Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth

by John C. Wright

"Shoot him with an elf arrow!"Learn why this may be author John C. Wright's most famous line!A collection of brilliant and thought-provoking essays by the science fiction grandmaster John C. Wright. From the history of the Golden Age of science fiction to the ideology of the gender wars presently dividing hard science fiction from urban fantasy-romance, Wright’s commentary is always intelligent, observant, and precisely to the point.In the 16 essays that make up the collection, Wright addresses a wide spectrum of ideas. He considers the darker possibilities of transhumanism, provides a professorial lesson on the mechanics of writing fiction, explains the noble purpose underlying science fiction, and shows how the genre’s obsession with strong female characters is nothing less than an attack on human nature. In every essay, Wright exhibits his compassion, his humanity, and his deep and abiding love for literature.John C. Wright has been described as one of the most important and audacious authors in science fiction today. In a recent poll of more than 1,000 science fiction readers, he was chosen as the sixth-greatest living science fiction writer.

Genres: Nonfiction, Essays, Philosophy, Religion, Literary Criticism

369 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 4, 2014

About the author

John C. Wright (John Charles Justin Wright, born 1961) is an American author of science fiction and fantasy novels. A Nebula award finalist (for the fantasy novel Orphans of Chaos), he was called "this fledgling century's most important new SF talent" by Publishers Weekly (after publication of his debut novel, The Golden Age).

Reviews

[Lis Carey · Rating 1 out of 5]

John C.Wright needs an editor.

With a bit more restraint, his prose could be lyrical--the opposite of the transparent prose the Puppies say they're looking for, and certainly not to everyone's taste, but offering its own kind of enjoyment. Without that restraint, alas, it too often becomes word salad, and at best is tiring and annoying.

Underneath all that excessively ornate prose, what he's saying in this collection of essays is no more attractive. Mr. Wright claims to be a devout Roman Catholic, yet what he is preaching in these essays bears little to no resemblance to anything I was taught in CCD, or have heard preached from the pulpit. He finds science to mostly be a source of spiritual misdirection as it leads us to reject magic and miracles... Sorry, but the priests and nuns who taught me the faith he claims to embrace thought scientific research and the study of science helped to illuminate the glory of God's Creation. That it made the world, in the sense Mr. Wright seems to mean, more magical, not less so.

More relevant to a science fiction audience is the fact that Mr. Wright appears to hate science fiction, seeing no way in which it can be a positive illumination of the world, and more likely to be Cultic or Nihilistic, as defined by him. Starship Troopers is cited as an example of Cultism in sf, a description that perhaps neither the book's fans nor its critics would recognize. You don't get at either the book's strengths or its weaknesses without subtlety and nuance, and Mr. Wright is not really an advocate of either. He knows what The Truth is; he'll tell you what it is. If you don't agree, you are, at best, sadly misguided.

One of the essays in this book is entitled "Saving Science Fiction From Strong Female Characters." Another writer might mean this title ironically; Mr. Wright does not. Those advocating strong women characters in fiction, especially science fiction, are enemies in the Culture War, and they're on the side fighting against Culture. Fortitude and justice are masculine virtues; feminine virtues are delicacy and nurturing. Oh, wait, fortitude can be feminine, but it's different from masculine fortitude; it's long-suffering patience dealing with the childish menfolk, rather than courage in the face of adversity and danger. "She can appease an angry mother-in-law, reconcile a feud, arrange cooperation without seeming to take or give orders and without anyone feeling left out or overruled, lure a Lothario to his destruction..." but this is a Wright sentence, and goes on forever. Page 228 of the edition provided in the Hugo Voters packet, by the way.

And on page 231:

"Also, a woman who is crude inspires contempt, because she has contempt for God and man. The difference is that a woman who loses her native delicacy and modesty does not become an object of fear and respect, but an object of contempt and loathing, because the aura of sanctity women naturally inspire in men is tossed away."

A woman's value is defined solely in relation to how men regard her, and no discussion of whether being confined to a pedestal has ever been either safe or productive for women is to be admitted.

Mr. Wright also includes an essay on how to write a story. He includes the standard "show, don't tell" advice, which is amusing, given the extent to which his own writing is so much Tell and so little Show.

All in all, not recommended. Not recommended at all.

[Jeff Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I had already read some of these essays on the authors blog, still I enjoyed reading all the essays together as they bind together nicely. I find it very interesting how he looks at certain books and stories and analyzes them according to the demand of the story. Case in points some stores that were more didactic and the story suffered because the primary point was the message not the story. This is a problem that is only getting worse as politically correct pressures mount that certain types of characters must appear and that certain morality must be taught. The actual story be damned just as long as you have the correct quota for the "right" kind of character. I really enjoyed how he takes such stories apart dissecting them showing where the stories betrayed themselves for the overriding message. He is quite funny when doing this. Still while taking apart such stories he is careful to note how these authors are very good writers and praises their skill, but critiques the short story or novel not the character of the author.

One essay departs a bit from this when it critiques the second hobbit movie. Quite a hilarious review and as i felt the blow of the same "stupid hammer" repeatedly during the movie one I can agree with. Still he praises when the movie goes right.

The weave of story critique is highly woven with his critical view of political correctness and the lies that we are suppose to affirm why saying how awesome the Emperor's new wardrobe is. While these essays have a polemical tone I can't think of anything in them I disagree with and again he is always careful in attacking ideas and not people. As he so dislikes the political correctness two-minute hate and how it is directed to people who dare to not call heterodoxy orthodoxy. Where your motives can only be evil and their is no effort at understanding or even presenting their case.

[Timothy Maguire · Rating 1 out of 5]

"where, for some reason never clear to me, the American string of uninterrupted victories convinced the American public that the weak, cruel and vile communist enemy was undefeatable”

John C. Wright on the Vietnam War, from 'Swordplay in Space', Transhuman and Subhuman

There's perhaps no better illustration of the utterly absurdity at the heart of Transhuman & Subhuman than the above quote. It perfectly illustrates both Wright's astonishingly blinkered worldview and his profound lack of curiosity. That Wright simply didn't bother trying to figure out why mainstream thought doesn't agree with him is an astonishing statement as to his wilful blindness and the lack of intellectual rigor this book is laden with.

