ANDROID KILL FOR ME!

ANDROID KILL FOR ME!

Buried on my book shelves is a magazine entitled The Original Science Fiction Stories no 11 which mysteriously is undated. The style of the magazine and the presence of an ad for Mad magazine suggest the 50s. Sure enough, on consulting the magisterial The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edited by John Clute and Peter Nichols, it is listed as being published between 1953 and 1960. It features two well known writers - Ward Moore, who wrote one of the most famous known alteration of history novels called Bring the Jubilee, which is about the Confederate states winning the Civil War in the United States and the prolific Robert Silverberg –“There’s No Place like Space!” which has illustrations of space ‘babes’ attired in clinging translucent material affirming – if there was any doubt - that the magazine’s presumed readership was male.

Of relevance to this essay is a story called “Android, Kill For Me!” by Kate Wilhelm, an author unknown to me. However, the Encyclopedia  records that she has a substantive publishing record and was married to Damon Knight (not to be confused with Matt Damon). An android is often a humanoid-style robot though it should technically be made of organic material and be ‘grown” in some way. In short, an android is more properly an artificial man or person as opposed to a metallic or robotic one. However, sometimes an android has a metallic interior covered with flesh or flesh-like material whereas robots are visibly metallic.

In Wilhelm’s short story, the android is a Z model, the most advanced. The Z model nicknamed Zeke is like a multi-purpose servant – he can shop, play bridge, type out manuscripts (handy for a writer). The Zeke android is of the second variety – that is, he is humanoid, but has muscles made of steel and nylon rather than artificial flesh. In return for pushing over a statue that kills Helen’s evil husband, the android expects her embrace as a reward. We are spared the consummation.

Robots are more prominent than androids who didn’t figure in science fiction until Jack Williamson’s series The Cometeers, though they were earlier antecedents such as a novel published in 1886 called The Future Eve which features the familiar notion of a man falling in love with an android – in this case, an improved version of his wife. Two of the ancestors of the android or robot are Frankenstein’s monster who is a rather implausible “android” made of human parts stitched together and brought to life by electricity. Further back, around 1000 BC, an inventor called Yan Shi constructed a robot made of wood, leather, wax and lacquer but which allegedly contained a liver, gall, heart, kidney etc. The robot made the mistake of getting fresh with the ladies of the court so the inventor was obliged to pull it apart to show the king it was artificial.

In the 13^th century, there was the fabled machine made by Albertus Magnus which was reputed to talk and was made of mechanical parts (brass, leather, wax, and wood) so it was more likely to be an example of automata. Supposedly, Magnus (or alternatively, his pupil Thomas Aquinas) had it pulled apart because it talked too much! Magnus’s machine was more of a robot than an android though possibly of the humanoid type.

This machine impliedly appeared (or re-appeared) in a remarkable passage in Henry Miller’s Plexus (1953) but transmogrified into a real walking talking robot created by a mediaeval scholar “whose name is never recalled” but must surely be Albertus Magnus - a robot clever enough to irritate its creator with its vast learning so much so that the creator sought to destroy his own creation though failed to complete the task.

The tale of Picodiribibi is related by Caccicacci, a cultured gentleman who poses as a Florentine. Miller mentions in a prefatory note that the real model for this narrator never related the Picodiribibi story - hence it is Miller’s invention. It was by the way, originally published in the July 1950 issue of World Review, later published in the same year in New Directions 12 and in 1952 in the French edition of Plexus and then in English in 1953 by the famed Olympia Press. And it still reads well today.

Curiously, Miller has Caccicacci ask his listeners if they have ever read the private papers of Albertus Magnus (who presumably was the twelfth century creator of the said robot).This looks like historical association and forgetfulness at the same time – a process probably not unknown to Miller. The passage is rich in reference and invention and is more interesting and resonant than any other passage I have read about androids and robots. The text initially refers to Picodiribibi as a twelfth century robot but later refers to him as an android. The method of manufacture has by now been forgotten (!) by the gentleman who brought him into existence. The robot makes a journey to see the Pope but after a four hour conversation is assassinated whereupon (presumably) Picodiribibi passes into papal ownership. The justification? - “by now all Europe was aware that the Devil himself was seeking audience with his Holiness.  Thus does Miller casually assert that the manufacture (or creation) of such a superior simulacrum of humanity is evil which is the uneasy conclusion I also reached. Of course the attempt to produce life would lift our scientific endeavours to higher levels but the results are likely to be entities that could be used for evil or be evil. In just a few pages, Miller, using the voice of Caccicacci, not only considers the irritation and the evil of robots and androids then shifts to consider that these “monsters’ might still be alive, might have learned to reproduce mechanically; that we might create a being superior to Picodiribibi which leads to the question  –“Who would want power or knowledge if bathed in the perpetual glory of love?” - which is of course one of the oldest theological questions. Caccicacci triumphantly concludes that what he has been trying to say among is that we – humanity - should be “more alive”. In a sense, the loquacious Caccicacci sums up the futility of trying to “create” life – simulate it would be more accurate term. Thus does Miller magnificently cancel out the “hidden “ agenda of the robot/android scenario – to create “life” - when it us human beings who need to find ways to make ourselves more alive.

 

*

Though the word robot first appeared in Karel Capek’s play R.U.R. in 1920, his robots were more like androids since they were grown and organic. (The word comes from the Slovak word robota meaning work.) To add to the confusion, Phillip K. Dick, who has been called the Shakespeare of science fiction by postmodern critic Fredrick Jamison, interchanges the meanings of robot and android (as does Henry Miller). However, a robot generally looks mechanical and metallic, whereas an android must be human enough to fool humans, even if its insides are metallic rather than organically grown. Arnold Schwarzenegger played an android of the outwardly fleshed, inwardly metallic type in The Terminator.  The android David in the recent Ridley Scott film Prometheus  (2012), brilliantly realised by actor Michael Fassbinder, is depicted as showing intellectual curiosity as well doing his best to assist his human companions when they are in danger. Bizarrely, when his head is torn off his body by an eight foot-tall ‘engineer’- a member of an alien race that actually created human life, but now seeks to destroy it - he remains able to speak. He becomes a talking head, zipped up a carry bag and transported to the stars, as a still useful and helpful guide. Ironically, the corporation commander of the space ship Prometheus played by Charlize Theron acts so coldly that the captain asks her if she is a robot! It must be assumed she is not as she suggests they retire to her cabin - presumably for coitus. Thus the film proffers a real human being who acts like a robot and an android, who despite  not having a taste for alcohol and not breathing seems more human than the “robotic” expedition corporation owner.

In the recent TV series Extant, the totally humanised/ humanoid son is called a “humanich” though he is an android of the Terminator type plus emotions and like a real human being reacts to his environment. He is described as a “life-like” robot which is an android. And in the Wikipedia summary he is dubbed a “humanoid robot” which in turn makes him an android. Unlike other androids that I have “encountered”, he is has the capacity to develop intellectually and emotionally. He is showered with love and gives back love – or is he just well programmed? 

The androids in the earlier Ridley Scott film Blade Runner were of the purely organic type. Like Harrison Ford, I wouldn’t have too much trouble falling in love with a “replicant” as good-looking as Sean Young though their memories and experience would be more limited than a human being. Sex dolls or love dolls are said to be getting more lively, though I have my doubts they will approach the standard of Stepford wives for some time to come - if ever. The present candidates seem more sophisticated automata than companionable androids. From a male perspective, this is presumably one of the long term aims – a womanly android who will make love to order. An android who is intelligent and capable could exceed the everyday help provided by a mere robot. An android who could be a companion for the lonely may find a place in a future society.

A robot or androidl that could think as well a human being and which had free will could will prove to be a threat.  Even without these faculties it would be programmed to kill as the Terminator films have made clear. You have been warned. If a robot is given free will what’s to stop it turning to hate? The three famous Asimovian laws of robotics were installed to avoid such contingency.  Androids and love dolls, get in line! However, as depicted in Dick’s novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I believe androids are best kept on Mars. My favourite Android line was uttered by Lance Hendricksen in Aliens when he says, “I may be synthetic but I’m not stupid!”

Guess what? The smart phone geeks have manufactured a small rectangle of multi purpose metal - a dumb metallic mini “robot” they are calling an android. This is an outrageous shift in language  which adds conceptual confusion. Where’s the humanoid appearance? Some years earlier we had assembly line arms ambitiously dubbed as robots. Hence vacuum cleaners that can turn corners without human arms to guide them are being called robots and smart phones are being called androids. While neither in appearance nor function could these word shifts fool any old science fiction buff, it has bamboozled millions into accepting conceptual inaccuracy. Hordes of deluded customers make love through them or to them every day. One born every minute, they used to say.

A report in the NZ Herald on 13^th September states that New Zealand children are arriving at school unable to speak in sentences. And what is particularly alarming is the decline is in children “from all backgrounds”.  It is suspected that “gadgets” (take a bow, Android!) and parents not speaking enough are causing the problem. In other words the “android” is turning children into poorly programmed robots.

ANDROID KILL FOR ME!

 

*
 
However, there is a more serious issue implicit in the contrast between robots and androids. A robot is a machine and as such can never approximate the richness of a human being even if it can out think and outsmart a human being in certain tasks. An android is a much more radical concept. If we can make a human being indistinguishable from ourselves we will have assumed a God-like mantel. I doubt that this is possible no matter how clever such simulacrums may appear. My feeling is the more human or humanoid we make robots or androids the closer we approach not God but the Devil.

*

Captivating Description of an early Chinese “robot”:

 

"The king stared at the figure in astonishment. It walked with rapid strides, moving its head up and down, so that anyone would have taken it for a live human being. The artificer touched its chin, and it began singing, perfectly in tune. He touched its hand, and it began posturing, keeping perfect time... As the performance was drawing to an end, the robot winked its eye and made advances to the ladies in attendance, whereupon the king became incensed and would have had Yen Shih (Yan Shi) executed on the spot had not the latter, in mortal fear, instantly taken the robot to pieces to let him see what it really was. And, indeed, it turned out to be only a construction of leather, wood, adhesive and lacquer, variously coloured white, black, red and blue. Examining it closely, the king found all the internal organs complete—liver, gall, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, stomach and intestines; and over these again, muscles, bones and limbs with their joints, skin, teeth and hair, all of them artificial... The king tried the effect of taking away the heart, and found that the mouth could no longer speak; he took away the liver and the eyes could no longer see; he took away the kidneys and the legs lost their power of locomotion. The king was delighted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HITLER

However evil, tyrannical and racist Hitler was, he was a remarkable individual. His rise to power was phenomenal, and when he had power, he used it to the full - as have many other ruthless dictators. What made Hitler a standout was his great powers of oratory – a gift that his peers in tyranny, Stalin and Mao Zedong, lacked. For a long time after the war, part of the way of mocking and belittling Hitler was to show a few seconds of his ranting and then comment on it unfavourably. Fair enough for the allied side. By visiting the YouTube (and other such), we are able re-evaluate recent political events. Make no mistake – I am not a Hitler supporter and I detest his doctrines and his methods. But he is a memorable figure.

When historians are asked who was the figure who most influenced the course of history in the twentieth century, they almost invariably choose Hitler. (Many website commentators chose Einstein or Gandhi, but worthy as these individuals are, their choice is optimistic rather than realistic.) The historians’ choice isn’t approval but recognition of Hitler’s dominance over the course of events. Hitler’s domination of Germany was reinforced through use of the aeroplane – and the radio. The prop aeroplane enabled him to appear all over Germany in a single day, while the radio ensured that virtually every household could hear his promises of German’s economic improvement and impending military glory.

It is an (almost) irresolvable debate as to who was more evil – or caused the greatest loss of life – Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong. Despite their godlike status (always a sign of moral degeneration), all three were guilty of crimes against humanity on a virtually unparalleled scale. Yet Mao is still venerated in China for setting up the system of communism and the foundation of modern China. Stalin’s hegemony was supreme while he lived but was subsequently undermined by Khrushchev. Hitler failed - whereas Stalin and Mao succeeded in that the systems of government they formulated, lasted, and they lived out their time until death ended their hegemony. By losing and by committing suicide, Hitler is rendered into a curiously tragic figure, a Wagnerian god who is more dramatically evil. The death of Hitler is a grand drama, the deaths of Stalin and Mao, by comparison, are examples of banal flatlining.

Hitler’s speeches were composed by himself and carefully rehearsed. As described by Clive James in his book Fame in the Twentieth Century (and guess who has more mentions than any other individual?): “It was his idea to enter a rally always from the rear of the auditorium, so that he appeared to emerge from among the people as the expression of their desires, the embodiment of their dreams about a better fate.” And here’s the calculated windup:  “He started by not talking at all, while the audience - already driven berserk by Hess – gradually calmed down. Waiting, Hitler looked like an ordinary man faced with too big a task. The audience grew apprehensive … All Germany held its breath as one. Into the silence Hitler launched his first soft words, the grammar dubious, the sentiments execrable, but the voice even at such a low pitch, already as brain-curdling as Kulminator, the most fatal brew of the Munich Beer Festival.”

If you watch the ten minute excerpt of one of Hitler’s most dramatic speeches you will notice how after each burst of applause - which he quiets with a gesture - his intensity rises a notch. Hitler says that a constantly changing vision has been replaced by a fixed pole – and with that the people rise to their feet and give the Hitler salute multiple times. “Not that I believe - but that I fight!” storms Hitler. “It is our wish and our will that this State and this Reich last a thousand years.” In other words it will equal the Roman Empire in duration. And then - oh rhetorician’s brilliance - he begins to thrust his hands forward towards the audience, shake his head, then crosses his arms over his heart – thus he appeals to them to enjoin with his words confirming that what he says comes from the heart. And then gives the smallest of smiles, a brief triumphal lift of the eyebrows – gestures and expressions only visible to the close up of the camera.

In the career and oratory of Hitler, we see a refutation of the Tolstoyan theory that history is driven by millions of decisions made by many individuals rather than prominent leaders imposing their will on the people and history. The success of Hitler and his defeat were due to military decisions usually made by the leaders at a high level not mysterious historical forces. Most of the time, soldiers obey their generals so the individual at grassroots level is subsumed beneath military and political command. However, it is true that the high war rhetoric of Hitler met with an enthusiastic response from Germans. It was a two-way dialogue but the initiative came from Hitler.

As is well known, Hitler’s principal military mistake was the invasion of Russia though it did not seem like a mistake initially. His reasons for invading Russia were four fold – he wanted living space for the German people – this was a mask for an imperialistic ambition to conquer the lands of those occupied by lesser beings - in this case, Slavic people. Second, he wanted to destroy Bolshevism. Thirdly, he wanted to rid the world of Jews. And half the world’s Jews lived in Russia. Fourth, he wanted to isolate England so that it would realise resistance to Germany’s military might was doomed to failure.

However, the reasons why he thought he would succeed were more specific. Stalin had killed up to ninety per cent of his generals. That meant Russia’s military commanders were inexperienced. Second, the Russians had fared badly against the Finns in 1940. Third, Hitler believed that Bolshevism was a corrupt system that would collapse. Fourthly, by attacking first he had the element of surprise. Fifth, his invading army was numbered between three and four million. At the smallest estimate, it was still five times the size of Napoleon’s Grand Armee that had invaded over a hundred years earlier. Sixthly, the German army was battle-experienced and so far defeated every army set against it with contemptuous ease.

In any event, for a raft of disputed reasons following Stalingrad and Kursk, German forces began to be driven back. This process had already began when they failed to reach Moscow in the winter of 1941.

Hitler ruined any chance of success by continually sacking his generals – Rundstedt was sacked four times, Guderian, the gifted panzer leader, twice. Though Manstein, Germany's most brilliant general, was able to retake Kharkov when the odds were seven to one against him, his attempts to reason with Hitler, usually over strategic withdrawals, were always overruled. If Hitler had let his generals alone, as Stalin (in a reversal of his earlier terrible purges) allowed his generals a measure of independence, it is conceivable that Germany could have won the war.

What would have been the outcome had Hitler not made so many mistakes e.g , bombing London instead of southern airstrips; letting the Brits evacuate from Dunkirk; delaying both the invasion of Russia and the start of the battle of Kursk;  not letting the full force of Army Group Centre sustain its attack on Moscow; not letting Manstein take charge of the Eastern Front against the Russians; not supplying his troops with winter gear; using the world's first military jet as a bomber instead of as a fighter; stop-starting the V1/V2 rocket programme; not consolidating his European victories enabling Germany to become the world's greatest superpower, declaring war on the United States – is an intriguing conjecture. Had Hitler recruited the Russian-hating Ukraine against Stalin, who knows what would have happened.

That will do for the heavy metal.

*

A few off- beat stories about Hitler and the Nazis:

 

1. Mistakes at Stalingrad

Despite the well-earned reputation the Germans have for efficiency, they sometimes parachuted in the wrong supplies to the freezing, starving troops encircled at Stalingrad eg summer clothing, pepper (four tons), condoms, food spices. Meanwhile, the German troops began eating some 10, 000 horses, plus rats and eventually resorted to cannibalism.

 

2. Death by German chocolate

In mid 1943, MI 5 discovered the Germans were planning to assassinate Churchill with explosive chocolate. The metal substance concealing the explosive was covered in a thin layer of rich dark chocolate wrapped in expensive looking black and gold paper. Sounds familiar? It was to be carried on a tray into the dining room of the War Cabinet. British spies rumbled the plot and informed Lord Rothschild, a peacetime scientist, who asked artist Lawrence Fish to make a poster of the lethal confectionary. It took seven seconds for the explosive to detonate so one wonders what would have happened during the time of biting metal to the realisation something was not right. According to the delicioushistoryblog, the Nazis also planned comparable subterfuges with tinned plums, throat lozenges, shaving brushes, batteries, wood and … stuffed dogs. Both Churchill and Hitler were highly partial to chocolate.

 

3. German Love Dolls

Alarmed by Himmler’s comments over German soldiers contracting syphilis from French prostitutes, Hitler ordered the making of love dolls. Dr Rudolf Chargeheimer directed that the synthetic flesh of the dolls must feel the same as real flesh; that the doll’s body should be agile and moveable as the real body; that the doll’s organ should feel absolutely realistic. One is curious whether today’s love dolls measure up. Made of tensile and elastic polymer, the German love dolls did not have blonde hair and blue eyes like the Barbie dolls modeled on 1950s German sex dolls.  Apparently, Himmler liked them so much (!) he ordered fifty of the polymer babes. They were smaller than life size, and trialed in Jersey. The mind boggles. However, the idea was not put into practice. It is thought that the love dolls perished during the bombing of Dresden.

 

4. Hitler’s toilet seat

Hitler had a splendid 433-foot long yacht, named Aviso Grille. One of the toilets from this yacht was found at a garage in Greg’s Auto repair ship in New Jersey. Apparently, the vessel passed through several owners’ hands before being sent to New Jersey to be broken down as (s) crap metal. Built in 1935, the toilet looks like any white porcelain toilet. The current owner sagely remarks, “I seriously doubt there are any Hitler remnants down there after all these years.” Not unless you haven’t been flushing it, Greg. So far Greg has resisted selling it. Hitler’s desk fetched 250,000 pounds so a Hitler souvenir can be a good investment. Greg does not charge people to look at it, or even use it. Yes, it’s been restored to full working order.

 

5. Two of Hitler’s favourite movie (s):

King Kong

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Rumour has it King Kong is psychoanalytically juicy. The lone super ape who is king of the jungle is fascinated by a blonde and “rescues” her. Can we factor in the Jewish equation? Not easily. But wait ... Kong did trash New York. Presumably, after he had declared war on America, Hitler could have drawn some vicarious satisfaction from the vanquishing of one of his major enemies.

Snow White is more problematic. Was the wicked witch Jewish? Did Jews work by subterfuge in order to poison the “Snow White” innocence of Germany? We need a blond princess here, a Rapunzel. I can’t see Hitler identifying with any of the dwarfs. Contrary to Orwell’s famous remark about it being difficult to find a dictator over the height of five feet six, Hitler was five foot eight. He looked small because his German generals were often taller than him. Orwell also remarked that dictators often exhibited an “almost general and sometimes quite fantastic ugliness.” Hitler was no handsome blonde Nordic beast but you couldn’t call him ugly.

6. Hitler’s non Military Achievements

In 1938, Hitler was declared Man of the Year by Time magazine. The award is given to the person, group idea or object who most influenced history “for better or for worse” in that particular year. So giving the award to Hitler is not a mark of approval – and is therefore not inappropriate. What was highly inappropriate was him being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939. Sensibly, the prize was not awarded until 1944. And then to the International Red Cross. The prize was changed to Person of the Year in 1999. However, when a woman was selected eg Wallis Simpson in 1936, she was headlined as Woman of the Year.

 

7. Hitler Memorabilia and Kim DotCom

According to Colin Espinor’s blog, it is illegal to collect Nazi memorabilia in Germany, France, Hungary and Austria but not in other countries. The now world-famous-in-New Zealand Kim DotCom, already convicted of illegal data uploads and internet piracy and the subject of an over enthusiastic raid on his large Coatesville mansion, has a first edition of Mein Kampf signed by Hitler. DotCom has denied supporting any of Hitler’s views. This is contradicted by Cameron Slater’s blog of March 26, 2014 which states that Alex Mardikian, a former friend and advisor to DotCom, reported his boss as saying that he idolised Hitler and considered him the greatest German who ever lived. Dotcom says he has also bought a pen owned by Stalin and one of Churchill’s cigar holders. Dotcom says his motivation for buying this war memorabilia is because he is a keen fan of the gaming franchise Call of Duty which has episodes set during World War 11. Keith Locke wrote in his blog on March 31 2014, that DotCom is Jewish and forthrightly anti-Nazi. Is the jury still out?

 

LORDE

Not so long ago, Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Everest, was the most famous New Zealander, beating out such early contenders as Bob Fitzsimmons, Ernest Rutherford and Katherine Mansfield. Hillary was the only New Zealander to be included in Clive James book on Fame in the Twentieth century published in 1993. Hillary was (possibly) temporarily pushed off the pinnacle of Kiwi world eminence by Peter Snell but more lastingly by Sir Peter Jackson.

Until a few short months ago.

But now, thanks to the power of the Grammy and the notoriously capricious adulation of the young, Lorde is probably the most famous citizen of Aotearoa. She is living history, and a Google tap on her US version of Royals sees her approaching a quarter of billion hits and rising. (Up five million in two days!) Her success has effortlessly surpassed all her recent sometime NZ female pop star rivals such as Bic Runga, Brooke Fraser, Ladyhawke, Gin Wigmore and Kimbra.

What is striking about Lorde is how old-fashioned she looks. Resembling a portrait photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron who specialised in Victorian portraits of both famous and unknown people between 1863-75, the teenager’s face is framed by full-bodied, impressively bedraggled hair suggesting a weekend spent in tornado alley at the wrong time. On stage, she looks moody, even vampirish – a sword & sorcery witch – deploying black and white intensity, dressing from head to foot in dark apparel that hides her youthful figure. Lorde is mysterious, almost pre-Raphaelite, the embodiment of the non-frivolous. Hers is the glamour of the vampire – the dark side of Romanticism, the opposite of the sunny girly Katy Perry. Quite possibly Lorde is beautiful but her makeup and her presentation makes this question secondary. The videos of her two big hits Royals and Team written large on grey cities, dingy bedrooms, and smashed up building sites exude urban depression and gloom, her voice mournful, plaintive. A new kind of blues?  While her voice is not the most polished, varied or powerful in the business, the tone of its pathos wins you over to her cause. Whatever that may be.

Lorde conveys the impression she is camera shy, yet confident. Without actually looking old, she seems more mature than the young 17 (as of early 2014) she actually is. Then there are the curious hand gestures. What are the gestures telling us? It’s difficult to say. Perhaps the hand is trying to sculpt some elusive immaterial material, an invisible ectoplasm (which eludes, though probably was sought by, the camera gaze of Ms Cameron). Are her twisting fingers the signature gestures of some new form of avant-garde theatre? Or a grope for meaning – which, alas, will never prove graspable. All part of the attraction, presumably. The mystery of Lorde is not in what we see but what it means, or hints at.

Like the Goths or the Pre-Raphaelites of whom visually she is a marginal cousin, Lorde looks like someone too serious for sunlight. One surmises her body is tan-less. And if you doubt the pre-Raphaelite comparison have a look at The Lady of Shalott by John William Waterhouse or Bocca Baciata by Gabriel Dante Rossetti. (On line discovery: you can acquire the Pre-Raphaelite look by braiding the hair when half dry and let it dry before taking it down. And if this fails, there is the triple barrel curling iron, guaranteed to produce the desired effect.)

Whereas, at this late date, a waterfall of hair doesn’t register as the sexually charged image which it did in the Victorian era, it still signifies a powerful icon of femininity. Daringly, in Tennis Court, her hair is tied up in head-hugging braids and the visual is her face only – almost a record in minimalism. And, of course, there is the voice - haunting rather than strident, possessing the timbre of someone singing in a cave or from the bottom of a well. More echoes of the Gothic?

What do the songs mean? The lyrics of Royals express a strident denunciation of ostentatious wealth and appeal to the masses (that is, most of us) who will never own diamonds, Cadillacs, islands, tigers etc and of course are never going to be royals - either by virtue of wealth or birth. Thank you, Joel Little, for reminding us of the yearning to not be ordinary. The wild popularity of Royals in America, suggests the citizens of the USA have tired of the phony glitz of success and want to re-earth themselves with some everyday reality without the razzle-dazzle of special effects – usually pseudo-psychedelic lolly shop gift-wrapped hallucinations.

Compared to a gaggle of contemporary talented and aggressively sexy female singers, the contrast with Lorde’s visual style is dramatic. Katy Perry is wholesomely and unashamedly girly, Hollywoodishly pretty, voluptuously figured, cheeky, playfully theatrical, with videos and costumes crammed with candy store colours. She even appeals to pre-teens – thanks to the jellybean hues – less so to grownups who presumably have more sense. Alas, it speaks for my own immaturity, that she appeals to me. And, by the way, she can really sing.

Beyonce is unrelentingly and athletically sensual. Rihanna is aggressively sexual. Christina Aguilera oozes American sexiness and produces the most stylish and surrealistically inventive videos - though Katy Perry is giving her a good run for her money. Lady Gaga (symbolic name?) varies between hectic undress and zany high camp over-dress. Miley Cyrus, once the world’s most notorious teenager, is rapidly aging into her twenties, and seems bent on out-Gagaing the Lady herself (if that’s possible). Madonna, now of grandmotherly vintage, hangs onto her seemingly perpetual youth by keeping in shape.

Lorde is everything that Katy Perry, Beyonce, Rhianna, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus are not. She is quiet, sombre (and sober), dignified, mildly gloomy, neo-Gothic and non sexual.  Perhaps, instinctively, she realises that the limit of publically sexually tinged theatricality has been reached. The only parts of her that are visible are face, hands, arms. Hence, though sexuality is minimalised to vanishing point, femininity (aided and abetted by lashings of dark lipstick) is enhanced.

Lorde is sparingly face-on to the camera, retreating from the startle of confrontation. Whether Lorde will provoke a horde of shyish, neo-Gothic singers or is a one-off, remains to be seen. This is a pluralistic age and the media has always excelled in accommodating a vigorous variety of visual and musical styles. This unfolding drama awaits full fruition.

To re-vamp:

Katy Perry: Despite my womanly figure, I am a little girl who loves jelly beans.

Beyonce: I am a pole dancer without a pole.

Rihanna: I am a dusky sex vamp.

Christina Aguilera: I am the cool avatar of feminist surrealism.

Lady Gaga:   I am an unobtainable sex goddess who changes her costume every two seconds. How could you possibly be bored?

Miley Cyrus: I am prepared to undress and spit at a moment’s notice.

Lorde: I am a teenage black and white ectoplasm-grasping Pre-Raphaelite goddess .

THE GREATEST INVENTIONS OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS

This collection of short essays (or assays) edited by John Brockman is one of my favourite books. A casual browse will provoke agreement, disagreement, thought provocation, incredulity. (How could anyone name the Gatling Gun as the greatest invention of the last two millennia?) Some will say this sort of question can’t be answered. Of course it can be answered! The whole point is the variety of answers proffered. And everyone attempting an answer - with a few exceptions – is either a professional scientist or academic, or author of substance, several of them world famous in their field. No bloggers, thank God.

The only major quibble is why cut the survey short at the start of the common era (as it now called). This chronological imitation cuts out the axeled wheel, harnessing of fire, crop cultivation, primitive weapons (eg club, spear,  bow and arrow), canals and waterways, dramatic production, plus the alphabet and language itself. Arguably, the alphabet and language are the greatest inventions in the whole of human history. In the 2000 years timeframe stipulated the necessary omission of either the alphabet or language prompts the naming of printing either of the Chinese kind or the Gutenberg kind. Printing is one of the major candidates, receiving six nominations.

Before moving to consider the extraordinary range of answers, let us consider what an invention is. When I was about eight years old I became interested - even enthralled - to discover the difference between an invention (eg the aeroplane) and a discovery which was usually a previously unknown place or country - New Zealand, for example. An invention customarily implies some form of technology, a machine or mechanical contrivance. However, some of the answers in Brockman’s book ingeniously include concepts that benefit humanity or extend its powers without being in the usual sense an invention. Some of them are philosophical principles (let it be noted that language involved no technological devices). Non-technological answers include: social structures that enable inventions, the information economy, philosophical scepticism, Christianity and Islam, the interrogative sentence, free will, the idea that all people are created equal, the idea of an idea, the human ego. In my view, none of these concepts are inventions in the usual understanding of that term. If you are of a religious mind, religion is neither invention nor discovery but a matter of revelation. Les Murray, considered Australia’s leading poet (his reputation is less affirmed in New Zealand), has written:

Religions are poems. They concert
our daylight and dreaming mind, our
emotions, instinct, breath and native gesture

into the only whole thinking: poetry.

Murray is a Catholic so his contention that religions are poems is a positive one. Another poet (whose name eludes memory) made the same point but in counter reaction to the idea that religions are in some sense objective and true.

Okay. Before we get into the obvious “heavies” – printing, electricity, varieties of mathematics, computers (all strong candidates), and science itself which all get between 5 and 8 votes let us consider some of the more offbeat answers. Biologist Jeremy Cherfas chose the basket without which, “You cannot have a gathering society... no home and hearth, no division of labour, no humanity.” I don’t agree it’s the greatest invention of our era but it’s an intriguingly non-typical answer. Starts off okay, then moves to hyperbole.

Other unconventional answers include, reading glasses the flag, board games, Thermos bottle, Gatling gun, the eraser, and chairs and stairs. While there is a case for reading glasses (assistance to short-sighted Middle Ages monks carrying the burden of western culture), the others seem, quite frankly, either implausible, inadequate, inaccurate, trivial, or perverse.  Nicholas Humphrey, a theoretical psychologist says that reading glasses “prevented the world from being ruled by people under forty.” This last witticism is fatuous because many of the world leaders were illiterate, regardless of age. The flag was picked by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (did his parents invent the name?), a professor of management, because it is was a “symbol of belonging which millions will follow to ruins or victory,” His choice is fallacious for people do not go to war because of a flag but because they were persuaded to, told to, ordered to, recruited or volunteer to fight for either money or patriotism. Board games sounds lightweight but the case for them (that is, western Chess and eastern Go) is named because they are the basis for mathematical models and the refutation of our destinies being at the mercy of whimsical gods (less convincing) are well argued by John Henry Holland, a professor of computer science.

Leon Lederman, who won the Nobel Prize for physics, picked printing first then the Thermos bottle but gave no reasons for the latter. I cannot think of any reason that would justify such a trivial choice. (Tongue in cheek?) The Gatling Gun was picked by Bob Rafaelson, a highly gifted film director (Five Easy Pieces, the King of Marvin Gardens). Why not the cannon? For hundreds of years prior to the Gatling gun, it lay behind military dominance. (And, by the way, the atomic bomb was picked twice.) In any event, the sense of the term/question “greatest” would surely not include the eraser. We all know what a mistake is – you don’t need an eraser to deal with it - you can ignore it or cross it out. Chairs and Stairs were selected by Karl Sabbagh, a science writer and television producer. He is aware that these were invented before 2000 years ago but felt annoyed that other obvious choices had already been made – the Indo-Arabic number system, computers, contraceptive pill. Sabbagh argues that stairs allows for a more objective view and that chairs enables eyes, arms and hands to be free to do additional tasks. A more impressive choice than I initially thought but alas outside the stipulated time period. How about the axeled wheel, the alphabet and writing?

A couple of additional seemingly odd choices – the identification of the sense of smell and the mirror. Marvin Minsky, a mathematician and computer scientist says, ‘that the smell of a chemical was not  necessarily a property of that chemical but some related chemical in the form of a gas, which therefore could reach the nose of the observer.’ He speculates that this insight transformed the incoherent field of chemistry into the great science of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I fail to understand the logic of this conclusion and therefore am not inclined to accept it. The mirror? Can he be serious? Tor Norretranders, a science writer, argues that the mirror allows of viewing oneself as a daily habit. And more importantly – the invention of the mirror is closely related to the problem of free will and the invention of the modern human ego. Excuse me? He argues more shrewdly that the mirror enabled the viewing of oneself through the eyes of others. Hang on a minute – does not the mirror allow the viewing of oneself? If you don’t have servants to make yourself up - valets etc - you could then check your own makeup. Clearly the mirror caused the French revolution for it enabled everyone to think they were able to be democratically viewed by others (joke). I’m sure the impact of the mirror on the common person was less important. If you work the land all day is your appearance that important?  In any case how about the camera and the cinema as ways of being viewed by others?

Another significant group were technological developments that assisted travel - the caravel, the rudder, flying machines, space travel. Several choices centred on science centrally - organised science, science, the idea of continued scientific and technological progress, the evolution of technology, the scientific method, (twice). Or education: the university, universal schooling.

An interesting divide was between the modernists who picked something very recent – the computer, the contraceptive pill, genetic engineering, the atomic bomb, the green revolution, and the majority who picked something more historical – prior to the twentieth century. Anything prefixed by tele- is a good bet – television (twice), telescope, telecommunications. I’m surprised no one picked the telegraph which enabled communication at a distance with rapidity (smoke signals etc did it more slowly). A system was developed in France during the Napoleonic era which allowed of semaphore communication from hill to hill by a series of metal towers – smoke signalling without the fire. This elaborate system of metal towers became instantly obsolete with the invention of the telegraph. The telegraph also inspired the development of the modern newspaper’s capacity to tell us the news with greater alacrity rather than tardiness. Imagine how long it would take Cook’s discoveries to be relayed back to England prior to the telegraph!

Printing was my initial choice (and the immediate choice of several mature aged friends that I asked).  After all I am a writer, and relatively few books existed prior to Gutenberg. Philip Campbell, editor of Nature since 1995, who chose printing, writes: “After all the World Wide Web is just a printing press with electronic or photonic elaborations.” My guess is this sentence will shock some people who are infatuated with this contemporary electronic toy. Post Gutenberg, printing enabled the mass production of books and therefore the widespread promulgation of ideas, both religious and secular. One of the key differences between styles of government considered democratic and those considered tyrannical, autocratic, communist or just horribly corrupt, is that democratic regimes allow a much greater freedom in print (or other media). Freedom of the press is a keynote of the American way of life and governments throughout history have controlled print in order to make sure their power is not threatened.  But after reading this book, my opinion shifted from print. I’ll reveal my choice in a moment.

Just as the alphabet (plus necessarily, writing) was an extension of oral language and printing an extension of writing, so too was the telephone (Edison invented Hello) a handy extension of letter writing or talking. It would be hard - even for the late Pavarroti to shout in New Zealand and be heard in America, and a letter used to take several days. Now the telephone makes communication almost instantaneous! Also no one picked the telephone which is like the telegraph on steroids.

If you ask a mathematician what’s the greatest invention generally the answer well be some form of mathematics – quantum theory, the Indo-Arab counting system (three times),the Infinitesimal calculus, mathematical representation, the calculus (twice). Fair enough. However, I am a print person rather than mathematics person so for me print is more important even though mathematics underlies all science.

A notable division is between those who choose very recent inventions such as the atomic bomb (twice), but I’m not buying that), and the computer or internet (seven choices)

So what is my choice? The harnessing of electricity – a relatively new invention, traceable variously to Edison who made it available to New York in 1882 or Tesla who initially co-operated with Edison but having quarrelled about a broken financial promise to pay him $50,000 for re-designing his direct current generators went on to develop Alternating Current and supply Chicago with electricity in 1893. Without electricity, very little of today’s technology would work – think of a world minus electric light, radio, television, computers, refrigerators, ovens, aeroplanes, factories, offices, smart phones etc etc. The electricity choices were as follows : the harnessing of electricity, the electric motor, the battery, the electric light, Volta’s electric battery and Otto Von Guericke’s static electricity machine.

Other candidates that weren’t mentioned were radio waves, the cinema, photography, heavier than air flight, mass media and social media.

In the future, if the development of artificial intelligence continues (alas, it will), we might have to praise one of these diabolical devices if it can think for itself (presumably de rigueur) and produces a way to travel to the stars or diverts an asteroid from destroying planet earth. On the other hand, it might get ideas into its head (eg mind) to run the world better than we do.

Until then, I’m sticking with electricity.

FORGOTTEN SILVER

Forgotten Silver is New Zealand’s finest, most brilliant and most inventive film – a cinematic masterpiece. Much of its brilliance resides in the adroit inclusion of short additional film excerpts either alleged “real” footage or additional feature footage, composed for the occasion. As an example of meta-film making, it is breathtaking. The film as a whole is the most astonishingly rich 53 minutes of cinema ever filmed. It is a film that rewards multiple viewings. This ingenious mockumentary caused howls of rage when it was revealed that the great film pioneer whose life was explored was mythical. It was as if we had been introduced to a new Edmund Hillary of film-making only to be informed it was all done in a hangar at Whenuapai and that this new Hillary had never existed. What a rotten trick!

Forgotten Silver breathlessly unfolds the (literally) incredible story of how a young New Zealand film maker with the epically ordinary name of Colin McKenzie created a Bible-based masterpiece  called Salome and several silent comedies about Stan the Man. He also invented a camera powered by a bicycle, yet another powered by a massive steam engine and a third, hidden in a suitcase. Kiwi ingenuity at its best. Even at this early stage of the film suspicions should have flared that this was a leg pull. If the Heath Robinson-style camera did not provoke scepticism, how about 2000 times 12 = 24,000  (twenty four thousand!) eggs stolen to make a film? Then there were the exotic Tahitian berries - 4 and half tons to make 22 seconds of film (!). Plus the truly great cinematic-technological inventions –  the wedding of sound and image in 1908 alas rendered in Chinese, the first colour film which by virtue of involving several topless Polynesian maidens wound up ensuring Colin was arrested for smut and consequently sent to jail for six months. It is well known that sound arrived in cinema in 1927 with Al Jolson’s detestable voice warbling scratchily. If sound had been invented  nearly 20 years earlier, this would be a revolution in cinematic history. Because of this innovation, prominent film personalities like Leonard Maltin and Harvey Weinstein earnestly told us that Colin McKenzie should now join the pantheon that included Edison, the Lumiere Brothers and D.W.Griffith. The presence of such famous film entities served to back up the affirmation of our own local celebrity, Peter Jackson, that a forgotten cinematic genius had been re-discovered. But what about the 24 thousand eggs? Can someone unscramble this delightful omelette?

One of the many delights of Forgotten Silver is the complex historical layering – most of it faked. When the film begins, the presentation of a solemn Jackson offers no clues as to the historic hoodwinking that is to follow.  Following the bedazzlement of eggs, berries, invention of colour, close up, tracking shot etc, we have Rex Solomon of Majestic Lion (presumably a take-off of MGM  and Cecil B de Mille) which has McKenzie deploying an army of 15,000 extras (see footnote) running around in the remote bush of Fiordland. If such an event had ever taken place, it could not possibly have been forgotten. For those familiar with New Zealand history at a more detailed level, the picture of Colin’s “father” would have been recognised as Arawata Bill, a well-known figure in South Island folklore who died in1947 and was celebrated posthumously in a ballad by poet Denis Glover in 1953. Arawata Bill spent many decades unsuccessfully prospecting for gold. Other stills were similarly moved from their true register in history into the reinvented folklore of the film.

