C+ on Scifi.com
Here’s a review of Breakaway on scifi.com by Cynthia Ward. It’s not a great review, but then I’ve been spoiled by good reviews, so some criticism was always coming. I’m not going to argue with any reviewer -- they’re all entitled to their opinion, and I honestly don’t mind the criticism... but I am interested in what I feel reviewers miss. And if reviews can’t be used as starting points for calm discussion, there’s not much point in having them. There’s no actual spoilers, I think, but if you’d rather discover some of these details by reading the book first, then that might be a good idea!
A few nitpicks -- Sandy is not the ‘only’ self aware GI (what does ‘self aware’ mean anyway?), she’s not ‘new’ to friendships with humans, nor is she ‘new’ to fear and hatred. America is not a ‘nonentity’ back on Earth (Killswitch mentions this briefly), it’s just another large powerful nation among many. It just happens that Callay is predominantly settled by ‘Indian Ocean Rim’ nations... which is neither a good nor a bad thing, just an interesting thing. Furthermore, the Federation isn’t ‘dominated by Asian colonists’, it’s more that the human race is dominated by Asians. A bit more than half, at last count. Of course, it’s the future, so it could change again... but let’s just say I’ve always found the Star Trek universe odd in that it claims to represent a human future where there’s no discrimination and everyone is equal, yet where are the Asians? And no, Sulu and Harry Kim don’t count, they’re both American. I keep hoping for a Chinese or Indian Star Trek one day, made for local audiences, just to see how they treat the token ‘white’ crewmember.
I can always tell when I’m about to get an average-or-worse review when a reviewer talks about ‘too much political detail’. Some people like this stuff, and others don’t. I think the CK series is actually fairly pared-down, politically speaking. It’s not particularly realistic for humanity to have split, but only in two directions. But it’s a simplicity I introduced to more clearly illustrate the ideological divide between Federation and League, over advanced biotech, artificial people, and thus the future of the human race. It’s also not particularly realistic, politically speaking, for one single issue to dominate the future political environment to that extent, but again, it serves the purpose of storytelling.
It could have been enormously more complex, had I wanted it to. Just pick up a paper (if you’re the kind of person who does that) and count the issues. I’m studying a Bachelor of International Relations at the moment, including a course on American Politics... and for dramatic example, the West Wing has been running for God knows how many seasons now, screening over a hundred densely-packed hours of drama, and has still barely scratched the surface of American political complexity.
I write about ‘soft’ sciences more than hard. I think I’m pretty good at it, I’ve always understood politics pretty instinctively. I realise the mechanics aren’t very interesting to any but politics nerds, any more than the mechanics of physics aren’t that interesting to anyone except physicists. It’s what those mechanics do that makes for exciting drama. Physics leads to stars exploding, asteroids colliding with earth, the potential for wormholes to alternate dimensions, etc. And politics can lead to wars, assassinations, intrigues, Machiavellian plotting... all exciting stuff to write about. So that’s what I do. If it’s complex, that’s because politics always is, and being somewhat good at this stuff, I have to represent it with some degree of credibility. Some people no doubt complain that Benford, Bear etc are too complex with their physics, but that’s the nature of the beast. Some readers find it entertaining, and others don’t, and writers can’t really help that, save to write what they know as best they can.
And the cool thing about SF (or the thing I always loved about it, at least) is that the good stuff is more than just pure entertainment, it’s actually about something important. ‘Soft’ science, meaning politics, sociology, economics, etc, is the science of understanding human civilisation. But if you don’t pay the details some respect, it’s not really about anything, and it loses its main SF appeal.
Cynthia also speculates that I might be packing lots of visual detail into my sentences because I’m trying to emulate William Gibson. Well, if I was striving to emulate any cyberpunk novelists, I guess it probably would be him, because he’s the only one I’ve read! Which just tells you I’m not that influenced by the cyberpunk literary genre... and of Gibson, I’ve only read Neuromancer, and didn’t particularly like it.
The CK series has lots of sensory detail because it’s largely from Sandy’s perspective, and Sandy’s brain processes ten times the information load of a normal human. That’s what I’ve tried to capture, other people can judge whether successfully or not, but it’s certainly not to try and imitate another style. Sandy could spend ages watching an insect crawl on a leaf. She has a vast attention span, and finds sensory details fascinating. I guess we all would, if we could hear the insect’s footsteps, and count a thousand shades of refracted colour off its shell. The same skills that make Sandy so lethal in combat also give her a love of sunsets and classical music. It’s just one of those ironies.
Cynthia then mentions that I don’t explore the ‘are androids human?’ theme, as though that were a bad thing. I got tired of that theme long before I tried watching ten minutes of ‘Bicentennial Man’ the movie on TV, and had to change channels (I can imagine Sandy discovering that movie late one night, and making retching noises all through it). Sandy has no doubt that she’s human. And that, for her, is that. And who’s to argue with her? The idea being conveyed here is that humanity is a philosophical notion, or a state of mind. You’re human if you think you are, and to the extent that we take humanity to mean something good, we should judge those who wish to claim the mantle of humanity by their deeds, not their appearance, or the nature of their physical composition. The whole question of 'are androids human?' is the kind of question that presupposes the questioner is not an android. If you were an android, you might find the question silly, because even if your answer was 'no', what difference would it make if you determine to judge people by their actions and nothing more? A good person, making a positive contribution to society, is a good thing, surely, which renders the entire question of classification irrelevant. Sandy doesn't understand why more people don't get it.
Cynthia finds Sandy’s ‘ass kicking’ to be a drama killer, because those of lesser abilities don’t stand a chance against her. Again, that’s intentional, because the drama of the story lies as much on the moral plane as the physical. We know Sandy can kick anyone’s butt (anyone who’s not a high-designation GI themself)... the drama then becomes ‘should she?’ And for what reasons? I’ve always found that drama much more gripping, because that’s the drama of moral choices. The other drama is the drama of a Rambo movie, where we know the bad guys deserve it, and Rambo has no moral crisis about blowing them away -- the only drama lies in whether he has enough ammunition, and can be quick enough on the trigger. Sandy’s trying to figure out what her role is, not just in Callayan society, but in the universe. She was created to be a killing machine, but she’d like to be something more. It’s an existential issue for her, and she’s struggling to figure it all out. She could kill pretty much anyone she liked... but the question is ‘what would it cost her? And could she live with herself afterwards?’ So again, for the reader, the question is really whether you find these moral crises gripping or not.
Lastly, there’s Sandy and Vanessa’s relationship, sexually speaking. I don’t want to go into too much detail for fear of spoilers with Killswitch coming up. But I had a conversation with a female friend (who may recognise herself if she’s reading this!) after she’d read Crossover, who said the only thing she didn’t buy about Sandy as a character was why she wasn’t bisexual too. Because, in my friend’s opinion, all women were that far away (extends forefinger and thumb to narrow margin) from hot girl-girl action, and if Sandy was raised outside of today’s societal norms and restrictions, she’d probably be ‘bi’ as well. Let’s just say there’s a range of female opinion here on what constitutes a 'lesbian cliche'.
Vanessa flirts with Sandy because Vanessa would. Vanessa’s very comfortable being bisexual, and it’s a joke between friends (women certainly seem to be less hung up about this than men, though what culture would be like in five hundred years I couldn’t say). It’s not Vanessa’s way to pretend something doesn’t exist, because that becomes a strained ‘issue’, which can hurt a friendship, and Vanessa’s personal skills are (usually) too good for that. And even less so for Sandy, because Sandy hasn’t been culturalised to know what’s supposed to be embarrassing and what isn’t, so she’s got no idea of dos and don’ts... which is one thing Vanessa loves about having her for a friend, because it makes her very honest.
Sandy’s fascination with lesbian sexuality isn’t like that of your average heterosexual man at all, because she doesn’t get off on it. Sandy’s just fascinated by everything, sexuality in particular, because this is life, and Sandy’s determined to explore life to the full. As she says in the book, she’d happily have sex with Vanessa just for the experience (and to do Vanessa a favour) except that she’s emotionally astute enough (barely) to understand that could be very damaging for Vanessa. Because Sandy, (whatever my esteemed friend says!) is straight as an arrow. Wishes she wasn’t, but she is, and just doesn’t dig girls like that. But she's intrigued that her best friend does, and wants to explore that intrigue as far as a platonic friendship can take it.
