Itâs too much to ask, of course. Nobody could, a quarter century before The War of the Worlds, and when Verne was only just beginning to be translated into English. But itâs such a pity, because she would have been so very good at it.
I only started to read George Eliot a few years ago. She suffered in my mind from a geographical, or rather alphabetical, contagion with Dickens and Hardy. (I have no idea how it is that my grandmother didnât own any Mrs Gaskell, when Mrs Gaskell would have been so very much to her taste. It makes me a little sad every time I read Cranford, to know she never did.) In any case, whatever you may think, George Eliot isnât tedious or depressing or shallow. What I loathe about Dickens is the shallowness of his caricatures, the way he pushes them around his ludicrous plots not even like puppets (because I could admire a well-done puppet show) but like childrenâs toys that might topple over at any moment and get a grinning âAw shucksâ from the mawkish and badly-played omniscient narrator. Hardy, on the other hand, was a good writer. I loathe him for the morbidity of his imagination and the sheer misery of his stories. Even his âlighterâ works are blighted, and his best and most serious ones are barely endurable. But would I have liked Middlemarch any better when I was ten? Maybe it is a book you shouldnât read until youâre forty.
But she should have been a science fiction writer! And she could have been because she saw the world in an essentially science fictional way. She saw how technology changes societyâshe understood that thoroughly. In a way, she was someone who had lived through a singularityâshe had seen the railroad coming and had seen how it had entirely transformed the world she grew up in, with second order effects nobody could have predicted. Her books constantly come back to technology and the changes it brings. Her whole angle of looking at the world is much closer to Wells than to Dickens. She didnât often speculate, but when she did, you have lines like:
Posterity may be shot, like a bullet from a tube, from Winchester to Newcastle: that is a fine result to have among our hopes.
(from Felix Holt, the Radical.)
And she understood the progress of science, the way it isnât all huge and immediate:
He meant to be a unit who would make a certain amount of difference towards that spreading change which would one day tell appreciably upon the averages, and in the meantime have the pleasure of making an advantageous difference to the viscera of his own patients. But he did not simply aim at a more general kind of practice than was common. He was ambitious of a wider effect: he was fired with the possibility that he might work out the proof of an anatomical conception and make a link in the chain of discovery.
(Middlemarch.)
The trouble with mimetic fiction isnât that you can tell whatâs going to happen (I defy anyone to guess whatâs going to happen in Middlemarch, even from half way through) but that you can tell whatâs not going to happen. There isnât going to be an evil wizard. The world isnât going to be destroyed in Cultural Fugue and leave the protagonist as the only survivor. There arenât going to be any people who happen to have one mind shared between five bodies. There are unlikely to be shape-changers. In science fiction you can have any kind of storyâa romance or a mystery or a reflection of human nature, or anything at all. But as well as that, you have infinite possibility. You can tell different stories about human nature when you can compare it to android nature, or alien nature. You can examine it in different ways when you can write about people living for two hundred years, or being relativistically separated, or under a curse. You have more colours for your palette, more lights to illuminate your scene.
Now the problem with genre fiction is often that writers take those extra lights and colours and splash them around as if the fact that the result is shiny is sufficient, which it unfortunately isnât. So the most common failing of genre fiction is that you get shallow stories with feeble characters redeemed only by the machinations of evil wizards or the fascinating spaceship economy or whatever. What I want is stories as well written and characterised as Middlemarch, but with more options for what can happen. Thatâs what I always hope for, and thatâs what I get from the best of SF.
If Eliot could have taken her SFnal sensibility and used it to write SF, she could have swung the whole course of literature into a different channel. She could have changed the world. All the great writers who followed her would have had all the options of SF, instead of the circumscribed limitations of the mimetic world. We wouldnât see books like Piercyâs He, She and It that are well written in character terms but incredibly clunky in SF ones because they donât have the first idea how to embed SF tropes in a narrative.
