Love and Wildness

 
This first appeared on Splice Today.
___________________

One of the most painful sequences in Wu Tsang’s documentary Wildness occurs at what, in other contexts, might be considered Tsang’s moment of greatest success.   The film is about Tsang’s connection with The Silver Platter, a bar that has catered to immigrant Hispanic MTF trans women for decades.  Tsang and several of his hipster queer art friends fall in love with the bar, and start to host a dance-party/performance series on Tuesday’s called “Wildness”.  The weekly event takes off, garnering press and citywide attention for the bar.   This culminated in a selection for “Best Tranny Bar” by the LA Weekly, in which journalist Sam Slovick crammed every invidious stereotype of trans women he could come up with into a couple of paragraphs.  He presented the bar’s patrons as sexually aggressive down-and-out streetwalkers, and the bar as a seamy site of titillation for jaded mainstream straights.

Tsang had tried to block the story even before he knew what was in it.  When it appeared, the “Wildness” crowd was horrified, and their protest campaign led the writer to a heartfelt apology.

But despite this unexpectedly positive resolution, the incident reverberates uneasily through Tsang’s film.  Slovick’s sexualized transexuals are a vicious stereotype…but, as stereotypes, they are also an echo of the way that Tsang treats the bar’s longtime patrons in his own film.  Tsang gives The Silver Platter its own narrative speaking voice in the documentary, which, he has said is intended to emphasize the story’s fictionality and subjectivity.  Perhaps it does that. But the way in which The Silver Platter speaks declaratively and omnisciently in Spanish (“How can I explain my legacy?  I’m a beacon guiding my young”) tends to make the bar, not a fiction, but a kind of totemic truth. Slovick’s debased sexualized animals are not so much negated as mirrored in Tsang’s image of noble, magical, Hispanic trannies, providing a young acolyte access to authentic traditions and spirituality.

Tsang and his friends are aware of these problems, and they work honorably to try to mitigate them.  For example, they establish a free legal clinic next to the bar for trans people. But even this effort ends up ambiguously compromised.  After one of the Silver Platter’s owners unexpectedly dies, the bar’s title is contested, and Tsang involves the legal clinic in the resulting dispute.  In doing so, he alienates the family that had long run the Silver Platter.  He ruefully admits, “I fucked up” — a scene of self-criticism that recalls Sam Slovick’s similarly bitter apology.  Wildness itself shuts down, and as Tsang and the organizers move on to other projects, the clinic folds. Later, Tsang patches things up with the owners, and they ask him to come back…but the Wildness crew declines.  Tsang says vaguely that the moment has passed, which appears to mean in part that the art school kids have all moved on to better gigs.

It’s certainly easy to see this as a story of exploitation: middle-class art school kids batten on a marginalized community, use said marginalized community as a launching pad for their own interests and careers, and then move on.  But things are a bit more complicated than that, I think.  In the first place, as I’ve mentioned, Tsang and many of his friends are themselves queer.  Tsang himself in interviews has said he identifies as “transfeminine” and “transguy.”  The bar’s longstanding commitment to helping, promoting, and embracing, trans people is, then, also a commitment to him.  The community is his community — which is in part because he’s made it his, but also because it has made him its.

In a telling scene, one of Tsang’s Wildness co-organizers acknowledges the danger that Wildness might threaten the safety of  the Silver Platter’s regular customers, but argues that it would be condescending to see himself as protecting a community that is welcoming them “with open arms.”  “Who am I supposed to protect them from?” he asks.  “Am I supposed to be protecting them from myself?”

The answer, of course, is yes…and no.  The queer hipsters do put The Silver Platter at risk in various ways, and they are surely obligated to be aware of that and try to minimize it as they can.  But, at the same time, relationships are about making yourself vulnerable.  It might be more useful to think of the link between Wildness and the Silver Platter not as exploitation or initiation, but as bittersweet romance.  Not always safe, not always entirely equal, not always even happy, but touched, like the film, with exhilaration and with love.

This Is Your Brain on Dystopia

This first appeared in The Comics Journal.
________________

Biomega #1; Tsutomo Nihei; Viz; 220 pp., $12.99; B&W, Softcover; ISBN: 1-4215-3184-4 & Ikigami #4; Motoro Mase; Viz; 240 pp., $12,99; B&W, Softcover; ISBN: 978-1421526812

Futurist apocalyptic dystopic manga! Guns! Out-of-control state power! Evil vaccinations! Morally torn government functionaries! Artificial humans! Intelligent bears! Homicidal schoolteachers! Doesn’t that get the blood pumping?!

