Curious... (Iain M Banks)

[imported_I, Brian]

Read "the Wasp Factory" and "Espedair Street". Good stuff - in that Bank's writes well with character.

But looking at the backk of his SF novels I have a nasty feeling that he's rooted in anachronistic thinking, and that his SF lacks vision.

Is there someone to correct me on this issue?

[Tabitha]

If you might perhaps expand on your definition of "anacronistic thinking" I would be happy to try

[Dave]

I'm not sure what you mean either:

1/ That he purports a view of a future history that cannot happen.

This is what people usually mean

The books are set in the present day. The short story 'The State of the Art' is proof of that. We are just not yet aware of the Culture, and not yet ready for it.

2/ That the technology and astronomy he describes is already in dispute.

This is what I think you mean

This is what you were complaining of in the 'Star Trek forum'. That 'Star Trek' suffers from the writers trying to fit modern ideas into a tired old formula. I agree with you about 'Star Trek', but Banks books are much more recent. The ink is still not dry. And can't you say exactly the same thing about any Sci-Fi. In fact, the more Hard Sci-Fi that a story contains, the more likely and more quickly it is going to get outdated.

3/ That the characters act in a manner that is out of harmony with the time.

His characters are his forté, but...

His characters do not have our present day values, I see them a little like Victorian English Gentry, in that they can have anything the want. Except that these characters can do anything they want and have the technology to do it. They only need die if they want to, and can change their sex or species if they want to. They don't have any responsibilities, so the A I characters act like their consciences. Many decide to 'sublime', leave the real world entirely, and to ascend to a state of near-godhood. I think that these characters ought to be even more 'excentric' than they are. Sometimes they seem a little too much like us.

[Tabitha]

Interesting.

I think I was having a similar conversation with someone about Ken McLeod recently.
On point 1 - Even though these books are set in the present day, I personally am quite happy with books set in the future going off at a tangent from a point earlier than today. Most authors seem trapped by this problem if they began writing, for example, while the Cold War was still in danger of becoming hot, but I still find these stories very compelling.


On point 2 - I don't like getting into difficult Hard-SF related discussions, as I feel overwhelmed by the scientific possibilites that *might* be just within our reach. I only really take issue with these kinds of inconsistencies when, as you say, a show like Star Trek is portraying the 23rd Century as (in some respects) lagging behind 21st Century innovations.

As for the characters - this is the one issue that is immediately defensible, of course, as there is no way to know just how we might behave socially in the future, real or imagined!

Posted by Dave
Sometimes they seem a little too much like us.

That has never bothered me. I don't find these advanced human cultures of The Culture hard to imagine - I mean I probably couldn't come up with them myself, but the way they are written makes them very accessible, which is probably what makes them very like us. I wonder how alien the Romans, Greeks or Egyptians would seem? Or any other major ancient cultures. Once you remove the barrier of language, I think a lot of social norms boil down to a concept of human emotions that are fairly universal - love, hate, envy, greed, nobility etc
These future people's motivations are the same, but their basic human needs are catered too without effort, and therefore their desires get to run wild, and at base they seem to have the same instincts as us.

Maybe I am mixing Banks up with other, Earth-based SF set in the future. How close are the Culture to humans? I can't quite remember.

[Dave]

So, anyone else have a different view on Bank's characters and his future scenarios.

Personally, I think people fall into a trap that because we are so civilised and technologically superior, that we are somehow superior emotionally, and in intelligence. Genetically, we are no different from Cavemen, and without intervention, we will not change in the near future either. Humans will be just as petty, stupid, emotional, self-centred, greedy, etc. as we always have been.

[GOLLUM]

'Got the taste for it, just can't wait for it, I can feel a "Banks subforum" coming on' * (Sung in tune)...

*Aussies is particular will understand this reference

Must check this author out, never read anything by him yet!

[I, Brian]

I think my original question was a concern that Iain M Banks may be drawn to writing "Golden Age" sci-fi rather than anything boldly exploring new frontiers.

I remember I tried to flick through a couple of books, but the blurb always somehow made me think more of 1950's pulp. Bad blurb?

[Green]

Most of his Sci-Fi books are inventive and imaginative. I don't frequent enough Sci-Fi forums to talk about things like "Hard Sci-Fi" and whatnot, but I will give you my opinion on them.

The Culture books (avoid his other SF books until you've read these, if you want my advice) are set in the present day, but in parts of the Galaxy that don't concern us. The Culture is basically how you might expect our race to be in about 11,000 years from now. His writing is clever, witty, insightful and fairly esoteric at times. His science is plausible, informed, beautiful and, above all, interesting. Personally, I think his stuff is on another level compared to any other sci-fi book I've read (like I say, I'm not a huge fan of SF, but Banks kicks Hamilton's, Reynolds', Heinlein's and others' arses). I often find that most SF books I read are too down to earth, too boring. After all, in the year 2548, who wants to read about a main character called Steve or Ralph who basically has the small-town American mindset? Banks does not write about Ralph.

Interesting link for those who want to read a bit more about the Culture:

A few notes on the Culture, written by the man himself

If you're thinking of reading the Culture books, you should probably, technically start with Consider Phlebas, since it was the first one. However, I would actually advise people to start with Player of Games. It is better (imo) and also gives a much more useful jumping board into the other Culture novels. Consider Phlebas is actually mainly concerned with characters who are not from the Culture. None of the books need to be read in order, though you should probably stick fairly closely to their publication order.

Personal faves: Excession (the first one I read, and it blew me away. This was, and still is, one of the best books I've ever read. It's like food to me), Player of Games (fans of chess and board games will not be able to tear themselves away from this one) and Look to Windward (more about concepts than plot, but nevertheless thrilling all the way. Expertly done. Not a word out of place).

[Werthead]

I don't know where this idea that the Culture books are set in the present day came from. Only The State of the Art is, and that's a single short novella where the Culture discovers Earth. The novels themselves feature proper humans (and I believe Banks somewhere says that they are our descendants, not some Battlestar Galactica-esque lost colony of humans from some ancient civilisation) alongside aliens. I think the idea is that the Culture - founded by the alien-built Minds (advanced AIs) - is an amalagamtion of dozens of races, and humanity is merely added to the mix as time goes on.

As for the books, the ones I've read (Excession, Consider Phlebas and Look to Windward, all of which are self-contained) are pretty good. Banks focuses on character and emotion much more than on the hard science and the imagery, although some of his stuff is amazing, like the vast 'airspheres' orbiting the Galactic Core or the huge Culture Orbitals (which were nicked from Niven's Ringworld but in turn inspired the Halo video games). He isn't as good at creating atmosphere as Reynolds, but has better endings than Reynolds. He isn't as good at doing epic, big storylines as Hamilton, but his characters have more depth.

In summary, Banks is one of the most important British SF writers in the field and well worth a read. I'd suggest starting with the first Culture book, Consider Phlebas, and see how you like it.

[williamjm]

Originally Posted by I Brian

I remember I tried to flick through a couple of books, but the blurb always somehow made me think more of 1950's pulp. Bad blurb?

I certainly wouldn't describe them as pulp, they're too clever for that. They aren't books primarily about the technology so in that sense they're not particularly groundbreaking, but some of the books (such as Player of Games and Excession) aren't really quite like anything else I've read in SF.

Originally Posted by Werthead

I don't know where this idea that the Culture books are set in the present day came from. Only The State of the Art is, and that's a single short novella where the Culture discovers Earth. The novels themselves feature proper humans (and I believe Banks somewhere says that they are our descendants, not some Battlestar Galactica-esque lost colony of humans from some ancient civilisation) alongside aliens. I think the idea is that the Culture - founded by the alien-built Minds (advanced AIs) - is an amalagamtion of dozens of races, and humanity is merely added to the mix as time goes on.

I think the idea comes from the author. I don't think Earth is explicitly mentioned in any of the books I've read apart from The State of the Art, but I definitely remember seeing it said on the Internet that Banks said the Culture 'humans' are not Earth humans (for example, Diziet Sma who is one of the main characters in Use of Weapons seems to be a normal Culture 'human' but is on the ship that first visits Earth in State of the Art). I remember seeing a timeline somewhere which set all the books in their supposed Earth dates and it made is pretty clear that Earth isn't a factor in the Culture, but I can't find that now.

Wikipedia does state

According to the author, the Culture exists in parallel with human society on Earth, and does not represent an imagined future for the human race as we know it. The approximate Earth timeframe for the Culture stories is from 1300 AD to 2100 AD.

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture

I'm not sure I find the fact that they're also so humanlike but not human (and there being multiple races like this, Zakalwe looks like Sma more or less but they're not the same race) and there being no explanation for this particularly convincing, but it doesn't actually make any difference to the books.

[T5.2]

As I said in another thread, I compare his style to the tv series Farscape.
Fast and colorfull.
If you don't like Golden Age SF, you may just have read the wrong books...there are many amazing books out there.
But if you consider golden age and StarTrek to be a bit on the iffy side, then I can certainly say that if you at least liked Farscape, then you will like I. Banks.

[Green]

Well, fair enough.

I only ever watched a few episodes of Farscape, so maybe I'm not the best judge here, but I thought it was pretty cheesy and crappy. I wouldn't have compared it to Banks at all.

I suppose Banks does match the two aspects you mentioned - fast and colourful, so maybe you have a point. I'm not convinced

[SteveR]

Mr Banks aside - do yourself a favour - go and watch some more Farscape. It's dark, funny, fast and delivers a good story. One of the best Sci-Fi shows created. It was created with passion and it shows. It has a unique style much more inline with something like Firefly than Trek. Smart Sci-Fi IMO of course.