posted
Anyone read this yet? I think Simmons is a great sci-fi writer. I loved Hyperion 1&2, was indifferent to parts 3&4, but again loved Ilius and Olympos. His non-sci-fi work also ranges from good to great, with The Terror and Carrion Comfort being some of the highlights.
I thought his latest sci-fi novel "Flashback" was a major letdown, for interesting reasons. Large bulks of the main storyline are actually very compelling with a cool and original sci-fi concept. The hero and the murder mystery driving him are really interesting.
But every few pages, the novel starts preaching. Previously I had no idea that Simmons is a conservative right-winger and a strong supporter of the Republican party. But the novel is full of VERY partisan politics, directly commenting on current day events. So Simmons thinks Obama is a poor president who is dooming America. He strongly supports the "war on terror". He thinks that Islam will violently conquer Europe because Europeans are too soft towards muslims. He thinks global warming is a hoax cooked up by lying scientists. And so on.
Some have argued that these opinions are merely opinions by characters in the book, not Simmons' own opinions. But since all characters depicted as smart and well-informed state the aforementioned rhetoric, and all flawed and stupid characters are more liberal/democrat/etc, it clearly is the author's voice coming out. And no, it's not written as a satire/parody.
While the novel is full of smaller political remarks, it also has some fairly big characters who's only real purpose is to preach Simmons' ideals. And these preaching sessions sometimes go on for pages and pages.
Maybe the preaching appeals to people who agree with everything Simmons says. Judging by reviews on places like Amazon, it does appeal to some. Personally, I would find it just as tiring even if I would agree with everything. I just find it to be poor, sloppy writing. I think it under-estimates the reader and treats him as stupid.
I don't have problem enjoying stories by authors who have different ideals than I have. I think Card has written a lot of great stories, but admittedly I have made it a point to avoid novels that sound too much like political preaching (Such as Empire).
Moreover, I enjoy many stories that could be considered as depicting very different ideals than what I personally have. Sometimes it's very interesting to read such novels. For example I don't think that fanatic Islam is taking over the Europe and America in the next few decades, and I consider such thoughts as fear-mongering. But in Flashback I thought the concept of an extremist Islamic caliphate taking over the world was very interesting. It was just implemented in a poor manner. It was merely used as an excuse to rant about current day politics, instead of truly exploring how such a caliphate would work. We pretty much never learn anything of substance about it.
In short words: I don't like being preached to. Especially not when it happens at the expense of story and character.
Have others read the novel, and what did you think of it? It would be interesting to hear both sides of the coin.
posted
I haven't read the novel, and by the sounds of it, I won't be - not because of the politics, but because I really hate it when authors go beyond metaphor or allegory (which I do enjoy) to spout their political and religious views directly at me and take me completely out of the story.
To me, diatribes are usually just a sign of an egotistical author, who thinks that their opinions are more of interest to the general public than their talent for storytelling (which is what I signed up and payed good money to read) and will, a few years after publication, often be boring and irrelevant - at least until historians and English majors get their hands on it in eighty years time.
My hatred of this probably has to do with C S Lewis' treatment of Susan, or something.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some have argued that these opinions are merely opinions by characters in the book, not Simmons' own opinions.
Chrichton flirted with this defense after writing State of Fear.
It becomes gallingly obvious when a writer has started to use fiction as a contrivance for framing and preachingly 'vindicating' their contemporary political obsessions through worlds, stories, and obvious character proxies that act as an ungainly artifice for that specific purpose. When a writer starts doing this, it's usually a really bad sign, because it tends to come packaged with the whole 'gone to seed' part of their writing career — where this and other artistic corruptions mark the realistic end of their capacity to produce whatever made them noteworthy in the first place.
Given the revelations of the discussion here that pertained to Empire, you made the right choice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disappointed to hear this. The first two Hyperion books were fantastic, as was The Terror.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So this is why -- seven months before any news of the debate about the mosque at Ground Zero hit the media -- I had written in my first draft that in the near-future of Flashback time, over the hole at Ground Zero, rose the Sharid al-Haram -- the largest mosque in North America. Sharid al-Haram means something like Martyrs of the Holy Place, or so young Val learned in school in Los Angeles, the mosque eternally (and quite correctly, according to young Val's teachers) memorializing the martyrdom operation of September 11, 2001 -- the day, the teachers explained, when the American Hegemony and illegal occupations of Islamic holy lands finally began to break.
September 11 is one of the days in the novel and Val and his grandfather hear not only the AK-47 shots of the faithful echoing around Los Angeles in celebration of the day, but also most of the church bells in L.A. ringing in peaceful and sympathetic support of the Islamic holiday.
Then, in my second draft, I took out the Sharid al-Haram mosque. I felt it was just too cynical. Muslims, especially American-born Muslims, I felt, would never be so completely insensitive and overbearing as to demand a mosque on the very place that jihadist Islam -- with the terrorists screaming Allahu-Akbar! as literally the last things the men, women, and children in the hijacked aircraft would ever hear -- had attacked America. And if they were to be so outrageous, I thought as I removed those Sharid al-Haram paragraphs from the second draft, New York and American politicians would never allow such an outrage to get beyond the talking stage, no matter how dedicated to religious freedom were are in this country. Building a mosque at or near the Ground Zero site would be like . . . well, like raising a huge mosque on the foundation of the great Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Instanbul. Raising it literally on the bones and bone dust of the slaughtered.
Well, imagine my surprise. Reality does that to me. And frequently.
It is sad. Hyperion is a masterpiece.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is Flashback A Novel Stating Dan Simmons's Political Biases?
In a word . . . no. In two words . . . hell no.
Sure thing, buddy! I believe you!
iran bombed israel to dust and now jews live in six flags elitch gardens as an amusement park alienage
oh my god
quote:In the People's Republic of Boulder in Colorado -- a real People's Republic now, separate from America and requiring a passport to visit, not just an old joke -- the Naropa Institute, enlarged now to include the old Bureau of Standards building, the Chautauqua campus, and most of the University of Colorado buildings, accepts only devotees willing to pursue the Path of Total Immersion as taught by (the late) Sensei Shantarakshia Padmasambhava.
I what now, this is like a parody of people who parody boulder
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They built The Wall to keep all the illegal immigrants out, and we're the illegal immigrants
~what a twist~
I seriously just can't get over the particulars. The sociopolitical commentary is blatant, it's amazing he tries to claim it's not exactly what you could expect it is!
Of course, yeah, we kind of had the same discussion about Empire. It shouldn't be surprising.
Still, that part about Boulder still cracks me up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I largely agree with the points that Cory Doctorow makes in his books, but I find his writing tedious because of his didacticism.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people can make a point without letting it impinge on the story. The story remains at the center, and the audience acknowledges the author's obvious concern without feeling preached to. Paolo Bacigaluppi is a great example of someone who succeeds at this.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And honestly, Niven and Pournelle aren't bad at it, either. For other reasons, I don't think they're great writers, but they know how to work a message into a book without wrecking the book.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found Bacigalupi tedious, but enjoy Doctorow. Niven/Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer deeply affected me when I read it. The story had a political outlook, but it was expressed within the context of the story.
I've never heard any complaints about it, but I've wondered how conservatives felt about the Merchant Prince series from Charles Stross (outside of the fact that it started much stronger than it ended). In many ways it espoused conservative economic thought, but was somewhat unkind to the Bush administration.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it really does matter whether the views implicit in the work are ones I consider beyond the pale. It's not about whether I agree with them (I enjoyed Wright's Golden Age, which is basically a libertarian utopia and in which my ideal left-libertarian civilization is held up as the Enemy), but whether I think moral people of good will can possibly agree. As far as I can tell, Dan Simmons hates Muslims as such. So even if he handles the issue with the same care as Bacigaluppi's environmentalism, I don't think this book is for me.
Although there are exceptional cases. Good art can contain morally evil aspects. The movie Midnight Express (not the book) is racist against Turks, but I still think it's a fine film. Maybe because it doesn't "preach" its racism.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, I would find it just as tiring even if I would agree with everything.
I hear this a lot. I'm not sure I believe it, though.
Not speaking directly to you, Tuukka, but in general.
Well, of course I can't speak for others.
For me reading writer's endless political rants on a novel is akin to reading a political blog. It takes me out of the story. Novel is not a blog, and shouldn't be, IMHO.
It would be even largely impossible that the ideals of the writer would be the same as mine. I don't really 100% agree with any larger political party or movement, either American or European. I don't agree with partisan thoughts along the lines of "Democrats are smart, Rebublicans are stupid", or "Leftists are good, right-wingers are evil", etc. Simmons is in his novel VERY modern-day partisan, and even if his views would be the exact opposite, it would still be very annoying.
I do admit one thing: I have a general dislike for irrationality, willing ignorance, and fanaticism. So a writer who avoids them will likely appeal more to me if he gets political.
But even if the writer miraculously would say only things I completely agree with, what would be the use for me as a reader? I read novels to experience emotionally involving stories with interesting characters, intelligent dialogue, and beautiful writing. And I like sc-ifi because it has the power to show me things I haven't seen before. Like others in this thread, I don't mind allegorical political writing - Obviously that has its place in sci-fi.
But if I want to reinforce my political beliefs about specific current day events, there are much better options for that, than reading novels.
I hold novels to higher literary standards than blogs. Emulating political blogs on a novel is sloppy writing. When I read a novel, I don't want to read sloppy writing. I want to read good writing. It could be just my personal preference, but I genuinely think that a lot of people share that view.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
. Dude is off the wall.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
