SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

We get to have a full discussion, including spoilers, now. What did you guys think?

It was just okay. Conflicts were solved too quickly - I'd expect more drama.

Characters are likable enough given the enormous time we got to get to know them, except Ashby who I felt rather boring and undeveloped. His arc was mostly about him being insecure and fussing over his clothes and hair despite able to bang the apparently hottest species in the galactic alliance.

Since I like drama obviously the arc I enjoyed the most was Corbin's. Ohan's story is also rather touching.

I like the diversity aspects. Was pleasantly surprised when Rosemary made a move towards Sissix - we kind of knew she got the hots for her but I didn't realize it would be that fast. I prefer slowburn but it's fine.

I'll check the reviews for the second book first before deciding to read it. I expect more drama and prolonged conflicts and more worldbuilding. And less philosophy.

The second book should be a lot different to the first. It focuses on Pepper and Lovelace only. Becky Chambers has said she doesn't know if she'll ever write a direct sequel with the Wayfarer crew.

They aren't supposed to be heroes going on constant adventures, they were just supposed to be normal, the kind of people who are sometimes on the periphery of great events, but not the "main" characters.

I absolutely loved this. The lack of plot was disconcerting and it took me awhile to realize that there wasn't going to be one. The characters and situations charmed me, though. Corbin's story was also my favorite because it was so unexpected.

I agree that the format of this would make it perfect for a TV show. It's definitely one I would watch :)

I didn't understand why people thought of Firefly, though. They had a bubbly female mechanic but otherwise they had nothing in common. And despite the fact that they were both bubbly, Kaylee and Kizzy are really different people. I'm wondering if Kizzy was named Jane or Georgette or something if people would have thought the same.

I enjoyed this too, even though i felt there wasnt much of a story, it was still a fast enjoyable read.

OK, after all of the comments about how light and fluffy this book was, I am going to go out on a limb and say that in the tradition of most fine science fiction, Chambers does a pretty decent job in this book of using science fiction to explore and maybe push on several current social issues and boundaries:

Our “normal” conventions of love:
--Non-human: Jenks and the computer AI, Lovely
--Interspecies (read inter-racial?) : Ashby and Pei
--Group love (and sex): Sissix and her “family”
--Homosexual: Rosemary and Sissix

Cultural perceptions:
--Xenophobia and our inherent biases against things different
--Cultural preconceptions and misunderstandings, and how they lead to problems (read Toremi)
--Judgements based on appearances, like anthropomorphizing and misjudements based on body postures or inflections (again, read Toremi)

So despite light tone and the warm hippy-happy-love feeling that this book engenders, I felt that there was some decent food for thought in there.

Kim wrote: "They aren't supposed to be heroes going on constant adventures, they were just supposed to be normal, the kind of people who are sometimes on the periphery of great events, but not the "main" characters"

I think this is one reason I liked this story. You could see yourself and your life in these situations, almost, given the proper context. They were just people doing a job and trying to get by - and we saw the world through their varying perspectives.

***

I agree with everything you said, Edwin. I also think that Chambers did a good job of not just presenting you a world where these "not normal" things were just accepted - they were seen as weird, at least in some instances. (i.e. Ashby and Pei having to hide their relationship. The laws against AIs having a body. Etc.)

I think that the focus on these issues and the overall tone of acceptance is where some people felt the book got preachy. I can kinda see that, to an extent. It did have an overall vibe of "live and let live". I liked that sometimes the characters were uncomfortable with the others lives and choices, but that the gist was "Well, if it's not hurting anyone... "

I, personally, think it's a good message and one I try to embrace.


The one other issue I thought people might feel got preachy was the gun issue, since Ashby was very vocally against guns. However, I feel she bypassed being preachy by having other characters either ok with or fully embracing guns. Ashby understood Pei needing guns, for instance. And both Kizzy and Jenks and their friends were definitely on the more pro-gun side of things.

So, like, while we were living in one character's head, we got their views pretty hardcore - but I felt these were often balanced out by differing opinions from other characters in the story.


The one overarching theme, of course, being the whole "live and let live" thing.

Oh, I also liked the non-traditional view of children that Sissix's culture had (though I'm almost hesitant to mention it because that was a sticking point in the other group I read this with... )

As someone who is childfree and who isn't as enamoured with kids as some of my friends and colleagues, I appreciated the presentation of Sissix's culture's views on kids not really being "people" until they were old enough to be interesting. ^_^

And, honestly, I thought it made some sense to have the elders care for the kids while those in their prime were able to bear young, being fertile and all, but also continue to go out and live their lives.

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "I think that the focus on these issues and the overall tone of acceptance is where some people felt the book got preachy. I can kinda see that, to an extent. It did have an overall vibe of "live and let live". I liked that sometimes the characters were uncomfortable with the others lives and choices, but that the gist was "Well, if it's not hurting anyone... "

I, personally, think it's a good message and one I try to embrace.
."

ALL of the thises here.


I am starting to think that in these days starring people like GRRM, Ambercrombe and Lawrence, et al., something like this is a bit of an aberration that people aren't quite sure what to make of.

Personally, I like happy-go-lucky fiction, especially my sci-fi. I'm a believer more in Roddenberry's vision than the vision of those who came after. Why even bother with space if all we find there is death?

As someone who is also not predisposed towards children, I agree with the last point that about having the elders care for the kids, etc. The point in the book where I had a negative reaction was when Sissix said it was less sad if a child dies as opposed to an adult, because they weren't really people yet. That turned me off since I think the fact that a child didn't get the chance to be a person is the whole reason it is so devastating when one dies. Minor point, I enjoyed the book overall.

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Oh, I also liked the non-traditional view of children that Sissix's culture had (though I'm almost hesitant to mention it because that was a sticking point in the other group I read this with... )

As someone who is childfree and who isn't as enamoured with kids as some of my friends and colleagues, I appreciated the presentation of Sissix's culture's views on kids not really being "people" until they were old enough to be interesting. ^_^

And, honestly, I thought it made some sense to have the elders care for the kids while those in their prime were able to bear young, being fertile and all, but also continue to go out and live their lives."

I need you OUT OF MY BRAIN, lol.

I'm oh, so with you re: the kids thing. I felt that idea of society was as close to a nirvana as humans could ever get.

Jessica wrote: "That turned me off since I think the fact that a child didn't get the chance to be a person is the whole reason it is so devastating when one dies. Minor point, I enjoyed the book overall. "

They sort of mention that in the book, iirc... how "mammals" mourn the loss of the potential of a person more than a fully formed and already useful person, which they found odd.

But the great thing, I think, is that we don't have to agree with the character's or their perspectives to still enjoy the story. I think it's more about getting people to think, than telling people what to think... (which is why I think it avoided being preachy, mostly).

That said, there were some times I felt an issue was sort of glossed over and I would've liked it explored in more depth - but I can't think of any specifics off the top of my head.

MrsJoseph wrote: "I need you OUT OF MY BRAIN, lol. "


Maybe I like it there. ;)

(sorry for my english)
I've been thinking about all the Preachy idea. And I would like that some of the people who said that the book is preachy explain they think so, and why does ti bother.

I like the happy sci-fi book, although I love distopian adventures. It's refreshing. And I think that the point of this book was not to talk about technology, or Galactic Organization, but to talk simply about species relations (including human-AI). Sometimes it could be a little to much: in a crew whit less than 10 people you found inter-racial, inter-species, homosexualism, polylove, ... But it was interesting seeing the confrontation of humans with new concepts of what is "natural", and perhaps a little critic to our actual society and all the discussions about gay marriage.

But, returning to the idea of the Preachy book. Isn't all good sic-fi book Preachy. If it isn´t preachy it's just futuristic fantasy (perhaps it's another discussion). Or am I getting wrong the concept of preachy? Every gray sic-fi book that I loved, what it intends to do is to pass a message warning us about what could go wrong, o what we could do right. So the preachiness is in the nature of sic.fi genre.

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: And, honestly, I thought it made some sense to have the elders care for the kids while those in their prime were able to bear young, being fertile and all, but also continue to go out and live their lives."

Being an elder or close to it that doesn't sound very attractive to me. lol

Ellen wrote: "Being an elder or close to it that doesn't sound very attractive to me. lol "

LOL - me neither, really. But I also like the whole "it takes a village" concept they have going on. I think humanity has done itself many disfavors by making ourselves so remote and cutting ourselves off from the extended family support structure we used to have...

Of course, I say that as someone not particularly close to my family, 'cause I can't stand them most of the time... so I also really like the idea of having a family you pick instead of just being bonded by blood.

Juan wrote: "But, returning to the idea of the Preachy book. Isn't all good sic-fi book Preachy. If it isn´t preachy it's just futuristic fantasy (perhaps it's another discussion). Or am I getting wrong the concept of preachy? Every gray sic-fi book that I loved, what it intends to do is to pass a message warning us about what could go wrong, o what we could do right. So the preachiness is in the nature of sic.fi genre. "

You know, this is a good point. IIRC, most of the older sci-fi works I read (years and years ago) had some kind of message. Sometimes the message was well received and sometimes it was controversial (Starship Troopers).

But I feel that some of our "darker" works have a message, too. It's just a terrible and fucked up message. My hubby says the message in Joe Abercrombie's First Law series is: Good guys lose often. The good die horrible and painful deaths. Bad guys triumph. And life is a horrible, horrible slog until you die a terrible and painful death.

MrsJoseph wrote: "But I feel that some of our "darker" works have a message, too. It's just a terrible and fucked up message. My hubby says the message in Joe Abercrombie's First Law series is: Good guys lose often."

I think I will give a try to Joe Abercrombie's First Law series. I kind of like the message Lol

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Of course, I say that as someone not particularly close to my family, 'cause I can't stand them most of the time... so I also really like the idea of having a family you pick instead of just being bonded by blood. "

Or no family! If that is your preference.

Yeah, this one was okay for me. It felt like watching the movie Pitch Perfect. It is a fun distraction, but the conflict is thin and you can see where things are going.

For a book's message, I think that "show, don't tell" is especially important. There was a lot of message in the narration, undisguised and simplistic. When it's well done, a book's events have a theme, and a skillful author weaves in complexity. Maybe peace is good, but that bastard needed a bullet in the brain. The Walking Dead and A Song of Ice and Fire are good examples of how to do it right. Both show pure idealism as a fast lane to the grave, but then those who have no principles at all are repellent monsters. That's not to say that every book has to come to that particular conclusion, but I like it when the message is something the reader figures out from the overall pattern.

Chris wrote: "The Walking Dead and A Song of Ice and Fire are good examples of how to do it right. Both show pure idealism as a fast lane to the grave, but then those who have no principles at all are repellent monsters.

I think that this book was written more for people like me than for those who prefer things like this.

I CANNOT read ASoIaF. Cannot. I find them all repugnant and the land to be heartbreaking and full of gratuitous violence and rape. For no flipping reason. I've purchased book #1 at least twice and gave it away each time.

First Law series? Also could not get through book #1.

That stuff - for me - is nothing but nightmare fodder. I find it soooo disgusting. And depressing.

I don't find ASoIaF to be "doing it right." At all.

So, I think Chambers is more for those who cannot get down with the GrimDark works. Cause you'd have to hold a gun to my head to get me to read ASoIaF.

On one hand I do think that Chambers could've left more of her message for her audience to intuit. I do agree that the themes are sort of spelled out and even repeated.

On the other hand, people are dumb and sometimes clue-by-fours are the only way to go. ;)

(Like... it always saddens me when people watch something like, say, Star Trek, but seem to miss a lot of the messages of peace and goodwill and are like, "Hey, I love Star Trek. But I'm not going to internalize any of the messages and still be a hateful bastard." (I'm totally not referring to anyone specific. Like my dad. At all.))

On the other other hand, people don't internalize messages if they feel preached at, either... so, yeah...

It's a thin line, I guess... and I do think Chambers might put a toe over now and again but, overall, I was cool with it.

But, then, as I said, I liked the characters and the cultures. I'm a very character based reader, and I enjoy philosophical "big question" kind of dealios...

But I still only gave it 3.5 (bumped to 4 because I'm keen on a continuation of the series)...

Well, if you're not talking about your dad you must be talking about mine :p I laughed really hard at that comment. And you're so right about Star Trek and it's messages.

Must be a dad thing.

The "funny" part is that I'm totally the black sheep of the family, and my dad looks at me like I have 5 heads and is like, "where did you come from?" and I said to hubs recently, "I wonder how he would feel if I told him that he's actually partially to blame. All the sci-fi and fantasy he raised me on... All the ideas they put in my head... "

I think he's too old for that kind of shock. ;)

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "(Like... it always saddens me when people watch something like, say, Star Trek, but seem to miss a lot of the messages of peace and goodwill and are like, "Hey, I love Star Trek. But I'm not going to internalize any of the messages and still be a hateful bastard." (I'm totally not referring to anyone specific. Like my dad. At all.))"

Sarah Anne wrote: "Well, if you're not talking about your dad you must be talking about mine :p I laughed really hard at that comment. And you're so right about Star Trek and it's messages."

And here i was thinking you were talking about my dad... O_O

So... definitely a dad thing, then.

LOL

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Must be a dad thing.

The "funny" part is that I'm totally the black sheep of the family, and my dad looks at me like I have 5 heads and is like, "where did you come from?" and I said to hubs recen..."

THIS is hilarious.

I think part of the reason why some people find the book preachy and others like it is simply a matter of what people look for in a book.
Some people enjoy the message and the characters. Others like me need something different.
I had no problem with the message, or lack of plot but the writing was so clumsy in places I cringed. And I do like a book that leaves me guessing and doesn't feel the need to spoon feed me. Also although it is nice to be nice Corbin's character was the most interesting precisely because he wasn't so pleasant.

In contrast I am now reading military scifi. Yes it is dark and violent and yet the author is so skilled that after a few phrases of dialogue I was so emotionally invested in the characters I actually held my breath when one was in danger.
In a previous book he made me cry when a war robot was 'killed'

With this book I liked all the characters, wouldn't mind them as neighbours, but although I was a bit anxious about poor Corbin I was only vaguely concerned when the whole ship was nearly blown up and doubt I would have shed a tear if any of them had died.

I feel the Star Trek peace-and-love message, but it also has photon torpedoes, explosions, fist fights, respected warrior cultures, etc. Star Fleet is a navy. So I like that the ST world is complex enough that people with different inclinations can focus on different aspects, and those interpretations aren't mutually exclusive. Of course, Star Trek is a huge collection of stories, whereas Small, Angry Planet is just one medium-length book. Still, I too often got the feeling that a character's thoughts and speech straightforwardly represented the author's outlook on life. I don't know anything about the author so I could be wrong.

I read this book at the beginning of the month and have read 9 books since then (I've been on a bit of a reading frenzy), so I'm having a harder time thinking back about what worked and what didn't work in this book.

But then it struck me that that was the problem. This book didn't stick with me. I throughly enjoyed it and flew through it in two days, but after it was over, I stopped thinking about it. Many of the other books I read in the last couple of months keep popping back in my head while I'm driving or walking the dog, but this one slipped right out of my head.

There wasn't much about the book that was impactful. I attribute this mostly to the lack of a strong plot. The character building was great, but if those characters don't do anything interesting, then I lose my reason to care.

Jessica wrote: "The character building was great, but if those characters don't do anything interesting, then I lose my reason to care. "


Yeah, I am definitely the opposite. I could read a book with a great plot, but if I don't care about the characters, then I'm uninterested in what they get up to or whether they live or die.

Probably one reason I'm not a huge fan of Grimdark.

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Yeah, I am definitely the opposite. I could read a book with a great plot, but if I don't care about the characters, then I'm uninterested in what they get up to or whether they live or die."

Don't disagree with this. I guess I'm saying a good book is one that has a great plot AND interesting characters. Only one or the other doesn't cut it.

Jessica wrote: "colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "Yeah, I am definitely the opposite. I could read a book with a great plot, but if I don't care about the characters, then I'm uninterested in what they get ..."

I think I'm more character driven than plot driven. But I read a lot of Romance which supports that.

But I also have to like the characters, not just find them interesting. I've read books with good plots (I've been told) but I hated the characters, so...

Chris wrote: "For a book's message, I think that "show, don't tell" is especially important. There was a lot of message in the narration, undisguised and simplistic. When it's well done, a book's events have a t..."

THIS. All of this. I find the undisguised messages (while I agree with most) are too in your (well, my) face kind of thing. Showing it through character interaction (as the author already did) instead of making characters say or think human/nonhuman this human/nonhuman that over and over again (which makes it over the top for me). It is too repetitive so at the end I got tired and didn't even want to ponder all the (actually) great messages.

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "(Like... it always saddens me when people watch something like, say, Star Trek, but seem to miss a lot of the messages of peace and goodwill and are like, "Hey, I love Star Trek. But I'm not going to internalize any of the messages and still be a hateful bastard." (I'm totally not referring to anyone specific. Like my dad. At all.))"

Well, in your dad's defense, Kirk DOES have his own fight music.

Trike wrote: "Well, in your dad's defense, Kirk DOES have his own fight music. "

One reason why Picard is better!

Trike wrote: "Well, in your dad's defense, Kirk DOES have his own fight music."

IIRC, didn't he also have his own "love making" music as well?

Another reason why Picard is better!

Sarah Anne wrote: "Another reason why Picard is better!"

lol

I love them both. They both appeared at different times in my life.

MrsJoseph wrote: "lol

I love them both. They both appeared at different times in my life."
Me too but Picard had more style.

Ellen wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "lol

I love them both. They both appeared at different times in my life."
Me too but Picard had more style."

You know, where I live there's a saying - "kirk out" - which is in reference to the antics of Capt. James T. Kirk.

*unpopular opinion warning*


I prefer Chris Pine to Shatner...


*flees*

colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "*unpopular opinion warning*


I prefer Chris Pine to Shatner...


*flees*"


O_O

O_O

Can't. Continue. Conversation.

Does. Not. Compute.

Just to be honest.

I hate the remake, for the most part.

I dislike the casting, I dislike the story lines. It's all a bunch of Nope! for me. Especially that new Kirk.

I admit I didn't like Spock, either. But that's more to do with the overwhelming feelings I have for Nimoy's Spock.


THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

It's ok. We're all entitled to our wrong opinions. ;)

I know, but I love you anyway. ;-)

Shatner is nauseating to me. Spock is the best, though. Spock then Picard.