Review of Numbercaste by Yudhanjaya Wijeratne

I was sort of taken by “Messenger” by Yudhanjaya Wijeratne and R.R. Virdi, a finalist on the 2019 Nebula ballot, so I went looking for more of Yudhanjaya’s work. This novel was originally self-published in 2017 and runs 300 pages. It was the winner of the 2017 Virtual FantasyCon Award. Yudhanjaya is Shri Lankan and has worked as a programmer, tech journalist and social researcher. This review contains spoilers.

It’s 2030 and Patrick Udo lives in Chicago where automation means jobs are scarce. At his mother’s funeral, he meets Julius Common, who wants his father to do marketing and publicity for NumberCorp. About the same time, Patrick’s banking app asks him to log in with his number and UN-ID, and to supply social media accounts. When he checks to see what’s behind the app, it’s NumberCorp, a six billion dollar financial tech company based in Silicon Valley. The UN-ID is a global blockchain-based ID system, and the number rates your social worth. Fascinated, Patrick takes the job instead of his dad, where he goes to work in the Communications department. They do battle with Facebook and win, go on to capture America. Patrick is transferred to a project in Sri Lanka, where he helps launch the number in South-East Asia, then Europe. Patrick becomes the company’s man as they launch campaigns to take India and China. The number will build a new world order, but is what they’re doing right?

This book isn’t exactly a page turner, but it’s well-written, inquiring and a little scary. It’s the flip side of Claire North’s The Sudden Appearance of Hope , but instead of the protagonist looking at the elitist rating system from the outside, Udo works for the company that’s building it. The plotting, world building and characterizations here are excellent, as the author outlines the people, events and campaigns that build the company into world dominance, and then shows its dark underbelly. Another item of interest: Although this is initially based in Silicon Valley, it doesn’t have an America-centric feel. Instead, it’s very global. Commons is an immigrant, and much of the story takes place in Europe and Asia. It ends, as it began, with the UN.

On the not so positive side, there’s not much of an action line here. The story just cooks along at a leisurely pace as the characters interact and the company mounts various campaigns that finally prevail. What is probably the climax passes, and Yudhanjaya, maybe needing to fill out more length for the manuscript, adds articles at the end that Udo wrote about the founder Julius Commons. In the end, this just gives you something scary to think about.

Recommended. Four and a half stars.

Review of The Glass Cannon by Yoon Ha Lee

This novella is science fiction from Lee’s collection Hexarchate Stories and picks up the main plot just after Revenant Gun ends. The collection is published by Solaris and runs about 400 pages. The novella is billed as Machineries of Empire Book 4 and follows Ninefox Gambit, Raven Stratagem and Revenant Gun. This review contains spoilers.

Hexarch Kujin is dead, but he’s left Shuos Jedeo in pieces. Ajewen Cheris, now retired from the Kel and hiding out as a simple math teacher on Esrala, still holds most of his memories. The newly resurrected Jedeo sort-of-clone remains memory deficient and is the guest (a.k.a. prisoner) of Hexarch Mikodez. Mikodez seems to be keeping Jedeo around 1) because he’s not sure how to destroy him, and 2) because Mikodez wants to know why Kujen’s command moth mutinied at Terebeg. Jedeo is restless, tortured by his lack of memory about the 400 and some years of his existence, so he conspires with the servitor Hemiola to escape and find Cheris, hoping that will answer some of his questions. He finds Cheris at her home on Esrala and demands to have his memories back. His arrival triggers troops that try to stop them, and the two fight their way out, while Jedeo explores the capabilities he gets from being made from a moth. Cheris and Jedeo escape in the needlemoth Jedeo has stolen and head for Kujen’s Avros Base where Cheris expects to find equipment she needs to aid in the transfer. Can they get inside the base? Successfully transfer the memories? What are they going to do about the bloodthirsty needlemoth, whose harness is now damaged? And has Mikodez been tracking them all this time?

This piece features Lee’s signature strong plotting, wry humor and lively imagery, only less so because it’s a shorter piece. This doesn’t fix the loose ends left at the end of Revenant Gun, but it does get us a little further down the road. Lee seems to be terrific at leaving those loose ends, so I expect this will be a never-ending series. The issue with Kujen is (maybe) done, and the survivors have successfully established a new order, but now they’re about to be faced with a revolt from both the moths and the servitors. This serves them right, of course, because they’ve been enslaving these beings for a long time. Plus, we now see Jedeo reintegrated as himself, with the additional powers he’s gained from being created from a moth. If he was dangerous before, he’s now even more of a weapon. Plus, he and Cheris seem to have ironed out their differences and joined forces.

On the not so positive side, this felt a little messy. The young Jedeo mostly throws himself at things instead of thinking, and Cheris/Jedeo just lets him take the punishment. This works, of course, because of Jedeo’s moth-derived body, but it still comes across as sort of stupid on his part. He doesn’t regenerate immediately, and he’s taking a risk that someone/something will figure out how to kill him. After all, we know that moths CAN be killed. A bunch of them died in the last book. Plus, there seems to be an excess of pain and torture here, as if Lee is catering to fans who enjoy it–and there’s a touch of humor about it that feels unhealthy. And last, Jedeo is in danger of losing his dignity as the author jerks him around through all these manipulations. I like him because he’s human, dangerous and effective, not because he’s a travesty and a puppet.

Four stars.

Are Personal Attacks Protected by Law?

While I looking through the various developments on the efforts to silence speech, I came across some interesting cases related to “free speech” that I’d like to review. In explanation, the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees speech free from government interference. There are a few limitations to this; for example, when you’re a government employee. However, the First Amendment doesn’t cover speech in the private sector. That means employees are subject to the policy of their employer as far as speech goes. Also, “public” persons are subject to more stringent standards in libel or defamation lawsuits and have to show malice, rather than just negligence in order to win damages.

Looking at the cases, the NRA vs. San Francisco Board of Supervisors suit is fairly straight-forward. It’s about infringement of constitutional rights because the Board of Supervisors is a government entity. That means the NRA, in their suit, is charging the San Francisco government is interfering with their ability to advocate for their political views (okay, plus defamation).

Here’s a a more complex and interesting suit that’s currently working its way through the courts in Virginia. Edward Tayloe is currently party to a lawsuit to preserve Confederate statues in the Charlottesville downtown. University professor and activist Jalane Schmidt provided quotes to a local newspaper article in which she called Tayloe a “slavery apologist,” among other things. Tayloe responded with a defamation suit claiming Schmidt wrongly portrayed him as a racist, which hurt his reputation and his ability to do business in the city. Although Schmidt works for a government entity (a state university), the Virginia Department of Risk Management found the case fell outside of the scope of her employment. The ACLU stepped in to defend her and filed for a dismissal, arguing Schmidt’s speech is covered by the First Amendment, and labeling the suit a SLAPP (a strategic lawsuit against public participation). The motion also notes that Schmidt’s statements are opinion, “a well-protected category of speech.”

So, is any “opinion” you express about a person protected by law? Does this allow open season for personal attacks (a.k.a. author bullying)? Can you call anyone you don’t like a racist (for example) and damage their career (as a writer, for example)? This has recently developed into a common problem in publishing, especially in the Young Adult market, where “fans” attack books as racist to get them pulled from publication. Should this kind of action be protected speech?

Of course, there are limits on personal attacks. Some kinds of speech are not protected. In 2017 an online argument about gaming escalated to “swatting” that resulted in an innocent person’s death. Understandably, the person who initiated the call to police was convicted of charges including interstate threats and involuntary manslaughter, but two other gamers who were involved in the argument were also convicted of felony conspiracy. A similar incident happened in 2015 when Lou Antonelli swatted David Gerrold after an argument on the Hugo Awards. Luckily this incident was resolved without fatalities.

So, have personal attacks become an acceptable pattern of expression in the current political climate? Do people even realize when they’ve doing it? Should verbal bullying be protected speech?

Review of This Is How You Lose the Time War by Amal El-Mohtar and Max Gladstone

I think this novella is meant to be science fiction. According to the authors, Gladstone wrote Red and El-Mohtar wrote Blue. It was published by Saga in 2019, and runs 209 pages. This review contains spoilers.

Red and Blue are transhuman operatives in a time war, augmented with technology and able to change shape at will. Red works for the Agency, a post-singularity technotopia, and Blue works for the Garden, a consciousness embedded in all organic matter. The two scheme against each other and eventually begin to admire the other’s work. They start to leave messages for one another and eventually fall in love. However, there’s a risk in this, and eventually they become suspect. Can they engineer a scheme where they can be together?

On the positive side, this has evocative scenes and makes good use of poetic metaphor. There’s a symbolism in the opposition: technology versus nature. The time war seems to make use of butterfly-effect actions and weapons that echo down through the time threads and may or may not change the course of history, depending on whether the other side can analyze the effects and counter quickly enough. This was a pretty quick read, as the lack of significant events allowed for skimming. The solution to the problem is fairly clever.

On the not so positive side, this has very little in the way of either plot or world building. It’s an art piece: a series of nebulous, fantastical scenes unmoored in either time or space, interspersed with poetic letters that do little to clarify the situation. This means the characterizations are also poor. The whole thing is so vague that we can’t get a grip on either the two main protagonists or the flow of side characters that have no names and only a transient presence. Plus, I don’t see any reason for these operatives to fall in love. There’s very little content here, and the book comes off as mostly nonsense.

Two stars

Writer Walter Mosley Quits Star Trek: Discovery

So, this is still a very interesting cultural collision that I think is worth discussion. Again, here’s my comment that was censored by Mike Glyer at File 770: “Normally African Americans are given a pass on the N word. The question is why someone complained about his use of it. Did they not realize he identifies as black? Is there maybe a mandatory reporting rule at the studio? I expect he’s gotten huffy because he feels entitled to use the word.” Why did Glyer think this would generate an uncomfortable discussion? One comment on the story at File 770 suggested Mosley’s reaction was about privilege and entitlement. Is this the problem we can’t talk about?

There have been previous issues with the use of abusive language at this particular studio, which may have set up, at least, encouragement by Human Resources to report any language that might lead to discomfort among the writers, if not a mandatory reporting rule. Next, Mosley has a very light complexion, so it’s possible some onlookers may not have realized he considers himself African American (and therefore, by US custom, entitled to use the N-word without sanction). Accordingly, here’s what he says about it: “If I have an opinion, a history, a word that explains better than anything how I feel, then I also have the right to express that feeling or that word without the threat of losing my job.”

If neither of these issues above supports why someone reported him to HR, then is it possible the issue is something similar to the NRA suing the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for calling them terrorists, or Ahrvid Engholm filing a complaint about Jeanette Ng’s Hugo-acceptance speech where she seemed to associate white males with the word fascist? In other words, backlash. Was the reporting co-worker annoyed that Mosley was exercising some sort of special privilege and entitlement in using the N word?

Some prominent discussions have recently emerged about the success of minority groups in American culture, in particular, and how this generates backlash. For example, over-achieving Asian students recently sued Harvard University for discrimination in Affirmative Action admissions. Jews are perennially targeted for their economic success. And, likewise, black Americans are becoming concerned that backlash from other groups will curtail some of the gains they’ve made. Some sources frankly called the Mosley case an example of cultural backlash against a minority writer. Mosley, himself, called it an action of the political culture, writing: “I do not believe that it should be the object of our political culture to silence those things said that make some people uncomfortable.”

So, how do we sort this kind of conflict out? Is Mosley responding from a position of privilege and entitlement, or does he have a real case that the N word is necessary to express his life experience? Comments?

More on Suppression of Speech

Suppression of speech is always a danger signal that any republic is headed in the direction of totalitarianism. Control of a national conversation is one of the requirements for total power—because speech actually is dangerous. The reasons are 1) that saying something can make it real, and 2) asking questions reduces certainty and makes people think about the issues.

The reason this topic has come up again in my blog is that more examples have accumulated recently about US groups trying to 1) control public perceptions through particular speech, and 2) to control what’s said and who can say it through suppression of speech. First, here’s an example of a government entity trying to frame an activist group (with a membership of 5.5 million) as a terrorist organization. On September 3, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.” The officials then went on to urge other cities, states and the federal government to follow suit. So, not only has the San Francisco government body said something fairly radical about an interest group that peacefully advocates, but they’re also encouraging other government entities to say it, too (trying to make it more real). The NRA, always responsive, filed an immediate lawsuit for defamation and infringement on their constitutional rights.

Next, here’s an interesting article on the state of free speech at colleges. This is an opinion piece at Bloomberg, written by Steven B. Gerrard, who teaches philosophy at Williams College in Massachusetts. Concerned by contemporary issues in suppression of speech, Gerrard offered a course in the fall of 2018 called “Free Speech and Its Enemies.” Although he was pleased with the results among the students enrolled, he was later attacked during a faculty meeting on freedom of expression by a student group that named him an “Enemy of the People.” This group presented a letter that said: “‘Free Speech,’ as a term, has been co-opted by right-wing and liberal parties as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.” Notice that this student group is attacking both right-wing and liberal parties with their condemnation—this suggests they see themselves as neither. Does this mean they’re anarchists? The student group went on to present demands including reparations and segregated housing.

My last example is more related to the SFF community. Walter Mosley is an African American writer most noted for mysteries, but he also writes occasional science fiction. After finishing a writing stint on the FX show Snowfall, he was hired to write for CBS’s show Star Trek: Discovery. After using the N-word in the writer’s room, Mosley received a call from Human Resources telling him he was free to write this word into a script, but that he could not say it because it had made one of the other writers “uncomfortable.” Rather than accept this attempt to “silence” him, Mosley quit. Apparently he forgot to mention this to the studio, which learned about it by way of Mosley’s op-ed piece in the New York Times detailing his experience.

This was reported at the SF newszine File 770, where editor Mike Glyer immediately applied his own suppression of speech. Intrigued by the issues in this example, I submitted this comment: “Normally African Americans are given a pass on the N word. The question is why someone complained about his use of it. Did they not realize he identifies as black? Is there maybe a mandatory reporting rule at the studio? I expect he’s gotten huffy because he feels entitled to use the word.” Alert readers may notice that the comment was never posted at File 770. It was edited out by Glyer, who said it “amounted to trolling.”

Irony, anyone?

So, I’ll end with a quote from Mosley, “The worst thing you can do to citizens of a democratic nation is to silence them.”

Quick Pic of Spot

Here’s some eye candy for fans of Spot the Cat. I have a matching dog pic, but it’s not as cute. I’m thinking of doing a painting of this one.

Wrap up of the 2018 World Fantasy Reviews

That’s all the World Fantasy reviews, so now I’ll attempt an analysis of the list. When you look through these, a few interesting patterns emerge.

First, the diversity breakdown. Apologies if I miss anybody here:
BEST NOVEL: 1 man, 4 women, 1 Asian, 1 African American and 1 Native/African American. 1 LGBTQ
BEST NOVELLA: 1 non-binary, 1 man, 3 women, 1 African American, 1 Asian, 2 LGBTQ
SHORT FICTION: 1 man, 4 women, 3 Jewish, 1 Hispanic, 2 LGBTQ.
The totals add up to: 3/15 men (20%), 11/15 women (73%), 1/15 non-binary (7%), 2/15 Asian (13%), 1/15 Native American (7%), 1/15 Hispanic (7%), 3/15 Jewish (20%), 2/15 African American (13%), 5/15 LGBTQ (33%). Roanhorse complicates this calculation, but I’ve listed her as only Native America.

This year’s ballot continues the apparently universal trend toward mostly female writers, with only one token male nominated in each category. The system for nomination has done well in featuring at least one non-binary, Hispanic and Native American writer. Asian writers are, as usual, over-represented considering their 5% US population demographic, as are Jewish writers with a 1.5% US population demographic. The overrepresentation of Jewish writers this year follows the same pattern I found in the Nebula and Hugo Awards. The LGBTQ component here is also overrepresented, as the self-identifying gay and lesbian US population demographic for 2018 was 4.5%. Hispanic writers, as usual, remain hugely underrepresented with a US population demographic of 18%.

After reviewing the Nebula and Hugo Award finalists, I only had to read three short stories, one novella and two novels to finish out the set. There are a couple of possible implications to this. First, it suggests the Nebula and Hugo Awards might be trending to fantasy, and second, it indicates a convergence in the US fiction awards to particular works in any given year. The three awards work differently: the Nebula is awarded by the professional membership of the SFWA; the Hugo is awarded by members of WorldCon: and the World Fantasy Award is partially juried. Members of the current WFA convention and the previous two vote two nominations onto the final ballot, and the other three are named by a panel of judges. For the 2018 awards, the judges are Nancy Holder, Kathleen Jennings, Stephen Graham Jones, Garry Douglas Kilworth, and Tod McCoy.

Of course, there is the argument that particular works are elected by all three awards because they really are the best, or the more circular argument that these become the best because they’re elected. However, this kind of convergence in the major US awards remains troubling. It suggests a lack of diversity in either the marketplace or in the US awards systems. If more Native Americans were published, for example, all three awards might not elect the same writer, or if more African Americans were published, all three awards might not elect the same work.

Plus, there are also other possible explanations for convergence, such as a preference for certain content within the awards system. Of the three major US awards, the World Fantasy Award has the reputation for being the most literary, which suggests a definite preference in that direction. There is also evidence that the WFA system rewards creativity and artistic effect over standard story structures. Some of these works had little or nothing in the way of plot, and some might have qualified for a creative essay category instead. Others had serious suspension of disbelief issues. I notice there are some differences of opinion on quality out there in the readership audience. In checking out the authors, I encountered a few blogs that actually challenged the suitability of some works based on their content or execution. I personally think the Locus List has a big effect on convergence in the US awards, but interestingly, 4/15 writers (27%) of shorter works beat the odds and made it to the WFA ballot with entries that did not appear this year’s Locus List (although three of the four did appear for other works).

There was a reasonable diversity of publishers. Print magazines are clearly a failing paradigm where the awards are concerned—all the shorter finalists came from online magazines. As usual, Tor.com stood out, mostly because of the novella category, with 4/15 entries or 27%.

In the Night Wood by Dale Bailey

This novel is dark fantasy/horror and a finalist for the 2019 World Fantasy Award. It was published October 9, 2018, by John Joseph Adams/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and runs 214 pages. This review contains spoilers.

As a boy, Charles Hayden steals a copy of the Victorian children’s book In the Night Wood. He later marries Erin, whose relative Caedmon Hollow wrote the book. The couple’s marriage is strained by an affair and the death of their daughter, and neither is recovered when word comes that Erin has inherited the Hollow estate. The two leave their jobs and move to the house in Yorkshire, where Charles hopes to complete a biography of Caedmon Hollow that will put his personal and professional life back on track. In the days that follow, Charles struggles with his project, and Erin sketches obsessively, turns to pills and alcohol to get her through the days. Meanwhile, the murky Eorl Wood with its hidden depths and evil king presses ever closer around them.

There’s not a lot that happens here. It’s an archetype. The prose leans to the literary, and there’s a lot of allusion to classics. Charles pursues his research, turning up details of how the estate is run and what events led Caedmon Hollow to write the book. He talks to the locals, goes through boxes in the basement. What stands out is the slowly gathering evil. Charles and Erin start to see apparitions in the trees, and the estate’s manager Cillian Harris is likewise afflicted. The Wood is hungry, the time for a tithe is coming, and there are little girls at risk.

On the less positive side, this is mostly a downer. It’s about death, depression and the viciousness of the real world, where invisible forces try to suck you down into darkness. Though the story does lighten a little bit at the end, it’s mostly about two people bent on self-destruction. Also, I didn’t think the main line of symbolism quite worked. Bailey seems to be going for a scenario where this is about inner darkness, but involving Harris destroys that effect. That means there’s no reason to dress Charles up as the dark king who steals children. This would work if he were going off the deep end, but Charles is just an observer, and it’s his wife’s family that’s cursed. On the other hand, the part about trading your children for earthly success does work. There is still a major loose end at the close: The king didn’t get his little girl, so what happens then?

Four stars.

The Mere Wife by Maria Dahvana Headley

This novel dark fantasy/horror and is a finalist for the 2019 World Fantasy Award. It was published by MCD/Farrar, Straus & Giroux. This review contains spoilers.

Soldier Dana Mills was captured by the enemy and video of her beheading circulates. Somehow not dead, she is recovered, scarred but alive, and pregnant. She returns to her ancestral family home, now replaced by a subdivision called Herot Hall, and takes shelter in caves under the mountain. She delivers a son she names Grendel, and the two of them continue to live on the fringe, outside the bounds of the estates below. Willa Herot is the carefully groomed wife of Roger Herot, a doctor and heir to the property. She resents the way her mother has orchestrated her life and despises her husband and son Dylan. Grendel is attracted by the sound of the child Dylan playing the piano, and the two become secret friends. Mills is horrified when she finds out. What will the Herots do when they discover her son at the house?

In case the names don’t ring a bell, this story is a retelling of the Scandinavia epic Beowulf. Headley has modernized the tale and made some symbolic substitutions, a scarred soldier for Grendel’s mother, a police hero for Beowulf, a philandering doctor for the king, a bored socialite for his wife, and a watch and/or train for the dragon. Headley also name-checks the Beowulf Nowell Codex, making Nowell into Willa’s maiden name. The symbolism in the story is fairly postmodern (a.k.a. inconsistent) but various clues lead me to think this is about 1) the monsters that live inside us all, and 2) how the rich make monsters of the disenfranchised (a.k.a. from Beowulf, the children of Cain). There’s a lot of social commentary here. Reading this, I got a really strong feeling that Headley comes from a small town with a full quota of mean girls—she’s characterized them very well here, as well as the men they use as pawns in their machination. In a modern twist, it’s Mills who lives to get her revenge in the end, something that feels satisfying.

On the not so positive side, this was really hard to read. First, it is seriously depressing. There’s a lot of darkness in the original Beowulf, and Headley has magnified it here. We know how this story goes. The creation of monsters is a cloud that hangs over the whole narrative, and we’re not disappointed—the characters go down one by one to a bloody end at the hands of their creations. The somewhat satisfying ending didn’t do much to lighten things up. And next, as is usual these days, this was hugely padded. Heatley winds a plot that would have supported a short story out to 300 pages with fairly nonsensical ruminations that, as far as I can tell, are mostly used to create mood.

This is another case where I have to give points for the cynical look at society and the artistic effect, but it’s one of those “read at your own risk” books. Big trigger warnings.

Four stars.