Maybe?

Biomega #1 — There’s a guy on a motorcycle and he works for a giant industrial conglomerate, which is good because they can make artificial humans just like him to fight the zombie apocalypse put in place by the evil government agency. You could read nutty John Bircher politics into that if you wanted, but luckily the aforementioned zombie virus has actually settled in and eaten this manga’s brain, so if there was an evil John Bircher about, he/she is now dribbling brain bits out of his dislocated jaw, making a huge-disgusting mess on the inside of his white hood, thank you very much — and ew. Hey, shoot him in the face why don’t you? That’s what we’re here to see. Also — we’ve got a zombie orbiting earth! That’s a new twist, huh? Look at the pretty apocalyptic art showing nothing of any particular consequence. I especially appreciate the sexy zombie ass-crack on the back cover, because apparently part of having your brain eaten when you’re a zombie and a hot woman is that you cease being able to pull your underwear up all the way.
 

 
Ikigami #4 — So that was nonsense John Bircher paranoia; this is serious John Bircher paranoia. The future is not artificial humans killing zombies; it’s the evil government engaged in a vaccination conspiracy, so that one out of every 999 citizens die when they’re 25. Or is it that one out of every 25 citizens die when they’re 999? Anyway, they get 24-hours notice that they’re going to fall over so they can seize the day like Robin Williams … and hey, by coincidence, one of the guys who kicks it in this volume is a conscientious schoolteacher. For a moment there I thought we were going to get a moral about how educators suck and should all be killed, which I would support — but no, the teacher remains compassionate and caring even when he turns into a homicidal loony, and the double-twist ironic moral is that I really do believe that children are our future, teach them well, and let them lead the way. Let them show all the beauty they possess inside, already. Then the next one who gets it is a young mother whose husband cares too much about cars. But he gives up the car when he realizes his wife is going to die. It’s all about learning life-lessons while looking at soulful adequately drawn cartoony close-ups. Eventually I suppose the government functionary who tells people they are going to die will question the morality of his actions, thereby receiving a higher and higher percentage of the book’s aforementioned soulful close-ups. This is good, because soulful close-ups help you grow as a person.
 

 
I learned so much from these manga. Things like, “don’t trust the government.” “Melodrama must have recognizable characters, but straight action is drawn better.” And, most importantly, “The Japanese, too, are capable of derivative, fifth-drawer, dystopic science-fiction.” It really is a small world, after all.

Utilitarian Review 12/1/12

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Ng Suat Tong on Tony Millionaire, love, and monkeys.

A electronica dance pop downloadable mix.

Jacob Canfield tries to find a motion comic that does not suck.

Kailyn Kent reviews Bart Beaty’s book, Comics vs. Art.

Jason Dittmer responds to my review of his book on Captain America and nationalist superheroes.

Me on Alun Llewellyn’s sci-fi classic The Strange Invaders, and why dystopias are always utopias.

RM Rhodes on Iain M. Banks and the problems with genre.

Charles Hatfield on why Maus is not glib (Voices from the Archive.)

Vom Marlowe puts together some links to Youtube videos showing artists inking.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

Slate kindly let me plug Johnny Ryan’s Prison Pit #4.

At Splice I talk about Nate Silver and the morality of prediction.
 
Other Links

John Horgan on teaching evolution to creationist students.

Choice Joyce compares pro-life groups to anti-prostitution feminists.

Amanda Hess argues that porn stars aren’t any more likely to have been abused as children than other women (that is, they are fairly likely to have been abused.)

Alyssa Rosenberg on why James Gunn shouldn’t be involved in bringing Marvel’s Captain Marvel to film.

David Brothers on why he writes about race and comics.
 
This Week’s Reading

I reread the four volumes of Johnny Ryan’s Prison Pit, read C.L. Moore’s Vintage Season, and started Auden’s Selected Poems. Also read a preview of David Wojnarowicz/James Romberger/Marguerite Van Cook’s “7 Miles Per Second,” which is great. And reading John Christopher’s “The Possessors,” which is also pretty fantastic.
 

The Singing Inks: Some Lovely YouTube Inking Videos

I love art.  While I don’t get to play as often as I’d like, I thoroughly enjoy the hell out of it when I can.

One of the joys of committing art is playing with ink and paper.

And if I can’t play with the paper and ink myself, I often like to watch how others do so.  Watching other active artists work is a wonderful learning tool–and it brings me great joy. Of course in the past, one needed to personally know an artist in order to watch their process, but these days it can be possible to see it on YouTube in videos or on DeviantArt in tutorials.

Today I wanted to share some of my favorite videos.

First is Nyek! Video Blog #64

Pencils by Whilce Portacio and Inks by Ed Tadeo.

I find this very restful to watch, actually. I’m always fascinated by which portions of an image an artist chooses to begin working on. Then, which portion they choose to highlight with their tools, and what parts they come back to.

I’ve watched this video several times, and while I don’t always follow the capes, I do have considerable affection for many of them, so this is a satisfying piece for me. There is often a difference between a working artist on deadline (using Photoshop to black things in, for example) and a teacher showing an exhibition piece. Both very valuable. Just different.

The second video is an illustrator, Francis Vallejo, who has made a longer how to video:
 

 

This video is a short series of demonstrations–it’s not a working piece (as in the first video), it’s a demonstration piece. He does several versions-one with pencil, then with nibs, then with brush work, and another with gray washes. It’s useful and interesting.

And while the one below is actually speed painting, not inking, I wanted to share it anyway:
 

 
No, I have no idea what the words say. I think the artist’s name is hatsune miku, but that is an educated guess (Update by Noah: Hatsune Miku is the character being drawn, apparently).  What I wanted to talk about is the approach–it’s interesting and the results are lovely. I’ve never seen an artist begin with a silhouette and then move to the darker to lighter shapes–different and fun. So many ways to reach the end point of a figure drawn and beautiful.

This other next one is also not ink. It’s Liang Yue demoing Corel Painter 9, but I couldn’t resist, because holy shit.
 

 
That one speaks for itself.

This last one is Ayano Yamane inking her work and then doing watercolors. It’s ever so slightly naughty, so children cover your eyes, and adults, scoot closer. But seriously, Ayano’s inks are absolutely gorgeous. Her pencils, of course, are top notch, but it takes a great deal of control to do this sort of inking because (if you’ve never done watercolors or wet ink a la Dr Martens inks) you need to know that you can’t actually erase on that paper or Bad Things Will Happen (you’ll get all sorts of hideous splotches) and you can’t exactly correct skipping nibs or spatters. It requires a very steady hand, and unlike cape comics, yaoi comics (like shojo comics) require quite a thin line. It’s beautiful, yes, and my favorite kind of ink, but it takes practice and skill.

Ayano Yamane:

 
I hope you’ve enjoyed these.  One of my favorite things about living in the future is getting a chance to watch the creation and sharing of amazing art.

Voices From the Archive: Charles Hatfield on Why Maus Is Not Glib

In a post a while back I claimed that Maus was glib. Charles Hatfield refutes me thus:

Noah, ach, this is more of your tendentious, hammer-blunt, idol-toppling perversity at work.

Your method, from my POV, is to work by comparison/contrast to things you esteem, find fault on the basis of those personal points of reference (as in, Spiegelman isn’t Celan), then point out that, besides the much-idolized comic in question, lots of other artists, in other media, other forms, have engaged in the same things — in this case, self-reflexive and metanarrative feints — so that these are, ho hum, hardly new (even though Spiegelman’s way of doing them was decidedly new to comics). Then you elevate the comic’s use of such common devices to a moral failing, as in, Spiegelman is glib. Then, when confronted, you persist in dissing the comic in question as, here you go again, “tiresome,” old hat, and inferior to works in wholly other forms, works whose agendas and burdens and formal affordances are light years away from the comic in question.

FWIW, you’re entirely wrong about Maus being merely glib. This was the tack I took as a reader initially, back in the mid-80s, due to my own initial resistance to work that exploded or ignored the boundaries of comic book culture as I, an ardent fan, understood it. But when I finally read, years later, the completed Maus, I realized that this was a moving, indeed for me deeply affecting, work that used intellectualized conceits and circuitous method to earn, and make the reader earn, a stunning emotional effect. Maus moves many people for a reason, something your dismissive posturing cannot account for.

In hindsight, there’s nothing glib about Maus at all, and you’re condemning it (condemning is not too strong a word) precisely for its use of the comical, its word/image tensions, its aesthetic effects. You’re condemning it for not rising to the ontological heights, or depths, of Celan, for being something other than what your straw argument insists that it must be. You’re faulting its medium-specific complexities as simplicities. In essence, you’re adding your voice to the chorus of shallow ad hominem criticisms based on a dislike of Spiegelman’s persona, the kind of obtuse, tone-deaf criticism seen in, for example, Harvey’s willful misreading of the book in his The Art of the Comic Book.

Spiegelman will always be subject to arguments that he is “glib.” His refusal to tack away from the comical, his refusal to deliver what others expect of a Holocaust account, and his deeply fraught portrayal of his father are bound to rub a few readers raw. But the charge is itself glib, unearned.

Note that Spiegelman never affirms that his portrayal is “real” in any straightforward, uncomplicated sense. Not even his words do this. Attention to the text, the whole text, verbal and visual, reveals that, as Vol. 2 speeds to its end, Maus unpacks layer after layer of hopeful artifice, and ends on a deliberately deceptive note, whereby father and son together fantastically reconstruct the absent mother who, we know full well from earlier chapters, cannot be restored, indeed is the irrevocable and constitutive absence, or loss, around which the book is built. You haven’t even begun to plumb the depths of this layering.

Again, from my POV your considerable writerly gifts are being sabotaged by your crushingly obvious yen for idol-toppling. The way you swing that truncheon of ideological criticism, in predictable and predictably unsympathetic ways, is a stone cold drag. You’d give us much more if you stopped trying to enrage fans and instead applied your needle-sharp intelligence to actually reading the comics with due attention, without trying to make the alleged limitations of the comics into a warrant for swinging that stick.

 

Grappling With Genre

One of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors is The Player of Games by Iain M Banks. It is a Culture book, the vast anarcho-communist utopian space opera setting that Banks has designed from the ground up to be both self-consciously rational and pure wish-fulfillment for those of us who like their escapism with a hefty dollop of moral superiority. The Culture has no money and is made up of an aggregate of alien races and artificial intelligences, include self-aware spaceships with jokey names.
 

 
The Player of Games is about a man whose job is to play games (I told you the Culture was a utopia), who is recruited by the Culture’s dirty tricks espionage group Special Circumstances to help them engage with something they’ve never run into before: an empire that is built around a very large, very complex game. The victor of a population-wide tournament becomes the new emperor.
 

 
I do not mention this book to praise it, but rather to use it as an example as I discuss the complexity of the abstract concept that we call genre. If genre was a coworker, he’d be that guy at the end of the hall that is absolutely essential to ongoing operations but is also annoyingly pedantic about minor, almost trivial items.

Genre is used in a variety of different ways: as a marketing tool, as a critical tool, as a tool for readers to identify what they want to read next and as a stick that some people use to beat up on other people for their reading tastes. Genre also provides a veritable catalog of generic elements that creators can use when constructing their works.

The Player of Games is a science fiction novel. (If you want to get pedantic and insist that SF stands for speculative fiction, it fits under that rubric as well.) There are genre elements galore: spaceships, aliens, worldbuilding – the author even admits that he stole the primary setting for the first half of the novel from Larry Niven’s Ringworld. On paper, this has all the trappings of a generic novel; after all, the more genre elements that a work contains, the more generic a work becomes.
 

 
And if you were marketing The Player of Games, the smart money would be to lean very heavily on the “spaceships and aliens” angle. It’s a book that rewards an educated and opinionated reader, though, so perhaps the marketing could even be tweaked by indicating that it contains “spaceships and aliens, but smarter.” This reveals one of the main weaknessness of the genre concept – it reduces complexity to its lowest common denominator in an effort to attract as many readers as possible. In theory, every iterative step away from the core generic descriptors risks the alienation of readers who are only (dis)interested in the generic elements.

As a consumer, I rely very heavily on genre to help me make intelligent choices. For example: I do not enjoy the adrenal rush that comes from people jumping out from behind things, which happens to be a core element of the horror genre. As a result, I tend to steer away from the horror genre as a general rule, which has probably resulted in me missing out on work that is probably pretty good, despite the inclusion of jumpy-outy bits. And yes, there are plenty of other, non-horror movies that contain jumpy-outy bits – is Alien a horror film or a science fiction film? Why can’t it be both? Oh yeah, because marketing demands that it be given a straightforward handle that can be given to potential consumers.

