John Wyndham

[blacknorth]

This might have spoilers for those who haven't read Chrysalids or Triffids.

Well, you have to take into consideration both the context and the entire phrase. It isn't that what happens to the characters is "cozy"... it is the resolution of the "catastrophe" into a nice, neat bow at the end which makes it so. Even if everything isn't "hunky-dory", the ending of his books do tend to take a very positive, "humanity always triumphs" sort of view -- a reassuring sort of message which can be (and often is) a cheat artistically speaking, as it frequently doesn't deal honestly with the impact and final outcome of such a situation.

Surely that's merely the difference between a happy ending and a sad ending - both can be validated, or not, according to the subtext, which can be deeply unhappy in a novel with an ostensibly happy ending. I think Wyndham treats his resolutions as epiphanies in much the same way as Golden Age authors reached for a sense of wonder in their final paragraphs.

In The Chrysalids, for example, I gained the sense of a new species triumphing over humanity. In Triffids the whole point of the Isle of Wight was to demonstrate that humanity had lost - the only safe place was on a heavily fortified island, an outpost, near enough the UK for them to know it. In fleeing the mainland they are losing, no matter what spin the islanders put on it - it's a classic example of the characters deluding themselves in the face of events.

I can see where Aldiss is coming from, but I've always felt it's down to how you choose to read it.

 

[j d worthington]

Surely that's merely the difference between a happy ending and a sad ending - both can be validated, or not, according to the subtext, which can be deeply unhappy in a novel with an ostensibly happy ending. I think Wyndham treats his resolutions as epiphanies in much the same way as Golden Age authors reached for a sense of wonder in their final paragraphs.

That's just it: a "happy ending" is, most often, an artistic cheat. It amounts to that phrase Moorcock and Mieville (as well as others) have used for Tolkien, Agatha Christie, and so on: comfort food. It's a reassuring lie, in that it doesn't challenge the characters (or the reader) to actually question anything; in the end it reaffirms previously existing biases. (As noted, this is not always the case; but it is accurate for the vast majority.)

In The Chrysalids, for example, I gained the sense of a new species triumphing over humanity. In Triffids the whole point of the Isle of Wight was to demonstrate that humanity had lost - the only safe place was on a heavily fortified island, an outpost, near enough the UK for them to know it. In fleeing the mainland they are losing, no matter what spin the islanders put on it - it's a classic example of the characters deluding themselves in the face of events.

I can see where you're coming from there, but I'd disagree. In The Chrysalids, it amounts to the reassurance that the "classic" model of science taking humanity into the future will always prove the best -- and the inhumane actions taken by this supposedly new society prove them to be no less ethically corrupt (expediency) than those they condemn. As for Triffids -- it has been quite a while since I read it, but I recall there being a distinct impression of only awaiting an opportunity, not a truly permanent loss; a feeling that, despite appearances, mankind will, in the end triumph, and reestablish the old order. Again, this is nonsense, given the situation. At best, humanity has suffered a vast and permanent sea change, and there isn't any going back. Nor is it handled in such a way (again, as I recall) as to truly support the "self-deluding" aspect, as the authorial voice itself seems to reaffirm this view.

Such an approach is, indeed, reassuring... but it is artistically false to set up such a situation and then have such a resolution. In that sense, what you have is indeed a "cozy" catastrophe....

 

[dask]

Man! How do you guys know all this stuff?

 

[blacknorth]

That's just it: a "happy ending" is, most often, an artistic cheat.

I'd prefer to think of it as an artistic choice which, again, requires either validation or rejection by the direction/momentum of the narrative.

I can see where you're coming from there, but I'd disagree. In The Chrysalids, it amounts to the reassurance that the "classic" model of science taking humanity into the future will always prove the best -- and the inhumane actions taken by this supposedly new society prove them to be no less ethically corrupt (expediency) than those they condemn.

Interesting, yes. But in Chrysalids we had already started out with the knowledge of abuse of science causing mutants/genetic abominations, so the end actions of the new society hardly come as a surprise because the pattern is already set. I suppose this is 'full circle' which is a lot closer to my idea of a cheat, so you've given me pause for thought.

As for Triffids -- it has been quite a while since I read it, but I recall there being a distinct impression of only awaiting an opportunity, not a truly permanent loss; a feeling that, despite appearances, mankind will, in the end triumph, and reestablish the old order. Again, this is nonsense, given the situation. At best, humanity has suffered a vast and permanent sea change, and there isn't any going back. Nor is it handled in such a way (again, as I recall) as to truly support the "self-deluding" aspect, as the authorial voice itself seems to reaffirm this view.

Triffids is written in the first person so there is no authorial voice except Bill Masen's. The rhetoric may be Wyndham's but the delusion is Masen's. After a stern narrative of death and destruction can we really take his hopes and said opportunity as anything other than wishful thinking?

To some extent I am arguing at cross purposes in that I do think Aldiss has a case. There are other equally good UK authors who are much less comfortable to read than Wyndham - John Christopher, for one. But I wonder whether Wyndham, in sitting down to write, before Christopher, wasn't worried about heaping cruelty upon cruelty. If one sets out to destroy a society or a world on the page, how far do you go? How far are you allowed to go?

 

[j d worthington]

Triffids is written in the first person so there is no authorial voice except Bill Masen's. The rhetoric may be Wyndham's but the delusion is Masen's. After a stern narrative of death and destruction can we really take his hopes and said opportunity as anything other than wishful thinking?

Good point (as I said, it's been some time since I last read the novel). However, even when a first-person narrator is the voice, a writer has the choice of "playing it straight" or making it into an unreliable narrator... and Masen doesn't fit the latter description, really, as the tone, the careful choice in wording, or contrast between the narrator's views and the incidents they describe, are (at least a part of) what sets such a narrator off so that the reader knows to take what they say cum granis saltis. This is not the case, with Masen, as I remember; the tone itself is far too straightforward, leading me to feel that his views are more representative of Wyndham's in the novel than otherwise.

To some extent I am arguing at cross purposes in that I do think Aldiss has a case. There are other equally good UK authors who are much less comfortable to read than Wyndham - John Christopher, for one. But I wonder whether Wyndham, in sitting down to write, before Christopher, wasn't worried about heaping cruelty upon cruelty. If one sets out to destroy a society or a world on the page, how far do you go? How far are you allowed to go?

An interesting point... but I'd say, given that there have been others even before Wyndham (Earth Abides being only one) where the writer didn't feel it necessary to back down from a more realistic depiction of the likely outcome of such a situation. Certainly Wells didn't, with The Time Machine... and, for that matter, John W. Campbell didn't, with "Twilight"; nor HPL with "The Shadow Out of Time".

In this, I do think Wyndham bowed to pulp conventions rather than following through with artistic conviction. And I can't see it "artistic choice" rather than "artistic cheat", because it is denying psychological verisimilitude... the very core of artistic integrity when depicting characters facing crisis.

Nonetheless, despite this concern, overall I'd say Wyndham's are good, enjoyable books, and certainly likely to be of interest to anyone who has a liking for older forms of sf....

 

[blacknorth]

Good point (as I said, it's been some time since I last read the novel). However, even when a first-person narrator is the voice, a writer has the choice of "playing it straight" or making it into an unreliable narrator... and Masen doesn't fit the latter description, really, as the tone, the careful choice in wording, or contrast between the narrator's views and the incidents they describe, are (at least a part of) what sets such a narrator off so that the reader knows to take what they say cum granis saltis. This is not the case, with Masen, as I remember; the tone itself is far too straightforward, leading me to feel that his views are more representative of Wyndham's in the novel than otherwise.

I don't regard Masen as an unreliable narrator either. In fact, I'd say most of Wyndham's lead narrators are creations of a certain kind - logical, largely unemotional men thrown into a cauldron, with more than a passing resemblence to the author. However, I do think that, for readers, the shock value of world-destroying wears off very quickly and the massive trauma of seeing everyone killed is too easily classified and then dismissed as the story progresses. Masen's narrative strikes me as little too placid given everything that happens in the book, and one gains the sense of a sort of 'Dunkirk spirit' (also a retreat to an island) which I think is peculiarly English. That's a psychological aspect which can't be ignored.

In this, I do think Wyndham bowed to pulp conventions rather than following through with artistic conviction. And I can't see it "artistic choice" rather than "artistic cheat", because it is denying psychological verisimilitude... the very core of artistic integrity when depicting characters facing crisis.

In all, I'd say what we're reading is a peculiarly English version of pulp conventions, a variation designed to extract the same response from the reader - the situation is hopeless and downbeat but the author chooses to end on a stirring note of defiance. Given the English setting and the 'Dunkirk spirit' that why I read the final part as self-delusion. As i said before, for me, it all comes down to how you choose to read it and what your frames of reference are.

 

[j d worthington]

That's a very good reference: the "Dunkirk mentality" (or spirit, to use your own phrasing). A very likely possibility, when it comes to the narrative voice of Masen, at least.

However, I would still argue that the writer's choice of phrasing can distance his own views from those of his narrator, and thus indicate a more realistic depiction of the outcome while not taking away from this mentality in his narrator. And something of the sort, I would say, is necessary to avoid giving the feeling of the "cozy catastrophe", in the end.

But I do like the analogy. Very, very good....

 

[blacknorth]

However, I would still argue that the writer's choice of phrasing can distance his own views from those of his narrator, and thus indicate a more realistic depiction of the outcome while not taking away from this mentality in his narrator. And something of the sort, I would say, is necessary to avoid giving the feeling of the "cozy catastrophe", in the end.

lol, J.D. - sorry to keep at it, but I would argue that 'cosy catastrophe' is a revisionist contruct of Aldiss, not an invention by Wyndham. But I'm happy to agree to differ.

But I do like the analogy. Very, very good....

Thanks, but your posts are top-notch and encourage thinking.

 

[j d worthington]

lol, J.D. - sorry to keep at it, but I would argue that 'cosy catastrophe' is a revisionist contruct of Aldiss, not an invention by Wyndham. But I'm happy to agree to differ.

Well, yes, I suppose we'll have to "agree to disagree", as the old saw has it... but at least (speaking for myself, anyway), I think it was a fruitful disagreement, and provided food for thought in both directions. About which:

Thanks, but your posts are top-notch and encourage thinking.

Danke; and ... ditto!

 

[tangaloomababe]

Love Wyndham and I have read pretty much all he has written including his short stories. Triffids remains the favorite and its a book I can read over and over and over. The Chrysalids is a clear second, I feel the two a linked in some way. Chocky, Trouble with Lichen are good but I agree The Kracken Wakes could have been a whole lot better. Many of his short stories were also good.
Chris you are fortunate to have meet him.
His works are a valuable contribution to the literary world!

 

[WizardofOwls]

Okay, I have a question concerning the Chrysalids. I have heard that when the book was released in the US under the title Re-Birth that subtle changes were made in the plot. Does anyone have any info on this?

 

[AE35Unit]

Okay, I have a question concerning the Chrysalids. I have heard that when the book was released in the US under the title Re-Birth that subtle changes were made in the plot. Does anyone have any info on this?

Hmmm just had a look on Fantastic Fiction and it just says The Chrysalids (aka Re-birth),1955.
Further down the page there's a list of short stories,one of which is Re-birth from the same year.

 

[Rodders]

I'm afraid i only ever read the day of the Triffids. I did enjoy it. Funnily enough, it was on TV last week. It hasn't aged well. Alas

 

[Dave]

I'm afraid i only ever read the day of the Triffids. I did enjoy it. Funnily enough, it was on TV last week. It hasn't aged well. Alas

Which version? The Film? That was a poor adaptation of the book anyway. The 1970's BBC TV series? I thought that was okay, but may have dated now. I read and noticed that Danny Boyle pinched quite a bit from that and used it at the beginning of '24-Days Later'. There have been other adaptations, and a new one is currently being made, but I haven't seen any of them, so can't comment.

 

[WizardofOwls]

Hmmm just had a look on Fantastic Fiction and it just says The Chrysalids (aka Re-birth),1955.
Further down the page there's a list of short stories,one of which is Re-birth from the same year.

At one time I had the book Re-Birth. I remember loving the cover. It showed people in wicker baskets on either side of a huge horse. I didnt even know that it had ever been released under any other name. A copy of the book with the cover I like can be seen here:

Amazon.com: Rebirth: John Wyndham: Books

I swear I read somewhere that the story had changed between versions, but cant find the reference now

 

[WizardofOwls]

Okay, I found it. It's not as definitive as I had hoped it would be, but the reference can be found here:

Amazon.com: Re-Birth: John Wyndham: Books

It is a review for the book Re-birth, and here is what it says:

By Matthew Drummy "on every street" (Vermont, USA) - See all my reviews

Hi all. Many of us regard Chrysalids as John Wyndham's greatest book, and as one of the classics of sci-fi, or more accurately, speculative fiction. It combines a driving narrative with wonderful, complex commentary on intolerance, fundamentalism of all kinds, and fear of evolution (among other things). I like Wyndham's other work, especially Midwich Cuckoos, but this book is so lighter of touch, so much more inventive, and so much more moving it's almost hard to believe the same man wrote it.

So what does this have to do with Re-Birth? In 1955, when Re-Birth/Chrysalids was released, it was released under the title Re-Birth in the U.S., then under the title Chrysalids in the U.K. a few months later (interesting, given Wyndham's greater popularity in the U.K.). The two versions have some very interesting differences: nothing hugely significant in terms of plot, but very intriguing for lovers of the book in terms of theme. Eventually the book seemed to come to be known as Chrysalids most everywhere, though editions known as Re-Birth, with the altered text, survive. This one on Amazon is one of those.

SO. . .
A. If you love Chrysalids, it's worth picking up a copy of Re-Birth to see the differences. It's particularly interesting to ponder WHY Wyndham made the changes he did for the two different audiences. (Or perhaps the changes were forced on him by editors?)
B. If you teach Chrysalids (as I do), be aware that the books are NOT identical.
C. It's a great book under any name, and you'll love it if you love thoughtful fiction--don't let the sci-fi label put you off, it's pretty far from standard sci-fi.
D. English Departments in Canadian secondary schools love to teach this book: just check out the sales rankings on Amazon's Canada site. Just a fun fact!

Thanks and good night .
oneverystreet

 

[AE35Unit]

Ah that sounds a similar situation to what Brian Aldiss did with Hothouse. It also exists as The Long Afternoon of Earth but was edited with slight changes to become Hothouse.
Also Airs of Earth/Starswarm

 

[j d worthington]

Ah that sounds a similar situation to what Brian Aldiss did with Hothouse. It also exists as The Long Afternoon of Earth but was edited with slight changes to become Hothouse.
Also Airs of Earth/Starswarm

Except, in that case, it was 'tother way around: Hothouse contains all the original material, whereas The Long Afternoon of Earth was the abridged and revised version....

 

[AE35Unit]

Except, in that case, it was 'tother way around: Hothouse contains all the original material, whereas The Long Afternoon of Earth was the abridged and revised version....

Oh i'd presumed that was the case with the Wyndham book too. The Chrysalids containing all the original material and Re-birth being the abridged version. Interesting!

 

[j d worthington]

Oh i'd presumed that was the case with the Wyndham book too. The Chrysalids containing all the original material and Re-birth being the abridged version. Interesting!

We may be talking at cross-purposes here (though I'm not sure about that): I outlined the difference in the Aldiss in my previous post; but the Wyndham is (as I understand it from the bit brought in by WoO -- and I'm not even going to try to come up with a way to say that one properly ) somewhat different, in that there it isn't only abridged, but there are alterations in the existing text as well; and yes, it was the American version that suffered (?) the changes. Now I need to find a copy of the British edition and compare the two, as I still have my original ed. of Re-Birth (included in Anthony Boucher's wonderful 2-vol. anthology, A Treasury of Great Science Fiction), and it has been decades since I read a British copy of the book....