capable only of producing proles, or offspring.

I may be crazy for thinking this, but I believe that two generations of kids fed on these kinds of storylines is all it takes for society to forever evade the Player Piano path. Those who read science fiction are not doomed to repeat it. Especially not the Vonnegut kind.

Posted in Science | Tagged , | Leave a comment

I Am Not Spock

Iamnotspock.jpg

Introducing the One-Picture Review:

SadSpock.jpg

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Time Enough for Love

TimeEnoughforLove.jpg

Lazarus Long — née Woodrow Wilson Smith — is a 2,000 year old man.

Born in pre-WWI America, he lives to see the proliferation of space travel, the destruction of the nation-state, the colonization of the universe, and the gradual extinction of so-called “ephemerals,” or humans with regular lifespans. Though Lazarus is an exceptional long-lifer — a fact attributed to his canniness and ability to get out of scrapes — longevity is the norm in his future, genetically culled from generations of selective breeding and enhanced by advanced genetic rejuvenation therapy, which can turn a grandmother back into a young hussy.

Oh, and hussies they become: literally every female character in Time Enough for Love, which is some 600+ pages long and spans 2,000 years of human history, is described as either “rutty” or “randy.” Robert A. Heinlein’s sexual politics are idiosyncratic to the point of being baffling. On the one hand, he’s groovy: polyamory is the norm in Lazarus Long’s future world, with all its desirable characters sharing a non-puritannical innocence about sexuality. At the same time, his female characters are basically barefoot and pregnant throughout, or eager to be, and the fine women Mr. Long encounters in his long life are all celebrated for a similar willingness to breed; likewise the manliness is machismo, despite some insinuations of normative homosexuality. It’s niche to say the least: Heinlein reaffirms the most cavemanesque gender roles while simultaneously advocating free love and fawning over so-called “powerful” women.

What do you get when you build it up and tear it down at the same time? You get nowhere, man. I think Heinlein wanted to write strong, empowered female characters because I think he loved strong, empowered women — but he was bogged down with so many hopelessly stereotypical attitudes about female qualities that he could never do it quite right.

His “free love” is misguided, too: Time Enough for Love comes weirdly close to advocating incest about a dozen times, with Lazarus Long even time-traveling back to his childhood (spoiler alert!) to make love to his own mother. And this is only the crowning movement in a series of almost-incest vignettes: a tale of two twins with no genetic relationship to one another despite being born from the same womb, who marry and have children of their own. A parable about a long-lifer adopting an orphan girl, raising her as his own, and then marrying and impregnating her at her insistence. A bit about Lazarus Long bedding a pair of young twins who are his genetic clones, who he refers to as his “sisters.” Etc. Fuzzy.

Robert A. Heinlein’s house in Santa Cruz (as seen on Google Maps), site of presumable lifestyle weirdness.

Still, the book does raise interesting questions about how the world (or universe) might be different if we all lived much longer. The first thing to go is traditional marriage and family, which makes sense — being monogamous for 2,000 years seems needlessly draconian. Lazarus Long, the “Senior,” the oldest man alive, marries, sires children, loves and loses over and over again every fifty years — then gives it up, returning to love again after a generation of celibacy. This is profound: are our families structured the way they are not out of evolutionary advantage but because it’s the most convenient thing for us to do, given our time frame? Might we do things completely differently if we only lived to be 40? Or 1,000? Hence the meaning of the title, and perhaps the novel’s greatest passage: “Although long-life can be a burden, mostly it is a blessing. It gives time enough to learn, time enough to think, time enough not to hurry, time enough for love.”

Regardless, and as much of a Heinlein apologist as I can be, I can’t believe this novel is considered a masterpiece (Hugo and Locus-winner, Nebula nominated). It reads like Ayn Rand, its dialogue only the loosest conceit for the various sexist, polyamorous, and nutty libertarian jeremiads for which the “Dean of science fiction” is famous. At the same time, I guess it’s facile to confound Heinlein’s characters with his personal politics, but the lines are unclear: everything comes from the same, heavy-handed, authoritative male voice (like most of the male protagonists in Heinlein’s oeuvre, Lazarus Long is an insufferable solipsist). It’s easy, too, to call Heinlein a “libertarian,” when he was probably just an eccentric with both capitalist and anarchist tendencies; his books can read either as rationalizations of his views or as utopian fantasies where they are entrenched in society. Or, as some more generous arguments suggest, as deliberate seek-and-destroy missions toward various social taboos.

As Ted Gioia points out in his very good Conceptual Fiction review of Time Enough for Love, Lazarus Long is a mixture of Indiana Jones and Odysseus, Disney ride and Jungian archetype — “iconoclastic, independent, resourceful, libidinous, philosophical, crafty and restless;” in short, an Ur-patriarch, a Methuselah for the sci-fi generation. He’s no more “real” (and hence accountable) than Methuselah himself, or even any Biblical or mythical hero — and, indeed, Lazarus Long names all his children after Greek and Roman gods, implying a certain Zeus-dom. In that case, it’s probably easier on the feminist-and-politico-wince-reaction to pretend that Time Enough for Love is, itself, 2,000 years old. That gives it just about time enough to be loved.

From the Archives:

Space Canon review of Waldo & Magic, Inc.
Space Canon review of Farmer in the Sky
Space Canon review of Citizen of the Galaxy
Space Canon review of The Puppet Masters
Space Canon review of Stranger in a Strange Land

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment