Imagine a Psychotechnic History instalment set in a period when a large percentage of the population is insane. How do they manage to get out of it? In the Brian Aldiss story whose title I do not remember, everyone was, or was going, mad - as far as I remember. Society was so fragmented that every character was an office holder or committee member in a "Society" that campaigned for a (different) important cause. One character disapproved of this fragmentation of society into Societies and was himself the Secretary of the Society for the Suppression of Societies. At one point in the text, the omniscient narrator used a descriptive phrase and, shortly after that, one of the characters used this same phrase, preceding it with "As the author says..." The effect on the reader was to make him wonder which level of reality he was on.
Since Poul Anderson mentions these Years of Madness several times, he could have placed one story - maybe one would have been enough - in that period. A lot of what happens in this future history series is presented in what the characters think or say to each other rather in narrative form. We can regard the Psychotechnic History as a good preparation for the Technic History which, in The Earth Book Of Stormgate, reaches the peak of American future history writing, in my opinion.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
A better example, IMO, would be Anderson's THE NIGHT FACE, set on the long lost colonized planet Gwydion. Periodically, the entire population goes temporarily insane during Bale time.
Ad astra! Sean
While some people are unquestionably doolally, in most respects "insanity" is a matter of opinion.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
In many cases, I agree. But I think many homeless people are not of sound mind and unable to take care of themselves.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: oh, unquestionably. In the not-too-distant past they'd have been either in prison, or involuntarily committed to an asylum. Further back, a lot of them would have been kept in line with punishment and/or quietly done away with in one manner or another.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling
Involuntary commitment, in institutions run by people at least trying to treat them humanely, is the least bad solution for such persons. Better than letting them helplessly wandering the streets being a danger to themselves and others.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: agreed, it's better. However, there's the question of allocation of resources. Investing in education, for example, is a genuine investment -- it pays off later. OTOH, people like that are a pure cost. They're never going to contribute anything.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, resources are always going to be finite and limited. And that means limits on what will be allocated for involuntarily committing mentally unsound homeless people. But I think the costs of doing so would be less than what we have now, where they just wander the streets endangering themselves and others.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment