#89 = Volume 30, Part 1 = March 2003
BOOKS IN REVIEW
Julia Witwer, Ed.
Reading Baudrillard. Jean Baudrillard. The Vital Illusion. New
York: Columbia UP, 2000. 102 pp. $18.95 hc.
Elisabeth Kraus and Carolin Auer, eds.
Simulacrum America: The USA and the Popular Media.
Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2000. 271 pp. $65.00 hc.
M.W. Smith. Reading
Simulacra: Fatal Theories for Postmodernity. SUNY Series in
Postmodern Culture. New York: State U of New York P, 2001. 151 pp. $16.95 pbk.
The whole problem is one of abandoning critical thought,
which is the very essence of our theoretical culture, but which belongs to a
past history, a past life.—Baudrillard, Impossible Exchange (2001) 17
How should we read Jean Baudrillard? This is the real problem at the heart of
two recent books that utilize the work of the French postmodernist: Elizabeth
Kraus and Carolin Auer’s anthology Simulacrum America: The USA and the
Popular Media and M.W. Smith’s Reading Simulacra: Fatal Theories for
Postmodernity. Both provide possible answers to this question as they
mobilize Baudrillard’s theories of simulation to analyze popular culture,
postmodernism, and sf. It is perhaps Baudrillard himself, however, who provides
the most challenging answer to the question of how he should be read. In one of
his most recent works, The Vital Illusion, he abandons the traditional
methods and vocabularies of theory. Indeed, his work now seems closer to what
might best be understood as social science fiction. Approaching Baudrillard as
social sf creates a number of problems for both theory and sf, however, and it
is these problems that have kept critics from attempting a more radical
re-invention of his work.
The post-structuralist vogue of the 1980s has largely disappeared, and it
seems as if we are not quite living in a panic culture after all. Indeed, the
more sober voices of less radical Marxists and cultural critics have had a great
deal of success in co-opting the vocabularies of Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, and
Baudrillard, assimilating them into any number of more practical approaches and
concrete explorations of postmodern culture. Of all the post-structuralists, it
is Baudrillard who has been most closely associated with the triangulation of
postmodernism, popular culture, and sf, and it is also Baudrillard who is seen
as the most provocative. He is often caricatured as little more than a
sophomoric nihilist, celebrating his own celebrity status, grossly misreading
culture, and generally trying to live up to the worst excesses and absurdities
associated with the discourses of postmodernism. Nonetheless, critics still find
that Baudrillard’s work provides constructive approaches to the problems of our
media, and his arguments continue to animate the work of critics from Marxists
such as Douglas Kellner to cultural critics such as Lynn Spigel. In many
respects, it is something like this more sober Baudrillard that we find in
Simulacrum America: The USA and the Popular Media.
Edited by Elisabeth Kraus and Carolin Auer, Simulacrum America
consists of seventeen essays originally presented as papers at the annual
conference of the Austrian Association for American Studies in 1997. Though
these essays cover topics from nineteenth-century literature to contemporary
cinema, postmodern fiction and sf nonetheless remain at the heart of the
collection, the former represented by a selection of five essays entitled
“Simulacra in Literature: History and Human Identity” and the latter in a
selection of five essays grouped under the title “Simulation in Science Fiction:
Cyberspace, Cyborgs, and Cybernetic Discourse.” With so many essays, the quality
tends to be somewhat uneven. Still, as I hope to show, even the less
accomplished essays say a great deal about the ways in which we read Baudrillard.
The collection has an ambitious introduction, and Kraus and Auer are acutely
aware of both the problems and possibilities associated with the work of
Baudrillard. After offering a brief survey of Baudrillard’s theory of
simulation, they make the following observation:
Critics and theorists from a wide variety of disciplines, such as Fredric
Jameson, Donna Haraway, and Larry McCaffery, agree with Baudrillard that science
fiction has become the pre-eminent literary genre of the postmodern era, since
it has long anticipated and fictionally explored the drastic transformations
that technology, including the fields of information/simulation technology and
bioengineering, have wrought on Western post-industrial society. Science
fiction’s wealth of futuristic themes and topoi including powerful icons of
cyberspace, Artificial Intelligence, and border crossings of all kinds, as well
as its simulations of limitless alternative utopian, dystopian, and heterotopian
realities, gave important impulses to mainstream fiction and cultural analysts
in general. In fact, as Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr., argues in his essay “The SF
of Theory: Baudrillard and Haraway,” science fiction has ceased to be a genre of
fiction per se, and become instead a mode of awareness about the world. (5)
In some sense, Kraus and Auer promise more than they deliver. While they cite
Csicsery-Ronay’s essay (SFS #55, 18:3 [Nov. 1991]: 387-404), this introduction, and
unhappily the collection as a whole, do little to develop the new understanding
of sf or theory that Csicsery-Ronay suggests. Indeed, the real flaw of this
collection is that Baudrillard’s work is simply applied as a critical theory of
the world, when it is precisely the distance implied by the critical operation
that Baudrillard’s work calls into question.
This is not to say that there are not some strong essays about post-modernism
and sf in the book. Rüdiger Kunow’s essay, “Simulation as Sub-Text: Fiction
Writing in the Face of Media Representations of American History,” provides an
excellent survey of both canonical and postmodern literary texts, demonstrating
throughout that these historical fictions are less “reconstructions of the past
than demonstrations of the power of that past in the present” (34). Alen Vitas
offers a compelling reading of cyberpunk in his contribution, “Warp 9 to
Hyperreality: Information Velocity and the End of the Space Age.” Working
through cyberpunk classics and popular films such as Star Wars, Vitas
argues that “Mediaspace now replaces outer space, and consequently, simulations
of kinesis and information velocity now replace the earlier fascination with
physical speed” (125). Herbert Shu-Shun Chan explores the metaphor of space in
Neuromancer and Babylon 5, suggesting along with Vitas that we
need to rethink the relationship of cyberpunk to the more traditional themes of
space opera. In keeping with the cyberpunk focus, Elisabeth Kraus offers a
detailed survey and analysis of Pat Cadigan’s work, and Louis J. Kern offers an
exploration of the nostalgia for fully human bodies that animates much cyborg
fiction and film. For sf scholars, these essays constitute the real interest of
this book. The rest of the collection covers an amazing amount of ground, but
the contributions vary widely in subject matter and quality.
Nonetheless, almost all the essays at least gesture towards Baudrillard’s
theory of simulation, and many more take his theory of simulation as their basic
critical position. For a collection that takes Baudrillard’s theory of
simulation as part of its very subject, there is surprisingly little nuanced
reading of his work, and the collection as a whole seems to reflect a wider
problem in our current reception of Baudrillard’s work. In short, the basic move
that animates most of these essays is to elucidate the premise of Baudrillard’s
theory of simulation, and then claim that this or that text functions in accord
with it. For instance, Arno Heller’s reading of Don DeLillo’s White Noise
(1985) claims that “Gladney’s confrontation with Mink can be interpreted as his
coming to terms with an America that Jean Baudrillard has so persuasively
depicted as a system of simulations in the endless stream of meaningless signs
and images” (45). The conclusion is that somehow DeLillo offers a kind of proof
for Baudrillard. There is no sense that DeLillo might help us somehow better
understand, or better yet reinvent, Baudrillard, or vice-versa. Far more
problematically, such applications of Baudrillardian theory treat his work as if
it were an objective description of our world, an option that Baudrillard
problematizes by putting his own work in the realm of hyperreal simulation
itself. In short, despite the promise of the introduction, there is almost no
attempt to reinvent Baudrillard here, as social sf or anything else, and this is
the case with all the essays that use his work. Furthermore, Michael
Stockinger’s essay on DeLillo and Baudrillard goes on to claim that “the
submergence of the reader in a narrative usually produces a more mind-baffling
effect than the consumption of a theoretical essay. The skillful ‘suspension of
disbelief’ demands more imaginative, creative, and therefore illusionary
potential on behalf of the writer as well as the reader” (62). Such a statement
leaves one to wonder if this contributor has actually read Baudrillard. It is
not, however, as if less-than-innovative approaches to Baudrillard or
post-structuralism in general are hard to find. Indeed, what this collection
reveals more than anything is our dire need to stop the “critical application”
and instead reinvent our entire approach to Baudrillard.
Though not precisely an attempt to reinvent Baudrillard, M.W. Smith’s
Reading Simulacra: Fatal Theories for Postmodernity provides a far more
interesting and useful approach to his work. In its first four chapters, Reading
Simulacra offers a broad survey of postmodern theory through an investigation of
Baudrillard’s major positions, using these to bring together a number of
thinkers, including Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, and most importantly
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Smith proposes a “bi-focal” approach to
reading Baudrillard, arguing that to take him at his word and admit that we live
in a world of total simulation is to abandon all hope of a critical or active
engagement with the world. To rescue us from this bind, Smith proposes that we
attend closely to the work of Deleuze and Guattari. According to Smith:
The difference in subjective and objective strategies notwithstanding,
Deleuze and Guattari might yet find a place in the hyperreal topography of
Baudrillard. The distinguishing factor setting them apart is that the latter
sees this societal leveling of images (simulation) as producing an
undimensional subjectivity that is fatal, whereas the former looks toward
simulation’s “mutational aptitude” and the potential for “becoming” that it
allows. (8)
Though Smith never dwells on this, what is clear is that theory, be it
Baudrillard’s concept of simulation or Deleuze and Guattari’s of becoming, is
never a matter of mimetic texts that somehow faithfully represent the world in
any realistic sense. Indeed, for Smith such an approach guarantees a fatal
exchange that would trap us in the worst kind of Baudrillardian nightmare.
