Who Goes There?

We’re dealing with a reprint today, and fittingly it’s from the pages of Famous Fantastic Mysteries, which dealt mostly with reprints. We also have one of the “canonical” American authors with Jack London, who if you went through the American public education meatgrinder you very likely had to read at some point. London is a “literary” type who also wrote a good deal of adventure fiction and—though not as publicized—science fiction. Indeed London was one of the pioneering figures of American genre SF, to the point where he can be thought of as a precursor to the Gernsback revolution of the ’20s; it’s a wonder, then, why he was never reprinted in Gernsback’s Amazing Stories. He died young, in 1916 at forty years old, from a combination of drug abuse and severe (like eye-popping) alcoholism; but despite his early death he wrote at a mile a minute, such that while SF makes up only a fraction of his output, he still wrote enough of it (a few novels plus a couple dozen short stories) to fill multiple volumes.

“The Shadow and the Flash” was first published in The Bookman in 1903, the same year London put out his most famous work, the novella The Call of the Wild. London’s most famous stories, including The Call of the Wild, are mostly set in the Klondike, which London had actually ventured to as a gold prospector. Probably not incidentally these stories are also London’s least political, camouflaging his leftist streak; his most widely read (and said to be his best) SF novel is The Iron Heel, which is an explicitly socialist reaction to capitalist oligarchy. “The Shadow and the Flash” is not a political tract, but it does have a strong allegorical hue, working as a cautionary tale with regards to man’s relationship with the sciences. One could argue this in itself is a political statement, but London’s chief goal here is to entertain, which you have to admit he’s pretty good at.

Placing Coordinates

First published in 1903 and then reprinted in the June 1948 issue of Famous Fantastic Mysteries, which is on the Archive. It’s been collected in Moon-Face and Other Stories, The Scarlet Plague and Other Stories, The Science Fiction of Jack London, The Iron Heel & Other Stories, and honestly too many more to count. The most curious reprint might be Judith Merril’s first anthology, Shot in the Dark, which is comprised mostly of ’40s genre SF stories but which also contains a few pre-Gernsback items. It’s totally possible Merril became aware of the London story through its FFM appearance. Since London has been dead for a very long time his stuff is all in the public domain, so here’s the Project Gutenberg link.

Enhancing Image

The narrator begins by telling us about two of his friends, Lloyd Inwood and Paul Tichlorne, who are mutuals and somehow both very similar and total opposites, like yin and yang. “Both were high-strung, prone to excessive tension and endurance, and they lived at concert pitch.” The two were all but born to be rivals, a rivalry that goes back to the three dudes’ childhoods, and at one point they were even pining for the same girl, who sadly had to turn them both down on account of polygamy not being an option. I’m not kidding, she can’t choose between the men, claims to love both, but says that since polygamy is illegaly and polyamory is taboo, the trio must disperse. (Worth mentioning she uses the word “polyandry,” which is to say a woman taking on multiple male partners, whereas “polyamory” would not be coined until the 1990s. The more you know…) Point being Lloyd and Paul are two brilliant men, at least with regards to the sciences, who also happen to have a strong competitive streak and who hate each other’s guts. The narrator, being a comparatively average guy, is basically forced to watch as his oomfies get up to hijinks in the name of besting each other.

The rivalry culminates in a question Lloyd and Paul are set on answering: How does one achieve invisibility? The topic of invisibility seemed to hold a lot of water in London’s time, for reasons I can’t parse. Consider that over the course of the roughly 200-year history of science fiction as we recognize it, topics shift in and out of relevance—by that I mean areas of science (or more often pseudo-science) that writers gravitate toward. In the 1840s and ’50s hypnosis (or mesmerism as it was called then) was in vogue then, with Edgar Allan Poe and Nathaniel Hawthorne getting in on it, and indeed hypnosis would remain popular up to the dawn of the 20th century. Infamously there was an obnoxious influx of SF stories concerned with ESP in the ’30s through the ’50s, in no small part due to John W. Campbell’s obsession with it. (A point rarely brought up about “Who Goes There?” and something that wasn’t carried over to The Thing is that the alien is said to be able to mimic people’s personalities by way of ESP.) In the 1950s there was also the start of the UFO craze. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there seemed this fascination with invisibility—see such iconic stories as Fitz-James O’Brien’s “What Was It?,” Ambrose Bierce’s “The Damned Thing,” Algernon Blackwood’s “The Willows,” and of course Lovecraft’s “The Colour Out of Space.” Then we have this relatively obscure Jack London story, which tackles a possible scientific basis for invisibility.

The rivalling scientists complement each other more than either could anticipate, including down to how each tries to attain invisibility. Lloyd, for his part, aims for perfect blackness—an object so black that the human eye struggles to perceive it. This wouldn’t be a Jack London story without at least a bit of racism, so we’re met with a cringe-worthy scene where Lloyd takes the narrator to a boxing match and remarks that a black man, when in the shadows of the edges of the interior, seems practically invisible. So, a formula that would create perfect blackness so as to be imperceptible, although that does leave one problem Lloyd is unable to fix: the object’s shadow. Nothing he can do about that it seems, so it’s not “perfect” invisibility. Paul, on his end, tries a formula that would make an object perfectly transparent in the sense that light goes through it, and as such it would not only be invisible but cast no shadow—like a pane of glass, only more so. The problem, then, is different, in that like glass the invisible object is subject to color flashes, like a rainbow effect, such that the invisible object would give off brief flashes of color. Thus we have the title, the shadow and the flash—the imperfections in each man’s experiment. The narrator, not being a scientist, is astounded by all this, although he fears his friends may be verging on a point of no return—that these experiments could prove disastrous.

If “The Shadow and the Flash” is about anything it’s about the impossibility of attaining perfection, even if one tries bending the laws of known science. Each man’s invention is miraculous, but also flawed, without a solution that wouldn’t spawn yet another flaw. Each has what the other lacks. This follows a long tradition in science fiction of the sciences being a catalyst for man’s folly—an anti-science slant that goes back to Frankenstein and which can be often seen in the works of Michael Crichton. In this sense London’s story is very much a cautionary story; but at the same time it must be said there’s a tangible awe with how he and his scientists describe their discoveries, a thirst for knowledge that London seemed to share with his characters to some extent. Remember that London was an autodidact, a voracious reader who read up on seemingly every notable intellectual of the 19th century, for lack of a proper education; one can safely assume a strong curiosity is necessary for such a life. Like Lloyd and Paul, who are born risk-takers (we’re told of a childhood episode where the two nearly drowned themselves in one of their contests), London was an adventurer who probably didn’t imagine himself living to a fine old age. As such there’s an immediacy and ferocity in the writing that would make it read as exaggerated to a modern reader, but it would’ve fit well in a pulp magazine.

There Be Spoilers Here

The climax of this story is a bit of an odd one. The three meet up on a tennis court, wherein Lloyd and Paul are both invisible; mind you that both men are naked, and they seem to be pretty casual about this around the presumably straight narrator. (Fabric is too complex a material to make totally invisible, so it makes sense to strip and paint yourself with the experimental formula, right?) The two men get into a fight on the court (remember that this is two almost perfectly invisible men) that results, somehow, in them beating each other to death. It’s unclear how they could’ve killed each other at basically the same time or how they would’ve been able to even handle each other. There are a few logical questions that pop up throughout this story that it’s best to not think too hard about. For example we meet at one point a hunting dog Paul has made invisible and which the narrator accidentally fumbles into, except apparently the formula has made the dog perfectly silent as well as invisible, as it doesn’t make even the slightest sound until it makes direct contact with the narrator. I say this all in good fun, of course, because the science remains just plausible enough whilst providing a fast-paced and engrossing narrative. And anyway the narrator at least learns an important lesson. This whole tragedy could’ve been prevented had the boys agreed to be in an M/F/M throuple.

A Step Farther Out

Aside from a certain scene, “The Shadow and the Flash” holds up a surprising amount given its vintage. I mentioned at the beginning that it’s perplexing how London never appeared in Amazing Stories when that magazine was focused on reprints, since Hugo Gernsback was concerned with establishing a continuity with pre-pulp pioneers in the field like H. G. Wells and Edgar Allan Poe. Surely London’s contributions to SF are not to be overlooked! At the same time the fact that this story reads like proto-Gernsbackian and even proto-Campbellian goes to show how much American genre SF had changed between 1900 and 1950—or rather how much it didn’t change. It’s praise for the story but damning for the field as a whole.

See you next time.