Love in the Night
What was Hodgson attempting in his treatment of the
erotic in THE NIGHT LAND and THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND?
The erotic aspects of Hodgson's work have been universally and justly
abused. What on earth was he trying to do?
To properly read THE NIGHT LAND is
to experience one of the strangest
blends of love, terror, and profound awe that any book can
produce. But it is also to shake one's head at some of the
worst "erotic" writing that has ever been perpetrated: writing
which apparently combines the worst sugar-sweet Victorian idealism with
the philosophy of John Norman's GOR.
It's not just that Hodgson's ideas about male dominance are unfashionable.
No doubt it is true that he believed that men should have a higher
status than women: but he can hardly be attacked for this. Today's
standards are tomorrow's absurdities,
and male-dominated societies have been the norm throughout human history.
The problem is that the
female lead in THE NIGHT LAND is a dummy, a picture, an ideal without guts,
with no character whatever.
This is the great flaw in the heart of THE NIGHT LAND, and
must be addressed.
In defence of Naani
A certain amount can be adduced to soften the universal
condemnation of Naani (or rather, of Hodgson's treatment of her).
First of all, until she appears she is a
marvellously powerful image.
As X frequently tells us, the isolation of the
Redoubts within the Land is similar, on its
own scale, to the isolation of a planet within interstellar space
(marvellous metaphor!)
The Redoubts are, as it were, little Earths; and the fall of the
Lesser Redoubt is the end of a world. While Naani remains a voice
in the night, she remains an ideal, and in
a literary sense a very powerful one, for she is the ultimate damsel in
distress, a woman in the ultimate Trap, because she is trapped in a dying
world.
The ending of the first half of THE NIGHT LAND -
with X calling in despair to Naani through the
Night from outside the ruined and Monster-haunted
Lesser Redoubt, and being answered -
must remain as one of the greatest eucatastrophes in all literature.
Secondly - despite showing up badly in comparison
to her armed and trained
rescuer from the Great Redoubt - Naani is in fact no
weakling; she survives a month alone in the
Night Land before her rescue, without protective clothing or
other equipment, which is no mean feat;
She swiftly hardens up to the return journey,
a little matter of
sixteen hours a day of walking over hard terrain;
she works, she thinks, and at several points she fights
effectively, though armed with nothing more than a knife.
Thirdly - and perhaps more importantly - one
may justly argue that, though Hodgson goes too far,
the depiction of Naani as comparatively
helpless would be simple
realism: and that the modern fashion for showing women in the role of
supercompetent warriors is ridiculous, and proceeds from an unholy
alliance of juvenile
male sexual fantasy and juvenile female feminist dogmatism rather
than any sort of respect for women.
Naani may not
be the equal of X in a fight, but women are not physically equal to men in hand-to-hand combat, and
professional violence, a stupid life-choice for anyone, is doubly so
for a woman.
I will elaborate on this last statement in a footnote to this essay.
Despite which . . .
Despite which, and despite all qualifiers, it must be reiterated that
the depiction of Naani in her relationship to X
is a total disaster, compounded of shamfaced lubricity,
weakly sadistic fantasies of domination,
and preposterous idealisation. I will not adduce quotes, which can be found
easily enough: in common with most fans of THE NIGHT LAND I skip those bits.
The problem is not so much that Naani is physically weaker than X;
it is, as I said, that she is psychologically weaker as well. Or rather,
her personality as a human is simply absent.
One may charitably suppose that,
when he wrote THE NIGHT LAND,
Hodgson didn't understand women and
had no experience of women: and one may add this is ignorance is
excusable in a young man,
too poor to marry, writing in 1905: but its effect remains.
What Hodgson was attempting
We can agree that Hodgson failed: but what was he attempting to do?
I believe Hodgson's treatment of the erotic was neither
superficial icing
nor a clumsy attempt at pornography. I think it
was part of a serious attempt to build a theory of
the human condition that was consistent with existence
in a god-less, and radically Entropic, universe.
Let us briefly reprise Hodgsons' ideas of the human condition.
-
- That human beings
have an eternal core - a Spirit or Soul - which is by nature immortal,
though it can be destroyed and consumed:
-
- That human life consists
of successive reincarnation of this Spirit within various fleshy tenements.
Males are (presumably) always reincarnated as males: females as females.
This is seen in THE NIGHT LAND, where X and Naani/Mirdath
remember cloudy hints from a series
of previous lives: for example in this, one of Hodgson's
most memorable passages,
Naani recalls a past which X does not, a past
when the Cities "Moved always to the Westward"
...she did strive with her Memory. But in the end, did
fail to come unto aught of clearness, save that she did
see, as in a far dream, yet very plain, a great metal roadway,
set in two lines that went forever unto the setting Sun; and
she then sudden to say that she did see in her memory the Sun,
and she to have a strange and troubled amazement upon her.
