johncwright: The Prometheus Award

John C. Wright (

johncwright) wrote,
@ 2009-07-10 13:00:00

The Prometheus Award
Well...THE GOLDEN AGE did not win the Prometheus award it was up for...but neither did the other books I was expecting. Instead, LORD OF THE RINGS won the coveted prize.

http://sfscope.com/2009/07/2009-prometheus-award-winners.html

Funny that a tale of mystical Norse-medieval sentiment would win out over an openly pro-Libertarian morality play about individual effort. Gee, I even had a scene where one character lectures another on Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage, and in the appendix I mention the drawbacks of allowing a central bank to interfere with the credit market. Whether it is good or bad storytelling to mention Ricardo in an SFF book, I would have thought this was the sort of thing pro-free-market readers would rejoice to read.

Ah well, maybe artistic merit counts for more than partisan ideological purity after all. So I dare not complain.

However, this means I will not be writing that science-fictionalized version of F. A. Hayek I had been planning: THE GALACTIC ROAD TO STAR SERFDOM, in which R. John Galt, a golden robot programmed with the Three Laws of von Mises, together with space-outlaw Santiago and the smart-alec detective "Win" Bear Kropotkin, matches wits with the evil parallel-universe version of Hari Seldon who, just as the Galaxy is breaking free of Imperial dominion from the planet Splendid Wisdom, uses Cleometry, the predictive science of history, to attempt to smother cosmic freedom once more into a single Second Empire, by means of credit and currency manipulation. Hijinks abound when robot Galt falls in love with the fierce yet lovely space-locomotive magnate Dagny D'Anconia. You'll be breathless with boredom at the fifty-page long speech the superrobot gives over galactic radio, explaining his metaphysics, epistemology, and economic theory!

Instead I will write something staring a space princess. I mean, if Tolkein can win the Prometheus Award by portraying a divinely sanctioned monarch like Aragorn (Elessar I to historians) I should be able to do the same with my Princess Aura-Leia.

(26 comments) - (Post a new comment)

jordan179
2009-07-10 05:59 pm UTC (link)

You'll be breathless with boredom at the fifty-page long speech the superrobot gives over galactic radio, explaining his metaphysics, epistemology, and economic theory!

Speech? No, he neurolinks directly into people's minds, and his words are so wonderful that forever after, in moments of bliss, they remember that speech. In DETAIL.

In the sequel, this causes the Galactic civilization to become careless of their lives and hence expand to other island universes in dangerous and untested ships.

(Reply to this)

	An Unfortunate Truth coheleth 2009-07-10 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	You'll be breathless with boredom at the fifty-page long speech the superrobot gives over galactic radio, explaining his metaphysics, epistemology, and economic theory! The sad thing is, I probably wouldn't be bored at all... (Reply to this)

	More Chances for Prometheus? gray_roger 2009-07-10 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	The "Hall of Fame" award would be ongoing, I would guess. Maybe next year? You might consider having Atkins kindle a quasar and direct it at the "evil Hari". Using two hyper-novas won't do. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: More Chances for Prometheus? johncwright 2009-07-10 06:46 pm UTC (link)
	Or smash the evil planet Ploor like an egg between two planets traveling faster than the speed of light from a nearby continuum with differing laws of nature. Then paste their sun. That'll show em. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	decisions moscoweast 2009-07-10 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	That the 'Libertarian Futurist Society' can have chosen the Lord of the Rings over your own trilogy mystifies me. 'Libertarian' - yours is explicitly so, whilst LOTR can perhaps be viewed in that light; 'Futurist' - 'the Golden Age' is, of course, whilst LOTR requires a massive stretch in plausibility to make it so. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: decisions johncwright 2009-07-10 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	I assume they just did not read, or did not enjoy my book, or thought the message in LOTR held more promise of future liberty than my own humble work. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: decisions

jacksontom
2009-07-14 02:36 am UTC (link)

Mr. Wright,
The nominating committee for the Prometheus Hall of Fame award had 15 nominees, and six were selected as finalists, among them THE GOLDEN AGE. So I'm sure the members of that committee read and enjoyed your book. Obviously, there's a chance you will be on the ballot again in future years. I assume you are disappointed you were not nominated when the book was first published. That's understandable, but it's not something we can fix now. Speaking only for myself, and not for any other members of the Libertarian Futurist Society, I thought LORD OF THE RINGS, THE GOLDEN AGE and COURTSHIP RITE were all outstanding nominees, and I would have been happy to see any of them win the award. Tom Jackson, clevelandokie.blogspot.com

