June 2023 - The Terraformers (Spoilers Allowed)

[Oleksandr]

Discuss in detail our monthly SF read

[Allan]

I read this in May, and sorry to say, I found little to like in it. The first section was engaging, but then it turned into a jumbled mess, a low-end knock-off of Becky Chambers' Wayfarers series. Destry was the only character that made any impression on me, and the social commentary was all too obvious, so it didn't feel like a natural part of the story, it felt forced. I was not a fan of Newitz's book Autonomous either, she's headed for the DTM list (Dead To Me).

[Kateblue]

Allan wrote: "I read this in May, and sorry to say, I found little to like in it. The first section was engaging, but then it turned into a jumbled mess. ..."

Well, I read the very beginning and liked what I read, but I may bail later

[Oleksandr]

Ok, first chapter.

We are on a terraforming world. The Ranger meets a Homo sapiens remote, it doesn't follow her orders and even jokes about eating her friend-mount moose. She is perfectly fine with killing him.

ok, he was a jerk, no arguing. His ideas of the Pleistocene as the purest environment for mankind are ridiculous. His killing for fun is reprehensible.

However... 1 - this is a planet. I guess amount of animals dying because of falling trees, diseases, etc is by order of magnitude larger than any one can kill (as I understand he hunts in a 'primitive' way, no guns), so saying he can cause a disequilibrium is questionable. 2 - she can disable/wound, but she prefers to kill him, mostly because she doesn't like him. 3 - she hides her crime, but when she finds the truth about her parents she is offended

[Rebecca]

Ya, that is a pretty clear contradiction in this character. It didn't bother me that much, in all honestly I forgot about her killing that guy because it wasn't very key to the larger storyline. I'm just starting the second part and was bummed that Dustry is no longer part of this storyline. I am tempted to just stop here, I enjoyed the first part and don't have high hopes for the latter chapters. Sigh, but I'll probably continue so I an say I read it. 😂

[Oleksandr]

Goin' on. Chapter 5. A group hiding for a millennium, so no one suspected... ok, a big sparsely populated world, but they got everything they need - food, etc underground... ok, let it lie :)

Chapter 6 on setting Eel river on a new (old) route... bearing in mind the news from Ukraine - if you missed it, The dam of Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (currently under Russian occupation) was destroyed by russians. The dam holds back a reservoir equal in volume to the Great Salt Lake in the US state of Utah, so now the lands below it are flooded, massive destruction of property, The number of victims yet unknown. A huge environmental impact already, e.g. tens of thousands hectares of agricultural land had been flooded, 94% of irrigation systems for agriculture in Kherson region were now without a water source, there are concerns about desertification, with agricultural land washed away by flood waters and the negative consequences of the flooding likely to be felt for years.

So, this impact in the book is fine, just because the river once flew there, and killing thousands if not millions of animals and trees is ok, but the guy in the 1st chapter caused environmental damage...

[Kimberly]

I DNF’d once I got into the second part of the story. I wasn’t attached to the characters or the world, and things got too odd, unaligned, and unbelievable for me. Dang.

[Oleksandr]

The 2nd part is a little weird and tries using our present tech limitations telling a story with quite different tech. One of the main issues is a public transport network. Yes, the US has a problem with traffic and massive parkings in cities, where public transport would have been more efficient. However, here we have an anti-grav tech which solves both traffic jams and parking, because it goes 3D from our 2D of road networks. Breeding trains is nice, but why assume that those trains A flying train could be an engineer, a game designer, or a farmer if they wanted. They could help the ERT with rescue missions. Plenty will be left who like doing transit. but at the same time it is implicitly assumed that no one else would like to do transit - and here we have genetically modified mounts among other people, who could be interested

[Rachel]

So for Chapter one - I think she didn’t really think of it as killing because as I understood it the body was just a remote - the person animating was on some other planet/ship, so no intelligence was killed?

As in the discussion towards the end where the rent is driven up largely by these ‘remotes’ which most of the time are not used snd are therefore inert (and do t need an apartment!)

[Rachel]

If you didn’t like Part 2- Part 3 might still be of interest- I thought the narrator and their interpersonal relationships were more interesting than part 2. A sentient flying train and a cat are an interesting pair!

[Kateblue]

But can you SKIP part 2??

[Oleksandr]

Kateblue wrote: "But can you SKIP part 2??"

