“Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa, published in the Riding the Red Horse anthology (Castalia House) 2014 (online)
Eligibility: Eligible for 2015 Hugo in the category of Short Story
Status: Nominated
This is the editorial voice review. The reader's voice review is forthcoming. (for info on what this means, see here)
First thoughts
This is unabashed military SF complete with the traditional focus on numbers and technical issues, which can be a bit daunting to someone unfamiliar with the sub-genre. Inside this framework though is an interesting exploration of some very fundamental SF questions: what it means to be human, and the moral implications of speculative technology. These ideas are melded with questions on the ethics of war. The themes themselves aren’t particularly novel, and in fact the basic tech ideas that underlie the story are tried and true. But the way they’re integrated is interesting, and the author’s solid writing draws the reader in.
Ideas
This story engages with some pretty basic SF themes: the nature of humanity and the implications of technology. On top of this, it approaches the question of the value of loyalty and the moral questions commanders must ask in war. These are tried and true basics, but still offer some scope for engagement, particularly given the modern political climate. The choice of elements for the combination seems good, even if the treatment feels shallow and unsatisfying. There seems to be a sincere effort to tackle the loyalty question, which the author struggles with because of the need to keep secrets in order to present us with the “surprise” ending – scare quotes purposefully selected, since this sort of fiction is quite formulaic and it would have been unusual in the extreme for the author to have taken any other route…though perhaps that would have made for a more interesting story. The issue of humanity seems to be a second main interest, but unfortunately doesn’t get anywhere near the depth of treatment it deserves – there’s a real sense that the author regards it as self-evident that the moral quandary and the essence of humanity are facets of the same idea, and while I don’t necessarily disagree it would have been much meatier to have explored this tension more fully. In part, the weak engagement with ideas seems to be because they get submerged in the tech talk deployed to put the story solidly in the MilSF category, but a lot seems to be linked to the shallow characterisation.
Writing
The use of language here is generally good. The first person narration is punchy enough, and the balance between story-telling and the crunchy tech talk that is the hallmark of hard MilSF is such that the latter achieves its purpose without overwhelming the former. There is a bit too much exposition, but it’s hard to see how the author could have given us the necessary information without it. Perhaps rather than “too much” I should say “clumsily deployed” – the occasional lines that tell us about the politics and history of the author’s universe are useful in understanding other aspects of the story, but the author tells us too much at times and almost seems to have snuck them in after the fact. It would have been better to embed the information more thoroughly into the protagonist’s monologue (as assumed knowledge rather than declarative sentences) or into exchanges with other characters, particularly as these intrusions detract from the effort to craft a story that relies on action and moral tension to drive it forward.
Characterisation
As a first person narrative we do get to see some of the personality of the narrator, but this seems to be a missed opportunity for robust character development: the tone and nature of the narrator seem not to change much over the course of the story, which is at odds with the deep philosophical questions he (? – perhaps xe would be more apt here) is supposed to be wrestling with. As the final product, the character is sufficiently interesting to keep the reader wanting to know how he will react, but it feels like cheating to present him as a fait accomplis rather than building him slowly through to his final epiphany. There was so much more that could have been done here that would have done better justice to both the SF and MilFic themes. Similarly, while most other characters in this story are throw-away window dressing, the protagonist’s main foil is a tragically missed opportunity for the author to really engage with the fundamental ideas. The “commander” seems perfectly positioned to serve as the protagonist’s mirror and as a platform from which to present ideas for exploration, and the fact he doesn't really serve this role hobbles the story. Moreover, as he is presented as a cut-out figure it’s difficult to fully sympathise with the protagonist’s quandary – the answer seems obvious – but deeper characterisation would have solved this by making the reader see both sides as potentially valid (and experience the discomfort that would come with sympathy for the devil). More effort on interactions and character development could have resulted in a very strong Shakespearean “divided hero” narrative, and it was disappointing when the author didn’t pursue to potential here.
Verdict
The action is good when it works, but sadly shackled to the author’s need to provide exposition for his setting. And although the fundamental ideas are interesting and worthy of discussion he doesn’t really engage with them deeply enough to do them justice, which makes it difficult to get really excited about the protagonist’s internal struggle and epiphany - it seems like a flat, foregone decision. As an action tale, though, it’s well readable and it does seem as though the author intended to engage more thoroughly with the ideas but perhaps didn’t give himself enough rope to do the job he set himself in the way he had in mind – it would be interesting to see this story rewritten with a different structure or expanded into a longer piece that would give the author more room to work. Certainly, the author seems to have been hampered by the choice of first person narrative, though it does seem an obvious one for the issues at hand. A bit formulaic, sure, but with the potential for a Heinleinesque melding of action and philosophy that makes the formula by no means a serious problem. It’s a true shame that the potential doesn’t get realised despite the author’s obvious intentions.
Readability: Pass
Hugo quality: Pass
No comments:
Post a Comment