Margaret Atwood’s seminal novel The Handmaid’s Tale includes a fascinating metafictional epilogue in which a symposium in the year 2125 discusses the dystopian period in which the book is set, as well as heroine Offred’s story. It’s incredibly fitting, then, that our descendants in 2114 will be the first to read Atwood’s latest work, thanks to the innovative Future Library art project.
Scottish artist Katie Paterson conceived of Future Library, a new public artwork based in Oslo, Norway: She plants 1,000 trees and then commissions 100 writers, one each year for the next century, to write new works. The twist is, the stories, poems, novels, and other works will not be published until 2114, when the trees are all cut down to print the texts.
Atwood is the first writer to join the project. She joked on Twitter that she would be writing her text with “non-fade ink and archival paper” so that when the work (which will be held in a trust is opened in 2114, they won’t just find dust and “a few scraps.”
Paterson explains how the work developed through Future Library will be both timeless and grounded:
For some writers I think it could be an incredible freedom—they can write whatever they like, from a short story to a novel, in any language and any context… We’re just asking that it be on the theme of imagination and time, which they can take in so many directions. I think it’s important that the writing reflects maybe something of this moment in time, so when future readers open the book, they will have some kind of reflection of how we were living in this moment.
That said, Atwood is not allowed to share any information about her text, from subject matter to format. You can, however, watch this video in which she talks about how she got involved with Future Library, the lure of time capsules, and “communicating across space and time”:
[via Metafilter]
Photo: Giorgia Polizzi
Am I the only one who thinks this “art” project is dumb? Holding on to a story for 100 years is going to somehow make it better? Or something? And what if the trees die? They can’t print the stories? What’s the point?
it isn’t “holding up a story”. it wouldn’t have been written without Future Library.
No, you’re not the only one. Since the project is funded by the City of Oslo (in other words, Norwegian taxpayers), this sounds like a nice way for Katie Paterson to get a life long stipend for doing nothing. I’d be willing to submit a manuscript — on an encrypted flash drive that will decrypt itself in 100 years. (Any resemblence of the encrypted file to the Oslo telephone directory is purely coincidental.)
Also, what kind of tree takes 100 years before it’s grown enough to make paper? Most commercially managed forests in the US use trees that grow to maturity in 10-20 years.
So people are writing stories that I won’t be able to read because I (and everyone discussing this right now) will already be dead. I guess I can’t really bring myself to care.
I may not get to enjoy it, but the 100-year delay will be great publicity for the books when they come out, if all the hoopla about Mark Twain’s delayed autobiography is anything to go by.
I like it. As they say in the video, it’s an optimistic idea. And it’s interesting to wonder about what writers might write specifically for a future audience that doesn’t exist yet.
Sheesh! What a bunch of unimaginative killjoys.
Personally I could have done without the quote from nazi-sympathizer Knut Hamsun at the end of the video.
@@@@@StrongDreams
it’s Norway not the good old US of A. We have proper trees.
sounds like a very interesting project and cool idea, sort of like a literary time capsule
And already forgotten. If I won’t ever read it, why should I care.
A work of literature has the potential to impact people indefinitely from the moment it’s written, but these texts will be deliberately withheld for a hundred years, and to what purpose? I find this odd. Most literary projects aim to promote the love of reading and the dissemination of ideas. This one seems to be the opposite. I understand the appeal of a time capsule, just not how keeping its contents unknown to living generations makes it better. I wish I could have the opportunity to read these texts, but I’ll be dead.
“Margaret Atwood’s Next Book Won’t Be Readable Until 2114”
There’s a joke in there somewhere…
12. shellywb
How about “she doesn’t write any of that silly science-fiction, she just writes serious works for a future that hasn’t happened yet?”
The concept reminds me a little of William Gibson’s Agrippa. Of course, it didn’t take long for that to get widely distributed…
This is non-performance art.
@13 – can’t tell if you’re serious or joking, but I’m not getting this idea either, because the novels might be highly irrelevant, or the project might never happen after 100 years, because, well, who cares?
Why not submit something, I guess, if you’re an author, but what to submit?
What would be possibly more interesting, though not artistic, would be to find 100 authors who were popular in 1914 and select one of their works each for publishing now. I have a feeling that most of it would be justifiably forgotten dreck. I don’t think that either sales volume, nor the judgement of the literary solons, will have done a good job of predicting what actually has staying power.
Following up on StrongDreams’ suggestion of researching books from 1914 to see what might still be regarded as publication-worthy after a hundred years:
via Wikipedia, bestsellers of 1914:
The Eyes of the World by Harold Bell Wright
Pollyanna by Eleanor H. Porter
The Inside of the Cup by Winston Churchill
The Salamander by Owen Johnson
The Fortunate Youth by William J. Locke
T. Tembarom by Frances Hodgson Burnett
Penrod by Booth Tarkington
Diane of the Green Van by Leona Dalrymple
The Devil’s Garden by W. B. Maxwell
The Prince of Graustark by George Barr McCutcheon
Linda Aragoni has recently reviewed seven of the 1914 bestsellers on her Great Penformances blog. (I assume the remaining three are forthcoming.)
More pertinent might be this list from Goodreads for the 200 “Most Popular Books From 1914“. The selection criteria is how many people have added the title to Goodreads, ranging from over 100,000 for James Joyce’ Dubliners, to 23 for The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army by George Leonard Cheesman. (The Goodreads list mixes fiction and non-fiction.)
Writers familiar to the SF/F/H community on the Goodreads list include Frank L. Baum, Algernon Blackwood, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lord Dunsany, George Allan England, H. Rider Haggard, Franz Kafka, Arthur Machen, A.A. Milne, Sax Rohmer, Bram Stoker, and H.G. Wells.
I think that in 100 years we’ll really need those trees.
I dislike this whole idea. Perhaps, if I was one of those potential readers of 2114 I would be interested….
Even considering the authors from 1914, very few works are so timeless as to be interesting 100 years later.
Planting trees is a wonderful idea.
Selecting authors to write on the theme of time and imagination is also a good idea.
Not allowing these stories to be read for 100 years, not at all a good idea.
I think it would be much better to publish these works, then allow readers to choose which ones will be placed in a time capsule for 100 years.
Then plant more trees.