Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Alternate History, Japanese Style


The things you can learn at a science fiction convention, even when it’s not a very good one. My wife Marcia and I were at Lunacon in Rye, NY, the weekend before last, and the affair seemed to be run by knit wits. Yes, they actually had programs about knitting. Not to mention beading, blindfold sculpting… still, there were some programs that actually had to do with sf.
One of the sessions was about Japanese science fiction, which is best known here for manga and anime – distinct schools of comics and animation that have caught on abroad in a big way. You can see entire sections devoted to manga at Barnes & Noble, and Princess Mononoke (1997), a feature-length historical fantasy anime, which Roger Ebert put on his Top Ten list after it was released here in 1999, and which is a cult favorite today.
There are many other examples of manga and anime that have found a loyal audience here, and I have seen some of them and at least heard of others. But one I had not heard of before Lunacon is Fumi Yoshinaga’s Ōoku (2005-), a manga series set in an alternate history. Alternate history is a big thing here, as witness the dozens of novels by Harry Turtledove and others. It’s also represented in Japanese literary sf, but usually imagines history changing elsewhere rather than in Japan itself.
Only, Ōoku is set during the Edo period of Japan (the 17th and 18th centuries by our count), after a plague called the Redface Pox wipes out most of the male population. The sex ratio is thus four women to one man; what was once a patriarchy has become a matriarchy ruled by a female shogun who maintains a retinue called the ōoku (inner chamber) of about 800 men – although few among them actually have sexual access to her; the rest are essentially advisors and bureaucrats.
For ordinary women, marriage is hard to come by, and many visit brothels to become pregnant. The first volume of Ōoku, the only one I’ve read thus far, follows the story of Mizuno Yunoshin, a troubled young man who has given his seed to women too poor to afford brothels, and considers it unconscionable that his impoverished mother hasn’t rented him out to the class of women who can pay, and thus enable her to raise a dowry for her daughter. He rejects an arranged marriage to the daughter of a bureaucrat, and forsakes his childhood sweetheart Nobu, to enter the shogun’s service – that way, at least he’ll be able to send a little money home. But once in, never out, or so it seems.
Yoshimune, daughter of the lord of a remote province, succeeds to the throne soon after his arrival, and has fresh ideas about how to run the country. In a combination of real pluck and seeming luck, Mizuno finds himself chosen as her first lover, not realizing that he’s been maneuvered into her favor because he who deflowers a virgin (which she is officially, but not actually) is put to death afterwards. But Yoshimune has fresh ideas about that, too, and Mizuno gets to live and love another day with the girl he’s left behind – under an assumed name. Further volumes in the series move back and forth in time to show how the matriarchy emerged and has shaped not only sexual politics but governmental administration and even foreign affairs.
In Yoshinaga’s history, the Tokugawa dynasty still reigns, but Yoshimune’s accession is the result of a conspiracy: there are three branch houses of the family, and her Kii branch bribed retainers of the Owari branch to withhold news of the death of the previous shogun (a sickly seven-year old girl), from their Lord Tsugotomo. First come, first served: Yoshimune has taken over at Edo while Tsugotomo is still trying to get her palanquin ready. And as soon as she assumes the throne, she shows she’s a take-charge woman.
By coincidence, we’ve recently been watching a Teaching Company lecture series on the Tudor and Stuart monarchs of England. One of the burning issues after the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 was their extravagant spending – Charles II, especially, ran up huge bills for courtiers, mistresses and assorted hangers-on. He even conspired with King Louis XIV of France to bail him out, promising to convert to Catholicism at an opportune time – if that secret had gotten out, he might have met the same fate as his father Charles I, executed in 1649.
When Yoshimune takes over, she is approached by a female privy councillor, who wants her to splurge on a fancy new wardrobe. The shogun immediately dismisses her, saying that “only a lunatic” would recommend such extravagance at a time when the shogunate’s coffers are empty. As she later tells a confidant, she had reform on her mind in any case, and Councillor Manabe gave her the perfect excuse to clean house:
But my liege… if you dismiss all of the current privy councillors, you will have none left. Is it your purpose to abolish the post of privy councillor in your government?
Verily so. And instead of having a gaggle of privy councilors, I shall create a new post of intermediary, and have but one person charged with mediating between the senior councillors and myself.
The best-looking would-be studs of the Inner Chamber also have a surprise coming when they are summoned to a general audience. They figure she’s about to pick one of them as her next lover. Only, they’re all sent packing instead – again out of concern for the state of finances and the welfare of the country:
Ye may well ask, then, wherefore the fifty men here? I shall tell you my reasoning. Ye are all young and handsome, and therefore the most likely to find good prospects of marriage in the world outside the castle.
Little is known of Yoshinaga (1971-), but her series is widely regarded as a feminist parable, and she gets in some great digs in a scene where Yoshimune receives a Dutch trading captain – who assumes she must be a man:
‘Tis reported that there is not one woman in your entire company. Wherefore is that?
Yes, my lord. ‘Tis a long sea voyage we must undertake, for we indeed circumnavigate the globe, and ‘tis far too arduous a journey for women to make.
 There’s a live-action movie based on the series, from which somebody posted a music video on YouTube.
I assume the man must be Mizuno, and the woman we see him with most Nobu. From a comment there, I gather the movie may stress the romance more than the manga series – in which these two don’t seem to figure much, or at all, in later volumes.
One of the other sessions was on Young Adult sf and fantasy, which is very hot right now because of Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games and the movie based on it. Since I haven’t read the book or seen the movie, I’ll hold off on that. But there was talk of other YA fiction I hadn’t even heard of, such as Karen Sandler’s Tankborn, which involves genetic engineering.
Heady stuff. Grim stuff, too: it’s dystopian, too (a genetic class system). In fact, a promo for David Weber’s YA sf novel, A Beautiful Friendship (a prequel to his Honor Harrington series, just out) is at pains to stress that it “strays beyond popular dystopian fare.” That it does, although there’s a subtext about genetic engineering on a smaller scale and prejudice against “genies.”
Lots of food for thought there, in another blog post, and in Imagination and Evolution.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Even Jane Austen?

 
"What an excellent device," said he, "the use of a sheep-skin for carriages. How very comfortable they make it;--impossible to feel cold with such precautions. The contrivances of modern days indeed have rendered a gentleman's carriage perfectly complete. One is so fenced and guarded from the weather, that not a breath of air can find its way unpermitted. Weather becomes absolutely of no consequence.”

That’s doesn’t come from a work of proto-science fiction, although a few such works had appeared by 1815, when Emma was first published. It’s doubtful that Jane Austen was aware of them, and she may never have given a thought to hot air balloons or other technological innovations that figured in them. But the introduction of sheepskin insulation for carriages would have been part of the world she wrote about, that of the English country gentry, and for an sf reader it jumps off the page as evidence, however trivial, that change was coming to that world.

