Two more, and I’ll be caught up. Nearly two years ago, I seem to have noted that the sequel to Kiln People would be called Kiln Time, and that they worked better if you give kiln two syllables. I don’t know if there’s any sign of the sequel. That’s fine; the book starts off just grand and deteriorates through the course of the plot, ending in a horrible mush. It’s hard to imagine that a sequel would be any good.
So, my experience with the David Brin novels that I enjoy the first time through is that they don’t hold up to re-reading. The problem, I think, is that Mr. Brin is an asshole, and that his personality breaks through the decent plotting, clever narrative handling, and provocative world-creation on the second time through. Postman holds up, somewhat, although I am much more irritated by the irritating parts when I reread it. Kiln People isn’t as bad as Glory Season, which is just awful on reread, but then it wasn’t very good the first time through.
You know, I insult David Brin (who seems to me to deserve it) but I should put the thing into context: there is no way that I could write a novel or even a blog entry that would have enough entertaining stuff to tip the scales for somebody who finds my personality irritating. I am satisfied by a book that is good once through, and that covers its flaws (in this case, Mr. Brin himself) with enough good stuff to keep me entertained that once. Frankly, all the re-reading I do is a sign of just how lazy I am, and is one of my own character flaws, for which it seems unfair to blame Mr. Brin.
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
No, no, no. This is not a satisfying review.
When you call a writer an “asshole”, a full explanation is required.
Please give an example. Specify when and how Brin’s “personality breaks through” on a re-reading. I really wish to know.
(I met him once in the 1980s, and he seemed a nice enough person…)
First of all, welcome to my Tohu Bohu. The series of Book Reports (now almost two years old) is an attempt to log every book I read, not to review each one. Sometimes what I write contains something more or less like a review, but sometimes I just note that I’ve read the book, and sometimes I write about some aspect of reading the book that seems interesting but has little to do with the book, and sometimes I just write about something I thought of. So, no, probably not a satisfying review.
Mostly, when I say Mr. Brin is an asshole, I’m referring to a sense that I have of his utter contempt for not-him, that is, for people whose beliefs and habits are unlike his own. I’ve read some stuff where people accuse him of misogyny, and there’s certainly something to that, but I think it’s a subset of a more general contempt. In Kiln People, one example that comes to mind is the bizarre and unentertaining rant by the Mad Scientist (or his Even Madder Golem, anyway), which annoyed me by building on totally incorrect assumptions about what religion is and then expounding on the extrapolated results of those assumptions. In a general way, though, only the main character and perhaps two others (maybe Pal and perhaps Clara, dimly) have any heft to them. I don’t mean that the supporting characters are cardboard, but that there is no sense of them having any seriousness, any moral code, any aspect to their characters worth admiring. I mean, I’m all for villains, but if in your writing everyone other than the main character is either a villain or a dupe, then you’re an asshole.
Also, and irrelevantly, in his blog note of November 17, he writes
What kind of asshole counts somebody else’s prediction as confirmation that his prediction has come true? And who the hell cares, anyway?
Thanks,
-V.