August 04, 2004

Think different

Posted by Ted

I’ve recently read some of the Sandman graphic novels by Neil Gaiman. Few who have picked them up will be surprised to hear that I’m finding them to be very, very good. But it occurred to me, while reading them, that virtually all of the non-human characters so far seem to act like humans.

They do things that real people can’t do, but they all seem to share the same motivations as people- pride, jealousy, duty, family ties, anger, love of power, and so on. Despite all the things separating them from humans- immortality, immense power, the obligation to hop around the universe picking up people when they die- the non-humans can be psychologically understood as super-people. They don’t seem noticeably less human than, say, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights, or Humbert Humbert from Lolita.

Now, creating an alternate, consistent non-human psychology would be a damn hard thing to do. Telling a story about characters that aren’t supposed to think like humans would have even the greatest storytellers tripping over their feet. I know that I couldn’t do it, and I don’t fault Neil Gaiman for not doing it. The books that try it need to devote tremendous resources to character analysis.

But I can’t easily think of too many times that it’s been successfully done. There are a fair number of gimmicky attempts (Klingons and Vulcans, say), but not many take it seriously. Off the top of my head, here are a few that I believe succeed:

Isaac Asimov’s robots: This is probably the best example that I can think of. Their motivations are clear and comprehensible, but not at all like ours.

The “piggies” in Orson Scott Card’s Speaker for the Dead: This is a bit of cheat, and I’m not sure if it’s really just a product of a different physiology. But by the end of the book, I could understand why they behaved as they did, even though no one I’ll ever meet would behave remotely like that. (A bit vague, I realize.)

The demon in The Exorcist: He takes over a young girl, and quickly makes such a mess of her that she’s going to die, and he’s going to die with her. He doesn’t even try to keep her alive, and only makes token attempts at saving himself. He doesn’t want power, or vengeance, or to breathe briefly the sweet, sweet air of mortal life. He’s just a hateful moron, with a lust for destruction that’s literally inhuman.

Thoughts? Additions? Subtractions?

UPDATE: In comments, Rob notifies me that Neil Gaiman has a blog. That’s pretty cool.

Posted on August 4, 2004 06:08 PM UTC
Comments

Best example of loving the alien that I know is Paul Park’s Celestis. An alien who has a constructed human personality thanks to drugs begins to break down when she is kidnapped and the drugs are withdrawn. A very strange, beautiful book.

Posted by Henry · August 4, 2004 06:24 PM

C. J. Cherryh wrote a series of novels about the “Han” I think, who were a leonine spacefaring race whose society was dominated by the females. Humans were involved, but not the stories’ main characters and the other various aliens (especially the villainous Kif) were pretty well thought out, though I don’t know if they would meet your standard of alien-ness.

Posted by Tony Ross · August 4, 2004 06:28 PM

To be fair, I think that’s partly Gaiman’s point. The assorted gods and monsters of his universe are essentially creations of humanity, dependent on their faith for their fortunes - look at the pitiful fate of the Egyptian pantheon, particularly Bast, no longer needed and fading from memory. It makes sense that these creatures would be reflections of humanity.

The exception are the Endless (Dream, Death, Desire, etc), who Gaiman establishes to be above and beyond all others, both mortal and immortal. However, even the Endless are explained as archetypes that inform all of existence, forming the basis for all of humanity’s motivations - making us reflections of them. If you read the whole of the Sandman run, it’s clear that Gaiman’s biggest achievement was creating this internally consistent scheme that could include all the world’s religions and myths, while telling a story that both commented on and extended them.

The real question is, what would be the shape of non-human psychology? Is it possible for a human to understand non-human psychology, let alone to invent it? For example, the words you use to describe the demon in The Exorcist all describe human emotional states and reflect human judgements.

Posted by paul c · August 4, 2004 06:48 PM

Good things to be reading. And, later on in the series, more than one character makes just the point you’re making.

A complicated example: Ursula LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness— complicated in that the relevant others aren’t exactly non-human, but are different in a way that has significant, and explored, psychological consequences.

