[^^Up to LIT index] [^^^Up to LOCAL home]
SF General Info
See also: [SF List] (books)
[SF Film] (films)
[SF Alterity]
[SF INDEX]
[SF Mechanics]
[SF Writing]
[SF Effects]
[SF Elements]
-^_6
[LITERATURE INDEX]
[Space/Time Conveyor] (please no double dipping!)
SF General Info
On this page: {References}
{Stuff} (indexes to other papers of a general nature)
{What is SF?}
{Nature}
{Time}
{Geological Time, etc}
{The Bourgeoise view of time}
{Time in Philip K. Dick's "High Castle"}
{Space}
{Mind}
{Alienation}
{Aliens}
{Super beings}
{Super Powers}
{Super Senses}
{Evolution}
{Huxley - Brave new world}
{Smith - Instrumentality of Man}
{Homo Superior}
{Utopia/Dystopia}
{Family and Friends}
{The individual "i"]
{Blurble}
References
3:07 PM 2005-09-06
"Brave New World - History, Science, Dystopia",
byt Robert S. Baker, LCCN PR'6015'U9.B6725'1990,
ISBN 0.0857.8121.8 (Twayne (McGill Univ), Boston, 1990).
Stuff
[Plots]
NEXT: Terms, Dfns, etc
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Terms, Dfns, etc
SF General Info
NEXT: ???
{Back to the TOP of this page}
What is SF?
Being a brief but hopefully illuminating look at SF.
[Vivan Carol Sobchack...]
A few views: [as quoted in ROSE, P.16]
Heinlein: Realistic speculation about future events"
Usula K. Le Guin: "All fiction is metaphor. Science
fiction is metaphor. What sets it
appart from older forms of fiction seems to be its
use of new metaphors, drawn from certain great
dominants of our contemporary life -- science, and
technology, and the relativistic and historical outlook,
among them. Space travel is one of these metaphors;
so is an alternative society, an alternative biology;
the future is another. The future, in fiction, is metaphor.
(Into to "The Left Hand of Darkness")
SEE ALSO: [SF as Genre] (lit notes, etc)
ROSE [P.26&ff] refers to "estrangement" and "de-familiarisation".
As well as the "transformation" concept: In one sense,
the persons can be transformed (in the classic sense of
the "Hero's Journey"), as well as the world itself being
transformed. In the latter case, this transformation is
essentially the same as when invaders come. Take the
example of Columbus.
As well as the concept of "distance markers"; ie, literary
devices to clue us in to how distant the world or time is
from our own. "Back in the 20th centry, they still believed...",
or in the case of an alternate universe, "Roum is a city
built on seven hills" (Silverberg's "Nightwings"). "[Hence,]
distance markeers may thus be understood as moments in
which the science-fiction story provides a textual
representation of its own subject, the relationship
between the ordinary and extra-ordinary worlds".
[ROSE, Pp.28-29]
ROSE also lists the following as "paradigms" of SF:
Space
Time
Machine
Monster
And sees the conflicts as arising from Man vs Nature (at least
in some cases) and notes that the there is no over-lap in
some cases (the spirit of man vs the materialistic forces of nature).
Renaissance -- man as the centre of the universe,
Romantacism -- a dialog between man and nature.
The "forces" opposed to science:
Politics
Business
The academy
the military
and of course: religion [Pp.39-40]
Next: Nature.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Nature
[Also this leads to:
Nature as mystery
Nature as thing to be subjugate/respected
Nature as elemental force
]
Next: Time.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
And the concept of Time
See also: -[sf time file]-
In this section: {Geologic, etc}
{The Bourgeoise view of time}
{Time Dick's "High Castle"}
Geologic, etc
"No semblance of a beginning,
No prospect of an end".
-- James Hutton.
"Time yields no shape"
-- Kant
"Time is the illusion caused by thought"
-- Dimirii Petrovian.
Again with Newton (and Descartes as ROSE (P.97) points out)
were used to *absolute* time, "[were] markedly static and
a-temporal, witht he emphasis on the fixed and eternal
laws, which the study of both man and nature revealed."
[As quoted in ROSE, P.99]
"As Frank Kermode [see REF below] says, we create fictions of
endings to give meaning to time, to transform chronos (the
mere passing of time) into kairos (time invested
with the maning derived from its goal. Time without
beginning or end, un-differentiated, boundless time
without meaning, is utterly in-human time. And in-so-far-as
science fiction is committed to the humanisation of time,
it tends toward fictions of apocalpse.
...
Time in this fictions [Journey to the Centre of the Earth &
War of the Worlds], is projected spatially either as a tangible
series of strata [Journey] of as a measurable distance between
planets. This transformation is possible because we normally
conceive time as a medium *analagous* [emph. mine] to space,
freely substituting the one for the other, as when we say
we have not seen someone in a "long time" or when we speak
of one place being "10 minutes away" from another. Our
metaphors for time are spatial, our metaphors for space are
temporal. Time and space are complementary hemisphers in a
single, closed conceptial system. Thus, time can be freely
substituted for space in the production of science-fiction
storeies, becoming the medium either for a journey to
alien "worlds", or the medium through which "aliens",
in the form of time travelers, impinge upon our world.
Indeed, nearly all SF narratives that are concerned directly
with time depend in some way upon the spatialisation of
time.
REF of the ORIG QUOTE: "The Sense of an Ending",
by Frank Kermode,
Oxford University Press, ISBN ???.???.????.???
(New York, 1967).
EXCELLENT: "At one level the Eloi-Morlock section
is Swiftian satire on the perversity
of class distinctions. Readinf the novel from this
point of view we might wish to discuss the irony
implicict in the way that the traveler completely
identifies with the Eloi, remaining blind to the
bonds -- meat eating, love of machinery -- that
tie him also the Morlocks." -- [ROSE, P.103]
Bourgeoise view of Time
Again in [ROSE, Pp.62-63] the "bourgeoise view of time"
"Near the end of the novel, [Verne's; Journey to the Centre of the Earth]
however, Axel (Lindenbrook's nephew) undergoes a
conversion [from a Romantic to a Materialist].
Confronted with what appears to be an insurmmountable
obstacle to further descent -- a hugh boulder has
sealed the gallery through which they must pass -- the
youth is suddenly seized by his uncle's daemon of
heroic conquest. Now it is Axel who is impatient
with delay and who insists that they must immediately
blow up the rock with explosive gun-cotton. 'The
professor's soul had passed straight through into
me, and tghe spirit of discov ery inspired me.
I forgot the past and scorned the future' (p.266).
"Nothing matters for him now except the imperative
penetration to the center. Daemonically possessed,
Axel has become, like his uncle, a "hero". His
journey has become an initiation into the
bourgeois-heroic attitude toward nature, a
"going in" in a social as well as a physical
sense, and the story ultimately ratifies his
new status as an adult male by granting him the
hand of the professor's beautiful god-daughter,
Gräuben. Never-the-less, as the comic ironies
persistently directed against Professor
Lindenbrock's limited vision sugges, in the
youth's passage something has been lost as well
as gained. Caring neither for past nor future,
imprisoned in the narrow cage of his own will to
dominate, Axel can no longer confront nature
except as an antagonist, somthing utterly apart
from himself."
Parallel this to Sartre. (!)
Time in Dick's "High Castle"
[ROSE, P.126] "Looking into the void (which after
all is treuly a void but a universe
replete with other-ness) can we ever really see
anything but our own faces? Similarly, in Man in
the High Castle transforms problems in
eschatology (or purpose in history) into problems
in epistimology. Can we really regard time as
something outside ourselves, an alien antagonist
to be conquered ro a dominon to be appropriated
and ruled? Looking into the dark abysm of time,
which is not after all really an abysm or any
other kind of spatial realm, do we not also discover
a face that is our own?"
This brings us back to the fact that we see the world in terms
of who we are (our experiences, knowledge, feelings, etc) --
can really never do otherwise. And yet, by reading, watching
plays, exploring art, history, and philosophy we extend how
much (how alien) we *can* view and understand.
Next: Space.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Space
Next: Mind.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Mind
Hmmmm. I disagree with ROSE [P.92] in that I think that
Lem is trying to show us how *broad* the concept
of what is human can be. ROSE sez:
"Snow, the cool [1] cynic, is an un-sympathetic
figure compared to Kelvin, the romantic lover.
Yet we should realize that Lem has employed the
unsentimental codes of the literary love story
and thus encourages us to sympathize with
Kelvin's passion only to lead us into a trap
that illustrates how difficult it is to avoid
in-appropriate pattens of thought.[2] Snow is
correct. In embarcing Rheya as completely
human, Kelvin has adopted a positon no more,
adequate than that of Sartorius, who merely
wishes to obliterate the visitors.
