Beyond Reality discussion
Previous BotM--DISCUSSIONS
>
2010-09 JULIAN COMSTOCK: finished reading *SPOILERS*
date
newest »



Couple things bugged me, My major problem with the book was Julian's companion. He seemed a bit too naive.
I read it back when it came out (before actually, from an ARC). It was one of the best books I've read in years. I probably won't get the chance to reread it for the discussion, unfortunately. Here's the link to my review:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

But why should I? A clever idea continued through such a long novel just becomes tedious. I'd much rather have a fleshed out story, maybe Calyx, maybe Sam. They seemed far more interesting.
Also just a matter of personal taste, I hate books that dwell on military strategy or weaponry. Blech.
My biggest disappointment - I love dystopian, post-apocalyptic stories. I love to read about what happens to people in moments of desperation, how they rebuild, what is created, what is lost. The book focuses on the tedium, like a boy's adventure book, and the most interesting parts are merely hinted at. Again, clever maybe, but getting there was more work than the payoff was worth.
I anticipate this will win the Hugo on Sunday since it was my least favorite of the 6 nominees. :)

I enjoyed the book for the most part, save that I found it dragged a lot near the end of the warfare section and had to fight my way through to the start of the presidency. After that, it quickened back up.
The one thing that does trouble me is that while I find Julian an interesting character, I find Adam kind of dull and so the overwhelming stuff about his life was less interesting. It irked that I was being told all about his finishing his novel and readying for his child, while simply being told that Julian is angering the Dominion and dealing with the war without showing us it. For a guy who professes to be telling us the story of Julian Comstock, he spends an awful lot of time on himself.
Still, I found the world really interesting and don't see it as a totally loss. The results are mixed though.

I liked the world, history etc. I had wished Adam was a bit more...mature.

Does the reader want the truth? Or just a good story? A good story of course! In this book, a dumb narrator makes for a good story.
Something else I enjoyed was the exploration of the stupidity of war, as shown through Adam's purchase of the dead Dutch soldier's letter. Adam gets his older, cynical comrade to translate it for him. He tells him the letter is full of hatred and how anxious the soldier is to kill Americans. But what Adam doesn't know is the letter is written by a miserable, homesick teenaged boy who misses his home, his sister and the family dog.
Of course Adam has to be dumb -- its so that we all get to experience the character of Julian through him, and we all get to go "Adam, ya poor dumb schmuck! Can't you see the wool's being pulled over your eyes?"
What itches my brain is Calyxa. Does she love Adam, or is she simply convenience for her?

Its been a while since I read it but wasn't Adam writing the story after the fact, in exile in France
So he shouldn't have been so naive.
As for Calyxa, I found her to be more a woman of her time. A 60s feminist flashforwarded 200 years in the future, not so much a ball busting harpy as a woman who knows what she is. Also, she lives in a town where she was probably hit on by army guys all the time.

I do think it's entirely possible for Adam to remain naive about Julian's sexuality. We all figure it out pretty early, but Adam doesn't because he lives in a society with a strong taboo against it. It would never occur to him that anyone could ever be anything other than heterosexual. The story may take place 100 years in the future, but that future is such a throwback to the past that it's practically indistinguishable.
My favorite scene from this book was the one where Langers, the soldier who was previously selling "biblical pamphlets" such as "Acts forbidden by Leviticus" was consoling the dying soldiers by quoting the Song of Solomon mixed with Walt Whitman verses. There are so many layers and perspectives to it, and it's one of the moments where Adam shows there's more to him than meets the eye:
"These words were not the standard consolation, but they were pleasant to hear at any time; and in the privacy of my thoughts I forgave Private Langers for uttering them under false pretenses, for the tear that formed in the single whole eye of the dying man was unquestionably a grateful and authentic one."
I was in tears, and still get the chills thinking of that scene.
"These words were not the standard consolation, but they were pleasant to hear at any time; and in the privacy of my thoughts I forgave Private Langers for uttering them under false pretenses, for the tear that formed in the single whole eye of the dying man was unquestionably a grateful and authentic one."
I was in tears, and still get the chills thinking of that scene.

I agree with you on this, Ken. Calyxa is my kind of woman, and I was happy to see a good feminist portrayal in this book (although expected, as Wilson's past books also show a feminist sensibility).

What about you guys, the Slavery aspect of the story



Exactly. It felt like I was reading a dry history document. Not a fiction novel. I feel its the style Mr. Wilson chose when he wrote the book. We are seeing the story through Adams writing. Not inside his head. I think that took something away from the book.

The bent sense of being placed into a past, while viewing a postapocalyptic future - the feel of some familiar things being twisted into the strange.
It still has not entirely jelled for me. The moving moments were like stepping stones strung between a lot of figuring out how events became what they were.
I have seldom, if ever, been able to fathom the Hugos, or get the concept of 'literary merit' - what this book was, definitely -- an original take. It did not derive from any 'genre' stream I am aware of, and it's not easily tagged. That is part of what I see when I revisit it - it just doesn't FIT - which may be its lasting merit.
I don't recall if it was the author or a reviewer, but I remember someone saying that the novel is set in the future, written in a fiction style from the past, and deals with issues relevant in the present. I thought that was a clever way of describing it.
Here's something I've been meaning to post: the REAL translation of the Dutch letter in the book.
"Dearest Hannie (it began),
I hope you'll receive this letter. I am trying to send it with the mailboat from Goose Bay. I miss you very much. This is a horrible war in an awful country - freezing cold in the winter and disgustingly hot and humid in the summer. The flies eat you alive, and the rulers here are tyrants. I long to hold you in my arms!"
And then the short line "Fikkie mis ik ook!" means "I also miss Fikkie!" (Fikkie being a dog's name, sort of like Fido in the US)
It really changes the meaning of the scene if you know the real content of the letter, as opposed to how it's incorrectly translated in the book.
"Dearest Hannie (it began),
I hope you'll receive this letter. I am trying to send it with the mailboat from Goose Bay. I miss you very much. This is a horrible war in an awful country - freezing cold in the winter and disgustingly hot and humid in the summer. The flies eat you alive, and the rulers here are tyrants. I long to hold you in my arms!"
And then the short line "Fikkie mis ik ook!" means "I also miss Fikkie!" (Fikkie being a dog's name, sort of like Fido in the US)
It really changes the meaning of the scene if you know the real content of the letter, as opposed to how it's incorrectly translated in the book.
Books mentioned in this topic
Fitzpatrick's War (other topics)Julian Comstock: A Story of 22nd-Century America (other topics)
Careful - may contain spoilers!