A CONVERSATION WITH KEN WISMAN

My first introduction to Ken Wisman's work was a chapbook named "Eden" from Dark Regions Press. The work so intrigued me that, when I heard Ken was turning "Eden" into a novel, I sought him out on the Internet to ensure that I got on the list for a copy. He sent me the bound galleys of the book, a pre-release copy, which I read with relish - and which engendered a hundred questions regarding the science, the spiritual aspects, and the controversial way he came to write the book.

Ken lives in the western suburbs of Boston, a half an hour from my home, and he agreed to meet with me to talk about the novel. Soon after meeting with him, I suggested that we turn the questioning into a formal interview. What follows is what transpired between us.
-Judy Bednarz


Judy: The most controversial part of Eden is sure to be your claim that the work came directly out of your use of a hallucinogenic. I noticed in Eden that you never actually name the substance you took. Why is that?

Ken: I had the nightmarish vision of teenagers reading Eden and rushing out to take this substance in the belief that it would immediately turn them into science fiction writers. These substances are not to be taken lightly. They can be dangerous and at any rate, won't instantly turn anyone into a writer. I've been a writer for 25 years and what the psychedelic did for me was release the full potential of my imagination, which was inclined toward the fantastic and fanciful to begin with. The creativity was there, as was the ability to turn images and fragments into stories.

Judy: So this drug opened it up for you, intensified what was already there?

Ken: The way I envision it is this: the substance opened up the gateways in the axons and dendrites, in the neurons in my brain; specifically, the gateways that lead down into the unconscious. I was flooded with images and ideas from the unconscious.

Judy: How did you sort it all out?

Ken: Collaboration between imagination and reason, unconscious and conscious. Afterward, when the drug-induced journeys were over, the reasoning part of my mind kicked in. Without reasoning there would be no story, no plot, no clearly drawn characters, no conclusions about life and death and the reality of the universe. The unconscious elements came up in a rush and indiscriminately. The profound mixed with the absurd. It was up to my conscious, the reasoning power to choose among the flotsam for things that may be of value - images to weave the story, ideas to create the philosophy. One of the most difficult aspects of the whole experience was un-jumbling it all then deciding what to cut from the mix.

Judy: You hint in a few places that the drug may have given you glimpses into the future - the descriptions with Gupta and his nature preserve come to mind. Do you think the psychedelic gave you a glimpse into the future?

Ken: I have to be circumspect in how I discuss certain aspects of what I experienced. I recognized early on that if you try to explain too much, you lose credibility. For example, what if I was to say my IQ shot up 14 points during the period of my experimentation?

Judy: Did it?

Ken: Doesn't matter. Couldn't prove it and many other things that happened to me at the time. I doubt some of them myself. I was in an altered state where reality, our everyday relation to the world, goes out the window. Anything becomes possible. In the matter of whether I had sight into the future I prefer to say that my insight increased as a result of having taken the hallucinogen. I believe science fiction writers are extraordinary extrapolaters. We project known data into unknown areas. We predict by projecting past experience. We create futures out of past and present elements.

Judy: Is that what you were doing when you came up with your philosophy of an "impetus-to-life?"

Ken: Sure. Think about it. If - when we discover life on other worlds, how can we fail to conclude that there is a force underlying matter that induces it to life? Life as an accident? I don't think so.

Judy: And your concept of the Ankh movement?

Ken: That may be more of a hope and wish on my part than an extrapolation. But yes, the seeds are there, the possibilities. Several groups exist now for the preservation of endangered species. It's just another step to cryogenically freeze creatures that are about to become extinct and preserve the genetic information for future use. The formation of life - all life - is a series of instructions that orchestrate a release of proteins and other chemicals. How long before we translate those instructions into computers - or whatever replaces them - and fashion our own organisms out of a stem cell-like protoplasm?

Judy: A friend of mine recommended Eden, the chapbook, some months back for its biology, specifically the bioengineering. The science in that work and in Eden the novel appears sound and very realistic - do you have a degree in biology?

Ken: No, something better - the Internet. I did all of my research on the net spending about a year getting the details right. With science fiction it's all about making it seem perfectly reasonable. I especially spent a lot of time on the entomology.

Judy: The study of insects?

Ken: Right. When I first conceived of Eden's battle scenes, I searched the net for the different weapons - both offensive and defensive - that plants and animals use. I was quickly inundated with information; it's a violent world out there in the woods and in the well-manicured lawns of our suburbs. I soon had to concentrate on a couple of areas, insects mostly. From these, I had my human combatants bioengineer an army out of spiders, scorpions, and ants; tanks out of bombardier beetles and termites; an air force out of balloon spiders and assassin bugs; snipers out of trapdoor spiders; and so on.

Judy: What about the opposite side of the coin? What inspired the idea of using bioengineering to create art out of life?

Ken: That one's been kicking around in my head for a long time. It became the focal point for a lot of the images and ideas flowing up from the unconscious. Jung had a favorite word he used: cathect. He used it when describing a neurosis, how it would absorb a good part of a person's mental and emotional energy. That's what the core idea became, a magnet for a lot of that psychic energy flowing up from the unconscious.

Judy: I noticed the quote from Jung at the beginning of the novel and also the references to a term popularized by Jung, the archetype. Did he have an influence on your writing?

Ken: Oh, yes. Definitely. Jung is one of my personal heroes. I read and absorbed his work forward and backward. I think he's one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century and an integral part of humanity's spiritual evolution.

Judy: The spiritual conclusions in your book are sure to cause some controversy as well. Do you really believe we'll come to believe ourselves as gods?

Ken: We keep raising the bar for our gods then leap over that bar as we outstrip them in power and ability. I don't believe we're gods as individuals but gods in the aggregate. As a group, humanity will discover all that there is to discover, become all that it is possible to become. In the end we won't be able to raise god's bar any higher.

Judy: Do you think humanity has supernatural powers?

Ken: I don't believe we have supernatural powers - at least not yet. No, for the moment our power lies in our science.

Judy: No supernatural powers as of yet?

Ken: That's material for another story.

Judy: A sequel to Eden?

Ken: A sequel I'm working on called Eros.

Judy: Please put me on the list for an advance copy.

Ken: Well, if the struggles with Eros are anything like the ones I had with Eden, you may have to wait seven years.

Judy Bednarz and Ken Wisman

You may e-mail Ken Wisman at wismank@hotmail.com