Archive for February, 2011

There is a movie from the 1970’s called THE PAPER CHASE which all law students are practically required to see, or at least, so they were in my day. Here is the money quote. The toughest professor in the school is addressing the helpless gaggle of First Years.

Professor Kingsfield: You come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

The line is striking, especially if delivered with impeccable sarcasm by the immortal John Houseman, but let us not overlook that this line is a promise. We, the public, whose lives are ruled by a legal system run by those who think like lawyers, depend for our liberties and even our lives on the promise that our legal system will not be in the hands of those whose skulls are filled with mush.

I was reminded of this quote today.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has held, as a matter of law, Congress has the power to regulate, through the Commerce Clause, any action or inaction, including mental activity or inactivity, including any decision or failure to decide by anyone in the jurisdiction of the United States, which may have an affect on reality.

The reason is that actions affect interstate commerce, including the action of deciding not to purchase a good or service in the amount and quality and under the conditions the state commands, and that mental activity, such as thought, affects actions, therefore mental activity falls under the Commerce Clause.

I kid you not.
Read the remainder of this entry »

15 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Tyche, the TENTH Planet

Posted February 26, 2011 By John C Wright

There is a rumor floating around that the WISE project data might discover an ice giant somewhere out in the Oort cloud

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/up-telescope-search-begins-for-giant-new-planet-2213119.html

The hunt is on for a gas giant up to four times the mass of Jupiter thought to be lurking in the outer Oort Cloud, the most remote region of the solar system. The orbit of Tyche, would be 15,000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth’s, and 375 times farther than Pluto’s, which is why it hasn’t been seen so far.

My comment: exciting news, but the newspapers keep referring to this as a NINTH planet, when Clyde Tombaugh discovered a ninth planet long ago, Yuggoth on the Rim, also called Dis, before he vanished under mysterious circumstances from his observatory at Arkham.

Read the remainder of this entry »

4 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Atlas Shrugged Film

Posted February 25, 2011 By John C Wright

At least one reviewer says they did the book exactly right.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=21923

The story is really the star here. It’s a film on gleaming blue rails that carefully follow the curves of the landscape Ayn Rand created over 50 years ago. There won’t be any unpleasant surprises for devotees of the novel. No Jar-Jar moments to make you cringe.

My comment: I am actually shocked, pleasantly shocked, that this film could get made in the modern day, apparently true enough to the original to get the nod from (at least) one reviewer.

I thought the end product would be more Hollywoodized than this reviewer makes it sound. For example, John Galt declares in ringing tone: I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. And Jar-jar Binks replies: I don’t know. Mesa day startin pretty okee-day with a brisky morning munchy, then BOOM! Gettin very scared and grabbin that Jedi and POW! Mesa here!

Uh, sorry I said that. Pass the Brain Clorox please.

Read the remainder of this entry »

2 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Mr. McCabe and the Long Sought Utopia

Posted February 24, 2011 By John C Wright

Let me post a link to the book HERETICS by G.K. Chesterton, the author most famous for his Father Brown detective stories, albeit this polymath also wrote apologetic, political and social observations, biographies, plays, trifles, and even a science fiction yarn or two.

As an atheist, I read the essays of Joseph McCabe long before I read a word, or even heard the name, of Mr. G.K. Chesterton.

So it is with a peculiar sense of revisiting a long-forgotten childhood scene that I come across the following quote by McCabe, part of an ongoing (but apparently congenial) debate between the two. Call me unobservant, but I had not known the two were contemporary, much less engaged in a joust.

Here is McCabe:

“Mr. Chesterton […] is as serious as I am in his ultimate purpose, and I respect him for that. He knows, as I do, that humanity stands at a solemn parting of the ways. Towards some unknown goal it presses through the ages, impelled by an overmastering desire of happiness. To-day it hesitates, lightheartedly enough, but every serious thinker knows how momentous the decision may be.

It is, apparently, deserting the path of religion and entering upon the path of secularism. Will it lose itself in quagmires of sensuality down this new path, and pant and toil through years of civic and industrial anarchy, only to learn it had lost the road, and must return to religion? Or will it find that at last it is leaving the mists and the quagmires behind it; that it is ascending the slope of the hill so long dimly discerned ahead, and making straight for the long-sought Utopia? This is the drama of our time, and every man and every woman should understand it.

Read the remainder of this entry »

16 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Death of Higher Beings in Science Fiction

Posted February 22, 2011 By John C Wright

According to my Jesuit Confessor, Father Pharisee de Casuist, my vow not to write on my blog except on Friday and only to post a link is not broken if, in the act of posting a link, and quoting an extensive quote, I only make a comment with the intention of explaining what the link means. The difference is in the intent, whether specific or general, ad hoc or in media res, whether per annum or per stirpes, or, as the Schoolmen say, ‘Nemo Intellectia Latine‘ which translates as ‘I don’t know the correct declension for Intellectum.’

So here is the link, followed by a comment:

I happened across this essay by Alexei and Cory Panshin called ‘The Death of Science Fiction.’ The half-joking theory is that Robert Heinlein’s NUMBER OF THE BEAST killed off science fiction.

The authors describe a change between Victorian science fiction and modern science fiction.

By Victorian SF they mean HG Wells and Olaf Stapledon, with their cosmic visions of man evolving into the remotest future, either into diabolic Morlocks, or into the godlike Eighteenth Men.

By ‘modern’ they mean the Hard SF of John W. Campbell Jr. and his three star writers, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and A.E. van Vogt.

The principle difference, so the Panshins argue, was a loss of the cosmic sense of wonder at the appalling sweep of evolution, from deep past to remotest future, and the substitution of the Heinlein’s ‘competent man’ or Van Vogt’s superman, who overcomes by means of his superiority in technical ability or an advanced non-Aristotlian ‘thought system.’

The Panshins go on to argue that a similar cusp occurred between Campbellian Hard SF and the New Wave, which they call (with saccharine crude cuteness) ‘New Head’ SF.

The subject of the essay is the causes behind the the death of Campbellian SF and its rebirth as New Wave.

The bottom line is that the ‘competent man’ SF hero has innate limitations (for what happens when he meets something beyond his competence?). When confronted with those limitations Heinlein (and by extension, the whole Campbellian philosophy) collapses into solipsism, such as is painfully on display in NUMBER OF THE BEAST, both as a theme and as a literal plot mechanism.

I confess I am not persuaded of the main points in the essay, for reasons cramped space and menacing deadlines permit me not to relate. I will merely say that authors write from the viewpoint of narrowly conformist Leftwing piety, not even hinting that any other world view could exist, and so there is no examination of the axioms of their argument. It is presented as a take it or leave it deal. I leave it.

But the essay is rich enough in insights and germs of new ideas that it can be enjoyed even by one skeptical of its persuasive value.

Read the remainder of this entry »

48 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Steampunk is a Diabolical Czech Invention

Posted February 19, 2011 By John C Wright

This is a tale of dreams lost and dreams found again, a tale of wonder. But first, I will irk you, dear reader, with a discussion of definitions.

Damon Knight once famously defined ‘science fiction’ as “whatever I am pointing at when I say ‘science fiction’!” — this is a perfectly useful definition, if you happen to have Damon Knight on hand to come by your house and point at your science fiction bookshelf, so he can tell you whether a technothriller, lost race tale, magical realism tale, science fantasy, vampire romance, space opera or Cthulhu mythos tale or other sub-genre is really science fiction or not.

I have a simplistic one word definition. If it is extraterrestrial and futuristic, it is science fiction; if it is otherworldly and nostalgic, it is fantasy. I realize this is two words rather than one, but I am an SF writer, not a mathematician, dammit.

What do we do, then, now that science fiction is such an old genre that our earliest works of future speculation are themselves nostalgic? The era of the Extraordinary Voyages of Jules Verne is as lost and past to us as the Third Age of Middle Earth. How can my one word definition explain the futuristic nostalgia that is steampunk?

The answer is: it cannot, darn it. I have to call Damon Knight and have him come over to my house and point at my manuscripts, or otherwise I cannot make them science fiction. And Mr Knight is getting tired.

This lead us immediately to ask: who dared to invent this ‘steampunk’ genre, whose only point in life is to make it hard for me to make up a one-word definition? Is not steampunk a DIABOLICAL INVENTION? Is it not a Communist Plot from Czechoslovakia?

That answer is “Of Course”! For behold! Here is the film Vynález zkázy, the DIABOLICAL INVENTION, which, if it is not the steam-powered Holy Grail of Steampunkishness, it surely ought to be.

Read the remainder of this entry »

1 Comment. Join the Conversation

Wright’s Writing Corner – Plot We’ve Got

Posted February 18, 2011 By John C Wright

Slightly tardy, here is Wednesday’s writing column.

