I have to say I literally cringed when I read about his dead wife's eyes. ::shiver:: The pre-arranged murder (cube bunny)was unreal! I love "Connect You" although it took me a while to figure it out.

Kate | July 22, 2002 1:41 PM

As I previously mentioned, SciFi isn’t really my thing even though I’m a huge Star Trek fan. I think hardcore addicts would probably consider that "SciFi lite" since the technology isn’t so far out there. I’ve read only one hardcore book in my life (Dead Girls, Dead Boys, Dead Things) and didn’t understand a word of it. However, I’m glad Rich picked this book since it sort of eases you into the genre by using an old-fashioned detective story as the plot device.

I completely missed the sight theme in this one and didn’t pick up on it until Rich pointed it out. I have a feeling I may have missed many themes because I spent most of my time focusing on what I did understand and attempting to decode what I didn’t understand. His question sort of gave me an "aha" moment.

In terms of this theme, I have the impression that there isn’t much distinction made between "in" sight and "out" sight. What you see is never what you get and probably not anything like what the other characters are experiencing. As a result, how can anyone in this world know what’s real and what’s not real? McNihil (great name, by the way) has his vision altered so as to live in a "noir detective novel" and most of the settings are described from his point of view. But what’s that world really like? I have no idea.

For future questions, I hope Rich frames some of them around helping us decipher what was up with the technology. I’m desperate for some "in" sight into the Wedge, prowlers, TOAW, Tlazolteotl, and a bunch of other stuff that flew right over my head.

mary | July 22, 2002 8:10 PM

I have a confession to make: I've only read 130 pages of this book. I wanted to get through it before we started discussing it, but I got a late start. But even more than that... I hate this book with the fire of a thousand suns.

There. I said it.

I hate this book so much I feel like destroying it instead of donating it to a library or giving it to someone or selling it because I think it's dreadful, and I don't want to promote readership of it.

Hey, when I say I hate something, I really mean it.

I think Noir is embarrassingly amateurish. And while I'd like to complete the book out of my sense of duty to this group, I actively avoid reading books that I think are crap, and I think this is crap. So, no. Just... no.

The thing is, I make it a point to only read books that are written by people who are much better writers than I am (which ain't exactly hard), because I believe that what we read is fundamental to how we write: I aspire to be a better writer, so I observe and study master practitioners.

And, in my opinion, K.W. Jeter ain't one of 'em.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I feel as though I could've written Noir. If I just wanted to churn out a bunch of words on pages, that is; but why would I want to? I don't. And I don't want to read the end result of such an effort, either.

To me, Noir reads like a first draft -- and not a very good one.

So...

I now fear that Rich will feel like I'm insulting him and/or his taste, when that is not at all my intention. I feel badly about the fact that I'm unenthusiastic about this month's pick -- especially since I made the selection for next month! (gulp) -- but I have to be honest about what I'm thinking and feeling. Hence, my rant.

Still, I can't help but feel like I'm letting the group down -- and especially Rich.

All I can ask is that you indulge me my animus toward this book, and take me at my word when I say that my adverse reaction has no bearing on my opinion of any of the members of this group, or on my commitment to continuing as one of its most enthusiastic participants. :)

All right, that said, I intend to participate in the discussion as much as I can -- with the understanding that unless I'm struck by lightning or something this week and converted into a major JeterHead, I'll be commenting without my having finished the book.

By the way, if anything I've said here has offended you, I apologize sincerely. No, really. I also encourage you to take me to task for any part of what I've said that you may have a problem with, because you have every right to be as critical of my stated opinions as I am of the merits of this book. (And if you'd rather not dialogue about it on these boards, please feel free to e-mail me directly.)

. . .

Now, onto the topic du jour (well, yesterjour): the "sight" theme. Rich, in one of the possible answers you offered up, you used the word I would use to describe it: heavy-handed. It didn't strike me as really organic to the material, but clumsily grafted on. And because of that, I found it lacking in power. I do not think it succeeds here as a compelling storytelling element -- and for that very reason, to borrow another phrase from your post, the "sight" theme was, indeed, "under my radar." Despite my awareness of McNihil's special eyes and his "dead" wife's 'X'-eyes, etc., they seemed more like random elements to me than part of a coherent whole.

jeff | July 23, 2002 4:35 PM

Wow, Jeff. Are you sure you don't like this book? Just teasing. I think it's perfectly okay to express dislike for a monthly selection. Everyone has different tastes and not every book will appeal to every reader. Besides, the whole point of this club is to read (or in your case, attempt to read) something you wouldn't normally pick out for yourself.

