If,
as we are rather fond of telling ourselves, science fiction is a literary form
which is very much in dialogue with itself in the way that writers run with one
another’s ideas, testing them, developing them, extending the creative
conversation, so to speak, then where in this extended discussion should we
position Adam Roberts? He is undoubtedly writing science fiction but his
engagement with it might seem, to an observer, to be rather casual, perhaps a
little offhand, as though he weren’t really taking it seriously. I admit I’ve
struggled with his work over the years, and indeed have not read any of his
novels since Snow. Paul Kincaid wrote about his own critical blind spot
concerning Roberts’ work just over a year ago in ‘Learning to Read Adam Roberts’, and proposed that one needed to read Roberts’ work as
‘Menippean satire’. The critic Northrop Frye preferred the term ‘anatomy’ (as
in Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy) and that is the term I shall use in
this discussion of By Light Alone. Because it seems to me now that
Roberts’ contribution to the ‘dialogue’ is not so much an attempt to extend
ideas as a merciless interrogation of the tropes we already have and an examination
of how they do and don’t work.
To
take one example in By Light Alone,
by undergoing the appropriate gene modification and then growing their hair
long, it has become possible for people to photosynthesize and thus avoid
starvation. But while many science-fiction writers would present the
modification as something positive, and write from the point of view of those
who have undergone it and in their support in the face of inevitable oppression
and persecution (and here I am thinking of things such as Nancy Kress’s
‘Beggars in Spain’), Roberts does something rather different, and on two
different fronts. First – and this is in itself overtly science-fictional – he
suggests the practical downsides to the ability to photosynthesise, such as how
long it might take to feed, how easy it is to kill someone by shaving cutting
off their hair and, most significantly for this novel, how photosynthesis can
only support life to a particular degree. In this case it is impossible for a
woman to carry a pregnancy to full term without supplementing photosynthesis
with so-called ‘hard’ food. Which in turn leads to a need for women to work in
order to earn money and food while men need to do very little. Shiny science is
overwhelmed by economic necessity and in Roberts’ world there is no reason to
invest in resolving this problem because, well, why would men do that when it
is not to their advantage, and the women are working too hard to have time to
dissent.
But this is revealed only later. To begin with, the
reader explores this post-catastrophic world through the eyes of George and
Marie, a wealthy couple with two children, Leah and Ezra. Or, rather, one
doesn’t, because they are so self-absorbed it is almost impossible to gain any
sense of what is going on beyond the boundaries of their immediate existence.
To take notice of the news is considered vulgar. To eat ‘hard’ food is a marker
of wealth but to chew and spit out one’s food is currently the height of
fashion. Short hair is a sign of high status; Marie recoils from the ‘longhairs’
who serve them at their fashionable ski resort. The ‘leafheads’ are disparaged
for their habits but true scorn is reserved for the ‘job suckers’, those who
work to earn money for hard food but who keep their hair short; in other words,
those who aspire to be wealthy too. Class, as it turns out, is very much the
issue at the heart of this novel.
All this the reader learns through hints, through
snatches of conversation and troubling glimpses of other ways of life, like a
child observing but barely comprehending the adult world. Except that here it
is the adults who are like pampered children, able to deny or get rid of
anything they don’t like the look of. And again we have a trope: the
untrammelled community which is about to be brought to a sharp moment of
awareness by an intrusion from the unnoticed outside world. Except that when
Leah is kidnapped by persons unknown, George and Marie are astonished that no
one locally seems to be particularly interested in the child’s disappearance or
prepared to do much about finding Leah. Instead, Marie takes her sensitive
nerves back to New York, leaving George to ineffectually struggle with local
bureaucracy before himself returning home.
It would be difficult not to think of the Madeleine
McCann case in this instant, and to compare the McCanns’ ceaseless campaign to
find their daughter with, in particular, Marie’s response to the situation, a
mix of indignation about the injury done to her (Marie ismore usually
indifferent to her children) and indignation at the failure of everyone around
her to jump to it when she demands a resolution. Marie is simply not used to
being thwarted. George is a little more emotionally engaged but also completely
baffled by the situation. And even their friends seem mostly indifferent. One
might compare this with Hari Kunzru’s Gods Without Men which also features the
mysterious loss of a child, but which in sharp contrast details the
contemporary response to such a loss, with total strangers all trying to find a
place in the drama. In other words, we learn as much about Roberts’ world from
what people don’t do as from what they are doing. One of the most startling
moments of Roberts’ novel comes when Marie resituates herself in her own drama
as an active agent when we already know that she totally withdrew from it and
refused to participate in any way until her daughter was returned.
The return itself presents another point of
interest. One of George’s acquaintances hires a woman who is skilled at
tracking down lost people and she, almost miraculously, perhaps too
miraculously, recovers Leah after a year. It is clear from the outset that
something is not quite right, and as the story unfolds the reader can happily
speculate, yet within the novel no one ever challenges the situation, perhaps
because of the indolence that characterises so much of what happens, or perhaps
because, deep inside, they don’t dare. The fact of Leah’s apparent return is
sufficient to bring about a collapse in George’s and Marie’s relationship, as
George begins to wonder a little more about the world and tries ineffectually
to experience it by himself becoming a longhair and getting involved in
‘politics’ while Marie becomes involved in a project to return parts of New
York City to ‘the wild’, which in principle means driving people out of their
homes and bulldozing them. I could spend another happy hour drawing parallels
between this and attitudes towards the presence of Native Americans in
pre-catastrophe and pre-Columbian America. This is, after all, a project
designed to simply remove the longhairs from view rather like that
eighteenth-century habit of moving villages to ‘improve’ the landscape.
Roberts counters this view of the situation in a
particularly oblique way that perhaps only really makes sense through
subsequent reflection but which is in its way very telling. Again there is the
refusal to engage at a personal, emotional level; instead, Roberts recounts the
story of Issa, the girl who seems to come out of nowhere into the world of the
longhairs, in terms that hint at allegory. Who or what Issa actually is we
never really learn; her own understanding of where she comes from doesn’t seem
quite to fit the other portions of the story, but with a mass of viewpoints
which are if not truthful then certainly partial in all meanings of the word,
it is difficult to reach a definitive truth.
And that in part is what I like so much about By Light Alone, that refusal to follow the
standard narrative trail. There is a distinct flavour of Ballard about this
novel, with its semi-drowned world and images of longhairs lying in the sun,
their hair fanned out behind them, but at the same time Roberts undermines the
delicious melancholy of Ballard’s writing by using such shockingly solipsistic
characters and simultaneously demonstrating the failure of the grand
science-fictional idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment