The Sword and Laser discussion

This is my first real post -- sorry for any unintentional gaffes, feedback welcomed.

First, I love that this is a character driven book. The plot is relatively simple, but the insight into both Laurence and Patricia's points of view -- particularly their views on (view spoiler)[the destruction of the wormhole machine (hide spoiler)] -- makes a lot of otherwise impotent plot points worthwhile. In that sense, it didn't bother me that we saw so many tropes. For example, (view spoiler)[neither of the wormhole devices do anything beside give the main characters stuff to interact over; even the heirloom ring being the price to save Priya is just another device to complicate their relationship (hide spoiler)]. I can see how this character growth-based momentum could alienate people who enjoy a more plot-driven roller coaster (some other threads already mention it as a turn off), but it works for me.

The second thing didn't hit me until reading others' comments about something being off: this book has a bunch of "first novel" roughness. All of the issues are minor, but they stack into an uneasy feeling of enjoying the book while still wincing at the cracks. Uneven pacing, sometimes confusing perspective/scene/time shifts, two-dimensional side characters (Berkley the cat, the assassin, caricatured parents/students/geeks/ex's, etc.), and (view spoiler)[most glaringly the anticlimactic/enigmatic ending (hide spoiler)], all fall into this category.

So why did I still give the book 4 stars? I think Charlie Jane Anders has a bright literary future and this is a strong first showing, even with a few rough edges. The protagonists are engaging and likable (both in spite of and because of their flaws), the humor felt spot on, and it kept me turning pages until I'd read the whole thing in one sitting.

Welcome to the forums, Josh! Great observations!

I'm still halfway into the book, but I share your feelings of the "first novel" roughness.

Several people have mentioned the abundance of troupes, but I feel they are being put to good use. This is from the start a book that defies usual plots, mixing "science" and "magic" with different outcomes as the story progresses. I feel that the troupes enrich the narrative by bringing a sense of familiarity to it, just to twist it later on.

Thanks, Paulo! I hope my spoiler tags were well placed to not ruin anything for you -- I should've probably said up front that I'd finished the book.

Since the characters are driving things forward and not the plot, the tropes are just vehicles for them -- so it makes sense to rely on the reader's intelligence to fill in the blanks instead of going down the technobabble rabbit hole. In other words, I totally agree with you. :-)

I think you have to keep in mind too that, even though this ultimately isn't simply a piece of Pratchet satire, like CJA talked about in the interview, it's at least playing with/drawing on that tradition. Which I think changes how we'd approach "two dimensional" characters.

Rob Secundus wrote: "I think you have to keep in mind too that, even though this ultimately isn't simply a piece of Pratchet satire, like CJA talked about in the interview, it's at least playing with/drawing on that tr..."

Good point, Rob. I removed a comment from my initial post before submitting about ATBITS reminding me of "Color of Magic" -- including how Pratchett's later books are stronger. He had a way of giving just enough about side characters to make them satisfying.

I also learned from the interview that this is far from her first novel, which makes my "first novel roughness" label less apt, though I don't think it affects my critique, or my enthusiasm for her next book. I blame too many years in workshop.

Josh wrote: "I also learned from the interview that this is far from her first novel, which makes my "first novel roughness" label less apt, though I don't think it affects my critique, or my enthusiasm for her next book. I blame too many years in workshop. "

She talks about a previous version in this interview, and frankly, by the sound of it, I think I'm one of the people who would have preferred that version, although it's hard to tell with could-have-beens.

http://www.tor.com/2016/03/17/midnigh...

"...too many years in workshop."

That was unintentionally ambiguous, oops. I meant MY too many years in workshops making me see "first novel problems" and making assumptions.

Joanna, I have that interview queued up to listen to tonight -- thanks!

Josh wrote: "Joanna, I have that interview queued up to listen to tonight -- thanks! "

I'm fond of Mahvesh Murad and her podcast in general. But she seems to like just about everything, and I don't like everything she recommends, but I enjoy her enthusiastic interview style.