I have had a copy of Herbert Lottman's 1996, Jules Verne, for several years and decided that this would be a good time to read it. 338 pages. Well written and crammed with facts about Verne's life. What I had hoped to find simply was not there. Was Verne a futurist? Of course, and if not the best, one of the very best. The man was a genius at what Lottman called "anticipatory science." He was also a genius at writing for children, books that could also be enjoyed by teens and adults. But he was not a Radical Centrist. This should be qualified. Sometimes he was, when it was inescapable, when driven by circumstances. There are several parts of the book that make this clear. But again and again, just when Verne's life story seemed to me to be moving in an RC direction, he reverted to something that is best described as ultramontanism, extreme Catholic conservatism. He detested anything to the Left of Orleanist monarchism. Why? That is the big mystery. The logic of what he was doing would, you might think, compel some kind of evolution of thought, and now and then there were indications of exactly that, but the threshold was never really crossed. Which is ironic since some of those most influenced by him definitely were moving in an RC direction, not least his publisher of 40 years, Hetzel, who virtually invented the modern publishing industry (his company has since become Hachette). TR read all of Verne's stuff, or most of it (Verne wrote no less than 100 books and was at work on #101 at this death), and a large number of scientists of all types have been "his children," so to speak, most notably Arthur Clarke, whom I'd call a proto-Radical Centrist, and, needless to say he was the guiding light for generations of sci-fi writers, like Ray Bradbury. But when it came to his personal life, yikes! What a fool. Some of his limitations surely were due to his upbringing as a "provincial" in early 19th century Nantes, and "anal retentive" might well be applied to him. For example, as a businessman, which he sometimes needed to be, he made one major mistake after another. In his day, because he was so good at what he did, he was a millionaire, but he could have been a mega-millionaire if he hadn't been so easily deceived and taken advantage of He was also a mass of inhibitions and embodied most of the prejudices of his era for small town Catholic France. He was anti-Semitic, for instance, although, like many other Europeans who had entered the ranks of the literati, this was contradicted by his relationships with Jews who were professionals, with whom he got along quite well. But repeatedly through life he reverted to form, blatantly biased against Jews. He hated Zola, for example, and was vehemently anti-Dreyfus. To his credit he detested slavery, but he was 'anti-Negro' nonetheless, and anti-British in the bargain, which simply makes no sense to me at all. Then there was his apparently loveless marriage, although one would suppose this kind of generalization goes too far. Still, in a personal letter to his brother Paul, a sort of heart-to-heart missive later in life, he said as much, implying that his marriage had been a huge mistake. He had at least one affair, but who this was remains unknown, yet this is collaborated in letters between him and Hetzel, who sometimes provided alibis for Verne. But in he end, for the sake of his one son and for the family in general, he broke it off and settled down to a life of just about nothing but writing from then on. His son, Michel, was a piece of work, not all that unlike the adoptive son of James Madison, Todd Payne. In any case, Michel was a problem child from early on, sounds like a spoiled brat, and in his teen years he was a total a$$hole. Verne tried everything he could think of to correct his son's errant ways but in the end had him sent to something like a reform school, and then -as French law allowed- had him impressed into service on a French ship that would not return to a French port for about 2 years. In his 20s Michel was utterly reckless with his life, always in debt (just like Todd Payne), a libertine with no sense of responsibility, and generally out of control. But unlike Payne, who was a loser all of his life, Michel eventually became more-or-less a decent citizen and family man, although all of that on a guaranteed allowance for life that in today's money might be about $5,000 - $ 10,000 per month. Not bad for doing nothing although Michel eventually took part in a number of business ventures in which his name might be a real asset to a company. In his 40s he even became something of a writer, although that is good and bad; he was not above completing some of his father's unfinished works, publishing these hybrids in his father's name in order to earn big bucks. Anyway, Jules Verne was basically clueless about person-to-person real life, his was a one-track mind obsessed by science. Well, not quite, now and then he made real efforts to break out of his shell, but speaking generally this is accurate enough. So, it is necessary to give Verne a mixed review. A true genius in important ways, a complete dunce in others. My humble opinion, anyway Billy
-- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
