It's always fascinated me how the incest scene in the final chapter elicits this response, but the much more explicit rape and sexualized torture earlier in the book comes in for no similar obloquy. Specifically, the rape and sexualized torture with which the book approximately starts. This people are on board for, but not the other. Both are about twisted sex stuff, but only one actually upsets people who otherwise highly value the work. That seems inconsistent enough to require some explanation.
The narrative is at pains to be clear neither is less consensual than the other, so that can't be the basis for objecting to one and not the other. There is also an explicit contrast drawn at length in the text between the twisted nihilism of a purposeless universe early on, and what occurs at the end: Caroline muses aloud that had she awakened next to the to-have-been-executed child rapist and murderer whose sexual fancies she had entertained within the simulation, her response would have been instantly and ferociously - and necessarily - lethal, while her daughter's controversial actions in the final chapter take place at Caroline's explicit urging - practically at her direction. So if the concern were that the moral center of the novel had failed, I would expect to see criticism on that basis, rather than a retail effort at censorship.
Likewise, though it's been years since I bothered to reread, I don't really recall the quality of the writing changing, either; it's determinedly mediocre throughout, no less in the last chapter than elsewhere.
Well, as I said, I've never understood why people so easily excuse the pedophilic rape and murder scenes early in the book, while what comes later is such a problem. It still seems inconsistent to me, but I have only my own experience of childhood rape and sexual torture at my now-dead father's hands to draw on, which here no doubt ill equips me to speak.
I'm sorry you had to go through that.
On a meta level, the violence makes sense as an exploration of the boundaries of that universe -- Prime Intellect makes everything so anodyne and safe, that extreme (consensual) violent torture is one of the few ways for the jaded to feel anything anymore. Even then, the stakes are gone, so it becomes a more abstract experience of over-the-top, almost comical horror detached from any real danger -- pain for the sake of pain. And the pedophilic aspects are all roleplay among adults.
The incest stuff is pointlessly gross, though. It's handwaved as a way for them to restore the population, but that doesn't make biological sense. It's presented as a sudden compulsion of Caroline's, who showed no inclination towards it before. It makes even less sense for Lawrence. And the girl is so young, and the descriptions so explicit. All of those are deliberate choices the author makes, and none of them really necessary except as some kind of pervy wish-fulfillment. (Plus, children cannot consent period, much less when initiated into it by their overbearing mother in an otherwise empty world).
Sorry for the delay in response. I wanted to reread Chapter 8.
I still don't think it is more fair to characterize either of the story's sexual dynamics as more poorly written for the sake of fetishism. If you're going to charge the author and more importantly the audience with being problematic in consequence of one but not the other, there still remains work to achieve the goal, because as I noted in a nearby comment the writing is mediocre at best, invariably didactic and workmanlike, frequently an outright slog. This is true in all sex scenes also, no more one than any other.
> I'm sorry you had to go through that.
Don't try to speak to that. You don't know how. The point is that you don't know how and I would like you please to stop trying. It makes sense to me why people would become uncomfortable when they are titillated by writing that deliberately strives to titillate, but you're supposed to think about it, not call for a book burning.
I'll say that again. You're supposed to think about it. Not call for a book burning. And certainly not in my name!
I'm pretty sure no one here is anything like my father, who never knew shame for anything he did. I'm pretty sure the author of this mediocre but nonetheless compelling work of high-concept science fiction is nothing like my father, also. I don't blame the author disappearing given the fundamental misunderstanding he must have known his work would meet, or maybe saw it meet; I read it when it still earned the name "novel," but didn't take much interest in the contemporary analysis, which I found little less superficial then than now. In any case its author must have known it would cause a moral panic among people afraid of being accused of not caring enough for victims of pedophilia. He would also remember the McMinnville trial, better indeed than I, who was then actually suffering the real equivalent of what always develops when these ignorantly prurient fantasies get out of hand.
What you do to each other I could care very little less about, and with effort. But actual victims also suffer in every moral panic, and we, at last, deserve better. Someone therefore needs to check this behavior, and I see no one else bothering.
So here I am, in any case the genuine article, a "victim" by anyone's standard though I will not wear that term other than for argument, and as such I hereby confer permission to talk about the work, rather than how embarrassing everyone finds it to have had a phase of fascination with what, honestly, is chickenshit. Honestly. I could tell you about the reality but it has made people retch before and I know no ill of you. This is your pass, and everyone's. This thread has been blessed. You all can chill.
Ask your damned questions, even, which I would never normally encourage. Better pester me than whoever in your life I've brought to your mind just now, who you could ignorantly hurt. Ask me instead! Whatever you like. I promise to answer honestly and completely or not at all. If you think that constitutes generosity, try me.
> Don't apologize for what was none of your doing.
This is veering on off topic, but when people say they are "sorry" for something that happened to you they're not apologizing - it's an expression of empathy, not guilt.
I am aware such empty expressions of sympathy are often understood and frequently explained in the way you describe. I have learned to judge people's behavior before the account of it that they give. But you are correct that is off topic. Let's waste no further interest.
Please stop trying to impose your frame of victimhood on people who reject it.
I appreciate your intention, but please do not start trying to defend me. I will not take it as the act of an ally. Your own frame of victimhood is no less hazardous.
Excuse me; I meant to refer to the McMartin preschool trial. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
You really just handwaved the "consent" issue?
In one instance a consenting adult was indulging a fetishistic roleplay in a simulation. In the other a literal child - unable by our standards to meaningfully consent - was coerced into ritual sex with her father, in the real world. It's disturbing that you consider different reactions to these as "inconsistent".
But also I think there is a thematic squick that runs a lot deeper. The torture stuff at the beginning is portrayed as a sickness, a reaction to meaninglessness and inauthenticity. Caroline's relationship to it is a kind of masochistic expression of unhappiness with the ephemerality of experiences in the simulation. Permanence is forbidden, and so she is drawn to the permanence of death and trauma. It is Bad.
The final chapter is - as you say - explicitly pitched as a counterpoint to all that. Experiences in the real world are described with the warm glow of meaningful authenticity, as though portraying the ideal state of humanity. Permanence is held up as the source of all meaning. It is Good. The incest scene is framed as normal, and natural, and wholesome, maybe even innocent, and especially permanent and significant - a antipode to the beginning scenes. There's even a line about how the father unexpectedly "finds his body responding", as though activating some biological heritage.
In short - the squick comes not just from the explicit depiction, but from the subtextual framing that incest is right and proper.
> In the other a literal child - unable by our standards to meaningfully consent - was coerced into ritual sex with her father, in the real world.
Really? I recall that event occurring in a science fiction novel, and if you are going to fuss that I suggest you're unclear on the distinction, then I will require you to explain why I seem to be the only one here not genuinely, hot-bloodedly angry over things that happen in a story that is not real.
That's why you don't, but I do, remember Caroline talking to Lawrence about how she would have killed Fred or Palmer without a first thought, much less a second. Caroline is the only post-singularity murderer! Sometimes I wonder if anyone here has read the book, or indeed is meaningfully literate, ie capable of scoring >1 on the high school AP English exam: when an author shows us at length that a protagonist has vengefully seduced her former abuser in order to carry out murder in cold blood, you are not meant to take this person as morally immaculate! Reading is participatory, damn it. You do it with your brain switched on, and ideally also without the extremely evident assumption that everything is and should be propaganda designed to change your opinion on something. But that you're angry is also why you don't and I do recall that, if anyone's consent is portrayed in the scene as approximately coerced, it is not Nugget but Lawrence.
For that and a handful of less relevant reasons, and in a context of such ruthless necessity and matriarchal leadership as by this point the narrative has worked very hard and at considerable length to establish, a reading so false to fact as yours must indict at least one of motivation and reading comprehension. It simply is not possible to produce so erroneous a reading both competently and innocently. It is foolish at best to equate "counterpoint" with "moral inverse!" Like if I say I prefer something the same way I'd rather have herpes than cancer, no one would take me to mean I think either of those was good. Or no one so far, at any rate. The way this thread has gone, it might just be a matter of time before even the joke asks too much of its audience.
It's pretty cool of you to tell a chronic childhood rape victim that he's "handwaved the 'consent' issue," though. I mean, obviously that's an issue anyone would sensibly assume they've put more thought into than me. You certainly had much better reason and a lot more experience to draw on, of course! But this is why the "victim" label is bullshit. It exists to give people like you an easier time talking over people like me. I don't play on easy mode that way. You will need to try harder. I wonder if you're really up to it.
If you want to advocate censorship, fine. Do so honestly and I might even agree with you; my opinions on certain diffusion models and adapters, for example, which I have discussed here in recent months, are a good case in point. When I catch you trying to advocate censorship by deceit and in my name, I'm not going to stop calling you on it. You can keep going down this road if you want, but fair warning if you do: over such an incoherent and insubstantial reading as yours, I'll all but have to discuss your motivations, for want of anything else capable of supporting any conversation at all. Neither of us wants that, but you will enjoy it less.
I just wanted to note that the discussion spawned from this thread convinced me to go read the story in its entirety. Thank you!
You're most welcome! And I appreciate hearing something that justifies the effort. Oh, the equivocality of my praise for its quality of prose remains equally justified. But it's no accident, either, that people still discuss this one, decades on. The ideas it explores, and the characters and their conflicts through whom it does so, merit no less.
The incest doesn’t excuse the torture. My thoughts and feelings about the violence, gore, and torture take up around a hundred times as many words as my opinion about the final chapter’s incest scene.
I would be comfortable warning someone about the violence and so on when recommending the book, in order that they make their own decision. With certain friends, I would be able to discuss it in depth. That’s not something noteworthy to this novel alone; see also Ender’s Game and The Magicians and Westworld for having particularly violent moments that earn some sort of caveat, and deserve discussion of their value to the novel as a whole.
I do not in any way ‘excuse’ the violent scenes, however. This is a violent novel. These violent delights have violent ends. If that’s not in-scope for someone, no amount of making excuses will help someone derive value from it. This is not a noteworthy point to make about this novel in specific, at least generically, unless one is interested in discussing societal mores and the tensions of tolerance and desire for ultraviolent content versus Western sexual repression.
(I’m not presenting here any specific viewpoint or opinions on the matter of the violence in this work, as those views are fully decoupled from my objection to the incest.)
Separately, I find the final sex scene to be needlessly detailed. Yes, that’s exactly what you’d have to do in an Adam/Eve scenario. No, I don’t want to read a portrayal of incest. Yes, it flows logically from the story. No, I don’t want to read a portrayal of incest. Yes, the incest is only a single page compared to one half of the book’s ultraviolent dedication. No, I don’t want to read a portrayal of incest.
Whatever your position regarding the book’s use of violence, I urge you to take caution in considering it to be of equivalent moral priority to the book’s use of incest. Perhaps for some, they are of equal priority weighting; but that is no guarantee, in most societal contexts, that they can be evaluated using equivalent methodologies. No amount of refactoring and generalization will defuse the “this is unacceptable” outcome of the incest as presented, without regarding how much or how little violence is presented at all — because the explicit detail provided does not contribute to the story.
In general, I expect incest scenes of the type written in this book’s conclusion will continue eliciting such hostility for the foreseeable future, remaining wholly uncorrelated from societal shifts in acceptance or rejection of violence in fiction. That last chapter has been a problem through thirty years of cultural shifts. Here’s to another thirty years of warning people about it.
Notably, if this was erotica rather than hard sci-fi, and the incest scene was a component of titillation in a work dedicated to that outcome, then I would have just ao3-tagged it and skipped reading that bit and given people a simple cw and recommended the story. The segment in question is presented as matter of fact non-erotic consequence and conclusion of the story, and so does not earn from me the shrug-whatever-next tolerance and the much simpler warnings that I grant to erotic works in general. However, that presents the one exception I would make in recommending this story: if I’m recommending it to someone with familiarity with romance novels, gothic novels, ao3 tagging, or pornhub categories, then I would absolutely have a much easier time expressing my discontent with the novel:
“The last chapter has some unnecessarily explicit incest for half a page or so, which is in keeping with the lurid violence and sex tone set by the rest of the book, but I think the author’s dedication to the purity of their art critically weakens the potential impact of their work.”
And then, having concluded the incest warning, I would proceed to deciding if a violence and gore warning was appropriate for my audience. But that’s far too abbreviated for use at HN, so HN gets the long form — and HN is not what I would deem a ‘violence-averse’ community, relative to some others, making it uncertain whether I consider the violence of use to discuss here at all.
I hope this helps offer some clarity into how one might evaluate two equally upsetting things by completely different processes without sacrificing internal logical consistency.
Why wait till now to look for clarity?
Quoting Shakespeare poorly does nothing to make up for however many hundreds of blameless keystrokes 'signifying nothing,' save your strength of wish to impute your own unsettled emotions via the text unto its author.
Two hours ago you implied that simple possession of the text may be a major crime: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167140 Why strive so now for the pretense of evenhandedness?
It couldn't be much more obvious how the work interests you. The problem is mistaking that for a commentary on it. Your effort at literary criticism is no more belated than radically ungrounded, as I have already detailed in a prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167578 No one who gives the work an honest reading will find therein what you describe.
The quote is first attributed to Shakespeare but his usage is not the one I’m referencing.
I tried to show that it’s possible to engage with the violence of the book and the incest of the book as two separate concerns, by engaging with one but not the other. In response, you’re challenging my motivations rather than challenging the separation I described as possible. That ends my engagement with your thread; be well.
It is good form to cite or at least indicate, with quotation marks, when quoting. If you meant not to reference the famous usage, to name the work is best, not least to establish relevance and avoid appearing pretentious.
You say you find the incest and the torture equally upsetting, then you justify one and indict the other. If you can't be consistent even in the scope of a single comment, or for that matter distinguish fiction from reality better than this, wise indeed you seek balm for your dismay over the book elsewhere than with me; I have only so much patience for patent nonsense these days.
> You say you find the incest and the torture equally upsetting
I presented no information whatsoever regarding my personal views on the violence. Perhaps you tried to infer my position from the verb “excuse” in the first sentence.
I inferred your position from your constant use of the first-person singular to describe it, across what must now be at least a dozen paragraphs. Also by the fact you have found this position worth strenuous and irate effort to defend. If you had meant something else or had some relevant interest to disclose, I assume you would have said so.
What you did say was
> I hope this helps offer some clarity into how one might evaluate two equally upsetting things
which I took, by the way you called the two things - namely, the incest and the torture, as introduced at the top of your comment - "equally upsetting," to mean you consider them equally upsetting. If you wish now to claim you intended something by the phrase "equally upsetting" other than its literal meaning, you need to clarify.
You have by now after all impugned, whether openly or by implication, both the motivations and the intellectual competence of the author, the audience, and I myself. None of this is convincing. It is time to try something else. Ideally, that might involve discussing the text, but I agree it isn't for everyone.
Oh, good grief, I wish I'd caught this while I still could delete my prior comment. You opened with
> The incest doesn't excuse the torture.
But that is not what I said. I said, in the comment of mine to which you first replied, that people excuse the torture, but not the incest, just as you have done.
I still can't figure out what you meant by "equally upsetting," but the basic issue is that we're talking past each other because you failed to apprehend my thesis and I was too busy to notice and call you on it right away. I hope this clears things up!
Same. This is why I find it repulsive they named the company after such a clearly depraved work of art. If any of their customers knew the origin story I'm sure they would be appalled.