Transhuman & Subhuman is a collection of essays pulled from Wright's blog at least nominally about Science Fiction and Fantasy. In a nutshell, the general theme is that Science Fiction and Fantasy has a morality problem due to the influence of what I can only call 'wrong thought' (ie feminism, socialism, atheism, secularism, transhumanism, etc) and that this can be fixed by, of course, returning to proper thought (Wright's beliefs are easiest described as a variation on Catholic Christian Right, though he is more sympathetic to science than is stereotypical). I was, to be honest, not convinced.

Before I get into all the ideological reasons I disliked this, let's just start with how bad this is structurally. Quite simply, Wright isn't a particularly good essayist. Far too many of the essays here are messy, lacking any particular final conclusion or really seeming to be little more that a protracted rant. Beyond this, Wright has a pronounced tendency to to skip the rails of his subject the moment he hits anything to do with his personal bugbears ('bad' moral systems, left-wing politics, gender equality) and generally not come back. 'Transhuman & Subhuman' (the essay the book takes its title from), 'Saving Science Fiction From Strong Female Characters' and 'Swordplay in Space' all suffer from this, barely covering the original subject (Swordplay in Space simply doesn't). The longest essay in the book, 'Saving Science Fiction From Strong Female Characters', drops quickly off the subject to take a pass at Wright's view on the sexes before descending into an ugly rant about the people he disagrees with. It's hard not to get the feeling while reading this that Wright treats Science Fiction and Fantasy as a stalking horse for what he actually wants to talk about.

Wright also suffers from a profound tendency to need to pigeonhole everything. Several essays are little more than the explanation of several different types of morality and then listing example books to illuminate these pigeonholes. Both 'Transhuman and Subhuman' (the essay again) and 'Swordplay in Space' suffer heavily from this, with the original concept washed away in long episodes of hole-filling. That these often feel like an exercise in fitting square pegs into round holes further weakens their rhetorical power.

As a result, the actual substance of Wright's essays isn't vastly interesting. Wright's general obsession is talking about morality and almost every essay dwells on this point, but Wright's more interested in litianising various types of wrong thought than he is really getting into what's right and what's wrong. Only the essay 'Bitterness of the Broken Ideal' actually sits down and discusses morality directly rather than blasting those he disagrees with, but that ends up being very weird to read once you realise that Wright generally doesn't seem to get or acknowledge the hero's self-sacrificing actions might simply be in the service of preventing a gigantic war, rather than the self-satisfaction that Wright seems to think is the sole purpose of personal morality.

Beyond that, it's exceedingly noticable that Wright only seems to be interested in talking about early-generation science fiction and fantasy. To be honest, with the exception of one or two essays discussing recent publications, it's not hard to believe that many of these essays and their subjects could have been written ten to twenty years ago with little or no modification. This presents an often hilarious feeling that Wright's critquing a movement and genre that moved past him without him paying any attention.

Seguing into Wright's moral musings, it's not hard to say I was unimpressed. Wright presents his views on morality as a simple argument from authority, ie I know better than you do, so I am in the right. The problem with this attitude is that Wright never presents an actual intellectual, moral or philosophical high ground. Instead, he makes it enormously clear that he considers every other moral system other than his own to be automatically suspect and less valid than his own, therefore, he is of course more moral and correct than they are. In effect rather than an argument from authority, his argument is that every other authority is less accurate than he is.

The problem is that for this to be true, Wright needs to be more 'right' than those he disagrees with. Unfortunately, he isn't. Wright doesn't bother with citing a lot of facts, but when he does actually break down to real world examples, he's often presenting easily debunked arguments. At various points he declares global warming to be a myth, the belief that the US was losing the Vietnam war is wrong (see above), that non-religious scientists haven't discovered anything relevant to modern science and that the Venona report justified McCarthyism. None of these statements are anywhere near accurate, but Wright clearly thinks so. It's hard to treat Wright as an unassailable intellect when five minutes with Google points out that he believes things that simply aren't true.

On top of all this, Wright's writing is hard to describe as anything other than hateful. There's a bilious, poisonous rage shot through T&S that's simply repulsive and he takes a positive delight in insulting nicknames as though that makes him better than his targets. Wright's not unwilling to engage with other peoples' opinions because he thinks they're wrong, but because he loathes them. It's genuinely sickening to read his constant vipuretive attacks, but, beyond that, it's obvious that many of Wright's factual inaccuracies are because he assumes that his 'enemies' are lying without checking. That Wright's enemies list is basically everything even vaguely to the left wing of politics gives him a lot of reality to disagree with.

When all's said and done, Wright's at his best when he's reviewing other work as it at least partially prevents from pontification. His coverage of Desolation of Smaug, The Amber Spyglass and Childhood's End are among T&S's highlights. This doesn't stop them from being problematic at times. Watching Wright attempt to force Smaug's Tauriel into his understanding of feminism is the funniest moment in T&S, and way too much of Childhood's End is taken up by ranting about relatively minor plotpoints. To be honest, they're the highlights because they're less bad than everything else.

Overall, Transhuman and Subhuman isn't a particularly good book. As a series of essays it's messy and often fails to cover the promised subject. As a discussion of science fiction and fantasy, it seems trapped in the past. As a discussion of morality and human behaviour, Wright's vastly more interested in blasting the people he disagrees with than actually proving they're wrong. On top of all this, the book's riddled with ugly, angry rants that are frequently fuelled by factual inaccuracies. As a result, about the only people I can recommend this to are people who already agree with everything Wright believes.

