(no subject)

[tinyjo]

I've been reading Nialls posts about Accelerando and have come to an important realisation. These are stories I am not interested in. They're not stories about people and that's what I'm interested in. Telling stories which tells me something about people.

In a not entirely unrelated note, I re-watched A Few Good Men last night and noticed for the first time that it was written by Aaron Sorkin (the writer of the West Wing). Which, although unknown, was entirely unsurprising. The passion of the characters, the clear treatment of moral issues, acknowledging the ambiguities, and above all the rhetoric. It should have been obvious.

Comments

[liv]

I've read the first few stories of Accelerando. I had similar reservations to you when the series was described to me; like you, I'm interested in stories about people, not stories about technology! But I found the Accelerando stories surprisingly enjoyable. Which doesn't necessarily mean you'll love them, but I think it's worth reading, at least the first story (which very much works as a standalone and is also short) and see if you can see what's amazing about it.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

On that note, 'Lobsters' is here and the whole thing will shortly be downloadable from the Accelerando webpage.

I'd make two points. Firstly, I often don't read a book for characters, or at least they're often not what interests me most about a book, so it's not unusual for me to just not write about them. In the case of Accelerando I could have talked about how it's about people's responses to change--embracing it or fearing it or rejecting it etc--and it is. That's just not the most important thing about it to me, on this reading. Which is not to claim that it's a great novel about character, because it's not, but I think it is about an aspect of the human condition, and you might get something out of it on that level even if you don't love all the neato whizzy speculation.

The second thing is that I think it's interesting you mention Aaron Sorkin because to me he's another example of a writer who puts ideas above character. Much as I love Sam and Toby and CJ, the reason I love The West Wing is because of the debates they have, and the ideas they put forward. It's certainly not a character-driven show in the way that, say, Six Feet Under is.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Much as I love Sam and Toby and CJ, the reason I love The West Wing is because of the debates they have, and the ideas they put forward

For me though, what Sorkin does is bring those ideas back into a human context all the time. That's partly why it's so much more compelling to receive them from the West Wing than just from reading about it on the news - their passion makes you care. But more than that, they're passionate about them not just because they're ideas or for intellectual kicks. These are things which are going to make a vital difference to real people. It's the fact that they're so aware of that that makes them good guys and not politicians.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

These are things which are going to make a vital difference to real people.

But then, I would argue, so do the things which are discussed in Accelerando, and in very similar ways. Manfred and Pamela argue about the importance of, say, taxation, or religion, in much the same way that Toby and Josh might. 'Survivor' is about whether killing a person to obtain information is justified. 'Elector' is about how you try to make an electorate look at more than its own self-interest. 'Curator' is about how you record history; who writes it, and who reads it, and why. 'Tourist' is about how you face up to a world where your skills are obsolete. And so on. It's just that their context is a little more, ah, gonzo than The West Wing. :)

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I guess your reviews kind of make it sound like the characters diverge from human so early on that it's difficult for them to have those issues in a human way. You can still use the stories to explore them, but do the characters still experience them in a relatable-to way?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Depends what you count as 'human'. One of the book's big points is that 'posthuman' is a bit of a misnomer--there's no sharp line between this kind of intelligence and that kind of intelligence, it's all a continuum. At the high-end are the godlike AIs who move in mysterious ways, but none of the characters reach that kind of level. They may exist in multiple copies but they're still human--more so than in many other novels of this type, because you've seen the intermediate steps, as it were.

Again, characterisation is not the novel's strength, but the people are more recognisable than those in, say, a Greg Egan novel (I'm thinking of Disaspora in particular here).