March book study - Cyberabad Days

[Fenika]

Hello, and welcome to the SF/F Book Study. This thread is for discussion of Cyberabad Days by Ian McDonald.

***Spoilers*** will be streaking through this thread unpredictably. You have been warned.

If anyone wants to see the previous book studies:

2008:
Ender's Game (August)
Lies of Locke Lamora (September)
A Deepness in the Sky (October)
A Fire in the Deep (November)
Storm Front (December)

2009:
I Am Legend (January)
The Onion Girl (February)
Lord of Light (March)
Small Gods (April)
Beggars in Spain (May)
The Once and Future King (June)
Foundation (July)
The Graveyard Book (August)
Neuromancer (September)
The Last Wish (October)
The Knife of Never Letting Go (November)
One Hundred Years of Solitude (December)

2010:
Battle Royale (January)
Jhereg (February)

Thank you to Broken Fingers for starting the book study!

[ELMontague]

I had to order a copy and haven't received it yet.

[ELMontague]

Just got my copy in the mail. Will read it next.

[Dawnstorm]

Yay! Ian McDonald in the Book Study. And with a collection of shorts, too! (I think he's better at shorts than at novels, even though I love his novels, too.)

I've read the book a couple of months ago, so I'll definitely have things to say at some point. (When I'm more coherent, that is.)

Interestingly, my fave stories in there are the romances: "The Djinn's Wife" and "An Eligible Boy". I also loved "Little Goddess".

To make the most of "Vishnu at the Cat Circus" it helps to know how River of Gods ends. I thought it was the weakest story in the book, and - oddly - I enjoyed the frame - the Cat Circus - more than actual story. But don't get me wrong. I still quite enjoyed the story.

Out of interest, are you guys reading the stories in sequence? I didn't, partly because I'd already read half the stories in advance. I did read "Cat Circus" last, but in retrospect I wish I'd read it first; I'd have compared it less to the other stories.

I rarely read short stories in collections/anthologies in sequence (unless I suspect that they're arranged with a specific concept in mind, such as Joyce's Dubliners, which moves through the biography towards death). If I hadn't read any of the stories before, I might have read Cyberabad Days in sequence. Do you think there's a benefit to that?

[ELMontague]

I am only to the Little Goddess, but I find it interesting that the collection begins with a statement that this was a book that gave a different view of Science Fiction than books written with an American/British feel. I don't really find the book all that different than any other science fiction world, we're just reading it with a few historical/cultural references that fit regionally with India. The style is not hugely different.

[ELMontague]

In the end, I found Vishnu and the Cat Circus the most rewarding story. Although I stand by my statement that this didn't feel all that different from other SFF as far as culture goes. It did, however, inspire me to go a little deeper into some Indian writing and I've ordered a copy of Five Point Someone by Chetan Baghat on a recommendation from one of my IT guys.

[Fenika]

I should probably admit I could not get into these stories. I am not typically a SF reader, and these stories were so alienating. Too much science, too much 'coldness' (I can't remember if it was the setting the writing or what that was cold. The characters were alive and determined), too much wordiness. I did like the story with the pizza stand the most, but still skipped to the end to see how it ended.

Mostly, I sum it up to being not my cup of tea. I know the stories had merit, but I could not get drawn in at all.

[Kitty Pryde]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

Interestingly, my fave stories in there are the romances: "The Djinn's Wife" and "An Eligible Boy". I also loved "Little Goddess".

To make the most of "Vishnu at the Cat Circus" it helps to know how River of Gods ends. I thought it was the weakest story in the book, and - oddly - I enjoyed the frame - the Cat Circus - more than actual story. But don't get me wrong. I still quite enjoyed the story.

Out of interest, are you guys reading the stories in sequence? I didn't, partly because I'd already read half the stories in advance. I did read "Cat Circus" last, but in retrospect I wish I'd read it first; I'd have compared it less to the other stories.

I rarely read short stories in collections/anthologies in sequence (unless I suspect that they're arranged with a specific concept in mind, such as Joyce's Dubliners, which moves through the biography towards death). If I hadn't read any of the stories before, I might have read Cyberabad Days in sequence. Do you think there's a benefit to that?

I didn't like "Vishnu at the Cat Circus" actually, and I have read River of Gods. And another book by Ian McDonald that has the same ending, ha! Meh. The characters were dull, and the deity metaphors fell flat for me.

My favorites were The Little Goddess, Sanjeev and Robotwallah, and the Dust Assassin. Mostly for the great ideas and interesting characters.

I really love McDonald's writing, and anything incorporating Hindu mythology. His worldbuilding and description is above and beyond anything I could ever aspire to! My only criticism is that I think he exoticizes the setting/people of India too much sometimes. It's something I think about a lot, so maybe I am paying extra close attention to it.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Kitty Pryde

I didn't like "Vishnu at the Cat Circus" actually, and I have read River of Gods. And another book by Ian McDonald that has the same ending, ha! Meh. The characters were dull, and the deity metaphors fell flat for me.