I’ve become familiar only lately with the world of Jane Austen, and through a curious circumstance. P.D. James, one of the great mystery writers of our generation, had just published Death Comes to Pemberley, a sequel to Pride and Prejudice. I have a vague recollection of Pride and Prejudice having been assigned reading in prep school more than 50 years ago, and it can’t have made much impression on me at the time. But even people who’ve never read it at all may recognize the opening line: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”

It was hard to avoid the publicity three years ago about Seth Grahame-Smith’s urban fantasy rip-off of Austen’s classic, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, with its alternate opening: “'It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.'' I avoided that like the plague. But James’ novel was another matter; there have been any number of mystery novels featuring historical figures like Benjamin Franklin and John Fielding (who commanded the Bow Street Runners, the first professional police force, in 18th Century London) or esteemed writers like Charlotte Bronte getting involved in mysteries.

Some of them have been really good. But was Death Comes to Pemberley among them? And was it authentic? Last year my wife Marcia read Joanna Challis’s The Villa of Death, which features novelist Daphne du Maurier (best known for Rebecca) – but Challis didn’t bother to get even the most basic facts of du Maurier’s life straight. On the other hand, Marcia just finished Barbara Hamilton’s Sup with the Devil, which stars Abigail Adams and is true to her and her time. But to make an informed judgment about Death Comes to Pemberley, I had to get back to Pride and Prejudice.

It turned out to be a revelation in more ways than one. The novel is every bit as good as its reputation, but it is also a fascinating look at another world and another time. First off, however, those who still aren’t familiar with the novel may have the impression (I did) that the mistaken pride and prejudice are all on the part of Elizabeth Bennet, who spurns the marriage proposal by Fitzwilliam Darcy because he has not only taken upon himself to thwart a budding love between her sister Jane and Charles Bingley, but has seemingly been cruel towards George Wickham – a militia officer who had once been taken under the wing of Darcy’s father and promised a living as the local vicar.

Elizabeth had previously turned down a proposal by William Collins, a clergyman – a good thing, because he turns out to be a complete and utter pill. It’s a wonder he’s able to win over Elizabeth’s friend Charlotte Lucas, or how she can put up with him after their marriage. But Wickham knows how to turn on the charm, and forms an attachment with Elizabeth, pouring out his tale of woe about Darcy’s alleged mistreatment of him. Moreover, she knows how her sister feels about Bingley, only to learn that Darcy has contrived to keep him from seeing her. Elizabeth rakes him over the coals for that; his only excuse is that he thought Jane wasn’t really interested in Bingley. As for Wickham, Darcy declares him to be a complete wastrel and scoundrel, but Elizabeth isn’t about to believe anything he says.

The thing is, Elizabeth eventually finds out that Darcy was right about Wickham. Yet he learns that he was wrong about Jane’s love for Bingley: he too has to eat crow, and help make things right by Jane, before they can find happiness together. The fact that these two had equally been in the wrong makes Darcy and Elizabeth more credible as equal partners. That wasn’t what I expected, and it may not be what others still expect if they haven’t read Pride and Prejudice. But then there are other details that stand out – not only matters of custom, but matters of language, as in this bit from Elizabeth’s father:

"From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it some time, but I am now convinced." 

“Collect” instead of “gather:” one of those changes in the way English is spoken, but not as well known as others – notably the shift in meaning of “silly” from “blessed” to, well, silly, a few centuries earlier. Actually, I first came across the old usage of “collect” in a Georgette Heyer novel, The Quiet Gentleman, set during the same period, in which there are expressions like giving one the bag (as opposed to the slip). Another usage of the time was “in-law” to refer to step-relatives as well as the relatives of one’s spouse; this might have been rooted in legal language of the late 18th and early 19th century for all I know. 

After Pride and Prejudice, I turned to Death Comes to Pemberley, of which I’ll say only a little here. It is a murder mystery – James is a mystery writer, after all – and Wickham is at the center of it. Darcy and Elizabeth return, but not as sleuths in the classic sense; the solution to the murder involves the work of a number of parties. What is more important is that James captures the essence of Austen’s time, and even her manner of writing about it, as Charles McGrath pointed out in a review for The New York Times:

The prologue remarks, for example: “A family of five unmarried daughters is sure of attracting the sympathetic concern of all their neighbors, particularly where other diversions are few.” And the odious Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy’s aunt, makes a characteristic appearance, declaring: “I have never approved of protracted dying. It is an affectation in the aristocracy; in the lower classes it is merely an excuse for avoiding work.”

Emma is the story of Emma Woodhouse, who fancies herself a matchmaker but doesn’t know the hearts and minds of the people she’s trying to match, or even her own. When Amy Heckerling wrote and directed an updated movie version set in California, she called it Clueless. That would be an apt characterization of Austen’s heroine if “clueless” had been an idiom in her time as opposed to that of Cher Horowitz in the 1995 movie.

Austen admitted that Emma was pretty hard to take for anyone but herself, and – contrary to the case with Elizabeth and Darcy – I couldn’t fathom what she and George Knightley, the man she eventually marries, ever saw in each other. But I could see a lot of things in the novel that readers at the time might not have noticed, because – like the casual details in novels today – they were taken for granted. Sheepskin for carriages was one; it may well have been the talk of the town, or should that be talk of the country, at the time Austen was writing. Another example, which is unintentionally funny today, has to do with a family supper (served in “basins,” as bowls were called in those days):

The gruel came and supplied a great deal to be said--much praise and many comments--undoubting decision of its wholesomeness for every constitution, and pretty severe Philippics upon the many houses where it was never met with tolerable;--but, unfortunately, among the failures which the daughter had to instance, the most recent, and therefore most prominent, was in her own cook at South End, a young woman hired for the time, who never had been able to understand what she meant by a basin of nice smooth gruel, thin, but not too thin.

As the Wikipedia entry on gruel (cereal boiled in water or milk) puts it, there are similar staples even today for recently-weaned children and invalids, but none would dare call them "gruel" because of "the negative associations attached to the word through novels like Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist." But there are other passages in Emma that uncannily seem to look forward to elements of our own literature. There is, for example, a spinster, referred to only as "Miss Bates," who can't seem to shut her mouth once she's opened it to declaim on any subject – like, for example, the apple harvest:

The apples themselves are the very finest sort for baking, beyond a doubt; all from Donwell--some of Mr. Knightley's most liberal supply. He sends us a sack every year; and certainly there never was such a keeping apple anywhere as one of his trees--I believe there is two of them. My mother says the orchard was always famous in her younger days. But I was really quite shocked the other day--for Mr. Knightley called one morning, and Jane was eating these apples, and we talked about them and said how much she enjoyed them, and he asked whether we were not got to the end of our stock. 'I am sure you must be,' said he, 'and I will send you another supply; for I have a great many more than I can ever use. William Larkins let me keep a larger quantity than usual this year. I will send you some more, before they get good for nothing.' So I begged he would not--for really as to ours being gone, I could not absolutely say that we had a great many left--it was but half a dozen indeed; but they should be all kept for Jane; and I could not at all bear that he should be sending us more, so liberal as he had been already; and Jane said the same. And when he was gone, she almost quarrelled with me--No, I should not say quarrelled, for we never had a quarrel in our lives; but she was quite distressed that I had owned the apples were so nearly gone; she wished I had made him believe we had a great many left.

When I read that, two things came to mind: stream of consciousness and Edith Bunker. As you’ll see from the link below, I found that I was hardly the first to think of stream of consciousness in connection with Miss Bates:


A Google word search [Austen/Emma/“stream of consciousness”] brings up others – including a pdf of a 2003 Master’s thesis at Marshall College by one Diane M. Counts that invokes Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. Sheesh! But the parallel with Edith Bunker may take more explaining than that with Woolf and Joyce, since All in the Family isn’t likely to be as common a subject for college courses. One of the recurrent shticks of the show was Edith starting in about some trivial happening in her day and going on and on and on – until Archie mimed committing suicide in various ways. I wasn’t able to find any of her actual ramblings on YouTube, but there’s one link that shows Archie’s reaction to them.


What would Jane Austen have made of that?



















Saturday, March 10, 2012

Strange Bedfellows


Is this weird, or is weird?

You can’t get much more left-wing than the Occupy movement. You can’t get much more right-wing than the Tea Party. And yet here they are making common cause in press releases two weeks apart, both condemning a sweetheart deal between the New Jersey state government and Prudential Insurance. I haven’t changed a word; both of these broadsides come exactly as they popped into my e-mail box at work.

Occupy Newark release, Feb. 15

NEWARK OCCUPY LEADER CALLS PRUDENTIAL EXECUTIVES “PIGS”  VOWS PROTEST AIMED AT INSURANCE GIANT

Only one day after Occupy Newark protestors were removed from Military Park, Occupy Newark spokesperson Adam Karl today blasted a state deal to give $250 million in tax credits to a company, Prudential Insurance that made $3 billion in profit last year. The Occupy Essex and Occupy Newark groups have vowed civil disobedience to stop the Prudential deal. 

At Military Park, the site of Occupy Newark, about two dozen police officers and fire fighters disassembled what was left of the movement’s encampment yesterday. Karl said Prudential would be the target of the next occupation by his group.

“If Prudential insurance wants a posh new corporate tower in downtown Newark let them pay for it themselves” said Karl who was elected spokeperson for Occupy Essex, an affiliate of Occupy Newark that is connected to Occupy organizations in D.C., Oakland, and New York. “New Jersey taxpayer’s shouldn’t be asked to subsidize successful billion dollar corporations.”

“This corporate welfare for billionaires” said Karl. “Adding insult to injury Prudential is getting tax credits reserved for companies moving from out-of-state and bring new jobs to New Jersey. Claims by Prudential that the consolidation of all their New Jersey employees in a shiny new corporate tower in downtown Newark will create 400 new are Bullshit” said Karl. ‘In fact the Pru will lose employees who don’t want to leave Morristown for downtown Newark”

“Now we know why Prudential—a hugely profitable corporation wants $250 million in tax credits they are not eligible for” said Karl “They have to make up for the giant losses they are taking on a bad real estate investment, 11 Times Square in Manhattan. More than a year after it opened, the 1.1 million square-foot building is about 60% empty and unleased. 

“Prudential is the 1% “ said Karl “This is crony capitalism at it’s worst. Karl said his group would occupy a Prudential facility but has refused to say when.” The 99% percent will make our voices heard soon,” said Karl.

“By taking tax credits they are not entitled to they are screwing the people in Newark, Camden, Jersey City, East Orange, Elizabeth, Hoboken, New Brunswick, Paterson, and Trenton who could be using these specific tax credits to bring new jobs to those cities” said Karl “The executives at Prudential are pigs at the trough.”

The tower, built by a Prudential Financial Inc.-run fund cost $950 million to build. “Prudential must pour more cash into 11 Times Square. Its $720 million construction loan, held by a group led by PNC Financial Services Group, must be repaid in May” said Karl. “ Why should New Jersey’s taxpayers bail them out?”

“Prudential says they will pay off the current loan using the fund's own capital. " said Karl ‘’Why should we provide offsets for their balance sheet?” he said. Given the building's declining value, Prudential would be able to refinance the construction loan for no more than about $600 million—leaving them a $120 million hole” Said the veteran organizer “Why should New Jersey pick up the tab? Prudential’s greed is stunning.”


Tea Party release, March 1

WHY THE PRU IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NJ TAXPAYERS

By Donald Hurley - Chairman

It’s not just government that needs to be drastically down-sized. Giant corporations that suck up taxpayer dollars all the while they are getting perks from their government partner–in- crime also need to be reined in and hog-tied like a calf cut loose in a rodeo.

 And there’s no bigger cash cow than the Prudential Insurance Co., which pulled in $3.5 billion in profits in 2011and has more than $870 billion in assets and now has the temerity to take $250 million in tax credits created to attract companies that bring new jobs so it can build a huge monument to itself in Newark, the city of its birth.

The suits in the corner offices may have forgotten that Prudential began as the Prudential Friendly Society in a basement office in Newark in 1875, the first company in the country to make life insurance available to working-class people, and at very low premiums. Now it is crushing the already meager city and state coffers with a greedy grab to erect a new edifice and pay as little as possible for it.

The excuse? They claim new facility will create 400 new jobs at the Rock.  Since they are doing a consolidation and closing smaller offices in New Jersey, this number is suspect. The head of Occupy Newark has called it “bullshit.”

The state solons in Trenton designed the tax credits to encourage outside companies to relocate to New Jersey and thereby provide jobs to an area that desperately needs to boost employment rates. But the state Economic Development Authority, in league with state politicos, has been crushed by “the Rock.” Why else would the EDA approve the tax credits first applied for under the Corzine administration?

Making the situation worse, Prudential is sucking up tax credits meant to bring new jobs to Newark, Camden, Jersey City, East Orange, Elizabeth, Hoboken, New Brunswick, Paterson, and Trenton. The tax credits the Pru is grabbing are reserved for companies bringing new jobs and industries to these troubled cities.

Now the New York Times tells us Prudential is underwater in a real estate investment they made in Manhattan, 11 Times Square. The skyscraper built by a Prudential Financial Inc.-run fund cost $950 million to build. Its $720 million construction loan, held by PNC Financial Services Group, must be repaid this May. The Pru can only refinance the construction loan for $600 million given the declining value of the property, That means the Pru is $120 million short-and they want us to pay for it by adding $250 to their bottom line in taxes they won’t have to pay. Bad idea.

Why Governor Chris Christie would approve these tax credits born in the Corzine administration is a mystery. Christie has battled mightily to get New Jersey’s fiscal house in order. He has fought the Democrat spenders in both the Senate and the Assembly. Only Governor Chris Christie can stop this drain of state funds by a wealthy, profitable corporation. New Jersey has no obligation to bail out the Pru. Governor Christie should tell his EDA Director to kill this sweetheart deal.


Sunday, January 29, 2012

Contradictions of the Prick


“New poems by a noted publisher tell the story of an aging, married man who falls in love with a younger man.”

That’s the subhead of a front-page story in the Metropolitan section of today’s New York Times, “Contradictions of the Heart,” which tells what is apparently intended to be a heart-warming story of Jonathan Galassi, the president and publisher of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, finding himself as gay and coming out with a book of poems about it.

