When I last visited my sister, Brenda Bright, she presented me with a treasure gleaned from a library book sale: a first edition of George R. Stewart's Earth Abides (1949)—
To be sure, as is often the case when one rereads a cherished novel from one's youth, Earth Abides was in some respects a disappointment. As a whole, despite the dozen or so passages that I recorded for potential future use in a book of quotations, I did not think the novel was particularly well written. It seems a classic example of the sort of story Brian W. Aldiss memorably lambasted as the "cozy catastrophe," in which the annihilation of most of humanity, and the complete collapse of civilization, turn out to be blessings for the survivors, who end up enjoying a comfortable, carefree existence by living off canned foods and luxuriating in abandoned mansions. Stewart's insights into ecology, which were remarkable in his era, can no longer impress contemporary readers who have grown up with an environmental perspective.
Yet, as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of its publication, Earth Abides remains an important novel, I would argue, because it almost uniquely serves to bridge a puzzling gap in the vast literature of post-holocaust science fiction.
That is, as a general rule, stories about Earth after a global nuclear war, or after some comparable disaster (like the mysterious plague that wipes out most of the human race in Earth Abides), fall into two categories. First, there are stories that take place soon after the cataclysmic event, such as Harlan Ellison's "A Boy and His Dog" (1969), the Mad Max films, and David Brin's The Postman (1985). Protagonists remember civilization and make use of its artifacts: cars and motorcycles are still being driven, carefully maintained generators provide pockets of electrical power, messages are broadcast via still-functioning radio stations. Stories may involve fierce competition for some scarce resource, such as gasoline or young women, or focus on the conflict between normal humans and mutants created by radioactivity, who may be regarded sympathetically or unsympathetically. A few stories may pessimistically envision the rapid extinction of humanity (like Nevil Shute's On the Beach [1957]), but most conclude with the sense that people will survive, and that civilization will soon be restored.
Second, there are stories that occur hundreds or thousands of years after the great catastrophe, such as Andre Norton's Star Man's Son (1952), Poul Anderson's Vault of the Ages (1952), and Roger Corman's film Teenage Cave Man (1958). Civilization and its technologies are entirely forgotten, save perhaps for a few vague legends; surviving relics may be shunned as taboo, or revered as religious icons. People largely live like our prehistoric ancestors, hunting and gathering to stay alive and wearing animal furs as clothing. The characteristic story features a bright young man who, despite opposition from tribal elders, sets out to figure out the mystery of humanity's lost past, discovers how glorious human civilization once was, and finally inspires his fellows to begin a concerted effort to restore the human race to its previous, exalted status.
The question rarely addressed is: how exactly might humanity ever get from the first scenario to the second scenario? In the stories set in the years immediately following the disaster, people hardly seem to be in the process of forgetting everything about their past; indeed, they are fighting hard to preserve as much of it as possible. There remain plenty of books around, full of useful information, and lots of people who can read them. Even a novel that appears to describe a process of abandoning the trappings of civilization, Walter M. Miller, Jr.'s classic A Canticle for Leibowitz (1959), actually shows how people living in a post-holocaust world would struggle to save the artifacts and documents of their lost civilization—
This is precisely why Earth Abides is so significant—
The first problem is that, if some disaster wiped out most of the human race, the few survivors would probably not be intelligent enough to keep civilization going. Science fiction writers and readers usually like to think of themselves as smarter than other people, so that the protagonists of science fiction novels are usually smart people. But Stewart, never part of the science fiction community, felt no impulse to make his random sampling of human society an unrealistic gathering of geniuses. Thus, while Stewart's hero Isherwood Williams, or "Ish," is an intelligent, university-trained anthropologist, the other people in the community he forms conspicuously lack his mental abilities. True, they may possess a sort of worldly wisdom helpful in resolving daily dilemmas, like "Em," the Earth-mother figure who becomes Ish's lifelong companion; true, they may possess certain practical skills, like George the carpenter. But they can generally be characterized as "stupid"—
Second, even if the survivors did include some reasonably bright people like Ish, they would still lack all of the background, and all of the knowledge, that an advanced civilization requires. A crucial crisis in the novel involves the running water in people's homes, which has remained available even though the other utilities long ago shut down. Inevitably, however, something in the system breaks down and the water stops flowing. Since no one in the group is a hydraulic engineer, they have no idea what might have happened and cannot even begin to track down and correct the problem; so, members of the community have to adjust to getting their water from streams and wells. At times Ish ponders going to a library and trying to absorb massive amounts of the important knowledge that he doesn't have, but he always recognizes that the attempt would be futile: there would be too much for one person to learn, and there would be no chance of finding all of the experts in various fields that relaunching an advanced civilization would require on a decimated, depopulated Earth.
Finally—
And this is how Stewart stands in sharp contrast to the traditions of science fiction, which has long argued that the human race is driven, and destined, to achieve greatness, to build better and better machines, to conquer the universe, to create a scientific utopia. Stewart argues that civilization is just something that happened to come about, due to certain "Forces and Pressures," and thus was always something that might with equal probability go away, due to other "Forces and Pressures." The end of civilization, Stewart argues, might even be a blessing; at one point, he likens it to "Frankenstein's vast monster," something that people had long "tried to escape." In other words, we cannot assume that humans would be traumatized by the loss of their advanced civilization; they would be just as likely to feel liberated.
Thanks to Stewart's vision, we can now see how humans, after a global disaster, might indeed completely abandon advanced civilization, forget about all its past glories, and settle into the simple lifestyles of their distant ancestors. However, even as Stewart bridges the gap between the two characteristic narratives of post-holocaust fiction, he is also contradicting the message in both of them; for their shared argument is that humanity will always return to the path of steady, upward progress, whether it takes a few years or a few thousand years. Stewart instead predicts that humanity, in response to a catastrophe, would more likely choose to permanently embrace a contented primitivism; despite the arguments of Norton, Anderson, and Corman, the bright young men in such futures would never have any interest in digging about in old ruins or trying to fathom the mystery of their origins. As I interpret Stewart's novel, the author never provides the slightest hint, or the faintest hope, that human civilization as we have known it will ever be restored.
Thus, if we wish to ponder what a sequel to Earth Abides might be like, we must turn away from works like Anderson's novel and Corman's film and examine another singular science fiction novel, and a rare soulmate to Stewart's classic, Brian W. Aldiss's Hothouse (1962), published in America with a better and more evocative title, The Long Afternoon of Earth. On an Earth so far in the future that it has stopped rotating, and is connected to the Moon by enormous spider webs, humans have devolved to become only one of several minor species competing for resources in the enormous jungle that the Earth has become, and they utterly lack any knowledge of technology or awareness of humanity's previous accomplishments. At the end of the novel, an intelligent morel offers Aldiss's hero Gren the opportunity to embark upon a mission into outer space to rediscover and reconnect to the past achievements of his distant ancestors; Gren declines the offer and returns to his tribe to happily live out his life without troublesome ambitions, not worrying about the impending death of the planet Earth and his species. Once, when I was younger and more dogmatic, I argued that Aldiss had spoiled his novel by giving it the wrong ending; now, newly enlightened by George R. Stewart, I suspect that he was simply giving his novel a more realistic ending.
In any event, both Earth Abides and Hothouse are clearly novels that belong on anyone's list of essential science fiction reading, both for their qualities as literature and for their distinctive opposition to the traditional attitudes of science fiction. And while Stewart's work has secured a reasonably prominent position in the canon of science fiction, the fascinating, atmospheric, and involving Hothouse remains a novel which is not as well known as it should be—

COMMENTS!
Jan 7, 06:57 by IROSF
Article is here.
[ Reply ]
Jan 7, 08:32 by David Bratman
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Jan 7, 15:48 by Corie Ralston
Corie
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Jan 15, 19:43 by D. Nicklin-Dunbar
If it were natural or inevitable that mankind desired a civilization free existence, then civilization would never have arisen. Since it already has, it is more than safe to assume that it would again. Civilization is more than the invention and application of technology. Civilization is the inevitable outcome of socialization. Man kind is a social animal; it is natural for us to congregate and organize. Technology arises from those few curious and intelligent humans who observe and discover the processes of natural phenomena. Technology is not a requirement of civilization, though it certainly helps.
Additionally, the definition of advanced civilization is vague. For instance, take running water. While the pressurized water system we rely on today are complicated, technologically sophisticated infrastructure, the principle of pressurized water is not. The Romans did quite well without diesel driven pumping stations, and Knossos had complex underground sewer systems 4000 years ago. Had Stewart's protagonist bothered to go to the library, he might have learned that. Even if civilization should break down to the point where we have completely lost all infrastructure and it has been a thousand years since the pumps last run, the principle of a pressurized water system is simple enough that even a relatively "stupid" carpenter could build one using only gravity and some easily made containers. Certainly, the recreation of a modern Hollywood sound-stage would be quite beyond our hypothetical carpenter. That, however, does not mean that the re-buiding of advanced civilization by the "stupid" is impossible. It all depends on your definition of advanced.
Natural human curiosity and inventiveness will lead to civilization after a catastrophe unless it is specifically suppressed (which would require an infrastructure of its own and thus a civilization). While Stewart's and Aldiss' characters may have decided to give up on civilization altogether, there will be others who will wonder what the lights in the sky are, or ponder of what use a waterfall could be.
[ Edited: Jan 15, 19:53 ] [ Reply ]
Jan 18, 08:58 by Bluejack
I realize that the no-tech, animalistic futures are certainly plausible within the context of a total environmental breakdown; but I have not personally encountered a compelling story in that milieu.
Perhaps, product of an earlier era, I'm more driven by the "Canticle for Leibowitz" paradigm.
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Jan 19, 18:20 by D. Nicklin-Dunbar
I would have to answer that in both cases A and B that we would have to lack those very things that make us human to have a no-tech post-catastrophe future where humans would not be able to rebuild civilization.
[ Edited: Jan 19, 18:22 ] [ Reply ]
Jan 21, 01:16 by Joe Prisco
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Jan 21, 16:20 by D. Nicklin-Dunbar
You are right that most of the West have no idea how to support themselves without our cars, computers and electricity, but even if we are reduced to the most basic level of survival, we will have some sort of technology. A rudimentary bow and arrow will spur innovation to make a better bow and arrow since a better bow and arrow will favour more successful hunting and thus the survival of the individual or tribal group. Technological advance is thus self-perpetuating; given even the simplest technology, mankind will seek to develop that technology for more efficacious or easier use. Continued survival all but demands it.
Yes, advanced technology, such as our electrical or water supply infrastructure, does require large-scale organized co-operation. Technological advance from the Stone Age onward did not. If by 'no-tech' you mean some sort of Paleo-lithic level of development, then I am convinced that mankind will inevitably regain a more advanced level of technology (though it may take even longer the next time). If by 'no-tech' you mean the absolute absence of any technology, mankind would be reduced to a level on par with our most distant ancestors. In that case, would we remain human at all?
[ Edited: Nov 30, 00:00 ] [ Reply ]
Want to Post? Evil spammers have forced us to require login:
Sign In