William Gibson and the Creation of Worlds

I'm rereading Neuromancer and am moved to comment on what makes the superior writer of what's called science fiction such a boon to those who love to read.

All know William Gibson as the creator of cyberpunk, the man who named cyberspace, the matrix, who coined so many words and phrases now in common use when the Internet as we know it did not yet exist.  But reading this early work I'm struck by the imposing realness of the world he creates in this novel, and detailed in the subsequent novels Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive.  As far as I'm concerned, our Internet is far less interesting than the artificial reality he described as accessed by his computer cowboys, though it is not (yet?) here in our world.  But the world in which his cowboys lived and, sometimes, thrived, bears considerable resemblance to the one in which we live.

Consider the ubiquity of drugs use in that world, the omnipresence of new and interesting technologies, the significance of money, the grittiness of the urban landscapes in which people live and die, deals are made and information obtained and traded, the twisting of medicine and genetics to doing service in making money and pursuing and exercising power though the enhancement of physical and mental abilities.  The latter may not be here yet, but one feels that it will come; that it must come.

For some reason, when I try to visualize the world that Gibson shows us in these novels, the landscapes we see in the movie Blade Runner always comes to my mind.  That's what I see when the Sprawl or Chiba City are mentioned.  I'm surprised that a movie hasn't been made of Neuromancer.  I would prefer such a movie to the sword and sorcery epics we're being dubiously treated to instead in the form of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones and their imitations.  Odd that we obsess over faux castles and kingdoms, swords and magic; there's something adolescent about it.

Which is not to criticize either Tolkien or George R.R. Martin, both of them being superb creators of worlds themselves.  Other such creators are (or were) Frank Herbert who made the Dune universe, and Philip Jose Farmer for his Riverworld.  C.J. Cherryh has made more than one interesting world, as has Dan Simmons, the maker of Hyperion and the Shrike.  Orson Scott Card, when he is not busy moralizing, has also manufactured fascinating alternate realities.

It is unsurprising that it is in science fiction and fantasy that the worlds are created and live and are experienced.  Nowhere else is the imagination given such free reign; nowhere else is it the case that new and different realities are expected.  But it is the gift of Gibson and others to make these realities simultaneously familiar and unfamiliar.  Outlandish worlds somehow turn out to be uninteresting.  It's impossible to picture oneself in worlds that are entirely unreal, and one must picture oneself somewhere in order for it to hold one's interest and attention; in order for it to be worth the effort of reading or thinking, or dreaming. 

Science fiction is a curious genre, though.  Great science fiction can fascinate in a good way, but science fiction that is not great can fascinate in a bad way.  The many versions of Star Trek and Star Wars are examples of science fiction that is not great.  They are not bad, really, but they are silly.  This may come of the need evidently felt to come up with aliens who always seem to be far too much like human beings, but human beings who are comical or irritating or mystical in one sense or another and used as expositive devices.  We see the results of the fascination with science fiction that is not great in conventions and cosplay, in a devotion to the Klingon language or to The Force, in dreaming one is a Jedi Knight or superhero. 

The worlds of great science fiction are disturbingly real; those of science fiction that is not great are cartoonish.  It's regrettable that the science fiction we see translated into visual media these days is that science fiction which generates cartoon realities, primarily those of the superhero.  This suggests we desire to escape our own world, which is understandable.  But to escape into cartoons is only to escape reality, not to reimagine it and think of it.

Orson's Game

We hear much of Orson Scott Card these days.  Most likely we do because his novel Ender's Game has been made into a movie coming soon to a theatre near you, but also because he has taken it upon himself to declaim at some length verbally and in writing on topics such as gay marriage, our esteemed President and his claimed machinations, his (Card's) Mormon faith and the faiths of others, and more.  He seems rather offended that his pronouncements in these areas have earned him enemies, which I find rather odd.  But the self-righteous are, naturally enough, easily offended when their beliefs, so eagerly expressed, are questioned.

I find myself wishing he was content merely to write his books.  His books aren't bad; some indeed are good, or so I believe.  Ender's Game is a book I enjoyed reading.  I also enjoyed reading his books in the series involving the character Alvin Maker.  But I haven't enjoyed reading other books he's written.

The sequels to Ender's Game disappointed me, especially those written more recently.  Genius children can grow to be annoying, particularly genius children who talk and write incessantly and are surrounded by dull, gullible, bovine or boorish and violent adults.  Novels based on such conceits don't interest me after a chapter or two.  He's also written novels which seem to have a biblical or Book of Mormonical (?) connection, and alas that is a connection which doesn't interest me either, except with respect to the extensive and profound connection between Christianity and the beliefs which preceded it and which it assimilated, which I find fascinating.

But as is so often the case, what I wish for is not true and does not come true, either.  Mr. Card seems to rejoice in pontificating on various topics in various media.  I of course cannot object to that in itself, as I pontificate here in this blog, and on a certain forum.  But because of my relative anonymity and, I hope, because of a sensibility he seems to lack, my pronouncements are not quite as...well...loony, and not as likely to drive others to distraction (this sometimes seems to be his intent, regrettably).

Sadly, Card's opinions seem to be too much along the lines of the opinions already blared out by those who make their money doing right-wing talk radio, or are talking heads on Fox News.  I'm no fan of our President, and can even be described as conservative or perhaps libertarian in some respects.  But there is a level at which the expression of disagreement with the President and liberals generally becomes uninteresting and indeed unintelligent if not incoherent.

That level has been reached in talk radio and on Fox News, and that seems to be the level at which Mr. Card now operates.  Obama has a character which seems to evoke hysteria in some, and what might be valid criticism swiftly degenerates into lunatic exaggeration in those cases.  Card's very odd column in which he imagines the President usurping the government and revoking the Constitution strikes me as positively rabid.  It's hard to believe that he would think he was engaging in rational thought of any kind while manufacturing such nonsense.  Peppering it with facile references to Augustus, Napoleon and Hitler, which he appears to think evidences a keen grasp of history, simply makes him seem more of a crank.

He seems to believe that it is Muslim doctrine that any person who ceases to be a Muslim must be killed.  The little reading I've done indicates that whether that is the case is disputed, but clearly Card thinks there is no dispute, or perhaps rather that if there is a dispute it doesn't matter.  He maintains that unless Muslims agree to condemn this doctrine, they should be penalized by our government which should, among other things, deny Islam the exemption from taxes granted other religions.  This is punishment Card believes appropriate for Islam being uncivilized.

I don't object to the revocation of this exemption as I think there should be no exemption for any religion or Church.  The exemption is a benefit granted religions for no good reason as far as I'm concerned, but regardless they are not entitled to the exemption, they are given it.  No organization should be accorded special status under the law.  The revocation of a gratuitous benefit is not a punishment or penalty.

It seems gay rights advocates want us to boycott Ender's Game, the movie, because of Card's opposition to gay marriage.  As I've noted before, I think marriage in the law is simply a special kind of partnership, and should be just that and only that as far as the law is concerned.  Whether the partners are straight or gay makes no difference to me, and should not in the law.  But I'm not inclined to avoid the movie because Card evidently thinks that gay marriage will somehow result in some kind of vicious, mandated quashing of traditional life, culture and morals.  There have been plenty of novelists and artists throughout our history who have been idiots or bigots, but we should be free to read or view or listen to their work.

I won't go to see the movie for the same reasons I don't go to see others.  Why spend money on what will likely be a bombastic cookie-cutter production, poorly acted, as are most movies made in our Glorious Republic these days?  I'll wait until it shows up before me as I sit in my comfy chair in my living room, and then will probably end up turning it off in any case to read some non-fiction and listen to music (the History and Discovery channels having become for reasons unknown to me purveyors of strange "reality shows").  I may even think while doing that.  Thinking is not a game being played well or often by Mr. Card and too many others of our time.