Harrumph.

[pat]

I generally think that Spider Robinson's Callahan novels are seriously overrated. (Other than the first one, which I thought very good, especially the chapter, "The Time Traveler," which was brilliant.) I've read three of the subsequent novels and been, well, underwhelmed. And it's not that I'm not a science fiction reader generally (being more a mystery person): I love Connie Willis's work, and some of Orson Scott Card's, and I have reread C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen trilogy so much pages are falling out. I like Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels, in spite of them being really uneven in quality over the series.

But, scouting around for reading material, I chanced upon Callahan's Con. I read it, and thought Dorothy Parker's classic bad novel review would be appropriate: "This novel is not to be tossed lightly aside, but hurled with great force."

It's not just the cardboard characterizations or the "let's spend insane amounts of verbiage on backstory" feel. And it's not the ending, which I have read upset some Callahan fans.

It's something far more basic than that.



The center plot of the novel revolves around a scam involving time travel. Jake and Zoey's child prodigy Erin travels back and forth in time to con a low life crook. One of the conceits set up early in the plot is that Erin cannot remember anything that happened at a later point in her life than whatever chronological age she was at the time. This is set up clearly, and reinforced after the con is over in a conversation about how she was going to ride on the Space Shuttle but hadn't yet and so could not remember it.

Except, while they are pulling the con, Erin travels back, so that she gets younger, without any loss of memory. In one or two cases, it would be possible for another character to fill her in, but in two cases, it would not be.

This sort of thing makes me want to run away screaming. For example, at the end of the fourth Harry Potter book, Harry has seen Cedric die, but can't see the thestrals pulling the carriages. But at the beginning of the fifth book, Harry can see the thestrals, which can only be seen by people who have seen others die. Nothing else important about Harry has changed. It's just incredibly sloppy. (When I discussed this with brian1789, he wondered why Harry couldn't see the thestrals all along, since he had seen his mother die.)

All novel writing is to me about worlds other than my own. Those worlds don't have to have the same rules as mine, but they do have to play by whatever rules they set out. (The only novel I can think of where this does not apply is Catch-22, and in that case the incoherence was not only deliberate and understandable, it was the whole point of the book.) Robinson violated the rules of the universe he set up.

Comments

[simplykimberly.livejournal.com]

JK Rowling has actually explained the thestral thing. It is not just "seeing" death, it is seeing it and absorbing/understanding its meaning. So he didn't see it and understand it as a baby. And at the end of book 4 he couldn't quite integrate the meaning of Cedric's death - he was still in shock. By the time the summer was over, he had very much absorbed it.

She didn't say this part, but knowing what she said, it fits in: By the end of book 5, he is seeing the thestrals as beautiful, no longer ugly creatures. It is my belief (in conjunction with what she's said) that he has more integrated the death he saw into his psyche, and so he can not only see the thestrals, but he can see them more completely.

I have no idea about the other books and their explanations ;)

And yes, I pay way too much attention to Harry Potter stuff, thanks for asking ;)

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

That makes sense -- but then why didn't she explain that in the books? It would not have taken a lot of space.

I agree!

[simplykimberly.livejournal.com]

Just one of those stupid-author-omissions, I guess ;) Or maybe it just didn't seem like a plot hole to her and she was being subtle about it, by mentioning their change in appearance.

Re: I agree!

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

"Um, I meant to do that." :)

Further...

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that if you have to explain point plots in order for them to make logical sense in interviews then you haven't done your job as a writer. A work should stand on its own, for good or ill.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I like Spider. He wrote great short stories once. But somehow he got into this mess where the only things he can sell are stories with "Callahan" in the name. He keeps writing novels (not his best length) about a place he tried to blow up once so he wouldn't have to write about it anymore. I think he's trying to find the point at which his novels get so horrible that he can finally stop with the Callahans shtick.

The problem, of course, is that he isn't all that good at other things either. His Globe and Mail column was spotty. Time Killer was a mixed bag of good and contrived ideas. Night of Power made gross assumptions about black America that were so far from reality as to be painful.

I wish, for his sake, that he could finally hit it big with a folk music CD. He's an amazing guitarist and he has a beautiful smooth voice. Then he could stop churning out dreck to pay the bills.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I actually enjoyed the Callahan's books, and the Lady Sally's spin offs. The last Callahan I read was Callahan's Key, and while it was cool that Robinson was moving the characters outside of the bar, I think the stuff with the child prodigy was rather forced - in some ways the sentient infant thing read like a joke that had been told one too many times. Though the bit with Heinlein's cat was funny :)

And yeah - any time an author deals with time travel it can get messy (What happens if you run into your older/younger self? What about that whole idea that a butterfly flapping it's wings at the wrong time would result in mass extinctions eons on?) - there's just too much to explain and keep up with.

Re: Harry Potter - Rowling stuffs so much detail into her books that I'm sure there are discrepancies that only the most hardcore fans/rereaders catch at all! (I won't get into the difficulties of Hermoine and her time traveling in book 3 - or was it 4?)