Wonderful analysis. Regarding what you said about "When you have perfection, what is there to be upset about?", I interpreted that as the entire point of the novella. Just look at our own real lives. We live in an era in which humans are generally safer, wealthier, and with more food security than any point in our species' existence, yet it hasn't translated to happiness. For a self-aware/thinking being, there's more to life than the essentials, therefore a utopian setting where all the basics are met is the perfect setting to explore these purposes. Agreed about the philosophical themes. Chambers is a wonderful writer, but I personally wish for a little more oomph in the philosophy and science departments to really drive her wonderful premises home.
Thanks! I think you're interpretation is probably the best I've heard, and totally agree with it. I don't think that was Chambers intention unfortunately. It never really played out in the text in my reading, nor have I heard her discuss it in such a way. BUT I think that is really the only way to make the story work, that BECAUSE everything is great, it's possible to feel inadequate, which Dex does. This would have been a great topic for Mosscap to elucidate. The only issue with the theory is that it dismantles the entire utopian storytelling device, or at least, the world she is trying to create strictly for positivity. I'm totally fine with that, but I don't think that's what she was going for, which is fine too. Readers can have valid interpretations. Maybe it is her subconscious fighting her haha. Either way, it's a far better way of thinking about it, so thanks for the input!
Thanks for your review! I really enjoyed it. I don’t think this book is for me. Feels like modern social issues have been shoe-horned in with no explanation. And that opening quote makes me cringe too- as sounds like there is a political agenda there. Maybe I’m being too harsh! But it reminds me of stuff like the house in the cerulean sea and the quiet at the end of the world- both of which felt like propaganda at times and it cringed me out and took me out of the story. I’m all for social justice but they should weave it into the story well!
Once I listened to the interview, it felt like the author was overlooking or compromising storytelling for the world she wanted to create, which to me is a bit of a political move (and it won the Hugo, surprise!). People can write whatever they want, of course, I just can't stand it when the decisions aren't made to create the most compelling story, and would rather inject their personal beliefs into it. I feel like we should always try to tell the most interesting story possible. Another problem is it tries to make a utopian novel, which I still feel is impossible. It's very obvious in how the chapters play out. They kind of drift because there is no true conflict. There is internal conflict with the protagonist, but it never keeps you glued to the page.
@@JasonFuhrman Yeah and it seems really subjective too. Like the author’s utopia would be different my mine or yours. And you’re right, people can write whatever they want but it’s fair to point out when those choices have come at the expense of the story, which sounds like might have been the case here. For me cosy fiction can only work if you really like the characters and/or the world. Eg I loved following around the hobbits in LOTR and the discussions they had with the ents etc. technically that’s cosy I suppose but it was so magical and awe inspiring. I’ve not seen anything come close with modern fiction but maybe I’m reading the wrong stuff!
Yeah, I would have loathed this book, lol. Going off of another comment in this section, utopia is impossible because it is partly psychological. We are evolved to reproduce in a broad sense, which requires some semblance of problem solving, at least in the context of human beings. The instant we fix one problem, we'll search for another. The fact that we went from "how do we feed ourselves?" to "this person misgendered me," all the while treating each as a great moral crime, says mountains about what we are.
haha yes, you would not like it. I agree with the second part too, and there is another interview I watched with her where they try to "dispell" dystopia, but I don't think she has any good arguments. I'll give her credit for trying to make a utopian book, but you can tell she was really struggling to tell a semblance of a story in within that framework.
Interesting to hear some points you mentioned during the discussion a few weeks ago but more fleshed out
Thanks! There are some good things here, the entire story just felt a little unpolished in a lot of ways.
Wonderful analysis.
Regarding what you said about "When you have perfection, what is there to be upset about?", I interpreted that as the entire point of the novella. Just look at our own real lives. We live in an era in which humans are generally safer, wealthier, and with more food security than any point in our species' existence, yet it hasn't translated to happiness. For a self-aware/thinking being, there's more to life than the essentials, therefore a utopian setting where all the basics are met is the perfect setting to explore these purposes.
Agreed about the philosophical themes. Chambers is a wonderful writer, but I personally wish for a little more oomph in the philosophy and science departments to really drive her wonderful premises home.
Thanks!
I think you're interpretation is probably the best I've heard, and totally agree with it. I don't think that was Chambers intention unfortunately. It never really played out in the text in my reading, nor have I heard her discuss it in such a way. BUT I think that is really the only way to make the story work, that BECAUSE everything is great, it's possible to feel inadequate, which Dex does.
This would have been a great topic for Mosscap to elucidate.
The only issue with the theory is that it dismantles the entire utopian storytelling device, or at least, the world she is trying to create strictly for positivity. I'm totally fine with that, but I don't think that's what she was going for, which is fine too. Readers can have valid interpretations. Maybe it is her subconscious fighting her haha. Either way, it's a far better way of thinking about it, so thanks for the input!
Inclusive character - check. Take your Hugo. 🎉 I still think you gave up on Fifth Season too soon.
I did finish the first book and hardly remember anything about it, so maybe I should try it again.
I've seen this around, and I wasn't sure what to make of it. Seemed a bit saccharine for my taste.
Saccharine is a good word, but it always sounds like an artificial sweetener to me haha.
@@JasonFuhrman I try. :)
Thanks for your review! I really enjoyed it. I don’t think this book is for me. Feels like modern social issues have been shoe-horned in with no explanation. And that opening quote makes me cringe too- as sounds like there is a political agenda there. Maybe I’m being too harsh! But it reminds me of stuff like the house in the cerulean sea and the quiet at the end of the world- both of which felt like propaganda at times and it cringed me out and took me out of the story. I’m all for social justice but they should weave it into the story well!
Once I listened to the interview, it felt like the author was overlooking or compromising storytelling for the world she wanted to create, which to me is a bit of a political move (and it won the Hugo, surprise!). People can write whatever they want, of course, I just can't stand it when the decisions aren't made to create the most compelling story, and would rather inject their personal beliefs into it. I feel like we should always try to tell the most interesting story possible.
Another problem is it tries to make a utopian novel, which I still feel is impossible. It's very obvious in how the chapters play out. They kind of drift because there is no true conflict. There is internal conflict with the protagonist, but it never keeps you glued to the page.
@@JasonFuhrman Yeah and it seems really subjective too. Like the author’s utopia would be different my mine or yours. And you’re right, people can write whatever they want but it’s fair to point out when those choices have come at the expense of the story, which sounds like might have been the case here. For me cosy fiction can only work if you really like the characters and/or the world. Eg I loved following around the hobbits in LOTR and the discussions they had with the ents etc. technically that’s cosy I suppose but it was so magical and awe inspiring. I’ve not seen anything come close with modern fiction but maybe I’m reading the wrong stuff!
Yeah, I would have loathed this book, lol.
Going off of another comment in this section, utopia is impossible because it is partly psychological. We are evolved to reproduce in a broad sense, which requires some semblance of problem solving, at least in the context of human beings. The instant we fix one problem, we'll search for another. The fact that we went from "how do we feed ourselves?" to "this person misgendered me," all the while treating each as a great moral crime, says mountains about what we are.
haha yes, you would not like it.
I agree with the second part too, and there is another interview I watched with her where they try to "dispell" dystopia, but I don't think she has any good arguments. I'll give her credit for trying to make a utopian book, but you can tell she was really struggling to tell a semblance of a story in within that framework.