-Poul Anderson, "Concerning Future Histories" IN Bulletin Of The Science Fiction Writers Of America, Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 1979, p. 13.
There are four possible responses to an inconsistency in a work of fiction, e.g., between installments of a series. The reader:
does not notice;
does not care;
rationalizes the inconsistency;
regards the inconsistency as an irredeemable error.
Only the fourth response is a problem. It is called an "aesthetic interference condition," according to one of my lecturers in Aesthetics. The inconsistency interferes with or prevents aesthetic appreciation or satisfaction. Many apparent inconsistencies can be rationalized by reflecting that often the successive installments of a future history are written from different points of view. Thus, one character thinks that the Merseians are mammals whereas another thinks that they are not, etc.
Inconsistencies are not a major problem in Poul Anderson's works. I am reflecting on them here because I have been considering the works of James Blish who wrote two linear future histories but also several branching futures. Although Robert Heinlein compiled his Time Chart in order to keep his Future History consistent, he later wrote, in that same SFWA Bulletin, that he wanted each story to be internally consistent but not necessarily the entire series, which helps to explain why the gravity control discovered in one story is absent in later stories, although this inconsistency can also be rationalized.
Addendum: For discussion of one apparent contradiction in Anderson's Flandry series, see here.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I fear you yourself perpetrated an inconsistency here! The SFWA BULLETIN article you quoted in this blog piece was pub. in 1979, not 1971.
I would classify myself as falling in your third category here: trying to rationalize inconsistencies I have noticed. Some of my letters to Poul Anderson included discussions of inconsistencies and how to rationalize them.
And Poul Anderson said the Merseians, as a species, were true mammals showing more signs of their pre-mammalian ancestry than was preserved by mankind.
Sean
Sean,
Thanks. A slip of the pen, which will be corrected. Anderson also says that the Merseians are not mammals. I have quoted both statements somewhere on the blog!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I've been trying to remember where Anderson said the Merseians were not mammals. Perhaps in one of the original versions of the first three stories in AGENT OF THE TERRAN EMPIRE?
And thanks for linking this blog piece to my discussion of an inconsistency I discovered from comparing THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN with "Honorable Enemies." That was a very interesting and important "contradiction."
Sean
Sean,
"...he was no mammal...," SIR DOMINIC FLANDRY: THE LAST KNIGHT OF TERRA, p. 367.
Paul.
I would add a fifth possible response: "grinds teeth and does his/her best not to care, because he/she still enjoys MOST of the story."
As you might guess, I've needed to use that response several times when I couldn't come up with a reasonable rationalization.
(I removed the previous version of this comment due to an unacceptable error in grammar, not caught until after I'd posted it.)
I assume that Baen Books Technic Civilization Saga has the same pagination in hardback as in paperback? But, in case not, this quote is from A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS, Chapter II.
Kaor, Paul!
Now I'm puzzled! This is part of what Chapter II of A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS says about the "zmayi," a Dennitzan descended from the Merseians who had emigrated to that planet: "he was warm-blooded, females of his race gave live birth, but he was no mammal--no kind of animal which Terra had ever brought forth." I could have sworn Merseians are described elsewhere in the Technic History as true mammals.
Sean
Hi, David!
What were one or two of these inconsistencies that would provoke a reaction fitting your proposed addition to Paul's list?
Sean
Sean,
They are often described as true mammals. This is a prima facie contradiction.
Paul.
Sean:
When the author loses track of what a relatively minor character's NAME is, for one.
Example: in Andre Norton's *The Crystal Gryphon*, the male lead's mother is named Tephana. In the sequel, *Gryphon in Glory*, she's referred to as Temphera. Tephana/Temphera was seldom seen, but the fellow can't remember his own mother's name?!
Though I hate to say it, David Drake's writing, especially his *RCN* series, has provided a LOT of such inconsistencies lately. Adele Mundy received her scholarly training on the planet Bryce -- or Blythe, depending on which book you read. Her mother's given name was either Esme or Evadne; dad was Lucius mostly, but Lucas in at least one book.
One not relating to names: in the first *RCN* book, Adele notices that a crewmember named Woetjans would've had an attractive face if not for a prominent scar. Several books later, the narrative describes Woetjans as having "a face like a camel." I can't figure out a way to reconcile those descriptions.
And then, of course, there's what I call the "Platt Problem," which Drake is doing DELIBERATELY. A reviewer named Charles Platt said some very nasty -- and ill-informed -- things about Drake's first book. (Platt said that if Drake had ever seen war, he wouldn't write about it as he does. David Drake served in Vietnam, not infrequently as a tank crewman.) Since then, Drake's works almost inevitably have someone named "Platt" in them. If the latest Platt is lucky, he'll merely be STUPID. Unsavory sexual tastes and/or financial corruption often appear as well. What's inconsistent is that even in series books, none of the other characters NOTICE that the name "Platt" always means bad things, even after they've met five or six UNRELATED stupid or corrupt or perverted Platts.
Kaor, Paul!
I have to agree, an apparent prima facie contradiction. I could try to rationalize this by saying Terran scientists could have debated whether non Terrestrial animals and intelligent races which were warm blooded and bore their young alive could rightly be called "mammals." I can imagine one faction arguing this word should be restricted to species which had arisen on Terra.
Sean
Hi, David!
Thanks for your interesting and lengthy note!
I do see what you mean about authors sometimes getting muddled about the names of their characters. Even Poul Anderson can make slips like that. We Tachwyr the Dark mentioned as belonging to one Vach in ENSIGN FLANDRY but being said to being a member of a different Vach in THE GAME OF EMPIRE.
Alas, I'm not familiar with David Drake's "RCN" books. I have, of course, heard of Drake and read some of his works, both solo and as a co-author. But, it was mostly his and Stirling's "The General" books I've read (along with some of the Hammer's Slammers stories and books like BIRDS OF PREY).
But your comments about the "Platt Problem" were interesting and amusing! It shows how human authors can be, getting piqued by hostile reviewers. I was reminded of the story of how Michelangelo, irritated by one critic's hostile comments about "The Last Judgment," included that critic in his painting as a devil with a snake biting the genitals!
I can see why you criticized Drake's use of "Platt." Overused and inconsistently used in a rather peeved way.
Sean
Sean,
Exactly. Different POVs.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Which means I have to conclude it's not a TRUE prima facie contradiction for some characters in the Technic Civilization series to think the Merseians were mammals while others disagreed. Simply a matter of debating which terms were best applicable to non Terrestrial life forms.
Sean
Post a Comment