On the front page of the Times Sunday Review, also today, there is another piece, “Newt’s Real Legacy,” which opens: “Do you think that after all is said and done, Newt Gingrich will just go down in history as the politician who conclusively proved that voters don’t care about a candidate’s sexual misbehavior?” This obviously isn’t meant to be heart-warming.

The week before I read these two pieces, I’d been kidding people at the office about how Newt Gingrich’s victory over Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary could be seen as a victory of slob appeal over snob appeal. Romney is an establishment candidate, part of the Country Club set – and it doesn’t help that he benefits from tax breaks tailored for those rich who derive huge incomes from capital gains and dividends rather than salaries. Gingrich, by contrast, can appeal to the Joe Sixpacks – many of whom have been through a divorce or two themselves, even if they see themselves and their party as defenders of moral purity. Gail Collins, author of the Sunday Review piece, appears to see things the same way, although she’s hardly a Romney booster – she never mentions him in a column without a reference to his having once taken a trip to Canada with his dog strapped to the roof of his car.

People like to talk about class warfare, the 99 percent versus the one percent. They see class only in economic terms; the Wall Street fat cats versus the working stiffs, and that has become an element in the political campaigning. Demonizing the rich has gained traction since the economic meltdown of 2008, and from the rhetoric of the Left you’d think none of our multi-millionaires pay any taxes at all -- while robbing us blind. According to that logic, Steve Jobs must have been just as bad as the kind of bankers who peddled credit default  swaps and paid themselves huge bonuses while ripping off investors and costing many ordinary people their homes. Of course, class warfare cuts both ways; from the rhetoric of the Right, you’d think that all our economic woes are caused by Mexican immigrants, who are either too lazy to work and live off welfare, or are taking away jobs from Real Americans. Only black people are on food stamps, of course. And for some reason, allowing gays to marry will bring the country to total collapse.

But there is another kind of class warfare, which has unintentionally surfaced lately in the Occupy movement. Most of the people involved in that movement, or at least the most seen and heard, are college students, and their most pressing issue is student loan debt – which they think should be forgiven. That means the rest of us should be paying for their education, so that they can become members of the class they aspire to: the intelligentsia. And while they profess a traditional Left commitment to the working class, and have won some token support from union leaders, their attitude is paternalistic. On the West Coast, they shut down several ports a while back, which meant that dock workers and truck drivers lost work – and pay. But the Occupy people were sure they knew better than the workers what was good for them. They may not have class, but they have a sense of class.

 “All of a sudden I felt, ‘This is how I’m supposed to feel,’ ” Charles McGrath quotes Jonathan Galassi in the Times piece regarding his affair in 2005 with a man he called “Jude,” which led to a painful divorce from his wife of more than 30 years, Susan Grace, with whom he had two daughters. “Jude” was soon outed by “publisher insiders” as Bill Clegg, a literary agent and author of a confessional book, “Portrait of an Addict as a Young Man,” a memoir of alcohol, meth and crack addiction. Clegg is also said to be the inspiration for Keep the Lights On, a movie by his former boyfriend, Ira Sachs.

Now if Galassi had been either a congressman or a banker, it’s doubtful that the Times would have worked up much enthusiasm for him. Perhaps he deserves more sympathy than Gingrich; I gather he never did anything as gross as visiting his first wife in the hospital to demand a divorce while she was recovering from cancer surgery. Even so, Galassi’s wife (who declined comment for McGrath’s feature) can’t have been any more thrilled than former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey’s wife Dina (his second) after he cheated on her with Golan Cipel -- an Israeli he had appointed homeland security advisor, but who later claimed that he and others had been pressured into sex by the governor. McGreevey has since studied for the Episcopal priesthood, and gone into counseling for ex-prisoners – which may have gotten him the kind of sympathy denied the likes of John Edwards and Mark Sanford.

The thing with Galassi is that he’s not only a publisher but a poet, and McGrath’s focus is on Left-handed, Galassi’s new book of poetry inspired by his journey of self-discovery. That gives him class, and may have more to do with his positive image than being a liberated gay. By a coincidence as sheer as that which put the Galassi and Gingrich stories on front pages of different sections of the Times, the cover of its Sunday Book Review featured a review of Renegade, Frederik Turner’s biography of Henry Miller. Miller, best known for Tropic of Cancer, which was published in Paris in 1934 but wasn’t available here until a court battle in 1961, became a literary celebrity and was widely hailed as a prophet of the sexual revolution. But Jeanette Winterson, in her review, points out that it was hardly a revolution for half the human race: Miller sponged off women nearly all his life, and treated them as sexual doormats in and out of his fiction. Whatever else you can say about him, he was as straight as they come in his sexual orientation. Perhaps it is no longer considered anti-intellectual to point out his misogyny, but it surely would have been when I was young: he had class. I never got around to reading Tropic; I don’t think I’d want to wade through it now.

It’s amazing how forgiving the intelligentsia can be. William S. Burroughs, who later became a darling of the literary avant-garde, killed his wife Joan Vollmer in a stupid William Tell stunt, and managed to avoid any serious punishment. “Like O.J., he got away with murder,” acerbic sf writer Thomas M. Disch complained. But an entry in the Science Fiction Encyclopedia co-authored by John Clute doesn’t even mention the killing, while giving a reverential account of Burroughs' work and influence. Burroughs’ Wikipedia entry offers a detailed account, including his later self-justification -- “I would never have become a writer but for Joan's death” (at least he admitted this was “appalling”) -- while pointing out that he had been writing before that, if none too successfully. In the literary mainstream, Burroughs is as highly regarded as his fellow beat Jack Kerouac. Among Leftist intellectuals, meanwhile, Louis Althusser seems to be just as highly regarded for his work in purging Marxist theory of “humanist” elements, although he killed his long-time wife in 1980 in what was described as a fit of madness. Would a mere popular fiction writer like Stephen King, or some right-wing pundit like William F. Buckley get a free pass for doing the same thing?

Only, it isn’t all about fashionable politics, any more than it’s about sexual identity. It’s about class. Louis Ferdinand Céline, a novelist who was a fascist and an anti-Semite, still commands respect among the intelligentsia because he is considered one of them. Incredibly, no less a political thinker than Hannah Arendt -- author of The Origins of Totalitarianism, and famed for coining the phrase “the banality of evil -- once tried to cut some slack for Martin Heidegger, a philosopher with whom she had had an affair but who later went over to the Nazis. Decades afterward, Heidegger was an influence on Jacques Derrida, the much-admired French philosopher who turned “deconstruction” into a household world -- at least in academic households.

If Roman Polanski had been a plumber, nobody would have excused him for having had sex with 13-year old girl – but Polanski was a genius film director, so the rules that apply to plumbers didn’t apply to him, at least in the eyes of the Hollywood community – which is supposed to be progressive on social issues. If Woody Allen had been a plumber and had an affair with the adopted daughter of the woman he was living with, his fellow plumbers might well have shunned him. But he too was a genius director, and the film community certainly didn’t ostracize him for the way he treated Mia Farrow when he cheated on her with Soon-Yi Previn, whom he later married. This sort of acceptance of bad behavior by icons of the film industry among their peers and admirers has trickled down the masses, as witness the fans who groove on the antics of the Kardashians or Snooki.