Another odd case: Valentine Michael Smith in the first half (and to some degree all) of Stranger in a Strange Land.

Immortality somehow never seems to induce a radical change in psychology, and rarely is even convincingly shown to lengthen the time horizons of the characters. Heinlein’s Howards, the immortals in Boat of a Million Years, the Highlander immortals, and for that matter most vampires end up acting for reasons and on motives that are all too human.

Posted by Jacob T. Levy · August 4, 2004 06:59 PM

Immortality somehow never seems to induce a radical change in psychology, and rarely is even convincingly shown to lengthen the time horizons of the characters.

Paul McAuley has some interesting things to say about this.

The problem of Tipler’s heaven — the problem with all secular heavens, including those of the virtual reality variety — is that he can’t imagine what it could be like to retain all the human attributes of one’s present personality yet also to be truly immortal. It’s a general problem in any SF dealing with transcendence in any serious kind of way, and of course the answer is that one cannot become immortal without becoming other than one’s self.

He deals with this in his Confluence trilogy, where an immortal human becomes very strange indeed …

Posted by Henry · August 4, 2004 07:30 PM

You could link to Neil’s blog in the post:

http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp

Posted by Rob · August 4, 2004 07:30 PM

Good idea, Rob.

Posted by Ted Barlow · August 4, 2004 07:37 PM

The ousters in Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion” are pretty cool! (and the cruciform symbiotes :) But to get really far out there, there’s the residents of the “novo-vacuum” in “Schild’s Ladder” by Greg Egan, who indeed conform to a different physics altogether…

Posted by Gerry · August 4, 2004 07:42 PM

Larry Niven, especially his early stuff like Neutron Star does aliens a lot better than he does humans. His aliens are properly odd. Browsing the US Amazon tells me that Neutron Star is now out of print, and the same short stories are now collected in Crashlander with additional material (which a US Amazon reviewer said shows how his writing has declined since). If such things matter, I should point out that even as a teenager, I found Niven’s politics explicitly right-wing. Also, IMO, he hasn’t written anything good since Ringworld in 1970.

Posted by Backword Dave · August 4, 2004 07:45 PM

I’ve just been going on a binge of primatology, and man, SF does not come off well in comparison. (Even when it uses apes as characters. Yes, I’m talking about you, David Brin. Don’t get me started on Larry Niven.) OTOH, SF does some very interesting things with gender issues, though sometimes not on purpose.

I will second Henry’s comment about Paul Park’s Celestis, and throw in Rebecca Ore’s trilogy as well. Good luck finding any of them.

Posted by Carlos · August 4, 2004 07:55 PM

RE: immortality, I think Tolkien does a fair job of showing how immortality changes things in his interactions between humans and elves—especially in the Silmarillion.

I think Gaiman suggests that the traits signified by the Endless are truly universal—so the idea that they would be reflected in humans and seem non-alien shouldn’t be surprising. I’m reluctant to say more becuase I’m not sure how far along you are, but I think Gaiman does at least show many of the extremes of human psychology—I’m thinking especially of the Cereal Convention for instance.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw · August 4, 2004 08:19 PM
I humbly submit that any book-length “realistic” treatment of an “alien intelligence” would not meet the demands of the pulp-fiction market. It would be difficult (if not completely incomprehensible), for starters, and if it were adequately “realistic,” then I am inclined to believe it would be rather boring, as well.

I would cite “Solaris” as an example, if that book were in fact an exploration of an “alien intelligence,” instead of a good long wallow in post-modern questions of perception.

Though much is made of the appeal of the “big ideas” in SF, the fact of the matter is that the themes in the genre rarely stray from the pat and reassuring, and the appeal lies more in the pot-boiler plots and fan-flattering (if cardboard) heroes than in any of the imaginary technologies, places, or societies found in the settings. In fact, most of these decorations are patently ridiculous, once (or if) the reader sets aside the willing suspension of disbelief, and examines them critically (Asimov’s “positronically” hard-wired Three Laws are a particular bugbear, with “universal assembler” nanobots and “conventional” interstellar colonization not far behind).

Posted by robotslave · August 4, 2004 08:43 PM

Basic problem in SF. And for that matter in philosophy of mind and in philosophical musings about AI or alien intelligences. The problem refracts back to your basic theories of or understandings of consciousness, sentience, language and so on. The more particular and contextual (biologically, historically, etc.) you assume those are, the less likely you are to think that a nonhuman intelligence can be represented in a way that a human intelligence could understand, let alone identify with. The more you tend to think that consciousness, thought, emotions are universals relatively little affected by time and space, the more likely you are to think that aliens or gods or immortals or computer intelligences will be essentially like humans except with fur or tentacles or superpowers or silicon.

i agree Paul’s observations though also, that this isn’t really the right question to ask of Sandman because Gaiman is quite specific that both gods and the Endless are reflections of or related to human consciousness, will and desire. He does play with the possibility that the Endless manifest differently to non-humans elsewhere, but he’s not really interested in that idea (which, I think, is an interesting one that I can’t think of too many SF/fantasy works taking up).

Posted by Timothy Burke · August 4, 2004 09:00 PM

Oh go on Carlos, get started on Larry Niven. I’m all ears.

Posted by Backword Dave · August 4, 2004 09:27 PM

Oh and you can’t mention Sandman, without Sam Keith :D Cheeers!

Posted by Gerry · August 4, 2004 09:41 PM

Oh lots of stuff in my era…stopped reading about 85;quickly coming to mind:

Some early Tiptree stories are very good

Cherryh ain’t bad, tho most of her aliens are really uber-bushido types; but “Serpent’s Reach” about the giant ants of human level intelligence is interesting

But I am really commenting because of an early work by Michael Bishop:”Death and Designation Among the Asadi” which is about an anthropologist driven mad by an incomprehensible culture.

Posted by bob mcmanus · August 4, 2004 09:52 PM

Best inscrutable-alien story I know: Terry Carr’s “The Dance of the Changer and the Three.”

Posted by Patrick Nielsen Hayden · August 4, 2004 10:08 PM

I’m not convinced that Gaiman (and co) couldn’t write a convincingly alien psychology. I just think it would be lousy story telling. The degree to which we care about a given character is the degree to which we can empathize with them, which is to say, the degree to which they are human.

Fiction also has believability constraints, it has fall within the bounds of where people are willing to suspend disbelief. Which is why it is almost always less fantastic, and strange then reality.

Posted by kellan · August 4, 2004 11:06 PM

I think you have to distinguish between non-human protagonists and non-human antagonists.

Generally, one expects to more or less understand a protagonist’s motivations. On the other hand, lots of genre SF has non-human antagonists who do things just because that’s what they do. Their motivations aren’t really explored, because it’s accepted that those motivations are outside of human comprehension. By definition, though, it would be very hard (impossible?) to write a story from the viewpoint of a character whose motivations are absolutely incomprehensible to the reader. Kind of an immovable object vs. irresistable force paradox: either the motivations are comprehensible, or else it’s not really accurate to say that the book is presented from that character’s viewpoint.

In fact, there’s a common pattern of “incomprehensible (or at least unexplored) antagonist, who becomes pretty much human-like once defeated and turned into an ally of the protagonist”. I’m thinking in particular of E.E. Smith’s Lensman series, which might be considered the archetype of genre SF. In the Lensman series, it seemed to me that every book’s alien enemy, once defeated, became the protagonists’ main ally in the next book.

In general, I think the only way to present non-human psychology believably is if you can get the reader to say “yes, if I had seven tentacles, and had been raised from an egg by a semi-sentient plant, I might think that way, too”. It’s kind of like non-Euclidean geometry: altering all of Euclid’s postulates wouldn’t be very productive, but if you just change one, the results can be amazing.

Posted by Jeremy Leader · August 4, 2004 11:17 PM

Jeremy — I think you have the “Lensman” books confused with Edgar Rice Burroughs’ “Mars” books. Doc Smith’s bad guys generally stayed bad guys. John Carter’s enemies turned into allies until Burroughs ran out of plot.

