Mars & Mu

Books & Culture has two new book reviews of science fiction and science fact:

Joseph Bottum gives a brief history of Mars in science fiction literature and then moves on to review Joe Haldeman's Marsbound. He points out approvingly that Haldeman has looked back and employed some of the classic sf iconography of Mars, but wishes that he'd used more:

I want back my canals and my princesses and my golden eyes. I want back a reason for the Red Planet to remain central to the science-fiction canon. I don't exactly want to go Mars, but I want once again to imagine going there.

Stephen O. Moshier reviews a book on plate tectonics and continental drift, including the history of the theory and the scientists who developed it. It also discusses the pseudo-scientific legends and religious interpretations that quickly sprang up around it (while 'sunken continents' do exist, places like Lemuria, Mu and Atlantis do not.) The book's author seems rather irritated by these legends and trumpets the triumph of science over myth & religion.

I think it's the same situation Bottum describes regarding Mars: while they may not be scientific, some images are just too apt or archetypal or enjoyable to abandon. By all means let us distinguish between scientific fact and fantasy! But let Lemuria, Mu, and Atlantis live alongside Lowell's canals, the Sorns, and the delectable Dejah Thoris in the realms of myth.