User Profile

Todella monen asian pitää muuttua, jos aiomme elää tällä planeetalla vielä tulevinakin vuosisatoina. Valtaosa kirjojen ja elokuvien tulevaisuusvisioista tuntuu kuitenkin olevan dystopioita, kuvauksia siitä millaista helvettiä elämä Maa-planeetalla on, kun kaikki on mennyt pieleen. Muutamalla seuraaville vuosikymmenille lähitulevaisuuteen sijoittuva Kim Stanley Robinsonin The Ministry for the Future kuitenkin esittää uskottavan, vaikkakin monelta osin silmiinpistävän optimistisen vision siitä, miten kaikenkattava ekokriisi on saatu Maa-planeetalla kuitenkin jonkinlaiseen hallintaan. Robinsonin visiosta kiinnostavan tekee se, että se ei ole vain kaunokirjallista kuvitelmaa, vaan perustuu ihan todellisiin haasteisiin ja ratkaisuihin, ja monet kirjan luvuista ovatkin luonteeltaan pikemminkin tieteellisiä esseitä kuin varsinaista kertomakirjallisuutta.

Kirjan tulevaisuuskuva ei kuitenkaan ole paratiisimainen utopia. Maa siinä vaiheessa, kun ilmakehän hiilidioksidimäärä on saatu laskuun, ei ole enää aivan sama planeetta kuin se oli vielä ennen ilmastokriisiä, ja työn planeetan hengissäpitämiseksi kuvataan jatkuvan vielä tulevillekin vuosisadoille vaikka hiilidioksidiongelma kirjassa on saatukin pois päällimmäisistä huolenaiheista.

Robinson ei pyri hahmottelemaan paluuta meneen ajan tasapainoon, vaan pohtii pikemmin sitä, miten täällä eletään kun on täysimittaisesti siirrytty antroposeenin aikaan, ja ihmiskunta ryhtynyt tosissaan kantamaan vastuuta aiheuttamastaan muutoksesta ja planeetan tulevaisuudesta. Kirja valaa kuitenkin uskoa siihen, että tämä ihmiskunnan massiivisin haaste on selätettävissä, kunhan vaan siihen yhdessä ryhdymme. Robinsonille Maa-planeetan elämänlanka on Parisiin ilmastosopimus: siihen tulee tarttua juuri sellaisena historiallisena käännekohtana, kuin millaisena sitä melkein kymmenen vuotta sitten juhlittiin

Kirja sisältää valtavasti tietoa - siis aivan todellista tietoa, ei vain kuvitelmia tulevaisuudesta. Siihen voi hyvin suhtautua myös eräänlaisena ilmastoratkaisuiden oppikirjana. Mitä kaikkea onkaan otettava huomioon?

Robinson ei anna ihmiskunnalle mitenkään kevyttä tehtävälistaa. Paitsi että Pariisin henki pitää institutionalisoida globaalia muutosta johtavaksi "tulevaisuusministeriöksi", ihmiskunnan henkiseen muutokseen tarvitaan vielä paljon muutakin. Emme varmaankaan herää ennen kuin olemme kokeneet kunnon katastrofin. Eikä varmaankaan tuhoisia tapoja ja toimintamalleja saada loppumaan ilman, että jostain nousee sellaista aktivismia, jonka rinnalla Elonkapinakin vaikuttaa ompelukerholta. Planeetalle aiheutettu vahinko on myös jo niin suurta, että tuskin selviämme ilman massiivista ilmastonmuokkausta: sulaneen Arktiksen värjäämistä auringonvaloa heijastavaksi keltaiseksi ja öljynporausinfran käyttöönottoa sulavien ja mereen luisuvien Antarktiksen jäätiköiden pysäyttämiseksi. Talouskin pitää mullistaa: tulee luoda taloudellinen insentiivi hiilen varastoinnille, tehdä rahajärjestelmän tasolla kestävästä toiminnasta kannattavaa ja kestämättömästä tappiollista.