Most attempts to come up with “alien” aliens generally just use our built- in stereotypes (Klingon = Apache). Saves much time and explanation. It’s better than the really cheap “They did it because they’re incomprehensible”, which can “explain” absolutely anything at all.

If you want a real alien civilization, try Robert van Gulik’s “Judge Dee” books. Ming Dynasty China is more alien than anything you’ll find on the SF shelves.

Posted by lightning · August 5, 2004 02:15 AM

“creating an alternate, consistent non-human psychology” describes the typical C.J. Cherryh novel (at least until about the mid 80s). Some of her novels are real tours de force, with multiple alien species interacting and the story told from the aliens’ point of view. I don’t think either of the examples cited so far represent her best work. For most enjoyable, I’d nominate the Regul (from Faded Sun), for most alien the menagerie of software life forms in Voyager in Night. Her most thoughtful aliens, though, are the ones that are most nearly human: the Azi (Serpent’s Reach, Port Eternity, Cyteen), and the colonists in Wave Without A Shore.

Posted by scott · August 5, 2004 02:45 AM

There’s also a very close parallel to historical fiction; both in its acceptability (Hollywood, to take an easy target, is incapable of contemplating the possibility that viewers could accept that people in the past may have thought differently about (say) killing a defeated general’s family; cf. Gladiator)and its difficulty (which in HF comes as the necessity to explain overtly things that the participants never have to think about - “As you know, Julius, the Forum is the centre of Rome’s political life” or “The cardinal of Ferrara, your brother and the lover of the fair Pompilia, approaches”). While tails off into the difficulty we will have explaining to our grandchildren what life was like in the twentieth century.

Posted by chris borthwick · August 5, 2004 04:20 AM

Ahem - Vernor Vinge A Fire Upon The Deep and A Deepness Upon The Sky.

Look ‘em up.

Posted by Phoenician in a time of Romans · August 5, 2004 04:33 AM

For a valiant and largely successful effort at imagining truly different psychologies, check out the “nonstandard neuroforms” (i.e., people with altered brain connections) in John C. Wright’s magnificent novel, The Golden Age.

Posted by Tom T. · August 5, 2004 05:38 AM

Yes, I can’t believe I forgot it. Vernor Vinge’s book is both excellent and an excellent treatment of alien intelligence.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw · August 5, 2004 05:59 AM

re: aliens - octavia butler xenogenesis

re: immortality - pete hamill forever: a novel

or for kids - natalie babbitt tuck everlasting

or just living a long time sucking blood - anne rice interview with a vampire

Posted by glory · August 5, 2004 06:31 AM

Vinge - blah.
The Tines in Fire Upon the Deep are pretty good, but Deepness in the Sky doesn’t have alien aliens, it has a half-assed excuse to justify the aliens not being alien.
LeGuin’s Gethenians are interesting, though they’re not exactly alien. Some of the stories in her collection, Changing Planes, do deal with aliens who have drives that are comprehensible, but different (eg, the migrating people)

Posted by Ray · August 5, 2004 09:48 AM

I third the Le Guin races, perhaps not alien but certainly non-human.

Also, fans of Sam Keith’s art be aware that his latest miniseries, Scratch, is at #2 at the moment - a D.C. published werewolf jaunt. His motif of little ball monsters (all teeth, Critter-like) is present, although they are wearing nappies…

Posted by Alex Fradera · August 5, 2004 10:18 AM

I find there’s a similar problem with the representation of artificial intelligences.

William Gibson does his best by presenting AIs as unable to communicate with humans except through human personae (hence they are actually inscrutable, you simply are fooled into thinking you understand them).

Iain Banks, on the other hand, to my mind blows it in EXCESSION by making the AIs appear just as banal and blathering as the humans.

A slightly more plausible representation of an advanced alien civilisation is presented, oddly enough, in Fred and Geoffrey Hoyle’s FIFTH PLANET; the point there is that the aliens won’t let you see much of themselves, and what’s there is incomprehensible (cf. last half-hour of 2001).

Posted by MFB · August 5, 2004 10:29 AM

Mary Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow” also has pretty good alien psychology , and it’s a terrific read.

Posted by Matt Freestone · August 5, 2004 10:32 AM

I’ll second both points on Vinge. The Tines are interesting, and so are the plant things, while the aliens in “Deepness in the Sky” are only alien when being described by humans. The parts of the novel told from their PoV show them as just people.

Posted by Backword Dave · August 5, 2004 11:23 AM

To be fair to Vinge, the parts of the novel being told from their point of view aren’t really from their point of view. But we don’t get to see what it really looks like from their point of view.
If you see what I mean.

Posted by Ray · August 5, 2004 01:45 PM

I’ve never read any of his books, but I know from my husband’s lectures that he would say Stanislaw Lem is the master of crafting a truly alien psychology.

Posted by maurinsky · August 5, 2004 04:14 PM

There’s a lot of amateurs who have created some quite excellent aliens and human cultures that have quite unfamiliar ways of thinking when compared to our own.

One of my favourites, and it’s just a short outline in the form of a fake book review, is the Quetzal League from a conculture world called The Irish Empire. [1]

In fact, there’s a lot of other interesting bits and pieces on that site. The guy who runs it’s pretty good.

[1] http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/irish.htm

Posted by Keith Gaughan · August 5, 2004 04:57 PM

What do you think about Babylon 5 Vorlons and Shadows? Are they non-human enough?

And A.C. Clarke monolith makers?

DSW

Posted by Antoni Jaume · August 5, 2004 07:18 PM

Cordwainer Smith.

Clifford Simak, interestingly, in City.

Early Zelazny, perhaps, though the memory has faded.

Anyone want to venture opinions on Brian Aldiss, Poul Anderson, Ted Sturgeon, John Brunner, Norman Spinrad? Kate Wilhelm? Joanna Russ? Samuel R. Delany? All promising, but I either don’t know the work, or don’t remember it well enough to say anymore.

Greg Egan very probably on the machine side of things.

Point above on the alienness of the past also well taken; Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin chatting fastidiously about the state of their bowel movements an example of how norms change over time.

Would be interested to know if PNH is here and has anything to say on this thread.

Posted by Doug · August 6, 2004 08:44 AM

“Anyone want to venture opinions on Brian Aldiss, Poul Anderson, Ted Sturgeon, John Brunner, Norman Spinrad? Kate Wilhelm? Joanna Russ? Samuel R. Delany”

Good writers. I like them. You’re welcome.

And you are correct, Cordwainer Smith was an alien intelligence.

Posted by bob mcmanus · August 6, 2004 02:13 PM

Aw, hell the thread’s dying anyway.

Aldiss,Brunner,Anderson (and Silverberg) I like as craftsmen, pre-65, when they had to write a book a week to make a living. Under those conditions they still wrote good stuff. Everybody knows their later work.

Norman Spinrad not in this class. Sorry Norm.

Wilhelm & Delaney also maybe not in this class, although in the other direction.

Joanna Russ, in the nihilism of “We Who are About to…” may have experimented with an alien intelligence.

PNH showed up and out-obscured me with the Terry Carr catch. However, I could mention Terry’s good novel “Cirque” (although trying to do this without research, so I may have the title wrong), and speaking of editor-types, I swear I have at least one James Sallis novel that is not listed on his web page.

And I apologize for bringing such amateurish competition for erudite asshole to the hallowed halls of Crooked Timber, who as professionals, know how to do it with grace and irony, disguised in substance.

Posted by bob mcmanus · August 6, 2004 04:13 PM

virtually all of the non-human characters so far seem to act like humans.

As I recall, Gaiman kinda mocks this himself by having the characters themselves sometimes refer to each other as anthropomorphic personifications. :)

Posted by fling93 · August 6, 2004 10:27 PM

Cool cool

Posted by tentacles · August 10, 2004 12:35 PM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.