Yes, there are some links, like the flying train in the 3rd is born in 2nd, but it can be skipped

[Kateblue]

I might try skipping part 2, then

[Oleksandr]

Rachel wrote: "As in the discussion towards the end where the rent is driven up largely by these ‘remotes’ which most of the time are not used snd are therefore inert (and do t need an apartment!)"

I guess it is an argument for the US and some other countries, where the rich buy apartments as an investment, a similar problem is e.g. in New York 2140. At the same time, it reminds me of the massively multiplayer online game (MMO) in The Three-Body Problem in the sense that it isn't how MMOs keep players' interest - living in a virtual reality, where you toil all te time or do routine stuff is anathema for MMOs - they need action/interaction which is lacking in remotes as described

[Oleksandr]

My review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Rebecca]

I agree with Rachel, Part 1 was 4⭐️ // Part 2 was 1⭐️ // Part 3 was 3⭐️, so it got better! And I think that was mostly because the narrator was more interesting. The heavy handed social commentary remained but Part 3 actually moved the story along and had some nice resolutions of different stories lines. My main gripe with Part 2 was that it was a lot about corporations (and the people working for them) being horrible, which I don’t disagree with generally but it dominated that part of the book, ruining the narrative’s exploration of this fictional world. So I gave it 3⭐️.

[Allan]

Oleksandr wrote: "My review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..."

Glad to see we are in total agreement. I do think the 3rd part was better, but overall it was very disjointed to me.

[BJ]

Oleksandr wrote: "I guess it is an argument for the US and some other countries, where the rich buy apartments as an investment, a similar problem is e.g. in New York 2140."

It's funny that you mention New York 2140, because that's another book where I felt like the author's focus on contemporary policy issues just became preposterous in the context of such a changed world (and I usually love Kim Stanley Robinson, but I thought that was one of his weakest). If what you really want to write about is contemporary transit and gentrification issues, maybe the super far future is not the most ideal setting? In The Terraformers I found it particularly frustrating precisely because there was so much else in the novel I found fascinating. I did end up giving it four stars, but what was great about it was really held back by what Oleksandr you put absolutely perfectly above, trying to use "our present tech limitations telling a story with quite different tech."

[MH]

One of the things that bugged me was utter inconsistency about time, geography, and distance. Not only did the map not match the narrative, distances between things seem to change for convenience, and there's problems around time zones. Which is not a sign of a consistent, thoughtful narrative.

Something else I'm also unclear on: how does slavery fit into the Great Bargain?

[Stephen]

I liked it well enough.

I do see the likeness to Becky Chambers in the warm, cuddly nice characters. I’m not a fan of Chambers and I’m not totally comfortable with this trend.

The comparison to KSR (a favourite writer of mine) is also apt. I agree that in several recent books he has seemed to be most interested in some current political or economic issue. In the Acknowledgments at the end the author nods to Robinson, “author of many geoengineering epics”.

Of course that’s what the book is about, terraforming, making massive changes to the planet. The good guys do so according to time-honoured enlightened, egalitarian values, the bad guys according to the dictates of slave-owning, exploitative corporate capitalism. In the case of the Eel River the good guys change its course only after the bad guys have already diverted it in another direction. Duelling river diversions.

I ended up thinking of the book as a sort of fun, far future ecological/political fantasy.

[Oleksandr]

Stephen wrote: "In the case of the Eel River the good guys change its course only after the bad guys have already diverted it in another direction. "

I don't recall an exact figure, but it was definitely years, probably centuries after the previous course change. If one makes it 'justified' that what about any 'natural' change of course? After all it is like justifying global warming with the fact that during Jurassic it was much hotter and it was 'natural' and therefore fine

[Stephen]

I’m not saying anything anyone does in the book is “justified”. However, the change in course of the river comes as a complete surprise to Destry when the people at Spider show it to her, and it has caused an environmental emergency.

“Without the Eel’s nourishing waters, sensors revealed environments deeply out of balance. The southern Maskwa watershed was at critically low levels. Forests were parched. One of the map overlays revealed a spike in regional herbivore deaths, which was starving the predators and ripping the food web to shred.

“Oh, shit,” Destry whispered.

“Can that be real?” he whispered back. “Verdance never showed us this data.””