I also happen to enjoy spaceships and aliens and I recognize that there is a vast gulf of difference between The Player of Games and Star Wars, despite the fact that both can technically be shelved under that particular heading. Because my tastes are broad, a listing of genre elements offers a good starting point. But when tastes are prescriptive (as in my blanket disregard of the horror genre, above), there is a very good chance that marketing by genre is not actually helping bring in customers.

Genre can also be challenging in a critical context. When I read a review that includes some variation of “this novel transcends genre conventions” I immediately read that as “the novel contains generic elements but doesn’t use them generically.” For example: The Player of Games contains spaceships, but those spaceships are self-aware and have names like GCU Of Course I Still Love You, Superlifter Kiss My Ass, GSV Unfortunate Conflict of Evidence and so forth. This is an obvious stab at the inherent conceit in most space operas that ships must have big, imperious names.

Banks also points out [1] that having names that are self-consciously jovial tends to disarm potential opponents because they are less likely to take the ships seriously. The worldbuilding that comes from such a simple inversion of the genre convention really adds to the glamor constructed by the novel, but it may or may not be what the standard genre fan was looking for when he picked up a book about spaceships (and aliens). But it is absolutely the kind of thing that a critic would hold aloft when praising a book for moving past the generic elements that it’s built on.

On the flip side, some critics are known for using genre as a kind of yardstick – separating genres into categories, most often of the “good vs bad” variety. Just as there are any number of essays written by any number of good critics imploring readers to look beyond genre conventions and try something new, there are any number of critics who look down their nose at genres they consider to be somehow less important. This critical shaming doesn’t just stop with critics, though. Margaret Atwood is well known for claiming that she doesn’t write science fiction, even though she clearly does.

Some people revel in this, repurposing labels for their own use: Nobrow and Lowbrow are the two most obvious examples. But for most, genre is a ghetto – a well-populated ghetto, to be sure, but still a ghetto. Part of that has to do with the mainstream culture’s attitude towards genre works and part of that has to do with the consumers of the genre, which is another topic entirely.

Banks, on the other hand, doesn’t shirk from claiming that he writes science fiction. In fact, it’s very obvious that he enjoys spaceships and aliens and is quite happy to continue to be paid to write them, thank you very much. And I’m happy to enjoy what he does with them because the results are interesting and original and not at all what is expected.
 

 
Unfortunately, most authors do not have the sheer creative energy that Banks brings to the table. Most use generic elements as a sort of construction set, building weird stories that tend to violate the “could this story be told in an ordinary setting?” rule as a matter of course. And that’s one of those places that genre falls down, in my opinion. Someone writes a good story that introduces a nifty concept and someone else comes along and uses that same concept without doing anything original or interesting with it. The result comes across as, well, generic.

I fully expect an entire cottage industry of Harry Potter and Scott Pilgrim clones to come along in the next generation of creators, the same way that the mid-70s were dominated by Tolkien clones and Black Sabbath knock-offs. In this way, successful creators could be said to become a genre unto themselves, regardless of what parent genre they were marketed under[2].

Given my druthers, I’d prefer that we did away with genre altogether. It’s a useful tool, to be sure, but it’s also a tool that is leaned on far too much, far too often. Unfortunately, it’s not a very versatile tool and, when all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. I get that without genre, all of the books would just be in one big section marked “fiction” and that some kind of sorting mechanism is necessary to find what you really want to read (or really don’t want to read, as the case may be).

However, genre doesn’t really do a good job when it is applied to marketing. By virtue of how the two are used in conjunction, the most generic books tend to float to the top. The truly interesting books take a little time to find their niche and fall out of the marketing by genre idea because they don’t exactly fit into the standard genre boxes. Ironically, looking for exceptions to the rules of genre tends to lead to exceptional works.

In the end, genre is a tricky thing that works perfectly at separating works by element, except when it doesn’t. The Player of Games is a great example of this. It contains spaceships and aliens but is in no way the poster child for either generic element and searching for it under those terms would be a fool’s errand. Critics might look down upon it because it is absolutely science fiction (and happy to be so) and they would prove themselves foolish if they did because it is the kind of book that critics hold up to indicate that science fiction and literature are not mutually exclusive. Which is as it should be.

 



[1] A Few Notes on the Culture by Iain M Banks.

[2] See also: Stephen King

Tyrannosaurus Stalin

Dystopias are always also utopias, just as hell always also implies a heaven. A blighted future is a warning, but it’s also a hope that the wrong-doers (if they do not repent) will finally, finally get theirs. Orwell’s 1984 broods luxuriously on the triumph of totalitarianism over all those who do not see as clearly as he. Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games revels in the voyeuristic exploitation bloodshed enabled by scolding us all for our voyeuristic exploitation jones. Disaster porn is — adamently, enthusiastically — porn, a sadistic/masochistic wallow in the end times. Grim visions are what we want to see; the rain of fire that scourges injustice — or, sometimes, that just scourges. Because scourging is fun.

Alun Llewellyn’s 1934 sci-fi dystopia, The Strange Invaders presents a particularly complex apocalypse — and, ergo, a particularly complex set of apocalyptic desires. The story is set in a far future earth, where a combination of nuclear holocaust and oncoming ice age have knocked humanity back to the middle ages. The action is centered in a factory town of the former Soviet Union, now a holy city, inhabited by a people called the Rus. The Rus worship a Trinity — Marx, Lenin, Stalin — who they only vaguely understand. Church Fathers rule over a military class of Swords, who keep the peasants in line scraping out a subsistence existence.

This already-quite-grim-thank-you world is plunged into chaos as nomadic Tartars begin fleeing to the Rus’ holy city from the South, seeking shelter. They claim to be pursued by giant, man-eating lizards. The Church Fathers at first don’t believe it (Marx said nothing about giant man-eating lizards!) and so order the Swords and the peasants to massacre the Tartars before they eat too much of the food supply. Soon after the deed is done, though,the saurians show up and set about killing just about everyone they can get their talons on. Finally, in a War-of-the-Worldsish stroke of luck, winter comes in and for some reason the in-all-other-ways evolutionarily perfect lizards are unable to sense the temperature drop soon enough, and go dormant, allowing the few remaining humans to slaughter them. This isn’t exactly a happy ending, though; humans are now trapped between the lizards to the south and advancing glaciers to the north, and while there may be a respite for our particular band of the Rus, humanity’s long-term outlook seems awfully dicey as the book closes.
 

 
In his book Colonialism and the Emergence of Science Fiction, John Rieder reads The Strange Invaders along a number of allegorical lines. First, he notes that it maps and reverses the traditional lines of imperialism; instead of a vigorous northern European invasion of the decadent Southern periphery, Llewellyn presents a vital South launching an attack on the decadent, etiolated north.

I don’t necessarily disagree with Rieder’s take here…but I think it’s important to take into account the fact that this is not just any north we’re talking about here, but Russia in particular. Obviously, the Cold War was not underway in 1934 — but Llewellyn (according to Brian W. Aldiss’ preface) had actually visited the Soviet Union, and appears to have had a better sense of its problems than many of his contemporaries. In any case, there’s no doubt that the northern weakness here is a particularized Russian weakness. The blind obedience to authority, the inflexibility, and the cruelty of the Rus is linked specifically by Llewellyn to Communism.

It was a tale often told, a moral often preached. They had sinned; all mankind had sinned. Marx from whom the world had received the blessing of the Faith had remade the world in a plan of Five years…. The faith had been wronged and the Destruction was the vengeance enacted. Therefore must the faith be honoured strictly by those that survived, and they must to that end give obedience unquestioning, surrender thought and spirit and body to their rulers who were guardians of that faith.

Rieder of course appreciates the satirical fillip (now perhaps rendered into almost a commonplace of anti-communism) of turning the resolutely materialist Marx into a deity. But he never quite links the Russian context to the discussion of peripheries. If one does so, the novel becomes a parable not so much of reversing center and margin, but rather of wars on the margins — of Russia, perhaps, being devoured by its own atavistic, subservient Orientalist weakness.

From this perspective, then, the saurians and the Russ are not in opposition, but are on a continuum. And in fact, there is a fair bit of textual support for the idea that the giant lizards are not the death of the Rus, but their perfection. The ideal of the Rus is unthinking obedience; direction without will. Adun, the protagonist, is caught between his human desires and his society’s demand that he become merely the tool of the Fathers — a kind of machine, like those left in the factory/church and worshiped. “The Fathers and the men they kept to uphold them were not to be questioned,” Adun thinks to himself. “Mind and body they commanded, as the Faith directed. He was nothing. He dared do nothing.” (18)

If Adun has to convince himself to become an object, the giant lizards have no such problems. As Rieder notes, the creatures “hover on the uncanny border between the organic and the mechanical.” In one of the most striking passages of the novel (which Rieder quotes), the creatures are envisioned as a depersonalized collective; a single coherent unity of force.