Note to the Factually Curious (and hopefully John C Wright): So in the essay 'Faith in The Fictional War' Wright drops in a series of 'notes to the historically/scientifically/ humour impaired' where he makes it clear disagreeing with him is wrong, which wasn't at all annoying, so I thought I'd copy the style to point out the factual errors in this book. Here they are:

-The US won all its battles during the Vietnam war. This is something of an old chestnut among discussions of the Vietnam war and it's in no way true. Here's an article listing all the confrontations of various scales that the US can be described as having lost in Vietnam. Beyond that, it's worth pointing out that the problem with the Vietnam war wasn't the US military's ability to win battles, but their inability to actually have any long term effect afterwards as well as rock-bottom public support.

-Non-catholic scientists haven't discovered anything important. Umm, I genuinely have no idea where this came from, but it's completely absurd. Let's just start with space science. The atheist communist russians were the first to put a satellite into orbit and the first people to land a probe on Venus. Of course, the entire science of rocketry owes an unwilling debt to the Nazi regime, who I'm pretty sure the Catholics don't want to claim. Neither of these facts is particularly platable, but it doesn't make them any less true. Continuing on, it's worth pointing out that probably the most important technological development of the 20th century, the transistor, was developed by a secular company (AT&T) not a Catholic university. While I have no doubt that Catholics had a hand in almost all major scientific developments, that in no way suggests that they were solely responsible for those developments either.

-The Venona cables justify Joe McCarthy's actions: Again, nope. Project VENONA was a 40s era effort to decrypt Soviet communications which revealed a number of soviet spies. Unfortunately, this has very little to do with McCarthy's accusations. Here's a list cross-referencing McCarthy's infamous lists with Project Venona. There's not a lot of cross-over (some versions of the lists have no crossover at all). While McCarthy was right that there were Soviet spies in the US government, his efforts had little or no effect on catching them and the general consensus is that he did more harm than good.

-The East Anglican University emails prove climate change to be fake: First of all, let's point out that those emails were both private and stolen. Second, let's point out that eight separate committees investigated the charges against the EAU researchers, none of whom found any evidence of wrong-doing. Finally, there were only two or three points people took from the emails that suggested a conspiracy and this was solely due to some out-of-context interpretation of specific emails. In short, the EAU researchers were guilty of little more than intemperate language towards their detractors, not mass scientific fraud.

-There's no such thing as global warning: Do I really have to do this? Okay, so let's point out that 99% of the scientists studying the global climate agree that climate change is happening. In the last few days, it's been announced that the world's glaciers are at their lowest point since records began, which is only moderately terrifying. Any sensible analysis of global temperature change shows that it's been rising over the majority of the last century (you can, it should be noted, massage the data into saying the opposite, but that's the scientific equivalent of editing people out of history). Beyond that, let's point out that the science of climate change has been settled for a long time and almost every government accepts it. Climate change is happening, claiming otherwise isn't going to change it.

[Mary Catelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays on science fiction and fantasy.

Such topics as the logic failures of Childhood's End. Why animals help Snow White and what this has to do with Tarzan. How to imply settings and characters in prose, and the need to set up character arcs. The importance of carrying through the promises a story makes. And more.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Transhuman and Subhuman
Wright engages in a philosophical discussion utilizing works of science-fiction and fantasy. Here is where you'll first see The Four Stages Towards the Abyss. Don't worry. You'll see this material again.

The Hobbit, or, The Desolation of Smaug
Wright rips the second hobbit movie to shreds, and it was a special joy. I. Hated. This. Movie. Not entirely for all the same reasons, but we had many in common.

Whistle While you Work
There doesn't seem to be a cohesive element to this essay. It meanders. It meanders wonderfully, but there is no path. He talks about one thing, then another, and another, and another, nothing ever tying back to the original point.

Science Fiction: What is it Good For?
The author wrings every last drop from this topic. I liked it.

John C. Wright's Patented One Session Lesson in the Mechanics of Fiction
I really liked it. More concise (thankfully) than his usual.

Swordplay In Space
"I have long maintained that science fiction is the mythology of the scientific age." - everything flows from here. You also get more of those Four Stages Towards the Abyss, though they're not called that here.

The Glory Game, or, The Bitterness of Broken Ideals
This essay literally opens with a discourse on a book titled, 'The Glory Game.' By now you've guessed that it moves on to discuss the pitfalls of Idealism. Also more on Four Stages Towards the Abyss Schools of Western Thought, accredited in part to Eugene Rose, an Archmonk styling himself Seraphim Rose.

Gene Wolfe, Genre Work, and Literary Duty
We're back to what is it (Science-Fiction, or more generally, fiction) good for?

Storytelling is the Absence of Lying
Wright rips Hell is the Absence of God by Ted Chiang. Meh.

The Golden Compass Points in No Direction.
Wright takes apart Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass, cog by belt by nut and bolt, and does a masterful job of it. I enjoyed this almost as much as his review of Desolation.

Faith in the Fictional War between Science Fiction and Faith
"Science Fiction is the mythology of the scientific age." Yes, you've seen this before. Wright addresses three questions.
1. Is there anything innately hostile in SF to religion portrayed as a man-made institution? Wright drags in all the times in SF that a religion is invented. (Answer: only inasmuch as plot demands)
2. Is there anything innately hostile in SF to religion portrayed as supernaturally-made institution? (answer: no, because it really doesn't fit in the genre)
3. Is there anything innately hostile in SF to supernaturalism in general? (answer: yes, definitely)
It is here the book gets a part of its title, because it is here he addresses transcendence, that religious flavor of event that happens so often in Sci-Fi it might be called a staple. "There is a name for it: the Singularity, Transhumanism..."
Then things really get interesting.

The Big Three of Science Fiction
Wright names his top three Sci-Fi authors of all time, and goes to great length to defend his choice for third place.

The Fourth of the Big Three
Wright adds a fourth.

Childhood's End and Gnosticism
Or, bluntly, Childhood's End is Gnostic.

Saving Science Fiction from Strong Female Characters
1. John C. Wright likes strong female characters.
2. John C. Wright deplores masculine female characters.
3. John C. Wright thinks you will never satisfy the PC crowd.
4. I agree with him.
5. This is the second-longest essay in the book.

Restless Heart of Darkness
You. Will. Absorb. The. Four. Stages. Towards. The. Abyss.
Also, longest essay in the book, though in terms of composition, probably the best of the ones addressing the Four Stages Towards the Abyss. I did tell you that you would see this material again, didn't I?

If you enjoy science-fiction and like to think about it, I recommend this book.

If you enjoy philosophy, and an author who not only defines his terms, but wrings every drop of flavor from them, I recommend this book.

If you are in the habit of crying "Misogynist! Racist! Homophobe!" or any other habitual ad hominem escape employed to disqualify your rhetorical opponent, then no, this book probably isn't for you.

[Morgan Dhu · Rating 1 out of 5]

In reading Michael F. Flynn's Introduction to Wright's collection of essays on science fiction and fantasy, one sentence leapt out at me: "He criticizes Pullman’s His Dark Materials in “The Golden Compass Points in No Direction”, less on Pullman’s atheism than on the failure of his art, where he sacrificed story in order to preach a sermon." The irony overwhelms - having read several examples of Wright's fiction in the past few weeks, I can think of no one this criticism applies to more than Wright himself.

The key essays in this collection make the same argument again and again, from different perspectives and with different examples. And the core of this argument is that modern speculative fiction, like many other aspects of modern life, is lacking in something valuable beyond imagining, and that something is the great mystery and truth of Christianity, particularly as taught by the Roman Catholic church.

"You may think me blasphemous to use the Passion of the Christ as an example of drama, but not so: this is the one true story, the greatest story ever told, the tale of tales even as Christ is the King of Kings, and all truly inspired fairy tales and fiction have to contain some echo or reflection of the One True Tale, or else it is no tale of any power at all, merely a pastime."
- "John C. Wright's Patented One-session Lesson in the Mechanics of Fiction"

A secondary theme in this argument, which Wright also repeats in different ways, is the division of all that is wrong - that is to say, non-Christian - in life and fiction into four camps: worldliness, ideology, spiritualism and nihilism.

"Christianity is the only religion that combines reason, ethics, spiritualism and individualism into one coherent theological picture of the cosmos and man’s place in it. Christianity is the center of the map of possible worldviews. Everything that deviates from it abandons one of these or the other in order to emphasize its opposite."
- "The Glory Game, or, The Bitterness of Broken Ideals"

Some of the essays also pass for criticism of various works, but as far as I can see, Wright's primary argument against work he feels compelled to criticise is that the author did not tell the story in the way Wright wanted it told. After arguing that the only real stories are those that embody the themes of the Christ story, he then calls out any story that does not in fact unfold in such a way as being no true story. Sometimes he even gets it right - for instance, when he excoriates the invented excesses in the second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug.

There is a great deal of unconscious irony in these critical essays. For instance, Wright devotes an entire essay to accusing Ted Chiang of intellectual dishonesty in his short story "Hell Is the Absence of God" for misrepresenting Christians, their beliefs and motives in ways that he insists are totally incorrect - and then proceeds in several other essays to fulminate against socialists, leftists, feminists for thinking and doing things that I as a socialist, a feminist, a leftist, have never seen other of my ilk say or do. It's kind of sad, actually, that he has so little self-awareness.

He accuses feminists, leftists, socialists, postmodernists and pretty much anyone he disagrees with of holding their values and beliefs - that life on earth can be improved - out of despair, because anyone who does not believe in the hope of salvation through Christ must, he believes, be racked with despair... even though it seems to me just as legitimate to argue that anyone who must believe in an invisible entity that will grant eternal life after death might also be responding to some existential despair.

Wright argues with passion, but more often than not he argues against straw dogs. One might wish for a little more intellectual honesty and a little less unthinking dogma in these essays. Perhaps even the notion that it's not that the Christ-tale is the one true story, so much as that one of the great archetypes that form the basis of our psychological being lends its power to the Christ-tale, as the Ideal Form lends its power to the shadows on the wall of the cave.

[Sami Sundell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Okay, I'll start this review with a quote from Wright itself, replying to a comment about his "non-mainstream views" shown in this essay compilation:

By ‘non-mainstream’ of course, this reviewer, who is a Morlock of AD 802701, means that the views agree with what all normal Americans, all sober Christians and all faithful Catholics have known, lived and believed for two thousand years, and what all healthy men of ordinary and non-perverse tastes have known, lived and believed since before the dawn of recorded history.

That no doubt sums up Wright's point of view: in his mind his views are the majority. It also at least indirectly implies that views of "normal Americans", "sober Christians", "faithful Catholics" and "healthy males of ordinary and non-perverse tastes" line up nicely. I'd argue that's demonstrably false, but since I'm neither American, Christian nor Catholic, I'm fairly certain Wright doesn't count me as a healthy man of non-perverse tastes either, so my views probably don't count.

I started to write notes about every essay separately, but soon realized that as Wright, I'm just repeating myself. He seems to have strong, righ-wing, conservative opinions that are influenced by his personal brand of Catholicism. He describes everything through this lens, and his faith also seems to give a divine insight into One True Opinion that requires no further justification. If you agree with his world view - objective (and black and white) good and bad, occasional militarism, extremely traditional gender roles, world infested by marxists in disguise vying for world domination, mankind being "exiles in world" and just wanting to get to Heaven... then you'll probably nod approvingly while reading this collection of essays. On the other hand, if you're more like me, you'll probably disagree with most of the message and find no compelling, or indeed any, arguments to change your mind or even keep your interest.

Whatever the spark that ignites the need for writing, after an introduction Wright always starts to build one of his favorite strawmen (Leftists, Politically Correct, feminists... well, they are all the same, really), points to a couple of old SF books (Princess of Mars, Starship Troopers, The War of the Worlds, Childhood's End..) and then proceeds to whack that strawman to pieces with one of his standard tirades - for example, mankind's corruption through Worldliness, Ideology, Spirituality or Nihilism is the core of at least three essays, sometimes iterated multiple times inside one.

The odd man out is a review of the second Hobbit movie, where Wright follows the directors lead: whereas Jackson turned a short children's book into eight hours of action adventure, Wright turns his complaints (did not follow religiously traditional fantasy tropes or the book) into 22 pages of cringe-worthy attempts at humour.

These essays were apparently originally published as blog posts. Editing - merging the most similarly themed into one, condensing others and leaving the Hobbit review out completely - might not have made reading this collection a pleasant read, but at least it would've made it shorter.

[Rowan Czaja · Rating 1 out of 5]

“What is wrong is that modern though is caught in the disease of nihilism, the idea that there is no revelation.”

I struggled through the word-salad that is Transhuman and Subhuman . In the end, I skimmed three of the articles, “Transhuman and Subhuman”, “The Golden Compass Points in No Direction”, and “Saving Science Fiction from Strong Female Characters”.

“Transhuman and Subhuman” analyzes magic in SFF. In fantasy magic=miracle, in sci fi magic=scientific miracles (“magic is usually not magic at all, but miracle”). I’m not sure why this distinction was necessary to his argument, but basically John C. Wright proposes that humans are trying to make better, immortal humans. Who would be devils. And that is wrong.

But I did learn something interesting. “High fantasy has a Roman Catholic flavor to it, whereas Sword-and-Sorcery is somewhat Protestant”. Huh.

“The Golden Compass Points in No Direction”  Did he read the same trilogy that I did?

“Saving Science Fiction from Strong Female Characters”

“Girls who do not like love stories are well advised to learn to like them, because such stories deal with the essential and paramount realities on which much or most of that girl’s happiness in life will hinge.”

“when women dress and speak and act like men, some joy is erased from both sexes”

“Women will go insane and go into despair if asked to compete at a male task on male terms with male rules.”

I'm doomed. I can neither deal with the reality of my life nor be the heroine in my own story.

[Tomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

John C. Wright's collections of essays are great fun to read. The inspiration of Lewis and Chesterton and Tolkien ooze off the page at almost every corner. He is especially strong when he is speaking of fiction, the great love of his craft and his genre building beautiful and wonderful insights.

I especially enjoyed his essays illuminating the variations in Science Fiction. He shows a great love and respect for even his enemies in the field (he is a great fan boy, admirer, and even apologist for Heinlein while critiquing his worldview in no uncertain terms, doing similar with the likes of Ursula K. Leguin). He is a great defended of story over message - a point he makes clear in his admiration for the pulp science-fiction stories where it was pure heroism that lifted the tale with messages playing second fiddle if they were present at all.

It's this friendliness in the field which does make his final essays a little difficult to swallow. I'm firmly with Wright in most of his critiques of modern culture (feminism, leftism, relativism, x-ism ad infinitum), but he often harps on these points in such a way that one get a greater sense of hate than I think even he intends. Its a hate that is mostly foreign when he speaks of his craft. When his "Saving Science-Fiction from Strong Female Characters" essay(s) speak of feminism as it manifests in fiction, he is profound, even beautiful - he has a glorious vision of masculine and feminine complementarity, an openness to a truly strong feminine and a strong masculine character, and a sharp denouncement of making female characters just men that look (somewhat) like women. However, when this critique moves to discussing the ideology of feminism, he gets longwinded, bashing the same point over and over.

Wright is smart, a first-rate thinker, but he's an even better poet. I thank him for dealing with the ideology, but he's stronger when he's painting visions of glory. Don't let some of the ideology-hate in the last essays lessen your appreciation of the real good he builds. He can truly help us rebuild Christendom. His final paragraphs point out the way - just be a light to those in darkness and ignore their small, little ideologies. He gets that message across directly, but may still be working (like all of us, really) on putting that in practice.

A definite must read, especially for a taste of what a modern Chesteron, Lewis, Tolkien may very well look like.

[Jan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Let me start with a quote from Robert A. Heinlein who is often mentioned in these essays: "I never learned from a man who agreed with me."

I like this, but I must admit I often did not agree with these essays. I basically agree with the opinion state in the essay on transhumanism and its questionable goals and consequences. Some ideas about science fiction, sci-fi and fantasy books and movies I can follow. For the rest, well...

I did not know this author before and I am not sure how I stumbled across this. It is highly rated on goodreads.com, but I wonder why. The author is an atheist turned Catholic, and he has issues with feminism. The more I read the more I annoyed I become because I think he's a self-opinionated, accusative, dogmatic black and white defender of Catholicism, a born again Christian. As a former atheist he just switched sides but follows he ideas with zeal. He shows himself as a hater of socialists, atheists and "libertarians", "relativists", Marxists and communists. He outright disputes anthropogenic global warming, says it is a scientific fraud. I suppose he feels at home in some dark neocon corner of American politics.

The essays sometimes tormented me by their length, the author surely got paid for number of words. I didn't like "The Hobbit" either, but it is not necessarily to rant on multiple pages about it.
In discussing Arthur Clarke's "Childhoods' End" he describes the nursemaid aliens as "condescending, it is puerile, it is cowardly, and it is typically European". As a European I actually take offense.

Give this a pass and miss... nothing. I parted unenlightened from this book.

[Foreign Grid · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars because I feel he included way too much "rant" in the second half of the book about more political themes. I don't mind it too much because I'm the type that frequents "ranting" blogs but the change in tone was slightly unpleasant. It took me out of my contemplative state to a more 'on edge' one, because it dealt less with whimsical, literary, and philosophical insights and more with a redundant stream of accusations towards the PC culture. To some it might not be redundant, but to me some lines sounded like the same sound bytes you would hear from others on the conservative end of the spectrum. It bothered me more reading it here than it would normally do so because the first half of the book was extremely high quality.

That's not to say he did not put some ideas in-between his rants that illicited deeper contemplation (because they were there, and they were all striking, depressing, and illuminating)

One thing that I liked that repels most other critics and readers is the polemic tone which is very strong and there are few attempts to diminish it.
(It should be noted that the essays included were originally posted on the author's blog)

I liked how it reminded me of Shakespeare. The prose and phrasing are colorful, original, and fun to say aloud, even when he made satirical comments. If you're going to mock something, at least make it creative and fun to say. I especially loved his hilarious tirade about the second Hobbit movie. I admit, I've never seen the second Hobbit movie, but I'm well aware of the notorious reputation of the Hollywood industry to completely murder an original tale.

While this book is titled Essays on Science Fiction, Wright doesn't just look at the Science Fiction genre, although it is predominant. Examples vary from the books of HG Wells, to Jules Verne, to Star Wars, to Ray Radbury, to Tolkien, to Harry Potter, to CS Lewis, to Kim Possible, to Naruto.

Finishing the book, I feel more knowledgeable about the history, philosophy, and minds behind the most recent strains of fiction as well as the older ones. In one portion of the book he does a quick summary of the thought of philosophers and how these influenced the literary culture at large, especially Marx, believe it or not, and the various schools of thought that proceeded from Socialism.
At some points I was tempted to highlight entire pages. Wright does not mince words, when he says something important, he says it in the most powerful way. Furthermore, he has a lot to say.

In the first chapter, Wright introduces to the reader common kinds of writers or world philosophies that exist in modern fiction. Particularly he categorizes three main ones. He calls them: The Anarchist, The Occultist, The Cultist, and The Worldly Man. (He also redefines them)

He defines the Anarchist to be a relativist, the Occultist to be of the skeptical school of thought (while there is beauty, the Occultist would say that it can never be fully understood or comprehended. Truth, therefore, cannot be known.), the Cultist to be that one which is a materialist with a panacea for all the earth's ills and will do whatever it takes in the name of The Cause, and the Worldly Man is the hedonist who only seeks pleasure.

In conclusion of this chapter he writes:

"In the Anarchist world, (1) the only truth is that there is no truth, (2) vice and virtue are interchangeable, equally meaningless, and human action is an epiphenomenon of biological motions, (3) beauty is ugly and ugliness is beautiful. Here we have reached the mere opposite of the world of High Fantasy[...]

But if there is beauty, it is ineffable, something never to be captured in words, a mystic feeling elusive as a ghost, then the Occultists is right to eschew all talk of truth and virtue, and is right to tolerate any man’s approach to the inapprochable thing called beauty.

But if there is truth, even if it is hard and cold and tinged with bronze, the Cultist is right to impose it on the world, no matter the cost in human suffering, and let all competing truths and claims of other virtues be damned. The only beauty is what serves the Cause.

But if there is virtue, then men must get along with each other, and also go along with each other just enough to maintain the public weal. The talk of truth can be tolerated as long as no violence is done in its name, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But if there is magic, then there is a force in the world which sets the standard of truth and beauty and goodness, and bright magic is both more fair than dark magic, and merits our loyalty. Each man must find that light for himself, because no authority is to be trusted.

But if there are miracles, and I mean miracles from God, then there is an authority, a divine and loving Father who has both the natural authority of a parent and of a creator and of a king. If one of those miracles is the Resurrection, then to all these other claims of authority the divine can also claim the most romantic authority of all: the authority earned by merit. Christ has authority because he earned it by suffering the quest to the bitter end, and rescuing the fair bride from the red dragon. The crown of thorns is his reward.

If there are miracles, there is at once truth and beauty and goodness, for all these flow from the same source."- John C Wright

Furthermore, on occasion he is then led into long, but mesmerizing accounts of what those philosophies do and where they go wrong.

“The question, finally, is one of philosophy, and, all drollery aside, it cannot be reduced to an analogy to science fiction. The philosophical question is whether Revelation is Truth? Unfortunately, without going into a long discussion of how Descartes and Hume and Kant attempted to ground philosophy on an epistemology of rationalism or empiricism, and failed to produce a coherent account of life, that last question cannot be answered.

That question must wait for another day. We asked what is wrong with the world. What is wrong is that modern thought is caught in the disease of nihilism, the idea that there is no revelation.
That disease causes the worldliness of sophisticates who wish religion would not bother them. They say that whatever truth there is or is not, it is not central to the business of life.
That disease causes the stiff ferocity of zealots in any number of political movements with semi-religious or cultic overtones, from libertarianism to totalitarianism. They say truth is what the Cause says it is.
That disease causes the tiresome vagueness and sever intellectual disorganization of moral relativism and postmodernism. They say truth is private, partial, relative, ineffable.
That disease causes the madness of nihilism. [i][b]They say truth is not truth.[/b][/i]

The rise of science and technology did not cause this disease, but the prestige of science aggravated it, because theology and philosophy cannot be reduced to algorithms, nor can skeptics willing to bow to the results of an experiment be persuaded to bow to virtues, powers and principalities they cannot see. There is a scientific method and a Socratic method, but there is no method for making revealed truths a living part of your soul."


But, if you are wondering what happened to the discussion on Transhumanism and Science Fiction, Wright does not leave the reader disappointed. In fact, the entire discussion so far has led up to the moment for discussion on the topic at hand. His critique of his fellow science fiction writers ends with a critique on the end goal of many science fiction books. He first defines transhumanism, and then gives his devastating opinion of it's attempt to make immortals out of fallen man:

"Immortal humans would be devils, since we would decay in our sins over the centuries, becoming ever more selfish an arrogant."


And this only proved to be the tip of the iceberg. Wright had a lot of advice in store for budding writers, even giving a crash course in what makes the best stories, mesmerizing stories.

One of my favorite parts was when he randomly plopped down up a few paragraphs of what would have been a "Chapter One" of a novel. The story sucked me in from line one.

"At first I thought he was carrying the corpse of a child." -JCW

Spooky, intriguing, mysterious, and chilling even before I knew what the source of inspiration was. Evidently, it seems that the Inklings had been hired by British intelligence to get information on Nazi involvement in the Occult during WWII. (so he said) And the premise of this story was, what if The Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings weren't just fiction, but rather real life accounts of people that the Inklings had discovered during their undercover mission.

And he explains why in surprising detail, how he decided on every line and why it worked.
For some that might seem excessive, but for people at me who are awestruck at even the minute details of the abstract, it was a pleasure to read.