Skip on over to the journal of Mrs. Wright for an interesting insight on the nature of plot and significance. It is not an insight I have heard before, and may be original to her.

http://arhyalon.livejournal.com/190735.html

Read the remainder of this entry »

1 Comment. Join the Conversation

Postmodern Blasphemy: Deconstruction and Darkness

Posted February 18, 2011 By John C Wright

A previous post here consisted of a link to an essay by Leo Grin, a yodel of approval, and comment that there is an objective right and wrong, not merely in ethics, but in that part of aesthetics which touch ethics, to the degree that the imagination shapes the moral character.

An afterthought posted here draws a distinction between deconstruction (which I was criticizing) and dark, pagan, grim or melancholic fantasy (which I was not).

This is just a short follow up to those earlier posts. A reader (whose family no doubt has some blood of Liosalfar in their veins) asks:

Speaking of deconstructions, are you familiar with Poul Anderson’s “The Queen of Air and Darkness”?

I have read it, and enjoyed it. It is one of Anderson’s more famous works.

Are you offering that up as an example of deconstruction? If so, would beg to differ.

Spoiler after the cut. I give away the suprise ending. Don’t look until you’ve read the story.

And if you have not read it, hang your head in shame! Turn yourself in to the Reading Police of the World Science Fiction Guild, so your fanboy card can be ripped up, and you will be classed as a a “mundane” until you rectify the oversight.

Read the remainder of this entry »

40 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Fritz Leiber

Posted February 17, 2011 By John C Wright

Ted Gioia posts a retrospective of Fritz Leiber at 100, and wondered why the author of CONJURE WIFE and OUR LADY OF DARKNESS and GATHER, DARKNESS and Fafrd and Gray Mouser yarns and Change War stories, is unknown and out of stock in the bookstores. Good question. He is the guy who invented magical realism before it was magical realism. This is the guy who coined the term ‘Sword and Sorcery.’

A few weeks ago, the 100th anniversary of author Fritz
Leiber’s birth passed largely unnoticed.  The literary
community offered up no tributes.  No celebrations or
symposiums were held.  Perhaps that should come as
little surprise.  None of Leiber’s books are in stock at my
local chain bookstores, and most of his writing is out of
print.  Yet few authors of the 20th century anticipated the
storytelling of the current day with more prescience than
Leiber…

Read the whole thing
then go out an buy at least two Fritz Leiber paperbacks, you young whippersnappers!

Kids these days! Say “Grok!” or “R’Lyeh!” and they look at you like you are from the dread and dreaded planet Ploor. They don’t even know what ether is, or why it is QX for ether to be clear. Do they even know enough to fear the beautiful but evil Sorainya of Gyronchi, Queen of the End of Time? Do they know why Tweel of Mars says “one-one two, yes! two-two four, no!” or why the Ninth Barsoomian Ray is so needed to preserve life on that remote, dessicated planet, lest the Sorns perish?

Now git off my lawn!

10 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Postmodern Blasphemies: An Afterthought

Posted February 17, 2011 By John C Wright

A previous post here consisted of a link to an essay by Leo Grin, a yodel of approval, and comment that there is an objective right and wrong, not merely in ethics, but in that part of aesthetics which touch ethics, to the degree that the imagination shapes the moral character.

I don’t regard this statement as controversial, or rising above the level of a platitude: everyone who has ever complained that violence on television glorifies violence in the eyes of impressionable children says the same.

However, I do regret that I did not take the time to define what I meant by “cynical nihilism” and to distinguish it from the noble yet doomed melancholy of paganism, which, in my humble opinion, Robert E. Howard captures as well as any man not born in Homer’s day.

My criticism of nihilism is actually rather narrow, and I mean not to mislead anyone into thinking I would direct the same criticism against the broader target of all dark, pagan or melancholy books, such as the work of Edgar Allan Poe, or E.R. Eddison, or Michael Moorcock, or the unjustly under-appreciated dark fantasy of Darrell Schweitzer. For that matter, Tolkien’s work itself is redolent with melancholia. I would not call any of this nihilism.

I was also not complaining about originality in writers, or re-imagining old tropes, or using elements of horror or whatnot. One imagines such objections issuing from all the usual suspects: it is the default counter-attack. Deconstructionism is not the same as originality, and not the same as any dark or negative portrayal of tropes or characters other writers portray positively. Herman Melville, for example, turns the tropes of pagan epic on its head by placing epic characters in a New England whaling ship covered with bones: the Pequod — named after the final war and massacre that crushed Indian power to resist the White Man. But I would not call his work nihilism. Dark, bitter, ironic, bathetic, godless, despairing–yes. But it is human despair, and has no part in that cool and detached inhumanity the nihilists love.

Perhaps another day will afford me leisure to expound my ideas to the four people reading my blog (Hi, Mom!) and my cat, Graymalkin.

I also regret that I did not take the time to find an excuse to post another picture of the Catwoman.

Read the remainder of this entry »

24 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Postmodern Blasphemies: Superversive Agrees

Posted February 17, 2011 By John C Wright

Only posting a link and a mess of quotes!

A follow up to a previous post, Superversive and his commenters have an intelligent discussion of the issue of postmodern nihilism in fantasy: http://superversive.livejournal.com/94056.html

Read the remainder of this entry »

1 Comment. Join the Conversation

Democracy in Outer Space

Posted February 15, 2011 By John C Wright

Only posting a link!

Over at the Big Hollywood website, where conservative gather to bellyache (not without some justice) about Hollywood lockstep leftist conformity, one of the bellyaches elicited a belly laugh from me.

Ned Rice writes in high-pitched purple patriotic style about his disdain for soap operas and melodramas starring royalty.  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/nrice/2011/02/10/off-with-the-heads-of-hollywoods-misguided-royalty-genre/

My main problem with The King’s Speech is that the character we’re supposed to identify with, the down-trodden-schmuck-who-can’t-catch-a-break-but-we-root-for-him–anyway-because-for-all-his-faults-he’s-got-a-heart-of-gold just happens to be…THE KING OF ENGLAND!
Read the remainder of this entry »

18 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Postmodern Blasphemies against Myth

Posted February 14, 2011 By John C Wright

Only posting a link!

Here is an essay on the genre of high fantasy and swords and sorcery which I hope will be studied seriously, both now in and in years to come, by all who read, write, and review in the genre.

The Bankrupt Nihilism of Our Fallen Fantasists by Leo Grin. Read it here:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/12/the-bankrupt-nihilism-of-our-fallen-fantasists/#more-445312

I don’t particularly care for fantasy per se. What I actually cherish is something far more rare: the elevated prose poetry, mythopoeic subcreation, and thematic richness that only the best fantasy achieves, and that echoes in important particulars the myths and fables of old.This realization eliminates, at a stroke, virtually everything written under the banner of fantasy today.

The mere trappings of the genre do nothing for me when wedded to the now-ubiquitous interminable soap-opera plots (a conservative friend of mine once accurately derided “fat fantasy” cycles such as Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time as “Lord of the Rings 90210”). Nor do they impress me in the least when placed into the hands of writers clearly bored with the classic mythic undertones of the genre, and who try to shake things up with what can best be described as postmodern blasphemies against our mythic heritage.

Read the remainder of this entry »

45 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Atlas Shrugged

Posted February 13, 2011 By John C Wright

To my infinite surprise, this actually looks like they took the book seriously. I was expecting another STARSHIP TROOPERS debacle.

One cannot tell from the trailer, of course, what they changed and what they kept, but unlike the trailer for GREEN HORNET, I do not see anything here indicating that the film-makers despised the source material.

Maybe this is a sign. Perhaps films like this get made when a sufficient number of people, weary with the false narratives, airy promises, and empty rhetoric of the idolaters of the all powerful Nanny State, would like instead to see a return to a more honest, rational and practical way of life. Perhaps. Or this could be a final farewell before the euro-collapse of the American Dream.

Read the remainder of this entry »

10 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Mechanical versus Tactical View of History

Posted February 11, 2011 By John C Wright

I was meditating, as often I do, being of a morbid nature, on the causes and progress of the corruption and downfall of the West, and I wondered what could hinder a process that seemed quite inevitable. Is it inevitable? For that matter, is it a process?

It was not until this week that it occurred to me to question something I have assumed about the nature of history and the way it unfolds. It is an assumption no ancient or medieval thinker would have made, and it is an assumption few modern thinkers can avoid.

The assumption is that the process in history, particularly the process by which social and political orders become corrupt, is akin to an inevitable mechanical process, a matter of incentives and disincentives, and therefore a process wise statesmen leading a virtuous body politic could slow, stop, or reverse, if the proper corrective process were applied, either wise laws or the indoctrination of certain habits of public virtue.

I have, in other words, always assumed political economics was a matter of social engineering. It is a non-supernatural and mechanical view of history.

Read the remainder of this entry »

71 Comments so far. Join the Conversation