The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Mary and her monster

Some thoughts on Mary Shelley and Frankenstein


04/01/2025

Mary Shelley was born on August 30, 1797. Mary had the idea for Frankenstein—or the Modern Prometheus as it was known at the time—when she was 18, and she finished writing it when she was 19. This teenager, who was excluded from the kind of education her male peers enjoyed, created not one but two of the most enduring characters in fiction: the obsessive scientist and the monster he creates. For 200 years, Frankenstein has generated multiple stage and film adaptations across all genres, and it remains as firmly embedded in our culture as ever.

Mary Shelley was the daughter of two hugely important radicals: feminist icon Mary Wollstonecraft and political philosopher William Godwin. She was the lover and then wife of the revolutionary poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and friend of the infamous rebel Lord Byron. Frankenstein was conceived while Mary, Shelley, and Byron were trapped indoors by bad weather during their stay in a villa by Lake Geneva in 1816. To occupy themselves, they decided to invent ghost stories, and Frankenstein was Mary’s contribution.

As is so often the case with women writers, Mary has been treated as an appendage to her parents’ and her husband’s literary careers… whose primary function was to guard the reputations of the more illustrious minds that framed her own. Mary’s life after Shelley’s death is usually dismissed as uninteresting. Biographer Richard Holmes writes, ‘She was still obsessed by Shelley’s papers, and trapped by memories both idealised and remorseful, her life attained a curious stillness’. But Mary, who was only 25 when Shelley drowned, was active enough to support herself and her surviving son despite being ostracised by society and by Shelley’s aristocratic family. She was a writer, reviewer, essayist, executor of her father’s estate, and architect of Shelley’s poetic reputation—in addition to writing five further novels which explored gender inequality.

It is apparently quite difficult for some to accept that a young woman was capable of writing Frankenstein. Professor Charles Robinson worked through a hand-written copy of Frankenstein counting some 5,000 changes suggested by Percy Shelley. The professor declared that ‘The book should now be credited as “by Mary and Percy Shelley”.’ This is rubbish. Other critics have noted that Shelley did no more than any editor, mainly correcting spelling and punctuation. When Shelley drowned just before his 30th birthday, he left a literary mess behind him. Many of his poems remained unpublished until Mary edited and published them. Another academic argues that Mary Shelley’s ‘magisterial editions of 1824 and 1837’ were vital in securing the poet’s reputation. Susan Wolfson writes that Mary’s editing demonstrated ‘considerable authority, at times co-creation’. Without Mary, Percy Shelley would never have entered the great canon of English literature. But does anyone claim that Shelley’s poems should now be credited to Percy and Mary Shelley’?

Many women writers are subtly undermined by the patronising assumption that they simply and artlessly describe their personal experiences. Mary Wollstonecraft died after giving birth to Mary, and by the summer of 1816, 18-year-old Mary had already had two children, one of which she buried. In 1817 Shelley’s wife Harriet and Mary’s half-sister Fanny both committed suicide. Bingo! The creation and destruction, the parody of giving birth in Frankenstein can be satisfactorily explained away. But again this will not do. Mary was familiar with all the intellectual and scientific developments of her time. She attended lectures given by chemist Humphry Davy and Dr Luigi Galvani who passed electric currents through dead bodies.

Mary was also a profoundly political woman. Her book is best understood as an imaginative engagement with the Industrial Revolution which threatened to reshape man’s relationship with nature and with capitalism which was still in its blood-soaked infancy. In Frankenstein, she created a tale which continues to resonate because it articulates a powerful response to capitalism, to class division, and to exploitation and revolt.

Frankenstein can also be read as a feminist novel. It is Victor Frankenstein’s attempts to supplant women in the process of reproduction that leads to disaster. The story, with its dead mothers and murdered wives, reveals what happens when women are marginalised.

Frankenstein was set in the 1790s, the decade of the French Revolution and the Haitian Revolution which established the first black republic. As capitalism developed, it provoked a violent response from those it impoverished by new methods of manufacturing—some 12,000 troops were sent to Nottingham to quell the Luddite Rebellion of 1812. Lord Byron’s first (and only) speech in the House of Lords opposed the introduction of the death sentence for machine breaking, but hundreds of Luddite rebels were executed before the movement subsided. Frankenstein’s monster was born out of these social convulsions and protests.

Mary’s monster is not the mute, dumb monster portrayed by Boris Karloff in the 1931 film. He learns to speak and to read, to love music and the poetry of John Milton. ‘I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous’, the monster pleads. Here Mary echoes the pleas of her reforming contemporaries who argued that only improving worker’s lives could prevent violent revolt. But Frankenstein is not just an appeal for worker’s rights—there is a deeper and more fundamental protest going on.

Unlike previous monsters, Mary’s is a dynamic, totalising one. Frankenstein does not stay in the shadows or in the creepy castles like the ghosts in Anne Radcliffe or Lewis Monk’s gothic novels. Frankenstein and his monster chase each other across huge geographical spaces. This reflects how capitalism is also a dynamic system, driven to constantly expand and grow. In addition, the workings of the system are hidden and mysterious and far beyond the control of any individual capitalist, however powerful. From the Communist Manifesto comes this description, ‘Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells’.

Frankenstein’s monster is a metaphor for the condition of the working classes in the early years of the Industrial Revolution. The monster is not natural, he has been created. Like the men and women being forced into the factories, the monster is stitched together from different elements, and like them, he is deformed and debased.

Through the monster’s naïve eyes, Mary invites us to share his disgust at the degradation of workers. He tells Victor, ‘I heard of the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty, of rank, descent and noble blood. I learned that the possessions most esteemed by your fellow creatures were high and unsullied descent united with riches. A man might be respected with only one of these advantages; but, with either, he was considered, except in very rare instances, as a vagabond and a slave, doomed to waste his power for the profits of the chosen few!’

The Monster warns Frankenstein: ‘Remember that I have my power …You are my creator, but I am your master!’ In the monster, Frankenstein has created his own gravedigger. Two hundred years later, Mary Shelley’s novel is more relevant than ever because capitalism is today more monstrous than even she could have imagined.

Charlotte Gordon’s double biography Romantic Outlaws: The Extraordinary Lives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley is available from Bookmarks bookshop .

The Gisèle Pelicot Case: A Catalyst for Change in Justice and Society

The trial over the decade-long abuse involving numerous men has shaken many, and requires us to demand societal and judicial change


03/01/2025

The case of Gisèle Pelicot, a woman from the small village of Mazan in southern France, has captured attention across France and beyond. Her horrific case made headlines when the court hearings began in September, bringing her harrowing story to light. 

For nearly a decade, her husband Dominique Pelicot had systematically drugged her by lacing her food and drinks with sedatives, leaving her unconscious. Initially, Dominique sexually assaulted his wife alone. However, he soon found that this no longer satisfied him. 

He later admitted to becoming addicted to assaulting his wife and subsequently began seeking other men to participate. He recruited strangers from a website called “against her will” and invited them into their home to rape her. 

Dominique’s abuse extended beyond Gisèle, deeply affecting their entire family. The investigation revealed that Dominique had secretly taken nude photographs of his adult daughter and his sons’ wives without their knowledge, further demonstrating his pattern of abuse and exploitation. 

Gisèle’s daughter, Caroline Darian, testified about the devastating impact on the family, describing how they initially believed Gisèle’s symptoms were caused by illness. The emotional toll on the children has been profound, with their son David Pelicot recounting his horror upon discovering that his wife had been photographed without her consent, including during her pregnancy. 

Dominique Pelicot’s manipulation of Gisèle went beyond the physical. He gaslighted her into believing she had health problems, such as Alzheimer’s, when she began experiencing memory loss and unexplained weight changes due to prolonged drugging. 

What particularly shocked people around the world was that the perpetrators were “ordinary” men. The case broke the stereotype of a rapist. It’s not someone outcast from society, moving in the shadows. It could be your brother, neighbor, or colleague. A trusted member of a community. 

It reveals that “roofying” is not limited to nightlife or bars; it can also happen behind closed doors, committed by someone you trust most. In this case, the perpetrators worked in professions such as firefighter, nurse, soldier, journalist, prison officer, and lorry driver. Ranging from highly respected job to more common ones, the French media appropriately referred to them as “Monsieur Tout-le-Monde” (“Mr. Everyman”). 

I’ve seen the refrain “Not all men” frequently surface in social media discussions about sexual violence against women. This phrase cannot be justified. While it’s true that not all men are rapists, it’s undeniable that, in this case, all the rapists were men. Such arguments diminish the lived experiences of survivors and deflect attention from the systemic issues that enable sexual violence to persist. 

Even more telling is the geographic proximity of these men, all the convicted lived within a 60km radius of the village of Mazan. The case exposes the deeply rooted rape culture in our society that persists through silence, stigma, and complicity. As Gisèle herself said, “Shame must change sides.”

The case was closed on the 19th of December and 51 men were sentenced. 46 men were convicted of rape, two of attempted rape, and two of sexual assault. While Gisèle has become a role model for women worldwide, the lenient sentences for many of the perpetrators have sparked outrage, showing an urgent need for systemic reform. 

While the convictions appear to be a victory, when you look into the sentences, they tell a different story. Dominique Pelicot, the mastermind behind the horrors, received 20 years in prison – significant but arguably insufficient given the gravity of his crimes. Other men also received lighter sentences than the prosecutor requested, with some perpetrators walking free due to medical conditions. 

These inconsistencies send a troubling message: the well-being of a rapist is more important than the trauma of the victim. This lack of harsh penalties undermines public trust in the justice system and raises serious doubts about its ability to deliver true justice for victims of sexual violence. 

Some perpetrators justified their actions by stating they believed Gisèle had consented because Dominique had told them she did – as if a husband could decide over the wife’s body. Or they believed Gisèle’s silence was part of a consensual “sex game.” These justifications reveal their complicity and the dangerous misconceptions surrounding consent. This is further underscored by the existence of over 20,000 recordings, which clearly show that Gisèle was incapable of consenting as she was drugged into a coma.

Gisèle’s case serves as a catalyst for change. It is heart-wrenching that only after someone has suffered profoundly those in power decide to act. This case highlighted the outdated legal framework in France for addressing sexual violence. The absence of a clear legal definition of consent complicates prosecutions and retraumatizes survivors. 

In fact, it wasn’t until a horrific rape trial in 1978, where two women were attacked during a camping trip and brutally beaten and assaulted by three men, that rape was officially recognized in the French Constitution. Even then it came only after intense public debate and pressure.

A rape case in Spain prompted a reform of the laws around consent, leading to the adoption of the “Yes Means Yes” standard, also known as affirmative consent, which has also been implemented in Sweden and Denmark. Briefly explained, this framework requires explicit, mutual, and informed agreement for any sexual activity, marking a significant shift from traditional laws. 

