"And he must be something to see, Koskinen realized. Not only because he'd come down hard enough to smash concrete. But he was in good, new, upper-level clothes. On his back he carried a lumpy metal cylinder; the harness included a plastic panel across his chest, with switches, knobs, and three meters. Like some science fiction hero on the 3D." (p. 22)
Or like some superhero in a comic book? Or like the hero of an sf novel? But that third is what he is.
James Blish wrote that bad writers (which Anderson is not) sometimes try to deflect criticism by remarking that what is happening in their novel sounds like something in a bad novel - which it is.
In this passage, Anderson presents a striking image of a falling man in a high tech harness smashing concrete. But this is because he is protected by a Martian force shield. He is neither a flying man nor an invisible man but a shielded man. The novel will explore the implications of that premise.
5 comments:
Paul:
Evan S. Connell Jr., author of fiction and non-fiction, wrote an essay dealing with exploration of the Antarctic, "The White Lantern." One of the topics was a misadventure of Sir Douglas Mawson in 1912 into 1913, trekking alone across the glacier after both his comrades and all their sled dogs died. And in the course of that...
"Now the predicament in which he found himself is absurd; if it appeared on a movie screen the audience would cackle and hoot. The old Saturday serials used to conclude like this: our hero inextricably, fundamentally, unconditionally, and grievously trapped.
"Here is what we have. We have Sir Douglas, harnessed to his sledge for easier pulling, dangling at the end of the rope. Below him the camera reveals a bottomless gorge. Above him the sledge has caught in deep snow but at any instant it may break loose. If that happens Sir Douglas will plunge into frozen eternity."
(Mawson climbed up the rope and out of the crevasse. He lived another 45 years.)
Fiction has to be credible; reality just is.
The American Civil War probably turned out the way it did because in 1862 a copy of Lee's General Order 191 -- giving the locations of his scattered forces, their strengths, and how he planned to unite them and what he intended to do then -- fell out of a courier's pocket.
He'd wrapped it around three cigars. Some Union soldiers picked it up, and didn't discard the wrapper. They pushed it up the chain of command, until it got to someone who'd gone to West Point with the man who'd written the order to Lee's dictation, and he recognized the handwriting. He got it to General McClellan, who managed to gain a draw/technical victory over Lee at Antietam (which shows you what sort of general McClellan was).
The British and French governments had decided to recognize the Confederacy, and Gladstone was on his way to give the speech announcing the new policy (in Scotland), when the news of the Union victory came through. They decided to put recognition off.
Without General Order 191 falling into Union hands, Lee would almost certainly have beaten McClellan somewhere in Pennsylvania and the recognition would have gone through.
My friend Harry Turtledove wrote an entire series about that one.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, I have read of how Lee's General Order 191 fell into Union hands and enable McClellan to defeat Lee JUST enough to persuade the UK and France not to recognize the Confederacy. And I have also read Turtledove's books exploring what might have happened if Lee's orders had not fallen into enemy hands (HOW FEW REMAIN and its sequels).
Gen. McClellan was in many ways, as Churchill believed, a brave and able soldier, but his chief flaw was excessive caution and being unwilling to decisively use all the forces at his command against Lee. A more implacably aggressive general, like Grant, would have CRUSHED Lee at Antietam, not simply "technically" defeat the Confederates. But Churchill also said that McClellan was LEARNING from his collisions with Lee and was a far more competent commander than his immediate successors in command of the Army of the Potomac: Ambrose Burnsides and Joseph Hooker.
Sean
Mr Stirling,
Great to hear from you again! I am sure you have been too busy writing new fictions to comment (until now) on our discussions of old fictions. Your comments are always welcome and illuminating.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I absolutely agree with what you said about Mr. Stirling! And I look forward very much to reading his next book THEATER OF SPIES. I hope we see our old friend Horst again and more about Austria-Hungary.
And I got an emailed notification of your comment!
Sean
Post a Comment