Book Review: An Exercise for Madmen, Barbara Paul (1978)

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.43.29 PM

(Jack Gaughan’s cover for the 1978 edition)

2.5/5 (Bad)

Barbara Paul’s An Exercise for Madmen (1978), a retelling of Euripides’ The Bacchae, follows an established narrative pattern: Stranger enters community with dangerous knowledge.  Community reacts with suspicion but soon the stranger, despite claims of goodwill, begins to wield greater and greater influence.

In this case, a priapic-Romance cover-“ideal” alien man named Zalmox (masculine to women, feminine to men) gets an entire community to have great sex with him and everyone else….  And he brings magical alien apples, apples that cure madness….

Plot Summary

Location: the Pythia Medical Project, “an isolated place [far from Earth] where research could continue uninterrupted without any immediate danger to human life” (5).  Experiments on humans and animals abound on Pythia.

The cast: Pythian society falls into four main categories: the scientists, the test subjects, the technicians, and the sentient animal helpers (chimps with human hands).  And Jennie Giess does not fit.  She is an original test subject of Pythia raised away from Earth, her “parents were a sperm-and-ova bank in New York” (5).  Depressed, drifting, prevented from returning to Earth by manipulative scientists, she is the only non-essential personal  on the planet. Jennie spends her time writing about Pythia for Earth audiences and teaches the few children who do not show a propensity for science (a future where the liberal arts are no longer taught to all? perhaps that is why they are utterly unable to assess the morality of their often egregious experiments!).  Jennie’s boyfriend and various ex-boyfriends add drama.  There’s Sam Flaherty and his webbed feet, and Pythia’s leader Thalia, Jacob the intelligent chimp, children with blue and green cancer resistant skin, Dan the cybernetic man who controls the functions of the station….

And then there’s Zalmox, “an agronomist” (66) who travels, with his space apple plants that cure schizophrenia, across the cosmic reaches bringing his endless libido to all.  At first he causes a general fog of pleasantness to seep over the stratifications of Pythian society easing relations between groups, the experimental children and normals, etc.  But soon a descent into bacchic chaos begins: a cataclysm of threesomes and other pairings with all genders and combinations and ages…. The ramifications of this societal transformation are not as innocent (and “liberating?”) as Pythia’s inhabitants seem to think.  But the power Zarmox exudes, seduces.

Final Thoughts *spoilers*

Two central elements prevent An Exercise for Madmen (1978) from failing completely.  First, the two main women characters buck standard 70s SF trends.  Thalia, the leader of the Pythia settlement, must make the hard decisions when the world is crumbling around her irregardless of her own personal safety.  Jennie Geiss, depressed, dependent on drugs, aimlessly moving through a sequence of lovers, is not a traditional SF character—and I found the descriptions of her depression honest and affective: “A careless word, an unintentional snub, a short answer, the casual cruelty of other insecure souls in search of ego—boost almost anything was enough to make her withdraw into her herself even more during the day” (42).

Second, although the descent into bacchic chaos laboriously dulls the senses—there are only so many scenes of excess, partying to the cosmic beat of the stars stars piped over Pythia’s communication systems, and piles of naked people doing strange things to each other one can tolerate—the aftermath acts as a form of shock treatment.  The tone shifts.  The trauma sets in.  The characters realize their agency and complicity in causing the chaos.  The punch aches.

The novel’s final moments are weakened by a case of over-explanation in the form of Jennie Giess’ self-analysis (that doubles as the author’s statement of intention) as she contemplates her fate (164-167).  A self-analysis that lays out the work’s allusions to and intellectual descent from classical authors should be apparent to a reader with some grounding in the classics and do not need to be spelled out in excruciating detail: “Oedipus blinding himself in order to see.   […]. Gregory Samsa’s parents pretending they have no cockroach son.  Different ways of coping with the incompatible.  The healthy, unafflicted body has no need to cope: our long his of “coping” is symptomatic of—what? A terminal case of life?  Sophocles, Shakespeare, the Pear poet, Swift, Kafka—five brilliant diagnosticians of human malaise. (We also have quacks: John Fletcher, August Stridenberg, Kurt Vonnegut)” (165).  I wonder in what category this novel lies.

My biggest frustration concerns the integration of experimental “meta” passages into the narrative.  As the novel “rewrites” the play The Bacchae, Paul tries to put a more modern spin on the original notion of “script” by creating jarring filmic interludes.  In Barry N. Malzberg’s The Inside Men (1973) the filmic moments serve to show how the character views his own role, the invented movie as propagandistic filter.  In Langdon Jones’ short story “The Eye of the Lens” (1968), the camera lens, as a metaphor for God/an all-seeing entity/the sun, “sees” in a Godard-esque exercise that reduces narrative to a highly fragmented and symbolic sequence drenched with religious (and anti-religious) undertones.  Paul’s script chapters, detailing the confrontation between Thalia and Zalmox, do not add to the story’s craft or generate a meaning-rich layer of complexity.

A series of surreal scenes and nonsense paragraphs, for example, one that repeats the letter “p” indicate the final descent into chaos: “I perpetuate the pattern.  There’s a positive purpose propelling me—pushing, persuading, prolonging my problem” (148).  Yes, it’s a pattern!

As these two examples indicate, Paul moves half-heartedly in many different directions.  The ideas unfurl in a logical sequence but do not meld together in meaningful or artful ways.

Not recommended.

For more book reviews consult the INDEX

16 thoughts on “Book Review: An Exercise for Madmen, Barbara Paul (1978)”

  1. You certainly are a maverick in your choice of books Joachim.It’s not surprising she isn’t better known then.

    Mind you,I tend to do it too,only usually I tend to go for books that are slightly more reputable,such as “Golden Witchbreed” by Mary Gentle,which I read last year,but It’s a long,lugubrious tome.Stay away from it!

    1. It’s fun to read less known authors — I would never have discovered some of my favorite books — the short stories of Kit Reed ( + her novel Armed Camps), Missing Man (1975) by Katherine MacLean, etc.

      1. I agree.Last year though,I also read Connie Willis’s “The Time of the Fire:the Best of Connie Willis”,which was acceptable I thought,but that was all.I still haven’t managed to finish “Midnight Robber” by Nalo Hopkinson I sent for this year.I didn’t know of her,although the ratings were good,but I found long,tedious and inchorent.

        You have put me on to a few good books though that I still wouldn’t have read I suppose,such as Anna Kavan’s excellent “Ice”.I have known of Kit Reed however.I’ll probably contemplate reading her one day.

          1. Well,Connie Willis wasn’t all that well known to me,and I’d never heard of Nalo Hopkinson before.I was just trying to say,that I took a chance on authors whose names were either vague or unknown to me,but their books I found unimpressive.It’s funny really,but Kit Reed’s name was better known to me than those two.

            1. Willis has won eleven Hugos and seven Nebulas and is critically acclaimed (I have read her Hugo-winning novels Doomsday Book and To Say Nothing of the Dog). Nalo Hopkinson is well known as well at least among critics (Midnight Robber received a Hugo nod, The New Moon’s Arms was nominated for a Nebula, so was The Salt Roads).

              They might not be well know to you but they certainly are for most contemporary SF readers + critics.

            2. Yes well,there will be several if not many SF authors of the post 1970s period who will be unknown to me,even if they are familiar to a younger generation of SF readers and critics.Some such as William Gibson and Bruce Sterling,whose novels,”Neuronmancer” and “The Artificial Kid” I have read,have achieved great praise,as have Kevin Jeter,Rudy Ructer and James Blaylock,whose books I haven’t read.I have in fact tried to read two of Blaylock’s novels without being able to finish them,including “Homunculus” from my local library recently.This doesn’t include of course,stuff like Gene Wolfe’s “Book of the New Sun”,which is very well known and acclaimed,brilliant though it is.

              I can’t be expected to be familiar with them all though.Some SF authors,who emerged later in the last century,who were unknown to me,include Ian McDonald,whose novel “Hearts,Hands and Voices” was quite good,among a few more dreary authors.

              What did you think of Willis’s two novels?

      2. Richard, I am talking about lesser known in relation to reception history not whether or not I have personally read them. Two distinct categories!

        As for the Willis novels, I disliked both — not my style.

        1. Don’t worry Joachim,I know what you mean,I was just trying to give you an idea of my knowledge,or the lack of it,of SF published since the 1970s,which is patchy.I’d like to rectify if crucially.

          I think I’ll stay away from Willis’s stuff in that case then,especially since I have a good idea of what her stuff is like form reading her short stories.

    1. If orgies, magical apples, and failed experimental prose is your thing, then find yourself a copy! More seriously, give it a try — I appear to be one of the only reviewers of the work online.

  2. I saw that it was “a retelling of Euripides’ The Bacchae,” and was interested – and then looked closer at your rating. (Been re-reading the classics lately – going back to the cosmology and geneaology of the gods, reading some of the tragedies… Guess I’ll skip this one and stick to the originals, huh?)

  3. Paul is better known for her mysteries. And about obscure writers, I feel the same way. Anybody can rediscover Asimov or Heinlein for the first time, but so many authors made a few journeys into sf only to disappear into time. Just think, someday somebody will be doing a blog like yours about those obscure and lost writers of the early 2000’s.

    1. Definitely, part of the fun is the exploration and if that means a bad book every now and then, that’s ok…. All part of the fun! And, the reality is, I quit quite a few books that I am unable to finish as well that I never end of reviewing. So, my tolerance only goes so far!

Comment! Join the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s