'"More Than Human" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*

[SFFBC, Ancillary Mod]

Tell us all your thoughts!

If you'd like to discuss while still reading, please use a prominent indicator of the chapter/page you're on so that other readers can chime in!

Some questions to get us started:

1. What did you think of the plot?
2. Did this "age well?"
3. What worked or didn't for you?
4. What surprised you or what other works do you think this inspired?

Non-spoiler thread here: First impressions

[Ellen]

I thought that it has aged pretty well aged. I agree with AMG about the depiction of those with developmental delays. Having grown up with a cousin with Down's Syndrome that was off base. They did used to be called mongoloids and my aunt was advised to put him in an institution and forget about him. That would have been around 1953. She did not. He was a charming and pleasant person and fun to be around.
I know it science fiction but it reminded me more of a fairy tale.

[Casey]

This was kind of an up and down book for me. I was captured by the magnificent first paragraph and looked forward to that kind of imagistic writing, but it showed up sporadically. Because of that, I focused on the story, rather than the writing style. There were moments when Sturgeon hung onto a theme for too long, slowing down the plot, but about halfway through, it picked up and I became really interested in learning the outcome, which totally surprised me. My guess is that 100 different readers have 100 different interpretations of what the final message of the book was. For me, the presence of Hip and his exceedingly high intelligence was a bridge from the members of the little gestalt organism involving Beanie, Bonnie, Gerry, Janie, Lone and Baby, to humanity in general. Hip was not so different that he never fit in to society nor were his gifts so extraordinary that he attracted attention or was clearly a misfit (until Gerry started messing with him). But he was receptive to the gestalt mentality and could eventually merge with the others, or perhaps draw them into a larger merging with humanity as a whole. Thus, he represented how close humans were to taking the evolutionary gestalt step. Lone's little group were the harbingers of this larger step for humans. What I loved, and what for me became the central issue the book presented, was the problem of how to move from an individual-oriented morality to a group morality. Evolution is based on individual survival and procreation (actually gene survival, Dawkins' "selfish gene"). There are elements of group survival such as altruism and inclusive fitness in natural selection, but these are usually seen as by-products of individual gene selection. Sturgeon was trying to point to a "common good" or a selection process that recognized that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. His statements were vague, and in fact they pointed more to the need for such a morality than a clear statement of what it would be. It's an age-old philosophical problem, and it is not clear that conscious moral decisions have any real bearing on evolutionary outcomes, but in an age in which we have global problems that cannot be solved by either individuals or individuals nations, such as climate change and. prevention of pandemics, Sturgeon taking it head-on 70 years ago made me love the book.

[YouKneeK]

I finished this afternoon. I enjoyed it while I was reading it, but had issues with how it ended.

1. What did you think of the plot?
The way the plot was structured kept me interested. I went in blind, not having read the book blurb or knowing anything about it, which for me makes the reading experience more fun. I was pretty confused at the beginning, before all the random pieces started to form a picture in my mind – first a blurry picture, then a clearer one. I liked how the author didn't always provide explanations right away, but he did provide them eventually, and I enjoyed the non-linear parts.

2. Did this "age well?"
For the most part, I think it did. The classic stories that feel the most dated to me are the ones set in the future, especially if they have a larger focus on technology. Since this book didn’t have either of those elements, I often forgot I was reading a book published in 1953. There were a few reminders, but the main thing that jarred me and reminded me of the book’s age was the use of the word “mongoloid”.

3. What worked or didn't for you?
The storytelling style worked well for me, but the ending did not. It was just all too fast and tidy, and I wasn't convinced things had really changed. In the span of what seemed like a few minutes, Hip tricked Gerry into receiving a mental lecture on ethics, this somehow convinced Gerry to feel ashamed of himself for the first time ever, and he suddenly realized the need for ethics. Hip is added to the group to be the “prissy” part (I did like seeing that, because I’d predicted it at the end of the “Baby is Three” section), and the secret society of gestalts immediately considers the new gestalt a success, reveals their existence, and welcomes them into the fold.

Nobody, not even Gerry, can be sure that, after a lifetime without morality, Gerry is going to allow Hip to guide them on ethical decisions when push comes to shove. We’ve already seen Janie act independently of the Gestalt on behalf of Hip, so if the head (Gerry) decides to disregard Hip, and other members of the gestalt side with Hip, they might fall apart. The secret gestalts of the world waited all this time to reveal themselves because the new gestalt “wasn’t ready”, so why not wait a little longer to see how they actually handle themselves? Everybody knows that the best intentions don’t always work out. It probably made for a more dramatic (and faster) ending the way it was written, but I was a bit disappointed with it.

4. What surprised you or what other works do you think this inspired?
I have no idea what other works this might have inspired. I can’t think of anything I’ve read that was quite like this. That in itself may surprise me a little, since often these older stories feel more familiar because of how much influence they’ve had in the intervening years. I'm sure things were inspired by it, but I don't think I've read them myself.

I was also initially surprised in the “Baby is Three” section to learn that Lone was dead. I understand now that this wasn’t originally written as a full novel, but at the time I was reading I considered Lone to be the main character, so I was a little surprised when the author killed his main character after he’d spent a third of his book developing him!

[Anthony]

I don’t have anything of substance to add to the conversation beyond saying that I’m always grateful to encounter the work of an SF writer who’s grappling with large themes, and is attempting to do so in a complex, poetic, and humane manner. Sadly, too many writers in this field seem to get caught up in shoring up their world-building and plot ideas, and forget to realize that there are living, breathing characters at the core of their stories. Thankfully, Sturgeon is someone who didn’t forget that.

[QueenAmidala28]

Anthony wrote: "I don’t have anything of substance to add to the conversation beyond saying that I’m always grateful to encounter the work of an SF writer who’s grappling with large themes, and is attempting to do..."

I agree with Anthony. I think Stergeon did this well especially given the era. I will say I was a little thrown off by the language (race and those with disabilities) in the beginning but remembered the time frame.

I loved the writing and the overall message of the book. Great suggestion for group read!

[Jeff]

I finished it and wrote a 3-star review for it, which I will somewhat summarize here. Basically, I liked it, but felt it was a little disjointed. I was confused on what was happening often, and each story, I had to start over in figuring out what was happening. I did think each story had a decent pay-off, but I had to work for it. The second story was the most satisfying, then the first, and the third story was the weakest.

I could see this book being a big influence on Stan Lee's X-Men, with psychic powers being a next evolution that made this evolution outcasts.

[Dawn F]

I agree, the second part was definitely the best. The third was hard to follow at first, I had to look up a summary to be honest and the ending could have been stronger, but I liked the theme. All in all an interesting story for sure.

[David]

I read this for the first time maybe 20 years ago, and thought that it was good, although not as amazing as his collected short narratives. The concept is great, and the writing crisp, but the narrative unravels for me in the third chapter. Partly this is due to the introduction of the proximity fuse as a plot element. The timeline would put Hip’s critical encounter toward the end of WWII, and the proximity fuse (one of the three main technological inventions to come out of the war) was such a closely guarded secret, I understand that they only used it over the ocean (where an unexploded shell couldn’t be recovered and reverse engineered). Why would they be testing the ordinance on a target over land, close enough to be affected by a tree (and why would there be any power poles on the gunnery range p. 153)? Then, I thought the ethics/morality discussion too much of a hand-wave. Homo gestalt would be existing as a singularity, in a State of Nature; it might develop a sense of obligation toward homo sapiens as moral patients, but the Species Life argument would always favor itself. Shame is a handle by which individuals are controlled, but this seems as likely to come from a violation of aesthetics, as from ethics. It seems that Sturgeon was trying to make a moral argument under circumstances where the argument didn’t apply.

[=David=]

I finished it a few days ago. I didn't hate it. It kept me guessing, and I agree with Jeff that I could easily imagine this book being an influence on Stan Lee.

It stood out to me that every parent depicted (and there are quite a few) is abusive, ignorant or neglectful. But those awful parents are apparently irrelevant (or perhaps even conducive) to the evolution of humanity. As someone who's put quite a bit of time and energy into trying to be a decent parent, I'd like to think Sturgeon's wrong about that.

Also, the writing style sometimes struck me as pretentious rather than poetic.

[Chris]

The first two stories were OK. If those had been all, I would have given the book three stars for being mildly entertaining. The third story was a disaster—too long to get to the point, maudlin, preachy.

The central idea—homo gestalt—doesn't impress me. Apart from the thoroughly unscientific psychic powers, isn't it just "society" or "civilization"? Human beings, as isolated individuals, are pathetic. When they come together and cooperate, they change the world. If Sturgeon had meant homo gestalt as a metaphor for what exists already, that might have been alright, but he was clearly trying to say something profound about the future of humanity.

Did anyone else think that Lone was completely different in the first and second stories?

I read this book a long time ago and remember liking the idea of misfits joining together to become awesome. However, I have no memory of the plot from that first reading. That's often a bad sign, and so it was here.

[David]

Chris wrote: "Human beings, as isolated individuals, are pathetic. When they come together and cooperate, they change the world. If Sturgeon had meant homo gestalt as a metaphor for what exists already, that might have been alright, but he was clearly trying to say something profound about the future of humanity."