Meanwhile, Middlemarch remains an extremely good book, and I enjoyed it as much on a second reading as I did on the first. Youâd think from the bare bones that it would be as depressing as Hardy: itâs the story of two people who passionately want to succeed but who fail. Dorothea wants to help a great man in a great endeavour, and finds herself utterly miserable in marriage to a man jealous of her, and engaged on writing footnotes on footnotes. Lydgate wishes to make medical discoveries, and finds himself miserably married to a social climbing woman who weighs him down in debt, everyday cares and the shallows of life. Eliot shows us exactly why they make the decisions that seem like a good idea at the time and how they lead inexorably to disaster. It isnât a miserable book though, not at all. It doesnât grind you down. Itâs very funny in parts, it has a huge cast of minor characters, some of them seen in great detail (she knows how to use omni deftly) and Dorotheaâs story at least ends happily, if unconventionally. That is, unconventionally for a Victorian novel. She doesnât get to be the ambassador to Jupiter, moreâs the pity. She always wants to rush off and do good. âLet us find out the truth, and clear him!â she declares, when she hears base rumours about Lydgate. Iâd like her to be in a universe where everyoneâs response to that wasnât to tell her to be sensible and calm down.
Middlemarch is a panorama, and a terrific novel of life in provincial England just before the Reform Act. Itâs the kind of book where you want to gossip to your friends about the characters and what can become of them. I love it, and I heartily recommend it. But I wish sheâd invented science fiction instead, because she could have, and it would have been so amazing if she had.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:38pm EST
However, I don't think Eliot would have done well as an SF writer. The proof: Romola, her historical novel. She sweated blood over it, doing research and aiming for accuracy, and afterwards said something like, IIRC, it had aged her as no other novel had. But Romola is inert. Sincere, but inert. I don't believe that she had the imagination to inhabit a fantasy world.
Dickens, OTOH, being less tied to reality in the first place, might have enjoyed the challenge.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday February 10, 2009 10:44pm EST
Wednesday February 11, 2009 06:55am EST
Wednesday February 11, 2009 07:11am EST
I am not sure I buy the Romola is static, therefore Eliot couldn't have written sf - because sf wouldn't have bogged down her imagination in the way that her possibly undue respect for history and her perhaps over-dense research did in that work. It includes, by the way, a scene which is devastatingly horrific for anyone who has ever constructed significant parts of their identity around being a reader.
I sometimes imagine sequels to Middlemarch... there are so many minor characters whose stories one would like to pursue.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday February 11, 2009 11:37am EST
And I will grab the Project Gutenberg text of _Middlemarch_ and put it on my Palm to be read in my infinite free time.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday February 11, 2009 12:07pm EST
Now I wonder if that aspect is in effect kept under control because it's subordinate to (or more like parallel to) the character dynamics. I wonder this because, like the commenter above, I found Romola a real slog, and ditto the earnest, very well meant, but almost unreadable Jewish history sections of Daniel Deronda, shoved so heavy-handedly into an otherwise compelling tale not just about obsessive love, but about the cost of the creative life.
If Elliott had made science a character, would it have been as heavy handed and kludgy as her research novels?
Dunno, but I love your thought about the direction of literature if she had decided to make Middlemarch sfnal--and it was a success--now that is an alternate world story that has all kinds of hooks.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday February 11, 2009 12:52pm EST
Wednesday February 11, 2009 01:34pm EST
Sorry to pontificate (Pedagogicate?) But while we're wishing ourselves respectable ancestors, let's not forget about the horsethieves and highwaymen!
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday February 11, 2009 09:41pm EST
To me, this is one of the strongest reasons SF is obviously literature - SF does the same things as the best of the rest.
It occurs to me that a modern SFnal analogue to Eliot might be MacLeod.
Wednesday February 11, 2009 11:53pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday February 15, 2009 01:11pm EST
Will you mind if i quote 100 or 200 words from this post (of 1,200 words) on my blog? With proper attribution, of course, as well as respectful gushing appreciation of your genius (i mean that genuinely, having recently discovered you and devoured Farthing and all your blogging.). 8)
VIEW ALL BY · Monday February 16, 2009 07:57pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday February 18, 2009 02:54pm EST
Just found that the link (on Wikipedia, and on my blog) to your website http://www.zorinth.net/bluejo/ is dead - so i'm letting you know.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday February 20, 2009 07:30am EST
Thank you.
Tuesday February 24, 2009 02:19am EST