I could go on at much greater length about how the cultural and intellectual elites are no better than elites that have held power in ancient and modern times. C.S. Lewis once coined the term “charientocracy” for the rule of a managerial elite that might arise from the intelligentsia and justify itself by its intellectual pretensions. Would this be any better than the aristocracy of the Middle Ages or the plutocracy of crony capitalists and their political allies?

Sunday, January 1, 2012

An Unwitting and Unholy Alliance


If you follow the news about the seeming political gridlock in Washington, no matter which paper or news channel you get it from, you’ll have the impression that there’s a Manichean struggle between Good and Evil for the heart and soul of the country – not to mention its fiscal health and the economy.

President Obama is either that evil socialist and secret Muslim scheming to spend the country into bankruptcy through a new welfare state at home while abandoning Israel and cozying up to jihadists abroad, or the only hope of saving the country from greedy Wall Street bankers, racists and other bigots of every stripe. The Republicans are either those racist bigots, homophobes and religious zealots who want to give away the country to Wall Street, or the only hope of stopping Big Government at home while safeguarding us from those Muslim hordes abroad.

It makes for great Political Theater, but theater is all it is. To give just a few examples, Obamacare may be a bad idea, and even unconstitutional – but Mitt Romney had that idea first on a state level, and Newt Gingrich favored it at the time. Calling for higher taxes on millionaires may be class warfare, but so is blaming illegal immigrants for our economic troubles, and filling up our prisons with mostly black drug offenders while letting corporate crooks off scot-free. There may be a argument for states’ rights on some matters – but the kind of conservatives who raise that argument don’t think states should have the right to legalize marijuana or gay marriage.

Ross Douthat, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, had a piece today about Ron Paul, self-proclaimed libertarian who has been gaining in polls recently against the Religious Right candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. I wish I could support Paul – not that it matters, because I don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire or any of the other states that will be decisive, and I’m not even a Republican. I believe for the most part in libertarian values, but I can’t trust that Paul himself does. Like the Religious Right candidates, he’s absolutely opposed to abortion. But beyond that, he’s been caught out (like practically every candidate in the field) by his past: newsletters he once sent out that were filled with racist and homophobic venom. He now claims these didn’t represent his views, and that he wasn’t even aware at the time of their content. I find this as disingenuous as Jon Corzine’s claim that he doesn’t have any idea what happened to the $1.2 billion that disappeared from client accounts at MF Global before it tanked.

But Douthat argues that even if he’s a crank with a disreputable past, Ron Paul is serving a very timely and very useful purpose:

In both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, Paul has been the only figure willing to point out the deep continuities in American politics — the way social spending grows and overseas commitments multiply no matter which party is in power, the revolving doors that connect K Street to Congress and Wall Street to the White House, the long list of dubious policies and programs that both sides tacitly support. In both election cycles, his honest extremism has sometimes cut closer to the heart of our national predicament than the calculating partisanship of his more grounded rivals. He sometimes rants, but he rarely spins — and he’s one of the few figures on the national stage who says “a plague on both your houses!” and actually means it.

Douthat could have added that both parties have advanced the cause of Caesarism, concentrating more and more power in the executive branch. Democrats roundly condemned Bush for indefinite detention of terrorist suspects and legalized torture at Guantanamo, but Obama has not only kept Guantanamo open but signed a law authorizing indefinite military detention of American citizens living in America – without evidence, without trial. He claims to have opposed that provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, yet its sponsor, Democratic Senator Carl Levin, testified that he got his marching orders from the White House. Obama has also embraced Bush’s policy of unlimited and warrantless surveillance of telecommunications. And then there’s Fast and Furious, a harebrained scheme by the FBI to track illegal gun sales that ended up with the government selling guns to Mexican drug cartels – which used them as you’d expect them to. Bush was condemned by Democrats for signing statements that proclaimed he didn’t agree with some provisions in laws passed by Congress and therefore wouldn’t enforce them – but now Obama is doing exactly the same thing. He is also carrying on such Bush initiatives as the Transportation Security Administration’s draconian and even sadistic practices – like strip searches of little old ladies. He’s actually been harder on illegal immigrants – 1.5 million so far deported on his watch – than the Republicans who claim he’s “soft” on that issue.

But enough about Bush and Obama. What about government policy in general? Gretchen Morgenson, another columnist for the Times, created a stir last year as co-author of a book called Reckless Endangerment, which argues that liberals and conservatives worked hand-in-glove to create the housing bubble that wrecked the economy. The liberals wanted to show that they were Doing Something for poor blacks and Hispanics by pushing banks to give them mortgages on easy terms. That led to a wave of liar loans (I still remember radio commercials from lenders who promised “no income verification."), but the mortgage bankers didn’t care, as long as they could palm off the risky debts on suckers by repackaging them as “credit default swaps.” Anyway, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those idealistic semi-government institutions that had spearheaded the campaign for liar loans, were there to pick up the pieces. Well, you know what happened. Morgenson looks back on the scandal here:


She had a follow-up in today’s Times about what those we trust to manage the economy have “learned” from all this: namely nothing. The crooks are having their SEC legal bills paid by shareholders or the taxpayers. Nobody is being criminally prosecuted for fraud, and Congress is even still using Fannie and Freddie as piggy banks – authorizing them to stick borrowers with higher mortgage guarantee fees to fund an extension of the payroll tax cut.

We have very noisy activists on both the Right and the Left, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. The Tea Party people are supposedly against Big Government and Big Spending, but only for social programs. They don’t seem to be worried about the ruinous cost of the wars Bush launched and Obama continued, and the way the carry on about Obama’s deficits you’d think Bush had never put the country a dime into the red. And they have nothing to say about Caesarism. The Occupy people claim to represent the 99 percent as opposed to the one percent, but they seem to be mostly college students whose chief aim is forgiveness of student loans. And while they have gotten lip service support from some union leaders, they don’t care much for working people – closing the port of Oakland hit dock workers and truck drivers in their pocketbooks Like elitist Marxists, they think only they know what’s best for the proletariat.

Maybe we need a Coffee Party. It’s sure time to wake up and smell the coffee – and to challenge the unwitting and unholy alliance of the worst elements of the conventional Right and Left that endanger both our liberty and security.


