21st Century Literature discussion

This topic is for discussing books 3 and 4, which contain chapters 16 through 34, as well as the entire book.

Books 3 and 4 take us through Patricia and Laurence’s adulthoods. What did you think of the adult characters as opposed to the children? Did the events of their childhood have a direct effect on the adults they became? Was there anything surprising to you about how they turned out?

What did you think of Anders’ world building? Was the dire situation of the future believable? What did the different ‘solutions’ - the scientist’s doomsday machine versus the witches unraveling – represent in terms of their differing philosophies? Also, would anyone like to take a stab at what “the unraveling” meant?

The LA Times review states "All the Birds in the Sky" serves as both a celebration of and corrective to the standard tropes of genre fiction”, and Cory Doctorow wrote “…a fresh look at science fiction's most cherished memes ruthlessly shredded and lovingly reassembled." Do you agree with these assessments? If so, how did Anders use and subvert the standard genre tropes?

The reviews of this book also discuss how it is a “cross-genre” novel. How well do you think it worked in its various milieus? How effective is it as a fantasy novel? As a science fiction novel? As a romance novel?

I'm going to take a crack at the questions. If I were smart, I would limit myself to only a couple, but I'm not!

Books 3 and 4 take us through Patricia and Laurence’s adulthoods. What did you think of the adult characters as opposed to the children? Did the events of their childhood have a direct effect on the adults they became? Was there anything surprising to you about how they turned out?

I like the children better! I especially did not like the "adult" Laurence. Hard to call him an adult given his immaturity. I like the adult Patricia better. Unlike Laurence, she is not "me-centered." They were predictable products of their childhood.

What did you think of Anders’ world building? Was the dire situation of the future believable? What did the different ‘solutions’ - the scientist’s doomsday machine versus the witches unraveling – represent in terms of their differing philosophies? Also, would anyone like to take a stab at what “the unraveling” meant?

I did not see a lot of world building. The dire environmental situation was believable because it is not because of any world building the author did. It seemed to me that Anders was saying that the doomsday machine would only save people and only if it worked and that seems to be the traditional sci fi thing to do -- save the human race. It seemed that Patricia thought more needed to be saved, i.e., that nature deserved to be saved as well. While she didn't use the term sentient in connection with the birds and other animals, it seemed that is what she meant. Not at all sure what the unraveling would be, but it felt like the unraveling might destroy humans.

The LA Times review states "All the Birds in the Sky" serves as both a celebration of and corrective to the standard tropes of genre fiction”, and Cory Doctorow wrote “…a fresh look at science fiction's most cherished memes ruthlessly shredded and lovingly reassembled." Do you agree with these assessments? If so, how did Anders use and subvert the standard genre tropes?

Can't answer this one because while I read a lot of science fiction, I know next to nothing about what is considered a science fiction trope or meme so don't know what she's shredded and reassembled.

The reviews of this book also discuss how it is a “cross-genre” novel. How well do you think it worked in its various milieus? How effective is it as a fantasy novel? As a science fiction novel? As a romance novel?

I did not think it did any thing particularly well. Certainly not close to how well David Mitchell does the genre-mixing. What I kept thinking was -- this book is just to YA for me, especially Laurence.

LindaJ^ wrote: "I'm going to take a crack at the questions. If I were smart, I would limit myself to only a couple, but I'm not! ..."

Wow, Linda! Full marks :-) Thanks for all the thoughtful answers!

Good point about their relative maturity. Certainly not unrealistic, though. Having grown up in Silicon Valley, I can attest to the many self-centered "man children" that populate the tech industry. Do you think it was realistic that Patricia would still be so attracted to him?

I am with Peter in preferring the adult sections. The adults and other children in the first section were just too simplistically cruel. I also find animal abuse a big turn-off, especially in books that aren't other wise engaging me.

I did not think it did any thing particularly well. Certainly not close to how well David Mitchell does the genre-mixing. What I kept thinking was -- this book is just to YA for me, especially Laurence.

I'm still hoping to see some defenders of Anders when it comes to her creative genre-mixing, since so many of the reviews were gushing on this point. I hadn't thought of this book as "YA", but now I'm wondering. Do you think Anders intended it for younger readers, or did it just come off that way?

Also, please keep in mind that the questions are there to help get things get started, but we certainly want to hear what other aspects of the books interested, puzzled, or infuriated you!

I'm still re-reading this section, and comment more when I finish, but once again I think I'm going to disagree with Linda^J. I think Anders does a good job of mixing contemporary fantasy and science fiction, and I also think it is something that has been done enough times at this point that it is no longer noteworthy (and David Mitchell? He uses SF&F tropes, but has never mastered them in my opinion). I do see the YA connection in the fantasy elements, and that may be a deliberate reference because of Harry Potter and its predecessors and imitators has pretty clearly established the "secret school of magic" trope as YA, even though there is nothing inherently YA about it. Mind you, the assignments given Patricia are certainly rather dark for YA, even if they do have some of its tendency for simple solutions (but then, I think that's a real problem with the magical types in this book).

Peter and Whitney, you both seem to have an understanding of SF&F tropes. Can you point me to a good explanation of what those are? And on that subject, the reviews are suggesting that Anders did not apply them in the traditional manner. I'm interested in knowing not only what they are but how she changed them. Thanks!

Peter, are you referring to more recent Mitchell books (like The Bone Clocks and Slade House)? If so, I agree with you. But I think he nails it with Cloud Atlas and Number 9 Dream in terms of understanding and blending genres.

LindaJ^, could be, that like you, I also don't understand the SF&F tropes, but I didn't really see any unique blend here except trying to put science and fantasy together. Is that unique? Dune does that, no?

An identity crisis and a radical blending of genres are not the same thing. [Bad, Marc! I told me to bite my tongue... ]

If you don't mind possibly vanishing down the rabbit hole, there is tvtropes.com, which you could start at here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php... (And despite the name, it isn't limited to TV).

(This is an aside, but I thought the SF parts of Cloud Atlas were kind of derivative, and what was cool about the book was the general structure and the interconnections.)

I'll stop with the Mitchell asides, as well, but I do stand corrected thanks to Peter--I do like the genre experimenting and structure but upon further reflection, my biggest complaints with Mitchell are usually his sc-fi or fantasy elements (the dialect parts drove me so nuts in Cloud Atlas, I didn't give much thought to the representation).

The notion of an alternate universe where gravity is a strong force--was this an Anders creation or something that comes up in contemporary physics?

Many physicists feel that the constants that underlie the universe, including the relative strengths of electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force and gravity, are arbitrary and could have had different values (this is in part because there seems to be no mathematical relationships between many of the constants -- they're just there, which apparently seems terribly inelegant if you're a physicist). In some models where there are multiple universes these constants could have different values than in ours (in almost all of these universes, life as we know it is almost certainly not possible). So what Anders came up with is in the normal range of speculation among physicists; which is an Science Fictional type thing to do, even if the book is in part fantasy.

LindaJ^ wrote: "Peter and Whitney, you both seem to have an understanding of SF&F tropes. Can you point me to a good explanation of what those are? And on that subject, the reviews are suggesting that Anders did n..."

I think this is putting me in the territory of trying to figure out what other people were thinking, since I really don't see where Anders is subverting genre convention, or really even using it that originally. Marc and Peter bring up the gravity as a strong force, and that's the only science concept in Birds I've never seen used in fiction before. Probably because it's incommensurate with life. My experience of physicists being asked why fundamental laws aren't different is similar to Peter's; they usually answer that if they were, we wouldn't be here to ask about them.

It seemed to me that Anders used the gravity concept the way she used so many others, dropping them in in a superficial way and then abandoning them. I'm not sure why that would be considered subversion. And there are lots of other books (Dune being a fine example) of fantasy combined with science fiction, with a much deeper dive into the elements of both. Perhaps that lightness and superficiality is what reviewers appreciate in birds?

Peter wrote: "...(This is an aside, but I thought the SF parts of Cloud Atlas were kind of derivative, and what was cool about the book was the general structure and the interconnections.) ..."

