User:DoctorWho42/The House That Jules Built

"The House That Jules Built" or "Afterword: The House That Jules Built" is an essay on science fiction by English writer Brian Aldiss. It was published in the 1969 short story anthology Best SF: 1968 or The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 2 edited by Brian W. Aldiss and Harry Harrison.

Publication history
"The House That Jules Built" was first published as the afterword in the 1969 book Best SF: 1968 or The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 2 edited by Brian W. Aldiss and Harry Harrison. In 1977, it reappeared in the Severn House book The Year's Best Science Fiction.

Content
Verne, Wells & Co. builds a house. In 1926, decorator Gernsback added a belfry and a nursery. Campbell converted the first floor into a workshop. Wells has a radio station in the living room. Tenants built a strong wall but now it is falling apart. The property has been divided into flatlets. There is the Moorcock Rumpus Room, the Clarke sunshine terrace, the Norton fountain, the Merril exercise-yard, and the Heinlein gun-turret. This metaphor has been done to death. There are different views on how it should be renovated or preserved. Our attitude towards the future has changed since H. G. Wells. The Wellsian concept of the World State seems outdated. The views of the universe have since changed too. Older writers still have their heroes in older models of the universe. Sci-fi predicted simplified futures. New Wave/Old Wave split is silly. Aldiss believes in the younger generation. He notes two writers Thomas M. Disch and John Sladek. With Camp Concentration, Disch proves his talent in short fiction and novels. Disch can be unexciting when he tries to. Pianist Daniel Barenboim thought music was the silence between the notes. Disch acknowledges literature can be the space between words. He critiques Norman Spinrad's Bug Jack Barron. It remains a bold blast of cynicism. Aldiss opines machines like government don't necessarily help the human condition. Aldiss considers the nonfiction book Victorians and the Machine: The Literary Response to Technology by Herbert L. Sussman. Aldiss quotes a bit of Thoreau's Walden. Despite the telegraph lines between Texas and Maine, neither have much to tell each other. Machines may not need us but we need them. SF had suspected this. It is unfortunate new writers don't look back to realize they retread old ground. Newer writers are more widely read though. This would reveal fresh perspectives. The near-future was the 1950s. Utopian dreams were either realised or proved dystopian. The future is a present-in-extension. Aldiss uses the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia as an example. The West had viewed the Soviet Union as improved since Stalinism. Aldiss considers the opposite. What is a new writer to do? Writing may earn a living if done well. SF's worst theory is technology would create a better future. This turns SF into propaganda. Writers can only write well if they remain independent. SF is too traditional. It might crumble into individual writers.

Reception
In 1969, Cosmos: A Science-Fantasy's Geoffrey Giles called it "a clever metaphorical piece, with many subtle allusions to the present state of sf and its leading personnel (even including himself)." In 1970, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction's Joanna Russ said Best SF: 1968 was "a fair mixed bag of stories framed by an Introduction and Afterword that indirectly—and unfortunately—lead one to expect more from the stories than they manage to give."