Sunday, December 25, 2011

An Expected and Unexpected Gift


This being Christmas, I wanted to put up something related to the holiday, even though I’m not in the least religious. Christmas has become a secular holiday in any case, more about promoting shopping than about the birth of Jesus Christ. For that matter, it was a secular holiday, the Winter Solstice, before the early Christians latched onto it. By coincidence, the Jewish celebration of Channukah falls about the same time, and Kwanzaa was created by Maulana Karenga in 1966 as a black alternative seasonal holiday. There’s even Festivus, a spoof of Christmas, from a 1997 episode of Seinfeld.
None of which has to anything to do with what I’m uploading today. What does is Sentinels, a memorial anthology in honor of the late Arthur C. Clarke, which came out in 2010. I hadn’t been aware of it at the time, but Marcia got me a copy for Christmas. I knew about that in advance; no surprise when I unwrapped it. But there was a surprise when I began reading it, because the first item in it isn’t a story but an essay by Damien Broderick, an sf writer and critic of some note. And what he was writing about was one of the formative experiences of his life: reading Clarke’s The City and the Stars.
“Clarke’s book was quite simply the most important novel I have ever read, will ever read,” Broderick writes, and after quoting some of his favorite passages, and goes on to tell how it shaped his own life, inspiring him to become an sf writer himself – he even got Clarke’s permission to write a sequel to City, but Gregory Benford beat him to it (well, actually to a sequel of an earlier version of the novel, Against the Fall of Night) – and to try to come to grips with why the novel is so fascinating and so meaningful.
Broderick hails from Australia, although he now lives in San Antonio. I’ve never met him; maybe I never will. But I felt a thrill of recognition, and even kinship, for The City and the Stars was a formative experience in my own life. His favorite passages are my own favorite passages. I can still remember reading the novel for the first time the year it came out, in 1956, and being carried away by its epic sweep and imagination. At one point while I was engrossed in the quest of Alvin to discover the secret of the lost galactic Empire, I was listening to Stravinsky’s The Firebird on the phonograph, and ever since I have associated that music the novel. Only Clarke himself, I learn from Broderick, had Debussy in mind when he was writing it. Oh well…
Several years ago, when I joined the Science Fiction Research Association, I took a test of theirs called “Which science fiction writer are you?” It comprised a series of multiple choice questions on fundamental beliefs and values. I came out as Arthur C. Clarke. I can’t say that I was surprised. Without knowing it, he had as much to do as anyone with my becoming a lifelong sf fan, and a historian of the genre. And in When World Views Collide (1989), one of the volumes of Imagination and Evolution, I had already paid homage to Clarke and, in particular, The City and the Stars. There’s little, if anything, I would alter for the new version of my sf history in progress. Here’s what I wrote then, with the only change being adding Clarke’s year of death.