I would say that Lem is trying to show us (at least
in this point of the story -- which at *this* point
of time, i have *not* read), that the question of
what IS human is nebulous, etc. This of course
goes back to the two views by Philip K. Dick of
androids: The "Lincoln" in We can build you, and
Luba in Do Androids, as well as the *version* of
??name?? in Blade Runner (not Daryl Hanna, the
"other one").
I would go further (in the manner of "The Ethical Equations")
and say that if a creature shows us and sez it *is* human,
then we should think long and hard to *not* dis-miss it.
(This again goes back to the two views in Dick: The
short story where the crew returns and thinks that they
*are* the crew, and they are destroyed and then another
crew shows up as well as the "Imposter" where clearly
the simacrulum ??sp?? is bent on destroying the earth.
(We can *not* -- i would maintain -- dismiss the creature
which thinks itself to be who it thinks itself to be.
(and of course, this completely ignores the question
"Is Commander Data a person or a toaster?".
-- this goes back to one of the opening stories in
Douglas Hofstadler ??sp?? "The Mind's I" about the
teleporter. [3] And of course, this is assered
*clearly* by "Dr. Chandra" in Odyssey 2010: The
Year We Make Contact "Whether we are based on
carbon or on silicon..."
NOTES (this section only)
[1] ROSE continues to point out the use of temperature
as a special "code" for SF. Thus, i'm not sure if
his use here is un-intentionally ironic (laconic? ;)
[2] This goes back to a constant theme in ROSE's first
two chapters: That we can't really imagine something
that is *treuly* alien. He sez that we have to use
analogies and such. (the old prob that if you *can*
imagine it, then it can't really be *that* alien.
(I was trying to imagine a red-green that was an
*abstract* color, and not a mixture or such. (Also
refer to the idea of the word ORANGE written in BLUE
(or some other non-orange color), thus invoking both
the self-referential/self-denial paradox as well as
just the run-of-the-mill "tongue-in-cheek" thingie as
well.
In the same sense, we can't really conceive of anything
as abstract if it can be given physical (material) form.
Thus, we *can* have abstract mathematics, and for the most
part we *can* describe things using words. Yes, i realise
that by using WORDS (which are in a sense material things
-- we can hear, speak, read (and tactile-ly "feel" them
if we are adept at brail) them, so they "sort of" have
a "material" weight. And I'm not going to go into the
implications of storage systems; eg, human brains, dolphins,
apes, computers, and of course books themselves.
[3] I dislike *intensely* Hofstadler's ??sp?? use of "mind"
tricks in that story, but we do know that the "one left
behind" on Mars (a duplicate is teleported to earth to
be saved), does in fact *have* feelings, and does in fact
suffer. Again, the assertion of TORTURE is that the *only*
justice is that it eventually *does* end. Even if that
end is death. (As Twain pointed out, that until the bible
came along, the worst off slave could always hope for a
release in death, but even *that* escape is deny-ed him
by the threat of death and *then* hell (not an exact quote).
Next: Alienation.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Alienation
See also: [General term in FILM]
Alienation in SF (no pun intended) is where the familiar
becomes strange, as [[SOBCHACK 1980]], P.112-113,
puts it:
"As opposed to those other imaginary worlds [ie, not
ON the Earth] created on a studio set or those
real urban worlds so filled with the out-cropping
of our achievements that they appear anthro-po-morphic,
the desert and beach exist as the receptive breeding
ground of hide-ing place for those things which
threaten to destroy us and thus become hostile areas
of a formerly nurturing and antropomorphic Earth. [Note 17]
Working inversely from those movies which optimisitcally
reduce the infinitudes and uncertainties of space to a
view seen from an [P.112/113] inter-galactic automobile,
the films which show us the "other-ness" [Note 18]
of the world in which we actually live expand the finite
and certain limits of a car on a highway winding through the
desert or along a lonely stretch of sea-coast road
[or thru fog!], into a journey through the infinite and
hostile void. When the land which has nurtured us threatens
us, we are treuly lost in space. What such films as:
It Came from Outer Space
Them!
Creature from the Black Lagoon
Tarantula
Beast with a Million Eyes
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Monolith Monsters
The Space Children
Most Dangerous Man Alive
tell us that the Earth is not a part of us, it does not
even recognise us. THese films -- in whole or in part --
take us away from our larger structures, our cities
and skyscrapers which normally break up the disturbing
blankness of the horizon. Our civilisation and its
technological apparatus is at best a samll town set
on the edge of an abyss. Watching these films with
their abundance of long shots in which human figures
move alike insects, their insistence on a fathomless
landscape, we are forced to a pessimestic view of the
worth of technologoical progress and of man's ability
to control his destiny.