Though Smith doesn’t propose sf as one of the perspectives through which he is
reading Baudrillard, he does put it on the same plane. Again, working through
the bind in Baudrillard’s theory of simulation, and looking for a way out, Smith
offers the following analogy:
In other words, is it possible to “will,” in a Nietzschian spirit, beyond
these fatal strategies in life-affirming ways (Baudrillard’s apprehension,
Kroker’s invitation)? Or is humanity moving ever faster to the cyber-call of
William Gibson’s Neuromancer; toward a state of symbiosis with the
machine, which issues in the end of lived experiences for human beings and the
entry into a simulated, virtual or cybernetic world of existence? (18)
Though he doesn’t call attention to the fact, what is most striking here is
that both cyberpunk fiction and Baudrillard’s theory offer descriptions of the
world that are equally plausible, equally worth thinking about. Insofar as we
read cyberpunk as social sf, should we not also read Baudrillard and other
theorists as in some way part of the same fantastic discourse? Smith certainly
doesn’t explore this possibility, but his book does suggest the plausibility of
such reading strategies. Rather than turning to sf or the fantastic to find new
strategies of reading, however, Smith turns to Nietzsche, Arthur Kroker, and the
history of philosophy:
[W]e “will to will” as a condition of
existence in the nihilistic cycle of consuming the signs of consumption
provided by a recombinant culture: “Nietzsche’s ‘pessimism’ (which is really
the method of ‘perspectival’ understanding) becomes an entirely realistic
strategy for exploring postmodern experience. And this event, the
interpretation of advanced capitalist society under the sign of nihilism, is
the basic condition for human emancipation as well as for the recovery of the
tragic sense of critical theory.” (Kroker, qtd 62-63)
While Smith thus offers an affirmative reading of post-structuralist and
postmodern theory, it is not a particularly original or daring reinvention.
Nonetheless, his book serves as an excellent overview of Baudrillard’s writing,
and would be especially useful to students new to such work. Though not
surprising, his attempt to synthesize Baudrillard and Deleuze and Guattari is
suggestive, and for those new to Deleuze and Guattari, Smith also provides an
excellent and usable introduction to their notoriously idiosyncratic and
difficult concepts.
The second half of Reading Simulacra offers applied readings of the
usual postmodern suspects: Kathy Acker, Oliver Stone, and O.J. Simpson, as well
as Baudrillard’s America (1988) and the novelist Clarence Major’s My
Amputations (1986). These chapters vary widely in scope and quality when
compared to the solid theoretical discussions earlier in the book. Smith offers
a detailed and compelling reading of Acker’s two best known and most accessible
novels, Blood and Guts in High School (1984) and Don Quixote
(1986). He offers the typical Baudrillardian reading of Acker’s work: “the fatal
motions of postmodernity in ‘humanity’ and ‘sexuality’ are possessed and
tattooed with patriarchial images” (86). However, he goes on to offer
simultaneously “a Deleuzian strategy for reading her works [that] offers a
schizophrenic line of flight through desire and language to escape the coding of
our molar selves in contemporary culture” (87). This strategy is particularly
fitting with Acker’s novels, and Smith manages to engage in just the kind of
affirmative bi-focal reading that his introduction promised.
Fatal Theories ends quite oddly, however. After building all the apparatus
for affirmative readings of the ways in which Deleuze and Guattari might help us
renegotiate Baudrillard’s world of simulation, Smith offers a final reading of
the O.J. Simpson trial and Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers (1994).
Smith offers his analysis of Stone’s film as a critique of a world that actually
produced the O.J. trial, and in the end the trial and the film merge together.
However, there is no sense that Stone or the trial could offer us moments of
Deleuzian becoming. Instead, Smith says on the final page of his book that “what
viewers take away at the conclusion of this movie [Natural Born Killers]
is the ‘Evil Demon of Images’ that Jean Baudrillard refers to in a book by the
same title” (128). So much for a new and affirmative approach to Baudrillard and
postmodernism. Instead, it seems that Smith says what we knew all along: Acker’s
work is so obsessed with stereotypes and extremes that it offers amazing
possibilities for becoming and critique, while newstainment television and
Oliver Stone are so reactive and heavy-handed that even Deleuze wouldn’t be able
to figure them out.
Whatever their merits or flaws, both these books dealing with Baudrillard’s
theory of simulation reveal that Baudrillard is still his own best and most
inventive reader. True to form, Baudrillard’s Vital Illusion offers
nothing new. Indeed, his latest work might be best understood as readings or
applications of his earlier books, simply offering us simulations of his earlier
work on the critique of value, the nature of images, technologies of
communication, and the problems of postmodernism. In The Vital Illusion,
he presents three essays: “The Final Solution: Cloning Beyond the Human and
Inhuman,” “The Millennium, or the Suspense of the Year 2000,” and “The Murder of
the Real.” As the editors tell us, each was originally presented as part of the
Wellek Library Lectures in Critical Theory at the University of California,
Irvine, in 1999.
