Showing posts with label Stephen King. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen King. Show all posts

06 November 2012

What Comes Next?: “After”


Book: After: Nineteen Stories of Apocalypse and Dystopia
Editors: Ellen Datlow and Terri Windling
Pages: 359
Copy: advanced reader copy
Read: finished September 2
Spoilers: minor details, but nothing that ruins anything

Upon first seeing this book, I had my usual, aggravated reaction to anyone who lumps apocalyptic and dystopian literature together.  Luckily, the editors anticipated me.  Windling and Datlow admit that “blistering arguments about what should and shouldn’t be labeled dystopian fiction” (which they rather annoyingly refer to as dyslit from throughout the rest of the introduction) “have consumed whole Internet forums, convention panels, and book review columns…As for us…we’ve chosen to take a broader road in the creation of this anthology, including both dystopian and post-disaster tales…”  Fair enough.  While I cling to the classic definition of dystopia, I appreciate anyone who takes a moment to explain the difference and admit they what exactly they are doing.

The collection opens with an interesting, if rather short, story by Genevieve Valentine.  While Valentine’s position isn’t precisely a new one (this story bears some resemblance to Stephen King’s The Running Man, in that both stories deal with reality TV—Valentine’s version is much more YA friendly, though, lacking the goriness of King’s novel), she does a good job introducing teen readers to this subgenre of dystopian literature.  (On second thought, anyone who’s read The Hunger Games will already know the reality TV-dystopia.  Still, Valentine’s story comes from enough of a different angle to be interesting, if slightly derivative.)

The next story, “After the Cure” by Carrie Ryan, is one of the best in the collection.  Having read Ryan’s YA book (The Forest of Hands and Teeth), I find this short story infinitely superior and far from the melodrama that deeply marred her novel.  “After the Cure” is psychologically complex and asks important questions about survivors.  Ryan’s contribution to the collection is one of the few I’ve thought about since, so interesting are the questions it asks and the answers it suggests.

Other standout stories include Matthew Kressel’s “The Great Game at the End of the World,” another deeply complex story with heavy questions; “Reunion” by Susan Beth Pfeffer, which kept me guessing with its complex post-rebellion moodiness; Jeffrey Ford’s painfully relevant “Blood Drive,” which may be a little difficult to read given current events; Steven Gould’s “Rust with Wings;” “Faint Heart” by Sarah Rees Brennan, which does joyful battle with clichéd gender roles; and Nalo Hopkinson’s “The Easthound,” which has as surprising an ending as can be expected.  That there are seven excellent stories in a collection of this sort is nothing short of miraculous.

I found three stories to be absolute failures.  Katharine Langrish’s “Visiting Nelson” has the seed of an excellent story, given that it is a melting pot of A Clockwork Orange, 1984, and other dystopias based in London, but she doesn’t accomplish enough.  She might have better luck if she extends her story, though only if she does so carefully.  Her writing isn’t so engaging that I would put up with it for long.  Gregory Maguire (whom, I will admit, I’ve never really enjoyed) offers a nearly unreadable story (“How Th’irth Wint Rong By Hapless Joey @ Homeskool.guv).  His narrators are nearly illiterate survivors, but they aren’t engaging and his story goes nowhere.  I’ll admit I was disappointed, but not particularly surprised given my track record with this author.  Jane Yolen’s boring, half-hearted contribution (“Gray”), though, is by far the greatest disappointment.  Perhaps because it is the only poem in the collection (and by far the shortest entry), it sticks out the most and fails to satisfy utterly.

Some who have read Garth Nix’s dark Shade’s Children may be interested in his story, “You Won’t Feel a Thing.”  I, though, was left a little cold.  Partly, it’s been a long time since I read Shade’s Children, but perhaps more important is the story’s uselessness to the wider story hinted at in Shade’s Children.  This short story didn’t change anything in Shade’s Children, or even deepen my understanding of that novel.  (It is perhaps a disappointment because he has accomplished what he failed to do in this story elsewhere.  “Over the Wall” explores some of the complexity of the world created in his Abhorsen Trilogy, adding something new and changing the characters just the right amount.)

This collection will be especially good for anyone searching for literature after The Hunger Games.  (Especially helpful is the “About the Contributors” at the back of the book, which makes it easy to find what else an author has written.)  This collection may not be very well-received by adult readers—the stories lack the moral complexity of truly classic dystopia.  That being said, this is a good introduction to the vastness of the genre and is an excellent book for anyone who collects dystopian books (guilty!).  This is also a useful collection for anyone interested in looking academically at the explosion of YA dystopia, because it collects many of the important themes of modern teen dystopias and lacks the annoying romantic melodrama of YA novels.

--Benvolia

27 June 2011

Blood, Guts, Mayhem, Death...: “The Running Man”

Title: The Running Man (from The Bachman Books: Four Early Novels by Stephen King)
Author: Stephen King (writing as Richard Bachman)
159 Pages (pages 533-692) (Hardcover)
Read: 27 June 2011
Spoilers: I go over the plot in scant detail but I don’t really give anything away


To begin with, this book is gory.  Really gory.  There’s blood, everywhere.  There are guts, flying.  There are gunshot wounds, which causes most of the blood and guts.  Having never read Stephen King, I can’t say if there is an unusual amount of blood and guts, but there seems to be quite a bit.  The story is fairly interesting, so getting over the gore seems worth it to me.  However, there is also racism, prostitution, anti-homosexual sentiments, and a screaming woman in distress.  So the worth of the novel is sort of a toss-up.


Stephen King writes in the introduction (a weirdly organized essay entitled “Why I Was Bachman” which is interesting but ultimately useless) to this collection that The Running Man “is nothing but story--it moves with the goofy speed of a silent movie, and anything which is not story is cheerfully thrown over the side.”  He seems rather proud of this assessment.  I think it’s perfectly true, but I’m not sure that it makes the story powerful or even particularly noteworthy.


The set-up is simple.  The masses are sedated by watching violent games on television; in many of these games (if not all, it’s hard to tell exactly) the contestants die.  Ben Richards, strapped for money (his cause is noble, of course), becomes a contestant on the most violent and bloody (and rigged) of the shows, The Running Man.  The story follows his attempt to overthrow the system.  Along the way, King makes room for a indictment of pollution and an exploration of class.


King discusses pollution in an interesting way, suggesting that the effects of pollution are felt by the poorest.  The wealthy are able to escape the negative effects of poisonous air and therefore don’t notice it anymore.  Furthermore, the government of The Running Man censors information about pollution and pollution levels, raising questions about the government’s involvement with environmental injustice.  I think he raises interesting points about pollution and environmental justice, but he discards the environmental question when it starts to take the novel over.  This weakens his argument some, as well as making pollution seem unimportant.  However, this depiction suggests, very powerfully, that environmental issues fade when a person is confronted with terrible personal trauma.  It is depressing, but seemingly accurate.  I think that if King had chosen to focus on the pollution issue he would have had a much more interesting and powerful novel.  As it is, he settled for an action story without any attempts at making it an “issue book.”


King’s discussion of class moves in and out of focus, but remains a theme throughout.  Obviously King has great sympathy and understanding for the suffering of the poor and unemployed and he does his best to uphold them as the better sort of person.  In some ways, this echoes Orwell’s use of proles in 1984, proles being considered the greatest hope for the future, a dream that is complicated by reality.  However, the ending of the novel doesn’t provide closure or even hope for the future.  King points out class issues without suggesting that the lower classes will ever be able to escape.


Interestingly, two of the lowest class characters are readers, suggesting that class can be escaped through education and imagination.  This vision does not work particularly well in the context of the novel.  Ben Richards is depicted as an action hero, but somehow it is necessary to see him also as a sensitive reader of novels.  The other major reader is a gang member, who belongs to a gang of...readers.  They sneak into the library to read about pollution and how the upper classes cope with poison air.  It’s a bizarre moment in the book, one that made me raise my eyebrows (not that I don’t think people should read).  I think reading is great, and I think everyone should sneak into their libraries to read about pollution.  The scenes just aren’t in keeping with the rest of the novel.  I think perhaps King wanted people to know how important reading is and didn’t work too hard on how to deliver that message.


I think this is a fair dystopian novel.  The novel is more about society than about politics, along the lines of Farhenheit 451 rather than 1984.  That being said, this isn’t the greatest dystopian novel ever written.  I think King was trying to take on racism, but he didn’t make his point strong enough.  He just comes across as possibly racist.  Further, he seems to be trying to fight against anti-gay sentiment, but he fails there too.  This isn’t to say that the book ought to have been longer.  The story would have lost its pop and suffered terribly if it were longer.  I just think King should have worked harder on making his argument stronger.


That being said, I’d recommend this to the same audience as Logan’s Run.  The stories are roughly similar (superhuman runs away from bad guys; there’s even a similar scene of claustrophobia), but Richards seems a little more interesting (perhaps because he’s 28 and not just 21) even as his situation seems a little less plausible.  This isn’t a book for the faint of heart or the easily upset.  This feels like a book that a non-reading teenager (I mean this as nicely as possible) would really like--there’s blood, the main character kicks ass, and a couple important issues are mentioned.  It isn’t boring, it isn’t slow, and it doesn’t stop in the middle for a complicated political discussion (ahem, 1984).


-Benvolia


Also read this week:
Water: Tales of Elemental Spirits, by Robin McKinley and Peter Dickinson (23 June 2011)
The Blue Sword, by Robin McKinley (27 June 2011)