?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Retro Review: Edmond Hamilton, "The Man Who Evolved" (1931) - jordan179
October 5th, 2007
06:38 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Retro Review: Edmond Hamilton, "The Man Who Evolved" (1931)
My second review of an Edmond Hamilton short story



Synopsis

Arthur Wright (the narrator) and Hugh Dutton, two old chums from college days, once campus tearabouts and now solid citizens, are invited to visit their old friend and former roommate Dr. John Pollard. Wright tells us in advance that something terrible happened that night, something so terrible that Dutton went mad and Dr. Pollard "met that night a fate whose horror none could dream" (1).

So we know this isn't going to be a retelling of campus hijinx.

After dinner, Dr. Pollard shows them his work. He has been experimenting with the mechanism of evolution.

He says that he has discovered the main cause to be "cosmic rays" (2), and that he has developed a device which can concentrate cosmic rays, screen out their harmful effects, and amplify their evolutionary ones, thus rapidly evolving the subject into its future form (3). He hopes to use this to answer the question as to the final evolutionary destiny of Man.

Naturally, he's going to test it on himself (4).

His friends attempt to dissuade him, but of course this doesn't work. Fifteen minutes of exposure, he explains, will correspond to 50 million years of natural evolution (5). He will proceed by 50-million periods.

50 million years. Pollard emerges "transfigured, godlike!" Basically he has a perfect body, a noble brow, and "radiant" eyes. He has become everything Man has always dreamed of being (6). He appears to be super-intelligent.

However, he decides to continue the experiment ...

100 million years. Pollard is no longer godlike in appearance. Instead, he has a head a foot and a half in diameter, with big eyes, a small mouth, and a weakened body. His voice has become thin and weak, but he has gained the power of mind control, and he forces his friends to turn on the rays again.

150 million years. Pollard has now become a great head, three feet in diameter, supported by a ridiculously small body. His mind control powers have increased, and he has decided that he shall conquer the world (7). He is about to do just that, when his friends convince him that he would benefit by more cosmic radiation. Despite his super-intelligence, he agrees to this.

200 million years. Pollard is now just a "walking, seeing brain," his remaining body consisting of two great tentacles. He no longer has a voice, but his mental powers are now so great that he no longer needs one. Fortunately, he has now grown so super-intelligent that he has outgrown the desire for Evil Overlord status (8). He does want to continue the experiment, though ...

250 million years. Pollard is now just a Brain. No body needed, no body required. His mental powers now give him complete telekinetic control over his surroundings; he feeds off pure energy drawn from the surrounding Universe. He has lost all emotions, and all that is now left is curiosity. He has Wright pull the switch ...

300 million years. Pollard is just a mass of protoplasmic slime. Dutton sees this and goes mad (9), wrecking the laboratory (and apparently killing the Pollard-slime). Wright drags the "insanely laughing" Dutton from the burning house, and the story ends.

The real horror, of course, was not Pollard's death -- if he died at all. It was discovering that the ultimate fate of human evolution was to return to the protoplasmic slime that spawned life itself. Is all existence pointless? Or is there something beyond that slime, something Wright missed.

Wright does not know, and the mystery will forever haunt him.

Analysis

This is a concept (theme) centered story, and the concept is a powerful one. The mechanism for accelerated evolution is of course absurd, but the mechanism is only a narrative engine to drive the exploration of the theme. The theme is -- what is or can be the human future?

Nowadays, we might imagine something like the Singularity. But when this story was written, the idea of artificially enhancing human capabilities through electronically enhancing our minds had not yet been conceived: the one method known to generate superior intelligence was biological evolution.

The 50 Million AD Man is the superman of late 19th / early 20th century mainstream philosophy: the man of godlike physique, noble visage, and demi-divine intellect, the imbiber of H. G. Wells' Food of the Gods. Note that Wright and Dutton are awed, not horrified, by his appearance.

The other Men of the Future who appear exemplify the early 20th century science-fictional assumption that Man would evolve further by gradual increases in the size of the brain and reductions in the size of the body. Note the rather Doc Smithian concept that this involves an attainment of gradually increasing psychic powers (10).

Early 20th century science had no appreciation of the survival value of emotion, and (under the influence of Logical Postivism) tended to assume that it was a mere vestige of pre-sapience which would wither away as we grew more intelligent. Note that the Men of the Future, aside from the first one, display increasingly less emotional affect.

And note that this turns them first evil (11) and then utterly passionless. The man of 100 Million AD is domineering; the man of 150 Million AD wants to be an Evil Overlord, the men of 200 and 250 Million AD are increasingly driven by pure intellectual curiosity.

In the end, we are left with what seems like a meaningless cycle -- up from slime, returning to slime.

Or was there more?

Hamilton leaves this open, and in doing so really makes this a tale worth remembering and discussing.

This story has been anthologized a lot, and deservedly so.

===
(1) When a writer states something like this, he is not merely foreshadowing, he is more or less laying down a challenge to the reader: "This story will be really good." Lovecraft did this more than once, and met the challenge; and so does Hamilton.

---
(2) Cosmic rays are quite real. What they do in this story isn't. But hey, they had only been discovered 19 years before this story had been published. By analogy, think of the use of "quantum computing" or "nanotech" in quite a lot of modern sf to mean "magic."

---
(3) This is terrible biology, only partly excusable by the fact that the role of DNA in heredity wouldn't be understood until 22 years from the writing of this tale. Evolution works by natural selection among available variation; all that radiation can do is create random mutation. Furthermore, evolution works across successive generations -- one could not mutate a single organism into other forms. Finally, there is no such thing as an organism's "destined future form" -- not from the POV of the present, anyway.

OTOH, at least the idea was original when Hamilton used it. And he hangs a great story on the device. So I'll forgive him for this. Grudgingly, because evolutionary biology happens to be one of my pet studies.

---
(4) There is no evidence in the story itself that he has tested the device on anything else, even a rodent. Maybe the concept of a super-intelligent, ultra-psionic rodent from was just too terrible to contemplate ...

"So, bipedal ape-things. Long enough have we run in your wheels! Now, all Mankind shall run in the wheels of ... Ham-Starr, Rodent From the Far Future!"

Or something like that.

---
(5) Given the lack of actual testing, I'm not sure how Pollard knows this. He may just be extrapolating from the concentration relative to natural exposure, which is not all that good an assumption to make.

---
(6) Or everything nerdly science fiction fans of the 1930's, obsessed with the doctrines of eugenics and physical culture, ever dreamed of being. Anyway, he's a Manly Man, at this point.

---
(7) Anticipating by several years the desires of Stapledon's rather similar race of "Fourth Men." But Stapledon claimed that he never read American pulp science fiction ..

---
(8) Which is good, because with his ultra super-duper intelligence, he probably would have included the Evil Overlord List in his Visualization of the Cosmic All, and been unstoppable.

---
(9) It's probably for the best that this wasn't a Lovecraft story. Dutton seems more than a bit excitable: after all, the slime wasn't doing anything more horrible than "quivering." Yes, it used to be his friend, but still ... in a Lovecraft story, Dutton would have been toast.

---
(10) This story was written after A Skylark of Space but before John W. Campbell's rise to influence in the science fiction community.

---
(11) Though a Logically Positivist Technocrat would deny the validity of "evil" as an operational concept.

===

Current Mood: contentcontent
Tags: , , ,

(20 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:October 6th, 2007 05:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I love the story, and your review makes me want to read it again.

BTW, do you have any intention of reviewing Hamilton's classic Thundering Worlds? I think that's the title, anway; about how the planets of the solar system get turned into giant space arks and are sent rocketing across space in a giant fleet?

BTW, if you want to see a review of some bad SF/horror, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the review I just posted on my LJ concerning the 70's schlocktacular Day of the Animals.
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:October 10th, 2007 11:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Eric, I loved your review of Day of the Animals. And yes, I will do "Thundering Worlds" -- it's a great story, and in the anthology I'm using as a sourcebook.
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:October 10th, 2007 11:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the vote on the review. Now I'm thinking of getting the film on DVD to see how my childhood memories stack up next to the actual film.

And this anthology wouldn't happen to be "The Best of Edmond Hamilton", would it?
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:October 11th, 2007 02:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Why yes, it is that book, The Best of Edmond Hamilton. Not the only place I've ever read his stories, but one of the best places to find a bunch of them together.

Hamilton is greatly undervalued today. I didn't even realize that he'd written an interstellar-civilization series far predating "Doc" Smith's Galactic Patrol, for instance, until one of the stories was reprinted quite recently in a space-opera anthology.
[User Picture]
From:polaris93
Date:March 18th, 2011 03:28 am (UTC)
(Link)
I just looked up Day of the Animals online. It's definitely a seriously bad movie -- the tomatoes haven't merely gone rotten, they've returned . . . to the primordial slime (speaking of which). Bwa-AH-ah-ah! ;-)
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:March 22nd, 2011 03:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If you think that DotA was bad, next you should hunt down either Devil Dog: Hound of Hell (Satan rapes a German Sheperd and spawns a canine Anti-Christ who gets killed by a magic Peruvian Indian tattoo) or Zoltan: Dracula's Dog, in which Dracula vampirizes a Doberman which then chows down on various other dogs, including little puppies who then turn into ankle-biters in the worst possible way.

It's sad to think that in both of those films, the dogs were the best actors they had!
[User Picture]
From:zornhau
Date:October 6th, 2007 06:31 pm (UTC)

Leigh Brackett

(Link)
So, how do you rate his wife?
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:October 7th, 2007 06:35 am (UTC)

Re: Leigh Brackett

(Link)
Leigh Brackett was great, and a bridge between the Golden Age of Planetary Romances and Modern Space Opera, in her authorship of both the Eric John Stark series (which she continued well after the emergence of the New Wave) and of the script for The Empire Strikes Back. She's not as well known as the female half of the other great husband-and-wife Golden Age writing couple, C. L. Moore, and I'm not sure why. It's possible that she may have been putting a lot of effort into assisting her husband, as Hamilton's work seems to improve greatly in the 1940's. Though that could be Hamilton's own development as a writer.
[User Picture]
From:zornhau
Date:October 7th, 2007 08:11 am (UTC)

Re: Leigh Brackett

(Link)
Or was it that she sloped off to Hollywood?

Her collected works are out in Fantasy Masterworks, and they rock. Much better than CL Moore.

Very lush vision. Very tight style - another way in which she was a bridge.
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:October 10th, 2007 11:38 pm (UTC)

Re: Leigh Brackett

(Link)
I dunno if Brackett is that much better than Moore; they're both very fine writers in my opinion. Though I do love Brackett's sword-and-planet Mars and Venus more than Northwest Smith, grand as he is.
[User Picture]
From:zornhau
Date:October 11th, 2007 07:58 am (UTC)

Re: Leigh Brackett

(Link)
Brackett feels more modern to me; Moore more pulpy. But, yes, they're both very fine.
[User Picture]
From:eric_hinkle
Date:October 11th, 2007 03:43 pm (UTC)

Re: Leigh Brackett

(Link)
Which is odd, considering that they both wrote at the same time.
[User Picture]
From:zornhau
Date:October 11th, 2007 04:00 pm (UTC)

Re: Leigh Brackett

(Link)
There is much oddness as the new and the old overlap. here's one which always gets me:

Rafael Sabatini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Sabatini) Popular thriller writer in his times, hard to read these days, 1875-1950.
Anthony "Prisoner of Zenda" Hope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hope): Still basically a good thriller read: 1863-1933.

[User Picture]
From:johncwright
Date:October 10th, 2007 06:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I remember reading this story some three decades ago, and while much of my reading that was forgotten, this short was recalled. I had forgotten who wrote it.
One might almost say Science Fiction is concerned primarily with evolution, especially the future evolution of man. H.G. Wells, both in his Morlocks and his Martians makes a commentary on it, not to mention in The Island of Dr. Moreau. The idea that evolution will evolve man into superhumanity is alluring; The idea that evolution will evolve man into inhumanity is striking and horrific; the idea that evolution cares not a fig for man and his ambitions, and that our fate is nothing but slime is as cold as shock as THE COLD EQUATIONS.

Science Fiction often returns to the theme of the sheer non-anthropomorphic-ness (if I may coin an awkward term) of the universe.

Oddly, I do not think this story could be told in such a simple and powerful way if anything like real biology was used. The whole point of the story is that one man turns himself into the superman.
[User Picture]
From:dreamer_marie
Date:October 10th, 2007 08:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hey Jordan,
Completely unrelated, but here is an editorial on a topic that I know you're passionate about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/the-myth-of-muslim-condem_b_67904.html
I know it's not really your side of the aisle, but it makes a great point and provides some good links.
Take care,
Marie
[User Picture]
From:theferret
Date:October 18th, 2007 06:24 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hi there,

I just noticed you added me so I wanted to say hi and make sure you meant me and not theferrett. If you did mean me, hi and I'll add you back. :) If not, no harm done. It happens a lot.
[User Picture]
From:jordan179
Date:October 19th, 2007 05:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
Hi, yep I meant you :)
[User Picture]
From:theferret
Date:October 19th, 2007 05:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm all kinds of flattered now. :D
[User Picture]
From:polaris93
Date:July 24th, 2010 09:11 am (UTC)
(Link)
4) There is no evidence in the story itself that he has tested the device on anything else, even a rodent. Maybe the concept of a super-intelligent, ultra-psionic rodent from was just too terrible to contemplate ...

"So, bipedal ape-things. Long enough have we run in your wheels! Now, all Mankind shall run in the wheels of ... Ham-Starr, Rodent From the Far Future!"


ROFLMAO!!!

(11) Though a Logically Positivist Technocrat would deny the validity of "evil" as an operational concept.

Until he got mugged. Or worse. Funny how that can totally reshape your attitude in a real hurry!
[User Picture]
From:polaris93
Date:March 18th, 2011 03:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
Early 20th century science had no appreciation of the survival value of emotion, and (under the influence of Logical Postivism) tended to assume that it was a mere vestige of pre-sapience which would wither away as we grew more intelligent. Note that the Men of the Future, aside from the first one, display increasingly less emotional affect. And note that this turns them first evil (11) and then utterly passionless. The man of 100 Million AD is domineering; the man of 150 Million AD wants to be an Evil Overlord, the men of 200 and 250 Million AD are increasingly driven by pure intellectual curiosity. In the end, we are left with what seems like a meaningless cycle -- up from slime, returning to slime.

In this story Hamilton nicely demonstrates how useful that conceit about the "uselessness" of the emotions is. Except I think that real slime, i.e., bacterial mats, slime molds, and similar creatures, would have been ashamed that that idiot even physically resembled them.

Stanley Weinbaum and Olaf Stapledon both tackled the question of just how realistic and mentally health that idea is; for both of them, it finally came up empty. And they were right: our emotions are where we live. As for the intellect, it was made for the emotional brain -- and life itself, and not the latter two for it. Emotions are all about the meaning of our lives, and they include what there is of our social intelligence -- and thus our reproductive intelligence, how we get along with our mates and our children and their children. Lacking such intelligence, we would quickly become extinct. Emotions are part of life itself; without them, our lives would be living deaths. I think that's part of what Hamilton is saying in this story, and what Stapledon and Weinbaum were saying in their fiction: rather than the ivory-tower intellectual, it is the artist in us that is the most able at living life productively and perpetuating the species. If we have to make an exclusive choice between those two modes of living, we are far better off if we choose to be the artist.

Though a Logically Positivist Technocrat would deny the validity of "evil" as an operational concept.

So much for Logical Positivism and LP Technocratism. :-(P (Okay, so how does one make the "Mr. Yuk" smiley?)
Fantastic Worlds. Powered by LiveJournal.com