Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 08:59:07 -0700
Message-Id: <01GVVGNRNF3S0004LY@cofc.edu>
Errors-To: roper@csf.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: FRIEDMAND@cofc.edu
Originator: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Sender: wsn@csf.Colorado.EDU
Precedence: bulk
From: FRIEDMAND@cofc.edu
To: chriscd@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu
Subject: A Short History...
 
 
TO:        World Systems Seminar
 
FROM:      Doug Friedman
 
RE:        Wagar's Epic/Partial Review
 
 
Sorry for the delay -- I only have a partial review here since the book
came in
only last week and, in the meantime, we've had a bit of weather here this
weekend...
 
As science fiction goes (and I'm no critic - although I know what I like)
this
was pretty acceptable stuff.  Not as good as Heinlein or Pohl or Herbert or
(maybe it wasn't that good come to think of it), but then again he is
writing
history (sort of) too.  In any case, he has a different kind of axe to
grind
compared to your average (and not so average) SF author.
 
Let me note what I see as objectionable so far -- I'm 3/4 finished.
 
1.    So far I do not see how this work is significant in its use of
      world systems theory.  Wagar occasionally makes passing
      reference to it, accepts a rather simplistic rendering of the world
      capitalist system as his starting point, but it seems to be an
      ornament not a tool of analysis.  -- In fact, the transformation of
      the system occurs as a result of nuclear war (why not a meteor
      hit or an invasion of little green men??) [BTW is the
      commonwealth a world system or world empire - and what is
      the significance of this???]
 
2.    The politics in this work are very very simplistic -- almost
      embarrassing at times.  This perception may well be because
      Wagar is an historian and I am a political scientist.  All of this
      is much too conspiratorial for me (although it makes good
      fiction it makes for lousy social science -- don't get me wrong,
      there is a place for conspiracy but not everything can be
      explained in those terms -- it leaves out most of humanity).
      There is very little real discussion of the political mechanics
      needed to achieve the development of an entity like the world
      party, for example.
 
      Here, although for other reasons, I would agree with Bob Ross
      in his criticism of Wagar's uncritical use of socialism --planned
      economy, etc.  Perhaps if he had used the concept of market
      socialism???  Anyway, he throws around concepts like
      democracy, socialism, participation, etc. with very little rigor.
      makes for good fiction but poor social science
 
This is not my last word -- a brief first foray.