The Littleton Follies

Lucius read me his 1999 Columbine essay while he was working on it. We argued a bit. I said that maybe the subculture the Littleton shooters immersed themselves in had something to do with it — “all this Goth crap, for instance,” I said.

Lucius heaved a sigh like he always did when gently pressing against clear ignorance. “You sound like a crusty old man. These modes of rebellion aren’t new. The kids are all right, Bob.”

I’d forgotten much of the essay until Ellen Datlow resurrected it on her site the other day. In the interim, I read a lot of evolutionary psychology and social analysis, and I believe Lucius had the right of the argument. This bit especially stands out for me:

“If it were possible, however, I firmly believe we would discover that whatever has gone wrong with our culture has been going wrong for a long, long time, and that only recently have the symptoms of the affliction grown sufficiently pronounced to provoke our alarm. And I bet we would find that the causes of youth violence in cases like Littleton have a lot more to do with serotonin deficiences, pre- and post-natal care, early childhood experiences and nutrition, the over-prescription of antidepressants, parental dysfunction, lack of mentoring, and similar socio-biological factors than they do with all the really cool causes du jour like black lipstick, gypsy curses, and The Evil That Is N’SYNC.”

http://ellendatlow.com/the-littleton-follies-by-lucius-shepard/

Posted in Lucius Shepard | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Long Trip with Lucius, Part 3

Today as I write this is Father’s Day. Lucius was never paternal toward me. That worked out for both of us. I had a father the first nine years I knew Lucius, an attentive, compassionate one, a psychiatric social worker, a marathon runner, an expert fly fisherman; he took me camping as a kid, never missed an important date; we practiced Spanish and traveled the Yucatan together. I didn’t lack for fathering. At first opportunity, Lucius told me how his own father tried to shape him into a writer and would beat him when he failed to recite Shakespeare correctly.

Not long after Clarion West, I picked Lucius up late for a movie. We still had plenty of time, but he hated to cut it close. He lectured me about this, and I said, “Sure, Dad. Whatever.” He grew perilously quiet then, and said, “Let’s make a deal. You don’t call me ‘Dad,’ and I don’t call you ‘annoying little f–.’ ”

I held up my end of the deal.

By December 31, I’d told my wife stories of how prickly Lucius could be. When the day arrived, gray but not cold, she dropped me off on the street. She’d arranged to fly to Mesa, Arizona, and visit her parents, who’d gone down there from Minnesota for the holidays; it was possible we’d cross paths.

She gave me a hug, and with a wry grin, she said, “Have fun driving Mr. Daisy.” I still laugh thinking about it. Neither of us had actually seen Driving Miss Daisy, but everyone had seen the trailer and old Jessica Tandy acting fussy. It was the kind of pithy shot Lucius might take, and would have made him smile over gritted teeth.

I hefted my bag. The door at the ground-level entry was unlocked, and inside was the narrow wooden staircase. Painted in white enamel, chipped and flaking, it led to a cluttered landing. l stepped around an exercise bike and an open box of Kalimantan author copies, a white tiger snarling from each cover. I’d noticed them during a previous visit. They wouldn’t move for years to come.

The interior door was open, but I knocked. Lucius made a gruff acknowledgment. I found him stooped in front of the main picture window, cramming wadded shirts into a duffel bag. A thin young guy stood off to the side. I didn’t immediately see the resemblance. I remembered how that summer a woman literary agent at Greg and Astrid’s house, ingratiating herself, had commented on Gullivar’s handsomeness; Lucius had acknowledged the “tall Shepard forehead.” Yeah, they shared that feature. Having recently seen pictures of Lucius in his own slender youth, it’s clear how similar they were, but it wasn’t Lucius’ beard and girth that threw me off. The difference was attitude. Gullivar struck me as contained. Lucius couldn’t keep track of himself. He’d obliviously drop money or receipts trying to cram them into his pockets; he’d casually share embarrassing personal anecdotes. Without fiction to revisit and redact, to center and order his wounds and passions, he might have fragmented like a camp of restless bats.

Still fighting the luggage, he nodded. “Hey…. This is Bob. Bob, Gullivar.” We shook hands over the dusty coffee table and then took interest in the scenery while Lucius stalked back and forth from his nearby den. My gaze ranged over old pizza boxes and a shelf holding a still-untouched bottle of Jack Daniels I’d given Lucius months before. A devil hand puppet stood on the TV set. There was a plaque at its base. Oh, yeah, it was covering his Hugo award.

Our ride to the airport showed up. Gullivar and I brought luggage downstairs. Lucius sent us back for a pillow. I lingered to make sure nothing had been left behind amid the wrack of DVDs, books, and old pizza boxes that littered the floor and spilled off the coffee table.

Minutes later we were on our way to Seatac to pick up the rental, and already, completely unaware, I’d seriously messed up.

Posted in Lucius Shepard | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Long Trip with Lucius, Part 2

Lucius and I had a complex relationship. Mainly we were just friends, sharing a similar political outlook and an interest in literature and movies.  However, we also did business together. I commissioned and edited a short novel of his, Colonel Rutherford’s Colt, and lots of movie reviews and re-published Green Eyes, The Golden, several short stories, and two collections as ebooks. He wrote a blurb for one of my anthologies and recommended my stories to editors. In 2000, he connected me with several author friends who signed ebook contracts with my new company, enabling me to approach Microsoft and Barnes & Noble to get ElectricStory in the initial launch of the BN.com store, alongside major New York publishers. I did science research and world-building for some of his commissioned projects, and in the last year of his life we had a writing partnership and finished a major deliverable together just before his stroke. His stated intention was to retire after a couple years and leave me all his connections and shared work. However, by that point our relationship had undergone a long arc, and we both knew that the offer, though genuine, was a sop to his pride and a plea for help.

Lucius’ kidneys had been failing for years, he’d undergone renal angioplasty in late 2011, and he’d only recently become productive again in early 2013 after months of setback: flu, pneumonia, nausea, and general weakness. He was afraid. I’d had enough direct experience with publishing and vicarious experience with his movie-industry work to know the business had little chance. Sure his clients had money, but they also were fickle. I indulged his fantasy of mutual profit and a comfortable retirement. In private, I reserved equanimity, and when I heard about the stroke, I let the fantasy go with no regrets. Lucius had gotten very anxious those previous few weeks. If I didn’t meet his arbitrary schedule, he cajoled, whined at, and cursed me. When we finished up just before August, we hit the biggest crisis of our relationship, and I nearly told him to go to hell, which is something, no matter how justified, you only got to do once with Lucius. I’m grateful I didn’t. We got raves from the client, which gave him hope at a critical time that sustained him until his death.

We never got paid. The money, if it has even arrived, will be tied up in probate a long time. True to form, Lucius stubbornly refused to set his affairs in order.

My trip with Lucius at the end of December ’97 into early ’98 prefigured the arc of our relationship through the following decade and a half, from gofer to partner. Some probably thought I attached myself to him, but Lucius didn’t drive and I was one of his friends who helped him get around town. Lucius would sneer to me about minor figures in the publishing industry who indulged famous authors. “I really hate sycophants and the guys who keep them around,” he said on the phone around 2002, and then after a self-conscious pause during which he seemed to consider our relationship, he said, “I prefer minions. Minions are okay.” I helped keep him solvent, and our business arrangements always worked out well for him, not as well as they should have, given his public achievements, but as well as practical. Quoting Auda Abu Tayi from Lawrence of Arabia, he loved to say, “I’m a river to my people.” He was, but not everything that came floating down that river was an unqualified prize.

When his local friends like Leslie Howle found out I’d agreed to drive Lucius around the Southwest, in the middle of winter, to investigate rumors of killer hoboes, I imagine they were in suspense.

“This will be good for you,” he said to me. It’s not too far removed from “This is for your own good.” It’s also like Gandalf’s recruitment of Bilbo. Some years later, Lucius confessed to me how much Tolkien influenced him, along with Joseph Conrad. “I finished The Lord of the Rings and then looked for another book with ‘lord’ in the title and found Lord Jim.” However, Bilbo had a troop of companions and the incentive of treasure to be won. I had only per diem to look forward to, stingily doled out against expenses; killer hoboes instead of a dragon. And only one companion.

About a week before departure, Lucius informed me that his son Gullivar would be flying out from New York to join us for half the trip, which came as a relief, not least because Lucius didn’t drive, at all, and now I’d have someone to help out. It hadn’t occurred to me that I’d also be afforded a glimpse into their family dynamics and decades of shared history, nor that Lucius would be a very different person in the company of his son than he would be when Gullivar arrived or after he’d left.

Here I need to stop for the day, but I won’t leave you completely in suspense: Gullivar was great.

Posted in Lucius Shepard | Tagged | 3 Comments

Existentialism and Essentialism Versus Literalism

I decided to take a break from talking about Lucius to address a widespread and dismaying confusion I’ve seen reflected on Facebook since I first joined the site years ago. Existentialism and essentialism aren’t political positions. I’ve seen a couple of my fellow liberals say they “hate essentialism.” They might as cogently say they hate the direction west, or up, or down.

Essentialism and existentialism are often explained from extreme perspectives in opposition to each other. Essentialism is about defining things according to intrinsic, unchanging qualities; existentialism, according to the actions and effects things have within a temporal and spatial context. Obviously, according to naïve liberalism, existentialism is good and essentialism is bad. Essentialism leads to ideas like the special creation of animals; of real, complex things dubiously shoe-horned into abstract categories. It’s the philosophy of racism and Social Darwinism. Existentialism, on the other hand, is about freedom, the arbitrariness of categories, the unity of all life passing through an array of transitory forms that make up the phylogenetic tree.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. This is not a liberal summation of essentialism and existentialism; it’s a literalist one, and a convenient distortion of truly essentialist philosophy going back to Plato.

