Review: Doomsday Book by Connie Willis

Doomsday Book by Connie Willis

Published: NEL UK, Bantam Spectra (1992)

Awards Won: Nebula, Hugo, Locus  SF

Nominations: Arthur C. Clarke Award, BSFA Award

The Book:

"For Kivrin, preparing an on-site study of one of the deadliest eras in humanity's history was as simple as receiving inoculations against the diseases of the fourteenth century and inventing an alibi for a woman traveling alone. For her instructors in the twenty-first century, it meant painstaking calculations and careful monitoring of the rendezvous location where Kivrin would be received.

But a crisis strangely linking past and future strands Kivrin in a bygone age as her fellows try desperately to rescue her. In a time of superstition and fear, Kivrin -- barely of age herself -- finds she has become an unlikely angel of hope during one of history's darkest hours." ~from barnesandnoble.com

I'm reading Doomsday Book as a part of the 2011 Women in Science Fiction Book Club.  Doomsday Book is a standalone novel, but it is also one of several that is set in the same time-traveling future Oxford, with some recurring characters.  Though I've read a fair amount of her short fiction, the only other Willis novel I've read was To Say Nothing of the Dog, another story set in her time-traveling future. To Say Nothing of the Dog is considerably more lighthearted, but I think that I prefer Doomsday Book.

My Thoughts:

There are two parallel stories that split near the beginning, with history student Kivrin's departure to the 14th century.  In 21st century Oxford, an epidemic breaks out, apparently starting with the tech who oversaw Kivrin's leap into the past.  As the tech collapses into incoherence and quarantine rules begin to be set in place, Kivrin's mentor Mr. Dunworthy is frustrated by his inability to ensure her safe retrieval, or even determine where and when she ended up.  Back in the 1300s, Kivrin is busy getting to know the 'contemps', who are tragically facing an epidemic of their own-- the Black Plague. 

I loved Kivrin's story, which was told both in third person and through some first person journal entries from the recorder embedded in her wrist.  I enjoyed the inclusion of the Middle English conversation near the beginning, though I had to read the sentences out loud a few times before I could get the sense of them.  Here's a nice example of the Middle English as Kivrin heard it:

"Wick londebay yae comen lawdayke awtreen godelae deynorm andoar sic straunguwlondes.  Spekefaw eek waenoot awfthy taloorbrede." [p.123]

...and I'm just gonna leave that there untranslated, in case I understood it incorrectly.  I particularly loved reading about the family and community that took in Kivrin.  While there was no way Kivrin could have been prepared for leaping into this completely foreign society, she sees that the people in the 14th century are just as human as those in the 21st.  I think the parallel epidemic stories emphasized this beautifully.  Though the ways we deal with illness have changed drastically from the 1300s to the 2000s, the emotional reaction of humans to disaster remains similar.  While people back then might have blamed the epidemic on travelers or God, people in the present blamed immigrants or science.  As Dr. Mary Ahrens of 21st century Oxford stated, "One never gets used to the idea that there is nothing one can do." [p.346].

Another thing that I appreciate about Doomsday Book, is its treatment of Christianity.  The church is a part of life in both storylines, but Willis has a refreshing lack of an agenda regarding religious beliefs.  Christianity, and Christians, are certainly not portrayed altogether favorably, but they're also not portrayed completely unfavorably.  There are those, like the overbearing Mrs. Gaddson, who think the best way to use a bible is to preach damnation to the suffering, but there are also people like the rural parish priest Father Roche, a genuinely good man who is unflinching in his duty to his community.  I really appreciated that, while the story had a lot of Christian presence, it was definitely not about religion.

Based on Doomsday Book and the other work I have read, I feel that Willis has a very distinct style of telling a story.  There’s definitely a lot going on, in the future and the past, but the narration often tends to focus on the minutiae of daily life, and the conflicts that arise from it.  As a result, what one might consider the main story progresses only slowly.  It can be incredibly frustrating when you want to get to a major plot point, only to have the protagonist delayed by failed phone calls, dealing with irritable people, navigating social pitfalls or coping with managerial duties. 

Many of these minor obstructions come in the form of one-note, running-joke side characters, particularly in the future story.  For instance, Dunworthy has to deal with crabby, self-important American bellringers, and an employee who seems incapable of handling the tiniest detail alone. There’s also Mrs. Gaddson, a pushy, overbearing mother, and her son, who spends his time alternately avoiding her and charming numerous young ladies.  There are tons of these side characters, all mostly defined by one concern or personality trait.  I actually enjoyed all of these rather shallow minor characters. I thought all of these acquaintances contributed to the whole, like they were each a single element that, taken together, formed the vast crowd of Dunworthy's community.

My Rating: 5/5

I found Doomsday Book to be a tragically fascinating read.  I was more interested in the 1300s story than the future-Oxford story, but I felt that the two narratives complemented each other well.  It is rather slow-paced, and I can see where some readers would find the one-note minor characters and intense focus on tiny, everyday annoyances aggravating.  While it definitely picks up momentum near the end, this is the kind of story that you just have to allow to unfold at its own pace. Though there is some humor in the novel, this is still the story of two epidemics.  The body count is rather high, and, overall, the story is really depressing. All in all, though, I found it to be a hauntingly tragic story of humanity, across the centuries, facing one of our most deadly enemies.

Summary: 2011 Arthur C. Clarke Award Shortlist

Congratulations to Lauren Beukes's Zoo City for winning the 2011 Arthur C. Clarke Award!

I've finished reading the six shortlisted novels for the 2011 Arthur C. Clarke award, and I wanted to give a general summary of my thoughts before the winner is announced tomorrow.  For the convenience of anyone reading this, I'll edit this to indicate which novel won, once the announcement is made.

The Arthur C. Clarke Award is presented to the best science fiction novel published in the UK in the previous year, as decided by a panel of judges.  Based on the current selections, it seems that they're allowing the definition of SF to lean towards fantasy a little.  I certainly don't mind, since the shortlisted novels this year were all fantastic books worthy of the recognition. Rather than listing them from most favorite to least, I will tell which I think is most deserving of the prize, give the two that I would pick as runners-up, and then give general thoughts on the other three.

My Predicted Winner

Zoo City by Lauren Beukes - This was an amazing novel.  The style was refreshingly original, and the characters and locations were vividly painted.  It drew me in on the first page, and the fast-paced, exciting plot kept me enthralled through the end.  If I were on the panel of judges, Zoo City would get my vote. 

Other Frontrunners

Declare by Tim Powers - I thoroughly enjoyed this alternate history WWII/Cold War spy and dark fantasy novel.  The period detail was meticulous, and the supernatural elements were incredibly eerie.  I also thought the method was really intriguing; Powers kept all real, recorded history constant, and created his story in the 'gaps', crafting it to explain odd historic facts.  I'm not really a connoisseur of spy novels, so I was surprised at how entertaining I found Declare.

The Dervish House by Ian McDonald - This novel envisioned a future Istanbul full of mysteries and nanotechnology.  It ambitiously followed many different characters with many different stories over a crucial five day period in all of their lives.  The main connection between them was their association to the eponymous dervish house.  It was fun watching the different stories affect each other in direct and indirect ways, though they did not quite mesh as much as I would have preferred in the end.




Other Nominees

Richard Powers' Generosity took a lot of impressive narrative risks, but it's meta-fictional narration made me feel distanced and detached from the story.  Tricia Sullivan's Lightborn contained some very interesting uses of language, and the story ended up being creative and surprising.  However, it did take a while to really get going.  Patrick Ness's Monsters of Men, is the final book of a YA trilogy, and I don't think one could appreciate it without reading the first two.  It was a fast-paced, action-packed story, with loads of moral ambiguity. Somehow, though, I tended to side with the alien Spackle over the humans.

Review: Monsters of Men by Patrick Ness

Monsters of Men by Patrick Ness

Published: Walker & Co./Candlewick Press (2010)

Series: Book 3 of Chaos Walking

Award Nominations: Arthur C. Clarke Award

Warning: This is the final book in the series, so the first and second books are spoiled in this review (and even in the blurb describing the plot).  If you have not read The Knife of Never Letting Go and The Ask and the Answer, continue at your own risk.

The Book:

“As a world-ending war surges around them, Todd and Viola face monstrous decisions. The indigenous Spackle, thinking and acting as one, have mobilized to avenge their murdered people. Ruthless human leaders prepare to defend their factions at all costs, even as a convoy of new settlers approaches. And as the ceaseless Noise lays all thoughts bare, the projected will of the few threatens to overwhelm the desperate desire of the many.

