(Blog Post 8/31)
- Lem
After reading Stanislaw Lem’s “On the Structural Analysis of Science Fiction,” there are quite a few fascinating points and arguments within the text. However, for the sake of answering this question, I’d like to focus on one of his points that intrigued me the most. Throughout the reading, the author adopts a critical tone regarding science fiction (SF) and how the genre can “profit from this paralysis of the reader’s critical apparatus…”. In other words, Lem is stating that as a result of science fiction commonly portraying the future or extraterrestrials, SF authors can get away with falsifications that result in a reader or viewer being often “unable to formulate a clear and pointed criticism.” Additionally, the author contrasts the differences between SF and other fictional categories such as fairy tales and myths. This juxtaposing in turn aids the reader in comprehending some of the stark differences between these genres, expanding on the elements of literature and composition that define SF.
The author defines science fiction as a fictional genre that, unlike a classical fairy tale, lacks the depiction of the world around it as one that is “oriented positively toward man.” Fairy tales lack “physical accidents that result in anyone’s death,” and “irreparable damage to the positive hero.” Science fiction on the other hand is composed in more of a negative manner, with Lem using the example: “Do what you will, you’ll still become guilty of killing your father and committing incest.” If the depicted world is oriented neutrally, in which it’s consistent with the real world in its contemporary shape, it’s likely science fiction. In other words, the goal of SF is to maintain the reader/audience having an empirical and rational understanding regardless of how ludicrous the content may be. Science fiction needs explanation and reason, as “there can be no inexplicable marvels, no transcendences, no devils or demons – and the pattern of occurrences must be verisimilar.”
When looking at the approach that Stainlaw Lem has on science fiction, I understand where he is coming from. As I mentioned above, there are indeed a variety of negative drawbacks that can arise from SF literature. With Lem himself being one of the most well-known science fiction writers, it makes sense for him to identify these shortcomings that can arise from SF literature. Perhaps his excellence can be attributed to the sheer criticalness and honesty that is quite apparent from this reading. He identifies what SF authors are doing wrong, such as describing how SF authors try to justify their storyline with the logic of “anything can happen” and therefore “anything that happens to occur to us” can be implemented into their SF literature. Lem was quite aware of how preposterous it truly was to use that logic, as he states “it is not true, even in a purely mathematical sense, that anything can happen for there are infinities of quite different powers.” Lem was better than that and had a different definition of what science fiction should be in comparison to others. This approach certainly enhanced his craft and made him a better writer than many others in comparison. However on the contrary, when is it that you can bend the rules? What about the examples of successful science fiction books/films that did defy all logic and “mathematical sense?” While his approach is one that I agree with, there are outliers to what he’s emphasizing, and I see that as a negative.
(Blog Post 9/21)
There truly is a vast amount of information that I’ve learned from the readings. As one who has always had an interest in both American and global history, I find the readings incredibly interesting. Due to the sheer capacity of material derived from the readings, I’d like to begin and focus on Stephen Whitfield’s “The Culture of the Cold War.” For one, like most American college students, I’ve heard stories about the communist paranoia that existed in this nation during those times. However, I genuinely lacked the knowledge regarding the seriousness of the matter. The utter concern and angst regarding domestic communism were enormous. It was so bad that even Hellen Keller was on the verge of being investigated due to her support for the Soviet Union. I mention this example as this was truly an enlightening moment for me and my understanding of the Cold War. Regardless of Keller being both blind and deaf, the terror that resided within this nation during such time resulted in the FBI nearly filing an inquiry into her possible USSR connections. Furthermore, I see parallels between this feeling of uncertainty and paranoia and our most recent novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” As we’ve discussed in class, a premise in the theme of the text resides on this uncertainty of who is who. In other words, is she/he an authentic human or an android? This contrasts perfectly with this uncertainty of lacking the knowledge of who the Soviet spies just might be. I believe that this mindset is one that happens rarely, and the 1968 publishing date of the novel coincides with such thoughts during the time. I firmly believe that Phillip K. Dick’s depiction of androids would never have come to be if it wasn’t for such uncertainty and paranoia during such a time. Moreover, these readings provide us both representation and a description of mindsets during years when authors such as Dick were composing these novels. I have a feeling that the upcoming SF texts will share similar parallels. However, these assigned readings provide a vast amount of background and explanation for our science fiction novels, and I’m excited to make further connections in the future.
