The latest issue of Locus magazine has a review of David Louis Edelman’s just-released MultiReal,
“As SF, it’s a brilliant imagining of a near-future that not only extrapolates convincingly from current technology and culture but fills in the gaps with world-building so detailed as to verge on the tedious.”
…and….
“Others have imagined a future in which nano-machines have colonized the human body, …but few have done so as convincingly as Edelman does in these books.”
…and…
‘Others have also focused on the business side of SF, …but I’ve never encountered an SF writer whose focus is so relentlessly on the nuts and bolts of the entrepreneurial world, from the boardroom to the factory to the sales office, and who—pontification aside—can make the minutiae of that world seem as exciting and dangerous as a military operation.”
But the reviewer does seem to have tripped up on the idea that because Dave’s character Natch is the protagonist that he is being held up as a laudable individual. As witness:
“I have no doubt that others will be enamored of a novel in which the main character is frequently referred to as ‘the entrepreneur,’ as if there were no higher accolade available, and no one else worthy to bear it. Whenever I came across this descriptor, I simply replaced it with ‘the demigod’ and read on.”
Mind you, I’m not arguing with the review – because it’s always a bad idea to contest someone else’s subjective opinion – and I’m plenty happy with the quotables above. I’m just interested in the notion of protagonist as role model because a few other people came away with similar sentiments from the first book. (I myself worked for someone very much like Natch once upon a time, and so had no trouble recognizing exactly what he was.) But I find myself wondering why we seem to have such a hard time with flawed protagonists in SF. Our sister genre, mystery, is practically built on the adventures of broken human beings you might want on your case but wouldn’t necessarily enjoy having a beer with, loaning money to, or dating.
Anyway, I find this amusing, given that Dave himself just compared Natch to Adolph Hitler here in his post on John Scalzi’s Whatever blog author spotlight, The Big Idea.
“I’m just interested in the notion of protagonist as role model because a few other people came away with similar sentiments from the first book. […] But I find myself wondering why we seem to have such a hard time with flawed protagonists in SF. Our sister genre, mystery, is practically built on the adventures of broken human beings you might want on your case but wouldn’t necessarily enjoy having a beer with, loaning money to, or dating.”
It might have something to do with the way many people read sf/f–projecting themselves into the world via some character (usually the protagonist). Getting into the world in a mystery is less difficult because we can mostly remember it rather than having to build it up in our minds as we go. So in familiar worlds we can stand in the world and work on appreciating the complexity of characters, but in an unfamiliar world we depend on the character (maybe too much) as a fixed point in an shifting and not-fully-understood environment.
Not sure if any of this is making much sense…
Absolutely. The Simpsons and Futurama share exactly the same brand of humor and some of the things that occur in The Simpsons, no – most of the things that occur in The Simpsons – are pretty bizarre, but they are grounded in the idea that the series occurs in a contemporary suburban environment, rather than the year 3000 AD, which is why one show got canceled and now has a niche audience, while the other has been on for over a decade.
Quote: “But I find myself wondering why we seem to have such a hard time with flawed protagonists in SF. Our sister genre, mystery, is practically built on the adventures of broken human beings you might want on your case but wouldn’t necessarily enjoy having a beer with, loaning money to, or dating.”
Hmmm. I’m halfway through Infoquake, so my thoughts may change 180 degrees by the time I’m done with MultiReal but anyway try this on for size.
Mystery books have been around forever – I’m not sure how long science fiction has been. So, readers are used to (and comfortable with) their characters being broken human beings. But not so with science fiction, especially since the “heroes” have been just that – heroes, perfect in every way. Fortuneatly (in my opinion) we are started to see broken human beings in science fiction.
I think it may have to do, in part, with science fiction’s golden age portrayal of the scientist as hero. And sensitivity to Hollywood media and other portrayals of the “mad scientist.” So SF began with clean cut, smart, emotionally-together guys saving the world with their slide rules and rationality, whereas the mystery began with neurotic consulting detective drug addicts and alcoholic PIs with gambling debts.