My favorite lines were:

"Laymen are not allowed to carry around the Blessed Host to throw at people"

and

“Do you have anything—a cross, a bible?” I asked him.
“Course not! I’m a man of science.”
“And if the shadow that wields the Great Fear manifests here?”
“I’ll hide behind you and cry like a girl, as befits a man of science."

'Course, I'm biased because I'm Catholic too, and have heard the 'Im a man of science' bit more than enough times to find it annoying.


Anyways, regarding my fellow critiquers, there are a few points that I would like to clear up.

One says:
"He finds science to mostly be a source of spiritual misdirection as it leads us to reject magic and miracles"

Nowhere did I ever find this notion.

Instead, I found the opposite. Wright writes:
"The rise of science and technology did not cause this disease, but the ****** prestige***** of science aggravated it"

He criticizes this insane idea that I have personally heard among top students at my high school that "I only believe what SCIENCE can prove"
"Philosophy is dead because now we have SCIENCE"

What is being attacked is this materialism that is due to an over glorification of science.


"Mr. Wright appears to hate science fiction"

Considering he is an avid science fiction fanatic (as later chapters and his blog shows) as well as a prolific writer of science fiction, I would say no. What Wright does is he categorizes the main groups within modern science fiction that can be found. Call it the cliches of science fiction, which to his point of view, are troublesome.

" He knows what The Truth is; he'll tell you what it is. If you don't agree, you are, at best, sadly misguided."

To be honest, this is what I would expect of opinionated essays on anything philosophical or political.
Wright is at least as snarky as the Modern philosophers, but while they had to hide the full extent of their snark for fear of being suppressed by the Church or by the State, he doesn't. So Ill give them that. But note most people will do this unless they are relativists or don't have an opinion. It's allowable in an essay sub-titled 'Awful Truth,' however where this doesn't belong is in a fiction where it compromises the story itself. I don't agree with everything he said, but, since I know why I don't, it doesn't particularly bother me. You could say that HG Wells's stories are 'preachy' or 'derogatory towards religious people' but I can say that he has some good stories even if he would say Im misguided in the in-between. Ultimately, Im saying there's not much wrong with having a firm opinion and thinking others misguided (because let's be real, we all do that. The comment above is doing that).

But I think what is great about this book, is that Wright actually get's you to ask the principle question that your should have already asked yourself. Its a question most people don't answer at all in their lifetime.
"What is the purpose of wonder? What is the purpose of art?"

The bad way to introduce a question, is for someone else to first ask it, and then that someone else immediately gives you 'the answer.' That kills a question.

But what Wright does is different. He gives you the question, and then makes you think about it. He doesn't 'answer' it right away, he allows it to become imbedded and fester as you continue to read. Perhaps a few readers might stop reading after the question is asked, and actually think for themselves before reading (That's the glory of books. You can always take a break). For those who love a good question, a question is eternal. Even when you get to the end you might say 'perhaps' or 'Yes!' but the question would remain if the reader is given the chance to think. It's one of those questions that cannot be satisfied right away. "What is the purpose of wonder?" Perhaps we will never have the 'answer' to that, or at least a perfect one. I think more books should ask questions like that.

"One of the essays in this book is entitled "Saving Science Fiction From Strong Female Characters." Another writer might mean this title ironically; Mr. Wright does not. "

Actually he does. And his proclamation of how he does follows what I considered the most inspiring few paragraphs in the whole book. I'm female, not exactly the most feminine of them all, but I have been thoroughly annoyed at this need for 'strong female characters' (or #mary sues) in movies and books. Completely annoyed by this standard because it's become an irritating orchestra of power play between the sexes. 'One must dominate over the other' and so forth. What Wright is trying to insinuate is the need for the #obligatorystrongfemalecharacter™ should be discarded. Rather, actually make genuinely interesting characters without the need for a checklist to see if they are 'kick ass enough.' Most, if not all of my favorite characters in my own stories and in the stories of others, cannot fight or do acrobatics to save their lives. Some even have a tendency to come in second place all the time, even if they are extremely smart. But I think what is lacking in female characters these days, that Wright is trying to bring in (although I disagree with some things he said. An expert on men he is, on women he is not.) that there aren't enough female characters that are 'dignified' or exhibit their femininity as their strength not their weakness in their character. Anyone can be strong physically, but it doesn't mean anything. What means something is character and virtue. It should be stated that females have some strengths by nature that men do not, and that should not be disregarded.

Anyways, I digress.

Wright says:

"So ignore the demands for strong female characters. You cannot satisfy them.

You can satisfy your readers, though, by making your heroine interesting. Nay, make her fascinating.

Make your heroine as fascinating as Miyazaki’s Nausicaa, or Homer’s; or Dante’s Beatrice, or as fascinating as Deborah, Clytemnestra, Helen, Penelope, Camilla, Britomart, Bradamante, and you will have readers for centuries to come, or millennia, still discussing her; or make her as interesting as Katniss or Hermione or Scarlett O’Hara, and you will be a bestseller and have your books made into movies.

A closing note on hate mail. I said I would return to this point. Why in the world would anyone in his right mind pen a poisonous letter on this topic? I am not trying to Save Science Fiction from Strong Female Characters. The idea is ridiculous, so ridiculous that I honestly though nobody, not even a humorless Political Correction Officer would take it seriously. The title is meant as an obvious joke."

------

Finally, for those curious of what the Greek says at the end, it's actually an excerpt from Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics (bekker 1127b):

"The boaster seems to be the opposite of the sincere man, because boastfulness is worse than Self-depreciation."

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

Collection of essays adapted from the versions originally posted on his blog, answering the wishes of those who don't want to keep running searches for them.

Captain John Wright of Virginia suffers no fools and gives no quarter as he crafts his tirades, er, columns. Having them all together also brings out patterns, like his devotion to the philosophical scheme of Father Seraphim Rose.

Readers will have individual assessments of which ones are worthwhile. I was entranced by "The Desolation of Tolkien", where he relates how he suffered through the second "Hobbit movie" (inverted commas advisably) so we do not have to; and the review in which he tears THE AMBER SPYGLASS to shreds as gleefully as Baron Corvo dissected "The Legend of the Borgia Venom".

We are promised a "hardcopy" version before long... but those who don't insist on that, got get this now, or your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!

[Cynthia Wood · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awful. Sometimes an author gives you an insight into how his brain works, and the only thing you can do is wish for brain bleach. His writing advice is a weird mix of perfectly sensible, terribly basic, and mind-numbingly strange, stupid or awful. His examples are often distressing in "he can't have meant for us to see inside his brain that clearly" fashion, and he repeatedly takes as axiomatic things that not only shouldn't be axiomatic, but seem blatantly false on the face of them - I.e. things he would have to prove from ground zero for me (or most of my friends) to take them as even likely true. The fact that he often clearly knows that his reader will disagree with him, and still takes his preferences (for instance on gender roles) as axiomatically true speaks volumes. Volumes that I would far rather have never had to slog through.

[Frederick Heimbach · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wright brings a series of insights, some from GKC, some from CSL, and some original, that I have a lot of sympathy for. But this book is flawed by an occasional indulgence in harshness and worse, a tendency to say the same thing over and over. His review of Peter Jackson's second Hobbit movie is a representative of the whole book: it's too long, and uses off-putting violent imagery, yet its actual content is a dead-on takedown of the movie.

This book won't change many minds so I recommend it only for fans.

[Carlos Eduardo Chies · Rating 5 out of 5]

John C Wright wrote some very thought provoking essays.

Here you will find some analyses of the function of Sci-Fi literature, with a very deep understanding of the role beliefs play on the story and on the characters.
There are some good tips of how to write or - as is my case - how to see the mechanics of a story.

Great book!

[Byron · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books about science fiction and fantasy I've ever read. To those with little understanding of the place of faith in the early works in these fields, this may seem foreign, but it has been present from the beginning. Mr. Wright composes with gentleness and forethought a collection encompassing many of the modern ideas about SFF, taking them apart, and showing most of them to be empty of hope, philosophy, and meaning. Oh, and the essay on the Hobbit film is ridiculously funny, and worth the price of admission alone.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting essays using the science fiction/fantasy genre to illustrate and analyze postmodern culture with a healthy Christian point of view.

[Paul Bard]

The first half is awesome. The major essay in the middle is epicly wonderful. The final essays are nothing in comparison.

If you like shouting "Yes! Yes! Yes!" at a book, this is it.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are several fascinating essays here, particularly because you almost never read or hear anyone talking about these things. How will life change for us when we become more and more cybernetic? There is also a great essay on tips and advice for writing fiction that anyone interested in the SF/F genre should read.

[Daniel Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and Enlightening.

John C Wrights quick pen and quicker mind show both his depth of character and the complexity of his process in an excellent collection of essays. 10/10

[Ray Ritchey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought Provoking Essays

Great collection of essays that don’t pull any punches, and are very thought provoking about science fiction, past, present, and future as well as the culture that spawned them.

[Harry Spitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author defends Western Civilization and Christianity against the attacks of the Left showing ultimately that all the Left has to offer is Despair, while Christianity offers Hope. I found it very meaningful and enlightening.

[JPK · Rating 4 out of 5]

In places, these essays reminded me of Chesterton; I am looking forward to reading more by John C. Wright.

[A.J. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read for the 2015 Hugos

I couldn't even finish this book. The essays were just a slog to get through. I think Wright must have been paid by the word, with bonuses for creative use of commas and sentences with 20+ words. I think he had his paycheck reduced for every reader that actually understood what he was saying. This guy can use tons of words and say absolutely nothing. Our maybe he had a point in there, but it was buried in so many extra words that I just couldn't see it.

When you write an essay trying to convince or teach someone something, you state your point, support your point and sum it up. Wright does none of these things. He rambles and just tries to convince you that he is smarter than you. He also, frequently and consistently, insults readers that aren't Catholic. Apparently, you can't understand fantasy or science fiction if you're anything other than Catholic? Whatever.

There are sixteen essays on this book. I survived two and a half of them, and those were a fight to get through. Wright's fiction is pretty good, but his nonfiction is bloated, pointless and painful.

[Jeff Stockett · Rating 3 out of 5]

These essays feel a lot like reading a blog. Much like a blog, there were entries that interested me and entries that didn't. There is a lot of pondering philosophy and life. What made it really fun is that he uses examples from science fiction to illustrate all of his points and his thoughts.

He draws from all over the spectrum. He discusses J.R.R. Tolkien, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Roger Zelazny and many, many more. Even when I disagree with his points I enjoyed reading how he related his ideas to stories that I've read and enjoyed.

Unfortunately, just as much as there were sections that I loved, there were sections that I skipped over because they were either uninteresting to me, or took too cranky of a tone. (Even though I think I agree with him politically on many issues, I really got tired of the essays about how evil liberals are.)

I think this is a good read if you are well read in science fiction. Just be willing to skip over the essays that don't interest you and move on to the next one.

[Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Wright is a blend of CS Lewis and GK Chesterton for our time.

He is insightful, hard hitting, and though he doesn't have the same level of Chesterton paradox, he does surprise and delight with his own. Additionally, he's seasoned it all with his particular wit. It took me until the end of the collection of essays before I clearly saw the pattern: Mr. Wright mounts a defense for sanity and wholesome approaches to the complicated tangle of human life while showing the reader how to recognize mental and spiritual traps set to ensnare the unwary. That he does so by discussing sci-fi in various mediums is just another nod to his skills.

[Wisteria · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the two selections nominated for the 2015 Hugos, so this review is only about them.

The review of The Hobbit movie was laugh out loud funny. 5 stars

Science fiction writing in one lesson didn't have any unique advice, but Mr. Wright came across as that earnest uncle who wants you to succeed in your writing endeavors. 5 stars

[Aaron Nagy · Rating 2 out of 5]

meh