Robinsonin visioima muutaman vuosikymmenen päässä oleva Maa-planeetta on kuitenkin yllättävän samankaltainen kuin nykyinenkin maailma, ehkä vain vähän verkkaisempi, reilumpi - ja varmaankin mukavampi. Mantereiden välillä ei enää liikuta lentokoneilla, vaan ilmalaivoilla, ja rahtilaivojenkin vauhti on hidastunut, kun ne on automatisoitu ja konvertoitu aurinko- ja tuulivoimalla liikkuviksi. Kyllä tällaista tulevaisuutta kannattaa tavoitella.

Ja kyllä Robinsonin kuvaus tähän tulevaisuuteen tarvittavista toimistakin on uskottava. Jotain tämän kaltaista, vaikkakaan ei varmasti juuri tätä, taatusti tarvitaan. Työtä on monella rintamalla: talouden, lakien ja instituutioiden tasolla täytyy tehdä muutoksia, mutta tarvitaan myös aktivismia - ja voi olla, että osa siitä on sellaista mikä tapahtuu varjoissa, hämärässä ja lain nurjalla puolella. Koko sivilisaation tulevaisuudesta kuitenkin on kyse.

I've put off talking about this book for a bit because honestly I'm not sure where to start. The short of it was that this was one of the best things I've read this year.

It is nearly impossible to describe the plot, but this is not a plot-driven book. It's weirder and bolder and chewier than The Saint of Bright Doors. To describe it at all, this is a book about two (ish???) characters whose various lives intertwine with each other across the timeline(s???), told in a series of simultaneously deeply interconnected but also wildly different stories. There's constantly recurring thematic motifs and threads, and I feel like the reader is asked to do a lot of work to try to connect the myriad of interconnected bits and bobs and hints in its various depths. I finished it and immediately considered starting again with my extra knowledge to try to piece more connections together and better understand the whole.

Tonally, I also think Rakesfall is doing very interesting things. In comparison, The Saint of Bright Doors had some funny side jokes like "nine-tenths of the lore" in the same way that Harrow the Ninth has "none house, with left grief"; they're references if you catch them, but feel like a drive-by joke and not the destination. On the contrary, Rakesfall surgically deploys out of place phrases and tonal shifts to make impacts that deliberately jar the reader.

I apologize for pasting a number of quotes, but it astounds me a little that all of these things can be in the same book, that otherwise has a much more serious tone. I don't list these quotes as examples of what most of the prose is, but as examples of the rare places it swerves to.

The simile of the two-handed saw is not a parable. It isn't even a story. That it is self-consciously a simile suggests an unseriousness, a little haha hoho, a little lol j/k.

This is a one-off line in a brief section of the story that takes place in the same world as The Saint of Bright Doors (although you do not need to have read that book for this story).

Everybody on stage is silent and motionless for another few minutes. The AUDIENCE grows restless. Somebody in the audience takes a picture--the flash is blinding--even though there was a sign at the door that said NO PHOTOS, NO SMARTPHONES. There are muttered complaints. Imiya blinks. His pupils are huge.

Devakarti returns to the chorus and starts organizing them to move on to their next lives.

There's a chapter that is written like a script for a play, but is also a play in progress, and also includes dead people in the chorus who were killed by people in the play. This is a microcosm of what the book feels like.

All his soldiers pee themselves a little, so the king calls up his favourite wrestler, biggest face in the city, beloved far and wide as the best good guy who isn't afraid of anything, and the king says, my Beloved Bro, will you Please take this Cup of Water out unto the Dread Cemetary and give it to that Loud Fucker, and Tell him to (a) Pipe down and (b) give Thanks to the generosity of his King? And the wrestler says Sure Thing, my King. He is also frightened but he goes anyway, and he tells himself, real courage isn't found in not being afraid but in doing things that when you are, which just goes to show that after years of celebrity he is so deep in character that his internal narrative takes the voice of an Educational Programme for the small children who are his biggest fans and buy all his T-shirts.

There are other stories within stories in this book, but this one is told in this amazing style of an incredibly informal fable that was striking.

All of this makes for the kind of risky style that could be intensely irritating or obnoxious if it wasn't done so effectively. I think it works for me and I'm delighted by it; more, I think the choice to do this fits in this hurricane of a story that mixes and remixes characters and themes to such a degree.

One of the qualities that I love about the Vorkosigan series is that because it is so long, it allows Bujold to play with different genres between books. If The Vor Game is military SF, then Cetaganda is a mystery novel. Pedantically, this book is not really a mystery proper in the way that a reader could piece together the whodunit independently; however I think this is an example of "detective Miles" mode, and one that we'll see again in Memory and Komarr especially.

This book features Miles and Ivan on a diplomatic visit to Cetaganda for the funeral of the Cetagandan empress. Miles has to juggle investigating a plot that's trying to frame the Barrayarans (but why? and by whom?), hiding things from his superiors (by implying he's a higher level spy), trying to interface with the Cetaganda police about a murder investigation (while not giving things away to them or to his superiors), and stopping a plot that would cause chaos to Cetaganda (while also trying to work towards Barrayaran interests).

One thing I think this novel does well is to portray the Cetagandans in a sympathetic and interesting light, and to dig into the interesting social structure they have going on. In previous novels, the Cetagandans have been the historical invaders of Barrayar and also aggressive expansionists into the Hegen Hub, and the reader doesn't know much about them other than their military bent. This book could be a bit more subtle about weaving all this background info in without as much of an info dump, but in a broader sense it adds a lot of nuance and fills in a lot of detail.

Ok, ok. I know I'm leaning on the horn here (pun not intended), but holy moly this book is still stuck in horny Miles brain mode. He is still not over Elena (who doesn't even appear in this novel) and he loses it over the haut women who ensconce themselves behind opaque bubble forcefields. There is one brief, minor moment where Miles realizes these feelings are clouding his judgement; Ivan comes up with a plan Miles hasn't considered because it wouldn't let him play the hero in front of haut Rian. This is as far as it goes, though.

(It's funny how much this quality sticks out for me on this reread. Am I just older and ace-er? Is this how books airquotes of the time all were and I haven't noticed because I haven't been reading books that are thirty five years old? Is this a deliberate writing decision for a twenty year old protagonist? Did I just forget that's how these books were?)

The cover blurb makes it sound like a cautionary tale about our highly-tech-dependent world (even in the 1990s!), but it's not the technology that's the problem. It's the homogenization of culture, and the insistence that there be one perspective, and only one perspective, that really matters.

Think of how we travel and find the same chain stores, chain restaurants, the ISO standard Irish Pub with its bric-a-brac decor, and how our TV and movies are full of endless reboots, spinoffs and sequels.

We see it first in Sutty's memories of Earth, controlled largely by a theocracy until contact with alien civilizations kicks their support out from under them. And then in the world she's trying to understand, one that's undergone a complete transformation in the time it took her to travel there at relativistic speed. She knows there were flourishing cultures here before she left Earth. She studied the few fragments that made it offworld during first contact. But she finds a world that has discarded its past and modeled itself on the one she left.

It's largely a story of discovery: Sutty, frustrated and depressed, trying to figure out what the heck "The Telling" actually is and what it means, and the government agent shadowing her also discovering what it is he's trying to suppress and why. A lot of it takes place in small villages, but there's also a long trip through mountains that feels like counterpoint to the glacier expedition in The Left Hand of Darkness.

Well worth the read!

(Slightly condensed from my website.)

A difficult book to read, since it mostly talks about how people are harmed, and how society fails to protect & support them. The three main topics covered are gun ownership leading to (especially) suicide, opposition to government-provided healthcare leading to worse healthcare outcomes, and school funding cuts leading to many negative outcomes. Whiteness is a political doctrine which contains many jagged bits and pieces of ideology which don't necessarily fit together neatly. One of the things this book did for me was articulate that at least in the policy areas of guns and healthcare, white people aligned with the white political project are not ignorantly voting for harmful policies. The people interviewed know that widespread easy access to guns leads to more gun deaths, and they accept and acknowledge that as a reasonable cost of maintaining their rights. Likewise healthcare: there is no confusion about the fact that moving closer to universal healthcare would help them and their communities. But they are willing to forego that benefit in order to withhold it from other, mostly non-white, disfavored groups. These are deliberate calculated choices, not ignorant policy-against-self-interest. These people have simply decided that the individual and community costs of these policies (gun access and individualized healthcare) are worthwhile. Education seems like the exception. The voices highlighted seemed to reject the legitimacy of education funding cuts after seeing the negative outcomes of those policies. They previously believed that education was inefficient and overfunded, but amended those beliefs after funding cuts hurt schools. This outcome was not consistent, but it was noticeable for happening at all in contrast to guns and healthcare. However, even when it came to education, that policy objective was less important than other objectives more closely centered around the project of whiteness. Hence interviewees who objected to local and state school-defunding decisions but were still excited to vote for Trump's ethno-nationalist policies despite disagreeing with his education policy. Overall, it is abundantly clear from these interviews and analyses that whiteness is a doctrine of exclusion, perceived scarcity, and hatred. It is probably not surprising to hear that whiteness has racial animus at its heart. What was most interesting to me was that ignorance was not a key pillar of policy decision-making. White politics entails full awareness of the harm done by white policies to white communities. It is simply calculated that these lives lost are an acceptable cost.

Monstrilio is a hard novel for me to pin down. If I had to attach some labels to it I'd say literary fiction with a dash of horror.

It's a story rooted in loss: Magos and Joseph's son Santiago dies suddenly; Magos is enthralled by a tale about regrowing a child from its heart and so cuts out a piece of Santiago's lung from his body to do the same. As she feeds it and grows this lung, it becomes a monster that she treats as her son, and names Monstrilio. The book is divided into four parts from different perspectives: Magos, longtime friend Lena, Joseph, and finally Monstrilio.

But it's not just about grief, it's a story about family and relationships with the monstrous. Magos lives in denial and tries to believe her lung monster Monstrilio is her child Santiago again. Joseph speedruns acceptance and tries to forcibly conform his own life and Monstrilio into a facade of normality.

It's satisfying to me that the book ends from the fractured perspective of Monstrilio, rather than through the projecting biases of the adults in his life. It's interesting to see how the adults largely try to cover for Monstrilio's (at times horrible) actions and coerce him into humanity, while Monstrilio himself covers his own monstrous feelings from the adults and tries to exist in an ill-fitting human world.

I was quite engrossed by this book, although it is definitely quite (deliberately) uncomfortable at points and the book doesn't shy away from (usually off page) gore.

3 stars: enjoyed this book, you might like it too

This is kind of a weird review because I feel like it was a different book than what I expected.

What it ended up being was a history of how femininity was socially constructed, in the context of social class, in Britain over the last few hundred years, and how the construction of modern femininity (as distinct from medieval femininity) was very closely intertwined with the construction of social classes as the middle class emerged. It did this largely through the lens of embroidery. It felt surprisingly modern in how it talked about gender as something changing and socially constructed and existing in the context of other socially constructed concepts, but it did feel very narrowly focused on Britain and Britain-adjacent areas.

Except for at the end in the more modern area, I don't think it really demonstrated embroidery being subversive. Embroidery was used to enforce norms of femininity. At the same time, women rejecting embroidery, in the context of the various feminist movements, often reinforced the idea that things associated with women were inherently inferior. It did talk about how people related to embroidery in different ways and how people could make a world of mandatory embroidery/mandatory femininity more tolerable and find some agency within it, about how embroidery could both trap women and offer them freedom, but it felt rather incongruous with its title. I feel like the book described the situation honestly and accurately, but if you were hoping for more subversion, there isn't a lot in this book.