I agree about them being derivative, but they were very intentionally derivative in the "where I steal an idea I leave my knife" mode. But that certainly doesn't change your fundamental point that Mitchell didn't really add anything new to SF or fantasy in Cloud Atlas, but used existing ideas to create his literary fireworks. And Marc, have you ever read Riddley Walker? A fantastic book, and the original source for the idea of the dialect you found so annoying in Cloud Atlas.

Thank you Peter and Whitney for expanding on the physics and science in relation to this book.

If we broke it down by some of the tropes in this book, we've got:
- Save-the-world plot
- Mean parents/siblings (usually, these are step-families of some ilk)
- Nature vs. Humans/Science
- Magic hiding among us
- Talking animals
- Good vs. Evil (the assassin and his group whose name escapes me)
- Love conquering all
- Personal sacrifice
- The dangers of toying with Mother Nature and/or the laws of the universe
- Misunderstood child prodigies
- Wise trees

Other big ones? Could simply be a case that nobody has managed to cram this many into one single book.

What did people think of CH@NG3M3? Did you anticipate the CH@NG3M3 / Caddy connection?

One thing I just noticed while looking up the name to make sure I spelled it right is that CH@NG3M3's evolution mirrors the other characters. CH@NG3M3 in their formative childhood; Peregrine at the end of book 2 when they are going out to explore the world as young adults; Caddy when they are 20-somethings making adult connections. And finally becomming fully realized when it merges with the sentient tree thing.

What did you think of Caddy's evolution? Was there a parallel evolution in the 'nature' side of thing, since this is a book of opposing concepts?

And speaking of the end, what did you think of it? Were there philosophical implications for this modern world, or just a story of two crazy kids healing the world by embracing their differences?

Well, this article is a timely find: Charlie Jane Anders on 5 books that wonderfully combine sci-fi and fantasy.

Homework! Read and discuss. :-)

Whitney wrote: "What did people think of CH@NG3M3? Did you anticipate the CH@NG3M3 / Caddy connection?

One thing I just noticed while looking up the name to make sure I spelled it right is that CH@NG3M3's evolution mirrors the other characters. CH@NG3M3 in their formative childhood; Peregrine at the end of book 2 when they are going out to explore the world as young adults; Caddy when they are 20-somethings making adult connections. And finally becomming fully realized when it merges with the sentient tree thing. "

I did not catch the CH@NG3M3/Caddy connection but in hindsight, it seems so logical. I did wonder what happened to it when the book moved to the adult portion. CH@NG3M3/Peregrine/Caddy was my favorite character and storyline and the reason I gave the book 3 stars.

Whitney wrote: "LindaJ^ wrote: "It seemed to me that Anders used the gravity concept the way she used so many others, dropping them in in a superficial way and then abandoning them. I'm not sure why that would be considered subversion."

I think you're looking at the wrong scale for the subversion -- it's more a matter of the grand scale. Neither magic nor science make you good, wise or even sensible. Magic doesn't save the day, science doesn't save the day, it takes both plus a lot of muddling through. This has been done before, but perhaps not all at once in all these ways in one book.

Peter wrote: "I think you're looking at the wrong scale for the subversion -- it's more a matter of the grand scale. Neither magic nor science make you good, wise or even sensible. Magic doesn't save the day, science doesn't save the day, it takes both plus a lot of muddling through. This has been done before, but perhaps not all at once in all these ways in one book. .."

Yes, Peter! I think yours is an excellent assessment of the way to consider this book. That it's not the tropes per se that Anders is "subverting", so much as she is using the tropes to present something thematically original. Great!

CH@NG3M3 was also my favorite character!

I struggled a bit with whether to consider this book as a sort of ecological warning or not. The focus is really on the two main characters, but the ending certainly looks at the way we can bring human or technical networks into communication/cooperation with nature. And that split does seem to be a running theme (I think it's the tree that sets this up early on when it tells Patricia that Laurence's role is to control nature and hers is to serve it, thereby sort of setting them up on a collision course with one another).

