{"title":"The Heterochronic Past and Sidewise Historicity: T. S. Eliot, Pablo Picasso and Murray Leinster","authors":"Charles M. Tung","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474431330.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of the twentieth century, primitivism and paleomodernism appeared to reflect primarily those conditions out of which both modernism and SF have been shown to emerge: evolutionary and imperial conceptions of history. Modernism’s complex engagement with late-nineteenth-century time culture went beyond a simple turn toward the past and produced alternative conceptions of time and history. This chapter explores the idea of heterochrony derived from evolutionary biology’s knowledge of the body’s hodgepodge of disjunctive timings and times in order to reexamine two canonical orientations toward the past—Eliot’s tradition and Picasso’s primitivism. Drawing a connection with Murray Leinster’s “Sidewise in Time” (1934), which features a jumbled and patchwork geography comprising a “Post-Cambrian jungle left in eastern Tennessee,” a Russian Alaska and California, and preindustrial Chinese settlements around the Potomac, this chapter reconfigures modernist “pastism” against the notion of a single, progressive, evolutionary history justifying racist imperial schemes, as well as the shallowing of time by capitalist space-time compression.","PeriodicalId":275115,"journal":{"name":"Modernism and Time Machines","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modernism and Time Machines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474431330.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
At the beginning of the twentieth century, primitivism and paleomodernism appeared to reflect primarily those conditions out of which both modernism and SF have been shown to emerge: evolutionary and imperial conceptions of history. Modernism’s complex engagement with late-nineteenth-century time culture went beyond a simple turn toward the past and produced alternative conceptions of time and history. This chapter explores the idea of heterochrony derived from evolutionary biology’s knowledge of the body’s hodgepodge of disjunctive timings and times in order to reexamine two canonical orientations toward the past—Eliot’s tradition and Picasso’s primitivism. Drawing a connection with Murray Leinster’s “Sidewise in Time” (1934), which features a jumbled and patchwork geography comprising a “Post-Cambrian jungle left in eastern Tennessee,” a Russian Alaska and California, and preindustrial Chinese settlements around the Potomac, this chapter reconfigures modernist “pastism” against the notion of a single, progressive, evolutionary history justifying racist imperial schemes, as well as the shallowing of time by capitalist space-time compression.
在二十世纪初,原始主义和古现代主义似乎主要反映了现代主义和科幻小说所产生的条件:进化的和帝国的历史观。现代主义与19世纪晚期时间文化的复杂接触超越了对过去的简单转向,并产生了时间和历史的另类概念。这一章探讨了从进化生物学对身体的分离时间和时间大杂烩的认识中衍生出来的异时性观念,以重新审视过去的两种典型取向——艾略特的传统和毕加索的原始主义。穆雷·伦斯特(Murray Leinster)的《时间的一边》(Sidewise in Time)(1934)描绘了一个杂乱拼凑的地理,包括“田纳西州东部留下的后寒武纪丛林”、俄罗斯的阿拉斯加和加利福尼亚,以及波托马克河周围的工业化前中国定居点。这一章重新配置了现代主义的“怀旧主义”,反对单一的、进步的、进化的历史为种族主义帝国计划辩护的概念,以及资本主义时空压缩对时间的肤浅化。