Two Disappointing Novels

A few months ago, we wrote about a "Post-Millennial Malaise" and lamented the evident lack of inspiration in current science fiction. We speculated that one of the causes might be "a contraction of imagination and energy stemming from the realization that we already are living in the future and it's not what we'd hoped for or expected."

Joel Garreau recently published an interview in the Washington Post with best-selling author William Gibson, one of the founders of the 'cyberpunk' movement back in the 1980s. Garreau wryly notes:

Back when it was a more meaningful phrase, Gibson achieved renown for writing 'science fiction.'

And Gibson himself describes the problem this way:

If I had gone to Ace Books in 1981 and pitched a novel set in a world with a sexually contagious disease that destroys the human immune system and that is raging across most of the world -- particularly badly in Africa -- they might have said, "Not bad. A little toasty. That's kind of interesting."

But I'd say -- "But wait! Also, the internal combustion engine and everything else we've been doing that forces carbon into the atmosphere has thrown the climate out of whack with possibly terminal and catastrophic results." And they'd say, "You've already got this thing you call AIDS. Let's not --"

And I'd say, "But wait! Islamic terrorists from the Middle East have hijacked airplanes and flown them into the World Trade Center." Not only would they not go for it, they probably would have called security.

With that as background, let me give you brief reviews of two new science fiction novels, each of which I looked forward to reading but found disappointing.

Rainbows End is the latest effort from Vernor Vinge, former computer science professor at San Diego State University, inventor of the technological singularity concept, and author of some of my favorite SF, including A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky.

What's frustrating about Rainbows End is that it succeeds brilliantly on one level -- creating a near-future scenario that is familiar yet dazzingly different -- but fails almost completely on the most important level -- creating interesting characters and a compelling story. I still recommend it, but only as a primer for the kinds of changes we might expect over the next 15 years or so from advanced technologies, and not as a good read.

Breakpoint is the second novel from former U.S. State Department official and National Security Council member Richard A. Clarke. He's not a gifted writer, unfortunately, so even though his background allows him to create believable scenarios, his characters are standard and his story-telling is nothing special. Breakpoint is fine as a quick read action-adventure, but it will never be confused with literature.

A complaint I have about both books is that they come across almost more as movie treatments than as novels. Descriptions of settings and action seem intended to produce pictures in a reader's mind similar to what would be seen on a movie screen as opposed to what would be experienced in real life, as the best novels are able to do.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Marc_G]

Mike,

Sci-fi is not in the prediction business. Some transhumanists seem to try to read sci-fi books as if they were text-books and as a result they hate sci-fi because its not logical. They completely mis-understand the nature of art.

Logical/Sciientifc facts are in the mathematical domain. Art is in the teleological/volitional domain. If you want facts you go to the logical domain. But art is not in that domain. The teleological domain is not about facts (or even 'speculations'). It's about emotions, experiences and motivations. That's what art conveys.

Sci-fi (and all good art) has nothing to do with scientific facts. It conveys emotions, motivations and values. I made the point concise on Dale's blog recently:

"Science fiction of course is one of the *outputs* of *reflection in the volitional domain* - Art communicates *teleological ideas*, as for instance compared to computer modelling languages, which communicate *logical ideas*."

---

Hope that clarifies the nature of sci-fi and art. By the way there's some marvellously rich materials on sci-fi available on the web these days. You may like to check out my sci-fi hot-list to fully bring yourself up to speed on the sci-fi world. Read all my suggested 'Primers; on the wiki and I think that's enough to have a solid grounding in the sci-fi world.

Links:
http://marged.100webspace.net/SciFi_Fantasy_Internet_Directory.htm