Special creation and Social Darwinism are not so much essentialist as literalist-essentialist. The proper arguments against them are a mixture of essentialism and existentialism, not a kneejerk literalist-existentialism that renders such categories as good and evil meaningless abstractions. The existentialist view can be pushed only so far. The Golden Rule, numbers and mathematics — these essentialist abstractions govern our lives and reflect the underlying order of the universe. We should constantly explore the freedom possible within that order, but we can’t deny the order exists. A proponent of radical existentialist freedom is like a man running in a house with invisible walls, against which he will eventually come up hard. Slow down!

Those who don’t get it will still object: “But wait! You’re arguing that radical existentialism is literalism; it’s the opposite of literalism. Literalism is essentialism!” No, no, no. Literalism is mistaking your abstractions for the real thing. It is moving from the realm of philosophy into politics and, unforgivably, trying to pass them off as equivalent. Liberals shout that conservatism leads to fascism, and conservatives that liberalism leads to totalitarian communism. Both lead to totalitarianism, both to pogroms and purges, both to thought crime and genocide. Or neither does, if people uphold the Golden Rule and assume the sometimes-excruciating but necessary burden of reason.

A healthy mind can sustain a paradox, and an educated person explores both essentialist and existentialist concepts. Carl Jung, Plato, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, Nietzsche, and Sartre aren’t sports teams. They’re thinkers. Read them all. Don’t be a literalist!

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Long Trip with Lucius, Part 1

June 12, 2014 — My friend, mentor, and tormentor Lucius Shepard’s been gone three months now, gone and not coming back, unless he keeps his promise to make a supernatural visit, revealed in a lightning flash outside the bedroom window, my cat hanging limp in his teeth. As I’ve written elsewhere, we stayed in close contact since we met in the summer of 1997, when he taught the second week of the six-week Clarion Writing Workshop I attended. Lucius lived in view of the Space Needle with two roommates, Dave Boone and Bill Tuttle, on the upper floor of a yellow clapboard two-story with white trim. Since he didn’t have to leave town after his week, he was able to attend all the weekend parties.

I didn’t stand out for him, I think, not until we were leaving the third-week party at Greg and Astrid Bear’s house. Les Howle had driven up out front, and he’d just opened the door to take the passenger seat. Lucius was six-four. “Ursine” probably best describes him in his later years. He bulked large and had a thick beard and tromped heavily around his apartment. (Dave Boone relates how Lucius once answered a knock at the door, to be confronted by a man and his little girl, neighbors from downstairs. “See,” the man told his daughter, “he’s not a monster.”) As usual, when facing any vehicle smaller than a Humvee, Lucius paused before trying to cram himself inside, and thinking this might be our final meeting, I said, “Thanks, it’s been an honor.” He cocked his head and really focused on me then. It made me apprehensive. A rueful smile quirked his mouth. He didn’t say it, but he might as well have: “Prove it.”

Lucius began calling soon after the workshop ended. We had lunch a few times and saw movies together. I’d quit my editing job at Wizards of the Coast at the beginning of the year with the intention of getting back in after Clarion West and after I’d finished a novel. The novel wasn’t going so hot; neither were my attempts to get my job back. “You’ve got to take yourself in hand,” Lucius would say on the phone while my attention was divided by the busy orcs and dwarves of a video game. In late August over beer — I had a beer, but Lucius had a Diet Pepsi — and burgers at the 45th Street Alehouse, we exchanged story ideas. We sat in the middle of the room. Sunlight streamed through the windows, backlighting Lucius, who preferred the view into the gloomy interior. He shared a tragic Russian fable; oligarchs would bid on a perfect rose, and one hopelessly enamored of a beautiful prostitute would spend a fortune on the rose in an act of futility. Three years later he’d finish something like it and get it published in F&SF as “Eternity and Afterward.” I told him about the Lovecraft anthology I was managing and my novel-in-progress involving AI-driven combat armor whose life-support systems would eventually subsume the wearer. He shook his head. “You’re really not that kind of writer; you want to write this pulp stuff, but you’re a realism guy, not a genre guy. How old are you?” I told him twenty-eight. “Time’s ticking, man. This is your life. You’ve got to get busy.”

In December, after I’d been turned down by Wizards of the Coast for rehire and by Microsoft for a major editing gig, Lucius called with a proposal. He led up to it, hearing out my employment woes, keen on the fact that my schedule was wide open. “Say, Spin Magazine commissioned a long piece from me. I need a driver to take me through the Southwest over New Year’s. You want to do it.

“This will be good for you.”

Posted in Lucius Shepard | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Arguing Evolution on Facebook

Here’s a redacted transcript of a discussion on evolution that I conducted on Facebook. It ranged into the familiar territory of religion and politics. I think some very interesting points were made. Many thanks to my friend Ken McGlothlen for allowing me to post his arguments. If anyone else involved in the thread wants me to restore their words, please contact me. Out of concern for people’s privacy, I omitted a lot of stuff I would like to put back in.

Arguing Evolution on Facebook

Posted in Evolution, Religion | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Do Unto Others…

… As You Would Have Them Do Unto You is axiomatic. It’s baked into the universe. All your attempts to claim an exemption will not help you create a finer morality.

Sam Harris’s project to make a science of morality is doomed to failure. I like reading Harris; he’s a bright guy and good theater. But don’t be fooled: morality is not science, any more than a hammer is inherently good or bad.

On another topic: tomorrow, I’m going to share a redacted Facebook thread where friends and I discussed evolution with a person who, though not identifying as a Creationist, certainly championed the Creationist view.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

An Apology for Biotech

I would like to tone down unfocused alarm over GM tech, not the application of it but the tech itself. For about eighty years, companies have induced random mutations in plants with high radiation, analogous to blind surgery performed with shotguns. And the way nature usually modifies a genome is little different, except in the caliber of the ammunition. But the new targeted gene modification techniques, like those using CRISPR editing, are like real surgery guided by preliminary scans and precision instruments. A gene produces a polypeptide, usually a protein. Its effects will be small unless the organism is already evolved to support some radical new function, in which case the function will generally make the organism less fit. Targeted gene manipulation to improve crop yield or pest resistance tends to make organisms more dependent on us, not less. Despite what superhero comics have led us to believe, the modification of a single gene or small set of genes probably won’t unleash a plague by accident or equip a frog with laser death vision.

It is possible to willfully engineer a hazardous plant or virus, but we need to be smart about our criticisms, or we will not only exacerbate the very real problems with monoculture and world hunger that GM technology seeks to address but weaken our position in demanding reasonable oversight.

Posted in GMO, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Appealing to Nature, Just a Bit

I was just re-reading a long, fascinating and very heated evo-psych thread I started on Facebook late last year, and toward the end it veered off into philosophy. A very smart author friend of mine has strenuously argued for adopting a perspective of radical freedom, and it’s a bone of contention between us. Here’s a paraphrase of my response to him:

* * *

Our morality is an accident of evolution, negotiating fixed, impersonal laws — from one perspective. We do not really know if the universe is teleological. It will be an open question as long as there are people around to ask it.

How do we know that relativity is not relative? How do we know that our abstractions are valid? Ultimately, we pick the philosophy most aligned with our experience, and put faith in it, hopefully provisional and not dogmatic faith when we apply it to real things.

But here’s the subtle point from my admittedly essentialist bias: our moral calculus is a product of nature, but we cannot look to nature to help us apply it. One woman I argued with claimed that evo psych is one big appeal-to-nature fallacy. Not so. We have to look outside it for moral guidance and it doesn’t pretend otherwise. That’s what science is about — objectivity, value neutrality — and what morality is about is what works best among humans, in the long run. This is cultural, to an extent, but I think it’s more.

We have to ask, has the condition of women improved under “patriarchal” Western culture? Apparently so. But is that improvement a direct effect of our culture, or a side effect? To the extent that our culture is a patriarchy, it’s a side effect. Our culture fostered birth control and lifesaving medical technology that made it possible for women to assert themselves, sometimes with the help of men. Political conservatives tend to view patriarchy as a direct cause; feminists argue correctly that it’s not. The most repressive cultures on earth are patriarchies. But replacing them with matriarchies would be a similar horror. Our culture is moral to the extent that it promotes human freedom and gender equality. From what do I derive that value? From a broad view, from my innate sense of fairness, and, yes, from my faith.

* * *

In short, a little essentialism, a little openness to the idea that we are each variously biased by nature and have to work hard to overcome that bias, is only fair. We are neither radically free nor incapable of confronting and changing our attitudes. I like to emphasize, though, that if you don’t make allowance for nature, for hard facts, then you will not make a better world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

A Great Tool, but a Treacherous Weapon

The proper use of evolutionary psychology in the gender wars is to facilitate a truce. If you have equipped yourself with the logic in order to support the gender or political side you’re identified with in its grievances against another, you’re doing it wrong. Insofar as it’s good science, evolutionary psychology is value-neutral; you can use it for good or bad. As a tool for progress and civilization, it can inspire us to suspend judgment about other people, to respect that their needs may not be quite the same as our own, and to use that space of doubt to be compassionate. Again, this is why I like Daniel Copeland’s essays on evolutionary psychology. He seems to get it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment