ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/24/84)
ICEHENGE by Kim Stanley Robinson
Ace, 1984, $2.95.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
This novel is similar to PALIMPSESTS, another novel published by Ace.
Both speak of the past (history) as being unknowable. That is, we base our
knowledge of history on artifacts. But artifacts can be mis-interpreted,
faked, lost, or whatever. In addition, no one sees the entirety of a
historical event--just their corner of it. As Connie Willis pointed out at
L.A.con II, there was no single event called 'Dunkirk,' but a collection of
impressions. The 'Dunkirk' of someone on the coast of France was different
from the 'Dunkirk' of someone in a boat on the Channel being shelled, and
neither is the same as the 'Dunkirk' of a general in London.
ICEHENGE is Robinson's attempt to show both these ideas, and some
others besides. It is told in three parts: "Emma Weil: 2248 A.D.," "Hjalmar
Nederland: 2547 A.D.," and "Edmond Doya: 2610 A.D." Weil is caught up in the
original Martian mutiny, Nederland is excavating a Martian city destroyed
during that mutiny, and Doya is trying to explain Icehenge, a structure of
ice slabs resembling Stonehenge but built on Pluto and found while Nederland
was excavating on Mars. Much of the latter two sections is concerned with
theories and how they rise and fall as new evidence is discovered. (An
earlier version of the first section appeared as "To Leave a Mark" in the
November 1982 issue of F&SF and was nominated for a Hugo; part also appeared
as "On the North Pole of Pluto" in ORBIT 21.)
Robinson's main characters are interesting, though his auxiliary
characters seem a bit sketchy. The plot is straightforward, interesting,
and moves right along. There are a lot of good ideas (not just the
historical ones mentioned). The only quibble I have is that three points of
view of history is the wrong number. None of the sections (except perhaps
the first) really stands on its own, yet the three together still seem
incomplete. Once Robinson has said that there are many interpretations of
history, he should show us more than three. One person has complained that
this book wraps everything up too neatly--that the reader *knows* what
happened when it's done. I'd like to see Robinson do a sequel proving how
wrong the reader was! (This has great possibilities as an open-ended
series, each disproving the conclusions of the preceding volume!) I claimed
that Robinson's first novel was Hugo material; while this isn't quite that,
it's right up there. Robinson is a new author I'd keep an eye on.
Appropos of this topic of historical/archeological uncertainty, I would
recommend James Michener's THE SOURCE. The framework of this novel is an
archaeological dig in Israel and the various sections have to do with the
true history of the items that are found. (I say "true" history because the
sections are told from third-person omniscient point of view, rather than
third-person non-omniscient as Robinson's are.) For example, the
archaeologists find a marble hand at the level of Grecian influence and
postulate that it was broken from some statue which has not survived. In
fact, there was never any more statue than the hand itself, carved by the
artist to *suggest* the rest of the figure. And there are artifacts described
by the third-person omniscient narrator which are never found, that would
explain a lot more of what *really* happened. (And for those who haven't
read Carter Scholz's and Glenn Harcourt's PALIMPSESTS, it puts forward the
idea that artifacts are altered to change history, much as the names of
those fallen from favor in ancient Egypt were chiseled out of the obelisks
previously erected in their honor.)
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl