I actually finished The Moon is a Harsh Mistress a couple days ago, but until yesterday I didn't feel much like writing and I was busy yesterday. But at least I'm writing now.
So how was the second half of the book?
Terrible. I think. Maybe. I don't know. I feel like I've completely lost my ability to judge books objectively. Because this is yet another highly acclaimed book that's supposed to be so amazing and life-changing and here I am, a presumably intelligent person who believes herself to possess a reasonable knowledge of books and what makes them good or not, who thought that it was poorly written, uninteresting, disheartening, cynical, and in all other ways basically a waste of time.
Seriously, why does Science Fiction even exist?
Okay, I admit that questioning the existence of an entire genre because I've encountered a few books that I haven't managed to get along with might be a slight overreaction, but... no, really, why does it exist?
From what I've seen over the past month, it's partly an idea-based genre. And that sentence might very well be ridiculous, because obviously all fiction is "idea-based"; but Science Fiction is highly speculative, arguably moreso than other genres. "What would happen if Martians invaded the Earth?" "What would a society that had evolved on the moon look like?" "What if computers could think for themselves?"
But it's also an idea-based genre in another way: it is a way for authors to express ideas.
Hey, look, another mildly ridiculous sentence. What I mean by that is that I feel a lot of Science Fiction exists because an author had something profound he (or, occasionally, she) wanted to say about humanity or politics or the way things ought to be. So The War of the Worlds indirectly denounced colonialism while also staunchly declaring that Man is ascendant and the Earth is our home (I'm still a little confused by that juxtaposition, by the way). And the Foundation series stated that mankind is cyclical and predictable and that we cannot escape our destinies. And The Moon is a Harsh Mistress had quite a lot to say about how we should be living our lives and running our government which massively grated on my nerves.
The trouble is that often the story and the characters get completely lost in the midst of all those ideas. As I think I sufficiently expressed, this was the case with the Foundation trilogy. Likewise, it was the case with The Moon.
For example: there's a character in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress who is a professor and scholar, who taught the protagonist/narrator everything he knows. You may recall from my last post that the book provides little information about the characters beyond their backgrounds and their political philosophies. So what's this professor's political philosophy?
He describes himself as a "rational anarchist" (so immediately upon his launching into his political spiel, I wanted to throw a textbook of some sort at him and tell him that if he's such an all-fired brilliant professor he should know what an oxymoron is and that it's generally best to avoid using them if you want to sound smart and be taken seriously) (I wasn't in the best of moods when I was reading this book). If I understood the lengthy expository speech in which he described his philosophy and how awesome it is correctly, this means that he believes that there should be no centralized government, but that each person should take governing and law into his own hands, always accepting full responsibility for his actions. Thus, if the professor thinks that someone who is alive would be a more productive and useful citizen if he or she was dead, the professor will graciously help said person achieve deadness and then accept the consequences for it. He also accepts that there will be consequences, because even though rational anarchy is the only sensible way of running anything, everybody else in the world is too stupid to realize it, so the professor can do nothing but strive to live perfectly in an imperfect world. (I'm paraphrasing slightly, but that's essentially what he said.) (Except for the living perfectly in an imperfect world bit; he really did straight-up say that.) (Our hero, ladies and gentlemen, a shining example of self-awareness and humility.......) (Rolls eyes)
So because this is his philosophy, the professor spends the entire book manipulating everyone else and looking down on everyone because they're all far less intelligent and capable of handling things than he is. To make things more interesting, the narrator keeps mentioning how poor the professor's health is, like I'm supposed to be worried that he might die.
But here's the kicker: I know, and am fond of, people with this same philosophy.
Okay, maybe not the citizens' army I-should-be-allowed-to-kill-people-because-every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own-morality bit. But I do know people who take a very cynical view of government and think that the less involvement it and similar institutions have in people's personal lives the better. I even agree to an extent with some of the things this professor says.
But it's all he says.
Almost all of the professor's dialogue is based around politics and the political situation playing out in the book. The narrator has a few two-or-three-sentence-long flashbacks to his days of studying with the professor, but otherwise the only role the book ever shows the professor in is one of a manipulative politician who claims to be striving for miniscule government when it seems like what he actually wants is a government completely controlled by him and his very closest associates. I'm not willing to look over and consider this character's philosophy and approach because I don't like the character. I don't really even dislike the character, because I know next to nothing about the character. If he had been developed more, been shown interacting with people in non-political contexts, or in any other way been made into an even remotely appealing three-dimensional sort of character, I think I would have been more open to mulling over the ideas he puts forward and less likely to be so utterly put off by his apparent arrogance.
And I know that I keep going on about the lack of character development in these books. Every time I get started on a new post I tell myself I'm not going to complain about the characters again, and then it always ends up happening.
So let's get back to this post's title - what's the point of all this?
I'm not just referring to the genre in general. I'm also referring to this project.
When I got started, my hope in reading all this Sci-Fi was to gain a larger understanding and experience in this genre, maybe find a book or two that I really liked, and try to better determine what it is about this genre that I don't like. I feel I've succeeded in the first and third goal. Clearly I've failed at the second.
So I'm cutting the project short.
Originally, I was going to read one more book, Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. Stephenson is a current Science Fiction writer, a favorite of my dad's. Snow Crash was his first successful book. I actually started it; I read a little more than 100 pages. It's much easier to read than any of the other books I read and whined about here, and its characters are actually a lot more well-rounded and interesting than the ones I've been encountering - but I still wasn't enjoying it.
I feel really terrible about opting not to finish it, because I always feel terrible about leaving things unfinished, and I've never failed to complete one of these summer projects before (and isn't that embarrassing; I got through all four Twilight books with only minor psychological and emotional damage, and then I hit the end of my rope reading brainy, mentally nutritious Science Fiction classics), and because it's better in some ways (if worse in others, which I don't feel like I need to go into, since I'm not finishing the book). But I feel like I've done what I set out to do and gotten what I set out to get, and I'm tired of forcing myself through books I'm not enjoying when I'd rather be working on the long list of books I actually want to read. I don't think it's healthy, either for me or the people who have to live with me and experience the full force of my whining firsthand.
So I'm quitting. Guiltily.
But before I do, there's one more thing I want to say.
I asked what the point of Science Fiction was. Throughout this last month, many times it's seemed like it doesn't have a point. If you're looking for social and political commentary, there are dozens of other books from other genres that provide it while also providing characters and stories worth caring about, that feel more like meaningful journeys than opportunities for the authors to show off how brilliant they are and how much better their ideas are than everybody else's. So why would you write or read Sci-Fi when you could be writing or reading something else instead?
Well, something occurred to me today.
Historical Fiction chronicles the world as it once was. Modern-day fictions of all types chronicle the world as it is. Fantasy chronicles the world as it isn't and can't be. But Science Fiction chronicles the world as it could be. Sci-Fi authors' great challenge is pulling stories from the furthest reaches of their imaginations while keeping their stories plausible. Science Fiction is all about imagining the future. Predicting the future. Even creating the future.
Science Fiction has value. I'll willingly admit it, even if I ended up with a lot of books that didn't click with me. Wrapping up this little summer project isn't renouncing Science Fiction forever; I'll read more of it in the future. Surely somewhere there has to be a Sci-Fi book that'll appeal to me.
And if not... well, maybe I can write one.
~Pearl Clayton
