LAST AND FIRST MEN, by Stapledon and Against the Day

[Mark Kohut]

That other paragraph which will remind you of another book we all know.

"Historians living in our day need grapple only with one moment of the flux
of time.
But I have to present in one book the essence not of centuries, but of
aeons. Clearly we
cannot walk at leisure through such a tract, in which a million
terrestrial years are but as
a year to your historians. *We must fly. We must travel as you do in your
aeroplanes observing*
*the broad features of the continent. But since the flier sees nothing of
the minute inhabitants below*
*him, and since it is they who make history, we must also punctuate our
flight with many descents, skimming *
*as it were over the house-tops, and even alighting at critical points to
speak face-to-face with individuals. *
*And as the plane's journey must begin with a slow ascent from the
intricate pedestrian view to wider horizons, so*
*we must begin with a somewhat pedestrian view to wider horizons, so we
must begin with a somewhat close *
*inspection of that little period which includes the culmination and
collapse of your own primitive civilization. *

And it seems that the Last Men of this work are trying to speak to the
present First Men *from the future. *
(from intro material, not yet the work itself)

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:59 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> For a speculative future historian, having a “Vision” would seem a
> requirement. I read SciFi as light stuff between more “serious” stuff. But
> really good SciFi can be very thought provoking. And reading stuff from the
> 30’s can be mind-blowing in how far-reaching and correct their vision can
> be.
>
> Let me know if this one is worth reading
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:35 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Olaf Stapledon wrote a couple famous SF novels
>> before Tom was even born...but they have stayed
>> in print because they are good and still read, it seems.
>>
>> I have wanted to read them but never have. I came across
>> a copy of them and have opened the one in the subject header.
>>
>> I wanted to share this definition of "vision" from his intro
>> to the original American edition because I often write
>> of TRP's vision and ask myself if I could define vision
>> if challenged since I too know detailing what Pynchon "believes"
>> about real life things is a fool's game. But a vision is not that.
>>
>> "But visions, if they are to be permanently helpful, must embody
>> the whole breadth and depth of experience. They must not be crude,
>> extravagant, lopsided. They must be conceived not only with originality
>> but with sanity, even if sanity has to take up a new orientation in
>> consequence
>> of the new vision."
>>
>> But I only decided to write and send this because of a later paragraph
>> from
>> him in his
>> earlier-written Preface. Will follow very soon.
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>