2014 hugo winners. have you read any?

[Nerds_feather]

On the other hand, Opera Vita ohgodIcan'tbebothered would now be lining the kitty litter tray, were it not in ebook form.

It really was awful, wasn't it

 

[J-Sun]

I ran across a small free portion of AJ on the net. An AI that was a starship somehow had it mind incorporated into a human body and is on some cold primitive planet where it encounters a drunken human that was once crew aboard the ship.

It wasn't either bad or good, the story could go either way. But an AI turned human does not really appeal to me.

psik

That's not actually what happens in the book though psik.

It's close, though. It's fair to say it includes AI and starships and, as I said somewhere else, I'm a sucker for both and that was a big part of why I got it but it was pretty disappointing on both those points. It's more accurate - and not a spoiler, I don't think, though in the book you have to get it doled out in dribs and drabs in an unclear manner - to say that the ship is an AI with a starship body and many - I honestly don't know what the hell they were; zombie things or something - sub-bodies through which it multitasked many experiences and actions and, when the ship was destroyed, this thing was left. Kind of like if you had a sentient fingernail clipping and then got hit by a truck. This is the story of that clipping.

Way overrated film. There were no characters. Just another disaster effects film for me.

Good point. I'll grant that they tried a little with Bullock, but she was more a symbol garnished with some cliches. There was precious little plot either. Yep, nice effects and it did have a sort of "story" and theme but it's almost as if Stanley Kubrick had spent two hours on the monkey throwing the bone into the sky[1]. It's an awesome scene that tells its own little story but it's kind of thin gruel for a movie all by itself. I mean, I did like Gravity (visually) but just minimally.

[1] Gravity spoiler:

Spoiler

Only, in a sense, this time it's the human throwing the spaceship back on the ground and it turning it back into a bone. Kind of symbolic of the current era. I mean, yay for Sandra Bullock and her sticktuitiveness but it's an anti-progress "yeah she survives until we all get hit by an asteroid and go extinct" kind of movie, ultimately. In that sense, I didn't like it at all.

Massive, total spoilers for Europa Report inspired by the preceding spoiler for Gravity:

Spoiler

It's kind of funny that, while none of the thoughts about either flick are new to me, I just realized Europa Report and Gravity are exact opposites to each other. Everybody dies in Europa Report but progress is made, humanity advances, if we have seen so far it is because we have stood on the shoulders of these heroic explorers and they died doing what they loved and not senselessly or pointlessly, dying in war not against fellow humans but against ignorance and the cosmos.

 

[Nerds_feather]

*shrugs* I loved Gravity. Not the best film I've ever seen, script-wise, but one of the most stunning sensory experiences I've ever had from cinema. Europa Report was okay. I enjoyed it enough.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I read the first chapter of Ancillary Justice when it was released, and it has a decent enough start, but it wasn't enough to get me to take it home back then. Once the awards were announced I decided to pick it up and keep going. Man, that chapter two opens with a massive info dump that, as far as I can tell, is utterly irrelevant to the story going forward. Hard slog to keep going after that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

it includes AI and starships

I haven't read AJ, but reading reviews, the first thought that came to mind was "Borg".

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I haven't read AJ, but reading reviews, the first thought that came to mind was "Borg".

Not saying there are no similarities, but the aim and implementation are so completely different that I don't think it's a particularly meaningful comparison.

 

[J-Sun]

I haven't read AJ, but reading reviews, the first thought that came to mind was "Borg".

Not saying there are no similarities, but the aim and implementation are so completely different that I don't think it's a particularly meaningful comparison.

As far as the AIs and starships, maybe so but, while I hadn't thought about it until Brian mentioned it

Spoiler

the multi-mind and body-components are not so different from the hive-mind and "units" of the Borg and, actually, the Radch are a lot like the Borg in the sense that they ruthlessly assimilate other cultures. The Eeniemeenieminiemoe person (I forget its name) isn't much like the Borg Queen and I agree that the whole thing feels different but

the Borg analogy does have some relevance, I think. But the focus is more on the fingernail clipping ex-ship zombie part and the story is told in a much fuzzier manner than a Star Trek reference would ever indicate. (The cover is really excellent in one sense, and you can judge the book by it in part because it is an almost "impressionist" fuzzy-blob painting (and I don't like fuzzy blob impressionist art) and the book is told in that sort of fuzzy blurred manner.)

 

[Nerds_feather]

Really? I didn't find it fuzzy at all. If anything, I got annoyed at how literal an approach it took to the subject matter.

 

[J-Sun]

Really? I didn't find it fuzzy at all. If anything, I got annoyed at how literal an approach it took to the subject matter.

I don't mean symbolically - I mean it lacked a crisp clear narrative with momentum - propulsion. The protagonist kind of wanders around a lot. We wander around a couple-three timelines. She tells us this here and that there. So, eventually, we have the usual Big Conflict but it was just kind of clotted getting there and not great once we were. Dull prose. Like I say, a 60s seeming book (or early 70s). And, again, what were the zombie things? Does it matter? I mean, there were definite indications that they were not normal people but I never got clear on what they were - some kind of corpsicles or something. I can't remember if the book even ever addressed what should have been under the remnant ship consciousness.

Ancillary Justice impersonation: "Here I am. There's a half-dead beaten person in the cold. Hey, I know that person. I'll get involved though I don't know why. I'm looking for something but I won't tell you what for awhile. Think I'll go over here to find it. It really sucks being separated like this. I'm not half the gender-non-specific corpsicle I used to be. Healing beaten person is a jerk. Eh, addicts. Here was what happened in another timeline. Then and now there are some conspiracies. Radch head honcho is weird. Spoilery stuff. The End. Well, almost - my story's already been written such that my author is obviously assuming there will be a sequel even though it's her first novel and nobody may read it or want a sequel even if they do. So The Pause."

Whee!

(It's kind of funny - I merely "didn't like" the book but was pretty ambivalent before but the more I recollect it and talk about it the more intensely I dislike it in retrospect. I should probably stop now. )

 

[Vince W]

I don't mean symbolically - I mean it lacked a crisp clear narrative with momentum - propulsion. The protagonist kind of wanders around a lot. We wander around a couple-three timelines. She tells us this here and that there. So, eventually, we have the usual Big Conflict but it was just kind of clotted getting there and not great once we were. Dull prose. Like I say, a 60s seeming book (or early 70s). And, again, what were the zombie things? Does it matter? I mean, there were definite indications that they were not normal people but I never got clear on what they were - some kind of corpsicles or something. I can't remember if the book even ever addressed what should have been under the remnant ship consciousness.

Ancillary Justice impersonation: "Here I am. There's a half-dead beaten person in the cold. Hey, I know that person. I'll get involved though I don't know why. I'm looking for something but I won't tell you what for awhile. Think I'll go over here to find it. It really sucks being separated like this. I'm not half the gender-non-specific corpsicle I used to be. Healing beaten person is a jerk. Eh, addicts. Here was what happened in another timeline. Then and now there are some conspiracies. Radch head honcho is weird. Spoilery stuff. The End. Well, almost - my story's already been written such that my author is obviously assuming there will be a sequel even though it's her first novel and nobody may read it or want a sequel even if they do. So The Pause."

Whee!

(It's kind of funny - I merely "didn't like" the book but was pretty ambivalent before but the more I recollect it and talk about it the more intensely I dislike it in retrospect. I should probably stop now. )

Ouch.

With a review like this for a multi award winner, what does that say for this year's nominees overall?

 

[Grunkins]

I've only read Leckie's book of the bunch. I loved it. I fell immediately under its spell. It had just the right combination of classic SF feel, with modern sensibilities, and good amounts of weird.

I'm reading A Deepness in the Sky now, which everybody lauds to the skies, and I'm really struggling. Its overly long and badly paced.

I thought the exact same thing. I was told it was better than A Fire Upon the Deep. It wasn't.

 

[Bick]

And, again, what were the zombie things? Does it matter? I mean, there were definite indications that they were not normal people but I never got clear on what they were - some kind of corpsicles or something. I can't remember if the book even ever addressed what should have been under the remnant ship consciousness.

They were ancillaries, J-Sun, the nature of which was described (in parts throughout the book) perfectly clearly, to my mind. I have no problem with what they were or how they operated at all. I think references to Borg and zombies and so on are red herrings to be honest and would exhort those who haven't read it not to be too put off by these comparisons. The nice thing about the book for me was the originality of exactly what the protagonist was, and I didn't read it as a rehashing of any other prior SF idea. I think some of the concepts weren't as clearly presented as you may like because its actually soft SF (you prefer hard SF, right?) and it's about the social possibilities presented by the ideas as much as anything. I liked it because the gender-less culture was a neat way of investigating gender neutrality and making us think about how unimportant gender can be, and the multi-body nature of the ancillaries and the leader was a neat way of thinking about identity and being part of a whole. These things made it interesting to me. As to being part of a series: I think it stands up well as a standalone novel. Only the last couple of pages hint at a further adventure, and this could have been written once Leckie had the go ahead for more. I wouldn't bash the woman too much for having the talent to get an advance or prior notice from the publisher they'd like more of the same.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

Ouch.

With a review like this for a multi award winner, what does that say for this year's nominees overall?

J-Sun argues their points cogently, even though I don't agree with them. Remember that in a popular award like this, it's the book that the most people liked, not that was the highest average. Lots of people really loved it, some people didn't like it, some people hated it, some didn't mind. So therefore it won. I mean, 1300 of the 3100 people who voted had it as their number one selection, and trust me that this isn't some kind of plot or mass hysteria - it's just people looking for different things in their fiction, and enjoying different things. At least with a debut novel there's no chance people were proxy voting for the other books they'd written.

 

[J-Sun]

Ouch.

With a review like this for a multi award winner, what does that say for this year's nominees overall?

Well, maybe nothing. A) it's just my opinion and B) maybe the nominees are all great and any one of them should have won. I sincerely doubt this is true but I hope it is with the Stross, at least.

They were ancillaries, J-Sun, the nature of which was described (in parts throughout the book) perfectly clearly, to my mind. I have no problem with what they were or how they operated at all.

I know they were "ancillaries" and I know what they did in the book but what was their scientific justification? I don't mean a "hard SF, rigorous, I can make one in the basement with the recipe Leckie gives me" justification but just even hand-wavingly, how were they supposed to work?

The nice thing about the book for me was the originality of exactly what the protagonist was, and I didn't read it as a rehashing of any other prior SF idea. I think some of the concepts weren't as clearly presented as you may like because its actually soft SF (you prefer hard SF, right?) and it's about the social possibilities presented by the ideas as much as anything.

I didn't say it was a rehashing of any particular ideas although the "superpower loses powers and becomes more normal" motif is nothing new and hive minds and conquering societies and so on are nothing new. But I'm not overly concerned with originality unless something's tediously heavily derivative and this didn't strike me that way. Yes, I do prefer hard SF or at least not-overly-soft SF but I love PKD and have even read Lethem I like and stuff like Calder which does deal with weird zombie vampire fembots of a sort which are hard for me to explain to others but felt sufficiently explained by Calder to me in a hallucinatory way. So it's not that I just categorically can't tolerate AJ.

I liked it because the gender-less culture was a neat way of investigating gender neutrality and making us think about how unimportant gender can be, and the multi-body nature of the ancillaries and the leader was a neat way of thinking about identity and being part of a whole. These things made it interesting to me.

That's exactly part of my problem. In this day and age, you don't do something like the gender thing casually but it was exactly unimportant. It was not only unimportant in the novel but it was unimportant to the novel. This wasn't a novel of gender politics that I could see but it sure checked the "gender-conscious" box (when we're supposedly supposed to be "gender unconscious" in a sense) and, speaking of red herrings, made the reader think gender was important to the story when it wasn't. Which is ironic. To emphasize the unimportance of gender, you should just refer to people as male and female and have them do whatever. For instance, Melissa Scott's "Finders" was in a gender-focused theme anthology before making it into this year's Annual collection and just had a woman (who was clearly such) running the show with two men along (who were clearly such) with no comment. Which makes its comment. Excellent. And the story was fast and strong, besides.

I do agree about the second point of individual and corporate identity. That was part of the point of the book and the exploratory vehicle was well-chosen in a general sense.

J-Sun argues their points cogently, even though I don't agree with them. Remember that in a popular award like this, it's the book that the most people liked, not that was the highest average. Lots of people really loved it, some people didn't like it, some people hated it, some didn't mind. So therefore it won. I mean, 1300 of the 3100 people who voted had it as their number one selection, and trust me that this isn't some kind of plot or mass hysteria - it's just people looking for different things in their fiction, and enjoying different things. At least with a debut novel there's no chance people were proxy voting for the other books they'd written.

Thanks for the first bit. Regarding the rest, I think there may be bias in a sense but, I agree that there's no "plot" and I think people might have a tendency to go with the flow (we have the expression "jumping on the bandwagon" for a reason) but I doubt it qualifies as mass hysteria either. Fundamentally, I agree with you completely - a lot of people liked it and that's fine and I didn't and I hope that's okay, too.

 

[Bick]

That's exactly part of my problem. In this day and age, you don't do something like the gender thing casually but it was exactly unimportant. It was not only unimportant in the novel but it was unimportant to the novel. This wasn't a novel of gender politics that I could see but it sure checked the "gender-conscious" box (when we're supposedly supposed to be "gender unconscious" in a sense) and, speaking of red herrings, made the reader think gender was important to the story when it wasn't. Which is ironic.

That's an interesting argument, and I hadn't really thought about Leckie's non-use of gender in that way before. It nonetheless doesn't particularly detract from the book for me. I still like quite like the "she", "her", "daughter" device for all characters, if only from the SF world-building perspective, to suggest a time and place distinct from our own.

a lot of people liked it and that's fine and I didn't and I hope that's okay, too

Goes without saying. And it is a Marmite book.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

Fundamentally, I agree with you completely - a lot of people liked it and that's fine and I didn't and I hope that's okay, too.

Of course it is. What's more, it's clear you've read the same book I have. You know how sometimes you read someone's reaction, and you end up thinking "Did they actually read/see/hear the same thing I did?" This isn't one of those.

 

[J-Sun]

I still like quite like the "she", "her", "daughter" device for all characters, if only from the SF world-building perspective, to suggest a time and place distinct from our own.

I think there are better ways to do it, but that's a point.

You know how sometimes you read someone's reaction, and you end up thinking "Did they actually read/see/hear the same thing I did?" This isn't one of those.

Yep, I surely do. It's very strange but not uncommon. I hadn't thought about it here but you're right and I'm glad that we are in the same general universe on this one regardless of specific reactions.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I know they were "ancillaries" and I know what they did in the book but what was their scientific justification? I don't mean a "hard SF, rigorous, I can make one in the basement with the recipe Leckie gives me" justification but just even hand-wavingly, how were they supposed to work?

I thought it was pretty clear: the ship is an AI, and the ancillaries are a part of that AI, but also house a copy of that AI in case they are cut off from communication with the ship. Each ancillary has some individuating features, but the system works be subjugating the individual units to the ship AI, which allows for coordinated action. In the book

Spoiler

the AI fragments, leaving One Esk (who is already showing far greater individual tendencies than is the norm) cut off from the AI and, effectively, an individual.

.

I have other issues with the book (infodumping, cheesy ending, etc.). But this was pretty clear to me.

 

[J-Sun]

That's not what I mean. How did she intend for the AI/meatware link to exist? What happened to whatever mind was in the body in the first place? What was the physical nature of the body? There were references, IIRC, to their being stored and activated and an impression made that they were basically de-brained or mindwiped not-entirely-living things when they weren't plugged in. (Now I'm feeling zombified.) I get the whole AI ship/AI sub-unit thing. (Though I don't think it's correct to say it houses a "copy" of the ship AI, but rather that that unit has memories of being part of the whole and, insofar as the POV "leaks" from the AI to the subunit, it recalls its "greater than-ness" but it doesn't remember the full tilt "multiplexed through innumerable bodies" thing the way an actual copy would. At least, AFAIR. Kind of like if I download crap off the net and then get disconnected. My computer would have some of the data and I would remember being able to access a lot of stuff on a lot of computers, but my computer is not an actual copy of the internet but just a node of it when connected and, yeah, a fragment of it when disconnected.) But it was all metaphor rather than machinery to me as she portrayed it.

 

[Nerds_feather]

J-Sun,

We're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on this, but that may also be because we have different criteria by which we judge "acceptable levels of grounding/explanation." I'm quite comfortable with the explanation for the ancillaries, and felt it was as clear as it needed to me (particularly considering that the book, in general, tilts slightly to the fantasy side of space opera). If that bothered you, though, then it's fair--other elements of the book bothered me much more than they bothered other readers.