The Sword and Laser discussion

This book is an unusual entry in the science fiction field. It's space opera, but with an intimate feel. The life of the characters is more important than the plot. It's not my first choice of subgenre, but it does seem to work well.

So I ask, does the book succeed? Any by that, I mean on its own terms. Not by any external standards, but for what the book is trying to be.

I would say yes. Becky Chambers uses the book as a forum for character development, something more common to the Literary side than genre books. Towards the end Chambers makes a point about how far we should go to accommodate a violent culture, and that point would not have been as well made in a different book.

However, there is one important plot point where I felt the character development could have been better. (spoilers, I think.)

(view spoiler)[Chambers goes out of her way to develop the interspecies lesbian romance. I wondered at that, and this being the age of Google I did some searches. I hadn't realized that the author was gay, and that plot point made more sense as she seems to have been bringing in her own life experience to the book. "Write what you know" is the mantra, and it seems this is from her own life. And again, the book succeeds on its own terms here, as it shows the development of a relationship from a lack of initial common ground.

Where I thought the book could have been better, though, is to bring in even more character development. Corbin, the antisocial and sometimes mean Algaeist, owes Sissix a debt of gratitude. He's also completely unsuitable to offer Sissix the love she needs - but is in a position to offer it, if only out of thanks for being rescued. Had Chambers pursued that angle we could have seen more development of both characters, perhaps a growing love that starts as mutual need. Instead the book stays to a surface exploration of alien and human love. (hide spoiler)]

Anyway, I quibble because it was a good book, with plenty to talk about. Well worth the read.

I agree that the book succeeds at its own goal of being a character study set in space, but I disagree that it's a Space Opera. One of the primary tropes of Space Opera is the epic, wide-screen action, with the fate of worlds in the balance.

I think LWTASAP is a terrific book, but it doesn't meet the criterion of grandeur that Space Opera demands.

Interesting Trike. I agree the story is more intimate then grand, but it does put our crew at the center of a potential galaxy spanning event. So by that trope, "Firefly" the series, and comics would not be space opera, and yet the movie "Serenity" would be?

I'm not saying Long Way is the quintessential space opera story, but I'm not convinced it is not an edge case of it.

John (Nevets) wrote: "Interesting Trike. I agree the story is more intimate then grand, but it does put our crew at the center of a potential galaxy spanning event. So by that trope, "Firefly" the series, and comics wou..."

Definitely.

I don't think the *focus* has to be on the epic scope, but the actions of the main characters have to directly impact the greater story, no matter how much it's in the background.

I often use examples from Star Trek as my dividing line. I think Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is about as small as you can go and still be a proper Space Opera. Multiple locations, the implications of the plot can potentially impact billions of people, the grand scale and universal truths being addressed. By contrast, there's an episode of the original series called "Balance of Terror" where the Enterprise first encounters a Romulan warship. One can theorize about the larger impact of this encounter, but it's so self-contained and limited in scope that it never crosses that line into "epic." It's really more of a WWII submarine movie than anything else. (In fact, I'd argue that it's *exactly* that story, merely set in space.)

By that standard, you're absolutely right that Firefly never crosses that line, but Serenity definitely does.

Trike wrote: "I think LWTASAP is a terrific book, but it doesn't meet the criterion of grandeur that Space Opera demands."

+1

In my personal opinion, no. Here is the review I wrote:

Chambers aces the world-building in this book. What she fails to do, however, is provide a story set within that world.

Ok, so that's not totally true - there was a bit of a plot, but it really didn't get going until the last 80 pages or so of this 440 page novel. Not until our crew arrived in Toremi space. And that's a long time to wait for any significant story development.

But the characters and locations, the species and their cultural heritage and the politics that shaped them, are quite wonderful. I felt like I was immersed in a MASS EFFECT game in this regard.

The main group of characters were alright. A bit too one-dimensional, too black or white (mostly the latter, everyone acting like an idealized version of how people should be). My favorites were Jenks, Ohan, and Dr. Chef. Kizzy was definitely entertaining at times, although her characterization was rather TOO cutesy, and she did remind me an awful lot of certain mechanic from Firefly. Sissix somehow managed to annoy me. Ashby was kind of boring, and although I liked Rosemary, she too was a bit boring.

There were many things to like within this book, but it didn't come together as a complete story, what with the limited plot development. Things did finally pick up toward the end, but can I just tell you I am still seething about (view spoiler)[ what Corbin did to Ohan?! I really wish we could have learned what Ohan's reaction was to that violation. Instead we just see Ashby not liking it, but accepting it. (hide spoiler)]

Jessica wrote: "In my personal opinion, no. Here is the review I wrote:

Chambers aces the world-building in this book. What she fails to do, however, is provide a story set within that world.

Ok, so that's not t..."

Well said. I agree. For me, there wasn't enough conflict. Everyone was mostly happy-go-lucky and got along so well with everyone. Which is fine but the group faced no adversity. Nothing to make them really gel as a crew. I read this back in December and can't remember much about it. But I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this.

Dara wrote: "Well said. I agree. For me, there wasn't enough conflict. Everyone was mostly happy-go-lucky and got along so well with everyone."

Did anything come out of the main character's deep dark secret? I'm like you in that I read the book last year, but I seem to remember that it just sort of... fizzled out into another lesson on accepting people, or something.

Though many people here have called this a character-based (as opposed to plot-based) novel, most character-centric novels have a degree of tension and conflict between the characters.

Overall I think the book worked quite well and I enjoyed reading it. Take it for what it is, a fun read. At the beginning it got as far as the 'L E' in LEM when I read about the ship power by algae. I almost ditched it at that point but i'm glad that I finished it.
As people have said, there is no real story here and I am sure I will not be able to recall much about it in a years time.

Brendan wrote: "Dara wrote: "Well said. I agree. For me, there wasn't enough conflict. Everyone was mostly happy-go-lucky and got along so well with everyone."

Did anything come out of the main character's deep d..."
I thought that was one place where Chambers dropped the ball. Everything was pretty okie dokie pretty quickly after the main character admitted she got on the ship with a fake ID and was the daughter of a war criminal, especially for such a pacifist captain.

Did anyone want to comment on the ending? I thought it was a pretty pointed observation in the age of terrorism.

Dara wrote: "Jessica wrote: "In my personal opinion, no. Here is the review I wrote:

Chambers aces the world-building in this book. What she fails to do, however, is provide a story set within that world.

Ok,..."

nope, I'm right there with you on "read and enjoyed but not much stuck with me"...

Jessica wrote: "In my personal opinion, no. Here is the review I wrote:

Chambers aces the world-building in this book. What she fails to do, however, is provide a story set within that world.

Ok, so that's not t..."

Actually, what you're saying is it didn't succeed *on your terms* which is not the question posed by the OP. That's not bad or wrong or anything but when yo say No, then proceed to talk about weaknesses that were never the intent of the book it feels like you're addressing a different question.

This was was never meant to be a plot focused book. I understand your objections and if one likes or needs books to have a through plot and/or conflict this was never going to satisfy you... but those again are that person's terms. Not the book's.

Same for @Brendan - *you* need conflict between characters and as above, that's understandable and fine. I don't think that's what Chambers was after here though. I think she simply wanted to examine interactions between a wide variety of 'people' without forcing them to all have some deep conflict. After all, most small crews wouldn't have a big, tense conflict with lots of secrets. They'd never stick together trip after trip and remember this crew HAS been together for awhile.

I think this is why I found it refreshing - there's far too many books where people are put together but there's a Big Secret That Could Tear Them Apart or something. It's practically a trope at this point and while a book like Blindsight can do it really well too often it's inserted for cheap drama.

To me, this book was a reaction to that. Now, if she followed these characters for a series, yes, likely some tensions would have to develop and be resolved (Firefly being the obvious example). But from what she's said, we're done with this group as a group.

Rick wrote: "Jessica wrote: "In my personal opinion, no. Here is the review I wrote:

Chambers aces the world-building in this book. What she fails to do, however, is provide a story set within that world.

Ok,..."

I did notice I was answering the question wrong after posting, but Goodreads on my ipad doesn't let me edit a post I already submitted. And honestly I wasn't sure which thread to post my overall review under, because when I previously posted one under the generic monthly pick thread someone pointed out that thread is just supposed to be notifying us what book was selected. So I'm not sure where to post my overall impressions of one of the club's reads.

But I guess I have trouble with the original question in this thread, too - could you say EVERY book succeeds at what it's TRYING to be? I guess maybe not, but there's a lot of gray area in that line of questioning.

But yes, for my own personal standards of what makes a book, I did not think this succeeded. "Conflict" here doesn't have to mean angsty characters, but is part of the very definition of what makes a story. There has to be some sort of conflict and then a resolution. This book had it, but very little of it, very late.

Jessica wrote: "But I guess I have trouble with the original question in this thread, too - could you say EVERY book succeeds at what it's TRYING to be? I guess maybe not, but there's a lot of gray area in that line of questioning. "

I agree that there is some gray area, but one can make general assumptions about a story based on the promises the author sets up in the beginning.

For instance, Brandon Sanderson mentioned on his podcast a book that set up the tropes of Epic Fantasy only to knock them down at the 3/4 mark. Everyone who read the book hated it. The problem being that the author was promising readers a typical Epic Fantasy adventure, and then he pulled the rug out from under them. So people looking for a deconstruction of that genre gave up before the change happened, and people who like that sort of book were annoyed by the shift in tone. This is probably something a truly great author can pull off, but it's a difficult trick to pull off.

Trike wrote: "Jessica wrote: "But I guess I have trouble with the original question in this thread, too - could you say EVERY book succeeds at what it's TRYING to be? I guess maybe not, but there's a lot of gray..."

what was the book?

If I'm thinking of the same podcast episode, Sanderson wouldn't mention it--he's too nice a guy to truly call another author out. :)

(I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though!)

Jessica wrote: "But I guess I have trouble with the original question in this thread, too - could you say EVERY book succeeds at what it's TRYING to be?..."

Interesting question. I agree that could be used as a cop out. I think that if the reviewer is honestly trying to assess the book, though, that it's fairly easy to do and give a negative review to a book that doesn't work even on its own merits.

For example, with this book it's ALL about the characters - how well they'r drawn, how well their interactions are described, etc. If Chambers had written flat characters the book would fail on its merits in my eyes. Same with a book that's plot driven but uses some deus ex machina, get out of jail free card to resolve things.

So I'm not sure where to post my overall impressions of one of the club's reads.

Oh, wherever, really. Don't ever feel that you shouldn't post because you're not sure where it should go. Heck, start your own thread about the book if nothing feels like the right place. Much rather have a good review in the 'wrong' place than not have the review.

Vis the Sanderson point... I can see that being annoying. It's actually one of the things I don't like about books that start out as fantasy but where the author veers into SF explanations (Pern, the Merchant Prince series from Stross). The way I'd want to do that if I were the author would be to lay clues from early on that Something Is Not Quite Right so that a perceptive reader would get a feeling of wrongness before the reveal. Doing that while not making it too obvious would be hard.

Rick, I'm not sure your two fantasy-SF examples quite work out--my copy of Dragonflight explicitly talks about Pern as another planet around another star (I've seen it said elsewhere that this frame is to allow "fantasy" in a SF-heavy time period, but then again, we have people discussing agenothree (HNO3)) throughout).

For Stross--that's just a matter of contracts and marketing... Stross wrote them as SF, but he had a SF deal with Ace, so Tor marketed them as fantasy. *shrugs* There's apparently more behind the scenes on that, too. Publishing is weird...

Fresno Bob wrote: "what was the book? "

He won't say.

David wrote: "Rick, I'm not sure your two fantasy-SF examples quite work out--my copy of Dragonflight explicitly talks about Pern as another planet around another star (I've seen it said elsewhere that this fram..."


Oh I was referring to the dragons being a product of genetic engineering, etc. in Pern.

ON the Stross... yeah, but I'm not really talking the marketing. I'm thinking of the fact that it starts off as straight up portal fantasy (there's no explanation of the world walking aside from the idea that the protagonist and her family is special). Hell the mechanism for triggering a walk (starting at an object) riffs on Zelazny's Amber cards.

In both cases if you just start at the beginning they feel like fantasy (though Pern of course doesn't feel like EARTH fantasy). And in both cases the things that seem to be fantasy tropes (dragons, world walking) turn out to have scientific underpinnings.

Trike wrote: "Fresno Bob wrote: "what was the book? "

He won't say."

boo boo, release the SNARK!

I agree with the OP. This novel reads like a literary novel in a science fictional setting. The goal in a literary novel is to show character development leading to a resolution through character. An author of a traditional science fiction novel, especially space opera, would have introduced the Toremi as the antagonists at the beginning of the novel and built up to a resolution involving defeating them. That's not what this author chose to do. The novel succeeds in showing a group of strangers gather together, share in adventures, and grow as characters. I admire the author's courage in tackling emotional issues in this setting, but I need a plot with my science fiction. Reading this novel did not satisfy me in that regard.

Gary wrote: "I agree with the OP. This novel reads like a literary novel in a science fictional setting. The goal in a literary novel is to show character development leading to a resolution through character. ..."

My issue with that though is that there isn't any character development. The characters come established as they are, and stay pretty static. The only one who changes in any way is the algae guy who gets so very little screen time, and his develoment happens mostly off screen. A character driven novel still has to 'drive' somewhere.

Melani wrote: "Gary wrote: "I agree with the OP. This novel reads like a literary novel in a science fictional setting. The goal in a literary novel is to show character development leading to a resolution throug..."

Agreed. This is why I didn't like the book.

Melani wrote: "My issue with that though is that there isn't any character development."

Does doing it with alien babes count as character development? I feel like Star Trek and Mass Effect point to yes.

Yes, in those plot driven stories, the bar for character development is low. Just like in character driven stories the bar for plot can be lower. The question is in a character driven story, did the character development get over the bar? And the answer seems to be fairly evenly split in our group.

Now I would also say that truly great stories have great plots along with great character development, but that is a whole different question.

Eh. I don't need to see massive character development and in fact think that often having that happen is unrealistic. How much do any of us change over the course of a year (the timeframe here)? Not much usually. Sure, occasionally adults will go through a dramatic experience that alters them significantly but I'd bet that most of you are the same basic people you were last May.

What this book did was simple - it shoved a group of different people together and let us watch them interact. In general, I liked that interaction. I don't need my characters to realize deep truths about themselves or change dramatically.

Rick wrote: "Eh. I don't need to see massive character development and in fact think that often having that happen is unrealistic. How much do any of us change over the course of a year (the timeframe here)? No..."
It is more that promises were made to the reader that were not kept. rather than there was not much character development. The reason why it doesn't seem like there was much character development is that the character arcs were short and very episodic. The book would do an arc for one character and finish it up and then do another character. I felt like Rosemary's past was uncovered and finished in one "episode" and then the crew moved on. With as big of a deal as was made about her past, it shouldn't not have been able to completely covered up that quickly.

Also, a character does not necessarily have to change for there to be character development. Part of character development is flushing out a character and making them three dimensional.

Shad wrote: "It is more that promises were made to the reader that were not kept. ..."

what promises were made? Note: MADE BY THE BOOK, not something you think should have happened.