I think that, thematically, More Than Human is about the tyranny of self. The post-War years were economically indulgent, but emotionally constrained—people wanting the comfort of seeing themselves in everyone around them (I think it’s a Cognitive Dissonance thing). Being more than human was being more than a limited self—interdependent rather than dependent (like baby, or the twins) or independent (like Lone). The question is: How do you get there, from within a hierarchical society? Maybe Sturgeon was saying that the hierarchy was so powerful, its defeat required biological intervention.

[Mike]

Loved the structure. In each of the 3 parts you start out in the middle of the action and have to work out what is going on. Published in 1953, this pre-dates Marvel's X-Men, and shows what a real group of super-humans would be like. If Professor X had been like Magneto, as evil as the second twisted 'head' in this gestalt group is, Marvel would have a much more fascinating tale. But how could anyone possess this much power and not be twisted by it? The only complaint I have is the ending was a little too happy for such a dark tale.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Really great discussion, all!

I agree that the beginning and middle were fascinating and the end a bit too quick. I got lost a bit in it, to be honest, so I'm glad for those of you who shared what you got out of it!

I agree that the writing on disability was...definitely not okay by today's standards, but so often in books from this era, having mental or developmental issues is what constitutes the bad guy. I liked seeing that people with disabilities in this story were loved, helpful, and valued. We see Lone learn care, Baby is indispensable, the twins are charming and clever. I was super impressed that there's even a moment where Hip thinks he's walked in on a lesbian, interracial sex scene and the only concern is that of anyone walking in on someone doing something personal--chagrin. Nothing about how any of that would be wrong. That was sort of a mind blowing add in for me.

And Chris, I think your idea of the difference between the individual and society IS the central question. We all need each other or can become the person someone else needs, so what would that look like in a microcosm? How would you build that when you saw yourself as both an individual and one limb of a whole? What would that power do and how would we ethically control it?

But I also just love stories of cohered consciousnesses like this ^^

[Chris]

Mike wrote: "If Professor X had been like Magneto, as evil as the second twisted 'head' in this gestalt group is, Marvel would have a much more fascinating tale."

Marvel already has Magneto. Why would it want Prof X to be a second Magneto? When created in the 1960s, they were stand-ins for Malcolm X and MLK—two different approaches to social change. No group is monolithic, so having at least two factions seems more true to life.

For his part, Magneto, as bad as he becomes, was an Auschwitz survivor, so we can understand why he resists what he fears will be a new genocide. I don't think that Gerry's story is nearly as compelling.

[Ellen]

That book cover is really creepy.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I think the book is a terrific concept novel. I can't believe it was written in 1953! Having grown up in the late 1950's and early 1960's, I suspect books like this had a self-selected small audience of sociology, anthropology and science nerds who liked literary reads, especially those experimenting with Modernism techniques. The author literally takes the elements of a human apart, figuratively. That's funny.

I liked the book very much. It entirely represents what was progressive liberal hopes and speculative science fiction for that era. First you show the social evils and how social evil is created, then you show the hopeful progress if we accept stepping upward to what is possible and ultimately good for the many, ending with a future that might be (never absolutely for sure, people being people) better in spite of the darkest corners of human nature, if we readers just pay attention to the possible ways it can go wrong!

Btw, mentally disabled people were commonly called morons in official reports sometimes by psychiatrists. A lot of words everybody used back then became politically incorrect later. A lot of people back then only got through the eighth grade in education. What was considered a semi-scientific term or category label by professionals became a slanderous insult as it filtered down through the general public. Some words , like niggardly, are completely misinterpreted by non-readers and many readers and so have been cancelled entirely.

Social changes are very interesting when one is old and still a liberal as I am now, Book comments and reviews of novels I still like despite the social changes that have occurred since they were written, like this one, seem to be unforgivable and not tolerated at all by younger readers. Younger folks, who appear to be unaware the author was an educated, maybe progressive, man or at least someone very interested in scientific progress and social liberalism thought in the earlier centuries, often had to preach somewhat to a largely small town or a public often ignorant of what was then college kid and science convention conversations, not available to the mainstreet family. Back then, America was 97% White, Protestant and ex- or currently farm families, utterly shocked by European culture, discovered by soldiers in WWII, and scared sh*tles by communism, science (nuclear war possibility) and Hitler. Elites were ashamed of American ignorance and backwardness, and wanted to bring poorly educated Americans into the modern world, starting with young readers. Science fiction was for the elite college kids and the young children of the "greatest generation". Thus, the light touch of preaching. This book wasn't written for today's Instagram audience or the Internet meme generation.

[Jeff]

aPriL does feral sometimes wrote: "I think the book is a terrific concept novel. I can't believe it was written in 1953! Having grown up in the late 1950's and early 1960's, I suspect books like this had a self-selected small audien..."

I appreciate your brilliant insights. Thank you.