If you're a Gene Wolfe fan, then you don't need to hear any more from me. But what if you're not?
If you've never read Gene Wolfe, I understand. There are 31 stories in this volume, and not one of them was published in Analog. Wolfe grew out of the Damon Knight/Milford tradition, and it's entirely possible that you've never been exposed to his work.
If you think you don't like Gene Wolfe's work ... again, I understand. Anyone can pick up a Bradbury story and instantly be drawn into it. LeGuin and Delany take a little bit more work, but not much. And some readers jump right into Wolfe as easy as stepping on an escalator. But a lot of others find that his work requires some effort. (A lot, of course, depends on the particular story.) Now, most everyone finds that his work rewards the effort ... but sometimes you have to be in the right mood to tackle a Gene Wolfe tale. And if you've run into his stuff while you weren't in the mood, you could easily get turned off.
If you've never read Wolfe before, or if you're doubtful, go to the library and try some of the stories in this book. “Petting Zoo” and “Has Anybody Seen Junie Moon?” are fairly accessible, and “The Island of Doctor Death and Other Stories” is a classic. “The Fifth Head of Cerberus” is longer, but quite rewarding. By the time you've finished those, you'll know whether you are a Gene Wolfe fan or not.
And if you are, you'll have the whole rest of the book to look forward to. You can return that library copy and buy one of your own.
* * * *
Let's see ... by this time I've scandalized some of my purebred SF friends by recommending some Real Literature; I've left some of my hardcore Literary friends feeling faint by recommending some honest-to-Ghu Science Fiction; and I've annoyed both groups by suggesting that they are sometimes two sides of the same coin. Now let's see if I can go ahead and alienate everyone by recommending, as a fine example of both Science Fiction and Literature, a (gasp!) comic book. And not only that, but a comic book that's been made into a movie.
* * * *
Watchmen
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
DC Comics, 416 pages, $19.99
ISBN: 978-0-930289-23-2
Genres: Superhero, Graphic Novels
Science Fiction? Really?
* * * *
All right, not in the modern Analog sense, not any more than Bradbury. But in the wider, Astounding Stories sense, yes. There's technology, both mechanical and biological. There's physics. There's a trip to Mars. There's psi. There's a consistent alternate history, and an underlying logic to all the events in the story. And there's sense of wonder to spare.
Literature? Really?
Yes. Alan Moore is a literary writer. The story involves grand themes of human existence, and small personal themes of individual human characters. There is symbolism, both subtle and overt. Not only is there poetry to the words, but there is poetry in the art as well.
As with most great books, a summary of the plot is inadequate. Watchmen is set in an alternate version of the 1980s, a world in which superheroes exist and play their part among the forces that shape the world. In the 1960s the premier superhero group in the world came under the influence of the United States government. Some heroes were sent to Vietnam to win the war and enforce American hegemony; others retired at government insistence ... and some became outlaws. Now two decades have passed, and someone is killing the heroes. From here, the story goes into the nature of power and control, the meaning of heroism and hero-worship, and (of course) various plots to control and/or destroy the world.
Watchmen is not easy to read. The story is dense, and it's very violent. Some of the characters are unpleasant, others are delightful. There's a lot of psychological depth, and in the end there is no easy answer to the many questions the book poses. If you still think comics are for children, this one will convince you otherwise ... I wouldn't let even the most well-adjusted child near this book.
Still, Watchmen is a classic, and it deserves your attention. n
Copyright © 2009 Don Sakers
* * * *
Don Sakers is the author of A Rose From Old Terra and Dance for the Ivory Madonna. For more information, visit www.scatteredworlds.com.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Reader's Department: BRASS TACKS
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I liked your thoughts in your March 2009 column about large changes to society that are may not be possible to accomplish with merely incremental, evolutionary change. As an example that might call for non-evolutionary change, you discussed a transition to a culture where we discard wasteful over-consumption and enjoy added leisure. I agree with your goal, but I disagree with your description of the problem. As I read your problem statement, it is that society, out of a false assumption of the necessity of full employment has invented vast amounts of easily-identified, useless make-work, and that an obvious improvement would eliminate that make-work and divide the remaining work between workers each working fewer hours.
I think that any cultural assumption of the need for full employment has no bearing on why we have this alleged make-work. The main incentives in private enterprise are to cut payrolls to the bone, eliminating any job that does not somehow contribute perceived value that some customer is willing to buy. All the cases you describe as make-work, I would describe as natural, profit-driven strategies to meet existing customer demand: You cite as make-work doormen, fashion, and the advertising that sustains its demand, and things built not to last, including outright disposables. While I agree that these are all inefficient uses of labor and physical resources, I strongly disagree that “making work,” against all profit-motivated reason, has anything to do with the motivation behind this waste. Instead, I think most economically wasteful activity comes from a combination of two main sources of inefficient economic choices, choices that make these inefficient uses of labor and resources profitable for corporations:
*Humans crave status—we are instinctively driven to seek rank as “alpha” mates. In Western society, status is largely a function of economic rank, as displayed through visible consumption, so this drives a perceived “need” to consume in fashion-driven ways that can match any level of productivity we might reach. There is a profitable market for boundless fashion-driven consumption (of all sorts—fancy cars, houses, ballet tickets, hotels with doormen, etc.) and advertising (to manipulate our perceptions of what will bring us status points most efficiently).
*Humans evaluate long-term costs poorly. There are really two sub-problems here. First, most environmental costs are hidden from the consumer. A two-cent plastic bag that (hypothetically) does fifty cents worth of damage to the environment, in production and disposal, still costs just two cents, and the consumer is blissfully unaware of the external cost to the environment. Second, humans place too much weight on short-term costs versus long-term costs, badly undervaluing the long-term savings of a more-durable but more-expensive product. If people were willing to pay four times more for a product that lasts ten years than for a product that lasts two years, profit-driven corporations would not hesitate to build more durable products, however many people that might put out of work in the long run!
How do we avoid these inefficiencies? As you point out, any solution involving central planning of the economy is likely to be disastrous— free enterprise is still the most efficient way to run an economy. However, even the most ardent free-enterprise advocates agree that it makes sense to internalize external costs, and that smart consumers will make better choices than ignorant ones. Consumption that is damaging to the environment or that permanently depletes non-renewable resources (causing hidden external costs to future generations deprived of those resources) should be taxed proportionally to the harm done—this is no harder to justify than the old “you break it, you pay for it” common sense rule that we all learn as children.
Education, in the broadest sense (which includes media such as this magazine), and evolutionary cultural change is, I think, the best solution to the problem of fool
ish consumers. We will probably never learn to devalue status—status-seeking seems to be built into our genomes, but we can learn to value more highly status metrics that are not based on high consumption, and can even learn to hold conspicuous consumption in contempt. The current fashion for living green is an interesting step in the right direction—actually turning people's status-driven desire to be in fashion into a reason to avoid obviously environmentally damaging forms of wasteful consumption! Culture could evolve to place higher status on products built to last longest, and schools could teach the merits of considering lifetime costs, when choosing our purchases. Study of history and of other cultures can teach that we can live well with far less than we imagine and that moderate consumption with abundant leisure is a happier lifestyle than abundant consumption with little leisure to enjoy it.
Dan Tow
Palo Alto, CA
* * * *
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
I would like to comment on your recent editorial “How Do We Get There From Here?” wherein you postulated that our society could have more happiness and leisure, with less work and fewer resources consumed, if we simply stopped buying stuff we really don't need (and paying to store it just in case we ever want to use it).
So, “How do we get there from here?” Actually, it should be quite simple. A society of modest desires, a sense of community cooperation for the big stuff, and a decent work ethic should be more efficient than our current society. In addition, it should be more economically sound and therefore secure. The extra efficiencies combined with a less materialistic mindset should also allow for greater happiness and leisure with less work. Those are strong selling points.
There are already examples of communities, such as the Amish, that live a different existence in our midst for extended periods of time. If groups of people who wish to voluntarily engage in “cooperative capitalism of modest desires” form their own communities, then the positive example that they set should rapidly draw new members. Thus, they would eventually grow to encompass all sufficiently evolved individuals while the rest of society struggles on and learns the hard way.
This method requires no grand plan, no government involvement, and no coercion. It can be started in any size and place amongst any group that wants to, according to the basic principles that they feel are most important. And the successful groups would naturally grow using only the time-tested method of leading by example. Another benefit is that it allows many different forms that can adapt to many different circumstances and personality types.
I have personally evolved from a “can I afford that” attitude to a “do I need that” attitude recently. One of the motivating factors was a dramatic reduction in disposable income and another was a challenging time that forced me to reassess my priorities. As such, we may all soon experience a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the way Americans in general think about labor, resources, and consumption. So, let's get started...
Now here's a challenge from me to you (or your readers). How does one have a healthy economy in a declining population base? This is the ultimate question that must be answered for long-term stability.
Keith H Bowen
* * * *
Dear Stan,
First, I must say that I absorb every word of every Analog—what a great resource for new thinking and pure entertainment! Your March 2009 editorial really hit onto something I have been mulling over for a few years now. Obviously we all must pull together to do something different in our societal arrangement.
I believe a great first step would be to manufacture goods with much longer service lives. I think we have already done this in the automotive industry although there have been serious lag times between new technology and the consumer. I think of my own case (luckily retired with a good pension); I more and more have to replace items that in the past gave me many times the service lives of most products. Sure, it gives workers more paid hours to keep pumping out necessary items. But for instance, if I could buy a refrigerator, washer, or dryer for more original outlay of money, but it would last four times as long (like times past), I would have less money going out, and I would not need as much income to keep a reasonable standard of living. Manufacturing workers also would need less to keep their households running. Therefore the fewer hours being spent on the job along with commensurate pay cuts would soon be balanced out by needing to spend less. I suggest that a perfect first step to your ideal society could simply be a return to the manufacture of higher quality goods. This one step could require more time worked per item, which then could be split into more workers.
I am old enough to remember stoves, refrigerators, washers, and dryers that seemed to never need replacing. Now a new top-end product such as that has a useful lifetime of a few years without major outlays for repairs or replacements. Better major items like these would of course mean a lot less spending per household, so the household would need fewer paid hours of work to maintain their living standards, and far less energy and resources would be consumed also.
Just one step in the right direction—quality, quality, quality! This, I believe, shows that changes to a new societal order can be done incrementally.
Sincerely with gratitude to you and the Analog staff for producing one of these very high quality products.
Garrin Fullington
Hilo, Hawai'i
* * * *
Stan,
Regarding the March 2009 issue of Analog: I loved David Bartell's “Cavernauts"!
Boyd Waters
Socorro, NM
* * * *
Stan,
I thought you might like hearing about something I experienced recently. The current commander of the International Space Station (Colonel “Mike” Finke) is a fan of mine, and this week NASA set up an AV link so we could talk live. It was quite cool to be talking in real-time with an astronaut in orbit. One of the things he mentioned was looking for my stories in Analog when NASA transmitted the e-book versions up to the station. Which means that Analog has a subscriber in orbit.
John G. Hemry
[Back to Table of Contents]
Reader's Department: UPCOMING EVENTS by Anthony Lewis
6-10 August 2009
ANTICIPATION (67th World Science Fiction Convention) at Palais des congres de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Guests of Honor: Neil Gaiman, Elisabeth Vonarburg; Fan Guest of Honor: Taral Wayne; Editor Guest of Honor: David G. Hartwell; Publisher Guest of Honor: Tom Doherty; MC: Julie Czerneda. Membership: until 15 July 2009 (see website for latest details): CAD/AUD 240, USD 200; GBP 135; EUR 145; JPY 18000; supporting membership CAD/AUD 55; USD 50; GBP 30; EUR 35; JPY 6000. This is the SF universe's annual get-together. Professionals and readers from all over the world will be in attendance. Talks, panels, films, fancy dress competition—the works. Nominate and vote for the Hugos. Info: www.anticipationsf.ca/English/ Home. C.P. 105, Succursale NDG, Montréal, Québec, Canada H4A 3P4
4-7 September 2009
North America Discworld Convention (conference dedicated to Terry Pratchett's Discworld books) at The Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, Tempe, AZ. Guest of Honor: Terry Pratchett; other guests: Esther Friesner, Diane Duane, Peter Morwood. Info: www.nadwcon.org, [email protected], +1.480.945.6890, North American Discworld Convention 2009, c/o Leprecon, Inc., P.O. Box 26665, Tempe, AZ 85285.
18-20 September 2009
FENCON VI (Dallas/Ft Worth area SF conference) at Crowne Plaza North Dallas, Addison, TX. Guest of Honor: Lois McMaster Bujold; Music Guest of Honor: Carla Ulbrich; Fen Guest of Honor: Warren Buff; Artist Guest of Honor: Kurt Miller; Toastmaster: Paul Cornell; Special Guest: Keith R.A. DeCandido. Membership: $35 until 1 September, $40 at the door. Info: www/fencon.org/, FenCon, PO Box 701448, Dallas, TX 75370-1448.
2-6 September 2010
AUSSIECON FOUR (68th World Science Fiction Convention) at Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Guest of Honor: Kim Stanley Robinson; Artist Guest of Honor: Shaun Tan; Fan
Guest of Honor: Robin Johnson. Membership from 1 January 2009 until some later date (see website for latest details): AUD 210, USD 175, CAD 185, GBP 100, EUR 120, JPY 16000; supporting membership AUD 70, USD 50, CAD 50, GBP 25, EUR 35, JPY 4900. This is the SF universe's annual get-together. Professionals and readers from all over the world will be in attendance. Talks, panels, films, fancy dress competition—the works. Nominate and vote for the Hugos. Info: www.aussiecon4.org.au/, info@ aussiecon4.org.au, GPO Box 1212, Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3001
* * *
Visit www.analogsf.com for information on additional titles by this and other authors.
Analog SFF, July-August 2009 Page 38