Michael Crichton's Sphere

Oh right, I have read Sphere, I had almost forgotten. I am unsure as to whether or not it is because I am getting older, or maybe just evolving in my taste for literature, but though I respect what Michael Crichton brings to the table (Science! Reason!), it never seems to match up, even comparably, with what I felt when I read Andromeda Strain. Again, that's not a knock on Crichton, but I just do not find much of his later books – or maybe any of his other books for that matter, including his earlier works (The Great Train Robbery, The Terminal Man to some extent) – all that engaging.

So Sphere, I shall start with what I liked. Of course, I always like the pace with which he writes. His books read like you are watching a movie. Just like Dan Brown novels. But there are things you lose in those types of books. Unfortunately, this is not a Michael Crichton review it is a Sphere review so if you do not understand what that pace is like and how it affects book/movie plotlines, I won't be covering it here. Moving on.

I also liked the influence of science. Of all the criticisms we can give Michael Crichton, one we cannot dish out is that the mother fucker didn't do his research. This guy had a mathematician, an astro-physicist, a psychologist and a biologist, plus Navy/Military and US Defense aspects all effecting the plot in a way that twists the story into itself and forces the people's ideals to clash and at times implode on their little underwater society.

It takes us some time to research these different fields and weave a story with them, and we have the benefit of internet. I have to believe Crichton's struggles to intertwine all this in 1987 (yeah, that's another thing, can you believe this was published in 19fucking87?) were a bit more difficult than I would guess, being a child born shortly before the book was published. In other words, he got off his ass and went to the library more than I have ever felt the need to, of that I am certain.

A very novel concept, with very novel science and well-thought out backgrounds, characters and plots, typical Crichton. But, in typical Crichton fashion, it just doesn't pull together in a way that grips me. Sure, it is a real page-turner, but more because of the pace and less because the writing is great. The writing is actually, to be honest, not good. I think what drew me in was that I am a man of science, but that sometimes acts as a double edged sword and I get annoyed with little mistakes, which seem to me in certain lights as glaring, obvious errors.

So when I read “strong odor of ammonium” and “ammonia fumes” on adjacent pages, I flip shit (Sphere, Michael Crichton, Harper Collins © 2006). Ammonia is NH₄+, making it a cation where ammonia is the chemical we smell and clean with. If you have had a chemistry class you know they are very, very different things. Still, this is not Crichton's biggest error.

His biggest error in this story for me was just how weak and feeble a military organisation trying to investigate the biggest discovery in human history (and trying to weaponise it) could be so insubstantially backed up, in terms of personnel and contingency planning. I know we always portray the military as being short-sighted, gung-ho and absolutely confident the point of no return at times, but having family in the military I know they're actually very thorough most of the time. And that “one time” they aren't thorough seems to be the whole punch line of every book that ever uses military intervention as part of its plot.

Can we get over that, yet? It really is an annoying trait stories need to rely upon to get the message through. Other than all that, I thought it was a decent story. The movie gets some of it right but ends up in a mess of people unable to control their thoughts and narrowly escaping, and with way more unnecessary dramatics, but I'd honestly say you don't lose too much watching the movie over reading the book (even thought I'm a smug bastard who typically, pretendingly, judges people who watch movies over reading the books). Plus, I cannot hate the movie too much, it does have Peter Coyote, with his voice in all its glory, and Sam Jackson. He doesn't make bad movies, does he?

Not a poor book, but certainly nothing to be smug about having read it. That's my final thought.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (with minimal spoilers! If any...)

Sorry for not getting this out sooner. I thoroughly enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell but life got in the way of my blogging with a terrible accident that ended up costing me many extra, very late hours and weekends at the office. So I’m just resuming some sense of the normal status I knew before the accident now.

This novel is Susanna Clarke’s first, shamefully, and was on our radar for the book club as well as talked about when I visited a website showcasing Neil Gaiman’s Top 10 favourite books, if that sort of list means anything.

It is broken into three volumes, “Mr. Norrell,” concerning the curmudgeonly snobbish and angry old Mr. Norrell who is trying to monopolise English magic; “Jonathan Strange,” a less-than-heroic hero who acts, figuratively, as a sort of knight in shining armor but is really just a nerdy, unhandsome, very studious and quicklearning magician on the rise; concluded by “John Uskglass,” the semi-mythical hero-king and founder of English magic.

This book’s depth and range of humour and magical is always engaging and tends to focus less on the conjuring of magic, like Harry Potter (as I understand it, anyway), and in fact skips over that entirely in most parts, and instead focuses on the magic itself, its manifestations and ends. The creations by Mr. Norrell in the first book, what he is able to master and prove to innocent citizens and enemies of the English alike, are spells or some other conjuring that is kept entirely away from the reader, which is a very Norrell quality. He absolutely hates sharing magic.

And about the enemies, this book takes place during the world’s conflict with the French, specifically Napolean Bonaparte. I’m not too familiar with that part of history (because I grew up in ‘Merica) but Clarke does an excellent job of making the reader feel comfortable moving with the story and not touching upon trivialities that history buffs would know and semi-educated folk should know. I guess the key there is that I do not get the sense, as a reader, that she is ever talking about something I should have known about.

The conflict with Napolean features some magic by Norrell, but it really is a feature that showcases the badassery of Jonathan Strange. Although his magic helps England prevail, he is a very relatable character. Norrell represents a very shitty mentor and horrible teacher of magic to him, almost like working for a horrible boss, but Strange persists and is a very touted magician in not-to-long a span of studying the art; mostly on his own as Norrell’s weird sense of hoarding all literature and knowledge of magic persists, even when he takes on a pupil. The best thing about his rise is that his explanation to everyone of what he learned is very simple, and that he picks things up because they really are not that difficult and he applies himself, and tries new things when they do not work rather than giving up.

Relatable because I work around many people who go through each day doing the same things with very poor results but because they cannot bring themselves to work around problems and challenge their own way of thinking, they never progress.

Aside from a very British book with a very British sense of humour and propriety, Clarke also weaves a web of lies and deceit that I just couldn’t wait to be resolved. Sure, I had to wait about 800 pages for it all to work out, but it was a fun ride to get there and the plot thickens in a well thought-out way the entire time.

I honestly have no complaints or none that I can recall in regards to this book. To paraphrase a fellow literary assessment club member, the book is like “if Bleak House and an Elizabeth Gaskell novel had a child, and was modern enough to be appreciated by our generation.” Accurate or not, that statement may scare off some potential readers. As well it should, I’m not sure everyone will appreciate this book for all it has to offer as people these days seem not to like books that are this long (to which my Count of Monte Cristo friends and I say you can go fuck yourselves!).

My Book Blog's Review of Prometheus

I meant to get around to this a lot sooner, I apologize, sincerely, for the poor timing, but unforeseen events/emergencies have forced me to delay this post I so desperately wished to write.

It is, if you have been following me on the Twitbooks ,about the one thing I cannot stop talking about of late, the film Prometheus. This is a film that has garnered much attention and much hate from nerds, casual science fiction fans, regular movie-goers and unintelligent, uninformed action film fans alike. Oh and atheists, they especially hate this film. There is something inherently wrong to them about people believing in God and the existence of aliens at the same time. I personally think it is the existence of God bit that winds them up but the primary atheist I talk to does not actually have a problem with what I just mentioned, because he has a brain that is useful.

Anyway, this film, this fucking film! if you will, really has not been well received. People just are not talking about it in a very positive light. And it makes me wonder what things people were saying about Alien in 1979. All I know about that one is from my father, who says it was “freaky.” Prometheus, a great prequel when you consider how many even-remotely-decent-prequels there are out there, is not necessarily freaky. Nor is it entirely intended to be. Whilst Alien was a groundbreaking, revolutionary horror/sci-fi crossover, combining elements of each in such a way that viewers were never really sure which it was supposed to be (hint: horror), Prometheus is more sci-fi adventure but keeps some of that chest-bursting charm we have come to admire from Ridley Scott.

I know, I know, it has a terribly convenient setup and we are whisked away to a foreign planet before we can even judge for ourselves whether or not we want to sit through this whole adventure. And I know, the characters are sometimes weak, with ambitions that do not line up with the policies onboard the ship and hence the trouble, and some characters, especially the old ones, are entirely unnecessary whilst still others are completely necessary and great but are killed off in a very weak and silly fashion.

