There were a lot of problems with this book. Some were parts that just fell flat when they should have created some intrigue, and some were full on faThere were a lot of problems with this book. Some were parts that just fell flat when they should have created some intrigue, and some were full on fail. I think I can divide my issues with the book into four categories: Flat Characters, Obvious Plot Twists, Science!Fail, and Bad Storytelling. I'll keep the spoilers behind cuts, and try to give a fair account and some suggestions for improvement. Let's start with...
Flat Characters: Amy is a girl. She's got red hair. She likes running. She loves her parents. That's all I know about her. Really? Didn't I just read a 400 page book about her? So why do I feel like I just went speed dating, and talked to "Single #24" for 30 seconds before a bell rang? Her "OMGWTF Where am I?!" response to waking early after having been cryogenically frozen for transport on a spaceship seemed generic. It was initially realistic, but fell flat when no nuances or reactions that showed more of her character were present. If I were Ms. Revis' editor, I would suggest that she gives Amy more of a backround identity. Was she a rebel in school? Did she clash with teachers or classmates about what was right? A few good flashbacks to this would provide her with much more of jumping off place to rebel against the fascist regime of the ship, which currently doesn't seem like a moral stance but rather a "Things at home weren't like this!"/"Eldest doesn't like me!" whine-fest, especially in light of the fact that she followed her parents on this voyage rather than being independent and staying. Also, she's 17, and still calls her dad "Daddy". Ew.
If I had only one word to describe Elder, it would be "dumb". He's slow to catch on to almost all plot twists, and when a thought does fly into his head, it's not strong enough to make it to logical and obvious conclusions. He's devoted to Amy. I don't know why. The idea of him in the leadership position he was intended for seems ill-suited as he follows Amy around, but I don't get the feeling it was a deliberate decision. Luckily, if I had two words, the second would be "Curious". Elder genuinely likes to explore and know things. If this were developed further, I could see myself liking the guy.
Eldest is just a symbol for the control/freedom dichotomy and questions of having emotions and sadness versus having contentment but no feelings which the book touches on, but seems afraid to comment on. He's more of a set piece than a character, and I wish he and these themes were developed, which could have been done in interesting ways, especially with a ward of insane people on the ship.
Obvious Plot Twists
I literally predicted all plot twists before they happened. Revis seems to have gone for quantity over quality here, packing half a dozen into the end of the book, none of which are surprising, save one which only succeeds in surprising us because she basically cheated with the format of the book. Some of the twists I only predicted a couple chapters early, but many were early, early on in the book, effectively killing the murder mystery plot. I literally knew who the murderer was the first time we met the character, and was able to also predict other plot twists about him from the get go. Revis needs to use a lighter touch with her hints and foreshadowing. Several times I actually thought we had solved a mystery, only to have the characters puzzle over it a couple chapters later, and me say "What, you didn't get that, really?"
My entire experience reading the book went like this: Hey, they sure talk about how the other Elder is dead a lot, I bet (view spoiler)[ he's not really dead! (hide spoiler)] Elder keeps mentioning that he doesn't know who his parents are maybe (view spoiler)[ he's a clone. Wait, he saw the test tube with the embryos and he still doesn't know? That boy's dumb. (hide spoiler)] Harley's sure intent on looking out that airlock after telling us about his girlfriend killing herself, (view spoiler)[ you don't think he's going to throw himself out the airlock, do you? (hide spoiler)] Old people keep going up to the fourth floor of the hospital and never being seen again (view spoiler)[ Wait, really, that wasn't enough for you to figure out they're killing them up there, Amy? You had to bring this poor old lady up there to die? (hide spoiler)]
More: (view spoiler)[ When a constant liar says "The ship's behind schedule, we won't make it in your life, but I promise we'll make it in time for your children to see, a promise you have no way of verifying!" you really think I'm going to be surprised later when it turns out they're even more behind schedule? Ditto for Orion being the "dead" Elder. Elder having unfrozen Amy was a surprise to me, but it was a surprise when the other Elder first said "you gave me the idea to unfreeze people". Then Revis proceeds to have Elder mope about telling Amy the truth, have an entire chapter flashing back to him unplugging her (unnecessary! We know!) and then him tell her, despite her having been there when the other Elder revealed it. Why are there three reveals for one plot twist? Also, I feel this was a really cheap way to do this, as readers would believe that Elder couldn't have done it, as he is a first person narrator. "Ha! He did it and I didn't tell you even though he was narrating!" is like hiding outside in an indoor game of hide and seek and declaring you won. Chalk that up to another reason for third person narration. (hide spoiler)]
Science!Fail
Maybe I should have expanded this to call it World Building Fail, because this is where I want to discuss things like the Season, which just didn't make any sense. You're "controlling inbreeding" by having people go hormonally crazy and screw whoever? Makes no sense. Reading the reviews, a lot of people were disgusted by the season, and felt it pointless and out of place. I found it pointless and out of place, but was also amazed that a giant orgy could be so boring.
The cryogenic freezing is one of the best pieces of writing in the book, but it is not written for science, it's written for scare factor, and it shows. Why do you have to be naked? They pump all your blood out and replace it with blue stuff, but they never put your blood back in when they unfreeze you? Nonsense!
And then there's the small thing that makes me angrier about this book than anything else. Beth Revis does not understand how fingerprints work. You shouldn't write a murder mystery if you won't take 5 minutes to research how fingerprints work. (view spoiler)[ Elder sees his own fingerprints, but with a scar, in the cryogenic room, and later we learn it's the other Elder's. Because they're clones. The problem with that is that clones would, like identical twins, have different fingerprints. Fingerprints develop as a body grows and are not completely controlled by DNA. (hide spoiler)] The fact that he plot hangs on this is ridiculous.
Bad Storytelling
Some of this isn't Beth Revis' fault. The moment she said "I'm thinking I'd like to write this in the first person, alternating between Elder and Amy. First one gets a chapter, then the other," an editor should have told her not to do it. First person writing is a hard beast to tackle, in the hands of a less than expert writer it can make characters flat because they have no perspective on themselves, and broadcast their thoughts obviously rather than subtly. It's clear this book suffers because of that, and could have been better in the third person.
Switching between characters every chapter feels contrived since Amy is in cryogenic sleep for 50 pages. There's only so many times you can say "I'm awake and feel everything!" and Revis knows it, since several of those chapters are a page or less and provide no background or characterization for Amy, other than (gag) missing her boyfriend. The entire alternation idea should have been scrapped early on.
The first person almost rape scene also falls under this category. It was unnecessary and poorly written. Who, in the middle of being attacked by several men who forcibly rip your clothes off, describes the situation as including "harder bites that were they to come from my boyfriend Jason, I would have liked." (Revis, p. 222) Really?
Also falling in this category is near the end of the book when they've still got a murderer to catch endangering her parents, but Amy gets inexplicably sidetrack researching genealogy. It turns out it gives them some helpful hints, yes, but Amy doesn't even suspect that, she goes into it for just the joy of genealogy. It's inconsistant with her character's motivations, and clearly just what the author needs her to be doing. And when you can see the author's fingerprints all over the characters' actions, that's the hallmark of bad writing.
In short, it was one of those books that makes me a little crazy....more
I'd been hearing about Margaret Atwood for a long time, but most of what I heard referred to her as a poet. I don't really "get" poetry a lot of the tI'd been hearing about Margaret Atwood for a long time, but most of what I heard referred to her as a poet. I don't really "get" poetry a lot of the time, so I'd never checked her out. Imagine my surprise when I finally do and realize she's a badass science fiction writer.
My favorite science fiction is that which is set in the more gritty back alleys of the future, not on sterilized space ships, and The Year of the Flood definitely fits the bill on that. The story focuses on the Gardeners a Christian-based cult who are squatters in the ghettos of the future. Primary among the beliefs of the Gardeners: vegetarianism, the sacredness of animals, the idea that humans are destroying the earth with pollution and corporate interests, the idea that the end is coming in the form of a "waterless flood" that will kill all of humanity except (maybe) the gardeners. It kind of reminds me of my co-op days except if there had been more talk of god, and if we'd been better at composting. Our main characters are Toby, an older woman skeptical of any faith but believing in the intentions of the Gardeners and holing up with them for protection against her previous life, and Ren, a young girl and later young woman raised with the gardeners until she is pulled back to live in a compound, the next generation of gated communities, and ends up working in a high end sex club. Picking main characters involved with but not wholly devout to the religion of the Gardeners makes for a more relatable read than
Another remarkable thing about the book is that a most of the characters are women. Not love interest women. Not token "Isn't is hot that she's a badass" women a la Molly Millions (much as I love her). And not women to make a point. They're just very good characters who happen to be women. It's refreshing, and makes me realize how rarely as a science fiction fan I get this sort of treatment. I've been to a lot of seedy, dystopic strip clubs in my science fiction wanderings, but always from a customer's perspective, never as a dancer.
Only after I was a good third of the way through this book did I realize that it was a sequel, and I was supposed to be reading Oryx and Crake first, and then only because I was looking up more of her books to order. Near the last third I did get the feeling that a lot of the action was taking place off screen -- I assume this is the plot of Oryx and Crake affecting the book -- but the plot you are given is still engrossing.
Atwood's prose is beautiful, but starker than I'd have expected from a poet. Her characters hit that sweet spot of being clearly defined but not one-note. They vary their responses and thoughts based on the situation, but are never out of character and seem to do each action because they want to, not because the author wants them to end up a certain place. I should mention that half the book is told in first person through the eyes of Ren, the other half third person through the eyes of Toby. I hate first person storytelling (except for unreliable narrators, whom I love). I hate it. It makes for sloppy storytelling, poor character development because the narrator can't see anything from a perspective not their own, and generally promotes blank canvas one note characters by giving everyone the same voice. It's a terrible, terrible move. Unless you're Margaret Atwood. She somehow carries it off perfectly. Ren's fresh, innocent, slightly ditzy, character: a puppy dog eager to follow and let someone else be in charge, shines through. By also getting Toby's perspective we see what each of them likes by what they focus on, different mannerisms and worldviews, slight uses of different words to hint at different thoughts about inventions and biotechnology they encounter.
Beyond good characters though, what makes The Year of the Flood really shine is it's dystopia. The sermons and holy days of the Gardeners add a slight weight of mythology to the whole book, but I read a lot of dystopias. A lot. And I can't think of any that are so clear about the lines from here to there. The slow waltz of privatization and natural disaster and technology and rape of the environment and law enforcement cooperation with organized crime that is one day news and the next day something normal is presented here so plausibly as to inspire real worry in even a jaded reader like myself.
Loading...
