John C. Wright's Blog, page 100

Grand Master Gene Wolfe!

I heard that Gene Wolfe was voted Grandmaster in this years Nebula. Congratulations! Long overdue!

This is from :

The Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America named Gene Wolfe the recipient of the 2012 Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award. Wolfe has written many novels and short stories, and has previously won two Nebulas, five World Fantasy Awards, and six Locus Awards, among others. Wolfe also won the World Fantasy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1996, and was inducted into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame in 2007.

The award, given for “lifetime achievement in science fiction and/or fantasy,” will be presented at the 48th Annual Nebula Awards Weekend in San Jose, CA, May 16-19, 2013. Previous recipients of the award include such luminaries as Ursula K. Le Guin, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Connie Willis, Anne McCaffrey, and Joe Haldeman.

 

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Wait … What?

I came across this while ego-surfing.

The Golden Age by John C. Wright?
I am reading this book for AP lit, but there is no sparknotes or anything for this book. Does anyone know any website or book or anything where they have the book summarized or analyzed by chapter? Thanks!

So a teacher in advanced placement literature assigned one of my books in school? For kids to study? For credit??

I am flattered, very much so, but, come on, folks! Did the schoolchildren run out of Dickens and Shakespeare to read?

My work is fine, and I am proud of it, but is this the best use of the student’s limited time and attention span? How about anything on any topic by G.K. Chesterton instead? I seriously think Chesterton wrote at least one article on everything in the cosmos at one point.

If you want to read good science fiction, how about HYPERION by Dan Simmons? Then force the young scholars to read CANTERBURY TALES by Chaucer and show the comparisons.

Oh, maybe I should write up the cheat notes myself! That way, I can assure their accuracy, and be certain that my masterwork will be treated with the respect, nay, the groveling admiration it deserves!  I much choose my words carefully. Let me see…

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Orwell and Lewis

I never knew that Geo Orwell reviewed Jack Lewis. Here, as a historical curio, is the famous dystopia-writer’s view of Lewis’ famous dystopia.

The Scientist Takes Over

review of C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength (1945) 

by George Orwell 

Manchester Evening News, 16 August 1945

Reprinted as No. 2720 (first half) in The Complete Works of George Orwell, edited by Peter Davison, Vol. XVII (1998), pp. 250–251

On the whole, novels are better when there are no miracles in them. Still, it is possible to think of a fairly large number of worth-while books in which ghosts, magic, second-sight, angels, mermaids, and what-not play a part.

Mr. C. S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength” can be included in their number – though, curiously enough, it would probably have been a better book if the magical element had been left out. For in essence it is a crime story, and the miraculous happenings, though they grow more frequent towards the end, are not integral to it.

 

In general outline, and to some extent in atmosphere, it rather resembles G. K. Chesterton’s “The Man Who Was Thursday.”

Mr. Lewis probably owes something to Chesterton as a writer, and certainly shares his horror of modern machine civilisation (the title of the book, by the way, is taken from a poem about the Tower of Babel) and his reliance on the “eternal verities” of the Christian Church, as against scientific materialism or nihilism.

His book describes the struggle of a little group of sane people against a nightmare that nearly conquers the world. A company of mad scientists – or, perhaps, they are not mad, but have merely destroyed in themselves all human feeling, all notion of good and evil – are plotting to conquer Britain, then the whole planet, and then other planets, until they have brought the universe under their control.

All superfluous life is to be wiped out, all natural forces tamed, the common people are to be used as slaves and vivisection subjects by the ruling caste of scientists, who even see their way to conferring immortal life upon themselves. Man, in short, is to storm the heavens and overthrow the gods, or even to become a god himself.

There is nothing outrageously improbable in such a conspiracy. Indeed, at a moment when a single atomic bomb – of a type already pronounced “obsolete” – has just blown probably three hundred thousand paople to fragments, it sounds all too topical. Plenty of people in our age do entertain the monstrous dreams of power that Mr. Lewis attributes to his characters, and we are within sight of the time when such dreams will be realisable.

His description of the N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments), with its world-wide ramifications, its private army, its secret torture chambers, and its inner ring of adepts ruled over by a mysterious personage known as The Head, is as exciting as any detective story.

It would be a very hardened reader who would not experience a thrill on learning that The Head is actually – however, that would be giving the game away.

One could recommend this book ureservedly if Mr. Lewis had succeeded in keeping it all on a single level. Unfortunately, the supernatural keeps breaking in, and it does so in rather confusing, undisciplined ways. The scientists are endeavouring, among other things, to get hold of the body of the ancient Celtic magician Merlin, who has been buried – not dead, but in a trance – for the last 1,500 years, in hopes of learning from him the secrets of pre-Christian magic.

 

They are frustrated by a character who is only doubtfully a human being, having spent part of his time on another planet where he has been gifted with eternal youth. Then there is a woman with second sight, one or two ghosts, and various superhuman visitors from outer space, some of them with rather tiresome names which derive from earlier books of Mr. Lewis’s. The book ends in a way that is so preposterous that it does not even succeed in being horrible in spite of much bloodshed.

 

Much is made of the fact that the scientists are actually in touch with evil spirits, although this fact is known only to the inmost circle. Mr. Lewis appears to believe in the existence of such spirits, and of benevolent ones as well. He is entitled to his beliefs, but they weaken his story, not only because they offend the average reader’s sense of probability but because in effect they decide the issue in advance. When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. However, by the standard of the novels appearing nowadays this is a book worth reading.

=============================================================================================================

Mr. Orwell (or mr. Blair, take your pick) makes interesting comments, but only one really betrays the typical limitations of his secular philosophy: “When one is told that God and the Devil are in conflict one always knows which side is going to win. The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid. ”

As a man who struggled against evil, he should have known better, even if he sought no supernatural aid.

Come now: is Milton’s PARADISE LOST without drama? We know Adam is going to win, don’t we? He has supernatural aid in his stuggle against the devil, doesn’t he? Or how about little Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom? The One Ring would not have come to him if he were not meant to have it. That means a mysterious supernatural fate is assuring him of victory in his struggle against Sauron, right? Ergo there is no drama in the story. The miracle of Gandalf’s resserection, the miracle of Aragorn raising and commanding the Hosts of the Dead–all this robs the tale of interest, right? There is no drama in the ILIAD, look at all those gods peopling the tale; and none in CINDERELLA, because how can a girl with a fairy godmother lose?

Bah. What utter humbug Orwell says. Some people suffer from fairy-story depravation, or something, and hence do not know what real life is about.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Still having promiscuous sex with in a consequence-free environment…

An article from The American Culture website, touching a theme I have more than once addressed:

In a recent article on “The New Backlash Against Casual Sex,” Slate “Double X”  blogger Jessica Grose reacts with abject revulsion toward recent events manifesting what she sees as the “fervent conservatism” of the current decade. These atrocities include a new book called I Don’t Care About Your Band , in which feminist writer Julie Klausner documents her disappointments with casual sex.

Espying a sinister pattern behind these events, Grose bemoans what she characterizes as a horrid resurgence of puritanism that has become a common attitude among young females and is somehow perverting even once-sensible feminists such as Ms. Klausner:

Domestic bliss is now the cultural ideal for young women, which is why Lori Gottlieb haranguing women to settle for Mr. Good Enough in her new book Marry Him hit such a raw nerve. Cue the “spinster panic” articles, like this one from the New York Times in January, which talks about how successful beautiful women are “victims of a role reversal” that will leave them single because men aren’t making as much money as they are anymore.

At the start of this decade, we have thoroughly internalized these recent conservative cultural messages about the importance of marriage: “73 percent of women born between 1977 and 1989 place a high priority on marriage,” writes Hannah Seligson in theWall Street Journal. If what Gen Y wants is marriage, then it follows that feelings about sex would be more complicated—and in some cases, deeply judgmental. A Princeton freshman wrote an op-ed last week about why her friend should not be allowed to claim rape after a night of highly inebriated sex, the implicit message being that she should not have been having inebriated sex in the first place. A poll taken last month in London showed that women were less likely to forgive a rape victim than men were.

