Worst. Foreword. Ever.

[Rii]

So I'm currently reading Olaf Stapledon's speculative epic Last and First Men and my mind keeps drifting back to the foreword found in my edition of the novel, written by one Gregory Benford. Most forewords are unmemorable if I bother to read them at all, but this one is notable for the sheer amount of fail contained therein.

Let us count the ways:

• The foreword impugns the author, accusing him of harbouring 'a smoldering dislike of both [Germany and America]' (a claim which I would argue is far from justified) and describing his Marxism as an 'irrational faith'.
• The foreword claims that the author was 'completely wrong' about the 'near-term'. Disregarding the accuracy of this statement, and even the question of whether Mr. Benford was qualified to offer it at all, this is to entirely miss the point. The author explicitly notes in the preface - which, of course, follows immediately after the foreword - that what follows is 'not prophecy [...] but only a certain thread out of the tangle of many equally valid possibilities'.
• The foreword advises the reader against reading the book. Specifically, the first four chapters, i.e. those chapters concerning events which the author is alleged to be 'completely wrong' about. Notwithstanding the etiquette of making such a recommendation in the first place, it ostensibly arises on account of the relevant chapters' alleged antiquity, but one can hardly fail to notice that their content also gives rise to Mr. Benford's rather more subjective objections regarding the portrayal of America and (inexplicably) Germany. And in what must surely be a coincidence, Wikipedia informs me that Mr. Benford is himself an American.

But no, it's apparently Stapledon who has an inexplicable axe to grind here.

Has anyone else ever come across anything like this? Outside an edition of Mein Kampf?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No, that's pretty hilarious. I didn't realize books ever had forewords that were anything besides glowing praise for the author.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I have that edition as well. I guess it was a case of take the money and run. Marxist and anti-American Olaf would have understood that perfectly.

 

[Rii]

No, that's pretty hilarious. I didn't realize books ever had forewords that were anything besides glowing praise for the author.

It probably helped that Stapledon had been dead for thirty years at the time it was written.

I have that edition as well. I guess it was a case of take the money and run. Marxist and anti-American Olaf would have understood that perfectly.

For anyone who's curious, this is what Stapledon himself says (in the preface) about the portrayal of America in the novel:

"American readers, if ever there are any, may feel that their great nation is given a somewhat unattractive part in the story. I have imagined the triumph of the cruder sort of Americanism over all that is best and most promising in American culture. May this not occur in the real world! Americans themselves, however, admit the possibility of such an issue and will, I hope, forgive me for emphasizing it, and using it as an early turning-point in the long drama of Man."

What Benford has against the portrayal of Germany I don't know. Maybe that Stapledon failed to predict Hitler and hence to offer the nation up as convenient villain of the chapter?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It probably doesn't help that Benford innocently contributed to "Hitler Victorious: Eleven Stories of the German Victory in World War II"?

 

[stj]

The foreword makes perfect sense in the US context. Stapledon's work is a milestone in science fiction, of such magnitude it can't be ignored. But the political views were shaped by a world in which empires still admitted to being imperialist and widespread poverty was regarded as a failure of the capitalist system, instead of God's justice.
Stapledon's views are politically incorrect and must be refuted. It doesn't matter how old they are in calendar terms. There is no forgiveness for the heretic, ever.

Stapledon definitely wasn't an orthodox Marxist. But Benford's false claim is merely rhetorical trickery, specifically the genetic fallacy: Stapledon's sociopolitical views are wrong because they were born from Marx's. The nonsense about irrational faith merely shows Benford doesn't understand what religions outside his privileged social stratum are really like.

 

[ToddPence]

I vote Ray Comfort's introduction to Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" as the Worst.Foreward.Ever.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I vote Ray Comfort's introduction to Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" as the Worst.Foreward.Ever.

I read about it, but I don't seem to be able to find an online version to see if it's as bad as it's reported to be.

 

[Forbin]

Ya know, I've only read a couple of Benford books, and I don't recall liking them.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I vote Ray Comfort's introduction to Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" as the Worst.Foreward.Ever.

I read about it, but I don't seem to be able to find an online version to see if it's as bad as it's reported to be.

I can't find it, either, however I found a pretty good analysis of it, including select quotes.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

I vote Ray Comfort's introduction to Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" as the Worst.Foreward.Ever.

I read about it, but I don't seem to be able to find an online version to see if it's as bad as it's reported to be.

I can't find it, either, however I found a pretty good analysis of it, including select quotes.

Ray Comfort would probably be right at home commenting on YouTube videos.

Besides, he doesn't seem to realize that proving Darwin wrong (however inept his arguments) does not prove himself to be right. In my mind, evolution coexists comfortably with religion, largely because I think that the story of creation was a quasi-fictional prelude to the main subject of the Bible, the birth, life, miracles, and multiple deaths of Christ.