But there is more to the movie, especially to a person in the field of science who has had interactions with many different fields, that stands out. The Geologist was perfect, ditto for the biologist. Has anyone ever been a part of a job with a geologist? That role was cast perfectly. Almost made me feel as if Ridley Scott came to my worksite sometime in the past when I was not there. And his relationship with the biologist – absolutely spot on. The scientists I know and have known in the past clash with geologists, and the rock-folk seem all to quick to defend themselves against the fact that their field is a speculative science, not an actual science. Just as engineers are applied sciences. One thing they hold dear is that biology is not an exact science and should not be looked at as such. I personally love the conflicts between these careers, and being in a work environment for NASA’s Phoenix mission and my current job affords me all of the tension I can handle with varying fields of science using their careers to shield themselves from actually needing to make friends. This is reflected beautifully in the film.

I am not sure if this was by accident in the movie, or if Scott knew what he was doing, but based on the evidence of Alien and his accuracy of depicting the brotherhood-conscious and money/security-conscious yet production/safety-oblivious  union miners in characters Parker, Lambert and Brett (something I am unfortunately all too familiar with), I think he knew exactly what he was doing with these characters, no matter how small their role.

Then there is the Alien influence. The part that makes it either a prequel or an addition to what is my favourite science fiction film franchise. As a man who enjoys and appreciates the story of Alien 3, I can definitely appreciate the tie-ins from Prometheus to the franchise. I squirmed when I saw the life forms for the first time. Shitty exploration scientists do not seem to catch on, but aliens from Ridley Scott films are almost painfully obviously fallic and usually are successful in raping male characters’ mouths. Of course, we know by now what they’re doing, and much like Ellen Ripley we never seem to get over the dread of watching them burst out of someone’s chest,  and like her, we cannot seem to look away.

And when you need a hero, no one seems to step up quite like strong, logical and independent women. They seem to make better engineers in my field and I would not be surprised if they actually make better leaders under pressure. But it is controversial, and uncomfortable for men to accept this. That is another reason I love Ridley Scott, he shoves that shit in our faces. Women are also less fidgety and uncomfortable when something is living inside someone, they have to be, that is just a part of nature, but for us men, holy shit Scott knows how to make us squirm in our seats.

All these reasons and more helped me enjoy Prometheus, and I was not one who was a bit turned off by the fact that a belief in God and the existence of aliens can coexist. They can. Christianity might have to change some of their sermons, if we are all to accept this, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the premise. God, teachings, Christianity, these are things that are (or at least should be) about values. Atheists need not get angry that there is a contradiction here, but be happy that a Christian – a type of person most atheists find hard-headed – can accept this coexistence and back it up with a simple statement of “because it is what I believe.” That’s not being too pushy, that is totally fair and I will allow anyone of any creed to tell me that, absolutely no questions asked on my part.

Each and every one of the persons that sees this film is entitled to his or her own opinion of it, and need not justify that opinion to me. But I have read and heard many sour, negative reviews and disfavourable opinions towards it. I say that there are a great many more terribly written movies with bigger plot holes and worse plot-lines altoghter that have received much more acclaim in recent memory (Avatar, Transformers &cetera). Sure, that is no excuse for a disappointing film to rely upon; and sure, it may have its contradictions, its loose ends, its redundant characters, some of which are poorly casted and their silly reasoning for existing in the first place that fails to fully engage viewers in the expedition, but it is a very unique idea for a film, along with a very challenging idea, and opens up to another chapter yet to be discovered, capped off by brilliant special effects. And that unto itself is more than most films have to offer in the modern era. And that is truly all I can expect from a good film anymore, good ideas with passing storylines and great, but not sensory-overloading, special effects. Also, if you are a true film snob artsy person like some people I know, and enjoy solid acting and well-timed music, then Prometheus offers that as well, just not throughout every character like I had hoped it would.

Neverwhere

There has almost been a trend of late of my reading books that are possibly more popular on the screen than in the library. Did not have much in the way of friends, if you can believe it, who had read 2001: A Space Odyssey, even fewer that had the pleasure of enjoying A Clockwork Orange in book format, but the novel Neverwhere seems to be quite popular amongst the US population, at least more popular than the BBC television series by the same name written by the same guy.

And because of something that caught my eye on Tor.com recently in regards to Mr. Gaiman, I decided to do something a bit different with this review. Firstly, the review; then, a response to the article linked here from Tor.com.

Now, to the recap/review of a book I thoroughly enjoyed.

Richard Mayhew discovers a bleeding-to-death Lady Door on the sidewalk as he is being berated by his mega-bitch of a fiancée. He saves her life and is rewarded with a visit from the goons that are out to get her. Once they realise they cannot kill her and he is an accomplice, his life is turned on its side and nobody recognises his existence. This is where the separation between London Below and London Above really starts to take place; Richard is completely ignored and can make a complete fool of himself and no one will notice, except when he gets in their faces and asks them directly, at which point people either do not seem to recall who he is or cannot answer his questions.

When walking downtown he realises a vagrant recognises him, and though this brings him joy it is yet another part of the transition for him to accept that he is now a member of the Underworld, with its Ratspeakers (people who can communicate with rats), feudal system, and lack of currency to sustain the basic needs to continue life in favour of a strange trading system.

Gaiman's talent and charming humour have a way of making these ridiculous obsurdities (which are rationalised as impossible feats at first by Richard, only to have his rationale proven useless as the impossible unfolds) blend into the story seamlessly. The subways filled with a complete court, including guards and court jester; the angel; the walking into London Below by walking into an alleyway and turning around to see what was once behind you is not where you came from; the Bridge; the Markets; it is all a work of fantasy that a lesser author would force in and trip you up, preventing you from being engaged by the story, but it just seems to work when Gaiman is writing it out. Partly because it is silly, sure, but also because it just works in a weird, wild, way.

Richard is a sad and depressing character, not much assertiveness out of him and very reliant on his sad comfort-zone in the modern world. So his reliance on The Lady Door is made more complicated as she tells him there is no going back to the world from which he comes and she is powerless to help him. After a bit of adventure he ends up back with her and proves his worth in a rite of passage that no other Underworlder has passed.

This is where his acceptance into the group is finally realised, and as a hero he can now travel with the Marquis de Carabas and Hunter, the sexy assassin turned body guard, through the labryinth beyond Down Street into the dwelling of the Angel Islington. Turns out his awesome palace is a prison and the key Richard recovered is actually a key to Heaven, but as doom ensues the Lady Door, who can "open anything," has planned ahead and the Door-hunting, vile, venomous assassins Croup and Vandemar along with the fallen Angel are cast out to Bog-knows-where. Richard can move on with his life, and Door and the Marquis can begin uniting the Underground.

I quite like the little twist at the end, as we feel Richard has learned to grow a pair from all of this, and adventure and renown are always worth more than a steady job and a peaceful living situation allowing one to feel secure and in his comfort-zone. Have not watched the series at all yet but I think I will, as the plot and characters are all the exact same and Gaiman had almost just as big a part in its writing as he did the novel.

And now, the message of the tor.com article linked above (which you may already have read, if you are the reading type):

I’ve read a fair amount of Gaiman over the years: was enthralled by Sandman, really liked Good Omens, liked Stardust, thought Neverwhere was OK I guess, flipped through Smoke and Mirrors without much interest, and just this week read American Gods, which had some good bits but overall I didn’t much care for…

[lots of anti-Gaimanian words]

…but at the same time, I genuinely don’t understand what other people are getting out of his work that I’m not. So I ask you: why Gaiman? What about his work do you find so compelling? What am I missing?

Well I actually liked this article because it made me question what I like about Gaiman. I guess I will say that I really enjoy him taking very average, dopey and common people as main characters, adults in their twenties and thirties that are easy for me to relate to, and thrusting them into a world of magic and mysticism and mythical realities, and then observing their reactions. It is almost like these things happened to common folk and we are all just along to observe how they handled it. The mystics and Gods and liminal figures come from a place we might identify as a fantasy world but factor into the lives of people we would see as being more like us. I think that is very enjoyable. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that Gaiman is funny as hell. Not just anybody can crank out comic gold like this shit:

“You've got a good heart. Sometimes that's enough to see you safe wherever you go. But mostly, it's not”

Gets me every time. Anyway, I like the man for many reasons, more than I can coherently piece together here and more than I can incoherently jabber on about with friends after a dozen beers. So read it, or anything else by him, like Stardust or American Gods, if you have time.