The plain, where it came down from the river, was alive with inter-weaving movement. They played together in the sun as though its brightness made them glad, running over and under one another, swiftly and in silence, but with an almost fierce alacrity, eager and unhesitating, unceasing. The eye was not quick enough to catch the motion of their rapid, supple bodies that seemed not to move with the effort of muscles but to quiver and leap with an alert life instinct in every part of them. They were brilliant. As he looked, Karasoin saw the play of colour that ran over those great darting bodies, a changing, flashing iridescence like a jewelled mist. Their bodies were green, enamelled in scales like studs of polished jade. But as they writhed and sprang in their playing, points of bronze and gilt winked along their flanks and their throats and bellies as they leaped showed golden and orange, splashed with scarlet. Now and then one would suddenly pause and stand as if turned to a shape of gleaming metal, and then they could see plainly its long, narrow head and slender tail and the smoothly shining body borne on crouching legs that ended in hands like a man’s with long clawed fingers; five.

This is the awesome fulfillment of Ronald Reagan’s “ant heap of totalitarianism.” Stalinism is here embodied not by the proletariat, but by those even below them, the lizards forged into a remorseless, infinitely flexible machine-state. The blind watchmaker forges the revolution, and thus Marxism for Llewellyn will literally, and beautifully, eat itself.

Again, though, just because the lizards are the ultimate totalitarians doesn’t mean that the humans are somehow battling totalitarianism. In 1984, Big Brother is schematically opposed to the human emotions of love, friendship, warmth, and sex. Llewellyn’s vision is less pat. Adun’s love, not to mention his sexual desire, does in fact inspire his resistance to the regime of the Fathers. But that resistance isn’t exactly idyllic. On the contrary, Adun’s passion for the hardly-characterized Erya is almost inseparable from his own pride and desire for power. At one point he threatens (and it is not an idle threat) to kill her if she chooses the captain of the Swords, Karasoin — a murder-lust echoed by his participation in the genocidal slaughter of the Tartars within the city walls. Eventually, Adun does win Erya…by murdering Karasoin after the Sword almost rapes her. Thus, the alternative to mechanized, unfeeling destruction is not love or peace, but rather the cthonic, feeling bloodshed of jealousy, rage, and rape-revenge.

Llewellyn is willing to suggest other possibilities. Erya, for example, has a vision of independence and freedom — though that’s eventually crushed by the ongoing crisis which requires her to get a man for protection or else. Karasoin, before he actually rapes Erya, is ashamed and decides not to attack her — just in time for Adun to hack him apart. And at the book’s end, Adun’s brother Ivan speaks haltingly of the need for men to stop killing each other…and then, of course, he dies of his wounds.

The novel’s flirtations with peace, then, are all cynically inflected; they are raised to be shot down in a frisson of pathos and irony. Both the lizards and the rape-revenge narrative, on the other hand, have a visceral, awful appeal. The beautiful, terrible new force which will inherit the earth; the beautiful, terrible old force that has held the earth: they rush upon each other, soundless or howling, and from their writhing, bloody struggle there rises genre pleasures, old and new — violence, lust, apocalypse, the cleansed earth and the pleasure of watching its filthy cleansing. The Strange Invaders is a bitter reversal of imperialism, a prayer for a more perfectly genocidal imperialism, and — to the extent that its vision is enacted on and powered by Orientalist tropes — arguably an act of imperialism itself.

The final twist of the novel is, perhaps, that, despite its prescient and honorable anti-Stalinism, its apocalyptic vision is ultimately not apocalyptic enough. The saurians, in all their awesome power, and the humans, for all their ugly narrow-mindedness, can neither compare with the power, the ugliness, or the narrow-mindedness of what can’t really compare with the atrocities Stalin was perpetrating while Llewellyn was writing his book. The gigantic force of the state, wielded by a jealous, paranoid madman, was able to generate a holocaust in the Ukraine, and throughout Russia, that makes Llewellyn’s bleak vision — shot through with beauty and with joy at the bleakness — seem positively naive. That’s not Llewellyn’s fault exactly, though. History, indifferent alike to justice and desire, will always be grimmer than dystopia.
 


“Passers-by no longer pay attention to the corpses of starved peasants
on a street in Kharkiv, 1933.”