Protected: Reading responses for Monday, 9/21 (Cold War background texts)
(Blog Post 9/28)
To begin, I’d like to start by saying that there’s a copious amount of directions that I can go in regards to answering this question. However, I’d like to focus on Social Realism, and how it directly impacted and affected Eastern Bloc science fiction authors such as Ernst Bloch. With the Soviet Union under the rule of Joseph Stalin, there was extreme censorship of literature being composed at the time. With the Soviet Union controlling and founding the nation of East Germany after World War II, there are a variety of examples that show East German science fiction literature being directly affected by such events. “Essentially, the SED expected GDR artists to mirror its policies and portray the “reality” it envisioned.” (Fritzsche 68) In other words, artists and writers of the German Democratic Republic had to adjust their work to conform with the standards set into place by the Soviet Union. These standards were based on the adoption of Soviet socialist realism. Socialist realism in essence was using “literature functions as an educative tool.” Its ideal socialist reality sets an example for the reader. Lukacs argues that art and literature should represent the ‘totality of life’ in a manner that presents the reader with a totality of meaning. This had an immense impact on not just East German writers but all writers throughout the USSR. During a 1965 debate on science fiction in Moscow, a writer, Omegin, is quoted as saying “Everything can’t be strictly within the limits of the Primer of Marxist Philosophy” (Toman 171) To add some context, Omegin is talking about how Polish science fiction writers are better off than Soviet ones, as they lack the limitations that are imposed from the USSR. Furthermore, this gives a first-hand example of how these Soviet authors felt due to these restrictions. When looking at Ernst Bloch, one thing that I found truly fascinating was his age. Bloch was German-born in 1885 and spent most of his life, especially as a writer, without such restrictions. However after the 1949 founding of the GDR, he adapted and moved back to East Germany where he used “the methodologies of Marx, Engels, and Lenin..,” and “finds his principle of hope in Marxism, believing it to be “the unity of hope and a process of cognition,” (Fritzsche 71) However despite this, “in 1955, the SED declared him to be an “ideological enemy.” Furthermore, despite literature that even praised Marxist ideas, it was still subject to criticism and attacks from the Soviet Union.
Protected: Reading responses for Mon. 9/28 (Communism, socialist realism, & science fiction)
(Blog Post 10/26)
“In short, we got out of the Zone, and we were sent into the delouser — the scientists call it the medical hanger — along with the boot. They washed us in three different boiling vats and in their alkaline solutions, smeared us with some gunk, sprinkled us with some powder, and washed us again, then dried us off and said, ‘OK, friends, you’re free!’ ”
I chose these sentences as they demonstrate the seriousness of the Zone. Throughout the two chapters that we have so far read, the Zone is something that defines the entire storyline. Moreover, including sentences such as these two gives a good idea of the general way that the concept of the Zone is characterized within the text. The moment the characters leave the Zone, they essentially had to quarantine, clean themselves, and simply be safe to reenter the world again. This shows the true danger that surrounds the Zone, which is a general theme that is carried through the two chapters. The statement, “OK, friends you’re free” truly shows the process that they had to take in order to be deemed safe to reenter. This theme reminds me of the concept of radiation. The process of taking off a “special suit” reminds me of those cleaning nuclear waste, such as at Chernobyl, or the relatively recent Fukushima meltdown. I also see the cleaning of their bodies similar to the process of when people who come in contact with high levels of radiation enter the process of cleaning and getting rid of any radiation that may still permeate their bodies. This parallel, in my view, makes sense. Perhaps the brothers were immensely inspired by the concept of radiation and its effects on the body and outside world when writing this novel. Additionally, with the publishing of the novel in 1972, the Cold War could have certainly played on inspiration on both of the writers’ ideas and the plot of the novel. With the concept of radiation and nuclear fallout being so prevalent during those times, it really is no surprise that this idea of entering the “Zone” is more like entering an area of extreme radioactivity. Furthermore, the general sense of danger that I mentioned earlier throughout the text is also quite eerily similar to possibly the feeling that was prevalent during the heightened moments of the Cold War. Many people were always on their toes, unsure of what was coming next, how they would face upcoming adversity, and continue with their lives through such tense moments.
Protected: Reading responses for Mon., 10/26 (Roadside Picnic)
(Blog Post 11/2)
Close Reading pg.32
“Each took for granted certain relationships that the other could not even see. For instance, this curious matter of superiority, of relative height, was important to the Urrasti; they often used the word “higher” as a synonym for “better” in their writings, where an Anarresti would use “more central.” But what did being higher have to do with being foreign? It was one puzzle among hundreds.”
I chose this passage as it highlights a common theme that we see throughout the first three chapters we’ve read. Shevek is from an entirely different planet, Annares, which has a rival, Urras. These sentences above show significant differences in the way that these people from different planets act. Furthermore, with this passage being at the very beginning of the book, it sets a precedent for what is to be expected in the forthcoming chapters/pages. For example, just a few pages later on page 35, we see Shevek and Kimoe disagreeing on the equality of women. Kimoe, in an argument that unfortunately is still said in the real world, states that because men are physically stronger than women, men are superior. However, what I find so intriguing is the sheer sophistication of Shevek’s response. “Yes, often, and larger, but what does that matter when we have machines? And even when we don’t have machines, when we must dig with the shovel or carry on the back, the men maybe work faster — the big ones — but the women work longer. . . . Often I have wished I was as tough as a woman.” The similarity between Shevek and Kimoe in this instance is that both have a view that is ingrained in both of them. The idea of having an alternative to the already-conformed societal norms seems bonkers to them. For Shevek, not considering women as equals seemed ridiculous and a shame. Kimoe, on the other hand, appeared to have quite a similar reaction of surprise and shock when Shevek spoke on womens’ equality. This is where my passage is relevant. “Each took for granted relationships that the other could not even see” is identical to the example I just gave. The inhabitants on the planets live quite differently from each other, while still sharing parallels such as “Can I have something to drink?” Moreover, we see early on in the novel that individuals from each of the planets have vast differences that for each other seems quite hard to comprehend. After reading these three chapters, I’m quite curious to see how these differences play out.
Protected: Reading responses for Monday, 11/2 (The Dispossessed)
(Blog Post 9/14)
Sentence:
“It’s a universal principle operating throughout the universe; the entire universe is moving toward a final state of total, absolute kippleization.”
In this sentence, an extremely important topic that pertains to the entire subject of the novel comes up. The story is based on a catastrophic post-war world regarding human civilization as we know it. While I’ve only read to chapter 13 at this point, I can assume that “World War Terminus” as the novel coins it, was a devastating nuclear war that can be evident by examples of “fallout” and “brain damage from the dust.” Furthermore, when focusing on the character of Isidore, we find someone who appears to be far worse off than Rick. Isidore who meets a girl named “Pris,” explains to her that “kipple” is useless objects, like junk mail or match folders after you use the last match or gum wrappers or yesterday’s homeopape. When nobody’s around, kipple reproduces itself. For instance, if you go to bed leaving any “kipple” around your apartment, when you wake up the next morning there’s twice as much of it. It always gets more and more.” I include this long quote sheerly for the reason that Kipple in essence, as the way that I interpret its meaning within the novel, is the inevitable doom faced because of how unlivable planet earth has become. The “kipple” is essentially the means to an eventual end that you truly cannot control without human interference. Without such interaction with the “kipple,” the planet’s condition will continue to get worse. It’s almost as if the “kipple” is a side effect of the nuclear fallout and destruction, post-“World War Terminus.” For further clarification regarding what “kippleization” truly is, we can also look at an excerpt that Rick states, “the entire planet had begun to disintegrate into junk, and to keep the planet habitable for the remaining population the junk had to be hauled away occasionally . . . or, as Buster Friendly liked to declare, Earth would die under a layer – not of radioactive dust – but of “kipple.” Perhaps “kipple” is a more friendly word that suppresses the grimness of the planet’s condition?