Book Review: The Accidental Time Machine

Author: Joe Haldeman Paperback: 288 pages Publisher: Ace; Reprint edition (July 29, 2008) ISBN-10: 0441016162 ISBN-13: 978-0441016167 Surprise. I normally review books on actual and not fictional technology, but I came across the hardcopy version of this book at my local library and, having not read a Haldeman novel in a couple of decades, decided to revisit science fiction as one might revisit an old girlfriend. I wanted to see how much my interest in the genre and specifically Haldeman's writing, had held up over time. I'm also kind of a sucker for time travel stories. It is a page turner. I reserved the novel as something to "wind down" with before going to bed and there were a few nights when I pushed my "reasonable consciousness" envelope by reading longer than I had intended. The beginning of the book introduces a mystery discovered by protagonist Matt Fuller, an MIT graduate student in the more or less near future. Watching Matt try to figure out how a simple piece of lab equipment he'd built had somehow developed the ability to move forward in time was a definite hook for me. He's a bright, but not brilliant underachiever who's given the opportunity for "greatness", but only if he keeps his discovery a secret. This means he must go the way of so many other "mad scientists" by using himself as the primary experimental subject. Each push of the button sends Matt further into the future in a geometric progression and Matt ends up about 15 years into his own future feeling more useless than in his own time. Hailed as a glorified lab rat and with his Professor taking all the credit for discovering this method of time travel, Matt eventually escapes the dead end of this existence by "stealing" the time machine (it was MIT property after all) and continuing to launch himself further forward in time. Unfortunately, once Matt leaves a future history that's any where near familiar to him (or the reader), the novel begins to fall apart. It is still quite readable, but Haldeman's social commentary becomes glaringly apparent. In this next jump, Matt encounters a future where "Christers" (Christians) have taken over the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. after the supposed return of Jesus. Haldeman is sadly transparent in portraying Christians (and probably all people of faith) as either conniving schemers, buffoons, or innocent pawns. I was hoping that Matt's encounter with the lovely and truly faithful Martha would have some sort of impact on his own state of faith (or lack thereof, since Matt is a self-declared Jewish atheist), but such is not the case. Haldeman uses this part of the book to make his case that any truly intelligent person will depend solely on scientific observation to explore and discover the universe, and that faith is merely surrendering to superstition. As a person of faith reading Haldeman's rendition of life "post-return" of Jesus, I had to determine that either he didn't do his Biblical homework, or he was making a point that Bible-believers will disregard what "the Word" actually says for a hand full of technologically generated miracles. The "faithful" in the Massachusetts of the 23rd Century blithely return to a world of a medieval religious rule with futuristic technology reserved for the ruling class. No Christian I know would have considered Jesus dropping in on the President of the United States as his first port of call to be even remotely valid, but somehow Haldeman portrays this as not a problem for the "elect". A rather simplistic view of people of faith which was one of the most disappointing parts of the book. I guess the author never met a believer that had a brain and perhaps the Scarecrow in the "Wizard of Oz" was the archetypal Christian, but I digress. It seems that Haldeman's pet peeves aren't reserved for Christianity though, in that Matt's next jump, some thousands of years into the future beyond the "Christers", takes him into a world where global society is based on eBay. A heroic but hapless Martha saves Matt's life while he's trying to escape her point in history, but at the cost of joining him on his journey into the future. While Matt confirms his understanding that Christ's return was a sham (it's now in the history books) put on by the government (talk about lack of separation between church and state), Martha, who manages to hold on to her faith for some time, eventually watches it crumble to dust as their journey forward through time continues. Matt and Martha do encounter a "savior" of a sort, both in their dreams and during each jump forward in time as they become unwitting victims of an artificial intelligence who needs Matt to help her (yes, it's a gendered intelligence) escape the boredom of running the "eBay society". For some mysterious reason (which is never revealed), this intelligence believes that seeking the ultimate end of the universe is the answer to a "life" of governing a bunch of wealthy but mentally vacant shopping drones. I could say that the book becomes less and less plausible from there, but when predicting the future, how can you say what will or won't happen? Matt struggles with his liberal ideals, especially towards women. On the one hand, he ends up explaining the various sexist aspects of the Bible to Martha and, on the other hand, arguing with himself about whether he should seduce the lovely and virginal Martha, or "act like a man" and protect her from the surrounding dangers, which includes himself. The book has a happy ending of sorts. Matt and Martha are rescued, both from their virtual captor and from forward time traveling, and given a choice of returning to a specific place or a specific time, not both. Without blatantly revealing the ending, Matt discovers several things (but not how time travel actually works). He does discover that he really loves Martha and treats her honorably, ultimately marrying her. He also discovers his "niche" if you will, by becoming a brilliant scientist, but only in the past. It's a little easier to be, or at least seem brilliant, if you know what scientific discoveries are about to be made. Martha discovers more, but for me, one discovery was sad. She loses her faith, but does fall in love and marry Matt. I suppose never seeing the return of Christ (or the coming of the Messiah, from Matt's perspective) would have to lead to the conclusion that the Bible, both Christian and Jewish, is just a collection of morality tales, not much different than the novel I'm reviewing. Martha leaves Christ behind and earns a degree in one of the sciences before "settling down" and having babies. Matt considers this an achievement far greater than his own. He achieves "greatness" by virtue of using what any 21st century physics grad student would know in a past where that knowledge was just on the cusp of being discovered. Matt (and thus Haldeman) considers Martha earning an undergraduate degree more significant, because he had to leave the fantasy of her faith behind to do it. Are education and faith truly mutually exclusive? The young couple finally take the one piece of advice Matt's father ever gave him, which was to "play the cards you're dealt". Sans time machine, Matt and Martha make a life for themselves in the time and place they were sent to by their saviors from the far future. At this point, domestic bliss is almost irrelevant and the next several decades are described in mere paragraphs. This unhappily bypasses the opportunity for both Matt and Martha to narrate their impressions on a history that the audience would have either lived through (the 20th century) or at least have heard about from their parents (or people like me). It could have been the most significant part of the novel but Haldeman treats it as an afterthought. The ending is ultimately unsatisfying to me. While Matt and Martha happily set up their household and family at some point in the near (historically speaking) past, their fate is as much accidental as anything else in this tale. The novel seems to reveal a certain truth about secularist and atheist thought; that life is random and ultimately meaningless. You end up where you end up, live, breathe, work, have babies, and then die without a point. There really are no lessons learned unless you take into consideration that a mediocre mid-21st century MIT grad student finds his purpose only by going into the past where foreknowledge makes him seem "cutting edge". Aren't we all like that though, at least in our fantasies? Who hasn't said to themselves, "If only I could go back with what I know now..." Sorry, Mr. Haldeman. This is a nice little piece of fantasy with liberal (politically and otherwise) amounts of personal and social commentary, but not your best work. Of course, if I re-read The Forever War after so long, would I be as disappointed?

So Whose Land Is It?

Dave Schechter, CNN Senior National Editor wrote a commentary on the Israel/Gaza conflict titled Crisis in Gaza: Why is this happening?. One thing the article does (more or less) nicely is to give a good time line of the conflict and the reason why two different people groups would believe that Israel (or "Palestine" if you will) belongs to them and are willing to die and to kill to keep it. Schechter proposes different points in history as the "starting point" of the conflict and, to his credit, he does start out with the Genesis narrative where God promises the Land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants. He further states that God commanded Abraham that Issac (and the Jewish people) and not his older son Ishmael (and the Arab people) would be the permanent inheritor. From a Biblical point of view such as the one I hold, that's pretty much "end game". What God has established isn't overruled by other historical events or modern public opinion. The one thing that Schechter doesn't mention is that Muslims believe that Ishmael is the "son of promise" rather than Issac according to the Koran, and they claim Abraham (Ibraham) as their own (which is why Jews and Muslims butt heads over the Tomb of Abraham in Hebron). The other thing Schechter doesn't specifically mention is that after Sarah died, Abraham went through a very formal purchasing of the Cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23:7-20) in Hebron which, according to the Bible, is not only the first permanent purchase of a piece of property in the Land of Israel by a Jew, but one of the three "indisputable" (despite the fact that they are all disputed today) pieces of property in Israel that have been purchased by Jews (the other two are the Temple Mount, purchased by King David and the piece of property in Shechem purchased by Jacob where his son Joseph is later buried). Another rather telling Biblical reference is in the Book of Joshua. After the death of Moses, God commands Joshua, as the leader of the Children of Israel, to completely conquer the Land, destroying the people who were then occupying it. Joshua 10:41-43 specifically records Joshua's conquering Gaza and that "Hashem, God of Israel, was waging war for Israel". Another portion in this book raises the issue of the modern conflict with the Palestinians. In the 9th chapter of Joshua, it describes how Joshua and the Jewish people were tricked into making a treaty with the indigenous Gibeonite people. God has commanded Joshua to destroy all of the people living in the land. The Gibeonites, realizing they had no way to win a war against the Children of Israel, sent messengers to Joshua, dressed as if they had traveled a long distance (and thus not living locally) to make a treaty. The Bible says Joshua made the mistake of relying on his own judgment rather than consulting God on the matter. He makes the treaty and, even after realizing his mistake, keeps his end of the bargain, even defending the Gibeonites when they are attacked by other local city-states. The consequence for the Gibeonites is that they were relegated to a servant-class relative to the Israelites. Fast forward to 1948 and the War for Independence in Israel. The Arab peoples (children of Ishmael if you will) who were living in the Land at the time had the option of getting out during the war, but were told by the attacking Arab states that the war wouldn't last very long and the Jews would all be killed or forced to leave. What would be the purpose of the "Palestinians" having to leave their homes when the "problem" would be over almost before it began. In human terms, the Arab states should have won this war, since they were fighting a foe that was undermanned and under gunned but perhaps "Hashem, God of Israel, was waging war for Israel". In any event, the Jews won and claimed Israel (a much smaller portion than Joshua eventually claimed) for their own. Here's the "treaty" part that was the lynch pin of the current conflict. At this point, the Arab peoples who suddenly found themselves inside the borders of the re-established Land of Israel were given a choice to either leave, and find homes in the surrounding Arab states, or to stay and become Israeli citizens. Those who stayed became what we think of as modern Palestinians. From a Biblical point of view, Joshua wasn't deceived this time. He deliberately made a treaty with "the Gibeonites" and made them equal citizens and participators, rather than a servant class. If they had obeyed God (or at least had re-read Joshua 9), they would have told the Arabs in their borders to leave and find shelter elsewhere. Of course, if you maintain a point of view on the conflict other than what I'm citing, then you are bound to immediately disagree with me, call me a few unkind names, and determine that I'm either a religious zealot or an outright bigot (or both). One point that Schechter left out is the origin of the name "Palestine". After the conflicts between the Roman occupiers of Israel in the First Century of the common era and the subjugated Jewish people, the Jews were once again sent into exile away from their native land. One method of crushing any desire some Jews may have had to reoccupy their land was to rename Israel "Palestine". If Israel, as such, didn't exist, then there would be no home land to return to. Schechter does accurately state that, while 19th Century European Jews did begin to return to "Palestine" in an attempt to re-establish Israel, there has always been a small Jewish remnant in The Land, during the entire period of time between 70 C.E. and the 20th Century, so there has never been a time when the Land was completely without a Jewish presence. The modern conflict between Israel and the "Palestinian" people is built on what storyteller Noa Baum calls a "spiraling vortex of violence" in her creative work, “A Land Twice Promised". It's characterized as an auto accident between two people where each person has a radically different story about how the collision happened and who was at fault. The "police" (the world, public opinion, the UN, whatever...) has a heck of a time trying to figure out the facts of the case, let alone rendering any sort of "judgment". The mainstream media and most of the world (as far as I can tell, based on the mainstream media) tends to side with the "underdog" of the tale, the Palestinians in Gaza (or the Palestinians elsewhere, depending on where the conflict seems to be happening at the time). Tales of raw sewage running down the gutters and people in Gaza living essentially in "Ghettos" does pull at the heart strings. Of course, when the Jews pulled out of Gaza, conditions were anything but dilapidated and they only became such after the Palestinians entered and began to tear Gaza apart (apparently to destroy any "Jewishness" that had been left behind). As I recall, time and time again, the Israeli government (which includes Arab members on the Knesset) have attempted to improve the quality of life for the Arab citizens of Israel in general and a lot of the "ordinary people" have, or would have accepted the assistance. Hamas (the latest incarnation of Palestinians who think "peaceful co-existence" means the total extermination of the Jewish people in "Palestine") has rejected such improvements out of hand. It would hardly mobilize the sympathy of the world, if Palestinians enjoyed the same standard of living as the Jewish citizens, which would include indoor plumbing. From a modern secular perspective, I'm being incredibly unreasonable at the very least and, suggesting that even in ancient times, that God commanded the Jews to take over Israel by killing every man, woman, and child who were currently occupying the Land, I must be some sort of monster. From a Muslim point of view, the whole situation is upside down. The Land of "Palestine" was promised by Allah to Ishmael and his descendants forever which are the Arab peoples and the Jews took it away from them by force and with the support of the United States of America (no wonder the Muslims are so angry at Jews and Americans). If you're Muslim, it must make perfect sense to hate Jews, to kill Jews, and to have the goal of taking all of Palentine back from the Jews, wiping Israel from the face of the earth. Going back to the secular world view, both sides must be crazy and both sides must be made to come to some sort of reasonable compromise so that they can "peacefully co-exist". It's like watching a couple of boys fight on the schoolyard. The teacher comes over, tries to break up the fight, and then attempts to convince the lads to become friends. Seems simple, right? I encourage you to read the source article at CNN. While I'm no fan of their political point of view, Dave Schechter presented about as even handed a perspective of the current and ancient conflict as any media organization is ever likely to publish. I've already stated what I believe in the body of this article. It's up to you to decide what you believe and who you believe in.

Nesting

Well, it's taken a little while, but I've gotten the place to display a color scheme that doesn't make me want to claw my eyes out. No, the day hasn't been a complete waste, despite what my wife says. I can multi-task when the need arises. I actually have been doing work around here. As part of that work, I was revisiting the idea of learning just enough about Django to get my face slapped, since it looks like I'll need to be doing some work in it (which I can't really talk about, naturally). Finished off a major rewrite in one of the documents I maintain. Not particularly complicated, just tedious. Only at the very end of the task did I remember that some of the content I thought was "missing" didn't actually need to be included. Maybe I don't multi-task all that well after all. One of the consequences of juggling is that I didn't let myself leave for lunch. Ate at my desk like a thousand other people, but didn't go out for a walk or anything more strenuous. That probably explains why I can't tighten my belt as far as I used to. Contemplating my next book review and who I'll write it for. I recently wrote a review of the Apress book Beginning OpenOffice 3 for Linux Pro Magazine but it won't appear until around March. Web publication provides so much more in the way of immediate gratification, but there's something to be said for seeing your name in a hardcopy book or periodical. As you can tell, I'm winding down towards the weekend at this point. I've accomplished most or all of what I can in terms of meeting my goals for next Monday. Of course starting this evening, I shut down the "work machine" for Shabbat, but I have quite a load to try to accomplish on Sunday. I was pretty good at keeping up with things in the evenings during the start of the week, but last night I taught a class and was pretty wiped out by the time I finally got home. I was just mentioning to one of the developers that most programmers seem nocturnal, but I'm most productive in the morning. I have a copy of YouTube: An Insider's Guide to Climbing the Charts and I've been trying to review it for a week now. Maybe I'll finally be able to get the writing done in the next few days. I'll let you know.

Why bother to blog?

So why am I here? I've resisted blogging for quite awhile. It seems like, as a culture, we are obsessed with communication and self expression. Anyone can create a blog and post any inane or banal content to the web (and some of you reading this may consider me part of that club). If I'm against producing content for its own sake, why am I blogging? I suppose my hope is that my content isn't for its own sake. I write for a living, so it's not a matter of posting that I've just had a cup of coffee or that I'm taking aspirin for a headache (though I've seen both on twitter). I hope is to use a blog to express something about the creative experience that'll be useful to someone. Doc Searls at the Linux Journal just posted a link to an article on that subject on twitter (speaking of) which is what finally pushed me over the edge to create a blog. I've tended to think of most bloggers as "a million chimpanzees" who have refuted the old saying about a million chimps, some typewriters, and the complete works of Shakespeare. Frankly, most bloggers need to learn how to spell and an elementary English composition class wouldn't hurt them either (at least for those people who speak and write English as their first language). As I continue to configure this blog, anyone reading it will be able to comment if you'd like or register some sense of insult if you feel I've mischaracterized you as a chimpanzee. Of course, I could be just proving that I am too.