A few nitpicks -- Sandy is not the ‘only’ self aware GI (what does ‘self aware’ mean anyway?), she’s not ‘new’ to friendships with humans, nor is she ‘new’ to fear and hatred. America is not a ‘nonentity’ back on Earth (Killswitch mentions this briefly), it’s just another large powerful nation among many. It just happens that Callay is predominantly settled by ‘Indian Ocean Rim’ nations... which is neither a good nor a bad thing, just an interesting thing. Furthermore, the Federation isn’t ‘dominated by Asian colonists’, it’s more that the human race is dominated by Asians. A bit more than half, at last count. Of course, it’s the future, so it could change again... but let’s just say I’ve always found the Star Trek universe odd in that it claims to represent a human future where there’s no discrimination and everyone is equal, yet where are the Asians? And no, Sulu and Harry Kim don’t count, they’re both American. I keep hoping for a Chinese or Indian Star Trek one day, made for local audiences, just to see how they treat the token ‘white’ crewmember.
I can always tell when I’m about to get an average-or-worse review when a reviewer talks about ‘too much political detail’. Some people like this stuff, and others don’t. I think the CK series is actually fairly pared-down, politically speaking. It’s not particularly realistic for humanity to have split, but only in two directions. But it’s a simplicity I introduced to more clearly illustrate the ideological divide between Federation and League, over advanced biotech, artificial people, and thus the future of the human race. It’s also not particularly realistic, politically speaking, for one single issue to dominate the future political environment to that extent, but again, it serves the purpose of storytelling.
It could have been enormously more complex, had I wanted it to. Just pick up a paper (if you’re the kind of person who does that) and count the issues. I’m studying a Bachelor of International Relations at the moment, including a course on American Politics... and for dramatic example, the West Wing has been running for God knows how many seasons now, screening over a hundred densely-packed hours of drama, and has still barely scratched the surface of American political complexity.
I write about ‘soft’ sciences more than hard. I think I’m pretty good at it, I’ve always understood politics pretty instinctively. I realise the mechanics aren’t very interesting to any but politics nerds, any more than the mechanics of physics aren’t that interesting to anyone except physicists. It’s what those mechanics do that makes for exciting drama. Physics leads to stars exploding, asteroids colliding with earth, the potential for wormholes to alternate dimensions, etc. And politics can lead to wars, assassinations, intrigues, Machiavellian plotting... all exciting stuff to write about. So that’s what I do. If it’s complex, that’s because politics always is, and being somewhat good at this stuff, I have to represent it with some degree of credibility. Some people no doubt complain that Benford, Bear etc are too complex with their physics, but that’s the nature of the beast. Some readers find it entertaining, and others don’t, and writers can’t really help that, save to write what they know as best they can.
And the cool thing about SF (or the thing I always loved about it, at least) is that the good stuff is more than just pure entertainment, it’s actually about something important. ‘Soft’ science, meaning politics, sociology, economics, etc, is the science of understanding human civilisation. But if you don’t pay the details some respect, it’s not really about anything, and it loses its main SF appeal.
Cynthia also speculates that I might be packing lots of visual detail into my sentences because I’m trying to emulate William Gibson. Well, if I was striving to emulate any cyberpunk novelists, I guess it probably would be him, because he’s the only one I’ve read! Which just tells you I’m not that influenced by the cyberpunk literary genre... and of Gibson, I’ve only read Neuromancer, and didn’t particularly like it.
The CK series has lots of sensory detail because it’s largely from Sandy’s perspective, and Sandy’s brain processes ten times the information load of a normal human. That’s what I’ve tried to capture, other people can judge whether successfully or not, but it’s certainly not to try and imitate another style. Sandy could spend ages watching an insect crawl on a leaf. She has a vast attention span, and finds sensory details fascinating. I guess we all would, if we could hear the insect’s footsteps, and count a thousand shades of refracted colour off its shell. The same skills that make Sandy so lethal in combat also give her a love of sunsets and classical music. It’s just one of those ironies.
Cynthia then mentions that I don’t explore the ‘are androids human?’ theme, as though that were a bad thing. I got tired of that theme long before I tried watching ten minutes of ‘Bicentennial Man’ the movie on TV, and had to change channels (I can imagine Sandy discovering that movie late one night, and making retching noises all through it). Sandy has no doubt that she’s human. And that, for her, is that. And who’s to argue with her? The idea being conveyed here is that humanity is a philosophical notion, or a state of mind. You’re human if you think you are, and to the extent that we take humanity to mean something good, we should judge those who wish to claim the mantle of humanity by their deeds, not their appearance, or the nature of their physical composition. The whole question of 'are androids human?' is the kind of question that presupposes the questioner is not an android. If you were an android, you might find the question silly, because even if your answer was 'no', what difference would it make if you determine to judge people by their actions and nothing more? A good person, making a positive contribution to society, is a good thing, surely, which renders the entire question of classification irrelevant. Sandy doesn't understand why more people don't get it.
Cynthia finds Sandy’s ‘ass kicking’ to be a drama killer, because those of lesser abilities don’t stand a chance against her. Again, that’s intentional, because the drama of the story lies as much on the moral plane as the physical. We know Sandy can kick anyone’s butt (anyone who’s not a high-designation GI themself)... the drama then becomes ‘should she?’ And for what reasons? I’ve always found that drama much more gripping, because that’s the drama of moral choices. The other drama is the drama of a Rambo movie, where we know the bad guys deserve it, and Rambo has no moral crisis about blowing them away -- the only drama lies in whether he has enough ammunition, and can be quick enough on the trigger. Sandy’s trying to figure out what her role is, not just in Callayan society, but in the universe. She was created to be a killing machine, but she’d like to be something more. It’s an existential issue for her, and she’s struggling to figure it all out. She could kill pretty much anyone she liked... but the question is ‘what would it cost her? And could she live with herself afterwards?’ So again, for the reader, the question is really whether you find these moral crises gripping or not.
Lastly, there’s Sandy and Vanessa’s relationship, sexually speaking. I don’t want to go into too much detail for fear of spoilers with Killswitch coming up. But I had a conversation with a female friend (who may recognise herself if she’s reading this!) after she’d read Crossover, who said the only thing she didn’t buy about Sandy as a character was why she wasn’t bisexual too. Because, in my friend’s opinion, all women were that far away (extends forefinger and thumb to narrow margin) from hot girl-girl action, and if Sandy was raised outside of today’s societal norms and restrictions, she’d probably be ‘bi’ as well. Let’s just say there’s a range of female opinion here on what constitutes a 'lesbian cliche'.
Vanessa flirts with Sandy because Vanessa would. Vanessa’s very comfortable being bisexual, and it’s a joke between friends (women certainly seem to be less hung up about this than men, though what culture would be like in five hundred years I couldn’t say). It’s not Vanessa’s way to pretend something doesn’t exist, because that becomes a strained ‘issue’, which can hurt a friendship, and Vanessa’s personal skills are (usually) too good for that. And even less so for Sandy, because Sandy hasn’t been culturalised to know what’s supposed to be embarrassing and what isn’t, so she’s got no idea of dos and don’ts... which is one thing Vanessa loves about having her for a friend, because it makes her very honest.
Sandy’s fascination with lesbian sexuality isn’t like that of your average heterosexual man at all, because she doesn’t get off on it. Sandy’s just fascinated by everything, sexuality in particular, because this is life, and Sandy’s determined to explore life to the full. As she says in the book, she’d happily have sex with Vanessa just for the experience (and to do Vanessa a favour) except that she’s emotionally astute enough (barely) to understand that could be very damaging for Vanessa. Because Sandy, (whatever my esteemed friend says!) is straight as an arrow. Wishes she wasn’t, but she is, and just doesn’t dig girls like that. But she's intrigued that her best friend does, and wants to explore that intrigue as far as a platonic friendship can take it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home