The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
The Demolished Man
2013 Reads
>
TDM: Something else to talk about
date
newest »
newest »
One thing I particularly liked about this was the end - (view spoiler)Unfortunately, I don't think Espers in real-life would all be good people monitoring their intentions and keeping them clean - such a talent is a ripe and exciting avenue to commit a crime, especially if you are a class 1 Esper.
I didn't find Reich unbelievable, rather he was very believable , but I wish his character had been better nuanced - I love anti-heroes.
I also found the world-building pretty neat and new, considering the era it was written in.
I think it's a bit too easy to throw away criticism of flat characters as "not taking a lot of thought." What doesn't take a lot of thought is making a protagonist I, as a reader, want to root for. It's one of the first things you learn as a writer, and Bester doesn't even bother.
Not all writers *want* to write protagonists you want to root for. It's occasionally even the right choice!(I have *really* got to read this thing.)
Serendi wrote: "Not all writers *want* to write protagonists you want to root for. It's occasionally even the right choice!(I have *really* got to read this thing.)"
Maybe I worded my complaint a little poorly. Root isn't really the issue. You at least have to be interested in them enough to keep going. Bester writes the protagonist like he's a one-dimensional caricature of a greedy businessman. He's not clever or witty. He's not someone I can root for.
That pretty much eliminates my reasons for continuing to read a book. I've read books and seen movies with unlikable protagonists. I love A Clockwork Orange as an example. But, in those situations, you at least have to be interested in following the carnage that appears in the wake of the main character.
Edit: I'm not trying to imply that it's a work without purpose or value. It won the Hugo for a reason, and I can see that. I just place more value on entertainment than I do on extrapolated science.
Ah, and I think there is a ton of entertainment here. The scene in the halfway house, with both Powell and Reich, had me smiling. It's actually making me wonder if this isn't more comedy than adventure. It reminds me of the old Bond movies, which were as intentionally silly as they were... Well anything else. Not to everyone's tastes I imagine.I find Reich interesting, and I root for him in turns, if only because I enjoy the chase and don't want it to end. (About 50% now.) I want to root for Powell too, for similar reasons.
I think it's interesting that even in this utopian society, there are still corrupt and paranoid business men who see morality like any other detail to be accounted for on a balance sheet. Killing D'Courtney was just another avenue of advancing his agenda. Although Espers prevent people from committing crimes, they can't change people's hearts. You can't force society to be good.
Jon wrote: "Serendi wrote: "Not all writers *want* to write protagonists you want to root for. It's occasionally even the right choice!(I have *really* got to read this thing.)"
Maybe I worded my complaint ..."
Did you get into the book. Reich is not a good protagonist. He is designed to be unlikable. Lincoln is the "good" protagonist. Do you find him uninteresting or simplistic? Reich is more interesting from the Freudian and psychological aspect. We as the reader see immediate problem for Reich. We KNOW he misreads the response to the merger request. This produces an interesting mystery of a psychological form: Why does he misread this?
Burt Lincoln is also an interesting character in that he is contradictory and not the pure Galahad he could have been. Do these contradictions inform you of Lincoln's character? They do not seem mandatory for the plot. I do not think that "Lying Abe" ever really triggers some action.
Serendi wrote: "Not all writers *want* to write protagonists you want to root for. It's occasionally even the right choice!(I have *really* got to read this thing.)"
Yes, but have you tried to read the ones who actively make their protags unpleasant people? I couldn't finish the first of Donaldson's "Gap" series and I've never wanted to revisit it.
Having complex protags is one thing, having completely unlikeable ones is another. They're both valid choices, however.
Jon wrote: "Serendi wrote: "Not all writers *want* to write protagonists you want to root for. It's occasionally even the right choice!(I have *really* got to read this thing.)"
Maybe I worded my complaint ..."
Early Gordon Gecko?
It is valid to criticise character if your looking for complex characters that more closely conform to how an actual person is, that you find interesting enough to follow through the narrative, etc., and they are not such.I also think you are dipping too much into unstated motivations in your discussion of sexism. People are making comments about books, not necessarily themselves.
Just because people did not articulate a more thinking criticism does not mean it does not exist, and if it does not exist, so what? People read for many different reasons and deep literary criticism might not be one.
I also do not know why you single out negative shallow comments. There are just as many positive shallow comments batted around in many of these discussions over time.
On what grounds is Reich the protagonist? He's the antagonist; Lincoln is the protagonist.
Joe Informatico wrote: "On what grounds is Reich the protagonist? He's the antagonist; Lincoln is the protagonist."The book is told at least as much from Reich's perspective as Powell's, so they're co-protagonists in that sense. They each serve as the other's antagonist.
The novel reminds me strongly (though not entirely) of Columbo movies structurally, with the first couple of acts being dedicated entirely to the set-up and commission of the murder, and then the balance of the piece being a two-hander between the murderer and the detective.
The analogy breaks down a bit because Reich and Powell don't share as much "screen-time" together as their equivalents in a Columbo movie - instead, it's largely alternating scenes between them. That's a pity, because the characters do seem to like and respect each other, and that aspect could have stood a little more exploration than it received.
In the novel, Reich suffers somewhat from what TVTropes refers to as "Informed Ability" - the other characters all talk about how charming and persuasive and charismatic he can be, but very little of that actually carries through into his portrayal during the sections of the novel written from his viewpoint.
MarkB wrote: "Joe Informatico wrote: "On what grounds is Reich the protagonist? He's the antagonist; Lincoln is the protagonist."The book is told at least as much from Reich's perspective as Powell's, so they'..."
This book reminded me of a Colombo movie too! I kept mentioning that in my book progress notes. :) I kept here Powell say, "Can I ask you just one more question?"
I personally find it hard to engage in a book if I don't like a single main character, as was the case with his book. However in this case the story was interesting enough to keep me reading but I can't say I enjoyed it. I admit I prefer my stories to have a hero (or t least a charming anti-hero)..and maybe that's who Powell is supposed to be but I can't view that person as a hero after reading the 2nd half of the book. There were a few instances where the age of the book showed enough to pull me out of the story. I viewed it almost like a complex Columbo style mystery where you know the crime, you know the perpetrator and you know they will be caught but it's interesting to find out how.
Claiming books are sexist does not mean you are not a sexist either, or that you are exempt from having to think about sexism in other, less comfortable areas of your life (more on that another day). Nor does saying "This book isn't good!" mean you are applying critical thinking to it, or that you are saying anything really meaningful.
And anyway, while sexism is by no means an unimportant issue, it's not the only issue society faces. I would ask what else Bester's work is trying to say, and what it is doing, because although it is not perfect, it certainly isn't trash either. Few classics are.
For example, why do you suppose he sets up a society run by telepaths that aren't tyrannical? Do you think the notion that Espers would self-police the self is plausible? It seems like Bester has set up a sort of utopia, where society is run by benevolent Espers. Until Tate, of course, and then we have the first murder in 70 years. Is he saying anything by this choice, and do you think he believes what he is saying? (I'm only 33% done, so maybe he has more to say about Espers later.)
Or how does The Demolished Man hold up to our age where the government knows what you are thinking, vis a vis, monitoring your search history?
It may not be a thoughtful study on the Human Condition, but I would argue Bester's choices provide for more discussion points than gender roles and characterization. I think sometimes we give classic authors less credit than they are due, because the book is older and burning sacred cows is fashionable. For instance, I don't think Reich is an unbelievable character, or poorly written, but he is a paragon of one potential future business man. And I find that interesting.