Author: Jonathan David Baird

Zombie Amalgamation: Origins of the Modern Revenant

Zombie Amalgamation: Origins of the Modern Revenant

Durher
The idea of the reanimated corpse shambles along the pages of history, and even before there were written records the undead were with us. The modern iteration of the zombie is not one of these creatures, but it is something new. A revenant fueled on modern fears of infection, and mass hysteria, while birthed from the ancient fear of reanimated corpses. The power of the modern zombie comes from the persistent fear of disease and infection. This infection is then paired with different social, economic, and cultural fears to create an ever evolving, but constantly horrifying creature that has become a staple of modern American and even global popular culture. The zombie is a stand in for all sorts of fears. Romero used the zombie to first lay bare the fear of encroaching infectious communism in Night of the Living Dead then he turned 180 degrees and took a shot at commercialism in Dawn of the Dead. Romero proved that the zombie can stand for almost any modern fear because essentially the mindless, raving zombie is man himself.

 

Four Distinct Origins

Our modern zombie who slowly ambles or even quickly chases our hero across the film or TV screen is really the amalgamation of four separate monsters from different portions of the world. The revenant, the ghoul, the vampire, and the Haitian creature of the same name, but different attributes raised up by voodoo. All these undead forms combine in the modern cinematic zombie. It wasn’t until late in the twentieth century that all these were finally condensed into one by George Romero that we get the fully formed creature.
The revenant who is sometimes confused with the modern zombie is probably the closest ancient creature to the modern zombie myth. Revenants were undead creatures from Western European mythology that rose from their graves at night after burial to harass and attack the living. Traditionally those killed by revenants did not themselves come back from the dead. Instead like vampires in Eastern Europe the revenants spread disease and death to the living they attacked. Chapter 24 of book five of the History of England by William of Newburgh attempts to lay out a chronological history of revenants and their attacks on innocent people.

It would not be easy to believe that the corpses of the dead should sally (I know not by what agency) from their graves, and should wander about to the terror or destruction of the living, and again return to the tomb, which of its own accord spontaneously opened to receive them, did not frequent examples, occurring in our own times, suffice to establish this fact, to the truth of which there is abundant testimony. It would be strange if such things should have happened formerly, since we can find no evidence of them in the works of ancient authors, whose vast labor it was to commit to writing every occurrence worthy of memory; for if they never neglected to register even events of moderate interest, how could they have suppressed a fact at once so amazing and horrible, supposing it to have happened in their day? Moreover, were I to write down all the instances of this kind which I have ascertained to have befallen in our times, the undertaking would be beyond measure laborious and troublesome; so I will fain add two more only (and these of recent occurrence) to those I have already narrated, and insert them in our history, as occasion offers, as a warning to posterity. (Newburgh)
Revenants were always thought to have been evil personas in life as well and their evil deeds haunted them beyond the grave. The revenant is also killed in a similar way to the more popular vampire. Beheading the corpse and burning it traditionally stop the revenants from returning from their graves. Revenants however do not have a taste for human flesh. They are most often depicted attacking with claws a teeth but not devouring their victims. The revenant is however a mindless killing machine, much like the modern zombie
Ghouls like revenants are undead creatures. They haunted graveyards at night and unlike the revenant they ate the bodies of the dead and sometimes the living. The mythology of the ghoul was originally Mesopotamian and later Arabic but the idea spread into Western culture at the end of the 18th century from the gothic horror novel Vathek.

“At the moment that their attendants were placing two wreaths of their favourite jasamines on their brows, the Caliph, who had just heard the tragical catastrophe, arrived. He looked not less pale and haggard than the goules that wander at night among graves.” (Beckford 99).

Ghouls display some very classic zombie features. These creatures seek out human flesh in Western stories it is usually the flesh of the dead but in Arabic stories it can be either, they are also undead creatures who have left their graves for the land of the living. The biggest difference and like the revenants is that their curse is not transferrable. They may kill the living but they do not infect the living, they are also not mindless often being depicted as cunning hunters.
The vampire unlike the other two early creatures is an infectious disease of a sort. In the vampire we come close to the very modern nature of the zombie. While vampires lack some distinct criteria such as mindlessness, he and his kin are more closely related to the modern zombie than even the Haitian undead which bears its name. Vampires have become creatures of infection and so are the modern zombies. In fact the infectious nature of zombism is what powers the fear of the zombie. Without the ability to infect a zombie would not really be much of a monster. This infectious nature of vampires was not a classical aspect of the monster and other than one or two stories of vampires creating other vampires the infectious nature of vampirism is really a result of an update to the story in the 19th century. Most vampire attributes “are in fact creations of the fictional vampire, as drawn by Western writers of the nineteenth century.” (Wasik, Murphy). As the 19th century wore on more and more was learned about infectious disease and rabies was raging in Europe. Even on the verge of a cure the disease was being linked to vampirism in fiction. Vampires were to come into possession of the most powerful horror that science could conjure…disease. The idea that a sane man or woman could be permanently transformed into a raging blood fueled monster is terrifying. Even more so would be the zombie who is not only a raging infectious monster, but mindless as well.

The final creature needed to create the modern zombie was an undead creature resurrected by magic and controlled by a mystical wizard or witch. The word Zombie or Zombi is relatively new. It is supposed to have been first used in the book History of Brazil by Robert Southey in 1819. The book is online and after an exhaustive search of volume 1-3 in both English and Spanish this elusive first mention of the word was not to be found. Not to be detoured the next mention of zombies comes to us from the Haitian tradition. In Haiti the zombie is the corpse of a person thought to be revived into a sort of half life by a practitioner of voodoo. This necromancer is called bokor. These undead creatures serve at the behest of the bokor, who has removed the living soul from the body and use it to control the zombie. Zombies are not considered to be mythology in Haiti article 246 of the Haitian criminal code mandates that,
“Est aussi qualifié attentat à la vie d’une personne, par empoisonnement, l’emploi qui sera fait contre elle de substances qui sans donner la mort, auront produit un état léthargique plus ou moins prolongé, de quelque manière que ces substances aient été employées et quelles qu’en aient été les suites.“ this roughly translates to “Any qualified attempt on the life of a person, by poisoning , the use made against it without substances that cause death , have produced a more or less prolonged lethargy , however these substances have been employed and whatever may have been the result” (Haiti criminal code)
While zombies are considered people in prolonged states of lethargy induced by chemical substances under the law the mythology of the traditional zombie has little to do with our modern idea. Other than being revived corpses these creatures have very little in common with the popular mythology of the modern zombie. To find the roots of our modern brain eater we must combine aspects of all the undead that have shambled into Western culture.
Modern Amalgamation.

Since the modern zombie is a combination of several creature archetypes from Western literature how did these creations amalgamate into the modern mythology? George Romero most certainly did not create his zombie creations out of whole cloth. His zombies have a very distinct Hollywood linage. White Zombie released in 1932 is the first zombie film. It depicts the traditional Voodoo zombie controlled by an evil bokor in this case played by Bela Lugos. Lugusi plays Murder Legendre who is a white bokor controlling zombies that work on his plantation. In a way this movie is a social commentary on the evils of slavery which ties into later zombie films which often have social commentary at their core. White Zombie is important because it set the stage for the look and feel of zombies in movie. The shambling dead eyes and even a hatred for the living that the dead exhibit in the movie translates to later work that would make the zombie less controllable and more menacing.
The modern zombie would never have developed without the work done by Richard Matheson in the book I am Legend which was published in 1954 and the movie made from the book called The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Prince in 1964. The film was released just four years before Romero was to film Night of the Living Dead and it is without a doubt a direct precursor to both Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. Matheson’s book and later movie depict a world that has been wiped out by a virulent virus. The virus kills most people but others it transforms into what are essentially vampires. The vampires have all the classic weaknesses. They can only come out at night, they are allergic to garlic, they can’t stand to see their reflection in mirrors, and they must be staked in the heart and then burned. These are not however the classic vampires in another sense. They are weak and slow. They shamble about exactly how you would expect a modern zombie to do. They do have a limited intelligence and can speak at times, but this seems to be an exception that only certain undead possess. The movie and the book are also social commentary. You discover at the end that not all the vampires are evil and that many of the vampires that the main character hunts down and kills during the day are actually fully human but suffering from vampirism. The moral of the story is a thinly veiled attempt at addressing racism. With his work Matheson sets up almost all the factors you will see in the future concerning zombie films. His work explores contagion, social commentary, post apocalypse living conditions, undead hordes attacking people who have walled themselves off from the outside, and isolation. Isolation is almost certainly the cure to infection but it is also a prelude to fear. Who is to be trusted? Matheson packs all this into his work.
Modern Fears and the survival of the Zombie

Romero picks up where Matheson left off. The importance of these films are that all of Romero’s Zombie movies are social commentaries. In an interview he did with Rick Curnutte in the Film Journal Romero states, “We really were trying to make it as much a metaphor as it was a thrill ride. And I’ve always tried…I don’t know, I’ve never wanted to just do movies about guys in hockey masks with knives, you know? I don’t think that way. I sort of think of what underlies it first.” (Curnutte,Romero). This is at the heart of what makes zombie movies constantly relevant. There is a constant repositioning of the zombie as a social problem. Romero’s zombies are contagious but that contagion is of an unknown origin. In the interview with Curnutte he said, “There were three proposed causes, and we cut two of them out because the scenes were boring and the scenes around them were boring, and that one we left in because it was part of that newscast and it made it seem a little bigger. And that became for a while, people said, “Oh, that’s what happened.” You know, some Venus probe came back and brought some kind of bug. And so I was determined…I don’t want there to be a cause.”(Curnutte, Romero) If the cause were known it may be curable. Romero wanted to keep the audience paranoid and thinking. It worked.
The idea that zombism is an infection becomes real to a modern audience. This realism is important in the staying power of the zombie as a modern monster. Matheson’s vampires were too much a creature of legend. Vampirism is equated with magical thinking. The zombie gave the audience a monster with a scientific cause. A virus that can reanimate the brain and causes the dead body to walk among the living. While this is still a dead body walking around to the modern audience disease, infection, and even inoculation are just as magical. They are things that can’t be seen affecting people in ways that are not understood by the average person. Deep down we see infection as the harbinger of death…why not an undead harbinger.
Zombism as a metaphor for infection and even death was enough to scare the audience but the modern zombie represented much more. Directors like Romero came to link zombies with communism, commercialism, AIDS, terrorism, and even the fear of global warming. Anything that the modern mind feared could be linked to the zombie. At the end of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty first vampires had been reformed. They sparkled and granted eternal life to good little boys and girls. Werewolves hardly existed on the horror scene replaced by serial killers in masks, who were frightening, but were certainly not world threatening. Frankenstein had stopped being scary the day after the first heart transplant, and forget about the mummy. The mummy was stuck in action comedy. Zombies became kings of horror because the zombie was everything and everywhere. Anyone could become a zombie at anytime.
This brings us back to the real underlying fears of zombism. Infection and Isolation are the currents within the mythology that cause fear to wash over the public. We have talked at length about infection, but what about isolation? In a zombie movie or TV show isolation is the result of the zombie apocalypse. You are left alone in a world of monsters who want to eat you and survivors who want to steal what you have and occasionally they also may want to eat you. You are alone. The reason this is horrifying to the viewer who is not really experiencing a zombie outbreak is the fact that the viewer realizes that they are living in this isolation even without hordes of zombies at their door. Isolation is even more personal than the fear of infection. We all experience isolation. Do we know our neighbors in the twenty first century? Do we trust them? That is a fear that everyone can relate too. It is not a fear that other traditional monsters inspire.
Conclusion

When looking for the roots of the modern zombie the quest can either take you to creatures that are not quite a perfect fit, or to creatures that when combined become the modern zombie. Modern zombies are creatures of modern mythic thinking. They are the embodiment of the fears of modern men written on the template of older monsters. The ancient undead pulling themselves out of the grave pale in comparison to the power modern men have given to our current creature. No monster had the power to destroy the entire world, which was solely the domain of gods in older mythic thinking. The zombie is able to accomplish that feat without a second thought, because infections do not think. Zombies are scary because the zombie embodies any fear we may have as an individual and they embody fears that all humans have such as disease and isolation. This is a very powerful combination. It leaves the zombie in the position of the king of the monsters, a creature so flexible it encompasses any fear.
Bibliography
Beckford, William. Vathek. Paris: Perrin, 1893. Print
Curnette, Rick “There’s No Magic: A Conversation With George A. Romero” The Film Journal. http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue10/romero.html . Web. 4 Dec 2014.
Haitian Penal Code http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/fr/hti/fr_hti_penal.html . Web 4 Dec 2014.

Halperin, Victor, Edward Halperin, Garnett Weston, Bela Lugosi, Madge Bellamy, Joseph Cawthorn, Robert Frazer, John Harron, Brandon Hurst, Xavier Cugat, and William Seabrook. White Zombie. Los Angeles, CA: Roan Group Archival Entertainment, 1999.

Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York: ORB, 1995. Print.

Newburgh, William. The Church Historians of England, volume IV, part II; translated by Joseph Stevenson (London: Seeley’s, 1861) Web. 4 Dec 2014

Salkow, Sidney, Robert L. Lippert, Logan Swanson, William F. Leicester, Vincent Price, Franca Bettoia, Emma Danieli, Giacomo Rossi-Stuart, Paul Sawtell, Bert Shefter, Colli F. Delli, Gene Ruggiero, and Richard Matheson. The Last Man on Earth. Beverly Hills, CA: Distributed by Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2007.

Streiner, Russ, John Russo, George A. Romero, Duane Jones, and Judith O’Dea. Night of the Living Dead. New York, N.Y: Elite Entertainment, 2002.

Wasik, Bill, and Monica Murphy. Rabid: A Cultural History of the World’s Most Diabolical Virus. , 2012. Print.

Liberty Con Day-1

Liberty Con Day-1

Technically today is day two for me at Liberty Con since I was here last night and met several people at  Lupi’s Pizza and inadvertently missed the wedding that I had planned on crashing.  Oh well, that is the cost of meeting new people. This morning I went to breakfast and saw Doug Dandridge, who I had met the night before, eating alone so I invited myself over and had a very pleasant conversation with him. I have enjoyed his work and I utilized his non-fiction work How I sold 100,000 Books On Amazon in setting up my last anthology.

At 3:00 I am going to be at Author’s Alley signing and selling my own books. If you are at Liberty Con today please come out and see me.

I believe Mark Wandrey’s book launch party for Etude to War is tonight at 7pm and I plan on attending.

I will update here at Nuke Mars throughout the weekend as to how things are going,

Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.-Skye is a Disney Princess

Is her name Luna?

I have a crazy theory that Skye on Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a Disney princess.

Almost everyone believes that Skye is an inhuman…my theory explains who she is? What the Obelisk is? Who Skye’s father is? and how this all ties into the Civil War storyline.

Skye is the daughter of Black Bolt’s brother Maximus the Mad.

Her name is Luna. I realize that Luna is the daughter of Quicksilver in the 616 Universe, but in the Ultimate Universe Quicksilver never fell in love with Crystal and I believe that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is going to mirror the Ultimate Universe when it comes to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch.

Her mother is the inhuman Crystal who has been engaged to Maximus in the comics.

Her father has been king of the Inhumans several times. Her mother is a member of the royal family as well.

If Skye is the daughter of Maximus then she is a certified Disney princess.

What is the Obelisk?

The Obelisk is a Terrigen-bomb. The same type of bomb that restored the powers of all mutantkind after House of M. Terrigen will kill baseline humans in grotesque ways, but does not kill mutants or humans that have inhuman DNA.

The bomb will cause any human with inhuman or mutant DNA to develop powers. the detonation of this device and the resulting explosion of people with super powers will force the government to  implement the mutant/inhuman/superpower registration act and the cause of the Civil War.

I believe the key to the entire Marvel cinematic phase three is in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

or I could be totally wrong.

We have a New Anthology At Crosstime Publishing

We have a New Anthology At Crosstime Publishing

The Book of Unchained Shadows is out now. I only make these promotional posts when a new book comes out, so don’t worry we are not becoming an ad drenched site. This anthology features some very talented new authors. If you like horror, if you like ghosts, the undead, etc you will love this book. The stories are set in chronological order. It starts with a Viking tale and ends with a story in a contemporary setting.

The Freehold is transitioning over to Nuke Mars

The site was originally named after Heinlein’s Farnham’s Freehold, however since the first day the site went live there has been some confusion between this site and the Freehold novels by Micheal Z. Williamson. I was not familiar with that series when we started the site in 2011, but I have come to understand that Williamson’s series and this site share a similar political ideology. To avoid further confusion we are changing the name to Nuke Mars. NukeMars.com has been my personal creative blog for about a year and I will gradually move that content into this site under one of the tabs.

As for what the future holds for this site, we will be posting more later. I do hope to continue the Enquiring Hitchhiker Interview series, keep updating the academic articles, and move towards an even more hard academic outlook on science fiction, fantasy, and horror. This emphasis is what separates us from most of the genre sites on the net and I hope to provide much more content in the weeks and months ahead.

Thanks,

Jonathan David Baird

Misconceptions about the First 190,000 years of Human History/Paleo Lifestyle

Misconceptions about the First 190,000 years of Human History/Paleo Lifestyle


There are many people that base what they know of the first 190,000 years of human history on Hollywood movies about cavemen rather than any academic research. The reality is that anatomically modern humans lived a hunting and gathering lifestyle exclusively for almost 190,000 years. They did this, not because they were too stupid to invent agriculture or that they had no idea what animal husbandry was, they lived that lifestyle because it was easy. In fact it was so easy a “caveman could do it”.

Got your attention?

Hunters and gatherers did not invent agriculture because it was a better lifestyle. The fact is that agriculture is not optimal for human health and it certainly is not as easy as hunting and gathering. Agriculture has a host of health and social problems that come with it that are extremely negative and the majority of these problems have not been overcome until relatively recently. This begs a question…If farm living is so much harder why would anyone do it?  The answer is relatively simple, necessity. The first people who moved to the agricultural lifestyle did so because of ecological change, change in climate, and population pressures that occurred at the end of the last ice age.

There are myriad reasons why humans did not develop agriculture before or during the last ice-age, but for the most part the ready availability of prey animals and small population densities made agriculture less desirable. Around 12,000 years ago there was a perfect storm of change that forced humans to try something new. That something new was not inherently better than what had come before. The change in diet associated with agriculture probably led to thousands of early deaths and has led to centuries of gastrointestinal problems as human beings adapt to this new lifestyle.

But, but, but….you can’t possibly be suggesting we return to the lifestyle of hunting and gathering. No, that is not what I am saying. We could not return to that lifestyle even if the population wasn’t so large, or even if someone believed it was a good idea. The ecological factors that made it possible for people to subsist easily are no longer present. Vast herds of megafaunal prey animals no longer roam America and Europe and will not again in the near future. Secondly our technological society has finally begun to mature to a point where human beings are better off as agriculturalists than as hunters and gatherers.

This does not mean we can’t objectively look at the differences between the hunting and gathering lifestyle and the agricultural lifestyle so we can understand why humans chose each. There are several advantages to being a hunter and gatherer.


1) Medical- Medicine didn’t magically become better when people started living in villages in fact medical problems got much worse when we started living on top of each other. Diseases that were often avoided because of isolation suddenly became pandemic. To see this in action look at what happened in North America after Columbus. The Native Americans had arrived on this continent as hunters and gatherers in small isolated groups. The trip to North America acted as a natural bottle neck for disease. Very few diseases that infected humans were carried across. These band of hunters and gatherers were isolated from human disease vectors that had evolved in the old world. When these diseases were reintroduced they decimated the agricultural civilizations that had sprung up in North America. Without such killers as measles, chicken pox, even the common cold the population had never evolved resistance.

So, you have all those same injuries and illnesses that hunters and gatherers faced like hunger, broken limbs, etc plus more disease in agricultural society. This lasted until the early modern period and it was often exacerbated by a much larger population vying for fewer resources. Pray if you are ever dropped back in time before about 200 years ago. It is somewhere underpopulated.

2) Society- Contrary to pop culture the strongest person was not always “Boss Caveman”. I may need to remind you these hunter and gathering groups are simply extended or direct family groups consisting of father, mother, children, and grandchildren. Sometimes uncles,aunts  and their children as well. Thirty people is the normal size of these bands. They are not states they are not even really tribal. Bands and family groups. There are no rules, rulers, kings, or serfs and government hasn’t been invented yet. Just because movies tell you that UGH was beating his tribe into submission doesn’t mean that was the norm.
As for WAR?  What war? Can you call a fight between groups that max out at about 60 people a war? It is a conflict more akin to a family feud. Most Hunter and Gatherer groups, we have had the privilege to observe in the modern age don’t go to “War” they count coup of one kind or another. Sometimes they do kill somebody sometimes a people get hurt. That is the nature of being human. When compared to the horrors inflicted by agricultural societies?

I have had people call hunting and gathering societies communist utopias. They were not. They were neither Utopian nor were they communistic. In fact communism as we know it, in which individuals live communally for the welfare of the group, is an invention of agriculture. These hunting and gathering bands are the haven of  the original rugged individualist.

The major advantage to living in large groups for these early people was child rearing. Children survive with more regularity in a settled society. Score one for “It takes a village”.  As the population rises in these settled agricultural communities they soon exceed the normal number of people associated with hunting and gathering. You can support more people on less land with agriculture. Soon you have government and with government comes a type of power humans had never had over each other before. In a hunting and gathering society when the bands become too large and one group tried to dominate another they break apart and go their separate ways. This doesn’t happen for agriculturalists. They are tied to the land or they are dependent on specialized knowledge of others to survive. They can’t run away over the hill and survive without interference from the state.

Yes, we are better off today than 13,000 years ago but it took quite a bit of heartache to get here and we didn’t get here because agriculture was a better choice.

Saying that hunting and gathering is a better lifestyle choice than agriculture until the modern period is not Marxism projected backwards, if anything it is individualism projected backwards. Neither is it a “Noble Savage” fallacy. There is plenty of evidence that life was not always easy no matter which lifestyle you lived. Humans evolved to live a particular lifestyle. We lived in that lifestyle for tens of thousands of years and it was not lack of intelligence or imagination that kept us there it was simply easy…we all get in a rut sometimes.

 Some popular misconceptions about paleolithic man. 

1) Paleolithic Humans were prey for carnivores such as the cave lion, or the short faced bear. and lived in constant fear of their surroundings..false.
Human’s have been apex predators since before becoming anatomically modern. Large carnivores may have been able to kill the occasional human but archaeological remains suggest early humans hunted other carnivores much more often than they hunted humans.

2) Paleolithic Humans lived exclusively in caves…false. Caves were certainly utilized, but humans are very adaptable and probably lived in many different types of structures made from local materials.

3) Paleolithic humans were always dirty, hungry, and disease ridden…false. We dealt with disease above. As for being dirty we can’t really tell from the archaeological record, but we can surmise based on hunters and gatherers that have been studied. Bathing is a fact of life in most of these societies and cleanliness is often ritualized. As for hunger it really depends Archaeological evidence shows that many groups of hunters and gatherers went through periods of boom and bust from year to year, others are more constant in their nutritional intake. It almost always depends on the area in which the people lived and the abundance of food. Looking at skeletal remains of hunters and gatherers verses agriculturalists, hunters and gatherers are often in much better physical shape probably as a result of better diet (Hunters and gatherers actually work much less than agriculturalists so it isn’t from physical labor).

 

For more reading:

Mashall Sahlins’ study The Original Affluent Society goes into detail how hunter and gatherer societies functioned, http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

http://www.academia.edu/416145/The_causes_and_scope_of_political_egalitarianism_during_the_Last_Glacial_a_multi-disciplinary_perspective

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20334/abstract;jsessionid=C9F7CA5045C73D36D8813F2E5237FAB0.f02t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840310001619397

ooks.google.com/books?id=eTPULzP1MZAC&pg=PA120&dq=Gathering+and+Hominid+Adaptation&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Gathering%20and%20Hominid%20Adaptation&f=false

And if you want to see a writer go a bit too far with the Noble Savage idea:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

Futurism and Modernism in Conflict: How Science Fiction Saved the Future

(Quick note: These examples of futurism are provided to give a brief overview of the types of works which reached across from literature to film and are not meant to represent a full accounting of the hundreds of authors and stories that informed the futurist movement between the two wars)

  

     In his seminal work Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, Modris Eksteins develops a thesis that World War I is responsible for any number of the modern world ills; from the coarsening of public artistic performance to the emergence of Fascism and in particular the horrors of Nazism. This paper will seek to counter some of Eksteins’s contentions and present a secondary analysis of the cultural climate that grew out of the First World War. Alongside the modernist movement there was a second cultural trend that grew out of the First World War. This trend transcended the modernist penchant for nihilism and sought to put a positive and progressive face on the future. Out of this cultural movement grew much of our modern world, our technology, and our modern idea of human equality. The most important thing this cultural trend brought about is how Western society looks at the future. This was a futurist movement; one in which depictions of the future, while not always perfect, were certainly wreathed with hope. This hopeful and powerful message was almost universally accompanied by an open-minded and progressive social and political message. One in which mankind transcends its childhood and the petty bickering that brought about the Great War. This movement predicted man would inherit the stars if only he embraced his fellow man.

      Eksteins laments the rise of the Nazis and the modernist movement believing the ideas of the modernists “in striving for freedoms… have acquired the power of ultimate destruction”[1]. Eksteins’s view of the world is based on a pessimistic belief that modernism had infected all aspects of society’s cultural and social life blood. This modernism would be the foundation for the changes brought about by the war and lead ultimately to the extremes of fascism. The modernist movement was art meant to challenge traditional morals and free man from the constraints of the prior age. This movement sought to replace the old conservative beliefs utterly even if it meant revolution or even war. The rise to power of Hitler brought about a new wave of modernist thought; one that sought to murder tradition and reform society in his image.  It was a movement that lacked a moral compass and those who embraced it saw themselves above the morals of any age.  Hitler would ride this wave of modernism from the Rites of Spring into the Reichstag and bring with him artistic as well as cultural nihilism. “Nazism was a headlong plunge into the future.”[2] Hitler sought to create a new world and a man of the future. A human being divorced from morals owing allegiance only to the nation. This was the culmination of the modernist idea, a man of tomorrow- the nihilistic superman.