I actually didn't think that having read River of Gods would help you enjoy the story; it would help you understand it (and maybe the story would help you understand the novel's ending). And here's where I admit that I didn't like the ending (the SF-concept ending, not the character endings) of River of Gods much either.

As for the story, it did feel as if the life had drained away out of the setting.

My only criticism is that I think he exoticizes the setting/people of India too much sometimes. It's something I think about a lot, so maybe I am paying extra close attention to it.

Could you expand on that? How does "Kyle Meets the River" (the only story with an outsider's pov, IIRC) compare to the rest of the stories, in that respect?

Originally Posted by Fenika

I did like the story with the pizza stand the most, but still skipped to the end to see how it ended.

Which one was that? I can't remember a pizza stand.

***

Oh, and while we're at it: Here's me and Ruv Draba talking about "The Djinn's Wife" and how it plays with science fiction and mythology.

***

ETA:

Originally Posted by ELMontague

Although I stand by my statement that this didn't feel all that different from other SFF as far as culture goes.

I thought that was just marketing speak, really. In other words, I agree with you.

[Kitty Pryde]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

Could you expand on that? How does "Kyle Meets the River" (the only story with an outsider's pov, IIRC) compare to the rest of the stories, in that respect?

Well, I can try Well, from Kyle's perspective, India is strange and unknown, but not exotic. To his parents, it's weird and dangerous, and they are there by necessity. The Indians he knows are regular kids, and outside the compound is a strange place, and scary because he isn't prepared to deal with it. But his POV specifically doesn't exoticise the setting because he's too close to it. He is the token white guy, and he's pretty comfortable (except for all the bombing and fist fights and stuff.

As for the other stories: I felt like the way he slipped in Indian words and the way he described the setting and the women tended to exoticize them somewhat. I would have to flip through the book for specific examples. Definitely not egregious, but more than ideal. I mean, SF/F stories are about the Other, and good SF/F makes us realize how much robots, aliens, far-future post-humans, etc. are just like us despite all their wacky differences. With a readership who likes stories like that, I dunno, it seems especially unnecessary to exoticise.

I REALLY like McDonald's writing, and I don't think he always does it. His book about Africa didn't really do it, but then again it portrays Africa as a pretty crappy place, plus it's all about an extended metaphor for HIV/AIDS. I haven't read Brasyl yet, and I am curious to see how he handled that setting.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Kitty Pryde

As for the other stories: I felt like the way he slipped in Indian words and the way he described the setting and the women tended to exoticize them somewhat. I would have to flip through the book for specific examples. Definitely not egregious, but more than ideal.

I wonder if part of this is due to the way English (the language) is treated in India these days? For example, Aeai for AI seemed plausible to me (kinda like "jarnaliss" for "journalist" in Singh's Animal's People). I haven't done any research, and I'm not familiar with India, really.

[Kitty Pryde]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

I wonder if part of this is due to the way English (the language) is treated in India these days? For example, Aeai for AI seemed plausible to me (kinda like "jarnaliss" for "journalist" in Singh's Animal's People). I haven't done any research, and I'm not familiar with India, really.

I am sure that English speakers in India (IRL some people speak Hindi, some speak regional languages, some speak English, some speak multiple languages) use lots of borrowed words from Hindi and Sanskrit and regional languages. But the author is only using a very few of those words to emphasize difference, not using all of them with full-on Indian English for realism. I guess it's a matter of drawing the line between "Wow this unusual setting is so interesting and awesome" and "Wow they are so exotic and strange and appealing to boring westerners!"

I'm working on a fantasy set in Fantasy World That Is Like India, so like I said I pay a lot of attention to this distinction, for better or for worse.

[DragonHeart]

I'm not much of a science fiction reader either and this book highlights a couple of the main reasons why. I had a hard time wrapping my brain around certain concepts, which made it extremely difficult to get into several of the stories. My brain just doesn't speak techie, heh.

The other is more of a stylistic thing, but the use of words in languages I don't speak without a glossary at the end. At least some of the trouble I had with this book was not knowing what several oft-repeated words were and having to try and deduce them in the context of the story. This is rather difficult to do when said words are in a different language and probably don't mean what I think they do. Sure, I could have looked them up online but reading is one of the ways I get away from the computer so that would have been counterproductive.

Overall I found the book on the whole to be atmospheric with some interesting ideas, but otherwise, I just didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would. I did read all of the stories (in order, since I've never read anything by Ian McDonald before), but even though I read it recently I can barely remember any of them. Usually my memory is very good for that sort of thing; it just didn't make much of an impact on me, I suppose.

[eyeblink]

Apart from "The Djinn's Wife", which was the one I'd read before, I read the stories in order. They are, more or less, arranged in ascending order of length. Much as I like McDonald's writing, I do think it needs room to breathe. The two earliest stories - both short stories rather than novelettes or novellas - were just too dense, packing in lots of SF eyeball kicks and genre riffs in the service of a very thin storyline. The longer stories worked much better for me.