A New Grammar for Science Fiction

Science Fiction is no longer a novelty.

We do not want to read Science Fiction because it is set in the future. Science Fiction must offer some deeper, truer view of ourselves and our place in the cosmos.


You Devil, You: Prometheus in Three Assessments (Part Two)

Today we feature the second of three short pieces on Ridley Scott's Prometheus.
Assessment Two: Myth, Maker and "Creation"
Nathaniel K. Miller

There are resonances in Prometheus beyond the Oedipal, of course. The deft layering of meanings and references Scott employs is the real influence of Kubrick here, moreso than the specific shades of 2001 - though those exist, too, particularly in Weyland's framing and in David's uneasy assimilation. The religious imagery, especially surrounding Christianity and Jesus, is much more controversial than it's been recognized to be, and in the absolute opposite direction.
It's not in the film, so I hesitate to include it, but Scott did mention the idea that Jesus was an Engineer sent to pacify humanity. That would cast Christianity in the light of a mere control mechanism - something which many believe true of religion even without alien interlopers. That's an important bit of apocrypha, and it tells us something about the messages and themes at work here.
Just before we see Shaw play out her own horrific variation on the virgin birth, David tells her he has to take her necklace (and by implication her faith) because it may be contaminated. That's powerful stuff, and far from the wholesale endorsement of religion some seem to see in the film.

But there's religion and there's religiousness, and Scott is sharp enough to know the difference - unlike so Many of the reactionary viewers who rushed, idiotically, to accuse the film of some kind of formal endorsement of religion. Some even suggested Scott was attempting to give us a believable creationist situation in Prometheus. One might think, if this were the case and it were an endorsement, it would be a slightly friendlier, marginally more desirable universe - one, perhaps, in which something other than abject horror is reflected in the very means by which life exists.
Scott understands that the human capacity for religious belief is part of something much more complex, interesting and deserving of reckoning in the arts than a simple question of logic or even truth. But I think he's also given us a film in which basically all the consequences follow from that drive. While Shaw's faith is not anything so crude as a character flaw, and she is much more complicated (and, at least from a Gnostic perspective, in the end less enlightened) than a mere stand-in for Eve, it is her vision, her desire to "meet her maker," which drives the story. I don't believe she's being punished for her faith - at least, if she is, it is the arbitrary punishment of the void, a mere casualty of causality and not a reflection of some kind of cosmic justice, which doesn't seem to exist here at all. However, she does suffer in the prison of her own making - in her blindness to the unity which could be the lot of all creatures if only they could see it as possible.

Let's consider, for a moment, Shaw's self-administered abortion. Are we to believe that she intuited the nature of the thing in her womb? This is a character plagued as much by the absence of her potential offspring as by the absence of her theoretical creators. And yet, in the face of this "miracle," she doesn't hesitate to excise the thing from her body in the most extreme way. The scientist who wears the cross around her neck doesn't pause to see the ramifications. This is not accidental - Shaw, like the rest, can't square her fantasies and myths with the reality of the universe. But once more the horror here is of self-delusion; she still sees the story of her savior as part of a different universe, one in which miracles cannot be mistaken for parasites.
Of course, she's right - she writhes away from the thing she extracts, the white worm, the trilobite. A thing made for darkness. What does this say about her faith? To her, of course, it says nothing – that’s part of the overall theme here, of blindness and self-delusion. What about to us?

In the end, pursued by the Engineer, she eventually closes the circle, throwing the rejected god to the rejected child. She screams at the Engineer to die, a final act of Oedipal rage as she sees the abomination fulfill its role as savior. The progeny eats the progenitor - Ouroboros.

But this is not a universe where parsimony reigns, where balance is encoded in the life-cycle; this is an Alien movie, and the tidy circle, the taut belly of the snake, bursts open, and something even more horrible emerges.

It seems that Scott's relationship with this more heavy-handed human history is anything but laudatory. He wants to show us that such a universe isn't nearly as comforting an idea as we've been taught to think. Oh, for the peaceful dissatisfaction of a purely natural world! In the face of these terrors, one thinks of Darwin as a kind of Santa Claus - a giver of gifts, unburdened with gravity or agency.
But that's the flip-side of this rhetorical world. Scott is also telling us that we cannot understand the universe with science alone - because it is a universe with human beings in it, and human beings are irrational, emotional, self-destructive and self-deluded. That's not an indictment of science, but of human nature.

Despite all that hopelessness, Scott isn't committed enough to the dystopian aspect that he completely disavows those qualities in human beings. It's also a film in praise of faith, persistence, curiosity. That isn't a plot hole, and if it's a contradiction, it's an honest one.