Transit. Still one of my favourite novels.
To praise it I must first defend it against claims – from supporters as well as detractors – that it is what I believe it is not.
It is not a cyberpunk novel. Let me count the ways.
First is the writing. It cannot be denied that Aaronovitch has read Gibson, for he writes a number of sentences that explicitly homage the chief cyberpunk. But the cyberpunks took writers like Hammett as heroes, preferring a kind of affectless, know-it-all prose. Though Aaronovitch occasionally shades into this, there is a liveliness to his writing, a sense of wonder and joy about the story. Further, Aaronovitch shows his debt to television rather than literature in his short, sharp scenes that cut between a large number of locations and play out through a large cast. These are further focussed in a way that suggests comics, particularly those of Alan Moore. Each scene is laced with smart one-liners that raise the energy level of the book, and each scene points forwards, ending with a zinger that is often a revelation and a punchline at the same time.
Probably the main similarity between Transit and a cyberpunk novel is in its use of jargons. The cyberpunks revelled in bringing words from writing-at-large into literature, and so does Aaronovitch. For me, the signal interest in cyberpunk writing is the confusion between SFnal words and merely foreign ones. The density of non-EngLit words keeps the reader off balance. Aaronovitch develops this project by expanding the range of SF, science, and culture from which he grabs words. (Is that a made-up locale on one of Saturn's moons, or a city in West Africa?) Yet rather than being too serious by half about it, he winks at the reader by providing an unheralded glossary at the end, which not only omits some words and provides redundant explanations of others, but includes items like 'secateurs'.
Second is the demographics portrayed. Cyberpunk is too often about the pointy end of being high-tech lowlife or corporate operators. For all the acclaim about lived-in futures, there's very little space for giving a sense of what it's like to live in these futures. Transit is completely different. Here we see refugees, the working poor, NGO workers, students, veterans, beat cops, builders, veterans, and public servants. We see their day jobs. We see their home lives. We see how they celebrate getting a raise. We see how they remove the bad taste work leaves in their mouth.
The portrayal of the lower class is probably what fans were mostly complaining about when they decried this as a cyberpunk novel. Doctor Who is touted as a show that can go anywhere, but it had never gone into housing estates, never gone into the lives of sex workers, and certainly never gone into a place where a violent riot can be casually fomented. This element sits in tension with Doctor Who because the Doctor cannot solve these problems or absolve the reader, but it also sits in tension with cyberpunk because these people are not the technologically elite or culturally valuable. It should be noted that this element could be excised or altered into something acceptable with minimal effort. This doesn't mean it isn't essential.
The portrayal of the middle class is also a challenge to cyberpunk, yet even more so is the diversity of people that constitutes this middle class. Cyberpunk is America and Japan. Transit is international with Africa ascendant. It has major characters who are Chinese, Ethiopian, and Brazilian. Though their identity is often more complicated than a simple answer like that. Many of them are women too. The exemplar is Kadiatu, a woman who is a genetically engineered mix of Irish and Ethiopian donors, born in Croatia, and adopted by two Temnes, one of whom is distantly related to the Scottish Brigadier. Transit takes its inspiration not just from The Seeds of Death but from all those 60s stories that prophesied future diversity. Unfortunately, the progressive New Adventures would never be this diverse again. I suspect this is because authors and audience were somewhat 'colour blind'. (The fact that, in this shifted future, the AI at Stone Mountain chooses 'Florance' as an unthreatening name might be a rueful joke about this.)
Third is computers. Because computers are central to cyberpunk, though cyberpunk's computers are often nonsense. Gibson's take on computers, when he's in fine form, certainly gets at something meaningful, while being — realistically — absurd. Aaronovitch has two modes, both quite different from the cyberpunk mode. In the first, he writes his famous logic narratives that span microseconds. Examples are the missiles in Jacksonville or the elevator in Olympus Mons. These strike me as having a good grasp of how a certain class of computer fundamentally works. The scenes are also quite dramatic without having to resort to cutesy avatars in virtual space. In the second mode, Aaronovitch writes your classic smart-arsed SF computer, e.g. Florance, the STS network, Fred. (The STS network's Yak Harris avatars are an obvious call-out to Max Headroom, but the underlying conception is more 'Dial F for Frankenstein'.)
Of course the central use for computers in cyberpunk is cyberspace. This really makes only a brief appearance, in flashback, in Transit. Notably, while the star console jockey lacks a bodily sense, she doesn't reject the flesh. Far from it, she builds a business founded on the pleasures of the flesh. This is a sensual world. Even the STS network ultimately prefers embodiment in another dimension to its software existence. And beyond the sex, perhaps this explains the number of scenes where characters appear nude. This is a book in love with bodies. (The nudity may also be a cheeky nod towards the claims that the New Adventures were doing things that couldn't be done on television.)
Fourth is the mad SF world. The one that cyberpunk abjured in favour of cyberspace, VR, implants, and arcologies. But here it all is: matter transmission, terraforming, aliens, interplanetary war, computers with attitude, guided evolution, other dimensions, time travel. It's not near-future, or even our future; it's embedded in a revised Doctor Who continuity and it's out to party. Aaronovitch pushes this further into the oneiric space of comics. What is the ontological status of the prologue? What about Kadiatu's dreams? Gibson dabbled with voodoo as a user interface, but this book has magic!
I'm sure there's more. Every time I read this novel I find something new.
This doesn't look like cyberpunk to me. My points one, two, and four could be summed up with a quote: 'Maybe time travel fucked with your mind.' I can't imagine that sentence in a cyberpunk novel.
But what about Ace? What about Benny?
This novel was written at a time of rupture. The New Adventures were sending a big message by getting rid of the Doctor's last televised companion and introducing a new, literary companion. Transit might have co-starred Ace — and either seen her leave the Doctor or leave with him. Transit might have co-starred William Blake. Continuity was in flux, as were writing deadlines. (I'd love to have a non-fiction book about the New Adventures, by Peter Darvill-Evans or Lance Parkin.) One thing seems certain. Transit couldn't have featured no companion. That Fred possesses the Doctor's companion is of central importance to the plot.
At the time, I, like a lot of readers, noted only that Benny was effectively sidelined. Of course, we understood the expediency, that there was little time for Aaronovitch to have come to grips with her. Just as we understood the little references to Ace as marks of her late removal.
Now, it's hard for me to imagine this novel taking place anywhere other than after Ace's departure. This is why the Doctor is wrong-footed by Fred. This is why he gets drunk. This is why his mind is bothered by an explosion of Aces.
And as for Bernice, she gets more fresh character detail here than in many other New Adventures combined. Her childhood memories, in particular, are a treasure.
Enough defence. But before I move to praise... Let's compare the potential companion to the companions of the post-2005 TV series.
The Doctor meets a woman. Saves her life. Discovers she has some kind of special relationship to him. You don't have to imagine how that would play out under Davies or Moffat, because we've seen it again and again. Now add the fact that the Doctor ends up in bed with this woman after getting drunk with her — imagine what Moffat would do with that. But Aaronovitch doesn't do anything like what you'd imagine Moffat would do.
Despite her heritage, despite appearing in the Doctor's story, despite being the weaker party, Kadiatu is her own person. She is interested in the Doctor, but not obsessed with him. She doesn't want to travel with him or be his lover. She wants to see the universe under her own steam. And so she does. Of course, if she had been picked as companion, this would have changed, but as we can see from the other NA companions, this still wouldn't have made her as subordinate as the post-2005 companions.
(It's also interesting to note that one of Kadiatu's many motivations is the death of her male lover, a few years before the reverse became a sexist trope in popular culture.)
On the other hand, this novel, along with the preceding one, are major interventions in our conception of the Doctor, ones that would have a strong influence on the revived TV series. The Doctor here is no longer just some guy, or even a fighter of legends, or even someone with a secret special relationship to history. The Doctor is now a major part of history, someone who can be recorded, someone who can be expected to show up when things go down, someone who can be targeted. Love and War and Transit specifically introduce the suspicion that everything would fall to pieces if the Doctor didn't turn up. This was a novelty at the time, and was a consequence of the 'logic' of such a series, but it seems like a mistake today. But again, this logic is of central importance to the plot. No special Doctor, no Transit.
So sing now the praises of this novel.
First of all, I like what I defended the novel with above. I love the dynamic writing, I love the diversity, I love the revisionist Doctor Who mythology from the Pythia to the Ice Warriors, I love Kadiatu, and I love the portrayal of the Doctor.
I like the mythology. As you might guess from some of my comments above, I don't love mythology for its own sake (though those that do will find plenty to love here). I like how the New Adventures treat the continuity of Doctor Who like another novel might treat the Bible or Greek myth. A repository of images that can be used as a substrate to support meaningful stories. So, yes, the result of the Pythia's curse is a solution to the (literary as much as visual) SF problem of why so many aliens are humans, but compare it to the restatement of the solution several months later in Lucifer Rising, which cites Sheldrake's morphic fields. That's just intellectually bankrupt masturbation. Aaronovitch's version is a poem of rage, grief, Eros and Thanatos, and change.
I've always been quite taken by Transit's notion of the Doctor warping reality around him so that either he fits the given context or the context fits him. This has its roots in television stories like City of Death and Remembrance of the Daleks, but it's never been as fully developed as here, from the Doctor generating hex code by pretending he has sixteen fingers to Benny's question as to whether the Doctor has any (physical) limits at all. It's a metatextual acknowledgement that the Doctor will be able to do whatever the plot requires, it's a way of building the tension between the hero's necessary omnipotence and necessary fallibility, it's a way of estranging our frame of reference for both the Doctor and his context, it's probably much more, but to me most importantly it's a claim that the authors of even an SF adventure series should be able to write whatever they want as long as it is lively, imaginative, stylish, and handled with a certain indeterminacy. (Contrast the source image here with Lawrence Mile's variation of the Doctor as a complex space-time event, which is textual brutalism, another step on the path from Transit to the new TV series.)
In the televised stories, the seventh Doctor developed a reputation for being a bit of a planner, but a cursory examination of his stories reveals him to be as much of a grand improviser. Transit more than any other novel runs with this aspect, having his improvisations grow to encompass the entire solar system — I love that even a near godlike hero is forced into such a position (and what it says about the nature of reality). I love even more that the Doctor cognitively models both his and the enemy's improvisations as a crazy jazz performance — and I love how, after all that, he still takes time to rehydrate and reassure a minor character.
I love how many stories there are. How many? The story of ... Gallifrey, the Thousand Day War, Francine, the Lethbridge-Stewarts, Kadiatu, Fred, the STS network, the Stop, Blondie, Ming, the Doctor and Ace, the Doctor and Benny, the Doctor ... and so on. With so many little stories, anecdotes, and references along the way.
I love the characters. The Floozies. Zak, Zamina, Roberta. Ming and her family. Francine. Benny. The Doctor. Kadiatu, always. There's just so much to them.
I love the detail. And this is what it probably all comes down to. Attention to detail. The telling detail. The extravagant detail. The irrelevant detail. The specificity and density of description. There has never been another Doctor Who as richly described as this. This is a story with texture, with smell, with taste, with gravity ... A story with food, economics, and soapies ... A novel that seeks out as many words as possible to fill its sentences, and that cares to spell them as right as it can.
I love Transit.
Perhaps the exemplary sentence: 'Kadiatu wadded up her socks and underwear into a tight ball and stuffed them into a jacket pocket.' African name, sex/nudity, attention to detail.
I love it.