The defeat of the Anthropocene The social and environmental agencies in the literature of Philip K. Dick, Frank Herbert and Ayn Rand

The dissertation focuses on the speculative science fiction genre in order to put into a thematic and ideological discourse three authors, Philip K. Dick (1928-1982), Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and Frank Herbert (1920-1986). In spite of the fact that they were active largely during the same period, their literary works, philosophy and approach to their craft tends to be varied; they coincide in some cases and heavily diverge in others. They witnessed the events of World War Two, although at slightly different ages, lived through the paranoid and fear-inducing climate of the Cold War and contemplated the socio-political spheres of their historical period. In their writings, they reflected on various themes that would later become important academic points of analysis. However, my dissertation is not about how they might be perceived as prophetic or avant-garde, although they certainly problematized various subject matters ahead of their time. The discourse I want to establish is not based on what the intertextuality tells us today, but rather focus on the motives that made them write on those thematic nodes in the ‘60 and ’70. My work is divided into two main sections. The first focuses on the analysis of the dystopian elements, the representation of the socio-political and economic themes depicted by the three authors in the respective fictional realities of their literary works. The second part is concerned with the ecological and ecocritical viewpoints that the novels present. The ecocritical perspective intertwines with the dystopian part because of how it problematizes the social and political aspects related to the environmental issues. The quintessential leitmotifs that dominate Philip K. Dick’s fictional worlds are the usage of drugs, theological and ontological contemplation and the falsehood of reality. These three themes intertwine and permeate constantly within his world building, characters and plots. In his critique, he reflected on politics, economics and mass media, or technology more in general. Dick creates a divide between the lower and upper echelons of society, usually based on financial status; the resulting political system, in similar cases, always results into some form or other of authoritarianism. His texts, as such, veil a certain sense of discontent towards a manipulative form of government, which in most cases is either revealed to be corrupt or is just openly unjust. This overwhelming sense of dissatisfaction, which in the best of cases can be forgotten by the fictional characters through the use of drugs, also derives from the awareness of the futility of trying to change or fight the system. Dune, Frank Herbert’s magnum opus, on the other hand lends itself to an analysis of complex environmental, economic and political ecosystems. The saga is, for all intents and purposes, an ecological novel; it takes into account the phenomena that shape an entire ecosphere, from the macroscopic level to the global scale. These aspects however are not isolated, but intertwine with the socio-political dimensions of the fictional characters living, not only on the desert planet where most of the plot events take place, but in the entire galaxy as well. Herbert achieves this by creating a delicate equilibrium based on the economy of melange, a spice extracted from the planet of Dune and the only resource that enables space travel. As soon as a despot radically changes this status quo, then all of the previously established socio-political equilibriums crumble. Ultimately, Herbert uses his protagonists, heroes-become-tyrants, to create a cautionary message about the dangers correlated with the cult of personality, its prophets and its heroes. His critique points not only towards the fallacy of the hero and the prophet, but towards the fallacy of those who blindly follow them just as easily. Finally, the misuse of power in a seemingly totalitarian regime, as well as the concept of blindly following a leader, is also taken into account by Ayn Rand. In Anthem, this is achieved by reverting society to a primitive form where political agents use the oblivion accompanying said regression to take control over the entire population. It is up to the protagonist to understand that he in fact can detach himself from these political machinations through the use of his own reason. Individuality and critical thinking, as such, become quintessential in Rand’s critique. In Atlas Shrugged it is a particular form of greedy capitalism that puts into motion the entirety of the plot. In this case, it is once again through reason and detachment from the social imposed behaviour that the protagonists are able to fight back. Furthermore, in Atlas Shrugged, the solution reached by the ‘men of the mind’ is to simply go on strike and let the technological infrastructure crumble. Ultimately, Rand creates a severe brain drain, where the intellectual human capital has detached itself from the social reality, and by doing so, reclaimed its right to be treated justly. In all of these cases, it is only because of the potential of speculative science fiction that it becomes possible to trace a link between the fictional and the real world. Through a process of estrangement, the reader experiences both displacement and recognition simultaneously; this is achieved because of a dialectical interaction between a familiar dimension and an alienating one, fundamental mechanism in the narratological construction of the science fiction genre. Philip K. Dick saw, more than most of his generation, not only the shifts in civilization, but the complex interactions between economics, politics and technology within the social connective tissue. His texts may be considered somewhat pessimistic, or at the very least cynical or nihilistic, but it is important where does this general point of view originates. There is a certain fear, similar to an anxious form of dread, in the visions of not only Philip K. Dick, but Frank Herbert and Ayn Rand as well (although admittedly in a diminished degree). In part this attitude of bleak uncertainly towards the future is routed deeply into their socio-political and historical dimension, but goes beyond that. The grim and pessimist outlook towards the future is not because of society as a whole, but rather because of how it can be manipulated; their fear regards the abuse of power and, to a degree, how technology can facilitate this. The three authors end up creating fictional worlds where the main antagonizing element is the oppression perpetuated by a socio-political hierarchy. Their protagonists end up either needing (or even having to realize the need in the first place) to react against the repressive conditions they face. Given how these novels start or build up from a situation of utter discontent and, in many cases, the ending does not necessarily provide a resolution to their situation, or a positive outcome altogether, the guiding leitmotif that has been emphasised through my analysis is the theme of defeat. Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert and Philip K. Dick ultimately faced the nature of late capitalism and, through their texts, it is possible to perceive a certain sense of uneasiness when confronted with the what if scenarios that stem from it. If this is a reflection of their perception of their own society, and if it is possibly a line of reasoning that is still ongoing, then I would argue that it is worth revisiting the literary examples that touched on it. For this reason the Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert and Philip K. Dick have been chosen for my investigation.