Archive for the ‘opinions’ Tag
Honest Sensitivity 1 comment
Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny Leave a comment
Winner of the Hugo Award, 1968
In the late 1960s change and turmoil swirled around me, and I took almost no notice. I knew as little of real world affairs then as I did about science fiction. The only news that registered on my mind was that regarding the “space race,” and for me science fiction was all about Tom Swift Jr. and the occasional Heinlein young adult novel about teenagers skating down the frozen canals of Mars or navigating swamps on Venus. Well, of course, there were the black-and-white B movies, watched when the weather didn’t permit outdoor activities. This was Illinois, so in the winter at least, I spent a lot of time watching macho dudes fighting bubble-headed aliens and giant insects. I suppose that counts as sci-fi on some level. That the world was changing, and changing rapidly, around my small rural town, was invisible to me. The same was true of the steady evolution of science fiction as it was influenced by and reflected those times. The genre was expanding its reach, and bringing in ideas from an ever-widening set of sources. A case in point, the winner of the 1968 Hugo for Best Novel, Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny. I was all of twelve years old, that year.
In Lord of Light, Zelazny tells the story of an alien world on which human settlers have used Hindu mythology as the framework for their civilization. Exactly why the original colonists chose this frame of reference never came clear to me, but the consequences were so well-realized that I wasn’t much troubled by this. The resultant civilization is ruled by Hindu gods and goddesses who are actually humans rendered immortal and given extraordinary powers through advanced technology. In general, this technology is kept from the rest of the human population, although reincarnation through the transfer of minds into new bodies can be earned by the faithful. This is not seen as technology, of course. It’s divine intervention. Centuries have passed since the original colonists arrived and tamed the world, a process that included the near extermination of the original sapient species discovered there. The battles that took place in that earlier era are recounted in the manner and style of epic Hindu myths and legends. Some of these indigenous inhabitants still survive, but are now considered demons and other manifestations of the supernatural. Almost everything about how humanity came to live in this place has been forgotten, a cultural amnesia encouraged by the “gods,” some of whom were the original colonists to settle the world.
One faction of the immortal population wants to reintroduce lost technology, with the goal of improving the lot of humanity on this world. The other gods, jealous of their privileged positions, want nothing of the sort. The novel is about the conflict between these factions. The book opens with the resurrection of a man named Sam, a clever fellow who dates back to the original colony, and something of a hero to those who would restore humanity to its full potential. How he came to be dead in the first place makes up the main body of the book, which is essentially one long flashback. (I missed this at first, and for a while the narrative had me a bit confused. Watch for an early chapter that ends with Sam sitting back and reflecting on his life.) The tale of Sam’s efforts to unseat the selfish gods of his world unfolds quickly and smoothly, a very different work from Zelazny’s previous Hugo winner, but clearly a work of the same mind and imagination.
The use of a non-Western mythological frame of reference was a departure for science fiction of the time, though Zelazny may not actually have been the first to do so. It was, however, one of the first novels to win the Hugo while recognizing the validity and utility of other mythic traditions for the sake of story-telling. (The other was Frank Herbert’s Dune.) That the book was written when it was is surely no coincidence, as the counter-culture inspirations of the ‘60s were at that time spilling out into the general public in a big way. The Beatles weren’t the only ones playing sitars and practicing transcendental meditation at that point. Anyone alive in that time would have been aware of how these “exotic” ideas were being embraced – and resisted – by the people around them. For those of a creative nature, it was all raw materials, grist for the mill. The science fiction genre certainly partook of these possibilities, and Lord of Light is one result. It’s a novel that remains very readable, having “aged” well, but is clearly a product of its time, as books so often are. The product of times that passed me by almost unnoticed, even as they changed the world.
YMMV 2 comments
There are plenty of people involved in online discussion groups who are more than willing to give you advice, often whether you request it or not. That advice will sometimes be presented as a Law of the Universe, and then defended vigorously when exceptions to their rule start to add up. The posting of such opinions as immutable facts, and the keyboard courage saturated flame wars that erupt in defense of these opinions, may be about the closest thing to a tradition that exists on the internet these days.
The majority of these opinions are honestly based on a person’s actual experience. Yes, there are trolls out there, people who make things up just to get a rise out of everyone else – more keyboard courage. (Don’t even get me started about the “comments” that follow news articles on the internet.) A properly managed (meaning moderated) discussion board can keep such nonsense to a minimum. And yet, vigorous debates often erupt without the presence of a troll, and seriously degrade the signal-to-noise ratio of a discussion. All it takes is for one or more of the participants to forget the truth contained within a simple phrase, one that really needs to see wider use on the internet.
Your mileage may vary.
Whether you are climbing the learning curve of amateur astronomy or working to make your self-published books more visible to the public, you’re going to find more than one way to approach any given problem. Ask a question online and you will likely receive more than one answer, and all of them may be quite correct – for the person providing the advice. The fun begins when someone mistakes his or her experience and the resulting workaround, for a rule that cannot – or must not – be violated. It worked as XYZ for this person, and so the equally useful results of another correspondent using an ABC approach must be bogus, and evidence is provided (often with a dose of sarcasm or open scorn) to prove the point. Never minding for a moment that ABC accomplished the same goal as XYZ. Is someone faking it? Is someone just trying to be a phony internet expert? It happens, but not as often as you might think. What usually happens is that an honest desire to help someone gets crossed up with an ego trip, and the possibility that another person’s experiences may solve the same problem is lost in the shuffle.
There’s a related phenomenon, in which someone tries XYZ and reports back that results weren’t as advertised. Now the provider of the advice is on the spot, and being accused (however mildly) of being wrong brings out an understandable defensiveness. Again, rudeness often ensues, and some poor moderator needs to wade in with a chair and whip to back the combatants into their respective corners. In the end, I suppose, all the necessary information ends up out there to be used, but who wants to slog through hip-deep bullshit to work with it?
It’s too easy, sitting behind a keyboard, to feel empowered and stand your ground, and forget that the other guy may be standing in more or less the same place as you. If both of you solved the same problem, both of you found the right answer, even if your answers are not the same. Sharing those answers in a public venue is a good thing, since it allows people dealing the same (or a similar) situation to consider options that may not otherwise occur to them. But to make a forum as informative as possible, for as many people as possible, we all need to remember that there are often many paths to the same goal. The fact that someone is on a path unlike your own doesn’t mean they can’t read a map. Your mileage may vary, as theirs surely did, and that will quite likely be true also of anyone you try to help.