And there did be Cities upon the great road; and the houses
did be strange-seeming, and did move forward eternally and
at a constant speed; and behind them the Night did march
forever; and they to have an even pace with the sun, that they
live ever in the light,
and so to escape the night which pursued forever...
The picture we get is that of lovers doubtfully meeting and parting,
repeatedly, through all eternity: sometimes missing each
other and falling
into false partnerships with others, but slowly
and through many lives achieving a true union of souls.
In THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND, Hodgson goes on to envision
the continuation of this love after the death of the last life
on earth and indeed after
the destruction of the physical universe.
"Thus, we looked upon the face of the slumberous deeps,
and were alone. Alone, God, I would be thus alone in the
hereafter, and yet
be never lonely! I had her, and, greater than this, she
had me. Aye, aeon-aged
me; and on this thought, and some others, I hope to
exist through the few
remaining years that may yet lie between us.
The search for meaning
The human sprit may be immortal, but humanity, in
Hodgson's universe, has no Patron.
There may be some
benificent "forces" that try to help individual humans, but
none of these have
divine status or power. Even with their help, survival is
a matter of constant struggle and flight.
But survival merely provides the basis of being. Human existence
requires meaning,
and meaning, in a godless universe, can only be
sought in relationships with other human beings.
Within the context of the Fall of a
universal darkness, human beings find salvation and
paradise in their relationship with each other. Between adults, this
means erotic love - a love which Hodgson saw as extending
through many lives and (in THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND), as
finding a fulfilment in eternity.
And is this an utterly stupid belief?
It is certainly false -
though it oddly recalls the Omega Point ideas of
Barrow and Tipler.
But I doubt Hodgson believed it literally. And is it not at least
a more realistic and courageous vision than the supernatural religion which postulates
an omnipotent and benevolent God?
THE NIGHT LAND: A Love Tale
In THE NIGHT LAND, Hodgson let rip. His imagination was absolutely
unconstrained by the limits of previous writers. He broke ground that has
never been cultivated since.
Unfortunately Hodgson the - probable - virgin also let his erotic
imagination rip, with fairly atrocious results.
But if Hodgson's treatment of his theme of eternal,
constant, love, is grotesque, the basic idea is not necessarily
foolish, cruel or stupid.
It remains to be seen if any other writer can redeem it.
"Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies" - Aristotle
Footnote: A criticsm of "women warriors" in fantasy
Let's look at THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Soon to be a major film,
complete, unfortunately,
with several more warrior babes than Tolkien originally wrote into it.
Why do we fantasise about fighting women?
Why, for example, is Eowyn's
choice (in LOTR) to marry and retire from combat so frequently
attacked?
It is not because we have "progressed" in
our attitude towards woman in comparison to Tolkien. It is
because we are profoundly
ignorant of the realities of battle and death. Tolkien knew the
trenches of World War I - as Hodgson
came to do, later. But
our generation has experienced nothing similar.
Driven by a mass media profoundly disconnected from reality,
we unconsciously imagine battle to be a thrilling
experience yeilding high status for its
participants, not a grim ordeal often culminating in death.
Combat, in fantasy, has been utterly devalued.
It is only people who have never experienced war who
imagine women - or indeed men - could chose it lightly.
Eowyn is
criticised for letting her sex down when, in fact, she consistently
behaves in a profoundly sane way: in a way
consonant with her happiness, her collective-tribal
survival, and her broad reproductive success.
She throws herself, admittedly in an unbalanced way, at an alpha
male from a tribe allied with hers; bounces back after rejection
to devote herself (with great effect) to the defense of her
own tribe; and - the instant things
seem to be improving - accepts as a mate the next best man,
a man only one size smaller
all round than her first choice.
Everyone says she should have returned to fight. But
why?
What seems to be missing here is the understanding that
real war is lethal: and that real life is about
love and reproduction, not synthetic violence, or synthetic thrills of any sort.
(And there is plenty
of love-and-reproduction sex in Tolkien:
what is actually missing from his book is not
"sex", but pornography.)
What real human
woman would, or should, pass up Faramir's bed and
life as a princess of Gondor for an orc's knife
and six feet of some forgotten battlefield?
"But it's only a fantasy" you say?
Get a life!
this essay © A W Robertson
Send me your comments on this
essay and I'll post them here next time I update the site.
Back to Night Thoughts
|