[P. 114]
We are shown human beings set un-comfortably against
the vastness and age-less-ness of the desert and sea,
[Note 18] and are reminded by the contrast that land
and water were here long before us and our cities and
towns and will be here long after we and our artifacts
are gone. We see ourselves -- normal, human, incredibly
mortal -- against an un-blinking and bare landscape
that refuses any anthro-po-morphic sweetness with which
we strive to endow it.", Op.Cit., P112-114.
See also: [Sobchack (SF)]
Next: Aliens.
NOTES (this section only)
[17] Indeed, I would go further to say, that in the same
sense of "The Time Machine" scene in the "modern" era,
when "and the earth ripped apart, responded with volcanoes
as well" (not an exact phrase). That is, the violence that
we might do *TO* the Earth would alienate her (it?) from
us, and she might turn against us. That is, outside of
the context of the destruction of ozone layer, deforestation,
the green house effect etc, that the earth (as a "thing"
or possibly even as a conscious entity) might turn actively
against us. (The same way that we might try to get rid
of lice, using all manner of pesticides on ourselves.
(this suggests a story obviously; share and enjoy :)
Or as i often put it,
"Old Mother Earth; she never realized how
cussed her children would turn out to be, eh?"
-- [stories/plants for mars]
{Back to the TEXT}
[18] See for example the work of Henry Kutner and
"Mrs. K." (C.L. Moore); eg, "Return to Otherness", etc.
{Back to the TEXT}
[19] Another way to look at the metaphorical and
symbolic role of the desert/sea is of course
from the Odyssey. Where-upon the mysterious ways of
the Gods of Olympus have been replaced by equally
mysterious (if not more so; they are after all ALIEN ;)
ways of the aliens or "thing". This goes back to the
very heart of *alienation* that we are normally blythely
going about our daily rut, un-aware of most of life's
alternatives. To return (yes, i know, Oh, no not
AGAIN???!!!) to Sartre's "mountain climber" paradigm.
The idea is that we are walking along our usual path
(as did once Bilbo), then events transpire to transport
us to a place *connected* to the everyday and mondane.
Alex Rogan's video game world become manifest, and
the "trailer park" from which (like Didi & Gogo) they
are condemned to never leave, is suddenly transformed
into an international space port, complete with assasins,
opportunists, and natch the *one* that steps through
the looking glass: The Dreamer.
Contrast this with the "disaster" movie, the events of
the extra-ordinary impinge on what should be the totally
un-eventful. Again, from the H2G2, Arthur is simply having
to deal with a hang-over and totally lousing up the
possible relationship with a woman "mad as a hat-er"
-- just thing to shake up his mundane life. Again, in
classic style Arthur curses the landslide blicking the
mountain path. And then, once his "eyes are lifted" to
the higher horizon (by Ford, and of course the destruction
of earth), he *finally* becomes Sisyphus, realising that
he must rescue Trillian. But, the transformation of the
hero is *never* clear cut, he again can't simply "merely"
change. When confronted with the dimensional-gateway
and what appears to be *certain* (and definitely
un-pleasant death of being hacked into a million shards),
he can't bring himself to do it. And in that one moment:
Marvin: I told you it would all end in teers.
Arthur: Did you? Did you? (thru grated teeth, and those
woundrous fist movements)
He faces that despite all that he has been thru, he is
still the same, weak and in-decisive person. Not until,
he realises his "higher destiny" (and still not quite
able to come to grips with it) as part of THE ultimate
question and nearly having his brain ripped out. Only,
then does he *transform*, "Follow me". For the first
time he IS the hero.
For Alex Rogan, it when Grig ??sp?? tells of the death
of the various worlds; it is when Cochran realises that
his "mere" financial adventure will lead to man to meet
the Vulcans, and that when he says, "Why not?".
It is THAT un-certainty that James Joyce gives us, that
coming to grips with the road not taken, the actual
death of silence and indecision, that is the gift that
Joyce give us, that Homer's version of Ulysses never could.
That is what SF (as with all good literature) give us,
Be it the man with no name, or...
Xena can not be corrupted.
Nor Athena,
Nor Senior Quixote,
Nor even Sancho,
Nor Dent. Arthur Dent.
{Back to the TEXT}
Next: Aliens
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Aliens
See also: [Gordon R. Dickson]
[Niven & Pournell]
As i see it, *the* major problem for SF is to create *really*
alien aliens. Other than (as far as my limited Knowledge is)
only Dickson & Niven/Pournell have succeeded in creating a
completely alien alien.
The alien that Gordon R. Dickson created in "The Alien Way")
is *so* alien, that is actually almost impossible for
us to understand it. And of course he does this (so i read
it), by a very subtle trick (as a writer). He has a (i'm
guessing -- on majician to the next) that has a "portfolio"
of the alien, it's view of the world/life/universe/ducks,
how it reacts in various situations, etc. And all of this
is carefully worked out, and then notations are made as
to what he will or will not reveal to the reader. Then
he has to go back thru and read it (and (again guessing)
have someone else read it as well). All of this to see if
the alien-ness is at *just* that right level of Beauty,
Beauty-Squared that we all are striving for (well most
of us). That is, to not reveal too much, or better yet,
we have to re-read the book to "get it", and then (even
better, if we re-read the book a third or even a fourth,
or n-th time), we get more and more. That's what the
*good* writing is trying to do. Oddly enough, the movie
"Momento" gives us that experience, in the course of
just one viewing. And even more oddly enough, I've
seen the movie countless times to experience the perfection
of that style.
Note (as i discuss briefly in super beings), an argument
can be made that the monolith in 2001 is an alien. (Not
just a tool of some super-beings). But, in keeping with
Kubrick's & Clarke's intent of producing a purposefully
un-clear story, i only conclude: The Monlisth is Mystery
made manifest. Even on the Moon, the crew encounters it
as a "mystery to be solved" (in the small sense of mystery).
That is a "mere" artifact. Only Dave Bowman comes completely
face-to-face with Monolith as MYSTERY; and consequently is
"destroyed" (evolved, re-made, etc).
Next: Super Beings.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Super Beings.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Super Beings
NOTE: Genetic manipulation (eg, Brave New World)
is dealt with under {Evolution}
"The problem is, that now [Trek: ST-TNG], they've
made the enterprise so powerful, that they have
to make the enemies even more powerful. This means
that the plots aren't going to be as good [as classic
Trek]". (not an exact quote) -- Lynn Winters.
When we examine the "Q" character (portrayed by John
DeLancie), we see the evolution of the character to
become more human. [Note 27] This is probably
due to the writing of the various plots, in the end,
though, much of his original "super being" nature has
been lost.
Now let us step outside to super-beings as such. This
is touched on in Classic Trek [Battle with the Gorn creature] ??title??
And of course, David Bowen becomes the Star Child, a tool
by which the Monolith (the and its makers -- the true
super-beings) accomplishes its task which remains a
mystery. Note in 2010, I think that the re-interpretation
of what the role of Bowman and the Monolith are "all about"
is a reflection of Clarke's own "continued thinking" about
the problem. In the case of 2001, the Monolith (esp in
light of the "voices" that continually surround it when
ever it (or one of its manifestations) is on screen) has
this totally mysterious nature. We (from the movie) do not
know if it IS the alien or what.
In one story (i forget if it's Dick or Smith), a "star
being" rescues a space man and plucks him back on earth.
This *vast golden giant* moves thru space, as easily as
we move in a park. The analogy is made to a child. An
adult wouldn't even notice the "small insect". But, a child
(in their infinite curiosity and innocence) notices the
hapless space fairer.
Again this goes back to the ALIEN-NESS of the super-being.
In the place where (hopefully) i used to live, there finally
grew some "red algae" (rhodophyta) in the shower stall.
Being (as i was then) a vast student of mertz (see: [Schwitters]),
and in keeping with one of the cartoons in "9/11: Comic relief"
where the writer sees a little mushroom growing out from
the cracks in the tile and decides to let it live, i let
the algae live. It surrounded the main part of the shower
stall (which was rectangular) not coming too close to the
center. Eventually, the almost rust-red colony of cells
formed a U shape (see picture, below)
S: Shower Head
Super Powers
Note: I distinguish:
Super Strength (this section) = AMPLIFIED abilities; eg, strength,
vision, intellegence, etc.
Super Senses {Next section}; eg, mind
reading, tele-kinesis, etc.
Super senses
Traditionally (Superman, et al), "super heroes" have enhanced
version of our own, norrmal senses. A happy exception to this
is the *very* imaginative work in Mystery Men ??author??.
See the treatment of Super Powers (amplified normal powers);
eg, strength, vision, intellegence, etc. {Above}
In terms of classical super senses (in SF literature), very
few of these have made it into the main-stream film or vid
culture. A review is in order.
Mind reading. Of course the master here is again Philip K. Dick,
esp in "Solar Lottery" where he successfully
integrates the role of telepaths into society.
Stryzinski's view is that the telepaths see themselves as
superior, and \hence become a more *evolved* version of
humans -- again, this takes them (technically nit-picking
here) out of the category of "super being" and places them
into the category of {Homo Superior}; ie, evolved humans.
In Dick's universe people with superior powers *use* them
in society. In Solar Lottery, the government is supported
and indeed protected by the Telepaths. All telepaths are
part of the *system* and indeed seen as the guardians of
society. In the case of "Our Friends from Frolix IX" ??title??
the two forms of Homo Superior (the New-Men (evolved), and
the Specials (super powers), have split the territory of
the world between them - and the normals are just so much
nuisance and chattle. (This goes back to Huxley's divison
of society into Alpha's, Beta's, etc). See: {Huxley}, below.
Telekinesis. The ability to move or alter thngs with the mind.
One of the best examples of this is ???title???
in Stryzinksi's Babylon-Five. The ability of ??char?? goes
beyond just moving larger and larger things to the other
end of the scale. To being able to manipulate smaller and
samller things. Eventually, he literally evolves into a
star-child-like creature and leaves our reality entirely.
Next: {Evolution}
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
[27] Rather than to just "tossing it off to bad writing",
we might argue that "Q" is evolving after his
contact with humans.
Let's look at the various interactions with "Q" and how
badly written they are. The first encounter, promises
all of the makings of a true super being (Encounter at
Far Point). The second encounter is basically the whole
GOD/ADAM bit, with Q giving his powers to Riker -- who
promptly makes a mess of things; eg, aging Wesley, giving
Jordy his sight, I'm suprised he didn't offer to make
Picard's hair grow out (I can just see Patrick Stewart
again in that horrid wig he wore in "I, Claudius").
Regardless, then in "Q-pid" we again see Q as match maker;
again with the Yenta's, oi! How much of this mishigas can
a poi'sohn stand, I'm asking you?
Having dealt with the clearly BAD writing for Q, we come to
the better subsequent (from "Encounter at Far Point"), writing.
When "Q" throws the Enterprise into the midsts of the Borg,
he is back to being an arrogant super being (that was first
given as the character in the first episode). And then, again
at the very last (circular naturep; absurdity of life)
when he provides the "clues" by which Picard can "solve"
the mystery of the space-time rip. This is again Q as
super being, and very nicely caps the series with the two
scenes: "Don't you get it, the trial never ended" (not an
exact quote), and when he is about to whisper in Picards
ear the "something", and then doesn't.
But to return to the possible evolution of Q after contact
(and hence contamination by) the Humans. It is arguable
that Q (having been briefly human), has been tainted and
thus for that reason is tossed out from the continuum.
(Nicely, the exact nature of the Continuum is kept mysterious;
one of the best portrayals was in the case of the Q who
wanted to commit suicide and the surrealist "view" of
the Q continuum in ST-Voyager. (??ep??).
Thus, in many cases Q is made to be a super being, but is
still not as "alien" as he might be. (I think that this
is again a *major* problem to be addressed by SF writers
-- only Gordon R. Dickson ("The Alien Way") creates an
alien *so* alien, that is actually almost impossible for
us to understand it. Unfortunately, the Q's motivations
are pretty much "out of the hat" in the first ep.
Regardless, Q succeeds only because of DeLancie's
carrying a rather thinly written character/episode.
This is *not* what the good writing is about.
You will recall that the director and Sagan argued for
hours (as i recall the story) in "Contact", about whether
or not Reverend Palmer should use the *exact* same phrase
as her father ("otherwise, it's a pretty bad waste of
space" - not an exact quote). Any good story turns on
such seemingly minor points.
Next, of course is the argument that the humans *are*
having an effect on Q. And that this contamination might
be why Q is expelled from the continuum. And of course
this raises the level of the humans by the fact that
indeed the Q should not only be carefull of the humans
(not just dispising their corruption/infantile behaviour/etc).
That is, that the human has this *potential* to be more
than it is. (This also goes back to the pronouncements
by the Travelor, as well as ??name?? in Insurrection,
when she says, "See, and you thought it would take
years to learn [the way to step outside of time]".)
Part of this (esp in ST-TNG) was part of Roddenberry's
own personal view of human evolution - going back
again to "Where no man has been before".
See also {Evolution}
{Back to the TEXT}
[28] The "idea" of MST-3K is have Nelson and the robots
watch B movies and make comments about them. This
superb non-sense went on for some years. As part of the
wrap-around the Evil Dr. Forster (our dear, dear friend
Mary Jo Pehl) "tortures" Mike, Crow "T" Robot, and
Tom Servo by showing them movies, to break up the show,
"breaks" are taken where more stuff is written and
performed by the cast/writers. Pehl, Nelson, ???? complete cast -- HTTP LINKE!!!
anyway, it's all totally hoopy and thoroughly fab fun.
{Back to the TEXT}
Evolution
As pointed out previouse (super-man) part of the idea
that humans had the potential to be more was (at least
in ST-TNG) part of Roddenberry's own personal view of
human evolution - going back again to the first episode,
"Where no man has been before".
Again, part of the problem is that by perfecting humans
(the humans on Star Trek *do* represent humanity at its
best), it makes the plots boring and un-realistic. This
may explain my own preference for Deep Space Nine and
Voyager.
Regardless, if humans are not fall into the trap (eg, "Q")
of becoming super-human, then where should/could/might we
see evolution taking us?
Huxley - Brave New World
Huxley was among the first to meld the concept of scientific
invention and human genetic potential. The concept of people
who are engineered to *want* to be in their social class.
Esp in the case of the ***Caste***? also, [142] Adams' "dish of the day".
Cordwainer Smith: Instrumentality of Man
As Cordwainer Smith has pointed out, once we start
manipulating genetics we may modify ourselves to the point
where we are not recognisably human. At the most common level,
the paradigm of creating the "under people" (eg, humans
cross-bred with oxen, cats, etc.) is essentially the
same as creating a race of slaves (see {Huxley}, above.
Homo Superior
To a certain extent the *evolution* of David Bowmn into
the Star Child (evolved by the Monolith) can be seen as
him becoming "homo superior" -- indeed in terms of 2001's
beginning with the proto-human apes this is almost a given.
However, this section is addressed to the process of
evolution (or de-evolution; see the superb example: [Cryptozoic by Brian Aldriss.
In one episode of The Outer Limits, ??title??? David McCallum
plays a scientist that invents an evolution machine. He
climbs inside and is evolved (large head, and the
additional 6th finger on his hand). It is clear that
this not a good move; he resents and dislikes the
primitive humans. This takes us back to how we must
have "seen" our less evolved cousins in our pre-history.
Obviously, this *scenario* of super being can be taken
parallel to the encounter of modern man with less developed
cultures. This is again the *assumed* superiority of the
*modern* over the *primitive*. From an SF point of view,
even the most virullent war of primitive peoples has
never threatened to obliterate the entire planet (atom
bomb, genetic mutation gone wild, environmental degredation).
Indeed to the "primitive" human, this is un-thinkable.
An excellent example is the "Adventures of Young Indiana
Jones", in which Lucas has Indy meet Albert Schwiter.
While the "Great War" is killing millions, the primitive
chieftains can not conceive of a war that would litterally
wipe out ALL of their rivals.
The more distant from *human-ness* that the super being is,
the less likely that there can be *any* dialog at all. This
is the idea behind the "blob" in my film-novel "Hard Fall".
It is so completely different that the best that can happen
is that we each recognise the "beauty" of music -- and almost
certainly do not even perceive the same music in anything
even resembling the same way -- possibly even with the same
*senses*. See: {Super Senses}
Next: Utopia/Dystopia.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
[142] In the H2G2 (actually in "The Restaurant at the End of
the Universe), Adams proposes an end of the problem
of eating meat. A creature is created that actually wants
to be eaten. Arthur Dent replies that its disgusting that
he should offer to be eaten. The dish of the day replies
"well, sir, I can hardly offer someone else to be eaten"
-- not an exact quote.
But, again this simply begs the question (as Huxley does
not), that since we (someone) has engineered the creature
to want to be eaten, that it devolves to the creation of
the "lessor" castes (Betas, etc). On the other hand, from
an Existentialist POV, if the person is altruistic, they
might offer themselves up to be eaten. Reminding us of
course of the terrible plight in [Gericault's] painting
"Raft of the Medusa", where the men were reduced to eating
on of the victims until they were finally rescued. Thus,
(again, as Sartre reminds us), everything is about the
personal choices that we make. Indeed, in the case of
*ritual* canibalism, one can make a case for the
eloquence of offering oneself up to be eaten.
Also, in the case of the Masai, the sacred cow is given
a special place of honor:
"The cow is almost the center of life for us,"
said Mr. Naiyomah. "It's sacred. It's more
than property. You give it a name. You talk
to it. You perform rituals with it. I don't
know if you have any sacred food in America,
something that has a supernatural feel
as you eat it. That's the cow for us."
-- New York Times, 2002.06.03
This is not "mere" eating, it is societal integration of the
eater (the tribe) and the eaten (a cow) -- which through her long
life gives milk for food, the urine (which is sterile, and due
to its inorganic-salt content, used as disinfectant and to extend
the water supply), dung which is used for fuel, and finally
in the end her own very flesh as food.
As the artist John Hitchcock put it, "To the native american
the buffalo was a walking grocery story" (art talk, Brookhaven
College, 2005).
{Back to the TEXT}
Next: Utopia/Dystopia.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Utopia/Dystopia
In [BAKER, P.66]
"Russell's depiction of a scientific world State
introductes thelast and perhaps the most revealing
feature of the early 20th century dystopia, a
characteristic present in Wells's utopias but
not deeply probed unti the appearance of novels
like "We", "Brave New World", and "1984". The
discussion in chapter 4 ([Baker, Pp.21-35]), stressed
the various oppositions, such as reason and feeling,
that inform the Wellsian utopian novel and its later
variants. Russel's [Scientific Outlook], howerver,
focusse on a final but all-important aspect of
the modern dytopia, the rise of the modern
bureaucratic state (esp the Soviet Union) with its
immense party apparatus). Wells touched on this problem
in his dystopias such as When the Sleeper Awakes
but only briefly. He simply *assumed* [emph, mine]
that a scientific cluture of experts would act in
harmony without the need of governmental organisations.
As the Utopians of Men Like Gods ---???? ref--------------
naively proclaimed: "Our educatio is our government".
Russell, Zamiatin, and Huxley were not so convinced
of the political innocence of scientists or their
neutral role in the use of the state's technology.
It is this fear of benign, bureaucratcitc co-ercion
that makes BNW a political novel as well as a dark
fantasy of the future". [ROBERT S. BAKR, 66]
Indeed, as BAKER pointed out earlier:
"Russell believed that most scientists were
'citizens first and servants of truth only
in the second place'. This ... is a farily
accurate description of Mustapha Mond. ..."
[Op.Cit, P.65]
Indeed this *falacy* goes back to romantic
portrait of the scientist as being above the
fray; eg, Pp.8&ff, "Telling the Truth about
Histoyr", by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, &
Margaret Jacob. Ostensibly, scientists are
*all too humna*. For example, we have Shockley
(co-inventor of the transistor) who wante to
pay black and other "inferiors" not to reproduce.
And the curious mirror selves of Leo Silizard
and Edward Teller; the first the ultimate
pacifist, and the second a commie-phobe to the
extent that probably he did believe "better
dead than red", but no while he could achieve
a hundred-fold greater mortality rate with the
hydrogen bomb. Thus the *myth* that the scientist
is a saint -- despite the over-whelming evidence
of Einstein, Schwitzer, and even Fuchs (who
*was* worried about the nuclear imbalance --
not trusting the Americans, he made sure that
the balance of knowledge by giving the Soviets
key bits of information about the bomb).
See also: [Huxley (BNW)] (SF general page)
Next: Family and Friends.
NOTES (this section only)
[66]
Baker, Chapter 4 summary
{Back to the TEXT}
[67]
Russell summary
{Back to the TEXT}
Next: Family and Friends.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Family and Friends
Next: The Individual "i".
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: The Individual "i".
{Back to the TOP of this page}
The Individual "i"
Next: Blurble.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
NOTES (this section only)
Next: Blurble.
{Back to the TOP of this page}
Blurble
First off, I *always* distinguish between horror and sf as such.
Although to be fair the boundary is definitely fuzzy (or at
least covered in feathers and dust). For example, the original
Alien movie (and i am a *big* fan of the entire series of films!)
is NOT sf, it is pure horror. The film "Alien Ressurection" is
at first sf, but then turns to horror. Actually, the ending of
the film is so entirely grotesque that the author has to give
us this sappy happy ending to "balance" the rubbish of that
creature being pulled thru the crack in the ship.
Anyway, if a story has a robot in it, it isn't necessarily
sf.
NEXT: eof!
{Back to the TOP of this page}