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: decisions johncwright 2009-07-17 09:40 pm UTC (link)
	Aw, shucks, I weren't complaining. It's an honor to be nominated. Like I said above, my book is not going to win the prize on artistic merit. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: decisions arhyalon 2009-07-11 12:46 am UTC (link)
	That John did not win did not overly surprise me...that Courtship Rite did not win was a shock. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: decisions carbonelle 2009-07-11 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	*Nods* Mind you, as books go, LOTR is the better book. I don't think Courtship Rite would hold up over a lifetime's yearly re-reading from age 8 to age... several decades later. Ahem. But as a Promethean Hall of Famer? Yep. If they give awards for movies, Chicken Run is a shoe in... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: decisions arhyalon 2009-07-17 02:03 pm UTC (link)
	Sure...but the award is to the most Libertarian book, not the best one. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: decisions

whswhs
2009-08-09 03:55 pm UTC (link)

Courtship Rite was one of the books I nominated for the award; The Lord of the Rings was another. But neither one was my own top choice this year; that was Kipling's airship utopia "As Easy as A.B.C."

But with Hall of Fame awards, looking at a single year's nominees in isolation is the wrong time perspective. Tolkien was a finalist for several years before this year's victory. It takes time for a work to get read by enough of the voting members, and more time, often, for them to think about why it's relevant to libertarianism (the standard is "the best book that's (a) science fiction, fantasy, or another of the fantastic genres and (b) relevant to libertarian concerns in certain defined ways", not "the most libertarian book"—as a long-time LFS member, I've read several indisputably libertarian books that were extremely poorly written!).

Now I dearly love Courtship Rite, not just for the impressive integration of mathematical optimization, game theory, evolutionary biology, and public choice economics that motivates its action, but for the quality of the writing; the climactic scene where Oelita the Heretic begs her God's forgiveness is one of the most brilliant jobs of getting-the-reader-into-an-alien-cultural-mindset I've ever seen. But Kingsbury does not use any of the normal libertarian catchphrases, and in fact I have the impression he thinks of himself as a socialist; the congruity of his ideas with libertarianism is less in the conclusions than in the underlying analytical methodology, which is harder for readers to grasp. I'm encouraged by the fact that it made it to the final round this year; perhaps more of the judges are coming to see its relevance. Unlike

carbonelle, I do reread it regularly with pleasure, though not such intense pleasure as Tolkien gives me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: decisions arhyalon 2009-08-10 02:58 am UTC (link)
	Really, it's a great honor to be nominated for any award...and books win for many reasons. I think the reason stated for Tolkein winning makes a great deal of sense...even though, taken out of that context, the choice seems kind of funny. I haven't read "As Easy as A.B.C." I should look it up. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: decisions

whswhs
2009-08-10 01:32 pm UTC (link)

I also recommend the companion story, "With the Night Mail," though it's not a suitable Hall of Fame nominee, having a more narrowly technological focus. On the other hand, if you can find the full version Kipling worked up, which not only is presented as a feature story in a future magazine, but provides the rest of the magazine, including classified ads, official notices about air traffic, and book reviews, it's quite impressive as a piece of worldbuilding.

"As Easy as A.B.C." is an impressive demonstration of Kipling's skill as a writer. Watch, for example, the recurrent use of the phrase "and all that that implies," which starts out as a dry legalistic formula and takes on a steadily increasing emotional intensity. The Prometheus Award can't do much to bring Tolkien new readers; but the Kipling story is not read as often as it should be, and getting it more readers is exactly the purpose that justifies having a Hall of Fame Award, to my mind.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	m_francis 2009-07-10 08:33 pm UTC (link)
	Seems to me that LOTR is more about community and tradition and the debts we owe to each other and to our forebearers than it is to the libertarian ideal of the atomic individual pursuing his own goods. YMMV,BYWBW (Reply to this) (Thread)

whswhs
2009-08-10 02:25 pm UTC (link)

One of the categories of libertarian relevance that the LFS uses (or "applicability," to use Tolkien's own word) is "warning against the dangers of authoritarian political institutions and the abuse of political power." Tolkien gave us a memorable symbol for that in the One Ring, especially if you accept T. L. Shippey's reading of it in Author of the Century as showing the exercise of power over others as addicting.

"Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is through pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused."

Don't you wish American politicians were capable of understanding that idea?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

m_francis
2009-08-10 03:48 pm UTC (link)

I wish even more so that the politicians of certain other countries would understand that. Here, at least, there are structures that provide barriers. The Founders knew that they could not change human nature - the will to power of politicians is the same elevation of the autonomous individual that drives libertarians - so they put as many impediments in the way of that will as they could. There are places where there are no such structures, and no pretense; no effort to ameliorate this "original sin."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Huh?

botticelli_s
2009-07-10 08:40 pm UTC (link)

The Golden Age much more closely resembles The Probability Broach than does The Lord of the Rings.

If TLOR has been cheated of the Prometheus Award all these years, then what to make of that fantabulous novel -- what the heck is it called -- you know, Kropotkin plays a major role in it, too -- Prince Piotr Kropotkin and Murray Rothbard are the secret heads of a secret society of secret libertarians, who secretly sabotage large-scale bad politico-economic policies by secretly not interfering with the credit market, thereby discouraging malinvestment by sending correct signals to investors about the relative risks and amount of money available, or something. It was the best novel I've read since...since...The Gold Standard My Destination.

(Reply to this)

kokorognosis
2009-07-10 10:18 pm UTC (link)

Only 50 pages? You're slacking, sir. I did not want to throw my copy of Atlas Shrugged until page 93 of Galt's speech.

The book remained steadfastly unthrown for two reasons: One, The only other book I have thrown against a wall was a combination of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes poems, and I could not put Atlas Shrugged in that category. Two, Aircraft dent very easily and I did not want to hurt one of our planes :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	harrisaa 2009-07-11 02:14 am UTC (link)
	I used to always skip the speeches when I read Atlas Shrugged. They aren't necessary to the plot and a good (that is, not terrified of Ayn Rand and her Objectivists) editor would have advised removing them or cutting them down to a brief summary: "And then Galt proceeded to tell all the looters off in no uncertain terms." Something like that. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

kokorognosis
2009-07-11 02:42 am UTC (link)

Should I feel like sinking another three weeks of my life into Atlas Shrugged again, I will probably skip that part-- I highly agree with you on the editing there. The first time, though... It was something of a matter of perverse pride for me to not skip it, as I was advised to do by just about everyone that had read the book. I read the whole thing, painful as that chapter was.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jordan179 2009-07-11 06:23 am UTC (link)
	I read it in about a day and a third. Of straight reading, doing almost nothing else during that period other than eating, sleeping and the like. I really liked it, too. (Reply to this) (Parent)

belriose
2009-07-11 11:03 am UTC (link)

I am always a bit surprised when it comes to this...
I have never read a second time the whole book but I lost track of the times I did with D'Anconia's speech for example.

Even now every time I hear someone talking about the corrupting nature of money I hear a voice in my head saying "run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil". Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit that I did it, almost literally, in several occasions...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Speech! Speech!

johncwright
2009-07-13 02:37 pm UTC (link)

I actually like the John Galt speech, and thought it was bold of the author to put it in. It is not easy to make straight-up philosophy and economics interesting, and I honestly think Ayn Rand does the best job of it I can recall.

I am not saying readers uninterested in her philosophy will find the long speech interesting: I am saying I doubt another author could have done it better. Had it been left out, the book would have been less memorable, even if it had been a better read.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Speech! Speech!

kokorognosis
2009-07-13 06:32 pm UTC (link)

Even though I was interested in what she had to say-- there are areas where I agree with Rand, even if there are some areas where I feel she is contemptible and sleezy-- I found the chapter hideously boring. Primarily, I felt that she had just spent 900 pages expounding upon her philosophy, and that spending another 75 pages on it, as a sermon, was... bad art. Atlas Shrugged isn't exactly subtle, but I have to say it's generally pretty beautiful-- except for the 75 page sermon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Speech! Speech!

whswhs
2009-08-09 03:38 pm UTC (link)

I've come to think that the speeches, and especially Galt's speech, have a perfectly logical structural role in the story. Atlas Shrugged is essentially a pulp novel on a grand scale, complete with a classic pulp twist plot reversal (the same one that Alan Moore used in Watchmen, in fact); and it's an old tradition for pulp villains to make long speeches where they explain their motives, the ethical justifications for their actions, and the details and inevitable success of their master plans. And John Galt is the hidden mastermind whose villainous plot to destroy the American economy the heroes have been investigating all through the novel. Of course he has to make a speech! It's perfectly in idiom.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(26 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs