In a critique of writing Samuel
Delany once talked about science fiction saying that there was no real
seperation of 'story' and 'writing.' In our minds we often say
something like "the writer had a good idea, a good story, but the
writing of it wasn't that great." Delany doesn't buy that, he says that
the concept of a story and the written story are derived from the same
place and inextricably linked together. Now, Delany is obviously much
smarter than I am, and knows quite a bit more about writing than I do,
but I would like to ask him about 'Dark Universe' by Galouye for just
that reason. This novel has such a great concept, such a beautiful
setup, that it almost overshadows the fact that the writer can't quite
deliver on the promise of it.
Universe
was written in the early sixties, mired in a time when a lot of sci-fi
was concerned with both the Cold War and fears of nuclear annihilation.
These twin fears have certainly laid a lot of the groundwork for
science fiction through the ages, how many books have you read where the
author took a new technology, pushed it to it's apocalyptic extreme and
then wrote a book about it? The sixties nominees are full of books
like this, and it really could be considered a genuine fear for the
people in those times (perhaps ours too). While the sixties didn't
invent the dystopian genre ('1984' anyone) the fear of nuclear
annihilation made these sort of books a lot more common, and much more
relevant than they might have been otherwise. Really any dystopian
science fiction you read has some roots in the books written in the
early sixties, when authors tried to point us in the right direction by
telling us what might happen if we went in the wrong one.
But
Galouye uses that old template of nuclear war to set us up for the real
concept behind the novel, which is the idea of a people raised in a
world where they have never seen, and forgotten the concept, of light.
He describes a world in which everyone has fled underground to escape
the radiation plaguing the surface, and of one poor community whose
power generation has failed, leaving them in complete darkness. The
survivors described in the novel are the descendants of people who lived
on the surface, having no recollection of what light is, or any modern
scientific understanding.
The
writing of Universe is fairly pedestrian, mired in several stereotypes
of the time. Galouye seems like he felt compelled to turn portions of
his novel into an adventure tale, when the subject matter screams out
for an almost revolutionary style of writing, some way of describing
action that can't be seen through words. A much more subdued and
descriptive style of writing might have served the subject better.
Though one example that stands out to me still was how the writer had
his characters replace the phrase "I see what you mean," with "I
hear..." little touches like that go a long way towards crafting a
world. There are also some touching points in which the main character
attempts to search for light in a world of darkness. The story of a
character in a dystopian future trying to understand some forgotten
relic from our present day is almost a cliche now, but lines like "And
if I find Darkness, then I may have some kind of idea as to the nature
of Light" really get me where I live. It's too bad that there is far
too little of this in the novel, and far too much running, and jumping,
and falling into rivers. It's not often that I ask for less action from
a novel.
I
think the main problem with 'Dark Universe' is that Galouye set his
sights too high. This is a book that is nigh unwritable. The concept
of describing a world without light just doesn't lend itself to the
written word very well. And while there are many blind authors out
there writing today, even they haven't written anything like this.
Galouye's writing is just not up to the task, and that's no fault of his
own because no one's writing is up to the task. Especially not
in the sixties, when a sci-fi writer was expected to churn out stories
at a now unprecedented rate if he wanted to stay published, check out
Galouye's wikipedia page if you don't believe me
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_F._Galouye), just look at the
number of short stories the guy wrote in his life. This novel should
have taken years of research to develop and write, time which Galouye
wasn't given.
Science
Fiction is a genre in which writer's will build upon the past. Taking
ideas from previous novels and expanding or changing them is to be
expected. You can't write a novel about interstellar travel without
making a few choices, and you have to at least acknowledge how previous
writers have made those same choices before you or you'll just cover new
ground. How groundbreaking a work is can be measured almost by how
often other writers will reference that work. 'Dark Universe' has no
imitators, no one copied anything from this book. And I don't see this
as a knock against it. Like I said, Galouye set his sights too high,
and the writing wasn't there to back up the concept. But people need to
ask themselves what the point is of giving out an award for science
fiction. Do we want to award only those books that are the best
written? Or are we willing to give a nod to those novels that try
something different? That push the boundaries a little?
'Dark
Universe' isn't the best book ever written but it aims high, and we've
got to give it props for that. Maybe someday someone will write a book
dealing with this same concept but do it better, though I doubt it. We
as readers need to acknowledge that there is always going to be some
difference between concept and writing, and weigh it out between the two
as to what deserves our praise, and which is the more important in a
given novel. Though this isn't the best novel Galouye aims high, tries
for something that hasn't been done before or since, and at the very
least we need to give him credit for that. If an author can't try
something new and fail miserably in science fiction, then where can he?
People could criticize me for judging this book not on what it is, but
on what I wish it was, and I would take them back to that original
statement by Delany. Can there be a seperation between story concept
and writing? I believe there can be, and that the idea behind 'Dark
Universe' is huge, and original, and one of a kind, and much too
unwieldy to write a full size novel about. This book might be a full
blown fiasco, but it is more than deserving of a Hugo nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment