The Present Fence
A recent interview with
Dean Koontz by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN prompted me to return to a
teenage daydream: how to be a writer. In the late 1960's I wrote a
high school English essay entitled “The Present Fence”. (When our
teacher handed back our papers he called mine “the present tense”.)
As an avid science-fiction reader I had made the point that authentic
writing was either about the past or the future. The present is
always sliding one way or the other.
In the fleeting present of
2012 I realize even more why writers are attracted to
science-fiction. If this was 1812 the stage which a writer would use
was fairly stable in human moral and technological terms. All the
wars and revolutions would simply be a vehicle for plot and
character development. As the 19th century proceeded
inventions physically changed the human stage – steam, rail,
telegraph, biology, telephone. At the turn of the 20th
century these physical changes, pardon the pun, picked up steam and
accelerated. Change that had taken forty years, twenty-five, now came
at a pace of twenty, fifteen, ten and less.
As communication and
transportation became easier and more rapid and even daily labor
became comparatively more efficient and easier, there was a real
psychological effect on human personality. An “easier" life means
later and fewer confrontations with the mortality of life. This
results in slowed moral development – less maturity, less moral
responsibility. What adolescents had decided at fourteen to sixteen
years of age during most times in human history now begins to be put
off twice as long or deferred indefintely.
So the writer now has the
moral and physical stage deeply changed and still changing. “Let me
skip trying to grasp the present and project my writing onto another
time.” But this brings back my first concern about authentic
writing. Can a person of 2012 write honestly a novel about 1812? We
are not discussing history – it is reasonable I think to use
historical fact and present perspective to write history. But is it
possible to walk among the characters of 1812? It seems to me that I
don't have any personal experience of that world or stage. The same
could be said of 2112.
Yet there is one vital
difference between historical fiction and a certain type of
science-fiction. While a person of 2012 cannot live in 1812 neither
can they live in their own past. We must live in the precious time
called “now” and build on the good and try to repair the evil.
But there is a legitimate human activity in the present for the
future - preparing: using some of our now to plan the building and
repairing. The best science-fiction prepares for the future. It
projects human characteristics into the future to see what we may
face. It is thinking about consequences, good and evil. It is a kind
of prophetic literaure or cautionary tale..
Lets think about the
future. One ironic aspect of our condition is that while we have been
given many new tools to use, our moral capacity to use them properly
has declined.
Another aspect, and an
even more dangerous one, is that while we mature psychologically more
slowly, our bodies don't. This disharmony cascades. The chronic
immature marry and break their public vows, leaving the fruit of
their union to be even more challenged in living responsible adult
lives. “Children playing with matches” and “children having
children” are phrases that are not unfair as a quick shorthand for
our situation.
Science-fiction strives to
imagine the effects of change on people in the future. But another
irony: those who would imagine the future are likely to be morally
immature or ignorant. Who is morally mature? The one who accepts
responsibility to do good at the cost of self-denial and who blames
no one but themselves for the evil they do. In order for this moral
adulthood to survive and not lead to corruption requires a spiritual
foundation. If I do not believe in God, I may want “dignity” or
“the fullness of my humanity” by living a life of “existential
good faith”. But why should I? “I don't want to live a life where
I am ashamed of myself – that is what existential good faith
means!”
Fine. Why would anything I
do make me feel ashamed? What is good and what is evil?
What is the objective way
that you determine good and evil? There are many attempts at
non-theological morality. Is your measure of right and wrong the
practical? The efficient? Art? Human life? Emotional sentiment? And
even if you can naturally approximate a real morality, why follow
your own rule? After all is said and done, its yours. You are master.
There is no ultimate punishment for my lie, my adultery, my war of
aggression, my “mercy”-killing.
An objective morality must
be based on reality. Did the universe pop itself into existence?
Without reasoned belief (intellect and free will) in the Creator, our
concept of reality goes around in a circle. It becomes only my
perception. I cannot stand firm on only my ego. There is a telling
piece of dialogue in George Orwell's “1984”. (A cautionary tale
for Orwell's time of 1948.) The captive protagonist is in love. Big
Brother asks, “Do you believe in God?” He responds, “No.”
With no real ground for his love it is no surprise that he is
tortured into not only giving up his love but wanting to have her
tortured in his stead. Of course, some will protest that this is only
a fictional drama. Yet good drama highlights aspects of life that
need examining.
Which brings us back to
Dean Koontz. In the interview he said literary people are not just
accidentally confusing good and evil, they are not just transposing
them for the sake of a story, they are consciously inverting good and
evil. They reject the very notion of evil. They straddle another
Fence. But there is no neutral ground between what is good and what
is not.