To me the point about Rosemary's past is that SHE made a big deal of it but by time they found out about it, the crew knew, liked and trusted her. Could it have been played out more? Sure, I suppose. But that's starting to impose how you or I would have done it.

Melani wrote: "Gary wrote: "I agree with the OP. This novel reads like a literary novel in a science fictional setting. The goal in a literary novel is to show character development leading to a resolution throug..."

I enjoyed this book as a quick, fluffy read, but I agree -- there really wasn't THAT much character development. We don't really see any of the characters encounter anything that truly challenges their core beliefs, or if we see the encounter, we see the beginning and the end and not really any of the change or development that came of it. For example -- we see Corbin learn that he is a clone, and I guess his encounter with Ohan shows that he cares more about his crew, but mostly there's just an absence of him being short tempered, but we don't really know how he's changed. As someone said above -- everyone just seems to be kinda happy-go-lucky, kinda flexible and friendly, and everything is fine.

Jessica wrote: "In my personal opinion, no. Here is the review I wrote:

Chambers aces the world-building in this book. What she fails to do, however, is provide a story set within that world.

Ok, so that's not t..."

I'm late to the game and about half-way through the book at this point. I was wondering when the action was going to pick up. I'll keep going to get to the last 80 pages, but I don't think I'll be reading the sequel.

Ivy wrote: "I was wondering when the action was going to pick up."

Memory is a bit dim at this point a year or so later, but as I recall the only real action was at the tail end of the book. Possibly the last 10%, at most the last 20%.

Yeah, as some of us said when this was current (above and in other thread), this is not a plot driven book. Things do happen but this is the story of a band of characters and how they interact and if you enjoy a story with a central mystery/conflict that follows typical Western motifs (setup, conflicts, resolution) then, this isn't the author for you (the second and esp their books are very much in this vein).

The obvious comparison is Firefly - that series wasn't driven by it's amazing plots in each episode but because people fell in love with the characters and enjoyed how they interacted when things did happen.

Ivy wrote: "I'm late to the game and about half-way through the book at this point. I was wondering when the action was going to pick up. I'll keep going to get to the last 80 pages, but I don't think I'll be reading the sequel. "

Two things about the action aspect: 1) the story isn’t an action-adventure, it’s primarily a character study. B) it actually does have action-adventure elements, but they are largely self-contained vignettes. (Space pirates!)

Going back to earlier posts upthread, this is more Firefly than Serenity. It’s Alien rather than Aliens. It’s Groundhog Day, not Edge of Tomorrow (Live. Die. Repeat.).

About the sequel, it’s actually a follow-up set in the same universe rather than a continuation of this story. Without going into spoilers, one could argue that none of the characters in this book even appear in the second one, despite one direct connection.

In that regard, these novels are exactly like the original books in Niven’s Known Space, Foster’s Humanx Commonwealth, Varley’s Eight Worlds or Banks’ Culture. Each novel was a standalone story set in the same universe with the same history.

The other thing that occurred to me just now is that the criticism upthread that the characters are all basically nice (or grumpy in the case of Corbin) is because that's what Chambers intended. This book is in contrast to all of the rather dark, frankly formulaic fiction where one or more characters have dark motivations (see... well... Killjoys, Dark Matter, etc).

If you've read the solarpunk thread, this is that. It's basically optimistic SF set in a universe that, yes, has dangers and evil (see the second book) but that doesn't do the dark, dystopia thing that's become so, so tiresome lately. I think that's one of the reasons I liked it so much - it's an updated version of the more positive SF that I grew up with and, for me at least, a welcome respite from yet another formulaic post-apoc/dystopian world with gritty, grim antiheroes.

I agree with Trike. This book is a cosy character study.

I think it is important to note that does not require all that much growth in individual characters. The relationships between the crew were explored. Character growth usually involves a journey (which is a plot in itself).