I'm feeling incredibly dense right now. Jeff obviously picked up on the sight theme enough to describe it as "heavy-handed." It completely blew by me, and I finished the book. Now I'm wondering what else I may have missed.

mary | July 23, 2002 9:39 PM

Hey, Jeff, suit yourself, man.

There are plenty of people who agree with you among the many reviewers of the book on its Amazon page. There are plenty who disagree with you as well.

...But don't think you can get away with comments like wanting to destroy your copy "because I think it's dreadful, and I don't want to promote readership of it," without some supporting particulars. :-) You also used the term "hate...with the fire of a thousand suns," and this begins to sound more to me more like reaction to subject material than to talent or effort on the part of the writer. But of course I could be wrong. :-)

So expound! Tell us exactly what about Noir you hated so strongly you wanted to protect the rest of the world from your copy. I fully expected people to dislike the book (it's hardly a warm fuzzy read), but accusations of schlockiness I did not expect. Fascinating!

-Rich

Rich | July 23, 2002 10:39 PM

My reaction was admittedly a pretty emotional one, Rich. Given that, I suppose the main reason the book makes me mad is that when I read it, I couldn't help but think, "How is it that this guy is published when other far more worthy writers aren't?" I'm especially sensitive to that phenomenon right now because I've recently been reading a friend's work that's so damn good it absolutely, positively vexes me why it's not out on bookshelves.

But to answer your question in greater detail, as to why it is that I judge Jeter to be a poor writer, I suppose the number one reason is that I'm convinced, from what I've read, that he's someone who lacks the requisite depth of insight into the human condition to try to write about it. That is about as highly subjective an opinion as I could possibly posit, I understand, but there it is.

Why do I say that? Too many intangibles, probably, to try to enumerate here, but of the more conventional standards, they include what I judge to be:

1) cartoonish, one-dimensional characters;

2) dialogue that (predictably, given my assessment of his characters' arrested development) too often falls flat (it just sounds phony to my ears, as do the characters who speak it); and

3) what I consider writer's "cheats" -- cheap, easy gimmicks employed in an attempt to try to lend the writing an additional measure of credibility that, because they're innately unimaginative, instead have the exact opposite effect.

Examples of the latter include:

3a) Jeter's repeated practice of trademarking fictitious product names with the "[TM]" symbol (Do we see that done in [arguably] better novels, or even, most of the time, in the press? No. Why? It's unnecessary, and it's stupid. Using it only draws attention to the fact that you're desperate to tap into some kind of instant credibility-by-association with icons like Coca-Cola, Volkswagen, Major League Baseball, etc. But credibility, real writerly authority, isn't something that can just be ripped off; it has to be earned through the hard work of truly creative writing. "Trademarking" is just an easy way out, a means of dodging that work, in my opinion.); and

3b) The practice of cluttering up the narrative landscape with kludgy, pseudo-tech terms -- the use of which, rather than serving to invite you into a fuller understanding of Jeter's created world, leave you feeling bludgeoned over the head and discouraged from exploring it further ("But those terms are the very language of that world," one might object. "They can't be divorced from it any more than flour can be removed from the recipe for bread." Yes, indeed, they are part of that world's vernacular; they belong in the book. What I take issue with is the manner in which they're used. As we find them, in my opinion, they erect walls when they could be opening doors.* I can't help but be reminded of the way people often speak in the shorthand they customarily use around "in the know" others when they converse with people outside of that loop. Cultural and occupational examples of this abound in our daily lives. And what's most irritating about it is that it's just so damn lazy. Lazy, and uncommunicative. "But pseudo-tech terms, as you call them, are the lifeblood of much of sci-fi," one might object. And I say, yes -- but that's one of the things that makes that kind of sci-fi crap. Such terms are mere window dressing, and as such, they shouldn't constitute the core of the story. What should be at the core is the human story [or the alien story, whatever]; using these terms at the expense of the human drama is far too easy for the writer, and far too unsatisfying for the reader.).

In short, to me, Jeter's book is a 388-page cliché. And since it's not even a particularly witty cliché, in my opinion, it not only lacks interest for me, it insults my intelligence.

As far as your suggestion, Rich, that my dislike of Noir may have more to do with my feelings about the sci-fi genre than this particular book, it's a very valid question to ask. But what I dislike about Jeter's book are the kinds of things that turn me off when I find them in any book, no matter the genre. Moreover, they're not just things I "dislike," as if it's only a matter of taste, but things that, for many critics*, I'd wager, make the difference between a well-written book and a poorly-written one.

And returning to sci-fi, in conclusion, it's also possible that what I find objectionable about Jeter's book are the things I've found objectionable about other sci-fi books -- things which have, heretofore, turned me off to the genre in general. In which case, it wouldn't be fair to say that I hate sci-fi; it's that I hate bad sci-fi. (And frankly, I hope that is the case: that on those rare occasions in the past when I've sampled sci-fi, I simply made poor choices.)

*I know, maybe that was Jeter's intent. If so, then that's admittedly my problem, a built-in bias I'm bringing to the book, more than it is his. Whatever.

**Not that I consider myself "a critic", by any means. I'm way outta my depth here, just shootin' from the hip.

jeff | July 24, 2002 9:55 AM

Aha! I believe I get it.

I'm going to continue to debate, here; you've voiced some points with which I believe it's valid to contend. Please don't read any offense into it. :-D

It's interesting that Jeter's failure to cater to your preferences in style relegate him to the status of unworthy writer in your mind.

1) Since you didn't finish the book (130 pages out of 388), I might be forgiven to deride your "one-dimensional" assessment of characters like McNihil or November as less than fully informed. Both have some revelations over the course of things, and November, especially, learns a few things about herself as she goes on. But then that does happen in the second half of the book. :-\

2) Dialogue style. In my experience, detective-story and film-noir characters frequently speak in overblown cliché. A matter of taste IMO. But be wary of calling something a 388-page cliché when you've only read 130. It might be true, but you're literally proceeding without the whole story, and it damages your case.

3) "Cheats," ostensibly to curry favor with the SF reader, like "(TM)" and dense "pseudo-"technical language. I see Jeter's use of in-your-face branding, trademarking and acronym use as an ironic device, an unavoidable textural symptom of the "cheap-and-nastiverse" that was McNihil's beef in the first place. Far from lazy, Jeter layers it on in order to tire us out and convey the point with texture: society is dying, with an ugly whimper, in Noir.

In other words, it's supposed to make you uncomfortable. One of your complaints is that Jeter's terminology and voicing "erect walls when they could be opening doors." You anticipated my argument here, and good for you: that was his point. The very lifebreath of Noir is that establishing "connections" is painful, unrewarding and even somewhat unsanitary. Distasteful. (And by the way, that textural stuff largely fades into the background after the first 150 pages or so.)

In the end, all this stuff simply renders "getting" the book a challenge. One that you decided not to pursue - and that's your option, of course.

...Bit that very fact argues that his understanding of the human condition might be better than you think: he certainly got under your skin. ;-)

-Rich

PS. And be careful what you dismiss as "pseudo-tech"; SF writers are known for being some of the more obsessive researchers and theorizers in the writing game. No audience is more demanding or critical on a technological level than the SF audience.

Rich | July 24, 2002 11:46 AM

I'm glad Jeff voiced exactly why he didn't like the book.

I also picked up on some of his points while I was reading and have to agree that most of the technology was gimmicky. It didn't sit well with me because I prefer my science to be based partly in reality since I like to be able to relate to it in some way. There was nothing in the book that made me go, "Wow. Now that's cool. I want one of those."

Despite this, I have a feeling that Jeter's crapnobabble was intentional. It's obvious by the title and portrayal of McNihil's character that he was trying to write an old-fashioned private eye story but somehow wedge it into a futuristic world.

Was he successful? Personally, I don't think so. I mostly felt like he was trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't hate the book as much as Jeff did. I just don't think I liked it all that much.

mary | July 24, 2002 9:44 PM

Just a brief follow-up, Rich, to yours. When I said "pseudo-tech", I didn't mean it in the pejorative. I just meant, literally and non-judgmentally, "made-up names for technical-kinda things."

And as far as my "a 388-page cliche" remark, you're right, it's not fair for me to say that, given that I didn't finish the book. My conclusion that the characters were "one-dimensional" was similarly premature, although that was my solid impression from what I'd read.

But these are the kinds of things I had in mind when I pointed out, in my first comment Monday night, that anything I had to say about Noir should be interpreted as coming from someone who had only read a portion of the book.

Anyhow, I just wanted to give you a reminder or reassurance that, even though I'm chiming in, I am aware of the fact that it's not possible for me to comment authoritatively. ;)

jeff | July 25, 2002 5:59 AM