Ali Mcghee
asked
Jeff VanderMeer:
The collapse of the anthropocene is a theme in your works, but they also hold out potential for a transformed human agency. Grotesque shifts still leave behind a residue of the human. Annihilation is on this track with the biologist's contamination. Do these transformations relate to your sense of human (d)evolution? What is gained or lost by leaving behind individual consciousness for something more rhizomatic?
Jeff VanderMeer
Thank you for the truly great question, Ali. To me, this is the essential theme of our time, and it's not about giving in or checking out. It's about adaptation to what's coming. Of course, I'm coming at it from a kind of fantastical point of view. No matter how I deploy science or specific detail about our real world, I'm still somewhere between the real and the metaphorical in these explorations. In part to get the distance to explore modes of thoughts, and in the absence of being able to imagine being truly not-human, to get as close to that as possible without marginalizing that state of being as horrific.
I suppose I don't see it as leaving behind individual consciousness as being in greater harmony and collusion with the contamination we already experience but that is invisible to us, and to also thereby better understand that we do not in fact stick out from our landscape, but are part of it. This is something we've forgotten over the last centuries, and the farther we get away from understanding this, the farther we get from long-term solutions to questions like...What do we contribute to our biosphere? Why do we privilege human-style intelligence to the exclusion of all else? Why do we see as strengths those things that are actually now weaknesses in ourselves as a sustainable species on Earth?
This doesn't even get to the question of being able to see our environment with a fresh eye--so that we no longer think in terms of being stewards or despoilers but some other philosophy altogether. And this in the context, too, of not bringing with us the old "culture creatures" as Schama puts it in his book Landscape and Memory. That we might see with clear vision but also perhaps with a hint of awe just how thoroughly we live on an alien planet that is full of wonders we're only now beginning to understand. And of which we are at times the most mundane.
I suppose I don't see it as leaving behind individual consciousness as being in greater harmony and collusion with the contamination we already experience but that is invisible to us, and to also thereby better understand that we do not in fact stick out from our landscape, but are part of it. This is something we've forgotten over the last centuries, and the farther we get away from understanding this, the farther we get from long-term solutions to questions like...What do we contribute to our biosphere? Why do we privilege human-style intelligence to the exclusion of all else? Why do we see as strengths those things that are actually now weaknesses in ourselves as a sustainable species on Earth?
This doesn't even get to the question of being able to see our environment with a fresh eye--so that we no longer think in terms of being stewards or despoilers but some other philosophy altogether. And this in the context, too, of not bringing with us the old "culture creatures" as Schama puts it in his book Landscape and Memory. That we might see with clear vision but also perhaps with a hint of awe just how thoroughly we live on an alien planet that is full of wonders we're only now beginning to understand. And of which we are at times the most mundane.
More Answered Questions
Wildwomble
asked
Jeff VanderMeer:
Just finished 'Annihilation' and loved it! It was so beautiful and eerie. It reminded me a little bit of Tarkovsky's film 'Stalker'. Have you seen that film or are a fan of Tarkovsky? I just started on 'Authority' so I'm reluctant to ask you anything about the books that might reveal a spoiler :)
Teodor
asked
Jeff VanderMeer:
Annihilation and Authority both take distinctly different genres as starting points. It certainly seems to be a more 'controlled' approach than, say, City of Saints and Madmen, which gleefully and deliberately plays around with various genres, styles and voices. Do you think that you're at a point in your career when such 'fine-tuning' is the next logical step?
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more