Uncovering Writing

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

More of the sexism of Foundation’s Edge and Foundation and Earth and a fair dose of colonialism and stereotyping. Asimov just can’t seem to write a solid, strong, independent female character. The last item, stereotyping, is used by Asimov to make a good point on how stupid such a practice is, but he’s so heavy-handed that it doesn’t come across with enough finesse.

Having said that, his story telling skill made me want to read through to the end. It wasn’t necessarily the best story and some parts were easy to figure out, but the process of the story kept me engaged and intrigued. He was telling a moral or ethical story with the Foundation series, and while at times awkward or heavy-handed in how he presents his thesis, the thesis itself it good. This is one of Asimov’s greatest assets, keeping me fully engaged even if I’m not totally enjoying the in-the-moment experience.

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I was debating two or three stars, but looking back at my reading notes, I realized that two of the stories demanded that I give it the higher mark. I really enjoyed The Hermit (1968), probably my favorite piece in this collection of short stories. A well-developed story of two private men who hide themselves from the outside world. I also enjoyed The Good Ship Erasmus (1971), an intriguing story of a man surreptitiously selling cigarettes aboard a quit-smoking cruise. Many of the other stories felt too short to fully develop their ideas. There were nuggets and neat ideas raised, but more in an outline format rather than developed

The book is definitely dark, which is fun for me at times. But it’s also very violent, including murder, assault and rape. It’s also definitely sexist, with woman being one-dimensional characters composed of breasts, waists and little else.

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I read this when it came out in the early 80s and picked up a first edition hardcover of it for $6 from my local used bookstore. I’m pretty sure I loved it when it came out. I was on the waiting list at our local library and got it within a few weeks of release. I really enjoyed reading and then rereading The Foundation Trilogy so I was looking forward to reading this one again.

Sadly, it didn’t stand up to the test of “my” time. There’s a lot of sexism, typical of scifi, even though we’re starting to get a little later on in time (1982). The female archetypes used are so pathetic. We have a manipulative, scheming woman who’s always wrong; a power-hungry older woman who thinks she’s always right; and two “girls” whose real strengths are not based on their gender/biology but on things outside their control. Wow, I didn’t notice that as a child, which is just sad on my part. As a child, I devoured Asimov’s Foundation books, and also ones like Colossus (D F Jones), A Canticle for Leibowitz (Walter Miller), and Friday (Heinlein). The stories were fast moving adventures, with lots of technology and crystal clear ideologies. I never really thought about what I was reading, but some of it I must have internalized. Reading with a more critical eye at a much later date, I’m surprised at a lot of the writing. Not all writers did this, so one can’t just say it was “the times.” But, many authors, especially science fiction ones, kept creating and recreating these stereotypes and philosophies. It’s no wonder we have things like “Gamergate” today.

The ending of this book also seemed to come out of nowhere in the final pages. And, it ended with a major hanging thread, explicitly meant as a hook for a sequel. Worse, the author’s afterword was simply a tawdry hawking of his other books.

I did enjoy the opportunity to think about how well books survive over time. Science fiction books tend, in my opinion, to get dated very quickly, especially those with technological components. The whole Foundation series seems so “old-fashioned” now but at the time, it was at or beyond our scientific ken. Books like Neuromancer also fit into this. When it was published, it was trailblazing. But, I read it many years later, and the technology portions seemed quaint. On the flip side, the interpersonal relations, the human components, can go to great lengths in making a book timeless. I can still read books from the late 18th and early 19th century and relate to the people and activities in them (e.g. Ann Radcliffe, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Byron, Percy Shelley, etc.).

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The Original Frankenstein was such an amazing read, and a clever way to put a book together. Using original manuscripts, Charles Robinson recreates Mary Shelley’s original full draft of Frankenstein. He also gives us a draft that Mary continued to work on but also saw editorial modifications and about 5,000 new words added by her husband, the poet Percy Shelley. The author also situates these drafts within the creation process of this foundational novel.

The first time I read Frankenstein, it was the one most people see today, a version of the 1831 edition, which was released as one volume. A few years ago, I read the original, 3-volume 1818 edition. There were several drafts of the novel, the first of which is sadly no longer extant. Other early rough drafts are also gone. But, the Bodleian Library at University of Oxford has a draft from 1816-1817 includes Mary’s work along with editorial and content added by her husband, Percy.

Robinson attempts to remove all of Percy’s interventions in the 1816-1817 draft, and presents us with a good-faith recreation of Mary’s original writing. He also includes an edited version of the Bodleian draft. These two drafts are very different from the 1818 and 1831 published editions. The original drafts called for a 2-volume work of 33 chapters instead of the 3-volume 23 chapters version published in 1818. This may seem trivial, but the draft version significantly increases the pacing and drama of the novel. Chapters fly by and the break points seem much more natural. Exciting scenes, like when the creature say “I shall be with you on your marriage night” now end a chapter instead of being in the middle of one.

I prefer Mary’s original draft. It is easier to read, more visceral, fast-paced yet still engaged and reflective. At times, Percy’s embellishments add too many words or melodramatic phrasing that slows the pacing and obfuscates Mary’s original intentions. At other times, his editorial input makes the novel more readable. As I see it, Percy acted like a modern editor. He did not write Frankenstein, but massaged it (both good and bad), along with Mary, into the final product we have today.

I really enjoyed reading this book and putting a 3rd and 4th version of this novel under my hat. Each time I read it, I get a little more out of it. This is partly due to revisiting an old friend. But it’s also because I’ve added new cultural knowledge since the previous reading. Let me give an example. The creature, who is literate and philosophical in Shelley’s novel, unlike the monster from the awful movie adaptations, stumbles across three books in the woods near a place where he has been sheltering. They were Milton’s Paradise Lost, Goethe’s Sorrows of Werter (originally, the Sorrows of Young Werther), and a volume from Plutarch’s Lives. When I first read Frankenstein, I’d heard of Milton (via Star Trek) but not the others. The second time I read the novel, I’d read some of Milton, but was still unfamiliar with the other two books. This time, I’ve read even more Milton and have digested Goethe’s book and parts of Plutarch. Knowledge of their themes enhances the impact of Frankenstein for me. The ideas of creation, longing, meaning and the greater world enhance the creature’s humanity and help one relate better to his situation, and that of Frankenstein. These are books that Mary and Percy Shelley read and impacted them and their writing. Encountering them helps put the reader into the same boat as the author, as it were.

This book was definitely worth the 5 stars I gave it.

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I have to admit that I didn’t read this book all the way through. After the first 75 pages, I started skimming. It just never grabbed my interest but I felt I needed to work through it, even if I was scanning. The politics and argument that Le Guin makes are pretty good, especially her thoughts on gender and sex. When this was first published, I know it would have been groundbreaking. But today, while many of the bad norms regarding gender on our planet are still in place, they are at least not buried or hidden in darkened places. A flashlight is highlighting them, although we still need to stamp them out.

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I think I might have liked this story more when I was a kid. It’s classic-era science fiction, meaning to me it has a great premise but weak plot, poor character development and simplistic morality. It’s the type of book I devoured as a kid. I loved adventure and didn’t think about the motives or actions behind those who were positioned as good and bad, I just accepted it.

Miller has the opportunity to explore how, and why, people and organizations make the decisions they do. He assumed one group would do it right, his Catholic church, and the other groups (governments) would do it wrong. His only case seemed to be that governments are run by people, who are always fallible. But, his church is made up of and run by people. He also misses an opportunity to explore the relationships within the abbey, between it and Rome and between the various factions in Rome. He could have kept the church his greatest good, but complicated the situation. That hurt the book for me. There’s also the offensive use of the antisemitic myth of the Wandering Jew used throughout the novel.

Typical for the era and genre, one dominated by male writers, there were very few female characters. I counted four: “Lady Reporter”, Sister Helene, Mrs. Grales and an unnamed woman with radiation sickness. They are all one-dimensional and the only two are given more than one scene. Mrs. Grales is the only one who starts to be seen in a bigger light, but only when her main personality is killed and a childlike figure becomes animate.

While not quite the same premise, I much prefer Asimov’s The Foundation Trilogy for how to preserve and foster knowledge through a long-duration crisis.

Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I’m not sure what I was looking for with this book. A new way to look at the original movie? To see the background story that informed the media franchise? Regardless, I started reading it and it flowed like quicksilver. As social commentary, science fiction usually excels. It tried to in this book but never gelled for me. I wonder if I didn’t have the baggage of seeing the original five films, if I would have been more impacted by this novel? The central characters arrogance throughout is part of the author’s critique, I’m sure, but the character’s manner does grate on me. I have no sympathy for him or his travails. He’s supposed to be the advanced human with humanity’s strengths, but his arrogance and egoism highlight more base urges than higher level qualities.

I picked this book up at my favorite local used book store: Curmudgeon Books at Savage Mill. At the minimum, getting this book was worth it for the investment in this cherished neighborhood gem.

Logan’s Run by William F. Nolan

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

As always, the book is better than the movie. The story was more elaborate and developed than the film, plus the book contained many additional scenes, both short and long. These factors propelled the novella quickly from start to finish. It seemed a little rushed about 4/5 of the way through, but by the time I finished, I didn’t feel that way anymore and thought the pacing made sense. There are sequels to Logan’s Run, but if seems that they’d be like the Colossus or Foundation sequels that came long after the original stories: weak attempts to capitalize on a fan base. I’m glad I finally had the chance to read this book.

The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I bought this book for a plane trip from England, hoping to read the book after having seen the movie sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. I didn’t end up reading it on the flight, as I got drawn into another great thing from the 70s, John Carpenter’s film “Assault on Precinct 13.” But, The Stepford Wives only languished a few weeks and I read it in three sessions over the last few days.

It started out slow, got slower, and then finally picked up speed, language-wise, about 1/2 through the 2nd part. The 3rd part was foreshadowed too obviously, and probably could have been cut to add to the tension of the ending. The book felt kind of light, even if it was an e-Book I was reading. It read more like a screen treatment, which is why the movie adaptation might actually be a bit better.

Having said that, the ideas the book dealt with: suburbia, submission, women’s liberation, careers, looks, etc. are very important and I’m glad that a book could approach them through the lens of the genres of science fiction and thrillers. It goes to show that fiction, especially genre fiction, is a useful tool for attacking the current constructed social, political and economic order.

Lexicon by Max Barry

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Max Barry is an odd writer. By that, I mean his odd numbered books have been fantastic! I liked Syrup, his debut novel. I then loved Company, his third. And now I’ll add Lexicon, his 5th, to that list. A fun, fast-paced, intelligent read that incorporates some of my favorite things, including witty introspection, languages and the study of them, academia, challenging power structures, and the classic boy meets girl who could destroy the world with a word.

Barry explores a world were words are deployed to persuade individuals and groups to do something they might not normally do. This is, in fact, what words do normally. Barry takes it to the next level, as a form of mind/body control. But he keeps it grounded, making you want to believe that words do have these powers, as they do “carry meaning” and cause biological and chemical reactions in our minds and bodies. He explores personality types, extended to the extreme where one’s type (out of several hundred), indicates which words can be deployed to control your mind.

His book is perfect for today, especially in the surveillance world we are confronted with and the social networking we have embraced. For all the Organization does in the book to study people and figure out what type they are, Barry deftly shows how much about ourselves we give away for free:

Everyone's making pages for themselves. Imagine a hundred million people clicking polls and typing in their favorite TV shows and products and political leanings, day after day. It's the biggest data profile ever. And it's voluntary. That's the funny part. People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are (p.128).

Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A great birthday gift! I enjoyed reading the original story that inspired two movies, one from the 50s and one from the 80s. As a bonus, there is a screen treatment done by William Nolan (author of Logan’s Run).

