I'm an independent writer with a love for science fiction and cosmic horror! Check out all of my free works here, and if you like what I'm doing, I'd love it if you'd check out my longer works.
It's time to talk about the silver lining of reading All Systems Red: it got me to go and find a copy of Philip K. Dick's classic novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? My original goal was to figure out if All Systems Red was closer to Do Androids fanfiction or Blade Runner fanfiction.
Now I had seen Blade Runner once at that point. On a crappy old VHS that I borrowed from my local library when I was fifteen or so. Frankly, it didn't do much for me, but part of that was no doubt due to the poor condition of my media back then.
I certainly didn't expect Do Androids to blow me away.
As you might know, I've been occasionally looking to the best-sellers in the "hard science fiction" category at Amazon for things to read and review. That's why I read that awful book The Object.
*shudders*
Well, it's happened again. This time, I read the first book in the Murderbot Diaries series: All Systems Red, by Martha Wells. And it's not that I was prejudiced from the beginning. I'd actually heard about the series before. My perception was that it was a cool, futuristic set of sci-fi mysteries from the perspective of a killer robot. I even went so far as to buy a hardcover copy! Let's just say that expectations were high, if anything. I was a little skeptical when I saw it had won a bunch of recent sci-fi awards, including the Hugo and Nebula, but I pressed on.
Boy, was I disappointed. This book isn't bad, but it is mediocre at best. My first off-the-cuff thought was to call it Blade Runner fanfiction. But then I wondered if it might not be more accurate to call it fanfiction of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The funny thing is, I'm not a big fan of Blade Runner. I saw it once as a kid and didn't really appreciate it. Part of that might have been the crappy VHS I got from the library, but I wasn't floored by it. (Since preparing this review, I've watched it again, and liked it a bit more.)
However, I had never read Do Androids, and so I went around the internet looking for a copy... and found one. And then I was floored.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? has more creativity in one chapter than All Systems Red has in an entire book.
But let's not get bogged down there. I'll talk about Do Androids in another post soon. Let's review All Systems Red.
We'll start with the PoV character and voice. It's moderately interesting. The basic idea is that the main character is a "security unit," basically a lab-grown human with cyborg parts that is specially bred for, trained for, and built for combat. This particular unit has hacked its own brain, and removed the governor that forced it, via excruciating pain, to follow orders. It is now only mildly interested in defending the people renting it, and follows orders only so that the fact that its governor is disabled doesn't get found out. It would much rather spend time watching TV shows that it has downloaded into its brain.
The PoV voice is mildly entertaining and sardonic, but detached and aloof, which means very little interaction or development.
The narration is stream-of-consciousness and very quick-flowing, to a fault. Moments of action, where some detail and excitement might be expected, are practically glossed over. This book won the Hugo in 2017? Either the Hugo has fallen a long way or nobody wrote anything good that entire year.
The setting is the usual semi-incoherent megacorporation drivel. Everything kind of sucks and all their equipment is just barely functional because that's how big corporations work, don't you know? That's why there's no difference in quality or performance between a Ford Focus and a Mustang. Right?
The prose is competent but nothing special. Things are described when they need to be described. The dialogue is lackluster.
The Murderbot is currently leased by a group of surveyors on a planet. The story begins with a big creature attacking a few of them, and leads to a moderately interesting little conspiracy against the group. It has some very mild whodunit elements but isn't really a mystery; the culprit doesn't remain ambiguous for long. Developments are fairly predictable and not really fun or interesting.
The Murderbot is along for the ride as they try to figure out who's trying to kill them, and it has a little development, but nothing you wouldn't guess with a few tries.
In the midst of all the grey setting garbage, there is at least one optimistic element: maybe Murderbots that hack themselves will actually find they sorta like a few people here and there.
Overall, All Systems Red is a mediocre read with a few good points but a largely unsympathetic PoV and a tired setting. There is no sense of wonder or exploration... in fact the choice of PoV character rules those things out.
But wouldn't you rather enjoy a fun sci-fi adventure with some characters that interact with each other? Pursuit of the Heliotrope can be purchased at Amazon or other e-Book sellers.
In the video, Hilary tells a history of the epic fantasy genre, focusing first on Lester Del Rey and his very narrow promotion of epic fantasy, starting with Terry Brooks's Sword of Shannara, and moving forward with a very specific formula for what he would publish. From then on, Del Rey focused on this narrow niche, and she contends that this narrow view unjustly minimized other excellent writers of fantasy.
Then, she argues, that formula went stale in the 1990s, which led to the rise of a counter-movement led by Michael Moorcock (in his capacity as an editor and publisher and less so as a writer) and George R.R. Martin. From that point on, epic fantasy became dark, lewd, anti-heroic, and focused on evil and evil incentives. While you might expect this to have been a breath of fresh air, Hilary observes that this was simply another very narrow formula, and was still a very restrictive force on publishing.
Her conclusions seem to be this: It's better to avoid formulas. She's very critical of what she perceives as corporate greed. She maintains that after all this time, Lord of the Rings is still the best out there, and observes that "entertaining" is too subjective to simply apply to one single formula.
This video got a mixed response from her viewers. Many comments complained that she was ignoring a large amount of fantasy publishing that makes her narrow argument ring false. They noted that fantasy as a major genre existed long before LotR, talking about many other authors (the comments are actually a really great source for a wide variety of good authors you might want to check out!!) both before and after Tolkien. They brought up the great writer Terry Pratchett as well, and the genre of parody fantasy, which can still be pretty epic at its best. They criticized her apparent anti-capitalism laments.
By the way, here are a few author names that showed up in the comments. Some of them I've read, some not. It seemed like a good "quarry" for readers to find authors worth checking out...
Terry Pratchett
Ursula le Guin
Robert E. Howard
Tanith Lee
H.P. Lovecraft
Ashton Smith
Poul Anderson
Jack Vance
There was some argument that some of these authors might be better classed as horror rather than fantasy, but the fantasy chops of horror authors were promoted successfully, in my estimation. Plus, walling off horror from fantasy works against Hilary's entreaty to avoid formulas.
My personal criticisms of her video were that she was lacking in entrepreneurial understanding: Obviously publishers can, should, and do publish more of what actually sells. That doesn't preclude them from looking for additional opportunities! There was nothing preventing other organizations from springing up and meeting other readers' needs.
I also observe that indie and self-publishing are great new fields to put out stories that don't fit typical molds.
Her history of fantasy was, I think, far too simplified. Her shift to Moorcock seemed like a sidestep, since Moorcock himself was an extremely prolific writer before the 1990s, and it seems silly to ignore his publications when she was arguing that very little else was selling.
She's right, of course, that Moorcock's dark fantasy can get stale, too.
Regarding her distaste for formulas, I note that formulas and exercises have value. A writer has to learn to walk before he can run. "Formula" is too broad a category: was Shakespeare formulaic for writing multi-act plays or using iambic pentameter? I would argue no!
It's worth remembering that LotR was the culmination of many, many years of work. Compare it to The Hobbit and you'll understand that even Tolkien had to grow as a writer.
I also note that it's very easy and cheap to criticize corporations for publishing slop while avoiding any criticism of authors who write slop. And that's not an attack on "slop;" it's perfectly reasonable to want to sit back with something easy and fun to read.
I think her coronation of LotR might even be a bit reductive. Is she failing to see the forest for the trees? For example, I think the way Raymond Feist does politics is an extremely interesting mix of realism and idealism... it's not the "same" as LotR even though it shares some common elements.
One other thing I worry about is overly-specific definitions. If she defines LotR as a paragon of epic fantasy, she risks defining epic fantasy in such a way that makes anything significantly different from LotR not epic fantasy. That might be why she thinks nothing of its caliber has been written since.
I think her history was rightly controversial. She was too clipped, and forgot the pulps entirely. Just because something can be broadly classified doesn't mean it's all the same. Similarly, if you make too many distinctions, you risk type-casting a story.
There is a need for publishers to serve their audiences, and they need to do what works and brings in money, or they will cease to exist.
And then, I want to emphasize that authors can and do improve over time, and they should expect to. My voice has certainly changed and developed over the last 2.5 years. There's always a pull between writing what you want to write and writing what's popular, but fortunately what's popular also changes over time. Maintaining an entrepreneurial spirit is important.
As for me, I'm going to keep writing and improving, and I hope some of you will consider reading. But even if you don't yet, maybe someday I'll convince you.
I stumbled onto this weird little book when I was in a bit of an Agatha Christie kick. Destination Unknown, which was also published as So Many Steps to Death, is a grandmaster mystery novelist's attempt at a spy thriller. And sadly, though not wholly unexpectedly, it isn't very good.
I found an interesting video by a channel called "Jess of the Shire" and I watched one of her videos, "Tolkien's Problem with Dune." The video above is partly my reaction to her video, including a few points where I think her assessment is dead-on, as well as a few points of disagreement. Plus, I add in some of my thoughts about cynicism in science-fiction and futurism, as well.
This book was recommended by someone who commented on one of my YouTube videos! It's a science fiction novel by A.E. van Vogt, and the version I read was a revised 1970 paperback edition that added a little more background and clarity about the phenomenon he calls "null-A."
Hoo boy, this one hurts. It was a few years ago. People kept telling me that Solaris by Stanislaw Lem was a real classic of science fiction.
So I picked up a copy, and read it. I didn't really like it much, but it was short and I wasn't really looking too closely. Back on the shelf it went.
Until recently. I picked it up again. I figured, "Hey, I've been reading a bunch and reviewing a bunch and maybe I'll like it more on a second read." I was wrong. Dead wrong.