Did any of you see this as eco- or climate-fiction (I had to hunt around online for those phrases/categories)? I think at its heart it's more of a love story with the end of the world as kind of a backdrop.

The article Whitney posted about (message #14 above) made me think about the intersection of technology and organism that this book opens up. (I suppose recent headlines only amplify this theme: Scientists Used Crispr to Put a GIF inside Living DNA.)

Marc wrote: "Did any of you see this as eco- or climate-fiction (I had to hunt around online for those phrases/categories)? I think at its heart it's more of a love story with the end of the world as kind of a backdrop..."

I also saw climate being used more as a backdrop, but fantasy and SF were also being used as a backdrop. I think you nailed it by calling it primarily a love story. It seemed that Anders dropped in the hodgepodge of other elements in service of that love story, and had little interest in fleshing them out beyond that role.

Speaking of hodgepodge, did anyone else think that Theodolphus Rose was an escapee from an abandoned Terry Pratchett novel?

Whitney wrote: "...an escapee from an abandoned Terry Pratchett novel"
This phrase made me laugh and I've yet to even read a Terry Pratchett novel!

I'm glad you were amused, but WTF, dude! This situation must be rectified. Skip the Dickens this Christmas and pick up Hogfather instead.

I appreciate your assistance in my remedial education (it is actually helpful to have a starting point--when an author has that many books, it's a bit overwhelming).

Ask 20 different Terry Pratchett fans and you will get 20 different recommendations. I think the only big mistake is starting the discworld books in order, as the first ones are the weakest.

I will always bear a particular fondness for The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, in which a cat and a bunch of mice are pulling a 'pied piper' scam on various towns.

Is it coincidental that the night Laurence and Patricia hook up sexually, that there is a hurricane, flooding and other "end of the world" disasters? Or is it the doomsday the assassin had foreseen at the beginning of the story if the children were allowed to come together?

I found this story to be an ambitious effort with many different themes interlocking and interwoven into a story at its core about friendship, love, second chances and forgiveness. Ultimately I thought there were too many tropes, themes and characters thrown together, resulting in a story that was at times disorienting and lacked cohesiveness.

Whitney wrote: "Ask 20 different Terry Pratchett fans and you will get 20 different recommendations. I think the only big mistake is starting the discworld books in order, as the first ones are the weakest.

I wil..."

The weird thing is I started with The Colour of Magic, which I REALLY enjoyed but when I tried reading other Pratchett novels, I just couldn't get into them.

Mike wrote: "Is it coincidental that the night Laurence and Patricia hook up sexually, that there is a hurricane, flooding and other "end of the world" disasters? Or is it the doomsday the assassin had foreseen..."

Wow, good observation! I hadn't picked up on that. Was there ever another explanation for why exactly Theodolphus Rose was on his mission?

I do agree with your assessment about the lack of cohexiveness. The short story I previously read by Anders was "Six Months, Three Days" which I quite liked. In that, there was one speculative fiction element in service of the story about a relationship, and that worked quite well. In this case, I think you're right that the problem was just too many things tossed in which ended up distracting from rather than serving the story at the core of the novel.

Robert wrote: "The weird thing is I started with The Colour of Magic, which I REALLY enjoyed but when I tried reading other Pratchett novels, I just couldn't get into them..."

Okay, make that 21 different opinions :-)

I finally picked up this book and finished it yesterday. I also thought for half of the book that this was a YA book, their childhood was much longer than I thought it was going to be. I did enjoy the adulthood better even if they acted more like teenagers than adults.
I also liked the mix of tech and magic, being a fan of both genres and working in the tech industry myself I enjoyed the way CJA worked both into a near future world, I felt the tropes she used worked for the most part.
CH@NG3M3 as also my favorite character, and I did see the Caddy connection when Patricia decided to get one. CH@NG3M3 reminded me a bit of Jane from Ender's Game, or I guess Speaker for the Dead...anyways, the more conscious AI network that is also very human, I always liked that character as well.
It was also a bit eerie reading about all the disasters in the book after this years hurricanes and earthquakes, it truly feels like this "dystopian" future is much much closer than we think.