Isn’t that just awful? Women want to get married, think it’s not rape if a friend gets drunk, has sex, and then regrets it, and find they can’t attract many men who earn less money than they do. Gee, whatever happened to liberty?

[...] But the grotesque crassness of the past decade may well have brought about at least one very good consequence: the tawdry reality behind the ideals of orgasm-obsessed feminists such as Grose has been laid bare for all to see and judge …

You may read the whole thing here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Nature, Language, and Supernature

I asked  Robert J Wizard,  our Dark Overlord, his opinion on this question, which I would like to throw open to any other reader who cares to comment: “what is it about Socratic philosophy (or about all philosophy) that makes it start with pragmatic questions and end with mythical visions?”

His comment:

As far as Socratic/Platonic philosophy goes I would say, tentatively, that it is because of his epistemology, his Forms and the Form of the Good. It lent a general direction to how he tackled all problems. And, practically, Plato was reacting against the materialists of his time.

That is an answer off the top of my head.

Now as far as philosophy in general. I would say with a good degree of certainty that they follow a historical pattern. And it is somewhat contained in my initial comment. First they try to ground everything naturalistically. Then they shoot each others theories full of the holes they do contain, and then the next wave of philosophers comes in and states it is all arbitrary, there is no grounding for knowledge for reality and therefore none for ethics. Then the field dissolves itself into babbling.

After some time of this after the destruction and dust settles people go back to the myths or whatever you choose to call them. Christianity certainly worked better (speaking pragmatically) than what was running the Greco-Roman world that caused it to die. They work better (speaking pragmatically) than what passes for “philosophy” these days. One exception IMHO – like I needed to point that out.”

Your answer off the top of your head is as good as answers I have heard in school.

As for me, I wonder if it is because of the nature of the subject matter, or, if you will, the nature of reality.

Things that we can define closely and deal with daily are based on and rooted in (and take life from) things we cannot define well, and have a more abstract, perhaps even eternal character.

Philosophy is like a ladder leading from earth to higher realms. Most people can agree what distinguishes a good hamburger from a bad one: the bad one is rotten, smelly, unsightly, no good to eat, not appealing to the taste, no contributing to the health and nutrition of the body. Pretty clear, no? It only gets less clear when we start looking at the difference between taste and health, and contemplate things that taste good but are not good for us, and then we start contemplating health in the abstract, and to answer questions about that, we have to talk about the good of man, body and soul, and suddenly or slowly we find ourselves in realms where metaphors and myths are actually clearer and better than definitions and propositions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Socializing the Males Revisited: Is Hefner a Lady’s Friend or Ladykiller?

A reader with the unromantic name of  “theobrominelove” takes me to task for my recent essay here on the failure to socialize the males. I welcome the criticism. Hat in hand, I will answer as honestly and earnestly as I may, and leave you, dear readers, to judge between us. ‘s bold comments are in bold.

“You seem to say that as chastity and gallantry are scorned, men do not know any better than to behave badly towards women.”

I don’t think I said anything about “not knowing any better” one way or the other. I said boys not taught self-command will grow up to be self-indulgent; boys not taught decency will grow up indecent.

In all these remarks, let us be clear, I am talking about general tendencies, not inevitabilities. It goes without saying that there will always be exceptions.

“And women, without the weapon of chastity and the allure of the mysterious, must be victims.”

More or less. Girls not taught to value chastity (in themselves or in potential mates) will tend to become women who undervalue it, or even despise it.

“They are thus doomed to loveless, unromantic marriages – or worse, the dreaded divorce. Doomed to sexual abuse. Doomed to never be respected and treasured.”

I don’t think I said anything about loveless, unromantic marriages.

“Because men, given freely available sex by promiscuous women, will not see the need to bless any woman with the virtues of respect or love.”

“In sum, in the sane society, your young men do not get to engage in sexual reproduction until and unless they vow eternal fidelity to their mates, and provide support for the offspring resulting from sexual reproduction. This encourages a romantic attitude toward marriage rather than a merely pragmatic one. If you are going to be chained for life to your mate, it were better far for you if you love her, and if your love is not merely fair-weather infatuation.”

“In other words, you say that men should not be held accountable for the abuse and violence they perpetuate.”

I believe I said the exact opposite.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

An Example of Statistics in Action

An anecdote, related to an earlier discussion of divorce statistics.

Once upon a time, I was sitting at a table with eight friends.

There were three sets. Set one had one member: an unmarried male. Set two had six members: three couples married to each other, with no divorces. Set three had one member: a young lady who had been married six times, and divorced four times. (She was currently married, and had been widowed once.)

Eight people and four divorces meant that the divorce rate at that table was FIFTY PERCENT. When one one young lady got up and went to the kitchen for a coke, the divorce rate at the table was ZERO. When she returned, drink in hand, the divorce rate rose to FIFTY PERCENT.

My conclusion: Coke has been a disaster for the divorce rate!

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Cads and Dads

Part of an ongoing conversation. I regret I have not time to answer in more detail: I can only give a summary of my conclusions without laying out the steps.

artimaeus writes:

“In a nutshell, the traditional sexual mores glorify chastity, abstinence, and virginity because it is in the interests of both a woman and her neighbors that the man who gets her pregnant doesn’t leave her to raise her children alone. Marriage is a device to keep the father close by, increasing the odds that the children will grow up healthy and well-adjusted. People recognized that childbirth was the inevitable result of sex, and so sexual acts were discouraged, often demonized, until the man was committed to the woman and her children.”
.
My comment:  Agreed, albeit there are other reasons, aside from this, to support monogamy, such as, for example, to prevent the exploitation of women by ruthless sexual predators.
.
“Today, you’ll find the game has changed. Modern technology has undone the truth that once made enforcing chastity so important….”
.
If paternity-identification were the only argument in favor of chastity and monogamy, yes, modern technology has made sterility (including the temporary sterility prophylactics provide) and infanticide easier and cheaper.
.
“And this is not a bad thing…The blame lies squarely with the person too dumb to wear a condom….a woman can now gauge a man’s character in the bedroom…”
.
This is a gratuitous assertion. In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied. I would say it is a very bad thing indeed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

A Question about Chastity

In this space, in recent days, there has been a discussion of male chastity and chivalry, and the proper respect due to the fairer sex. Some readers, perhaps those of a feminist bent, objected that to expect chastity from males was an insult to women, or a type of oppression. Other readers, perhaps of an opposite opinion which we might call masculinist, objected that the sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming, and that I should not restrict my hard words to the men alone. Some readers said I was a racist.

Being a creature crippled by philosophy, who must crawl from one logical and well-established statement to the next, I have not wings of fancy to leap from conclusion to airy conclusion, and in none of these cases can my slow and groping mind see the connection between my argument and the counter-argument presented by my worthy opponents. I simply do not see what the one has to do with the other: the comments do not seem in these cases to be on the same topic as the topic under discussion.

Such convulsions of mutual incomprehension are to be expected in discussions where the axioms of the two sides are so far apart. There is some basic, unspoken assumption I am making that is invisible to my honorable opposition; there is likewise some basic, unspoken assumption my opponents, both feminist and masculinist, make which is invisible to me.

In an earnest effort to unearth this assumption, let me ask a single question. It is my hope that artimaeus will read and answer, but  I open the question to the general public, and invite any who wish to weigh in to answer.

Given the nature of the male of the homo sapiens, and the nature of reality, it is likely for him to copulate with a woman to whom he is not married without a feeling of contempt, disesteem, or at least blithe indifference?

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

One Answer to a Question About Chastity

Part of an ongoing discussion. A reader with the impressively Vikingish name of Rolf Andreassen who blogs at the even more impressively Vikingishly named ynglingasaga.wordpress.com provides an answer to some comments and questions of mine concerning the new standards (I use the word advisedly, if not ironically) concerning love, romance, and chastity.  The conversation also reaches to topics of loyalty and chivalry.

I have some questions I hope to ask Mr. Andraessen about his curious answer when time permits. But for now, I submit it without further comment here for your edification and reflection:

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.