Monday, April 14, 2008

Infoquake: Volatile, Complex and Very, Very Realistic

I just noticed that Colleen R. Cahill has suddenly reviewed David Louis Edelman's Infoquakefor Fast Forward, (the local cable TV show devoted to science fiction based in the Washington, DC area, not my anthology series of the same name). Colleen praises the world-building, which rather than being a dystopia or a utopia, is realistic enough to encapsulate both. Although she doesn't invoke it, her split the middle future reminds me of Warren Ellis' comic book Transmetropolitan,which I always loved for the way it presented the future as neither wonderful nor terrible but both simultaneously (you can be genetically engineered to swim with dolphins for a day, in a world where poor Irish children are sold as food). This sort of all-too-believable future is what drew me to Infoquake to begin with, though I agree with Colleen when she says, "As interesting as his world is, it is Edelman's characters that make this book shine. Natch might be good at bio/logics, but he mostly seems motivated by revenge: as his friend Horvil points out, Natch only seems to succeed when he is beating someone else. The interactions between Natch, Horvil and Jara (who is both attracted to and disturbed by her boss) are volatile, complex and very, very realistic. It is easy to believe in these people, and even feel like maybe this is a future that is not too far away."

I'm glad Collen stressed the strength of Dave's characters, because sometimes I think people in the SF genre have a hard time with protagonists who do bad things. I don't know why this is - though I suspect it stems from decades of conditioning in SF television, all the way back to Roddenberry and his attempts to have drama without interpersonal conflict. And the strange pressures of a society that want its basketball players, boxers, and rock stars to be role models as well. You know, when you look back at classic "heroes", all the way back to the Greeks, they are a pretty flawed bunch, and it's their flaws, as much as their strengths, that give us such wonderful narratives. I love Natch, because, hey, I've worked for Natch. And because I think brilliant-but-flawed and obsessively-driven people are fascinating (Batman, Spock, James Bond, the aforementioned Spider Jerusalem, many more....) In the meantime, SF television has certainly come along, with post-HBO shows like Battlestar Galactica. But I still think some people conflate interesting with admirable. A character need only be the former, not the latter. Of course, a well-rounded character can move from one to the other too, and remember, I've already read MultiReal.

10 comments:

ces said...

Actually, I've always found that the most interesting characters are the least admirable. There's just something so boring about a perfect character.

Lou Anders said...

I've always thought so. All of my childhood heroes - King Arthur, Batman, Spock, James Bond, Elric - were deeply flawed (and mostly unhappy) people.

ces said...

Elric, hmmm. I still have to read him - John (Picacio) told me I'd like him. But, fortunately or unfortunately, I've got to read Mieville's "The Scar" first.

I ordered Infoquake and Multireal - they'll come sometime late July Amazon.com said.

Lou Anders said...

Not unfortunate at all. The Scar is an utterly brilliant work, though my favorite of the three Bas Lag novels is Iron Council. I'd love to know how you find them both when you read them, as well as Dave's two books, of course.

ces said...

I also got sidetracked reading Harrison's Nova Swing. What a lightweight! I was really disappointed. Light was so good!

It's funny about Mieville. I first started reading Perdido Street Station - the mass paperback version where the type is size 4 and the leading even smaller. I'd read 3-4 pages a day and quit. I just couldn't do it - and it wasn't just the book layout it was all those words - he'd take 100 words to describe something - and he'd describe everything. So I quit. Then I found the larger british edition of Iron Council. Not only was the layout better but it wasn't so wordy - and it was written entirely different. So I read it. Then I found a british edition of Perdido - larger type - larger leading. It had really bugged me that I'd quit Perdido, so I bought the british edition, finished the book, and ended up really enjoying it. Now I've started The Scar.

It's really strange how some books you can just read the first 2 lines and you're hooked. I think The Scar may end up being my favourite. I should probably also read King Rat. Nothing like reading books out of order!

Ian McDonald was the same. I started Brasyl but set it down about 25% through as it was driving me nuts. Then I read River of Gods - it's style was more "toned down" (that's the only way I can put it) and I enjoyed it. Then I went back to Brasyl - I even started it from scratch again so I could keep the flow of the story etc. And it was much easier to read. And I enjoyed it!

Lou Anders said...

That makes sense to me. I love both RoG and Brasyl, but my reaction to them is that I'd love to visit that India but I'm now wary of going to that Brasil! I think that RoG helps you get where he's going, and that carries through into reading Brasyl too.

ces said...

Aah, but which Brasil are you wary of going to?

Lou Anders said...

All of them...

Shaun Farrell said...

I'm using this post with my tutoring student as practice in reading comprehension. I'll let you know how you sound to a 12 year old.

Lou Anders said...

Evenly matched?