 

[Christopher]

Heck, even the Vatican says that evolution has no conflict with religion or the Bible. The official line is that science explains the physical origins of humanity and the universe, while the Bible (allegorically) explains their spiritual origins.

The thing about Creationism is that it's not just bad science, it's bad religion. It makes the mistake of assuming the Bible is nothing more than a history book.

And of course, treating evolution as the belief system of Charles Darwin is like treating physics as the belief system of Isaac Newton. We've gone far beyond Newton, gone past his foundations to whole new insights he never contemplated such as relativity and quantum physics. Similarly, Darwin was just the beginning of a process that's gone far, far beyond him as our knowledge of the fossil record and genetics has expanded. Heck, the things that DNA analysis is revealing about the details of the evolutionary process are so far beyond anything Darwin could've contemplated that the Creationists' fixation on him as the end-all and be-all of evolution is quite laughable. It's like trying to refute the existence of the Internet by attacking the theories of Charles Babbage.

 

[Amaris]

I vote Ray Comfort's introduction to Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" as the Worst.Foreward.Ever.

I just wonder who would even want to read it. It would be like a blind man remarking that a painted work of art lacked color and style. Comfort can't even begin to comprehend Darwin's work.

 

[Silvercrest]

The thing about Creationism is that it's not just bad science, it's bad religion. It makes the mistake of assuming the Bible is nothing more than a history book.

AND

We've gone ... so far beyond anything Darwin could've contemplated that the Creationists' fixation on him ... is quite laughable. It's like trying to refute the existence of the Internet by attacking the theories of Charles Babbage.

I have GOT to remember these two passages.

 

[EyalM]

The thing about Creationism is that it's not just bad science, it's bad religion. It makes the mistake of assuming the Bible is nothing more than a history book.

The Bible was always part history book, but for creationists (or Bible literalists) the bible is also the word of god, so if god is always right, so must the bible, in its entirety, be 100% accurate.That's why they are so passionate about it.

 

[Kaziarl]

None come to mind, but I've read a couple that I wonder how they got into those books. They read more like a critics scathing opinion rather then a forward to the book.

The Bible was always part history book, but for creationists (or Bible literalists) the bible is also the word of god, so if god is always right, so must the bible, in its entirety, be 100% accurate.That's why they are so passionate about it.

On a side note, regarding this... I'm not very religious myself, so maybe I'm missing something here. But if the bible is the word of god (could be, I haven't met him to ask) then sure, he could be right 100% of the time. I mean you'd expect a god to be, right? But it was written down (Dictated) by man, who is known for making mistakes. So could it be that through dictation, man screwed up the word of god?

I dunno, interesting thing to think about I guess.

 

[Christopher]

The Bible was always part history book, but for creationists (or Bible literalists) the bible is also the word of god, so if god is always right, so must the bible, in its entirety, be 100% accurate.That's why they are so passionate about it.

But that's naive, because which Bible? It's been translated many times, and many of those translations change the meanings accidentally or deliberately (like the way the King James Version bowdlerized the Song of Solomon, changed "a long-sleeved garment" to "a coat of many colors," and claimed that Moses parted the Red Sea instead of a marsh called the Sea of Reeds). Unlike deities, humans are very fallible. At least the Muslims insist that only the original Arabic words of the Qur'an count as the direct, unaltered word of God. I doubt there are many Creationists who are familiar with the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts of the Bible.

And that's not even counting all the ways the Bible contradicts itself, like giving different orders of the creation of things in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or giving two incompatible genealogies for Jesus in two of the Gospels. Biblical scholars generally accept that the literal word of the Bible is fallible, filtered through human interpretation and compilation, and that the underlying spiritual meaning is what really matters.

 

[EyalM]

On a side note, regarding this... I'm not very religious myself, so maybe I'm missing something here. But if the bible is the word of god (could be, I haven't met him to ask) then sure, he could be right 100% of the time. I mean you'd expect a god to be, right? But it was written down (Dictated) by man, who is known for making mistakes. So could it be that through dictation, man screwed up the word of god?

I dunno, interesting thing to think about I guess.

I wondered about it, and the common "answer" is that God made sure the Bible is accurate...

But that's naive

You just answerd you're own question . We are talking about people who believe the Earth was created in six days...

 

[Christopher]

I wondered about it, and the common "answer" is that God made sure the Bible is accurate...

Or rather, that God made sure the particular translation favored by the individual Biblical literalist in question is the truly accurate one -- even if it directly contradicts the original text it was translated from!

 

[RJDiogenes]

I haven't read Benford's foreword to Last and First Men, but it's not unusual for the forewords of historical books to be more like objective or critical essays than the glowing praise or collegial promotion of contemporary books. That generally makes them far more interesting.