You're Only Young A Couple Of Times

[coalescent]

I don't read much mainstream fiction. This isn't because I don't want to read mainstream fiction; it's because I do want to read speculative fiction - as much SF as possible. I want to know the genre, to be able to talk about the genre. Bluntly, I want to be involved in the genre. What that says about me, I leave for the reader to decide.

However, it's one reason why I read Peter F Hamilton's Misspent Youth, despite the luke-warm reception the book has been getting. The other reason was discovering The Body, a short novel by Hanif Kureishi about an ageing writer who has his brain transplanted into a new, young body. This seemed intriguingly close to the premise of Hamilton's novel, which deals with the first man to be rejuvenated, his body returned to the mid-twenties. The difference is - wait for it - The Body is promoted as mainstream fiction. The opportunity to compare and contrast the two, to try to work out why one is SF and the other (allegedly) is not, was simply too tempting.

The template for The Body, at least, is classic SF: An encounter with difference, with impossibility, the implications of which are followed through to a logical conclusion. And yet, it is a distinctly odd flavour of SF. In dozens of hard-to-define ways, it seems very obvious that this is SF written by someone who has no familiarity with the genre; it's hard not to feel that you're experiencing a reinvention of the wheel.

This, in case you are wondering, is a good thing. Disconcerting in places where Kureishi seems to deliberately sidestep some of the societal implications of his story, but nonetheless fresh and interesting - to me, at least. It strikes me as likely that a mainstream audience will find the style comforting and familiar, but the content striking and new. Where the novel fails slightly for me is that very little actually happens, and what does happening is fairly predictable. It is Kureishi's prose and insight that hold the interest, not the plotting. Brain transplants are a secret technology; only a select few have undergone the procedure. This adds tension to encounters between newbodies, but at the same time cuts them off from the world. The story takes place in a vacuum.

To be fair, this is a deliberate authorial choice. The focus of the story is subjective - what would it be like to be young again? - rather than objective - what would the world be like if people could be young again? It is a character study and as such, it works well.

Peter F Hamilton is not a character writer. His characters, such as they are, tend to blur together - all highly intelligent, and all improbably beautiful (usually aided by advances in genetics). He is not a stylish writer. Where Kureishi's prose is enjoyable and enlightening, Hamilton's is merely clear and concise. There are no multi-page bouts of introspection in Hamilton's novels; his stories are driven by focused plotting, epic scale and numerous grand SFnal concepts.

Misspent Youth is a departure in all three regards, and not an entirely successful one. There are no spaceships or aliens to be found here, and the tale is set entirely in the near future, on earth, largely in Rutland. The rejuvenation technology used to bring Jeff Baker back to his early twenties is not the focus of the story - in fact, for the most part, it is entirely peripheral. The core of the novel is the relationship between Baker and his son, Tim.

You have to at least give Hamilton credit for attempting a novel which confronts his weaknesses so directly; at times, however, it feels as though he's simply too accustomed to writing the traditional objective SF story to be successful at anything else. Despite his best attempts, there's no real depth to his portrayal of regained youth. Understandably (and as with The Body), sex is prominent, but for a time it threatens to overwhelm the rest of the novel. The best segments of the story are in the incidental moments when Hamilton is writing about others' reactions to Baker, or filling in details about his future Europe (one such particularly appealed to me; the revelation that GM crops did cross-pollinate - and then, a couple of paragraphs later, the revelation that it hasn't made much difference). Baker himself comes across as fundamentally unlikeable. Tim fares somewhat better; every so often there's a truth, a moment of insight into what it's like to be on the cusp of adulthood and frustrated at every turn. Sadly, such moments are not sustained.

Misspent Youth isn't bad. Hamilton's integrated Europe is intriguing, and the last third of the novel is up to his usual standards (if perhaps a little politically questionable). However, it is patchy, and as such likely to appeal only to those who are already fans.

Two SF novels, then, tackling two sides of the same issue. Both use recognised strategies - The Body with its focus on personal experience, Misspent Youth with its eye on the big picture. Of the two, I'd recommend The Body without hesitation; it is a good story, and it is simply better written. And yet, I can't help thinking that it should be possible for a novel to do both - the personal, and the societal, together.

I wonder - which shelf that would be stocked on?

Comments

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Well...I haven't read 'The Body', but 'Misspent Youth' left me distinctly unimpressed. As you say, the characters are hugely improbably perfect (and the ones that aren't, the amusing ones, like Tim's aunt, are fun, but oh-so-stereotypical and predictable. Our fave Spin Doctor is funny, but tediously predictable after a time) and, frankly, the story feels like it's something interesting just trying to get off the groud.

I'd have to say, unreservedly, that sex dominates, and, perhaps, in a sense ruins 'Misspent Youth', although that might be a little harsh. It's an OK book, but it just isn't terribly interesting. Jeff's not the nicest guy ever, Tim's oh-so-stereotypically teenaged, the 'plot', for the majority of the book, is a big father/son tension drama deal that, frankly, is something out of a B-quality drama; no terribly great insights into characters, nothing hugely original, it's not really SF-ish at all, and it's the biggest part of the book.

Is it all bad? Not really. The bits where Hamilton actually does get down to revealing information about the world he's living in, about the technology, about the politics, that's when the book gets interesting, and when we finally get some action, some movement, some actual developments happening. It's not great political SF, by some standards (it somehow feels distrinctly...simple, politically, compared to Ken MacLeod's work, for example..) but it's engaging nonetheless. The thing is, you need to wade your way through a LOT of senseless shagging, sexfests, horny teenage behaviour that you would groan at (in the 'oh GOD this is so LAME) were you to see it cross your screen in movie form. Or maybe not, since all the women in the book are amazingly perfect in some way.

Finally, you make the claim Hamilton's book deals with the 'big picture'; my problem with it is precisely the fact that, mostly, it really doesn't. The final acts try, and the very last chapter sort of does a 'reveal' of the 'big picture', but in the end, it's the personal implications of what the treatment mean that get examined, give or take. The book's focus isn't big ideas, big science, exciting plotting, the things Hamilton does very, VERY well, and it dissapoints. And I'm a Hamilton fan.

The problem, as I see it, is this: Hamilton would've done well to focus properly on the big picture. Because when he begins to, the story gels, things fall into place. But the actual implications of rejuvination on a personal level seem to be....you get incredibly horny and fuck anything with breasts and legs, give or take. Including male fantasy carribean island with hot chick lesbo action to round out the 'plot'. And that's where the focus really stays, until the very last chapter, or almost.

Perhaps it's because I've been reading entirely too much far superior SF of late, but I'm not going to reccomend anyone buy or read 'Misspent Youth' any time soon. Maybe when it's out in trade paperback, although I wouldn't be surprised to see copies of it end up in second hand bookshops sooner rather than later. Harsh, perhaps, but there you go.

[malenfant.livejournal.com]

Tim's aunt

You noticed that Tim's uncle, one Graham Joyce, is an actual person, right?

sex dominates, and, perhaps, in a sense ruins 'Misspent Youth

My head-map of the book goes something like: 200 pages of average story, with some good moments and some bad. 60 pages of sex. 100 pages of denouement, which was pretty good. I know there were quite a lot of references to sex the whole time, but it was only for that section in the middle that I thought sex replaced plot.

you make the claim Hamilton's book deals with the 'big picture'

Sort of. What I meant was, Hamilton seems to be trying to write a personal, intimate book, but he sucks at it, and keeps lapsing back into his standard mode. And things are much more interesting when he's lapsing.

It's not a great book, not by any means, but I don't think it's quite as dire as you seem to. :)

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

The opportunity to compare and contrast the two, to try to work out why one is SF and the other (allegedly) is not, was simply too tempting.

I've not read either of the books you discuss, but have noticed some interesting shelving practices re. genre versus mainstream fiction.

In the bookshop I'm working in authors like Ballard and Vonnegut are shelved exclusively in general fiction. Even Neal Stephenson is shelved with the mainstream fiction, though also has some books in the science fiction section. I consider all three to be genre authors.

Then there're authors like Jasper Fforde and Chuck Palahniuk, who use fantasy/science fiction tropes, but are considered exclusively to be mainstream fiction. Mind you, Fforde could just as easily be shelved in crime fiction.

And then there are the authors like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell who are considered too literary and venerated to be put in science fiction.

And the fantasy authors (Wynne Jones and Pullman) whose work is to be found in the childrens section.

So although I think of myself as someone who mostly reads science fiction, I actually find that the things I read are spread all over the shop.

[malenfant.livejournal.com]

In the bookshop I'm working in authors like Ballard and Vonnegut are shelved exclusively in general fiction.

Ballard is a mix for us, as is Vonnegut. In the latter case, it's because you can't really get away with stocking the SF Masterworks edition of The Sirens Of Titan in mainstream fiction. :)

Even Neal Stephenson is shelved with the mainstream fiction, though also has some books in the science fiction section.

Everything apart from Interface was in SF when I got there. Now Interface is in both places.

Then there're authors like Jasper Fforde

I keep thinking he looks interesting, and then worrying that I won't get enough of the literary references to make my reading him worthwhile.

and Chuck Palahniuk,

Next-but-one on the 'to be read' list, just behind MMS. Maybe I'll have to write something about 'cool' novels next...

And then there are the authors like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell who are considered too literary and venerated to be put in science fiction.

Ah, we've got Aldous in SF, again because the edition of BNW we stock is a 'Voyager Classic'. Orwell is still in mainstream.

And the fantasy authors (Wynne Jones and Pullman) whose work is to be found in the childrens section.

Yes. Although bizarrely, the Pullman adult covers are in our current 3-for-2 offer, whereas the kids covers aren't. I keep having to redirect slightly confused parents. :)

In principle, I'd like to move everything that is obviously SF into SF, if only to mess with peoples' heads. In practice I can't do this because (a) SF is on a different floor to the rest of the fiction (at least until after christmas) and (b) SF doesn't have the space.

I do worry when I get customers who look mystified when I explain to them that Terry Pratchett is stocked with the other fantasy books, though.

[mattia.livejournal.com]

Didn't know about Graham Joyce, no. And, basically, as you say, when Hamilton 'lapses' from what he's ostenisbly attempting to do with the book, he gets interesting. Sometimes damned interesting. And that's maybe why I found it all rather frustrating, because there was something there trying to get out, although that something wasn't what the author thought was trying to get out. If that makes any sense at all.

And it's not like I hate the book. It may sound like that, but, well, this is the guy who wrote Night's Dawn. Which is top notch, brilliant, Space Operatic SciFi with a good dose of Horror, a really engaging universe, etc. The guy who created Mindstar, which is great fun, but not truly great stuff. This was just dissapointing, in the end.

Hmm...

[applez.livejournal.com]

> "Peter F Hamilton is not a character writer. His characters, such as they are, tend to blur together - all highly intelligent, and all improbably beautiful (usually aided by advances in genetics). He is not a stylish writer. Where Kureishi's prose is enjoyable and enlightening, Hamilton's is merely clear and concise. There are no multi-page bouts of introspection in Hamilton's novels; his stories are driven by focused plotting, epic scale and numerous grand SFnal concepts."

- I'm glad you said that, actually - since it is this very 2D character weakness which has stopped me from reading any more Hamilton. I know you love Reality Disfunction, etc. ... but when those cardboard characters of that swamp planet became so much thin gloves for the author's 'iron fingers' deus *en* machina - the disconnect between character and overall plot left me seriously dissatisfied.^

> "Misspent Youth is a departure in all three regards, and not an entirely successful one. There are no spaceships or aliens to be found here, and the tale is set entirely in the near future, on earth, largely in Rutland. The rejuvenation technology used to bring Jeff Baker back to his early twenties is not the focus of the story - in fact, for the most part, it is entirely peripheral. The core of the novel is the relationship between Baker and his son, Tim."

- Peripheral, like Kim Stanley Robinson's Martian trilogy???

----

^ in the nature of the following conversation

PFH: the "I can't be arsed to explain how/why these characters are here, doing this, and how that relates to this big plot idea I have..."

(how about giving it more time to bake?)

PFH: "Nah, can't be arsed remember?"

(What about leaving clever tidbits so that the reader might intuit/work out such a connection)

PFH: "No, can you hear me? *I can't be arsed!*"

(right)

OUSFGi question

[applez.livejournal.com]

"Even Neal Stephenson is shelved with the mainstream fiction, though also has some books in the science fiction section."

I've been noticing that myself.

so here's the question:

Can we foresee the day in our lifetimes (or far sooner) when the 'Science Fiction' section of the bookstore will be gone completely ... it's contents claimed/streamed into other genres?

The advent of our information technological society with revisionist history often has Neal Stephenson, Harry Turtledove, and Orson Scott Card not only mixed with other sources of fiction, but with non-fiction as well(!). (iirc, Card wrote a new book on Biblical Rebecca)

As it is, we have deliberate efforts at genre-bending, like Michael Marshall Smith; besides the Asimov and Clarke tradition of both fiction and nonfiction writing.

The vision of 'sci-fi' as a checkmark aspect of the given literature rather than an exclusive definition of it. Such as Crichton's popular 'best seller shelf' stuff.

Thoughts???

P.S. How might I post this to Tinyjo's OUSFG community LJ???

--

Nice social engineering Niall!

[applez.livejournal.com]

But with Pratchett fans I think more extreme measures may be required. :-)

---