SF/F Commentary

Coming Soon: “Lendergross and Eaves”

Collecting all the votes I received on my blog and on Young Writers Online, it seems folks want to see “Lendergross and Eaves” first (following closely by “Suckled at the Edge of Flesh”).  Cool beans.  That gives me some direction and focus. And so, for your gentle reminder, here’s the description (once more) of the upcoming WISB Short Story, “Lendergross and Eaves”: Set in the same city as the previous story, and in roughly the same era.  The Anurians of Bifur live out their toad-like lives in the slums, eking out an existence while the city finds new ways to exploit them. Except for Terk. He’s cornered the Eaves market, pushing illicit drugs as high as the elite circles. That is until someone important is murdered with Terk’s calling card all over him. Except Terk doesn’t kill people. Maims? Sure. But never kills. Which means someone is trying to set him up to ruin him. Unless he can figure out who’s behind it all and clear his name. Well, mostly clear his name, that is… I shall finish it soon!

Book Reviews

Book Review: Lost Everything by Brian Francis Slattery

Reviewing Slattery’s Lost Everything will seem rather convenient in light of Elizabeth Bear’s Clarkesworld post on the doom and gloom nature of SF.  How awful of me to love another work that makes us all sad and boo hoo inside!  Except Lost Everything isn’t terribly boo hoo, unless the only thing you pay attention to is the central premise:  the United States has gone to pot — global collapse, climate change, and civil war, along with the looming threat of an immense, monstrous storm that will supposedly destroy everything. But underneath that dark premise is something that I think the best SF always draws out:  the pure wonder of the human condition.  The novel follows a diverse cast of characters from different and sometimes opposing backgrounds:  Reverend Bauxite and Sunny Jim, who have set off together to retrieve Jim’s son, Aaron, and escape the Big One (a massive, deadly storm weaving in from the west); Sergeant Foote, who has been tasked with hunting down Bauxite and Jim to determine if they’re a threat against the military, and neutralize that threat if necessary; Faisal Jenkins, captain of the Carthage, who wants to ferry people down the river to safety and listens to the river for the day when it will consume him and his ship; and an eclectic mix of secondary characters, from a con artist to a ship’s first and second mates to military men and resistance fighters, all searching for a sense of home, a sense of who they were and who they have become, and a sense of what it means to have lost everything but not the will to find it all again. Lost Everything is about survival, of adapting to dangerous situations and finding a way to still find love, friendship, companionship, trust, and all those things that have helped us form a civilization.  It’s about faith, not just in a higher power, but in fellow man.  There is something profoundly optimistic about finding these human elements in a time that seems to have no future.  We’re conditioned to assume the worst of humanity at the end of days.  Our movies tell us that we can’t trust anyone, that any one of them could sell us up the river.  But Lost Everything reminds us of the beautiful nature of human interaction:  that even in the darkest of times, the best of what makes us human springs forward.  Optimism at its finest, and handled by Slattery with simple, but beautiful prose and through a narrative that collapses the past and present to show us who people were and who they have become. Slattery’s narrative structure amplifies this thematic content.  Split largely between three spaces — the house, the river, and the highway (iconic spaces in American literature from Twain to Kerouac and so on) — Slattery moves seamlessly between a character’s past and present, doing so in a way that perhaps seems tedious at first, but quickly lifts the veil to reveal the purpose.  Each storyline moves towards a similar idea, albeit expressed through a variety of hopes and dreams (finding family here, discovering home there, and so on).  The result is a narrative that snakes its way like a river towards an “future” that, as the narrative reminds us, has already happened, and which we’re being shown so we know what kinds of people lived before, and the kinds of people that have been left behind.  The structure might jar some readers, but I found it refreshing.  Whereas many SF novels follow the now-traditional conventions of plot, Lost Everything evades all of that, perhaps to explore characters in ways traditional writing makes unavailable, or to simply break apart the notion that there is anything like a stable narrative when humanity’s connection to place has been ruptured.  Call it postmodern or literary; whatever it is, I found myself hooked not just by the characters, but by these very structural choices. Perhaps these stylistic and narrative choices are why some have compared this novel to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, though it seems to me that the comparison rests primarily on theme.  Slattery is not Cormac McCarthy.  Nor is he Mark Twain.  He is something else entirely — a unique voice in genre who transcends generic tradition entirely, who pulls up the roots of the ancient and the new, plucks them from the tree of knowledge itself and weaves them into twisted creations which never forget that we are dealing with human beings in terrible situations.  While Spaceman Blues adapted the Orpheus myth to the landscape of a city beset with conspiratorial sensawunda, Lost Everything draws upon a long history of river novels, river myths, and river tropes to remind us of how humanity adapts to an uncontrollable natural world and a species struggling with its compulsive nature, with its unchecked neuroses. In other words:  this is a novel that will haunt me for years to come.  Its mark will never go away.  For that reason alone, Lost Everything will sit at the top of my list of WISB Award hopefuls.  And it will take a herculean effort of literary genius to strip this book of its place as the best novel of the year. If you want to learn more about Brian Francis Slattery, check out his website.  You can learn more about the book on this Tor page.  You can also check out my old and slightly crappy review of Spaceman Blues here.

SF/F Commentary

WISB Shorts: Which do you want first?

I’m starting up the WISB Project again.  This year, I am going to finish it.  Through and through.  That means four new short stories set in Traea, and a full novel podcast, with an ebook release.  And to make up for life’s complexities, I will give anyone who donated $5 or more a copy of the ebook for The World in the Satin Bag (and the deal applies to anyone else who decides to donate in the future).  I won’t be pushing for donations this time, around, though.  Donate if you want.  All I really want is to hear from people.  If you like a story, or a chapter, leave a comment. But for now, I need some direction.  I have four short stories in the works for the project, ranging from pre-WISB eras to distant futures (though still very much in the realm of fantasy).  Based on the following descriptions, which would you want to read first?  You can leave extended answers in the comments, if you are so inclined. Here goes: “Suckled at the Edge of Flesh” A prequel to The World in the Satin Bag. Fagan Tarceron rides the seas to map the unknown stretches beyond the shores of Elithae and the Black Gap.  But when the many ships under his lord’s command discover a massive continent covered in abandoned cities, Fagan knows they should turn around before it’s too late.  What could empty entire cities without leaving a trace?  The real question:  Is it worth finding out? The Girl Who Flew on a Whale Set several hundred years after the events that take place in The World in the Satin Bag. In the long-forgotten city of Arlin, the Dreamer imagines riding the seas and the skies, having grand adventures with brigands and pirates and all manner of strange creatures.  Most of all, she dreams of the flying whales who have become the great myths and legends of the sailors and seafolk at the edge of the long-forgotten city of Arlin. But the Dreamer is a young lady.  She’s destined for courts and finishing schools and all manner of obscure tortures her mother can dream up.  And when the Royal Archbombasin of Cagerock convinces the Dreamer’s mother to send her to his special school for special children, where it is rumored that he feasts upon young flesh, the Dreamer can take no more, fleeing into the city to discover the adventures she’s always dreamed of… (Probably more like a middle-grade novel, to be honest.) “Murder in Hodgepodge Alley”  Set in a pre-industrial city several hundred years or so after the events of The Girl Who Flew on a Whale. Harper is one of the many who occupy the winding alley of monstrous houses and board-bridges called Magpie City.  One of the Prolet.  The lesser folk.  Life isn’t terribly hard there.  They have food.  They have water.  And they can build up and up and up almost without limitation.  But the city of Bifur does have its limits, with strict security forces to keep those limits enforced.  When Harper finds the body of a member of a royal house, he knows that things will not go well for Hodgepodge Alley or the residents of Magpie City.  Not well at all… “Lendergross and Eaves” Set in the same city as the previous story, and in roughly the same era. The Anurians of Bifur live out their toad-like lives in the slums, eking out an existence while the city finds new ways to exploit them.  Except for Terk.  He’s cornered the Eaves market, pushing illicit drugs as high as the elite circles.  That is until someone important is murdered with Terk’s calling card all over him.  Except Terk doesn’t kill people.  Maims?  Sure.  But never kills.  Which means someone is trying to set him up to ruin him.  Unless he can figure out who’s behind it all and clear his name.  Well, mostly clear his name, that is… Have at it, folks!

SF/F Commentary

A Mock Conversation with the SF Community

SF Community: “WER IS ALL THE ADVENTURE AND FUNN IN SF!!! ITZ SO DEPRESSERING!” Me: “How about +Tobias Buckell? Have you read him?” SF: “WHOOOOOO? DAT AUTHER ECKZISTS? WUT? HAHAHA!” That’s the intellectual quality of the SF community right now. 14-year-olds writing text messages. This is not to suggest that Tobias Buckell’s space opera novels didn’t sell at all, or that nobody had heard of them. But it seems to me that there’s a huge sea of new, adventurous, exciting SF sitting out there on the shelves. Right now. Waiting to be read. If the SF community is really so annoyed by all the darkness and introversion, they can solve that right quick by buying the hell out of the kinds of things Buckell writes. It exists. It’s waiting to be read. So where are you, SF community? Why is Buckell not a bestselling author for his non-tie-in SF, hmm? Exactly. All this fist pumping over Elizabeth Bears column at Clarkesworld seems like a pointless misdirection.  SF isn’t too dark.  SF isn’t without its excitement and fun.  The community just isn’t buying it.  They’ve spent the last 70 years trying to be taken seriously, and now that they are (by academics, by literary critics, etc.), they’re shocked to find that what people want to read aren’t the adventure novels of old. You want to solve SF’s public image of doom and gloom?  Start pushing the stuff you like.  Create a blog.  Tell your friends.  Advertise your favorite books.  Write reviews.  Otherwise, stop complaining.  You created the bed SF sits in, but SF isn’t the one that brought the fleas and ticks.  It just opened its arms and legs to let them feed.

SF/F Commentary

What I Did With Myself When I Saw the Avengers

Someone gave me a 24-hour challenge to create a costume for the 7:50 PM screening of Avengers tonight.  I did not disappoint. To all those who stared at me like I was a freak:  look at my fist.  That is the size of the stick you’ve got jammed up your ass.  Retract it before you cause permanent damage. That is all. P.S.:  Expect a video in the next few days.  No, I will not tell you anything about it.

SF/F Commentary

The Literary Establishment’s Tolkien Problem?

L. B. Gale recently wrote a post detailing five ways J. R. R. Tolkien defies arguments over his simplicity as a writer.  What I find interesting about this post are the numerous inaccurate or false arguments provided by Gale in defense of Tolkien as a writer, all given in an attempt to support her claim that “these contradictions are what we find when a literary establishment deals with an original.” My problem with this argument isn’t just that Gale’s support is inaccurate from a literary history perspective, but that her argument relies on a fundamentalism within the genre community of which I’ve grown quite tired.  There is no “literary establishment” anymore.  If it existed, and it was as rigidly structured as genre folks would have us believe, then I could not do what I am doing now:  getting a PhD. in literature in an important English program at a large university which includes genre fiction as a component.  The fact is that those silly walls have long since been cut down; the barrier now isn’t whether there are professors interested in genre fiction, but whether there will ever be enough jobs specific to genre for those of us who want to spend our lives immersed in it for academic purposes (it may take some time for the field to have an explosion; literary fields go in cycles in academia). But beyond that, there are a few points that I think need to be made to put Tolkien into perspective (in contrary to Gale’s argument): I.  Fragmentation ≠ Original While it’s true that Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings during the modernist period and published it at the (arguably) start of the postmodernist one, the notion that this strategy is wholly original, or a mark of a kind of originality that somehow implies “merit” from a narrative perspective, is somewhat shortsighted.  Tolkien, of course, was writing a linear narrative, contrary to Gale’s argument, but in a way that required multiple strands weaving together towards a common point (all of the narratives in LOTR move in the same direction:  forward).  But breaking up a story into strands, or even breaking up a narrative so that it does not follow in a straight, linear form, extends well into the periods that preceded the modernist one (one might even consider something like The Histories by Herodotus or The Decameron by Boccaccio as examples of this broken strategy at work, albeit in different forms). II.  Tolkien Did Not Obliterate Formula Gale argues that Tolkien cannot have had a linear plot with a straightforward narrative because “the moviemakers would have little trouble translating that to film” otherwise.  The problem?  Cutting is a natural process of adaptation, and the degree to which Peter Jackson and his fellow writers had to trim out details from LOTR to make it work as a film only tells us about the level of detail Tolkien managed to produce.  But this is no more a compelling reason to place Tolkien on a pedestal than any writer of history or any writer of exceedingly complex novels.  You’d be hard pressed, for example, to adapt The Canterbury Tales or any number of less-well-known Romantic-era works (for lack of examples that aren’t canonical). But, again, Gale relies on these assumptions to suggest that Tolkien did not write simplistic, linear patterns into his work.  Tolkien did write simplistic, linear patterns.  What he didn’t write were stories of a reductive world — that is a story about a specific place pulled out of the wider global context.  That’s a far more compelling argument to be made about Tolkien than the unsupportable claim that Tolkien’s very straightforward plot (evil ring is evil, the evil bad is eviling back, and the little hero must destroy the ring while the rest try to keep the world from crumbling) is anything but straightforward. These assumptions also must be accepted to believe Gale’s claim that Tolkien was obliterating formula when he wrote LOTR.  The problem is that Gale also acknowledges the sources that Tolkien drew upon as a student of mythology, all of which influenced not simply his interest in writing mythology, but also the very structures of myth, fantastic narrative, an romanticism that appear in his work.  What Tolkien did as a writer had been done before.  What Tolkien did to the literary field hadn’t.  If we’re going to think of Tolkien in the context of his greatness, then we have to do so primarily in terms of his actual achievements:  worldbuilding and almost single-handedly creating a commercial genre. Gale makes a lot of these arguments, often by speaking about unnamed critics who make arguments that most legitimate critics wouldn’t make if they actually read books (example:  Gale says that critics ignore the fact that Sauron is mostly a psychological presence; I suppose this would only be true if said critics believed Dracula was a dancing ballerina). What I draw from this is, perhaps, the exact opposite of Gale’s intent.  The problem with the genre community is that it spends too much time trying to legitimize itself to the imaginary literary establishment and ignoring the instances when genre writers do break through.  While there might be great reasons to argue over Tolkien’s exclusion from discussions of “the canon,” there is still the hard truth that what Tolkien was doing was only original because he was applying a fictional world to a pre-existing idea.  James Joyce was doing the same thing with Ireland in Ulysses (that is, using a real place as opposed to a fictional one).  But none of this makes LOTR or Ulysses great books.  There are different and more effective criteria to consider, I think. Thoughts? (Personally, I prefer the movies.)

Scroll to Top