Skip to main content

The Best of R. A. Lafferty (SF) – R. A. Lafferty ****

Throughout my high school years (1973–76) I carefully kept a list of all the science fiction I read. I’ve just dug it out, and it contains no fewer than 1,291 entries – almost all short stories I found in various SF magazines and multi-author anthologies. Right on the first page, the sixth item is ‘Thus We Frustrate Charlemagne’ by R. A. Lafferty, and his name appears another 32 times before the end of the list. This isn’t a peculiarity of my own tastes. Short stories were much more popular in those days than they are today, and any serious SF fan would have encountered Lafferty – a prolific writer of short fiction – in the same places I did.

But times change, and this Gollancz Masterworks volume has a quote from the Guardian on the back describing Lafferty as ‘the most important science fiction writer you’ve never heard of’. Hopefully this newly assembled collection will go some way to remedying that situation. It contains 22 short stories, mostly dating from the 1960s and 70s, each with a brand new introduction by various well-known authors. There’s also a long foreword by Neil Gaiman, and for me this contained the biggest surprise in the book.

Of course, I expected him to say he was a Lafferty fan, but he goes much further than that. Throughout his teens and early 20s, Lafferty was his absolute favourite author, and he corresponded with him a great deal. He even sent him his own first writing effort, which elicited an encouraging response from Lafferty. In Gaiman’s words, ‘My favourite author told me I should write some more, so I did.’ If you’re in the ‘never heard of R. A. Lafferty’ category and you’re a Neil Gaiman fan, that means you really ought to check this book out.

Rating a work of fiction is always subjective. A few years ago I read an earlier Lafferty collection, Ringing Changes that I’d unhesitatingly give five stars. That’s because it was strong on the sort of stories I like best, namely ones based around challenging or thought-provoking ideas. There are some of those in this new collection too, but the overall feel is rather different. Perhaps it’s because the stories were selected by professional authors, but there’s a stronger emphasis on character-driven rather than idea-driven tales. That’s less to my taste, but no doubt plenty of readers would give this one five stars too.

I’ve got all this way without saying what the unique appeal of Lafferty’s fiction is. Actually there’s not just one thing but a whole bunch of them: a whimsical, almost folksy narrative style; wildly eccentric yet believable characters; surreal settings; fresh takes on old SF themes; incisive satire. In the best of his stories, you get all the above at once – a good example being the first story in this collection, ‘Slow Tuesday Night’, from 1965. With the (sadly fictitious) Abebaios block removed from human minds, people can now do everything at lightning speed.  In the course of a single night fashions can come and go, fortunes can be made and lost, philosophical ideas can emerge and be forgotten. Featuring the likes of Basil Bagelbaker, Maxwell Mouser and Ildefonsa Impala, only R. A. Lafferty could have written something this funny, and this serious.

My personal favourite is the aforementioned ‘Thus We Frustrate Charlemagne’. It’s based on a hackneyed idea – that altering a tiny event in the past can change the present beyond recognition – but Lafferty’s approach is so clever, and so different, that I can happily read it again and again. The historical event referred to in the title – the battle of Roncevaux Pass – is probably only common currency among military history buffs, which may lead you to expect something of a highbrow read. But with its cartoonish narrative – featuring characters like Willy McGilly, Aloysius Shiplap and a dragon-headed, cigar-smoking machine called Epiktistes – the story is anything but that.

Although Lafferty draws on the usual trappings of science fiction – time machines, spaceships, alien planets – there isn’t that much science, either real or fictional, in his stories. That’s surprising, in a way, because before he became a writer he worked in electronic engineering. There’s only one story in the collection that gives a hint of that: ‘Selenium Ghosts of the 1870s’, about an imagined form of Victorian-era television. When it first appeared in 1978 the word ‘steampunk’ didn’t exist, but that’s effectively what it is. It’s metafiction, too, because it summarises the plot of a number of 19th century TV shows – including a science fictional one, set on Mars. This includes one of the best examples of pseudoscientific technobabble I’ve ever come across, and I can’t resist ending the review by quoting it:

‘He posits, for instance, an atmosphere composed mostly of an eno-magnetised, digammated, attenuated form of oxygen. Being eno-magnetised, that atmosphere would naturally cling to its planet even though the gravity would not be strong enough to retain it otherwise. Being digammated, it would produce no line in the Martian spectrum, would have no corona or optical distortion effect, and could in no way be detected  from Earth. And yet an Earthly human would be able to breathe it freely.’
Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on