THE CALL OF THE COSMOS
Man was about to leave his Universe, as long ago he had left his world. And not only Man, but the thousands of other races that had worked with him to make the Empire. They were gathered together, here at the edge of the Galaxy, with its whole thickness between them and the goal they would not reach for ages.
What inspired the Empire to undertake this millennial journey, none of those left on earth a billion years later can guess, but it must have been “very strange and very great,” something of “immense urgency, and immense promise.” Immensity is the keynote of Arthur C. Clarke’s The City and the Stars (1956), which draws its basic theme and basic imagery from the work of Clarke’s two great mentors: H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon.
Clarke (1917-2008) never concealed his admiration for Wells and Stapledon; his admiration is more than literary: he admires the evolutionary vision of Wells’ film Things to Come (1936) and the cosmic mythologies of Stapledon’s Last and First Men (1931) and Star Maker (1937). Such eschatological science fiction shaped Clarke’s interpretation of the nature and purpose of human existence as fundamentally as the Creation and the Incarnation shape a Christian’s. Nonetheless, interpret his mentors’ works he does. Clarke can be characterized as a spiritual Wellsian, inasmuch as he takes little notice of Wells’ utopian socialist ideology. Nor does he seem troubled by Stapledon’s spiritual angst; what he takes from Stapledon is what Wells himself might have taken: a cosmic vision of human destiny.
Childhood’s End (1953), still Clarke’s most celebrated novel, is, ironically, his least characteristic. He admitted as much in a warning note to readers: “The opinions expressed in this book are not those of the author.” Clarke never believed in the Overmind as an instrument of salvation for mankind, any more than he believed in the Galactic Overlords who act on the Overmind’s behalf. But he did show his intimate familiarity with Star Maker, for the Overmind, like Stapledon’s Cosmical Mind, is the final goal of evolution, beyond the organic or the material or the individual. Stapledon always sought to reconcile conflicting ideals of survival and progress, and submission to cosmic fate; of the spiritual integrity of the individual, and duty toward the collective and the transcendental. But Clarke sees no such reconciliation in Childhood’s End,  rather, stark alternatives:
At the end of one path were the Overlords. They had preserved their individuality, their independent egos; they possessed self-awareness and the pronoun “I” had a meaning in their language. They had emotions, some at least of which were shared by humanity. But they were trapped, Jan realized now, in a cul-de-sac from which they could never escape ...
And at the end of the other path? There lay the Overmind, whatever if might be, bearing the same relation to man as man bore to amoeba. Potentially infinite, beyond mortality, how long had it been absorbing race after race as it spread across the stars? Did it too have desires, did it have goals it sensed dimly yet might never attain? Now it had drawn into its being all that the human race had ever achieved. This was not tragedy, but fulfillment.
Only, not for Clarke himself. He clearly preferred, like Wells before him, that mankind conquer “all the deeps of space, and all the mysteries of time,” yet still remain – somehow – human. Thus, in The Songs of Distant Earth (1986), the Wellsian dream has come to pass, despite the destruction of earth by a nova, through the seeding of colonies on distant worlds by automated ships. Now the last survivors of earth have fled the holocaust in a quantum-electric starship that will bear them to a virgin planet they can make their own. Moses Kaldor, one of the few to be awakened from hibernation during a stopover at the previously seeded Thalassa, shares the Magellan’s sense of mission. Yet he is still moved by the ordinary human things, like grief for his beloved wife, long dead in the holocaust. Rationalizations hardly matter:
Could grief be an accidental—even a pathological—by-product of love, which of course does have an essential biological function? It’s a strange and disturbing thought. Yet if it’s our emotions that make us human, who would abandon them, even knowing that each new love is yet another hostage to those twin terrorists, time and fate?
For Clarke, then, the essential task of sf was to reconcile the Wellsian vision of science fiction with the ordinary human things. Yet for him, the Wellsian vision itself is humanistic, expressing deeply human needs, as he argued in Profiles of the Future (1962):
Civilization cannot exist without new frontiers; it needs them both physically and spiritually. The physical need is obvious—new lands, new resources, new materials. The spiritual need is less apparent, but in the long run it is more important. We do not live by bread alone; we need adventure, variety, novelty, romance. . . . What is true of individuals is also true of societies; they too can become insane without sufficient stimulus.
Clarke’s earliest sf reflects the heady optimism and unbounded faith in mankind that was typical of pulp science fiction in its time of innocence. In “Rescue Party” (1946), for example, our sun is about to become a nova, and a Galactic Federation sends a belated mission to try to save a few of the people who have unaccountably given rise to a technological civilization in only 400,000 years. At the risk of their own safety, the aliens search Earth for signs of life, even though the very oceans are already boiling. They find the artifacts of a wondrous culture but no trace of its creators, until after they are forced to flee the stellar explosion and make what Rugon, their deputy commander, considers a totally awesome discovery in deep space:
“This is the race,” he said softly, “that has known radio for only two centuries—the race we believed had crept to die in the heart of its planet...”
“That is the greatest fleet of which there has ever been a record. Each of those points of light represents a ship larger than our own. Of course, they are very primitive—what you see on the screen are the jets of their rockets. Yes, they dared to use rockets to bridge interstellar space!”
Human chauvinism, one might call it. Clarke treats it poetically in “Transience” (1949), a series of vignettes about man and the sea – the sea as seen successively by savage, contemporary and far-future man. The savage is the first to sense “something of the wonder of the sea.” A child of the near future watches the last steamship in a world grown used to air transport, but soon he returns to building sand castles. In the far future, another child, called away from similar pursuits, can hardly comprehend that he and his family are leaving the sea behind forever because the solar system is threatened by a Dark Nebula, and the human race must find refuge on distant worlds:
Under the level light of the sagging moon, beneath the myriad stars, the beach lay waiting for the end. It was alone now, as it had been at the beginning. Only the waves would move, and but for a little while, upon its golden sands.
For man had come and gone.
But if Clarke was an optimist, he was never a totally naive optimist. He too knew of mankind’s destructive side. In “If I Forget Thee, Oh Earth...” (1951), a child raised on the far side of the moon, knowing what stars are but unable to imagine why they should twinkle, is taken by his father to nearside to see Earth for the first time. Enchanted by its beauty, he wonders why his people can never return there.
Then Marvin, his eyes no longer blinded by the glare, saw that the portion of the disk that should have been in darkness was gleaming faintly with an evil phosphorescence: and he remembered. He was looking upon the funeral pyre of a world—upon the radioactive aftermath of Armageddon. Across a quarter of a million miles of space, the glow of dying atoms was still visible, a perennial reminder of the ruinous past. It would be centuries yet before that deadly glow died from the rocks and life could return again to fill that silent, empty world.
In much of his best work, Clarke tempers the Wellsian evolutionary dream with common humanity and cautionary revisionism. In The Deep Range (1957), for example, the protagonist is Walter Franklin, formerly chief engineer of an interplanetary liner, who must make a new life on Earth after an accident in space so traumatizes him that he can never endure free fall again. He is utterly cut off from his wife and children, who are adapted to the lesser gravity of Mars and cannot visit him any more than he can visit them. Progress cannot banish all pain or suffering:
Even in the most perfect of social systems, the most peaceful and contented of worlds, there would still be heartbreak and tragedy. And as man extended his powers over the universe, he would inevitably create new evils and new problems to plague him.
Franklin finds a new career with the Bureau of Whales, where he helps to manage one of Earth’s most vital food resources. Eventually, he finds a new woman to love; once again, he knows the joys of fatherhood. As his career advances, he can even forget the past—almost—and enjoy a contentment he has never known before. Then comes a challenge to his second career and his second life: an ethical challenge. In a secularized world, where other faiths have been discredited. Buddhism has filled a spiritual vacuum, “being a philosophy and not a religion, and relying on no revelations vulnerable to the archaeologist’s hammer.”
Because reverence for life is fundamental to Buddhist thought, the exploitation of whales cannot be condoned. “We believe that all creatures have a right to life,” the Mahanayake Thero tells Franklin, “and it therefore follows that what you are doing is wrong. Accordingly, we would like to see it stopped.” A transplanted Westerner himself, the Thero knows how best to appeal to Franklin—not by merely reminding him of mankind’s long and sorry record of cruelty to animals, but by bringing up an argument that must give even a human chauvinist pause to consider:
Sooner or later we will meet types of intelligent life much higher than our own, yet in forms completely alien. And when that time comes, the treatment man receives from his superiors may well depend on the way he has behaved toward the other creatures of his own world.
In a crisis of conscience. Franklin faces political ruin should he challenge the bureau. An unforeseen role as the hero of an undersea rescue operation restores his moral courage and gives him the chance to speak out freely. At last he can feel whole as he faces the future and its challenge: “Give us another hundred years, and we’ll face you with clean hands and hearts—whatever shape you be.”
In The Songs of Distant Earth, the exiles of the Magellan have bound themselves by the strict ethic of Metalaw that respects the rights of, not only all other intelligent life, but all other potential intelligent life. “The presence of more than a few percent oxygen in a planet’s atmosphere is definite proof that life exists there,” and thus is enough to preclude colonization by mankind. In Rendezvous with Rama (1973), the passage of a huge alien spacecraft through the solar system offers a chance to study the workings of a nonhuman technology, although the starship’s creators remain elusive. But Clarke’s heroes disable a missile fired at the alien ship by the xenophobic colonials of Mercury, refusing to credit their fears that the intruder is a threat to mankind.
