The Big Book of Science Fiction Read – Week 4 – The New Overworld by Paul Scheerbart

There is apparently a hypothesis that we are unable to commune with intelligent life outside our planet because it is always doomed to destroy itself. This may be a simplistic explanation for a complex reality but it is one with which I don’t entirely disagree; as the basic hypothesis is a sound one – conscious life forms are incredibly destructive. The author of this week’s story from The Big Book of Science Fiction – Paul Scheerbart has a more idealistic take on the subject.
Scheerbart’s story, the fourth in this collection is short, and reads more like a vignette. It ends as it begins – in medias res, while the content itself straddles the thin line dividing fictional reportage and storytelling. It isn’t a particularly entertaining read but it was interesting from the viewpoint of early science fiction and science fiction that doesn’t belong in the American Canon.
In Scheerbart’s fictional Venus, two races cohabit peacefully on its solar surface. One race is indolent while the other is dynamic. Scheerbart’s descriptions of these races lack any evolutionary context and border more on absurdism or surrealism. Whatever conflict exists between these two races, is usually resolved through conversation to the benefit of both races and without any bloodshed – culminating in a new way of being for one race while the rather indolent race is left to follow its usual form of life.
Scheerbart’s story is a Utopian ideal – it gives very human characteristics (of thought, not physiognomy) to an alien race, removing any sense of individuality and conflict from the equation, to force a peaceful solution. The same can be said of Sultana’s Dream, the second story in the series which attempts to do the same. The very idea of a Contes Philosophique is rather flawed in a sense – it negates individualism and dissent, imagining a rather bland homogenous society in which all is agreeable and the course of history is never surprising – but rather pedestrain and pre ordained. As a result, the vehicle of storytelling which carries these ideas must of necessity be as bland by association, robbing storytelling of its dynamic nature and individualism.
The Vandermeer’s, in their opening essay, champion this form of storytelling – stating quite plainly that stories need to move away from character growth and development and into the realm of ideas. I strongly disagree – when the first men sat across from each other, the embers of a fire cooling between them stories are what they wove to make sense of the world around them. These stories have morphed into various storytelling devices over the years but the essential core is the same – they are meant to excite and delight and move – arousing empathy within us, and awakening our shared sense of humanity. These philosophical exercises on the other hand worship ideas over humanity – with not nearly the same effect.
On balance, Scheerbart himself is a rather more interesting personality than his short story – a man known for his strong association with architecture and the fantastic, most of his works have not been translated into English as was the case for several German authors, as a reaction to the First and Second World Wars. It is always lovely to see a writer pulled out of the seas of obscurity but I think Scheerbart’s vibrant personality could have been better served by a more considered selection from his bibliography than this present story.

by pranavroh