Part 8 (1/2)
”You felt it too, then?” I asked.
”Felt what?” Almost defiantly.
”Nothing. Nothing.” An airy shrug. How can you be sure? We were playing games with one another, pretending. But doubt was general that morning. An infection running through both of us. How certain are you that it's possible to have the thing that you seek? I felt a wall rising between him and me, preventing me from telling him of the fears I had felt, or from asking him why he had seemed so distraught. I left him and went to my room to bathe, and afterward to breakfast. Ned and I sat together but said little. Our morning session with Frater Antony was due to follow, but I felt somehow that I should not go, and when I had eaten I returned instead to my room. Do you think you've gained anything here? In confusion I knelt before the great mosaic-work skull-mask on my wall, staring at it with unblinking eyes, letting myself absorb it, compelling the myriad tiny bits of obsidian and turquoise, of jade and sh.e.l.l, to melt and flow and change, until that skull put on flesh for me and I saw a face over the gaunt bones, another face, another, a whole series of faces, a flickering, ever-s.h.i.+fting array of faces. Now I saw Timothy, and now the mask put on the finer features of Oliver, and now I saw my father, who swiftly was transformed into my mother. How can you be sure? Frater Antony looked down from the wall, speaking to me in an unknown tongue, and became Frater Miklos, murmuring of lost continents and forgotten caves. How certain are you that it's possible to have the thing that you seek? Now I saw the slender, timid, big-nosed girl I had loved momentarily in New York, and I had to grope for her name-Mickey? Mickey Bernstein?-and I said, ”h.e.l.lo, I went to Arizona, just as I told you,” but she made no reply; I think she had forgotten who I was. She vanished and in her place came the sullen girl in the Oklahoma motel, and then the heavy-breasted succubus who had floated past me that night in Chicago. I heard the shrill laughter again, rising from the abyss, and wondered if I would have another of those moments of devastating doubt. Do you think you've gained anything here? Suddenly Dr. Nicolescu peered down at me, gray-faced, sad-eyed, shaking his head, accusing me in his mild self-deprecatory way of having treated him unkindly. I made no denials, but neither did I wince nor look away, for my guilt had been taken from me. I kept my weary eyelids open, staring at him until he was gone. How certain are you that it's possible to have the thing that you seek? Ned's face came. Timothy's, again. Oliver's. And then my own, the face of Eli himself, the prime instigator of the journey, the f.e.c.kless leader of the Receptacle. Do you think you've gained anything here? I studied my face, deplored its flaws, seized control of it, retrogressed it to plump pasty-faced boyhood-then brought it forward in time again to the present, to the new and unfamiliar Eli of the House of Skulls, and went beyond that Eli to another I had never seen before, an Eli to come, timeless, stolid, phlegmatic, an Eli-turned-frater, a face of fine leather, a face of stone. As I examined that Eli I heard the Adversary insistently asking His question: How can you be sure? How can you be sure? How can you be sure? He asked it over and over, hammering me with it, until all echoes blurred into a single formless rumbling boom, and I was without answer for Him and found myself alone on a dark polar plateau, clawing at a universe whose G.o.ds had fled, thinking, I have shed the blood of my friends, and for what? And for what? For this? But then strength returned to me, and I shouted my answer into His booming derisions, crying out that I fell back upon my faith, I was sure because I was sure. ”I believe! I believe! I deny You Your victory!” And showed myself my own image striding through the s.h.i.+ning streets of distant tomorrows, treading the sands of alien worlds, an eternal Eli embracing the torrent of years. And I laughed, and He laughed also, and His laughter drowned mine, but my faith would not waver and at last He fell still, allowing me to laugh last.
Then I found myself sitting, hoa.r.s.e-throated and trembling, before the familiar mosaic mask. There were no more metamorphoses. The time of visions was over. I gave the mask a wary glance but it remained as it was. Very well. I searched my soul and found no residue of doubt in it; that final conflagration had burned all those late-lingering impurities away. Very well. Rising, I left my room and walked quickly down the hall, into that part of the building where bare beams alone stand forth against the open sky. Looking up, I saw a huge hawk circling far above me, dark against the fierce blank blueness. Hawk, you will die, and I will live. Of this I have no doubt. I turned the corner and came to the room where our meetings with Frater Antony are held. The frater and Ned were already there, but evidently they had waited for me; for the frater's pendant still hung around his neck. Ned smiled at me and Frater Antony nodded. I understand, they appeared to be saying. I understand. These storms will come. I knelt beside Ned. Frater Antony removed his pendant and placed the tiny jade skull on the floor before us. Life eternal we offer thee. ”Let us turn the interior vision upon the symbol we see here,” said Frater Antony gently. Yes. Yes. Joyously, expectantly, undoubtingly, I gave myself anew to the Skull and its Keepers.
Afterword.
The early 1970s was a revolutionary period in American society, when old a.s.sumptions were being turned upside down and a host of new ways of thinking and behaving were sweeping through the land. The a.s.sa.s.sination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 had set centrifugal forces loose in us; then the strange, grim episode of the Vietnam War, a minor ”police action,” which had escalated into a surrealistic and incomprehensible struggle that was consuming all the moral and psychic energy of the country and much of its economic substance as well, touched off a period in which we let our hair grow long, turned away from conventional clothing to don weird new fas.h.i.+ons or no clothing at all, experimented with mind-altering drugs and new forms of s.e.xual freedom, adopted a whole new slang vocabulary, and, of course, railed endlessly against the politicians who had led us, seemingly with their eyes closed, into the new chaos that was our daily portion. It was a time of-well, craziness.
Science fiction, which always reflects the culture of its era while ostensibly taking the future as its subject, was, of course, profoundly affected by the cultural revolution that we term ”the Sixties,” but which actually spanned the years from 1966 or so through 1973. We science fiction writers had a revolution of our own in those years, a time when the old pulp-magazine narrative modes of SF were cast aside in favor of an attempt to reconcile the visionary, even romantic themes of science fiction with the methods of modern mainstream novelists-a movement that quickly was labeled ”the New Wave.”
The critic Judith Merril, one of its most deeply committed exponents, characterized the primary intent of the New Wave writers as ”the application of contemporary and sometimes (though mostly not very) experimental literary techniques to the kind of contemporary/experimental speculation which is the essence of science fiction.” But, she said, New Wave content was as important as its style: fiction that took into account such things as ”op art, student protest, the new s.e.xual revolution, psychedelics, and a multiplex of other manifestations of the silly-sounding phrase, Flower Power. . . .”
Many of the New Wave writers were British: Brian W. Aldiss, J. G. Ballard, Michael Moorc.o.c.k, D. G. Compton. But in America too, in this time of exuberant ferment, many well-established SF writers who were bored with the constraining nature of the old SF were taking the opportunity to reinvent themselves as well, often without realizing that they were affiliating themselves with something called the New Wave. They simply wanted to try something new. Harlan Ellison, who had written a great deal of undistinguished SF in conventional pulp modes, abruptly broke loose with such startlingly surreal stories as ”I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” and ”The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World,” which won him an entirely new reputation as a literary innovator. John Brunner, a British writer whose career was largely centered in the United States, turned away from paperback s.p.a.ce-opera to write such unusual books as The Whole Man and the gigantic, astonis.h.i.+ng, Hugo-winning Stand on Zanzibar. Fritz Leiber's fiction, always dark and strange, grew darker and stranger. So did that of Philip K. d.i.c.k and Philip Jose Farmer.
Then the frenzy and furore of the Sixties began to die down and most of the former cultural rebels began to seek more orderly and conventional lives. Once again science fiction reflected society's larger cultural changes by returning to conventional storytelling formulas, and the dark, intense books of the New Wave period were quickly overshadowed by straightforward formula fiction that owed its inspiration to Star Trek and Star Wars rather than to James Joyce, William Faulkner, and Thomas Mann. Things have pretty well stayed that way ever since.
Does that mean that the New Wave period of 196673 was a bizarre and insignificant aberration in the history of science fiction?
No. Bizarre, maybe, but not insignificant. Those years were a time of riotous excess in science fiction, as they were in European and American civilization in general, and, like most literary revolutions, the New Wave produced much abominable nonsense along with a few genuine cla.s.sics. In their reaction against the staleness of the older fiction modes, the New Wave writers sometimes went much too far over the top into wayward and willful self-indulgence, as even some of them will admit today. But one can hardly say that it was all in vain.
The longterm effect of the dizzying New Wave period was a grudging acceptance of the fact that science fiction could and should be something more than straightforwardly told pulp narrative involving a conflict between generically characterized stereotypical figures that led inevitably to the triumph of good over evil. For the first time it became permissible in science fiction to write complex narratives about complex people who were dealing with complex speculative situations. Fullness of characterization, emotional depth, and richness of prose would no longer be seen as something for a writer to avoid, as generally had been the case in SF in the magazine-dominated era of the first half of the twentieth century.
I was myself caught up in the New Wave excitement, though I never labeled myself as a follower of any particular revolutionary movement. But my career took me on a New Wave trajectory, from my early straightforward magazine fiction to such unusual works of the 1960s as the novels Thorns and Son of Man, and experimental stories by the double handful.
The Book of Skulls, which I wrote in late 1970 and early 1971, was a product of the latter half of the New Wave period. It is an indication of my own ambivalent, somewhat conservative place in the science fiction of the times that although I felt no hesitations about writing a book as unusual in form and tone (for science fiction) as The Book of Skulls was, I did feel some residual doubt, rooted as I was in the pulp magazine SF of the 1940s and 1950s, about whether the book I was writing was science fiction at all.
Defining science fiction is a tricky business at best. I think I know what it is, but both as an editor and as a writer I have sometimes played fast and loose with my definition of it. It is, as the writer and critic Damon Knight once said, whatever we are pointing to when we point to something and call it ”science fiction.” I can define it by specifics: A story with robots in it is science fiction, a story about interplanetary travel is science fiction, a story about a time machine is science fiction, and so on and so on, heaping up a mult.i.tude of specific cases in the hope that they will unite into one big generalization. But that's not a very good way to define anything. (”This oak is a tree. . . . This maple is a tree. . . . But is this big fern a tree? Is this sixty-foot-high cactus a tree?”) Wherein lies the treeness of oaks and maples, and in what way do the tall fern and the huge cactus share that quality, and in what way, if any, do they not?