In his other recent book, Impossible Exchange (2001), Jean Baudrillard
states that for postmodernism, “The whole problem is one of abandoning critical
thought, which is the very essence of our theoretical culture, but which belongs
to a past history, a past life” (London: Verso, 2001, 17). It is just this
problem that Baudrillard has devoted his energies to, and we might well
interpret his career over the past decade, or at least since the publication of
America, as a movement further and further away from the limits and languages of
criticism. Baudrillard seems to be more successful in his attempts to do this
than almost anyone else, as his detractors constantly remind anyone who is
willing to listen. For Marxists such as Terry Eagleton, Baudrillard’s
denunciation of critical theory is nothing less than selling out to the worst
kinds of designer capitalism. And while such critics as Douglas Kellner and M.W.
Smith try to find new ways to read Baudrillard that will rescue his theory of
simulation for the purposes of critique, Baudrillard himself seems to flee from
such capture more with each new work. Indeed, it is difficult to read
Baudrillard as a theorist anymore, and The Vital Illusion confirms that
Baudrillard is no longer interested in working through traditional critical
vocabularies.
Baudrillard begins his first essay with the following caveat: “The question
concerning cloning is the question of immortality. We all want immortality. It
is our ultimate fantasy, a fantasy that is also at work in all of our modern
sciences and technologies—at work, for example, in the deep freeze of cryonic
suspension and in cloning in all its manifestations” (3). Making such
pronouncements, Baudrillard’s most recent work feels like sf, or at least as if
he were something like a character himself in a postmodern novel or film,
perhaps someone like Dr. Brian O’Blivion in David Cronenberg’s Videodrome
(1982). However, Baudrillard’s own attitude towards sf is complex. In Simulacra
and Simulation (1994), he argues that “the good old imaginary of science fiction
is dead ... [and] something else is in the process of emerging (not only in
fiction but in theory as well)” (Ann Arbor: U Michigan P, 1994, 121). Yet the
essays in The Vital Illusion seem to work on some of the most traditional
sf models, taking recent technological advances such as cloning and imagining
how they may in fact affect us in the very near future. Indeed, Baudrillard goes
on to write about the technology of cloning, projecting the technology into a
perfect future that it has yet to achieve: “from this moment on it is possible
to ask if we are still dealing with human beings. Is a species that succeeds in
synthesizing its own immortality, and that seeks to transform itself into pure
information, still particularly a human species?” (16). That anyone has yet to
succeed in synthesizing immortality is, for Baudrillard, of no real concern. As
in much sf, Baudrillard does an amazing job of identifying those technological
and social issues bound up with our anxieties, and he plays out the worst-case
scenario in a kind of dystopian vision.
Baudrillard is certainly not the only critic to chafe at the limits and logical
binds of theoretical language. Indeed, in one of the more interesting efforts to
engage postmodern discourse as something other than a discourse of critical
theory, Steven Shaviro’s Doom Patrols (1997) attempts to operate in
accord with its subtitle A Theoretical Fiction about Postmodernism. For Shaviro,
Doom Patrols “is a theoretical fiction about postmodernism. A theoretical
fiction, because I treat discursive ideas and arguments in a way analogous to
how a novelist treats characters and events” (New York: Serpent’s Tail, 1997, i).
While Shaviro’s explanation sounds radical, his work stays much closer to
traditional models and languages of criticism than his introduction promises.
Baudrillard, without the benefit of being quite so self-conscious about it,
seems to go beyond even the pretense of an analogy to fiction, instead simply
writing work that really is fiction. What strikes one most about Baudrillard’s
recent work is that he has almost entirely abandoned the technical vocabularies
of criticism, even when he engages traditional theoretical problems.
Over ten years ago, SFS devoted an entire issue to sf and postmodernism
(18.3 [Nov. 1991]: 305-464). In his contribution, Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Jr., was
particularly concerned with Baudrillard’s critique of sf, noting that “once the
referent becomes a readout of the sign, and existence a readout of control
models, theory’s condition of possibility has been absorbed in the operational
program” (391). Here we see Baudrillard’s objection to the objective posture of
most criticism, but the same critique applies to sf itself: “What Baudrillard
considers the traditional charms of science fiction—projection, extrapolation,
excessive ‘pantography’—become impossible, because space no longer offers a
scene for overcoming fundamental differences” (391). Just as theory can no
longer stand back from the world it purports to describe, sf no longer has the
literal or metaphoric space to imagine a future. In short, “SF disappears into
its own presence” (392). Ten years later, however, it seems that these positions
are themselves the social sf of Baudrillard’s work. In essence, like any good sf
writer, Baudrillard asks us to imagine a world. In his new essay “The Murder of
the Real,” this is “a world where everything that exists only as idea, dream,
fantasy, utopia will be eradicated, because it will be immediately realized,
operationalized ... a perfect world, expurgated of every illusion” (66-67).
To read Baudrillard’s work as social sf is to rethink the space in which he
works. Indeed, isn’t it precisely Baudrillard’s theory of simulation that is
itself the most traditional sf aspect of his work? For Baudrillard, sf and
theory have no room to move, for both are now simply part of a dead critical
discourse. Yet although Baudrillard gives a convincing account of some aspects
of our postmodern world, few readers are ultimately persuaded to accept the
totality of his claims, especially his most radical idea that we adopt the fatal
strategy of the object. The problem is that we either apply Baudrillard as a
critical theorist or dismiss him as a lunatic nihilist, while he still seems to
be attempting to redefine himself as an sf author. Could Baudrillard become more
useful and relevant if we reinvent him through the perspectives of sf, and could
sf criticism be in part transformed through Baudrillard? This seems to be the
promise of his most recent work, and the challenge that he has given to
contemporary critics who go on to apply his work.
—David Banash, University of Iowa
Revisiting Mercier’s L’An
2440.
Riikka Forsström.
Possible Worlds: The Idea of Happiness in the Utopian Vision of Louis-Sébastien
Mercier. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura,
2002.<http://www.finlit.fi/english/eng-publ.htm>. 329 pp. €27 pbk.
Louis-Sébastien Mercier’s 1771 uchronia L’An deux mille quatre cent
quarante: Rêve s’il en fut jamais (The year 2440: a dream if there ever was
one, first published in English—perplexingly—as Memoirs of the Year Two
Thousand Five Hundred in 1772) was an important milestone in the evolution
of science fiction. According to Paul Alkon in his Origins of Futuristic
Fiction (Athens, GA: U of Georgia Press, 1987), Mercier’s L’An 2440
was the first utopia to be set in future time, initiating “a new paradigm for
utopian literature not only by setting action in a specific future
chronologically connected to our past and present but even more crucially by
characterizing that future as one belonging to progress” (127). It was one of
the eighteenth century’s most successful books, with over 60,000 copies in print
in several languages, and the first utopian novel published in North America
(George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned copies). It was also one of the
century’s most controversial: first published anonymously in Amsterdam, L’An
2440 was promptly banned in both France and Spain as dangerous, subversive
propaganda.
Considering its importance in the history of speculative fiction—as well as
an artifact of pre-Revolutionary French political thought—it is surprising that
there exist almost no contemporary studies of L’An 2440. Apart from
Alkon’s excellent volume, most others seem to date from the 1970s: Henry
Majewski’s The Preromantic Imagination of Louis-Sébastien Mercier (1971),
Raymond Trousson’s now-classic Voyages aux nulle part (1975), and passing
references in Frank and Fritzie Manuel’s Utopian Thought in the Western World
(1979) and I.F. Clarke’s The Pattern of Expectation 1644-2001 (1979), for
example.
Forsström’s Possible Worlds attempts to fill this lacuna in utopian
criticism, and it does so in admirable fashion. Completed as a thesis at the
University of Turku, Finland (ostensibly in 2001), the scholarship evident in
Possible Worlds is both comprehensive and up-to-date. It begins with an
Introduction that clearly defines its objectives as well as the methods and
sources used. The author states that the main goal of the book is to explore the
utopian novel as a representation of happiness through the vision conveyed by
Mercier’s L’An 2440.... What is Mercier’s image of an ideal society, and
what are the components which he views as contributing to the increase of human
happiness or tending to diminish it? How does Mercier explain the process of
transformation from the society of the eighteenth century to the ideal state of
2440? (12)
The ensuing ten chapters—all heavily footnoted—present a broad and multi-faceted
analysis of L’An 2440. Among other topics, they include a biographical
portrait of Mercier himself and an overview of his work’s place in the history
of utopian writing, a discussion of the urban landscape of this ideal Paris of
the future, its political and social structure (in comparison/contrast to those
of Mercier’s own time), the role played by “natural religion” and material
prosperity in the happiness of its citizens, and the work’s surprisingly
patriarchal attitudes about the rights of women.
I found this latter chapter to be especially fascinating because Mercier’s
portrayal of women in L’An 2440 seems to contradict his otherwise very
progressive and emancipatory views about human rights. In Mercier’s utopia,
marriages are based on love, dowries have been abolished, and divorce is now
legal. Women’s prime (indeed, exclusive) role in this society, however, is to be
good wives and mothers. Totally subordinate to their husbands, these idealized
women are not only maternal, faithful, obedient, and loving but also paragons of
virtue and the guardians of public morality. “Liberated” from the need to work
outside the home, Mercier’s women are “free” to devote themselves exclusively to
the task for which God and Nature created them: to bear children, to care for
their husbands, and to incarnate “family values.”
These extremely conservative (and pre-bourgeois) notions of the proper role
of women in society are partly the result of Mercier’s essentialist belief that
women in eighteenth-century France had wandered too far from their “natural”
selves, creating a dangerous “disharmony” in the balance of power between men
and women.
In his imaginary world of the twenty-fifth century, this “disharmony” of sexual
power, which Mercier found so alarming in his contemporary society, has been
reversed.... In his imagined utopian community, patriarchal power knows no
limits. The demand for equality of spouses was in Mercier’s opinion a grave
error. As he saw it, there are biological reasons, which can be drawn directly
from “nature,” supporting this argument ... [that] woman cannot under any
circumstances be a rival with man; subordination is thus a “law of nature”....
[Mercier’s ideas] illustrate the general dependence of eighteenth-century
writers on natural-law theorists of the preceding century, such as Bodin or
Grotius, who had argued that the husband should be the sovereign within the
domestic commonwealth. (140-41)
Mercier’s opinion seems to be that women can be truly happy only if their place
in society is fully congruent with their “biology”—i.e., as wives and mothers.
In this aspect at least, Mercier’s very forward-looking L’An 2440 is an
ideological throwback. Despite its very progressive ideas about many of
society’s institutions (including marriage), its reactionary vision of women’s
rights must rank it as among the most anti-feminist utopias ever written.
On the other hand, when viewed historically, Mercier’s L’An 2440
arguably represents a kind of “missing link” between the utopian tradition and
early extrapolative science fiction, or—in Alkon’s words—between “gratuitous”
and “investigative” modes of fictional speculation (125). Mercier’s uchronia was
not just an exercise in idyllic wish-fulfillment; it was a concrete blueprint
for social change based on the ideals of the eighteenth-century philosophes. As
such, it exemplified the idea of “progress” at a time when this new notion—that
the future could and would be radically different from (and better than) the
past—was just beginning to become widespread in the Western popular imagination.
As Forsström’s Possible Worlds points out in its conclusion, Mercier’s
L’An 2440 is an important work in this historical context because it
straddles two very different worlds—in its fictional narrative (past/future), in
its utopian discourse (static/dynamic), and in its historical status as a
political and cultural artifact (pre-Revolution/post-Revolution).
In sum, despite the occasional infelicities of its style—it is unclear if
this edition was a translation into English of an original Finnish text—and the
inevitable typographical errors here and there, Riikka Forsström’s Possible
Worlds: The Idea of Happiness in the Utopian Vision of Louis-Sébastien Mercier
constitutes a valuable addition to sf scholarship. It is the best study
available on Mercier’s L’An 2440, and I highly recommend it for anyone
interested in the utopian roots of modern sf.—ABE
The Critical Pertinence of SF.
Martin Jones.
Psychedelic Decadence: Sex Drugs Low-Art in Sixties & Seventies Britain.Manchester: Headpress/Critical Vision, 2001. 170 pp. $19.95 pbk.
Ruth Mayer. Artificial
Africas: Colonial Images in the Times of Globalization.
Hanover, NH: Dartmouth/UP New England, 2002. viii + 370 pp. $24.95 pbk.
Though they have little else in common, these two books combine to show just
how much science fiction texts and contexts have entered into the common frame
of reference of contemporary critics. Martin Jones’s Psychedelic Decadence,
a scattershot and impressionistic romp through “Swinging London,” features a
chapter on New Wave sf—in particular, the work of J.G. Ballard—while Ruth
Mayer’s Artificial Africas, a systematic and scholarly study of how
Africa has figured in the Western imagination, treats a range of sf and proto-sf
materials, from lost-world romances to cyberpunk. For all their differences in
approach (and value), they show that literary and cultural critics focusing on
specific themes or historical periods now no longer automatically ignore the
genre when carving out their terrain of investigation.
Despite its footnotes and index, Psychedelic Decadence is clearly not
intended as a scholarly work; rather, it is a nostalgic and highly personal tour
of key British icons and venues of the 1960s and 70s, from Emma Peel and David
Bowie to biker-gang paperbacks and Hammer vampire movies. At its best, it is
energetic and engaging; at its worst, it is bathetic and sophomorically
salacious. Jones’s prose style is offhandedly breezy, as if he could not care
less whether his readers are as intrigued as he is by Brian Ferry’s hair or
Ingrid Pitt’s cleavage. The chapter on Ballard, however, adopts a soberer tone
as it attempts to grapple with this most contentedly suburban of Sixties rebels,
this “man in the white suit” who looks like nothing so much as “a renegade maths
teacher” (46), yet whose work marks him out as “[m]ore radical than the
psychedelic crowd around him” (56). Jones’s discussion of Ballard as a member of
the New Worlds cohort—those “adventurous writers” who “drew attention to
the dead-end naval [sic] explorations of ‘serious’ literature” while at the same
time striking “a path away from the rocketship pulp that H.G. Wells had
unwittingly unleashed” (47)—adds nothing to the extant critical literature on
the subject; and his analyses of the author’s novels—chiefly those of the 1970s
such as Crash (1973) and Concrete Island (1973)—are generally thin
and insipid. But there are moments of insight, as when Jones speaks of Ballard’s
recurring portraits of “high-income professionals…: psychiatrists, doctors and
media producers” (48) whose confrontations with entropic dissolution serve to
“remind them that their hi-fi systems and modish mini-bars are no protection
from the breakdown of society” (52). There is also an entertaining aside on
Michael Moorcock’s Jerry Cornelius books, though curiously no mention at all of
his voluminous sword-and-sorcery, which would seem so much a part of the lushly
decadent milieu Jones seeks to evoke. Ultimately, Psychedelic Decadence
offers no more than a few hours’ mild diversion—largely in the form of its
wonderfully juicy and well-chosen illustrations.
Artificial Africas is another matter entirely. Though rather
schematically organized around a contrast between “African Adventures”
(“classical genres and stock figures of colonial meaning making and their
contemporary reiterations” [18]) and “Alternative Africas” (works that “set out
to display the structures of imperial meaning making, systematically dissecting
the framework of exoticization” built into “its representational and conceptual
conventions” [19]), the book offers a series of rich and powerful readings of a
wide array of literary and filmic texts, from H. Rider Haggard’s King
Solomon’s Mines (1885) and Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Tarzan of the Apes
(1914) to the Young Indiana Jones TV series (1992) and Steven Spielberg’s
Amistad (1997). While Mayer’s discussion of Burroughs is somewhat
disappointing—contributing little to previous analyses, such as Eric Cheyfitz’s
in The Poetics of Imperialism (Oxford, 1991)—her treatment of more recent
“speculative” texts, ranging from Ishmael Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo (1972) to
Bruce Sterling’s Islands in the Net (1988), is exhilaratingly fresh and
insightful. Mayer considers Sterling’s novel, alongside Michael Crichton’s
Congo (1980), as a “cyberfiction” about Africa, one that highlights an
emerging global system mixing traditional “primitive” cultures and “high-tech
futurism”; in this new paradigm, “mythical and technological imageries converge,
so that modernity and magic turn out to be far from mutually exclusive concepts”
(267). Mayer shows herself, in this discussion, to be quite familiar with the
fictive and critical discourse of cyberpunk—indeed, she has written several
essays on the subject, most of them in German (she is a Professor of American
Studies at the University of Hannover) in the journal Hyperkultur—though
her larger knowledge of sf is unclear (she mentions Octavia Butler’s Kindred
[1979] in passing, but doesn’t cite other substantial sf visions of Africa, such
as J.G. Ballard’s The Day of Creation [1987] or Mike Resnick’s Kenya
series). All in all, though, this book provides an excellent examination—and
critique—of the “logic of stereotyping” (17) that has informed the West’s
imaginative engagement with Africa, and it is highly recommended to scholars of
contemporary literature and postcolonial studies.—RL
New Studies in Science Fiction
Cinema.
David Kalat. The
Strange Case of Dr. Mabuse: A Study of the Twelve Films and Five Novels.McFarland, 2001. x + 305 pp. $49.95 hc.
Mark C. Glassy. The
Biology of Science Fiction Cinema. McFarland, 2001. viii + 296
pp. $39.95 hc.
A film version of Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler appeared in 1922, directed by Fritz
Lang with a screenplay by Thea Von Harbou, almost simultaneously with journalist
Norbert Jacques’s publication of his novel of the same title. Thus, before he
even had a chance to establish himself as a memorable literary character,
Jacques’s Mabuse was usurped by his filmic doppelgänger. Lang put his indelible
stamp on the character of Mabuse in a film that influenced many European
filmmakers and inspired a whole film series with eleven sequels and remakes.
Lang established the framework of Mabuse as an anonymous criminal mastermind who
uses disguises and mind control to accomplish his goal of world domination.
While all subsequent Mabuse films followed Lang’s blueprint, the meaning of
Mabuse morphed with each successive sequel, as Mabuse became a representative
Man of his time. German audiences in 1922 perceived Lang’s film as a realistic
portrayal of the situation in the corrupt, inflation-ridden, and riot-plagued
Weimar Republic. Just as the first Mabuse film reflected fears in post-World War
I Germany, audiences could read the second Mabuse film in 1933 (The Testament
of Dr. Mabuse) as expressing concerns about the rise of Hitler and the
Nazis. In later sequels and remakes, Mabuse would transform into a Cold War
version revealing West German fears of Communism. In even later films, he (she
in one case) emerged as a media mogul bent on controlling society through the
ever-present mass media. Mabuse’s meaning shifted for each new generation of
European filmmakers, each of whom saw in Mabuse an embodiment of the
contemporary threats facing Germany.
The novelty of David Kalat’s entertaining and enlightening book is not only
to map these changing meanings of Mabuse, but to establish that Mabuse as a
character is inherently set up to accommodate these meanings. For example, Kalat
goes to great lengths to show the fallacy in Lang’s claims that he designed the
1933 film as an anti-Nazi film. He shows that Lang probably created the Mabuse/Hitler
scenario in later years to avoid the stigma of being considered pro-Nazi by
Hollywood producers. Kalat convincingly argues that it does not matter that
Mabuse was not a direct representation of Hitler the person; rather it is more
important to see that Mabuse was a very powerful representation of Hitler the
type. In Kalat’s analysis, the value of Mabuse is that he could be anybody,
making the character malleable enough to represent the evil of Man for each new
generation. In fact, what separates Mabuse from other supervillains, such as Fu
Manchu or Professor Moriarty, is that after the first film Mabuse is never
actually Mabuse. The original Mabuse character died halfway through the second
film and each subsequent Mabuse merely takes up the moniker. That anyone can
take on the mantle of “Mabuse,” even a woman in one case, makes him even more
sinister. How can we fight an evil that keeps resurfacing and will not die? To
destroy Fu Manchu is to destroy evil; to destroy Mabuse is to give rise to a new
Mabuse.
One of the major strengths of Kalat’s book is the thoroughness of the
research. Kalat corrects various myths that have grown up around the films and
the filmmakers. Although this thoroughness is an asset, it does lead to the
major problem of the book: length. He spends far too much time on topics that
are only tangentially related to the Mabuse books and films. For example, he
makes a compelling case that each film’s director was an “outcast” like Mabuse,
but the lengthy biographies of these directors get tedious and pull the focus
away from the films themselves. His arguments about the artistic merits of
sequels and remakes also seem misplaced. This discussion of sequels and remakes
was the only time I questioned his academic integrity, as he does have a
financial stake in the DVD sales for several of the Mabuse sequels mentioned in
the book. I must point out, however, that he is as harsh towards the two films
he has the rights to as he is with any of the other sequels. Finally, the book
suffers from repetition in many places. I found it strange to see the same
arguments and stories repeated in several chapters, sometimes with almost word
for word repetition of sentences.
Another problem is Kalat’s tendency to overstate Mabuse’s general importance
to cinema. Although the character appeared in 12 films from 1922 to 1989, he is
not well known outside Germany. Film distributors in America actually removed
the name Mabuse from most film titles. One of the films (Scream and Scream
Again [1969]) had no connection to Mabuse until its German distributor
changed the title to capitalize on Mabuse’s familiarity in that country. In many
ways, however, Mabuse’s German specificity, both culturally and filmically,
makes him a more interesting character than such internationally recognized film
villains as Fu Manchu. This is why, despite those problems, I highly recommend
the book as a worthwhile read for any student of science fiction film’s
relationship to cultural studies.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of biologist Mark Glassy’s The
Biology of Science Fiction Cinema. Glassy’s book is in the same vein as
other recent books that examine “The Real Science” of some fictional enterprise.
In recent years there have been “The Real Science of …” books about Star Trek
(several books actually), The X-Files, Star Wars, The X-Men, and
Jurassic Park. There are also several generalized books on how to use
science fiction films to teach science, such as Dubeck et al.’s Fantastic
Voyages: Learning Science Through Science Fiction Films (AIP, 1994) and
Lambourne et al.’s Close Encounters?: Science and Science Fiction (Adam
Hilger, 1990). Rather than take on the expository styles of these previous
works, however, Glassy’s book is written as a reference work summarizing over 75
films. For each of these films, he systematically provides an overview of the
plot, of what science worked and what did not, and of what science in the film
could actually happen.
While it may be a useful reference book, who is this reference book for?
Popular science fans are likely to get bored with the repetitiveness of the
book’s format. Sf scholars will question whether such intense scrutiny of
scientific accuracy is a worthwhile exercise. Obviously, the science in
Monogram’s B-movie The Ape Man (1943) will be out of date when compared
to the current state of scientific knowledge, and inaccurate science was
probably the least of the film-makers’ concerns as they were constrained by a
minuscule budget and deadlines while pumping out a quickie shocker. Such
extensive analysis of scientific verisimilitude does not add anything to our
comprehension of sf cinema or the cultural significance of these films. That the
science in a film like Island of Lost Souls (1933) is absurd by today’s
standards does not detract from the film’s value in understanding the place of
horror/science fiction in early 1930s cinema, film adaptations of H.G. Wells’s
novels, or American attitudes towards science in the 1930s. In the end, the only
audience well served by this book is biology teachers who use science fiction
films in their classrooms as a teaching aid. For this population, The Biology
of Science Fiction Cinema will be very useful and could work as a good
supplementary biology textbook
—David A. Kirby, Cornell University
Back to Home