Over the years, as I’ve researched
the evolution of fantasy-concepts in prose fiction—with special
attention to their significance for either the superhero idiom or the
combative mode—I’ve meant to force myself to re-read the 20,000
word monster known as William Hope Hodgson’s THE NIGHT LAND. It’s
probably been thirty years since I first read it, and even then, such
critics as C.S. Lewis and H.P. Lovecraft warned me in advance that
many of the novel’s virtues were impaired by assorted vices. I
remember agreeing with those critics in large part. On my second (and
probably last) reading, I’m less impressed with the specific
virtues of NIGHT LAND than with its place in fantasy-lit history.
The year of the book’s publication,
1912, boasts at least four major conceptual achievements. In America
Edgar Rice Burroughs authored two of the four, debuting both Tarzan and
John Carter of Mars. In the same year two English authors, Sax Rohmer
and Arthur Conan Doyle, conceived respectively the first great Asian
supervillain, Fu Manchu, and the first perfectly preserved
prehistoric domain, the Lost World. Four years previous, William Hope
Hodgson had published his best-conceived novel, THE HOUSE ON THE
BORDERLAND, and in 1912 he sought to up the ante with an even more
ambitious fantasy-scape, THE NIGHT LAND.
Though there had various “fantastic
voyage” tales before THE NIGHT LAND, I don’t know how many
succeeded in picturing a futuristic version of Earth in apocalyptic
terms. Readers of the late 20th century grew up on
numerous post-apocalyptic tales where Earth was ravaged by disaster,
often nuclear holocaust, and reshaped into a bizarre new environment,
but such stories were relatively rare in the early 2oth. NIGHT LAND
doesn’t even sport a disaster as such. Following a lame
framing-device, in which a man of relatively modern times suffers
bereavement, he imagines a far-future world dominated by darkness and
strange lurking monsters. Most of humankind has been eradicated, and
the survivors endure in a few super-scientific cities known as
“Redoubts.” In contrast to later post-apocalyptic worlds, the
nameless hero’s purpose is not to redeem the fallen world, but to
rescue a single woman, implicitly the reincarnation of the woman who
dies during the framing-device. The modern man and the future-man are
inexplicably the same person, and both of them talk in a fustian
manner that reminds me of the labored language of medieval epics.
It’s this literary style—coupled with a first-person narration
that eschews any dialogue—that makes the monstrous NIGHT LAND so
hard to enjoy.
I’ll call the unnamed narrator “X,”
since Hodgson once published a cut-down version of the novel entitled
THE DREAM OF X. X lives in the largest of the human enclaves, a vast
pyramid known as the Last Redoubt. Implicitly futuristic technology
keeps these scions of humanity alive against the external threats,
though for Hodgson future-science is just a source of visual wonders
and nothing more. In the course of the novel X sometimes makes veiled
references to evolution, though not using that specific name, but
similarly, his creator has no interest in showing how the Night Land
evolved from the old world. This provides yet more common ground with
the world of the medieval romance, wherein noble knights forged
through assorted strange domains like nothing on Earth, scaring up
witches and dragons and knights of evil intent.
X, though for the most part an ordinary
man, possesses a form of telepathy, and this allows him to apprehend
that another human enclave, the Lesser Redoubt, has been attacked by
the Night Land’s monsters. However, at least one woman has
survived: Naani, who is the reincarnation of the woman lost by the
original narrator. “Five hundred youths” of the Last Redoubt
storm forth to fight the monsters, and they’re all killed. So X
decides to mount a lone rescue-mission, moving on foot and armed only
with a weapon called a “Discos,” which can cut through
monster-flesh like a buzzsaw.
Lewis and Lovecraft opined that the
first half of the novel, with the warrior making his way through the
Night Land, was better than the second half, in which X locates Naani
and starts the arduous process of taking her back to the Last
Redoubt. Granting that in both sections Hodgson’s style is archaic,
prolix, and monotonous, I became a little more interested once X
reached the halfway mark, and was forced thereafter to guard over a
mostly helpless maiden during his exploits. (Naani does stab one of
the various monsters that attack the couple on their way back, but a
valkyrie she ain’t.) One point of interest is that though X does
get Naani back to their refuge, the occasion is almost marked by
tragedy, but Hodgson allows for a happy ending after all.
In addition to castigating the horribly
affected style Hodgson attempts in the novel, Lovecraft and Lewis
blast the romantic arc, with the former attacking the “sticky
romantic sensibility” and the latter assailing the “irrelevant
erotic interest.” Indeed, in editor Lin Carter’s introduction to
Ballantine’s 1972 paperback edition of NIGHT LAND, he remarks that
Ballantine’s editors cut down a lot of the billing and cooing. Even
what remains in the Ballantine edition is horrendously repetitive,
and Naani is no more interesting as a character than is X: both are
just stereotypes of heroine and hero. The romantic arc is never
compelling, but at times there’s a mild perverse interest in seeing
how Hodgson depicts feminine impracticality during the long
pilgrimage. The two protagonists naturally never have sex, since
they’re not married, but Hodgson devotes so much space to telling
us how often they kiss that a modern reader has to wonder.
Editor Lin Carter compares the Night
Land to the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch, but that’s an overly
ambitious claim. Hodgson conjures up a lot of weird horrors,
including gigantic slugs and monstrous hounds, but the ones the reader
sees clearly are fairly dull, and the creatures that are not seen
clearly are a little too hazy and ill-defined. Hodgson isn’t
interested in carefully building a picture of his apocalyptic world,
he wants to evoke “the horrors of the half-seen.” But I think he
was less interested in building his world than his hero: all the
monsters exist only for X to slay them with his mighty Discos. In
fact, the fight-scenes are the novel’s strength, particularly one
in which X contends with a four-armed humanoid and literally
“disarms” the monster by cutting off its upper set of arms with
his weapon.
Thus THE NIGHT LAND qualifies as a
combative work. However, the world itself is too vague to deserve the
status of a literary myth. It strikes me as an uneasy blend of two
such myths promulgated during the late 19th century: the
bizarre future-scape that appears in H.G. Wells’ THE TIME MACHINE,
and the endless geographical vistas found in the faux-medieval
fantasies of William Morris. I cannot say with any certainty if
Hodgson had read either author; it’s possible the Night Land was
inspired by other, comparable sources. But the combination of
concepts seems fortuitous. Wells supplied the eerie image of a world
mutated by the ravages of time, but the main action of the story was
confined to a limited “stage,” a small part of England, in order
to illustrate the cultural downfall of the Eloi and the Morlocks.
Morris’s fantasies were the first purely literary works to take an
Earth-like landscape and populate it with magical locales and
inhabitants thereof. Hodgson, by cross-breeding the ideas of the
apocalyptic world and the endless fantasy-landscape, didn’t so much
create a new lit-myth as to pave the way for greater works to follow.