Under this model, silence, passivity, or lack of resistance cannot be interpreted as consent, ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the perpetrator to demonstrate that clear and enthusiastic consent was obtained. 

While Gisèle’s case highlights national failures, it also underscores the need for broader European-level reforms. One could argue that the European Union could standardize this approach across member states, aligning with its commitments to human rights and gender equality under the Istanbul Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

By implementing “Yes Means Yes” as an EU directive, the bloc could ensure consistent protections for victims and promote a cultural shift toward respect and accountability in all member states.

The case also shows that in addition to judicial reform, we need a societal one too. It shows how rape culture is integrated into our societies and “accepted”. Education plays a critical role. Teaching young people about consent and respect can challenge the attitudes that underpin rape culture. 

Communities must move beyond the passive bystander role, actively demand change, and point out the wrongs to prevent abuse. In this case, many of the perpetrators said they noticed something was “off” but still failed to act. After leaving their house, they thought the situation was wrong but still didn’t report that further. 

Online platforms like the one Dominique used, which normalize sexual violence, must be held accountable. Stricter regulations are needed to prevent the facilitation of such crimes. The fact that pornography categories like “rape” or “sleeping” exist reflects a societal issue that blurs consent and objectifies women. 

Despite the shortcomings of the judicial process, Gisèle’s courage has had a profound and far-reaching impact. By forgoing anonymity and insisting on a public trial, she has shattered the stigma surrounding sexual violence and become a global symbol of resilience and feminist advocacy. 

Her bravery has not only inspired survivors worldwide to speak out but also ignited a movement demanding justice, accountability, and change. Across France, public demonstrations have amplified her message, calling for an end to rape culture and stronger protections for victims. 

Gisèle’s story is more than one of survival –it is one of empowerment. She has shown that even in the face of unimaginable pain and betrayal, it is possible to reclaim your voice and spark change that resonates far beyond your personal experience. Her strength reminds us that change begins with courage, and her advocacy has given hope to countless women around the globe who have faced similar struggles. 

As we reflect on the injustices Gisèle endured, let her bravery inspire us to channel our outrage into action – through judicial reform, education, and grassroots activism. Most importantly, we must listen to survivors. Their voices are invaluable in shaping a society that prioritizes justice, compassion, and equality. Gisèle’s journey is a testament to the transformative power of speaking out, and it is up to all of us to ensure her courage continues to light the way for others.

A Year of Genocide, Repression, and Resistance

A round-up of the most read articles on theleftberlin.com in 2024.


01/01/2025

2024 was once more dominated by Israel’s ongoing genocide ln Gaza and the repression in Germany against anyone who wanted to protest against it. Demonstrations were banned, and those which did take place faced overwhelming police violence. The Bundestag passed a resolution which effectively blames Muslim non-Germans for antisemitism.

This was reflected in the most-read articles on theleftberlin.com, but lots more happened this year. The two largest economies in the EU – France and Germany – saw their government fall, as did the repressive Assad regime in Syria. We saw the worrying rise of the Far Right throughout Europe, and, in Germany at least, the parliamentary Left seem incapable of rising to the challenge.

2025 will see further struggles, with large protests expected against the AfD conference on January 11th, and elections in Germany in February. Internationally, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as US President in January, and we hope to see protests against his neoliberal racism. Palestine solidarity is as necessary as ever, and we will continue to cover the political developments both as journalists and as activists.

In the last 12 months, The Left Berlin has continued to flourish. We organised 45 Palestine Reading Groups in just over a year, and 12 public meetings and film screenings on Palestine, each attracting over 100 people. Our weekly Newsletter now goes out to nearly 3,000 people and over 9,000 people follow us on Instagram

We will continue to offer a home for non-German activists in Berlin. We will be organising walking tours, public meetings, another Summer Camp, and Palivision 2 for people who want to boycott Eurovision. Book Club and our Reading Group will continue, and we are introducing a new monthly Film Club

To keep informed, subscribe to our weekly Newsletter. You can also become more centrally involved in our political and/or journalistic activities. Send an email to team@theleftberlin.com to find out more. That’s enough self-promotion. Here are the 21 articles which received at least 1,000 views last year.

Most Read Article: German Elites Are Redefining Antisemitism So They Can Be the Victims Nathaniel Flakin – 6119 views

In January, Berlin cultural senator Joe Chialo announced that Berlin artists who wanted state funding would have to sign an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel. This was one of Germany’s first uses of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition which effectively brands all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Protests later in the year would force Chialo to withdraw the threat – for now – but at the time Nathaniel Flakin reported the political background for theleftberlin.com.

Sample quote: “German elites have convinced themselves that they ‘get’ antisemitism in a way that Jews simply can’t. They seem to have gained enlightenment through genocide.

2. The AfD and Israel Isobel Knight – 5259 views

In May, Isobel Knight looked at the strange love in between a party full of Fascists and the self-declared “Jewish State”. The AfD and Israel share an Islamophobic, anti-immigrant agenda, and even before October 7th, the AfD was one of Israel’s biggest supporters. Backing Israel has not prevented leading AfD members from repeatedly making antisemitic statements, or from congratulating other parties for supporting Germany’s “antisemitism clause” which blames Muslims for the country’s antisemitism.

Sample quote: “A party that will so readily turn human lives into political pawns, atrocities into justification for bigotry, is a true danger to society, both in Germany and abroad.

3. Dominick Fernow (Prurient) Releases Split Album with Neo-Nazi Band Genocide Organ Antifascist Music Alliance – 3832 views

Last year’s most-read article, written in June 2023, continued to reach a large audience. The Antifascist Music Alliance, who regularly write for theleftberlin.com on the politics of the Berlin music scene, uncovered the increasing presence of white supremacist bands in local clubs. In particular, they singled out Dominick Fernow, aka Vatican Shadow/Prurient and called on Berlin’s music platforms and clubs like Berghain to support the boycott called against Fernow.

Sample quote: “The refusal from Resident Advisor, Pitchfork and Berghain to publicly address why they actively supported him while knowing about his fascist ties, is a big part of why he feels comfortable enough to make a comeback.

4. Boycott of Berghain: from March 2024 to now Antifascist Music Alliance – 3507 views

Speaking of Berghain, in November this year, the Antifascist Music Alliance published an update on the ongoing campaign by artists to boycott Berghain. The boycott, supported by groups like Ravers for Palestine and DJs Against Apartheid, condemns Berghain’s ongoing silence on genocide in Palestine. This is particularly hypocritical from a club which has been very vocal on Ukraine. The article contains interviews with artists about their involvement in the boycott campaign.

Sample quote: “As we’ve seen in other solidarity efforts, it’s those with the least wealth, structural privilege and access that are standing with Palestine.

5. A discussion on Antisemitism with almost no Jews Nathaniel Flakin interviews Daniel (Jüdische Stimme) – 3236 views

In April, the anti-Deutsch club ://about blank organised a panel discussion on antisemitism. Four of the five speakers were not Jewish, and the fifth was only added to the platform at the last minute. Jewish anti-Zionists were denied entry, and a protest led by Jews was held outside the event. Daniel, a member of the Jüdische Stimme, infiltrated the event and found it to be superficial and uninspiring. Nathaniel Flakin interviewed Daniel about his experience.

Sample quote: “Throughout the 2.5 hour discussion, none of the speakers was able to provide any concrete opinions, facts, or strategies about hatred toward Jewish people nor strategies on Jewish safety.

6. “I believe that there is going to be a wave of deportations coming soon” Phil Butland interviews Nadija Samour – 3179 views

In November, on the day that the German government fell, one of its last acts was to introduce a new “antisemitism resolution.” We talked to Palestinian lawyer Nadija Samour from the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) about its implications. Nadija explained that because the resolution is not a law, it cannot be challenged in court. But it will still be used to ban meetings and withdraw public funding. More worrying, she anticipates it being used to deport many Muslims who support Palestine.

Sample quote: “This reminds us of the older, colonial idea of the barbarians. That’s what is meant when they discuss so-called imported antisemitism.

7. When a Zionist Riot is Reported as an Antisemitic Pogrom Phil Butland – 2913 views

In November, fans of Israeli football team Maccabi Tel Aviv rioted through Amsterdam. Politicians and media worldwide reported the response by locals with migrant backgrounds as “hateful antisemitic violence” and even a “pogrom”. Phil Butland looked behind the headlines to see a coordinated attack by fans of a team with a history of racism. Many of those fans have experience in the Israeli army’s genocidal attack of Gaza. He concluded that Amsterdamers were right to defend themselves.

Sample quote: “Those who say that this is just about football do not understand how a murderous ideology can take over a whole culture.

8. Saltanat Nukenova’s Murder Highlights Kazakhstan’s Femicides Isobel Knight – 2705 views

In April, Isobel Knight reported on the televised trial of Kazakhstan’s former Minister of Economy Kuandyk Bishimbayev, accused of murdering his wife after beating her in a restaurant. The restaurant owner, a relative of Bishimbayev, did not report the incident. The case, which did not receive widespread coverage in the Western press, was the most prominent of many cases of femicide in the country. Bishimbayev was sentenced to 24 years in prison in May. It is not clear whether he will serve the full term. 

Sample quote: “this whole trial unfortunately only emphasises the fact that in Kazakhstan, beating and killing women is not a serious offence.

9. The philosemitic Delusions of Sascha Lobo Dan Weissmann – 2091 views

In April, Dan Weissmann reported on “alpha blogger” and columnist Sascha Lobo. Since October 7th, Lobo has made a career of repeating Isrsaeli press releases in Der Spiegel. He describes reports of deaths and injury in Gaza as “Hamas propaganda” and is reluctant to provide evidence. In February, when the UNWRA aid agency was about the organisation keeping Gazans alive, he called for its disbandment, accusing it of having overlapping interests with Hamas. Lobo’s reports fit a sadly familiar German narrative. 

Sample quote: “there is no evidence that Lobo has ever engaged meaningfully with any scholarship or literature other than those sanctioned by the German state.

10. Why You Should Boycott Eurovision if Israel is Allowed to Compete Ciaran Dold – 1913 views

In March, Corner Späti’s Ciaran Dold – a Eurovision fan – wrote us a guest article on Israel’s participation in the competition. While arguing that Eurovision can be a force for good, Ciaran argued for a boycott in a year of genocide, pointing out the hypocrisy of a European Broadcasting Union. The EBU claimed that it could do nothing but had happily banned Russia in 2022. Listing many examples of past interventions, Ciaran argues that Eurovision has always been political and this is something we should celebrate.

Sample quote: “if Russia can get banned for an invasion, Belarus can get banned for media repression, but Israel can remain, the EBU is sending a pretty clear signal that Palestinian lives don’t matter.

11. “I think we’re at a very dangerous tipping point” Phil Butland interviews Zoë Claire Miller – 1703 views

In April, at the height of artists’ demonstrations for freedom of expression, we interviewed Zoë Claire Miller, spokesperson of the Berlin artists’ union. Although the union has a range of opinions on Palestine, Zoë stressed that they were united in defending freedom of speech and artistic expression. She argued that attacks by politicians and the right wing press are endangering artists, and new legislation is threatening to hinder not just pro-Palestine art, but also actions against Fascism in Germany.

Sample quote: “Germany seems to be damaging its reputation as a liberal, open-minded and welcoming locus of cultural exchange.

12. International Cultural Workers Called on to Boycott German Cultural Institutions Antifascist Music Alliance – 1534 views

In January, the Antifascist Music Alliance reported on the Strike Germany movement which was planning cultural and academic boycotts on Germany because of the country’s support for Israel. Actions were planned particularly against Berlin, which gains cultural cachet through its reputation as a home of international culture. The article came shortly after the cancellation by the left-wing Volksbühne theatre of British politician Jeremy Corbyn. It concludes by calling on more Artists to join the boycott.

Sample quote: “With their willingness to censor Palestinians and those who speak in solidarity with them, it looks like Berghain, Volksbühne and other cultural spaces like them are willing and hoping to profit in the Berlin Senate’s McCarthyist era.

Other articles with more than 1,000 views

  1. Best of recent German-language Cinema Phil Butland – 1480 views
  2. “A lot of Palestinians here have the feeling of being invisible” Molly Hill interviews Anna Younes – 1362 views
  3. German magazine Der Spiegel attacks Jewish student Nathaniel Flakin – 1335 views
  4. Artists and Musicians in Germany Speak Out Against Genocide of Palestinians Antifascist Music Alliance – 1295 views
  5. Why German Media are Lying About the Palestine Solidarity Movement at the Free University of Berlin Nathaniel Flakin – 1285 views
  6. “Actions like this are a symbol for the liberation struggle. It’s an uprising against the right wing In Germany” Phil Butland interviews Iris Hefets – 1234 views
  7. Where does Die LINKE Stand? – Simo Dorn interviews Christine Buchholz  1206 views
  8. Dear German activists, I have some questions on integrity Habe Attia Mousa  – 1121 views
  9. German Culture must Confront its Past Emily O’Sullivan – 1121 views
  10. When British pubs said “Black Troops Only” Judy Cox – 1043 views
  11. Berlin Judge declares “From the River to the Sea” chant to be illegal Roser Gari Perez – 1003 views

 

A Science Fiction Book Revisited

Book Review: Cycle of Fire by Hal Clement


31/12/2024

Reading Cycle of Fire by Hal Clement (1957), which I only knew of because I found in a “Zu Verschenken” box on a Neukölln street, has made me more aware of the political power that hard science fiction harbors. Cycle of Fire is not an abstract futuristic fantasy novel, but a concrete speculative anthropological, geological and biological exercise put into words through a field research journey. 

Clement uses the shipwrecked narrative formula to introduce the two main characters, Nil Krüger and Dar Lang Ahn. Nil is a young human and part of an exploratory mission from Earth who ends up crashing in Dar’s planet Abyormen. Dar is a non-human native from this world, who also encounters himself lost as he undergoes a rite of passage, in which young individuals like Dar are expected to travel alone across the planet to gain experience and survive the extreme environmental conditions caused by Abyormen’s dual sun. This extreme climate sets the stage for the main political conflict, while the reader is gradually introduced to the intricate scientific details of Abyormen’s environment and unique ecosystem. 

One of the central questions that Clement explores is the interspecies relationship between Earth humans and Abyormen locals. One could argue that the way he initially portrays both kinds of creatures mirrors the classic identity dichotomy between European and native, as Nil tries to technologise Abyormen society with Earth knowledge. However, as the story develops, Nil and Dar’s relationship solidifies, making Nil aware of his intrusive mindset. This is a relevant point as in general, the novel doesn’t have a strong action plot, as most of it is just descriptive scientific documentation, but one of the elements that kept me engaged in terms of character development is the caring and fraternal relationship between both protagonists. 

Dar is generally described as a kind of bipedal reptilian with humanoid features, while Nils is a representation of the American white, young, male archetype which characterises every Hollywood superhero story. However, Dar is an incredibly knowledgeable character with a great intellectual capacity and philosophical depth, which gradually affects Nils in his way of perceiving the Abyormen’s natives, making him realise that this “otherness” he was projecting on Dar, was in fact, not so clear (that’s why the following sentence “each was a stranger to each other, but which was the alien?” appears on the front cover of the book). From the beginning, both characters rely on each other for survival and the bigger political question behind it is exactly that one, the symbiotic relationship between species is imperative for the development of life in all forms. This is also treated in a biological sense, as Clement goes through a very detailed explanation of how bacteria helps the natives adapt to their extreme climate environment (as Abyormen has two kinds of Abyromenites, the “hot season” ones and the “cold season” ones, which Dar is part of and constitutes also, a big part of the plot). 

I would like to mention Donna Haraway’s work here, in her publication When Species Meet she talks about ethical responsibilities regarding human to-non-human interactions. She is concerned with how we understand and treat other species, particularly when they are framed as “other” or as objects of study or exploitation. In the novel, the humans’ arrival on Abyormen presents an encounter between species with vastly different ways of life and forms of biological understanding. Regarding Haraway, the ethical considerations surrounding interspecies contact become central. Humans, with their technologically advanced but ecologically naive mindset, must navigate the delicate balance of interacting with the native species and ecosystems without exploiting or disrupting them, which is something Nil finally gets to grasp. 

From an anti-colonial point of view, this knowledge dichotomy between Nils and Dar can also be interpreted as differences between the Western ideal of self-importance through technological superiority and indigenous symbiosis and ecological knowledge (like in the plot of Avatar). But this also leads us to the conclusion that technological development is a natural process of evolution itself, as seen in the book, and it can’t be avoided. So the interconnectedness between organisms, technology, and the environment is what creates life, (in this case Earthlings, cold Abyormenites and warm Abyormenites) where boundaries between species, technologies, and organisms become diluted in this network of co-constitutiveness (just how historical materialism shows us how we live in a dialectical relationship around us). 

However, the fact that Abyormen is constantly under extreme geological and environmental conditions is not unintentional, considering that Clement himself was a chemist and astronomer therefore acutely aware of the impact of human industrial development on Earth during the first half of the 20th century. Abyormen’s ecosystem can also be seen as a critique of colonial exploitation of the environment, where the balance of ecosystems is interfered to serve economic interests. The survival of the native species, like Dar, and their ability to adapt, contrasts with the destructive and (in the case of the initial Nil Krüger and his kind), shortsighted actions of colonizing forces, reinforcing the idea that knowledge comes from understanding the aforementioned symbiotic environmental relationships with the land. By Nil identifying with the Abyormen and developing his love and respect for Dar, he manages to resolve the plot conflict by rejecting any kind of species-based hierarchical differences, allowing to establish a collective and mutual dependency relationship between Earthlings and Abyormenites. 

As a final point, I want to mention the role of the Teachers who are the ruling institution in Abyormen and maintain a powerful position as they regulate labour and knowledge. This is also something Nil witnesses and tries to fight against (while we have no information about Nil’s societal organisation forms other than scientific researchers working in teams). These Teachers are described as looking the same as Dar (all Abyormen’s population looks the same) but bigger and taller, which makes Nil argue against their policies of gatekeeping critical survival knowledge and manipulating their society’s ideology by exploiting them through labour and reproduction (he believes that they grow bigger at the cost of sacrificing Abyormenites like Dar). However, the story provides another understanding of their role, which leaves it to the reader to freely interpret their meaning. This aspect of the book can offer further analytical development regarding the sociology of Abyromen which would lead to a debate about the creation of political systems in SF, and their role in learning how to overthrow current systems of oppression and exploitation. 

Although Cycle of Fire is not a revolutionary novel, it does serve as a great exploration of interspecies relationships and the consequences of technologised colonisation processes. Through the dynamic between Nil and Dar, Clement invites readers to reconsider hierarchical relationships between species, technology and culture. The gradual transformation of Nil Krüger’s relationship with Dar tells us that co-evolution and co-dependence are imperative processes to survival and collective liberation.

Looking Back Autobiographically

A 96-year old activist reminisces

It’s that time again, a time to look forward but also, for an old geezer like me to look backward. Still 96 until March, I can permit myself some retrospection (if those two digits were only reversed and embodied, it might well have been greatly preferable).

Wot-the-hell, why shouldn’t  I review the many happenings I observed or was part of – the worst of them, luckily, from a distance. They are a precis of my “Crossing the River” or “A Socialist Defector”.

I’m old enough to remember, just barely, the Great Depression: lines of shabby men waiting for free soup, better-dressed men selling apples on streetcorners, miles of evil-smelling, self-made shacks in a Hooverville near Newark.   

A few years later, with my cousin at Times Square,  I recall collecting money to “Save Madrid!” While admiring the Soviets for trying to help do just that, with only Mexico for two years against all the other countries. And, also bypassing the Depression, by building the giant Dnepropetrovsk  dam  and the model Moscow marble subway stations at New York’s World Fair.

In February 1937 I recall the movie newsreel with happy, unshaven sit-down strikers at GM in Flint, waving from the factory windows in a dramatic Communist-led victory which changed the USA.

And, in a friendly teacher’s room in September 1938, I recall hearing Hitler boast of seizing much of Czechoslovakia, with British and French compliance – and the tears of my Czech classmate Natalie.  

A year later, as the only lefty in my class at posh Dalton School, I did my 11-year-old best to convince classmates that Stalin had to sign the pact with Hitler to avoid being hit from all sides; Japan in the East, Germany in the West, with the acquiescence of Chamberlain and Daladier as in Spain and Munich, hoping they might wreck each other. “The USSR needs  time to strengthen its defenses.”

I triumphed later when Pete Seeger, in one of his first concerts, had all the kids singing leftwing, CIO songs.

June 1941, when the Wehrmacht stormed in, I felt sure the great USSR would smash them. It did, but only after years of sacrifice and slaughter, perhaps  27 million dead, untold destruction. While we in safe but darkened, rationed New York felt  deep fear – and then enthusiasm as the tide turned.

Saddened and worried by the death of the only president I had ever known, I rejoiced at the photo of the GI-Red Army handshake on a broken Elbe bridge. Not dreaming that, 25 years later, I would be commemorating that event at the bridge at Torgau.

Grateful that V-E Day against Germany and V-J Day against Japan saved me, at 17, from the draft and the war. And grateful to avoid my cousin Jerry’s fate , taken prisoner at the Battle of the Bulge who, being Jewish, slaved till his death in a Buchenwald outlier camp in Thuringia.

Spurred by Hiroshima-Nagasaki, post-war racist lynching and a big CIO strike offensive, I helped build a Communist Party branch at Harvard. Covert in name but active against Jim Crow and in “Win the Peace” actions, like our anti-atomic weapons parade through staid Harvard Yard.

In the summer of 1946, in a lone hitchhike to California and back, I got to know more of my country’s many beauties – and many problems.

I had a trip through France and wrecked Germany. I spent six wonderful weeks at the first World Youth Festival in Prague (1947), with anti-fascist partisan veterans from Europe, freedom fighters from Greece, Vietnam, Burma, Africa, and new friends from Tirana, Bucharest, Moscow, Capetown, Prague. I shared  with thousands my hopes for a new-born world.

The glorious Henry Wallace/Progressive Party campaign in 1948 foudnd me collecting ballot signatures. I got to know leftist Italian, Armenian and Greek communities. Then came  a bitterly-upsetting trip to North Carolina, meeting folks in neighboring – but divided – Black and White poverty and misery.

Then, at a last Wallace rally in Boston, joining to cheer Paul Robeson’s moving call, voicing our hopes, for socialism in America. And then the disastrous election defeat, breaking all our hearts.

During the campaign, I demonstrated against the draft despite a media-inspired barrage of eggs and tomatoes, a chipped tooth (with police acquiescence) and several hours in jail and in court.

Despite my diploma and my mother, I decided to join the labor movement as a laborer in Buffalo. I achieved little but learned a lot about fellow Americans. There was a daily class conflict at every work bench, with rising militancy for a better contract broken by a corrupt union leadership.

I found a “home away from home” with the Lumpkin family in the Black ghetto. I learned of hardship, joblessness, dope troubles and police violence.  Witnessing one of the family being beaten and almost shot while protesting Jim Crow discrimination at the Canada beach trip pier.

I was at the great outdoor concert with Paul Robeson in Peekskill in 1949, part of a crowd  of 20,000. The state police forced us to leave through a woodland sideroad, past a gauntlet lined with fascist gangs with piles of stones, who broke every window in all the busses – and blamed it on Robeson. This was a final attempt to save the labor-left-wing from the 1930s. But it was smashed by the McCarthys at home and the Dulles-monopoly forces in foreign policy – and ten tough years of fear, imprisonment and aggression.

When the Korean War began in 1950 the draft, which I had marched against, was re-started, and this time I was eligible. After arriving at the Army base in January 1951 we had to sign a pledge of our political virginity. But the new McCarran Act required every member of a leftist “front” to register as a “foreign agent” or face five years for every day of not signing. Nobody obeyed this nonsense, but I feared its threat, having been in organizations like the Young Progressives, American Labor Party, Spanish Relief, Southern Negro Conference and Communist Party!  So I lied and signed, hoping that if I kept my nose clean and my mouth shut I might outlast the two years with no checkup. At first I had huge luck, getting sent to Bavaria not Korea.

I tried to conform. A few times on weekend pass, I joined leftist youth in Stuttgart for a meeting marking Women’s Day, spent a short weekend with an old comrade from Harvard who had married and moved to Vienna, and had a long talk in a leftist bookshop in Copenhagen with a woman who had dared to bring anti-Nazi leaflets into soldiers’ bars in occupied Copenhagen. While in Tivoli Park, I met and fell in love with a perky, pretty young Danish woman.

But they caught up with me. Perhaps a denunciation to the FBI by a fellow-student at Harvard? I was ordered me to appear before a military judge the following Monday. I knew that perjury such as mine could get me up to $10,000 and five years at Leavenworth. But I had five days left!  

I destroyed all my mail and two leftwing books I bought in Copenhagen. Then I ate lunch, packed some cigarette cartons for trading, took the train from Nuremberg to Salzburg, and crossed into Austria with a forged three-day pass. I got to Linz where, after a desperate search and an exhausted nap in the woods, I swam across the Danube River from the USA-Zone  and, shoeless and disheveled, tried to find the Soviet Army HQ on the other side. I couldn’t, but the Austrian policeman  who picked me up could. The friendly but reserved officer, sent me  to Soviet HQ in Austria near Vienna. There I spent two weeks in a cellar cell, under guard, and read twice through their only English books – “The History of Scotland” and “Sister Carrie”.

After an unusual drive with Red Army guards, with a picnic breakfast I was taken for two months to luxurious, isolated quarters in ruined Potsdam. I got a new name, which I had asked for but had failed to think up for myself. Then I landed in town of Bautzen, with 30-40 other deserters from six Western countries. I fought to better my German, learned to work a lathe and had the supreme luck of meeting my life-time wife and love, Renate, and her village family, which now became my own as well. All genuine anti-Nazis!

In 1954 I was admitted to the Journalism School of re-named Karl-Marx-University in Leipzig (founded 1409). Four years of learning followed: German history and literature, some Russian, shorthand, journalism, but mainly the GDR lay of the land. Valuable sidelights: the students’ weeks helping new cooperative farms with potato harvests and weeding sugar beets or fixing tracks in immense open pit lignite mines.

A sudden shock in 1956; the Khrushchev speech about the crimes under Stalin. It caused hours, weeks and years of regrets and new thinking. But retaining gratitude for the efforts and sacrifices of millions in the USSR, above all 1917-1921 and 1941-1945 – with renewed hopes for a world without billionaires, profit-takers or the resulting poverty and war.

My major events: Marriage, honeymoon, first son Thomas and the move to Berlin – in that order.

Four jobs in East Berlin: with Seven Seas English-language book publisher Gertrude Heym – wife of the author Stefan Heym. I became assistant to John Peet, former Reuters ace and Spanish Civil War vet. His bi-weekly Democratic German Report positively reported on the GDR while exposing former Nazis on all levels of West German society and government. I learnt journalism from an expert. I was luckily unaffected personally by the new Berlin Wall and its years of grave problems. Then were three years with the North America shortwave section of Radio Berlin International. I spent 1965-1968 building up a Paul and Eslanda Robeson Archive at the GDR’s Academy of Arts.

I always got along with colleagues, but never with bosses. So it was a life-prolonging event when, at 40, I became a free-lance journalist, occasional English teacher to scientists, film sub-titler but above all speaker about USA developments. With my humor and avoiding polite-jargon, and criticism of much GDR media-coverage I made some people angry. But I somehow had a “jester’s license” and abundant gigs all over the GDR in all kinds of milieu.

But after the flourishing 1960s-1970s I watched the GDR sliding into the exit ramp. It was lamed by aged, out-of-touch leaders and pressures from the USSR. Above all, it was hit unceasingly by two of the wealthiest economies in the world and their masterful spin doctors every evening in TV. Like Fox!

I was happy that the Wall barrier separating families and friends was gone. But very bitter about the swift, total colonization of what I still see as a noble experiment. Like perhaps no other country, it almost completely abolished poverty, evictions and homelessness, payment for medicine, health care, child care, abortion, all education levels while keeping prices on rent, carfare, food staples and necessities to a bare minimum. I also saw and despaired the bad sides, but where are they absent?

In 1994 I was finally able to visit my homeland with my wife, after a short painless briefing at Fort Dix. It was not so very different from 43 years earlier. So much was so very beautiful. I met so many good people (especially the brave ones on “my side“ of still existent barricades), I loved Central Park with its Ramble full of old bird friends, and the green High Line on a dismantled elevated train section.  I wondered at endless shelves of toothpaste brands, cereals, cheeses, vegetables, fruits and so many goodies. But then the shocks: the homeless sleepers on  park benches around Central Park, the man sleeping in a cardboard box a block from UN HQ , the sad old ladies with all their earthly belongings in a shopping cart. And the price of a dental treatment or a one-night checkup in a hospital – price: $5000.

On later trips: I always had trouble with turnstiles and hideous subway stations.  I was unhappy about the super-commercialization of Times Square and its painted, living statues and stupidly costumed photo-beggars my heart was moved by what still was my old home-town. But not enough to counteract a feeling of relief after my return to my slower, quieter,  even sleepier Karl-Marx-Allee boulevard in Berlin. I have two contrasting home towns.

Unhappily, I see great problems for both of them, and also for the countries  and continents around them. I see a growing gap between rich and poor,  and if theories of cyclical crises again prove correct, an economic depression ahead, conceivably worse than ever before. Certainly they all face seeming inevitable ecological disaster. And far worse and closer, though amazingly ignored, I see the menace of annihilating war, even atomic war. With all three menaces I see the rapid growth of the bloodiest elements of repression – modern forms of fascism – already gaining strength in many countries.

Behind every one of these menaces I see a limited group of billionaires, sometimes rivals but united in hope of controlling not half the world’s fortune but all of it. They determine the direction of every government no matter what its changes and overturns.  Clusters of three, six, eight conglomerates now dominate almost every field of human endeavor in this world. And they want it all!

Some names are symbols: Musk, Bezos, Gates, Soros, Murdock, Springer, Zuckerberg, Disney. But the empires expand with changing personnel: Merck, Pfizer, Purdue, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Mobil, BP, Daimler, Toyota, VW, Cargill, Unilever, Amazon, Meta, Vanguard, Blackstone… Most dangerous are such as Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Rheinmetall, Krupp-Thyssen… New names show up, but a handful dominates each field – and seeks conquests and expansion. And all are absolutely merciless in their greed, inhumanity and pressure for expansion!

The world must rid itself of these infections! That is its chance! So I rejoice at every sign of working people’s rebelliousness. Against Amazon, Starbucks, VW, outside South Korean and Parisian parliaments, surrounding Trafalgar Square, against French barracks in Niger and Mali… I hearten to see courageous students at Harvard, UCLA, at Humbold U. and FU here in Berlin, daring to protest genocide and its suppliers. Can the majorities resist oppression? Can they join hands, regain peace, defying media demagogues, tear gas, water cannon and far worse? 

What will the future hold? I won’t see all too much of it. But I can be grateful. Aside from losing my Renate far too early, I’ve been lucky to have had a good, always interesting life, spared from want and disaster but witness to amazing slices of the world and its history.

And I still retain sparks of hope that 2025 will not see more gains for the biblical Four Horsemen – War, Pestilence, Famine and Devastation – but rather more struggle, at least a little forward and upward motion. I’ll do the very little I can in that direction as long as I can. Inshallah!

Best wishes to all of you – for good food, good drink, good books, good times and good health – and peace to all of you in 2025. Keep kicking!

Shalom! As-salaam alaikum! No pasarán! Pasaremos!

Victor – or Steve    victorgrossmansberlinbulletin.wordpress.com