[Kristenelle]

I listened to the sample and found the world building interesting. So I got the book from that library and listened to the first chapter. But wow, it is so super sanctimonious. A cheap knock-off of Becky Chambers is exactly what I thought. The first chapter reminded me a lot of themes in To Be Taught if Fortunate....which was an ok book with characters that I liked and felt sympathy for. But Destry is sanctimonious and annoying af. Am I supposed to hate her? I feel like this thread is convincing me not to bother reading more haha.

I was also disturbed at her willingness to kill the remote...which yes, it wasn't the actual person..so not technically murder...but it still felt bad. She had so much hate and contempt for him.

[Oleksandr]

I agree with all your points, Kristenelle, but as it is usually with me,
I have counterarguments.
Yes, super sanctimonious, but she was raised that way...
Yes, a cheap knock-off of Becky Chambers, but a replica of a good thing at least say the author has taste
Murder irked me too

[Stephen]

I found this book a good deal more interesting than either of the two Becky Chambers works I’ve read. Chambers mays be the elder stateswoman of the currently fashionable “cozy” sf movement, which seems to have influenced this book, but I’d say “cheap knock-off” is both rude and imperceptive.

[Oleksandr]

I've uneven experience with Becky Chambers (a side note, I tried to link her, but while her profile exists - https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... the search gives only some self-help books by a woman (?) with the same name) - say her first is Wayfarers series was too honey sweet for me, but the 2nd was way better.

I agree, that the used phrase is far from perfect, but the influence of Chambers is clearly felt by me at least. Also the common approach 'good people cannot do stupid things' in a lot of cosy SFF I think is present here

[Kristenelle]

Stephen wrote: "I’d say “cheap knock-off” is both rude and imperceptive."

This is misogynistic. It is 2024 and I am tired of brushing it off. Do better.

The opinion I stated that you quoted was a direct reference to Allen's same opinion and only slightly different wording in an earlier comment. I was agreeing with him. The fact that you didn't call him rude or imperceptive can only be explained as misogyny.

[Stephen]

I was actually responding to Oleksandr's use of the phrase. I hope that wasn't misogynistic.

[Kristenelle]

Stephen wrote: "I was actually responding to Oleksandr's use of the phrase. I hope that wasn't misogynistic."

Yep, it is. I was also part of the conversation. I also used that phrase. In fact, Oleksandr was referencing me using that phrase. If you missed or ignored that I said that then you are discounting or overlooking a female voice.

[Stephen]

All right, well, take my comment as a response to you as well. I'll try not to discount or overlook your female voice in future.

[Oleksandr]

Dear members, please be mutually polite and understanding of different opinions. Remember that written posts are different from verbal speech for they don't translate emotions and, thus are much easier to misunderstand. I sincerely doubt that any of our members want to discourage others from participating in discussions by their remarks.

Peace, friendship, bubble gum, as was said in the USSR in the late 80s

[Stephen]

To restate my point: I disagree with what seems to be a consensus dismissive attitude to the book here, typically phrased in somewhat insulting language. I’d call it a playful but idea-rich take on the sf “terraforming” notion, executed in (or influenced by) the “cozy sf” (hopepunk?) subgenre largely popularized by Chambers.

I don’t normally try to stack up the descriptors in a capsule summary like that, I know it’s a bit of a mouthful.

[Oleksandr]

Stephen wrote: "To restate my point: "

It is great that people have different opinions and tastes and platforms like Goodreads are great to show it. After all, compare with the discussion about Stranger in a Strange Land in our parent group this month or Forever Peace earlier.

I have an uneven attitude toward hopepunk/solarpunk, which is partially caused by the fact that I grew up in the late USSR and a lot of works of present 'progressive' SFF is anti-capitalist / 'guilt of our entitlement' attitudes because they are written by people who grew up under a different system. There is an approach of a lot of SFF authors related to the sub-genre that all countries that followed Marxism-based socialism/communism/communalism ideology (USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambogia, etc) just executed it incorrectly, but the system per se is good and realizable, which can be seen in a lot of such stories. I truly enjoyed anarcho-communism in The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia, for the author understood the limits of the very approach. I know this bias of mine, but it still affects my attitudes

[Stephen]

I found the Chambers I’ve read (A Closed and Common Orbitand A Psalm for the Wild-Built) quite unsympathetic. I’m all for gentleness and kindness in the world, believe me, but these books just seemed to leave out too much other stuff to be interesting to me.