The consequences of each action, each word, are unspeakably vast: To follow a tyrant or a terrorist? To save the life of the one you love most, or thousands of strangers? To believe in redemption, or assume it is lost? Becoming adults amid the turmoil, Todd and Viola question all they have known, racing through horror and outrage toward a shocking finale.” ~from barnesandnoble.com

This is the final book in my plan to read of the Arthur C. Clarke nominees.  I’m just in time, as the awards are going to be announced tomorrow! 

My Thoughts:

The title of this book come from the often-quoted saying in the trilogy, “War makes monsters of men.”  As one would guess, this final book in the trilogy is about war.  There’s war between the avenging Spackle (or the Land as they call themselves) and humans, but there’s also conflict between the different factions of humanity.  Mistress Coyle is still the head of “The Answer”, a female insurgent group opposed to the systematic murder of women, and Mayor Prentiss is still the head of the ruthless male army.  A small third human faction comes from the scout ship that appeared at the end of the previous book, a harbinger of the 5,000 new settlers to come.  Though there are only two people on board, their technology makes them a major player in the conflict.  Amid all this turmoil, Todd and Viola try to stay true to each other.

The narration between Todd and Viola switches off much more frequently in Monsters of Men, and they sometimes only get a few paragraphs at a time.  While this did keep up the suspense in the novel, I occasionally lost track of whose point of view it was at the moment.  They’re even more infatuated with each other than ever before, and they spend a large portion of their narration worrying about each other, to the exclusion of all else.

My favorite part of Monsters of Men was the addition of a third narrator, Spackle #1017.  Spackle #1017 has endured through slavery, having his voice stolen, forced labor, starvation, physical abuse, permanent branding, and the slaughter of his entire community.  He only escaped by literally crawling out of their pile of corpses.  What’s more, when he finally finds his way back to the main body of ‘the Land’, a kind of collective consciousness, he finds his experiences seem to have permanently separated him from others of his kind.  Understandably, he burns with grief and rage, and a desire to make humanity pay for its crimes.  His continuing struggle to accept and move past the horrific things that have been done to him and his loved ones was the most emotionally effective part of the novel for me.

With the inclusion of the Spackle point of view, Ness indicates his intention of fully addressing the moral complexity of the situation he has created in Monsters of Men.  While I did not always agree with the conclusions drawn in the story, I appreciated the fact that most of the problems were actively discussed.  For example, how do you go about achieving peace when both sides have good reasons to distrust (and hate) each other?  How do you strike a balance between the value of privacy and collectivism?  Is the use of force, or the threat of force, a legitimate tool to use in the pursuit of peace?  In what situations should criminals not be punished?  Is selfish love or grief a danger in wartime?  At what point is it necessary to think of the greater good over your loved ones, and are people (and Spackle) capable of actually doing it? 

On the subject of issues of morality, though, I want to address a problem I had with Todd.  Even in this book, they refer to him as the boy who can’t kill, despite the fact that he has killed, both directly and indirectly.  The general attitude seems to be that, since he feels really bad about it, he is still innocent.  I found that Spackle #1017 summed up my feelings about Todd rather well (aside from the pack animal comment):

“He is worse than the others, I show. He is worse than all of them.

Because-

Because he knew he was doing wrong.  He felt the pain of his actions-

But he did not amend them, shows the Sky.

The rest are worth as much as their pack animals, I show, but worst is the one who knows better and does nothing.” [p.52]

This only became a major irritant to me because the idea of Todd’s essential goodness, his innocence, how much he hurt himself with his regret, was repeated over and over.  I’m of the school of thought that it is your decisions and your actions that shape who you are.  Not your unrealized intentions. 

My Rating: 3.5/5

Monsters of Men was, in the end, my favorite of the Chaos Walking series.  I have no doubt that the inclusion of 1017/The Return as a viewpoint narrator was a major contributor to my enjoyment.  I found the new viewpoint really refreshing, and I loved reading about how the Land/Spackle perceived and interacted with the world. The other narrators, Todd and Viola, have grown up a lot throughout this series, but I find that I am not very fond of the people they have become.  Ness raises many moral questions, some of which he attempts to answer, and some of which are left to the reader to ponder.  I disagreed with a lot of the conclusions drawn, most particularly in the case of Todd Hewitt’s innate innocence.  All the same, I admire Ness for bringing up a lot of thought-provoking ideas on some tough subjects.