One of the sad things about its reception was that the few (or were they many?) who believed Forgotten Silver’s celebrated protagonist, film maker Colin McKenzie was real, became furious when they discovered he was not. I’m Not Laughing of Hamilton writes, “I know that everyone (!) was fooled so I am not embarrassed to admit I was too and I don’t think it’s funny. It has made me unable to trust anything that TV1 put on again.” Sad, sad, sad. Everyone was not fooled and I’m Not Laughing should be embarrassed at his own historical ignorance.  Anyone familiar with our cultural or film history would not have been fooled.  In fact, they would have been delighted by the wittiness of the spoof. What is truly amazing – which defies credulity – is that several people believed it to be authentic. Some of these letters may have been written tongue in cheek. For TV cognoscenti, Montana Theatre on Sunday night always screened a feature not a documentary. Of course the casual TV browser (thousands, perhaps) may have been unaware of this. Keith Harrison wrote to The Otago Daily Times that “The whole presentation lacked humour, lacked purpose, lacked shape and lacked talent”. I strongly disagree with every point: it was the funniest NZ film I’ve seen, it had sublime creative purpose, it was exquisitely constructed and showed that Costa Botes and Peter Jackson are possessed of formidable talent. Possibly, Keith was unwittingly writing about the bone people?  The critic contributors to Rotten Tomatoes gave it 100 per cent rating – a rare accolade.

Many of the angry letters came from Timaru (or the South Island) and thought the film had done a disservice to Richard Pearse. The fake footage of Pearse was an affectionate rendering of his alleged flight – brilliantly rendered in blotchy black and white. The computer enhancement of the newspaper in someone’s back pocket “proving” that the Pearse flight preceded that of the Wright Brothers is beyond praise. I still laugh thinking about it. The Pearse episode – and the would-be aviator was always clear that the Wright brothers had achieved controlled flight before him - was only a small amount of the rich cinematic texture which included in its 53 minutes several other films, most notably the hilarious Stan the Man and McKenzie’s alleged masterwork, Salome, based on the Bible. The five Stan the Man films which successfully aped the overacting of the silent comedy, reinforce the notion that much slapstick comedy contains an element of cruelty which in real life (as opposed to reel life) could only provoke outrage. No matter, the hoped for comic effect is gloriously achieved when Stan plasters the face of the Prime Minster Coates with a custard pie and receives a trouncing with several truncheons. Cinema verite comedy surrealistically framed by not so inspired film comedy. This sequence echoes in construction and tone the crashed flight of Pearse trying to avoid cameraman Colin.

Salome, the forgotten masterpiece of Colin McKenzie was only seven-eight minutes long. Again surely its brevity would have indicated this was a hoax, or what you will. In the ensuing furore, Jackson wittily making reference to the opening sequence said that possibly they had been leading people down the garden path. This may have been extemporised (I suspect) for the interview occasion but it is an arguable aspect.

Surely the hoaxed indignant should have been wacking their foreheads with their palms and proclaiming “Silly me! Sucked in! Hoodwinked!” Yet in their defence, if they had been tuned in after the film had started and heard Leonard Maltin, the famous American film critic, proclaiming that Colin McKenzie was in the pantheon with Lumiere and D. W. Griffith, then belief in the documentary (actually, a mockumentary) was reasonable. However, for those who knew their history, suspicion would surely have crept in. If Colin McKenzie was as famous as the film asserted why had no one – literally - heard of him? Obviously, because he did not exist. All his achievements and his vast horde of extras would surely have been remembered.

A hoax is to be contrasted with a fraud. The fraudster pulls the wool over his victim’s eyes in order to extract money. The hoaxer wants to perpetrate a trick beyond that of any magician’s sleight of hand. The hoaxer wants to show us something about our credulity, our willingness to believe the fantastic, the unusual, the improbable, is real. The hoaxer does not want our money but our minds. To make matters worse or - depending on the generosity of your perspective - better, journalists and the media and Lindsay Shelton of the Film Commission were all in on the Forgotten Silver hoax. New Zealand being small, centralised, and eager to be up to date – and above all eager for new heroes to affirm itself as participant in world culture - was in fact the perfect country or culture in which to hoodwink a gullible public. In general, the New Zealand cultural scene is permanently ossified in provincial mode. Forgotten Silver transcended this stance and liberated our cultural psyche from the boggy ponds of localism into the heady waters of international cinema art.

The explicit and implicit agenda of Forgotten Silver was complex yet clear. It was a spoof on celebrity and forgotten heroes, a playful reinvention of history, a leg pull to test our gullibility in the face of apparent authority and indirectly a criticism and celebration of the heroic dedication needed to fund and finish a film.  It is well to remember Forgotten Silver was made several years before the triumphal trilogy of Lord of the Rings which was to bring Jackson fame and fortune.

While a huge debt of credit must goes to Jackson let us not forget Costa Botes who both co-wrote, co-directed and co-acted in the film. The original ideas and raft of the script came from Botes. Thus, Forgotten Silver is in some sense more of a Botes film than a Jackson film – though this is not to deny Jackson’s enormous part in the making of the film. Besides, the two have been close friends since they were young men and as with many an art work, the closeness of kindred spirits energises the enterprise.

The genius of Botes was to reverse the customary historical fabulation of moving famous persons person to times and locales that they have not inhabited or lived through, by inventing a mythical famous person. The effect is to create temporary myth rather than say a more enduring one like that of the Christian emperor Prester John, thought to be heroically waiting in the wings to save the European Christian world from Muslim invasion. Alas, there was no Prester John, and alas no Colin McKenzie, and the great innovators of early cinema remain French and American – not New Zealand.

At this point in cultural and film history an innocent viewer of this great film would be hard to find. The hoax is out of the can (and if you have read this blog), then Forgotten Silver has, like a modernist building, had its inner construction revealed. But if you haven’t seen it, please remedy this lack as soon as possible. It is a rich treasure trove of all the tricks of the cinema minus spectacular special effects.

Forgotten Silver is rediscovered gold, cultural bullion. It is our treasure and our triumph.

Footnote:

Nicholas Reid noted in 2000 that Peter Jackson had 15,000 extras for the Lord of the Rings. QED: In a former life Peter Jackson was Colin McKenzie. 

Welcome to the blog of Michael Morrissey, New Zealand writer

Welcome to a blog with a difference.  As a writer it was an obvious choice for me to write a literary blog. But I decided to include a wide ranging choice of subject matter. I am intending to cover famous personalities, inventions, history of science and medicine, architecture, art, astronomy, space travel, book reviews, films and many other topics.