      Where modernism invaded the elite levels of society turning the art world upside down and creating spectacle out of art, and monsters out of men, the futurist movement invaded the more pedestrian levels of society.  The penny dreadful gave way to the pulp novel and anthology industry of the early 1920’s. The futurists were just finding their footing after the war. They found a home in the lurid covers of the pulp magazines displacing the aging Gothic horror stories with tales of ray guns and heroes like Buck Rogers.  These new pulp writers rejected both the conservative ethos of the past and the nihilistic ethos of modernism. Instead they embraced a new moral philosophy. This futurist philosophy envisions a different kind of superman than the modernists. The futurist Overman was a moral paragon. He believed in equality not just between men and women, but between the races. He would assert that there was only one race and that was the human race. These new writers wrote about overcoming the short falls of mankind through the application of his intellect. The futurist movement was even embedding itself in the old guard of science fiction writers. H.G Wells’ tone of writing changed dramatically after the war. Moving away from tales that depicted the morose and dark end of the human race or an island full of subhuman monsters that hinted at the base animal nature of man himself, Wells moved into more upbeat and dramatic stories like The Shape of Things to Come in which the future while at times bleak still holds hope for mankind. This different type of science fiction begins to see the light of day at the movies as well. A host of movies with futurist themes begin to crop up targeted at the middle and lower classes. These movies captured the imagination of the people who viewed them and often changed the way the average person thought about how the future would unfold. The culmination of the futurist movement would be a hope and optimism about man’s future.

     Wells lays out an outline for the futurist movement in the introduction of The Shape of Things to Come. Here he discusses the fact that the world must come to grips with its own power and that the time has come for the world to look at itself as one community of men rather than separate countries. “Steam power, oil power, electric power, the railway, the steamship, the aeroplane, transmission by wire and aerial transmission followed each other very rapidly. They knit together the human species as it had never been knit before.”[3] The very essence of futurism is the idea that the human race is an innovative and technologically advanced people who must stand together and stride forward together into the future. Of course this is a very Utopian idea and even Wells realized it would be an idea that could only be accomplished through an application of force which as a pacifist he abhorred. Thus The Shape of Things to Come becomes a treatise on the application of kindly force. This idea of the force for good that protected civilization against the enemies of tolerance and fellowship became almost ubiquitous in futurist literature and informs such modern genre staples as Star Trek’s Federation.

 

     Even before Wells had a chance to write The Shape of Things to Come the ideas of futurism were infecting the pulp literary scene. Anthony “Buck” Rogers (as he was called in the novel) premiered in 1928 in a pulp publication called Armageddon 2419 AD.  This novel by Francis Phillip Nowlan would be an unwitting blue print for the ideas of futurism. It contains all the tropes associated with the movement. It not only had rayguns, flying packs, and rockets, but it also included social commentary. Social commentary would be the staple that bound together the entire futurist movement. Anthony Rogers was also a new type of man. The character had been a soldier in the Great War. He had become an engineer upon coming home and had been thrust into the future because of an accident in a mine. He was a fish out of water. A character who was used to examine and comment on the social and political customs of the future with little or no reason given for why he was doing this. From his perspective we learn about the future and how that future was different from our own time. This is an important part of the futurist model in the early years and this trope would recur time and again as a descriptive methodology.

 

  The women in Nowlan’s novel particularly Wilma Derring are the equals of any man[4]. This was not just a rehash of the “New Woman” feminist from the Victorian period. Wilma Derring and women in the pulps often not only broke stereotypes they were in fact the heroes. Looking at the pulp novel covers one may think these women are little more than damsels who were in need of saving. That was advertising what the reader discovered inside was often an entirely different story.  In his book Partners in Wonder: Women and the Birth of Science Fiction, 1926-1965, Eric Leif Davin contends that in the 1920s and 1930s women writers in particularly feminists often wrote for the pulp science fiction market and brought in very active and powerful female characters. “In their stories we find women as social reformers, abolishing war, and transforming government and society.”[5] This speaks to both the influence of women in the early futurist movement and the power of their ideology which is a polar opposite of that of modernism. While the contributions of these early female authors would be forgotten and even written out of the history of science fiction during the more conservative 1950s their contribution and humanizing of the genre early on gave the futurist movement a more socially conscious foundation. Strong female characters would persist in the literature of the movement even if they were not translated into visual depictions on the pulp covers or in the movies. 

 

      Besides the feminist overtones these novels also introduced the common science fiction trope of the authoritarian and fascist government that had to be overthrown by the heroes. This could be viewed as a direct assault against the nihilism of the modernist movement. Hitler could have easily fit into the role of any of the dictator type characters that had become a common pulp science fiction trope by the 1930s.  Ming the Merciless who was Flash Gordon’s nemesis was particularly prophetic. While Ming could be seen as a very direct allusion to the “Yellow Menace” his appearance and attitude is much more in keeping with Hitler and Nazism. These villains began to take on even more Nazi like traits in the science fiction serials as the run up to the Second World War began. Wells’s novel The Shape of Things to Come would be translated into film in 1936. It too would prophetically predict the atrocities of men like Hitler, warning the viewer that “If we don’t end war, war will end us.”[6]. 

   Besides the social aspects of the futurist movement, which are important, the main thrust of the movement is the attempt to envision the future. Technological advancements and how these achievements would revolutionize the future is the main aspect which sets it apart from the other social and cultural movements. We know that the plups made everything from rockets to ray guns popular, but it was often the small things that made the most impact on the audiences. Small innovations first visualized from reading about them or seeing them in movies would entrance the public. If in a year or two after seeing or reading about these innovations they were suddenly part of real life the audience became more willing to suspend their disbelief and believe that futurism really did hold the key to the future. Little known today the movie Transatlantic Tunnel featured a host of time saving and entertaining futuristic devices that were merely background props, but would soon become reality. Released in 1935 the movie depicts the building of a railway tunnel under the Atlantic between Great Britain and the United States. The movie features innovation that was unheard of in 1935. Video phones, pocket sized radio phones, live feed global television etc are all seen in the film as a common and unremarkable part of the future[7].  The movie is grounded in such a way that it plays out not as some futuristic epic, but as a time just a few years into the future. The clothing and the sets are familiar to the viewer. These inventions are treated as inevitable eventualities not fantastic creations of an unreachable and unknowable distant future. This is the allure of futurism and this is how it took hold in the minds of average people. They expected the world to conform to this new model. This model allowed the creation of today’s world a world in which progress is inevitable. Futurism provided the modern world with that expectation of the newer better model of ever invention just around the corner.

  
       The futurist movement was not a movement that attracted as much attention as the modernist movement. It was a movement outside of the society elites and spoke directly to the middle class. It crept along quietly infecting the masses with ideas of ray guns, rockets, cell phones, and computers. It was a movement that spoke to the future and offered to people ways to look at society in new and innovative ways. Here was a secret almost furtive movement that became an avalanche. The Futurist movement slowly fulfilled its promises with one technological innovation after another. A man transported in time from 1880 to 1940, a mere 60 years, would barely have been able to fathom the technological changes. These changes were heralded not by the modernists, but by the futurists.  Middle class kids who grew up on Buck Rogers’s pulps and H.G. Wells novels in the 1920s and 1930s became engineers and scientists who made their childhood dreams into reality. The same kids who went to the movies to watch Metropolis and The Transatlantic Tunnel would create technological wonders that rivaled anything they watched on the movie screen. 

These same kids would grow up and face off with the modernist ideology of Hitler and Nazis. World War Two would be the climax in a struggle not just for territory or political power it would be ultimately a struggle between two competing philosophies. These philosophies could not exist in harmony. They were natural enemies in a struggle to tame the future. Modernism rejected the past, but sought to remake the future in a cacophony of violence and disruption. Futurism also sought to throw off the conservative past, but sought a future of progress both technologically and socially. Futurism did not wish to throw away morality it sought a new morality one more humane than what had gone before. This did not mean that the futurist idealist would not fight to protect the future they envisioned. Wells had laid the ground work in The Shape of Things to Come. The future was worth fighting for and it was the futurist movement, born out of the conflict of the First World War, that provided the inspiration for the machines that would eventually end the Second World War, and begin the modern age.

  

End Notes

 

 

1. Modris Eksteins, Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000),14.

2 . ibid, 303.

3.  H.G. Wells, The Shape of Things to Come (London: Gollancz, 2011), 22.

4. Philip Francis Nowlan, Armageddon–2419 A.D. (Project Gutenburg.Urbana:University of Illinios, 2010), http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/32530/pg32530.txt (accessed November 30, 2013).

5.Eric Leif Davin, Partners in Wonder: Women and the Birth of Science Fiction, 1926-1965 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), 234.

6.  Things to Come, Directed by William Cameron Menzies, 1936 (Chatsworth, CA: Image Entertainment, 2001), DVD.

7.  Transatlantic Tunnel, Directed by Maurice Elvey, 1935 (Hollywood, Calif: PRS Productions. 2009), DVD.

 

The Enquiring Hitchhiker Interviews Author Sarah A. Hoyt

The Enquiring Hitchhiker Interviews Author Sarah A. Hoyt

Zemanta Related Posts Thumbnail
The Enquiring Hitchhiker brings you an interview with Sarah A. Hoyt. She is the author of the award winning Darkship Thieves which won the Prometheus award in 2011.

Question 1 – You are a prolific writer in many different genres. Is it very hard to switch back and forth from historic romance, to fantasy, and then to science fiction?

It’s very, very difficult. I think I’d get bored if I did only one thing, but I could stand to kick back a little. Actually I haven’t done historic romance — not really. I did a novelization of the lives of Henry VIII queens, but I think in Romance you should lose your head in a different way . I do historical mystery as Sarah D’Almeida and I’m re-releasing my Musketeer mysteries, and will continue the series if indie sales warrant it. So, oh, yeah, kicking back not happening soon.

Question 2- You seem to write several blogs daily (I can barely keep up with reading them and I really enjoy your blogs) and you produce a massive amount of written work for novels, short stories etc besides. How do you keep the words flowing? Do you ever get writer’s block and if so how do you combat it?

Sometimes I face a black abyss. Weirdly, this happens most often in nonfiction. I’m trying very hard to do all my blogging — I owe Bill Quick blogs. And also Classical Values — on weekends, which leaves my mind in fiction-mode for the week. Hopefully. We’ll see how it works.

Question 3- Who are the writers that most influenced your work?

Robert A. Heinlein, Agatha Christie, Clifford Simak, Terry Pratchett, F. Paul Wilson — and for a different set Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Dumas. And for yet a different set Bradbury, Borges… I’m leaving so many out.

Question 4- You are originally from Portugal and you speak several languages, but from what I can tell you write mainly in English. Do you write anything for the Portuguese market? Is there a market for science fiction and fantasy in Portugal?

I write only in English. Even an extended period of reading in other languages will affect my English … fluency. Or at least the word choice and syntax. I can’t sell to the Portuguese market for love or money. It’s my dream to have my father read one of my Musketeer mysteries, but he doesn’t speak English and I’ve been unable to sell translation rights. In fact, the only translation rights I’ve sold are to Darkship Thieves, in Japanese.

Question 5- The last question we ask at the Freehold is always one about politics. These questions always get mixed reactions. Some writers refuse to answer so they will not disappoint fans who don’t agree with their views others are very open about them. You seem to be in the very open camp. Do you follow any one political philosophy and if not can you give us a short overview of what you believe politically?

 I think it would be very hard to have any fans who know of my science fiction unaware of where I stand politically and look, frankly? I read people who are progressives (Rex Stout and Heinlein at a time) and soft left (Pratchett) and I think if the left can’t pull up its big boy/girl pants and face it that there isn’t one “right” way to think and anyone who doesn’t think that way is a villain or stupid, we’re going to have to fight this out on the streets. Which I hope we aren’t. In fact, I know I have several leftist fans who roll their eyes at my politics. It’s good for them. I raise their blood pressure and thereby get them the benefit of exercise without the trouble. As for my politics, I’m a minarchist. I don’t believe in utopias. I don’t believe we can get by with NO government — not yet and not for a good long time — but humans being humans and not angels, government is a terrible power to entrust to any of them or any group of them. And so, I suggest we have a government and make it as powerless as possible. My beliefs track pretty closely with those enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and — with minor quibbles — in the constitution. For our present trouble, I think devolving a lot more power to the states and to the individuals would be salutary. Oops. Sorry. That’s not brief.

 Thank you for the interview and I look forward to seeing you again next year at Liberty Con in Chattanooga.

 

The SteamGoth Anthology Series Has a New Addition

The SteamGoth Anthology Series Has a New Addition

g1ggI generally don’t push products on this site, but I make an exception for our flagship line of books from Crosstime Publishing.

This week Goggles, Gears and Gremlins debuts on Amazon and Kindle.

Click HERE

The Kindle edition is 99 cents so please check it out and if you like it try out one of the other two books in the SteamGoth series… (and if you really love them please leave a review with Amazon)

 

sss

 

 

Sorcery, Steam, and Steel

 

 

 

 

 
mmm

 

 

 

Monsters, Magic, and Machines

 

Ender’s Game: Why You Should Not Boycott This Movie

Ender’s Game: Why You Should Not Boycott This Movie

I was having a conversation at lunch with a friend about his plans to boycott the Ender’s Game movie.

My first thought was why do I care if an older, white, and religious man dislikes gay marriage, or even gays? My own father doesn’t like gays and certainly disapproves of gay marriage. I still show up at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the Fourth of July even though I disagree with his stance on that issue. I certainly have more reason to boycott these events then I do anything dealing with Orson Scott Card.  It isn’t as if Card is a politician who has power to change laws, neither is his movie actively promoting an anti-gay agenda…

 

When I replied to my friend that I was planning to see the movie anyway because I don’t care if Card has an opinion contrary to my own. My friend answered by saying , “Because Card is a famous person his beliefs can sway public opinion. That makes seeing this movie wrong.”

OK, I understand his point. Does that mean I need to boycott everyone famous I disagree with if they speak openly about their beliefs?  I find Mark Zuckerberg’s politics disgusting, but I still use Facebook. I find Jim Carrey’s beliefs about  guns disquieting, but I will still go see Kickass 2. Do I have an obligation to boycott people because they have opinions I don’t agree with and who are famous? I think the right answer is that … I should argue my own beliefs in public if I have a chance, even publicly challenge Card when possible. Go out of my way to make my own opinions as public as his, but boycott? No. If I boycotted everyone I disagree with I would never get to see another movie, or read another book again.  No-one shares my opinions 100% of the time or even close to 100%, everyone has an opinion someone else wants to boycott. We live in a marketplace of ideas. Ideas should be in as much of a laissez-faire environment as we can make it that is the beauty of freedom of expression.

On the other hand, I would boycott any movie or book Orson Scott Card writes if it preaches that gays are part of a demonic conspiracy to destroy America….Yes. Here is the level that meets the boycott criteria. Direct and open preaching of something I find reprehensible. I would not pay money to encourage that sort of behavior so by default I would be boycotting it. However, I don’t recall  anything of that sort in Ender’s Game. Also, as far as I know Card is not using the money he makes from the movie to prevent gay marriage or to make being gay illegal. That might be another valid reason to boycott.  In the same vein if someone on the Left makes a movie advocating socialism, I will boycott something like that because they are directly supporting in that work something I find to be ethically wrong.

If Ender’s Game is as faithful to the book as I have heard, then boycotting it will harm the future of science fiction at the movies. Do you want to continue seeing movies that totally change the premise of an author’s work? Remember…..Starship Troopers. I think we need to step back and realize that not everyone is going to share your opinions, and that it is alright to eat food at their restaurant, watch their movies, or even read their books when they don’t.

Card himself has weighed in on this controversy. I think it is a sufficient explanation  of his position and one I can live with.

“Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot.  The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

Orson Scott Card