Let me start with the short story by John Campbell. A great idea with a somewhat poor execution. Having seen both movies that drew inspiration from this story, I could see both films in the characters and plot that Campbell wrote. That helped me follow the story. To have read this in 1938, though, I wonder if I’d have been hooked or been able to follow the idea from start to finish. A great notion, executed by two directors, but hard to follow from the original story. Maybe with a few rewrites, Campbell could have nailed it. But, both films owe their result to Campbell’s original idea.

The treatment by Nolan, at the end, is something entirely different. Done in 1978, it reads like the worst films of the present day. Sensationalistic, without solid character development, it was rejected by the studios. I’m so glad. The film that John Carpenter put together in 1982 is the closest to the original story idea and captured, better than Campbell, the paranoia and fear of the story. I did like the 50s film, in context, but Carpenter’s ruled.

Infinite Crisis by Geoff Johns

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

The awesomeness of Flashpoint and the relaunch of Aquaman in the New 52 helped me fall in love with Geoff Johns work. Going back a few years before that, he wrote the Infinite Crisis stories. These, for me, just didn’t work. The plot wasn’t engaging, the art was subpar and crowded and reading it became a chore. I’m glad I read it to have said I read it but it feels like $18 and a few days of my life I won’t ever get back. Perhaps that’s my crisis. :-)

The Annotated Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I was really excited to get this book from my wife’s parents this past Christmas. I’d read a review of it in the Washington Post and I was looking forward to getting a look at both the 1818 and 1831 editions of Frankenstein. I’d only read the latter, back in college. For those who haven’t read the book and only have seen movies, this book will not be what you expected. It’s more a morality play and a philosophical piece that mirrors many parts of Milton’s Paradise Lost, hence the quote from Paradise Lost on the title page of the 1818 editions. Do yourself a favor and read Shelley’s story. Either version will do, but I think the 1818 edition was more clean and concise.

In the story, the creature is a much more sympathetic and eloquent character than Frankenstein. Hollywood destroyed this story just as they twisted Dracula. In Shelley’s story, the Creature teaches himself to speak, to read and studies history. He is more human than his creator. His vengeance almost feels acceptable, but even he sees the murders he committed were wrong. Frankenstein, on the other hand, never sees beyond his own ego and privilege.

This annotated edition was a little difficult to read, though mostly through my own need to constantly look to the annotations that ran down the side of the text. Some of the annotations were great, especially those that talked about books Mary Shelley was reading at the time she composed Frankenstein. I thought a few of the annotations were reaching, like a high school kid trying to add meaning that just isn’t in the text. But in the long run, this is a great reference to have.

The Massive, Vol. 1: Black Pacific by Brian Wood

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Damn you, Brian Wood, Kristian Donaldson & Garry Brown. A fabulous collected edition of Wood’s The Massive. A terrific story and great art. I like the character backgrounds, their interactions and the politics/ideology involved. I cant wait until december when volume 2 comes out. I want to wait since I like the series and enjoy having it in the nicer collected binding.

Aquaman, Vol. 1: The Trench by Geoff Johns

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A fun read with fantastic art. I thought it started out strong, but felt a little rushed in the last few “issues”. Geoff Johns really can tell a story and I’ll probably take a look at the next collection when it comes out. Ivan Reis’s artwork outshines the story and pushed this book from 3 to 4 stars for me.

Flashpoint by Geoff Johns

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This was the best comic book story I ever read. Absolutely great story arc by Geoff Johns and fantastic art by Andy Kubert. The story is nicely paced and you can enter this arc without a lot of previous knowledge about the universe it’s set in. I wanted to read it in one sitting but made myself pause so that I could make it last. I’ve done that with only a few traditional books, so this was a truly special piece for me.

In the 70s and 80s, when I first was reading comic books, I was a Marvel guy. I didn’t like the DC line of characters, stories or artists. The stories were quaint and simplistic, the characters two-dimensional, and the art looked more like it belonged in the Sunday funny pages not in a monthly trade book. Marvel ruled that period with strong characters (e.g. Fantastic Four, the X-Men and Daredevil) and great writers (Byrne, Claremont, etc.).

But when I turned to Marvel in 2012, ironically just after I sold my original comic collection, I felt like I was in an alternate universe. Marvel has become the DC of the 70s/80s and DC has become even better than Marvel was at its storytelling heights. Flashpoint (2011), Justice League (2011+), Batgirl, Aquaman and The Movement are truly great graphic stories. Flashpoint even exceeds my previous favorite story, Marvel’s Dark Phoenix arc of the original X-Men (issues #129-138).

I got back into comics partly for fun, partly for nostalgia and partly to help drive my own writing. I’ve got a great story I’m working on now that would work wonderfully as a graphic novel. The pacing of comic stories also helps keep me focused on each scene I write of my own. I have an artist in mind but will get the story more developed first.

The only negative I can think of for Flashpoint is that it was originally published in five segments over a period of five months. I would have killed DC if I had to wait that long for this story to unfold!

The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I read the Foundation Trilogy when I was a kid, probably in late grade school or early high school. I loved it then. I was a hard science fiction fan, and this book was a classic when I bought it. At some point, I lost or gave away my beloved copy. About five years ago, I decided I wanted to read the book again. I didn’t want a digital version and I didn’t want to go to the library. I wanted to own a physical copy. I also wanted the edition, or as close to it as I could find, that I originally read. I searched used book stores on both coasts and finally found a copy at Curmudgeon Books at Savage Mill in Maryland just after Thanksgiving 2010. I bought it instantly and placed it reverently on my shelf. It sat there until last week when I finally found some time to read it.

The book flowed like it did when I was a kid. I couldn’t wait to get to the next chapter, page or sentence! Asimov knew how to draw the reader in and then keep him strapped in for the entire ride. Some have said that Asimov didn’t write action in these books. On one level, that might be true. Most of the action happens between chapters or sections. But he gives enough sense of what happened that the reader can fill in the details. The reader can create a more vivid image in their own head than any author can, so I think Asimov hit it just right. He shows us enough to keep us on the story arc, but lets us fill in the blanks and create the epic in our minds.

The book is pretty dated. On a technical level, you can’t really fault Asimov for stories that were conceived starting in 1941 and published as short stories between 1942 and 1950. One interesting example involves a student writing a paper for a class. She had a voice recognition device that transcribed speech into text. However, it printed it out in cursive on what sounds like a regular typewriter. She also had to manually add a new sheet for each successive page. So, we see word processing that is both late 20th century and late 19th century.

On a more poignant point, the book is full of out of date sexism. Almost all the characters are male. In nearly every case, women are portrayed as scared, clueless or fawning wall decorations. They assume all domestic duties, cannot follow a scientific or logical train of thought, keep to the sidelines and otherwise only show up to support their man. There are two strong female characters, one a newly married woman and the other a teenager. However, it is revealed over time that the source of their strength came from men and that they didn’t even realize they were manipulated, mentally, into the actions for which they are praised. Their agency is removed and they are again merely tools used by the male characters.

I never realized this huge bias in science fiction when I was growing up, but as I’ve reread books, especially from the 1940s through the 1970s, it’s pretty obvious now. I’m very thankful that we now have authors such as Madeline Ashby who elevate female characters to full personhood and incorporate them into the story.

I’d rate this book among one of the best science fiction books ever, in its scope and execution. It reminded me of Dune in its breadth and epic plot.

vN by Madeline Ashby

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I was looking forward to reading a new scifi book and vN by Madeline Ashby sounded like a good one. I read a few reviews of it (io9, the Guardian and maybe somewhere else) and looked forward to seeing what a new generation had up its sleeve. Most of the stuff I read when I was younger was written in the 50s through the early 80s.

I liked vN and strove to finish it, but I felt the book was a bit too obvious with its message. A little preachy, if you will. Scifi is a great tool for talking about contemporary social concerns while framing it in something more easily digestible. You don’t have to bang the reader over the head, but I thought that the situation with Amy, her family, Javier and Junior was just too obvious and in my face. She had a great story and maybe it could have been edited down a little more to distill it.

I’d recommend this and I’ll keep my eyes open for more by this new author.

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

I read the Colossus trilogy back in the 80s. I remember enjoying it and really liking the film version of the first book, entitled “Colossus: The Forbin Project.” Over time, I lost or gave away my copies of these books. When I was in Cali early this year, I picked up a paperback of the first book from Logos, an excellent indie book store in Santa Cruz. I got around to reading the book about a week ago. I didn’t enjoy the re-reading and I’m amazed at the casual racism and overt/covert sexism in the book.

On racism, it comes out only a few times and while it is subtle, it is forceful. I never saw it the first time I read it, but then again, as a white male adolescent, I doubt I would have seen anything wrong. Five reporters are called in for a press conference at the beginning of the book. When the author introduces the reporters, the ones from England, France, Russia and the US were all excellent, top of their field and game. Of the Pan Afric’s representative, he says “M’taka was a good, solid reporter, but outclassed by the rest” (p. 19). During the course of the reporters asking questions, M’taka never asks one nor is he asked to by anyone. Further, the author writes, “M’taka rubbed his fuzzy white pate and wished he had studied science instead of the humanities.”

Reading it now, it seems far from subtle, but flying over those words while reading the book as a young mind, one might just incorporate such prejudices into their own memory banks. He is an African, with a name that points out he’s not a white African. He is not as good as his colleagues in journalism. Nor is he competent to cover the current press conference as he has no science background. On another level, there’s also the common practice, still happening in the 21st century, of portraying Africa as a monolithic entity. Some Americans even think it’s just one country.

As for the sexism, it’s much more in your face and constant. One might argue that some of it is a result of the time the book was written (1966) and the author’s age at the time (~ 49). However, throughout the opening of the book, the author stresses how women in the world the book creates are now first-class citizens and have thrown off the sexism and roles of the past. They ae now equal with men. Having set such a stage, the author goes on to portray these women as girls, second-class people, servants who fetch coffee and make food. They are often weakened physically and mentally by their emotions and actively seek out men to steel themselves.

Outside of dialogue, every male characters is referenced by his last name. The two women characters are always called by their first names. Forbin, the main male characters, is never called Charles by the author, but always Forbin or Professor. Cleo is never Dr. Markham or Markham. Angela, Forbin’s secretary, isn’t even given a last name. Using just a first name makes sense in dialogue, that’s the way people often speak, especially with close colleagues. But the author has a higher responsibility, I think. It shows a lack of respect and a casual familiarity with the female characters that places them noticeably below the male counterparts.

On a individual level, women are barely more than cardboard stereotypes. Angela, the last name-less secretary will flirt with everyone but secretly desires her male boss. Dr. Cleo Markham, once a peer of the main character, is deferential to her boss and considers her looks more often than her work. In the course of the story, she is demoted so that she may act undercover as the main character’s mistress. The author’s reasoning for this demotion is weak yet implied. For her to be a mistress, she couldn’t be an equal, so she’s demoted. She accepts this willing and without question, as if this is the way of the world. It might be for the author but it’s just sad for this reader. Further, to cement it, throughout the rest of the story, she turns catty toward Angela and secretly rejoices about finally “getting her man.” As for getting her man, when she is placed into stressful situations, she turns to her thoughts of love and soft issues while her man remains, no pun intended, hard and focused. Finally, when describing the emergent behavior of the Colossus system, Forbin describes it as “complex, possibly devious, almost feminine” (p. 77). For this, I just shook my head and scribbled down WTF.

I guess I should say one good thing about the book. In an section about 1/3 of the way through the novel, the author takes a wonderful swipe at Muzak. “At one time there had been piped music, but the nationwide revulsion a few years before had not missed the Secure Zone, and there had been unanimous relief when the system was ripped out” (p. 73).

This sci-fi book was like so many I read as a kid. I wonder how many of them included such references that put down anyone other than white men, who also made up the preponderance of published science fiction writers. In the last few years, I’ve read several articles and reviews from contemporary writers about these issues and was glad to have been able to see if for myself. I loved science fiction for expanding my horizons and offering a way to critique contemporary society by hiding its analysis in different times and on different worlds. Sadly, Colossus wasn’t a critique but a confirmation of the world then, and to be honest, now.