Skip to main content

Review: Foning it in.

This past summer, I had my first vacation. And I wanted to read something light and fun. And I found something--though, it delivered more on the "light" than the "fun." But that was the least of its issues.

Specifically, I was reading the EarthCent Ambassador series by E.M. Foner. There are about 13 books in the series, and I powered through about 7 of them before its flaws got the best of my patience. I don't like being a quitter, but--frankly--I don't much mind in this case.

The series follows Kelly Frank, Earth's diplomat on a massive sentient space station. The Stryx--the
AI running this space station and others like it--have helped humanity to become a space-faring civilization. The series consists of Kelly's facing various problems on the station, sometimes on behalf of Earth, and solving them with the help of her friends and the Stryx (who officially deny having provided help).

This all sounds more exciting than it really is: the problems are never quite mind-blowing, the help from the near-omniscient Stryx is really more their quietly nudging things along, and that from her friends is mostly happenstance. Still, the series is mostly enjoyable. A weak beach read, but a beach read nonetheless.

For example, in one book, there's an alien civilization giving away all its art and treasure: Their planet is doomed, and they see fit to die with it. Kelly and Co. get there first intending to talk them out of mass extinction, but they thrust all their treasure upon her instead. She auctions it off (with the help of a pair of much more capable friends), garnering herself a fortune of, like, 70 squillion. Meanwhile, it turns out she doesn't need to talk the aliens out of mass death because a Stryx robot, who happened to become head priest of the doomed civilization, has somehow shown them they don't need to die with their planet. Which works out great because the Stryx who runs Kelly's space station happens to have a shiny new planet that it's willing to sell for exactly 70 squillion dollars and not a penny less. Everything's worked out in the end! Yay!

It's a neat story, in a light-hearted kind of way, if you're not looking for anything meaty. Which I wasn't at that point. But it rankles my feathers now, recounting it, because I'd have loved a discussion of/debate about the right to die and suchlike. Or actual problem-solving to have taken place. But--then I'm faulting a light read for being light, asking more than the work has promised, which is a philosophical/aesthetical debate for another time.

But there is a distinction to be made for a light read that's written poorly.



As I read the series, two major flaws became apparent and increasingly grating as they wore on. Specifically, a weak storytelling mechanic and a lack of, shall we say, romance.

A classic "rule" in storycraft is "Show, don't tell." The idea is that, as often as you can, you should show or demonstrate something to the reader rather than simply telling it to them. Take, for example, the following failure:
'Hm,' said Mary, and Paul could tell by the look on her face that she was looking at it from a whole new perspective.
This writing is awkward, boring, and lazy. It does all the work for the reader, leaving nothing for them to discover; it also requires no effort, no cleverness, no craft on the writer's part. It might also prove disruptive to the flow of dialogue. For comparison, consider the following:
'Hm,' said Mary. 'Maybe you have a point.'
It may not be Pulitzer Prize material, but it is less clunky, conveys the same information, and does so in a natural way that doesn't insult the reader.

In case you haven't already guessed, the "failure" example comes straight out of a book in this series. I was so appalled reading it that I couldn't help more or less memorizing the snippet. However, this was not an isolated incident; this strain of weak writing is scattered throughout the series.



The other problem is partly one of principle and partly one of storytelling. Every character--and I mean every single character--gets married, without fail. It got to the point where I could spot a pair of unwed characters a book or two in advance and predict exactly when they'd get married.

The principle side of the offense is that, in reality land, not everyone gets married or wants to get married. There are plenty of people who are happily single or content to be with someone without being married to them, and there's even those who seek marriage/partnership but never really find it. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who can just be single and friends with eachother without it needing to become romantic.

This begins to become a storytelling issue when, apparently, Foner's idea of character actualization is marriage. For every character. There's no variety in what his characters want, apparently; they don't have much in the way of individual desires and personal aim. Granted, not every character can be a protagonist and have goals they're pursuing, but every one of his characters is forced to have one and apparently it's marriage.

The storytelling problem really becomes singularly apparent when the lack of romance is considered. Namely, not one courtship, not one marriage is ever shown: It happens between books in every case. Not only are these characters thrown together artificially, but readers are given no reason to believe the characters should be together. This denies something else: fulfillment. That is, readers see characters having chemistry, want to see them get together, and then feel satisfaction when they do.



As evidenced, perhaps, it's hard for me to not fault a light read for being light, and such, but in this case, there are legitimate flaws independent of the lightness of the series that seriously undermine enjoying it--at least, they did in my case. Being a light read doesn't give a series a pass for weak writing, and Foner needs to either abandon the artificial romance or deliver on the real thing because that cheap crap got old fast.

If you don't think these things would get under your skin, then, by all means, go read this series. It's playful and at times imaginative, and above all, it's cheap as shit on Kindle.

Comments

Other things that might interest you...

On aging, and fear.

To begin with, I’m not sure you’re aware of it, but I’m middle aged. Oh? What gave it away? Using a blog as my primary literary medium?¹ Hm. But in fact, the APA defines 35 years as the end of “young adulthood.” Yeah. I found out via some shitpost on twitter when I was already 35, so it didn’t sit well with me then either. But my worries about aging began much sooner than that. See, even in my 20s, I feared I’d been wasting my life. I’d struggled with school and life and everything since graduating high school, arguably sooner, and nothing seemed to be going anywhere meaningful . I felt I had a limited social life, a dead-end job, no money, no great travels, a limping love life; I was, generally, a loser, wasting away... There were none of the usual hallmarks of success or happiness. And that scared me. Would my life have been worth it if I continued in this direction? Would it have been a “life well lived” by the end? So, this is my existential struggle. Even now, as I lurch ever nea

Changing lanes.

I was driving home in some traffic last night when I drifted, in my mind, a long way back (about 20 years) to high school. I was caught in one of those periodic traffic slowdowns as I floated back; you know, those waves of congestion that seem to pass backward through the columns of cars in each lane. (I've heard they start because someone switches lanes, and in response, a rippling emergent slowness travels backward and outward as the cars behind it accommodate the change, one by one.) What drew me back to those younger days was that, back in high school, similar phenomena of congestion took place in the halls between classes, when eddies of young humans would get caught in and around those clumps of those chatting by lockers or retrieving books. Occasionally, backups would occur when groups of people got caught in these eddies, or collided with other groups by the lockers, and slowdowns would ripple back from there. Maybe it's not exactly the same, but as I drove it seemed si

On phases and fixations.

My fixations are powerful, but they can also be maddeningly ephemeral and fleeting. And I hate that; about them and, honestly, about myself. But I’ve never really  asked why I feel that way... I'll commit immense amounts of time and energy and even money to a fixation for a few weeks, maybe even a month or two, sometimes rebranding my whole personality around it, then just...move on. I'm not sure when I first noticed this pattern—if it was always there or if it emerged and intensified over time—but it's been part of me for a long while. And every time I do, I feel such guilt and shame. Who even am I if I can't be consistent, dedicated, substantive? How disingenuous is it that nothing I care about lasts? I’ve always just accepted those feelings; I’ve never poked at them in earnest. If you can’t tell from the recent flurry of activity on this blog, I have been fixated on blogging; I mentioned in a recent post about this blog that I had a compulsion to revamp the whole bl