杏吧原创

On a run-down world, the buzz is of a new, pristine blue planet, like Earth as it was 65 million years ago. Who will be allowed to go, and will the arrivals treat this planet any better? This is the universe of The Stone Gods, Jeanette Winterson鈥檚 latest novel: part satire, part love story, part manifesto. She talked to Liz Else and Eleanor Harris about science鈥檚 role in our future

What鈥檚 going on in The Stone Gods?

I wanted to look at how technology is taking over science, how mechanistic it is. Without wishing to be too polemical, I wanted to challenge people鈥檚 ideas about what science can do. It鈥檚 not the solution for everything. I鈥檓 quite nervous about technology. Some of it has made our lives infinitely better, but humans are really bad at using things wisely. Every good thing that we make we manage to turn into a negative, which increasingly threatens both the planet and its species. So my question is this: with all these things that we could do, what would we actually do with a new planet?

If we found a new Earth, would we be different?

I don鈥檛 think so. When Stephen Hawking bangs on about how the future of mankind is in space, it makes me really depressed. It鈥檚 a boy鈥檚 fantasy, like not tidying your bedroom because your mother will do it 鈥� trash the place, then leave it. I wanted to challenge the idea that we can simply leave. Even if we could leave, not many of us would be allowed to go. It would be terrible.

That鈥檚 a rather grim scenario for the future.

I don鈥檛 want to sound like a doom-monger because I鈥檓 not one, I鈥檓 optimistic. I do feel we have every chance, but not unless we are realistic, both about our own negativity and our own possibility. The idea that we might be repeating the same mistakes is central to the book 鈥� it鈥檚 there in the last line: 鈥淓verything is imprinted for ever with what it once was.鈥� It also seems to be the truth of the fossil record, and you can go back into cosmic radiation and find echoes of everything. It鈥檚 all there, isn鈥檛 it?

What do you make of our relationship with science and technology?

I am ambivalent, because I think that the real problems of the human condition won鈥檛 be solved by another set of gadgets or even by spectacular interventions of the DNA kind. I introduce the idea of 鈥済enetic fixing鈥� in The Stone Gods, with people choosing their ages. But when we鈥檙e all young and beautiful and everything鈥檚 supposed to work, it鈥檚 still going to be a nightmare because the problems are inside our heads. They aren鈥檛 going to go away just because we all look like star gods. Even if I could take a pill to be perfect, I wouldn鈥檛.

What would help the human condition?

I tend to put my faith in the power of thought because I think people need to change from the inside out, not the outside in 鈥� that never works. We鈥檝e got into a 鈥渟cience can fix it鈥� mentality, which is not the fault of science. No matter how much we pollute the planet, science will clean it up, if we run out of oil it doesn鈥檛 matter because the boffins will think of some other way. It鈥檚 always pushing the responsibility for fixing these problems onto 鈥渙ther鈥� people, whoever they may be, giving them enormous power and, at the same time, suggesting there really aren鈥檛 any problems. It鈥檚 the George W. Bush school of thought, which cannot be right.

How will the 18 to 30 generation react to the book?

I鈥檓 starting up a MySpace campaign which I hope will provide a platform for debate. But I hope everyone will also understand that the book is my manifesto for what we could have, and that I can鈥檛 bear the heartbreak of what we鈥檙e doing to the beauty of this planet. I come from a mill town, and to me the industrial revolution looked like a collective nervous breakdown. The human impact of these technological shifts is often devastating. You can鈥檛 change our heritage in 250 years: we are much older than that. I鈥檇 love it if science and technology weren鈥檛 always in the service of the bottom line. Of course there鈥檚 been progress, but generally the story is of smash-and-grab and stuff the consequences.

Do men and women see these issues differently?

I do think there is a gender issue here. That doesn鈥檛 mean there is an obvious male/female split. But there is a sense in which boys get mesmerised with the potential of invention in a mad, Dr Frankenstein way. Perhaps they believe in their own myths more than women do. Women are realistic probably because right across the world they鈥檙e still the ones who tend the children, or look after the land. It鈥檚 no wonder that we call the planet 鈥渟he鈥�. It is home: men are always trying to escape from home, but we, women, are 鈥渉ome鈥�.

You鈥檝e written for children too鈥�

Yes, Tanglewreck, about the nature of time 鈥� stealing it and running out of it! I loved the idea of something travelling at the speed of love, which proves to be the one thing faster than light. I wrote it for my god-daughters.

How much science did you do at school?

Standard stuff; chopping up gerbils鈥� eyeballs and so on. But there was never any attempt to make connections, and I鈥檓 a real join-up-the-dots person. I want to know the consequences, I want a grand unified theory of me!

What do you think about novelists and science?

I hate science fiction. But good writers about science, such as Jim Crace or Margaret Atwood, are great. They take on science because it鈥檚 crucial to our world, and they use language to give energy to ideas. Others just borrow from science and it ends up like the emperor鈥檚 new clothes, with no understanding of the material. But you shouldn鈥檛 fake it because science is too important, it鈥檚 the basis for our lives. I expect a lot more science in fiction because science is so rich.

What鈥檚 your next book about?

It鈥檚 called Robot Love and it鈥檚 for kids. A girl builds a multi-gendered robot, which then kills her parents because it sees them mistreat her, so they both go on the run. I鈥檓 fascinated by artificial intelligence and where it will lead. These robots couldn鈥檛 build anything as bad as us 鈥� so why would they keep us?