YA?

Genre labelling can be annoying.  I have more than once moaned here about the fact that a lot of people won’t touch my books, simply because they are ‘science fiction’.   Another genre label that I’ve seen applied several times recently to Dark Eden is ‘YA’.  (According to Wikipedia: “Young-adult fiction or young adult literature (often abbreviated as YA), also juvenile fiction, is fiction written, published, or marketed to adolescents and young adults”.)

Well, the book is certainly primarily about young adults – the two main narrators/protagonists of this book are both (in Earth terms) in their teens – and I’m very pleased and proud to hear that teenagers and young adults are enjoying the book.  But I didn’t write the book for teenagers or young adults, or for middle-aged adults or indeed for any specific demographic group.   I try to write books and stories that I’d like to read.  And personally I don’t seek out stories with characters of my own age and background (how dull that would be), or stories aimed at my own age group.

The assumption behind labelling Dark Eden as YA seems to be that, because a book is about a certain type of person, it must therefore be written specifically for that type of person.  It’s an assumption you can often also see being made in the way that individual books are marketed.  (For example, ‘This is a book for anyone who has ever loved and lost’).

Well, I suppose one reason for reading a book is to look for role models and validation, people you can identify with, people who will confirm that it’s okay to be the person you are, but it would be rather limiting if that was the only reason we read books.  And unhealthy and atomising too.  (Do we want each age group and each gender to occupy its own separate little cultural bubble?)   The point of reading fiction is surely to imaginatively experience lives that are different from your own, not just to look into a mirror and see some sort of idealised version of yourself.

Dark Eden seems to appeal to a lot of different people, men, women, young, old, atheists, Christians… etc etc.   And that’s exactly what I wanted it to do.

Sweet Home, by Carys Bray

“I’d pestered and pestered to be allowed outside to play in the fine scatter of snow and eventually my mother gave in.  She packed me into my red snowsuit, fastening the zip so high that it caught my throat.  Then she escorted my outside and positioned me on the patio.  My eyes were awash with unshed tears as my father called, ‘Say cheese.’  Afterwards, when I wanted to play they said it was too cold and made me come straight back indoors.  They have forgotten this.  It is something that has been… unremembered.  They refer to the photograph as ‘that lovely picture of you having fun in the snow.'”

In 2010, I was one of the judges for the Edge Hill Short Story Award.  As well as the main prize, which is given for single-author collections (that year it was won by Jeremy Dyson for The Cranes that Build the Cranes), we were also asked to give an award for individual short stories submitted by students on Edge Hill University’s creative writing programme.   This proved to be an easy task, for we were all immediately agreed that the most outstanding submission was a story by Carys Bray that began:

“I have been looking for a baby to borrow for a number of weeks.  I’ve offered to look after several, even some I don’t know very well.  But their mothers seem suspicious.  I ask nicely.  I say please and I smile.  I remember to ask if it’s a girl or a boy and how old it is, although I’m more interested in its length than anything.”

The story, ‘Just in case’, is included in this new collection from Salt, along with 16 others.   They are all  more or less about domestic life.  Many of them, like ‘Just in Case’ are downright dark, and others are sad and bleak.  A dementing old women in ‘My burglar’ hides her possessions in strange places because she is convinced that a burglar comes in the night, and their resulting absence then becomes more evidence of the threat, and a reason to hide yet more things.   The ‘Wooden mum’, worn out by the incessant crazy-making demands of her autistic son Tom and the cruelly underming ‘help’ of her mother-in-law, reflects on the moment when Tom was born, and she imagined herself the happiest woman in the world.   A father in ‘The Rescue’ waits outside the flat of his heroin-addicted son in a concrete corridor in a tower block, for someone from somewhere to come and rescue him, as those Chilean miners were rescued from underground.

But this book is not just an orgy of bleakness and despair.  The quote I started with cames from a story called ‘Love: terms and conditions’.  It begins with a woman  visiting her parents with her husband and three children, and being reminded of her own wretched childhood, but it ends with an account of how she has managed nevertheless to achieve for her own children ‘a family where love doesn’t track a base rate of obedience’ (what a brilliant line!).   You can see this is hard for her, you can see that sometimes she tries too hard – at one point, remembering how she wasn’t allowed to play in the snow, she tries to get her reluctant children out of their warm beds to come out and enjoy the snow in the middle of the night – but she has succeeded.   Life is often sad, and that can make us afraid to tell hopeful stories for fear that we are sugar-coating the truth, but this story really earns its happy ending.

It’s a difficult thing too, I think, to write about family life, which unlike wars and love affairs and murders and all the other staples of fiction, does not tend to come with a beginning, a middle and an end, but follows a daily cycle, on and on for years.  But it’s a trick that Carys Bray pulls off in various ways.  The final story in the collection, ‘On the way home’, works like a relay race in which the baton is passed on from family to family.  In the final scene, a little girl called Anna realises that her mother is fed up with her for grazing her leg and making a hole in her tights. “The mild rebuke presses a slump on Anna’s shoulders.  Mummy is disappointed again.”

Her mother tells her to wait while she goes into a shop.   When she comes out again, she is holding a  lollypop in a bag.

“‘ Don’t worry about the tights, sweetheart.  That looks sore.  Does it hurt?’

“‘A bit,’ Anna admits.

“‘I know something that always makes people feel better,’ Mummy says.  She hands the lollypop to Anna.  Then she crouches on the pavement of Bridge Road and places winter-cool lips on the exposed cap of Anna’s knee where it pokes through the hole in her tights, round as a biscuit.

“And on the nobble at the base of Mummy’s neck, in the delicate fuzz of hair, Anna places a soft, dry kiss of her own.”

What a great ending.  It made me wonder why literature deals so little with such kisses, and treats them so lightly on the whole, and yet deals so often with, and treats so very seriously, the quickly fading kisses of romantic love.

How empty and worthless is the power of kings

At first glance, it is hardly surprising that oil companies and the like fund efforts to debunk the science on climate change.   It’s in their interests to do so, right?  Just as it was in the interests of tobacco companies to try to debunk the evidence of links between smoking and cancer.

But then you think, hang on, don’t oil executives have children and grandchildren, the same as the rest of us?

This is something more complex than cynical self-interest.  It’s a deep category error.   Climate change is being seen as an essentially political threat, a thing to be outmanoeuvred, fobbed off, discredited, or managed through spin and symbolic placation.   There’s a failure to understand that this isn’t about interest groups, it isn’t about the politics of left versus right.  It’s about air, and water, and ice.

“Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings,” Canute is supposed to have said, when the tide refused to obey his command to stop, and began to wash around his feet.

It’s not nature that’s fragile, it’s us

I think we’ve got it all wrong about  our relationship with nature.   For years we’ve been presented with the idea of nature as something precious and fragile and vulnerable, which is threatened by us crass and oafish humans.  This invites a hard-nosed, macho, ‘realist’ response: ‘Tough!’, ‘Too bad!’, ‘Nature’s going to have to look after itself.’

But nature isn’t fragile.  (What hubris!)  Nature is exploding supernovae.  It’s the eruption of Krakatoa.  It’s Hurricane Katrina.  It’s the tsunami that devastated Japan.  It’s the force that created the dinosaurs, and the asteroid that destroyed them.  It’s the electric storms that can been seen from space flashing continuously across the surface of this violent violent planet.

The question isn’t how to protect nature.  Nature doesn’t give a damn what we do.  The question is whether we want to go on being part of nature, or whether we’re just going to chuck in the towel and let it sweep us away.

(Thoughts prompted by this rather hard-hitting post about impending climate catastrophe.)

(NASA photo of Hurricane Katrina).

Dark Eden on Daily Mail’s books of year list!

Dark Eden is on Daily Mail’s books of the year list too.  Harry Mount writes:

“I reviewed this first novel [sic] in January and it has haunted me all year. It’s set on Eden, a horribly ill-named distant planet that is freezing-cold and sunless, lit only by the stars and weird trees that give off a little light and heat.

“Humans have colonised Eden by accident after two astronauts were marooned there. Now, 163 years later, their descendants eke out a desperate existence, hemmed in by forbidding mountains, trapped by fear and the cold and the loss of centuries’ worth of knowledge and technology.

“Our hero is John Redlantern, a bold teenager who breaks away from the rest of his hopelessly maroooned tribe and heads off to explore the frozen wilderness that lies beyond the mountains. His expedition, the plight of the rest of the tribe and Eden’s alien landscape and fauna are all marvellously well done in a book that’s assured and truly memorable.”

Slightly more arcanely, it’s also on the Lowy Institute’s books of the year list here.

The heat

“The 4°C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems.

“And most importantly, a 4°C world is so different from the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and plan for future adaptation needs.”

The above comes from that well-known bunch of hippies, the World Bank, who add that “4 degrees Celsius… is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes.”

“Turn Down the Heat: why a warmer world must be avoided” from The World Bank.

Ripples

I found this clip interesting.  It’s about a woman who’s seen the film ‘Chasing Ice’ and been convinced that global warming is real, having apparently previously been such a ferocious climate change denier that when people talked about it she ordered them out of her home.

Two things struck me in particular.

First of all the bit where she feels the need to say ‘I’m proud to be an American but…’  You wonder what on Earth patriotism has to do with it, and then you realise that no one’s belief system really works as a set of separate propositions.  She’d subscribed to a cluster of values, climate change denial came as part of the package along with patriotism, and now she was experiencing some dissonance.

The second thing that struck me, and I found it touching, is that she spoke of ‘undoing the harm’ that she’d done.  I’m not sure everyone really gets the fact that, if you deny something that’s a real threat, or make fun of it, then you’re actually doing harm, because we are actually in the world, and what we say spreads out like ripples in a pond.

God knows how much harm a figure like Jeremy Clarkson has done, for instance, with his jokes that imply that this sort of thing isn’t really for red-blooded males to concern themselves with.

I saw him chairing Have I Got News For You, the other night, and the not-very-macho Will Gomperts was on the panel, having to deal with Clarkson’s challenges to his manhood.  Sure enough when wind power came up as a subject, Gomperts saw his chance and promptly rubbished wind turbines, saying they were absolutely hideous things and he much prefered (big macho) powerstations.  He got a raised eyebrow of mildly surprised approval from Clarkson and looked very pleased with himself.

After all what’s more important than your manhood?

Atheism: the new Christianity?

Although I obviously take violent exception to his description of ‘the Adam and Eve fable’ as ‘one of the most despised modes’ of the SF genre, I was interested by this article by Adam Roberts in which he argues that atheism is, as it were, ‘the new Christianity’.

‘Moses brought 10 commandments; Jesus replaces them with two — to love God, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself,’ Roberts writes.  The stripping away of rules and structures and outward forms is a constant theme of the Jesus of the New Testament, and this does indeed make it rather ironic that Christianity has crystalised into a religion of ‘beliefs’.  (And of course a religion which has put many, many people to horrible deaths for not having exactly the right ‘beliefs’.)

Roberts is particularly interesting here on this thing called ‘belief’, which means something entirely different in a religious context from what it means in everyday life.  And he concludes with a paradoxical argument that actually makes some sense to me, which is that ‘believing’ in God actually has the effect of putting distance between a person and God.

Supporting evidence for this, I think, is contained in the article by Ken MacLeod in the same magazine, which I discussed here.   He describes how as a child he didn’t recognise a spiritual experience when it hit him smack in the face (my words not his), because, although he accepted the ‘beliefs’ inculcated  in him by his religious upbringing, they had led him to think of entities like God as being something remote and out there, ‘like Australia.’

*  *  *

It’s interesting how selective ‘belief’ is.  All this fuss about about women bishops and gay priests, when the gospels contain no instructions on either matter (but do clearly set out the above general principle that there are no commandments other than loving one’s neighbour and God).   And yet the actual sayings of Jesus about the need to give up material wealth in order to enter the kingdom of heaven seem not to be taken seriously at all!

css.php