World government is usually a given in Clarke’s near-future works, but he is neither blindly worshipful of the modern state nor insensitive to its dangers. World peace and unity may indeed be noble causes, but not at the price of hypocrisy. Although his sf was popular in the Soviet Union and he counted cosmonaut Alexei Leonov as a friend, Clarke made a point of dedicating 2010: Odyssey Two (1982) to the then exiled Andrei Sakharov and also of naming a space drive in the novel after him. Seemingly apolitical in most of his sf, Clarke edged toward a more conscious classical liberalism in his recent works.
In The Songs of Distant Earth, after millennia of “trial and often hideous error,”18 a true democracy based on computer nets and universal education has been achieved at last, but the heads of government are chosen at random, with the safeguard “that anyone who deliberately aimed at the job should automatically be disqualified.”19 It is this system, more or less, that has been bequeathed to the idyllic colony of Thalassa in the form of “a Jefferson Mark Three Constitution—someone once called it utopia in two megabytes” 
We encounter Clarke’s ideal of a statesman in The Fountains of Paradise (1979): Johan Oliver de Alwis Sri Rajasinghe, an ambassador-at-large who once “moved from one trouble spot to another, massaging egos here, defusing crises there, and manipulating the truth with consummate skill... in order that mankind might live in peace- When he had begun to enjoy the game for its own sake, he knew it was time to quit.”
Yet Clarke remained a thoroughgoing secular humanist, who could never accept revealed religion as the foundation of morality. Indeed it may be just the opposite: more evil has been visited on mankind, he argued, by religious fanaticism than by any other force in history. Those who plan the seeded colonies in The Songs of Distant Earth decide to spare them our religious heritage, even at the cost of cultural impoverishment:
With tears in their eyes, the selection panels had thrown away the Veda, the Bible, the Tripitika, the Qur’an, and all the immense body of literature—fiction and nonfiction—that was based upon them. Despite all the wealth of beauty and wisdom these works contained, they could not be allowed to reinfect virgin planets with the ancient poisons of religious hatred, belief in the supernatural, and the pious gibberish with which countless billions of men and women had once comforted themselves at the cost of addling their minds.
Statistical theology discredits faith in the same novel: “Bad things happened just as often as good. ... Certainly there was no sign of supernatural intervention, either for good or for ill.” In what may be Clarke’s most controversial story. “The Star” (1955), proof of divine intervention is proof of an evil god. A priest’s faith is shattered when he realizes why an alien civilization of warmth and beauty was cruelly cut short in its prime by a supernova:
There can be no reasonable doubt: the ancient mystery is solved at last. Yet, oh God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?
Nor does Clarke have a faith in the essential goodness of nature, common among literary intellectuals. In Imperial Earth (1976), Duncan Makenzie has come to the mother planet from Titan to have his own heir cloned. As in in vitro fertilization today, several embryos are to be created, only one of which will be brought to term. Makenzie has no sympathy for the traditional moral objection that the procedure is unnatural and murderous:
Old Mother Nature had not the slightest regard for human ethics or feelings. In the course of a lifetime, every man generated enough spermatozoa to populate the entire Solar System, many times over—and all but two or three of that potential multitude were doomed. Had anyone ever gone mad by visualizing each ejaculation as a hundred million murders?
Yet, considering the fact that his estranged friend Helmer, whose clone (unlike Makenzie’s, with its damaged genes) could father children, thus bringing genetic diversity into the family, may have more to offer his world than a replicate of himself, Makenzie may well have been moved by the argument of a doctor who has gone out of the cloning business, even if the doctor’s actual motives are suspect:
If the Pharoahs had been able to clone themselves, they would certainly have done so. It would have been the perfect answer, avoiding the problem of in-breeding. But it introduces other problems. Because genes are no longer shuffled, it stops the biological clock. It means the end of biological progress.
Makenzie does choose to clone Helmer, motivated by an essentially Wellsian evolutionary ethic. It is the same ethic that motivates the seemingly cynical treason of Robert Molton in Earthlight (1955), who uses a lunar observatory to transmit military secrets to the fleet of the Outer Planets Federation that is assailing Earth’s lunar fortress. Years later, having assured a stalemate in the war and a united humanity, he watches children frolicking at a lunar playground:
Professor Molton smiled as he watched them racing toward their bright, untroubled future—the future he had helped to make. He had many compensations, and that was the greatest of them. Never again, as far ahead as imagination could roam, would the human race be divided against itself. Far above him beyond the roof of Central City, the inexhaustible wealth of the Moon was flowing outward across space, to all the planets Man now called his own.
Clarke’s Wellsian confidence in the value of progress stands in stark contrast to the gothic sense of dread that has come to permeate much of our culture in face of threatened nuclear annihilation and environmental disaster. Only in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), with the madness of HAL, does he seem to acknowledge the gothic tradition in sf at all, and that could be explained by the influence of Stanley Kubrick on the screenplay and the novel (HAL’S madness is explained away, a bit too tidily, by Clarke in 2010).
The City and the Stars, which Clarke himself called, “For many years, and for many reasons . .. my best-loved book,” still remains the most vivid expression of his Wellsian philosophy and world view. It is a variation on all the tales of the distant future that began with Wells’ own The Time Machine (1895). But in seeming contrast to the gloomy panoramas of decadence and devolution that are common in such tales, the “glowing jewel” of Diaspar seems a beacon of hope. Earth’s last great city, it has endured for a billion years, long after the oceans have passed away and the last mountains have been ground to dust. It seems a triumph of mankind over entropy—and yet it is actually a surrender to entropy.
Mankind is not sufficient unto itself. Although the builders of Diaspar designed into it all manner of artificial novelty and variety, assuring its seeming vitality down through all the eons, none of their devices can compensate in the long run for the lack of frontiers – the lack of any outside challenge or stimulus. Diaspar has turned its back on space and time; even its inhabitants are endless reincarnations, who pursue the same endless round of arts and amusements, never knowing childhood, age or death.
In the story of Alvin, Clarke combines science fiction on a cosmic scale with the romantic quest. For reasons he himself cannot understand at first, Alvin is a misfit in Diaspar. He spoils the fun in interactive adventure games like The Cave of the White Worms by trying to shift the action outside the Crystal Mountain. In a world of utter sexual freedom, without any complications (people are “born” almost fully grown from the city’s memory banks), he can find no really intimate companionship. When his tutor Jeserac reveals that Alvin is “the first child to be born on Earth for at least ten million years,” he finds a sense of mission: “Diaspar might be sufficient for the rest of humanity, but it was not enough for him.”
Alvin must find a way out, even though none is shown in the memory banks; he must find the truth behind the ancient legends of the Galactic Empire, said to have been destroyed by the Invaders from somewhere beyond, who drove mankind back to its home planet and forbade it ever to leave again. Thus begins the search that leads Alvin to the Tomb of Yarlan Zey, founder of the city, where a directed thought grants him entrance to a long-forgotten transport system and passage to – Lys.
Lys: the antithesis of Diaspar, pastoral rather than urban. It must be heir to a technology as powerful as that of Diaspar, having preserved a portion of Earth’s natural splendors – mountains, wildlife, lakes, and rivers – against the encroachment of the global desert. Its inhabitants have maintained a simple, seemingly idyllic life. They live in small villages, and they actually walk from one place to another, instead of being carried on “streets” that flow like water at varying speeds, yet are otherwise solid. They value the powers of mind, rather than machine. Most astounding to Alvin, however, are the children. He finds them a source of amazement and delight and of tender emotions, long forgotten in Diaspar: when they have occasion to cry, over frustrations that are objectively trivial, “their tiny disappointments seemed to him more tragic than Man’s long retreat after the loss of his Galactic Empire.” Alvin realizes already in his heart what Seranis, one of the elders of Lys, later puts into words:
Long ago, Alvin, men sought immortality and at last achieved it. They forgot that a world which had banished death must also banish life. The power to extend his life indefinitely might bring contentment to the individual, but brought stagnation to the race. Ages ago we sacrificed our immortality, but Diaspar still follows the false dream.
And yet the dream of Lys is as false as that of Diaspar; Lys, too, is afraid of outside challenge or stimulus. Once again, Alvin must escape; an ancient robot, once owned by the Galaxy’s last religious zealot, offers a new path for his quest. Raising the Master’s starship from the desert, Alvin and Hilvar of Lys set forth for the Seven Suns, once the hub of the Empire, where the Master had found it “lovely to watch the colored shadows on the planets of eternal light.” Now the planets themselves are dead or else are devolved to primitive life waging anew the grim Darwinian struggle for existence. Of the fabulous Empire of legend, there remain only enigmatic ruins… and Vanamonde. A pure mentality, he is the crowning achievement of that Empire, before it forsook the Galaxy for an even greater challenge beyond.
It is through Vanamonde that Alvin and Hilvar and a reluctant Earth learn the truth behind the old legends: how the stars reached mankind before mankind reached the stars; how that challenge to human vanity led mankind to remake itself on a Stapledonian scale, becoming at last worthy to share in a galactic civilization, in a “sweep of great races moving together toward maturity;” how the Empire made its goal the creation of a mind without physical limitations, able to reveal for the first time a “true picture of the Universe;” how the destruction wreaked by the Mad Mind, disastrous first fruit of that quest, led to the legend of the Invaders. Even in the face of such a setback, the Empire persevered and, eventually, triumphed. Earth, which had shunned the Empire and turned inward, from the sickness of fear and exhaustion, now faces again the challenge of the cosmos, and of evolution:
In this universe, the night was falling; the shadows were lengthening toward an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning lingered; and along the path he had once followed, Man would one day go again.