Why I didn't like River of Gods

[andrewducker]

I recently read an Ian McDonald novel, in which a disparate group of people wander through a nanotech-inspired world, where politics has overriden technology and holds advanced forms of life in subservience and limited form.  Their lives criss-cross as they (knowingly and unknowingly) bring about the future of the world.  It was fantastic.

It was called Necroville (Terminal Cafe in the US).

I then read another Ian McDonald novel, in which a disparate group of people wander through a nanotech-inspired world, where politics has overriden technology and holds advanced forms of life in subservice and limited form.  Their lives criss-cross as they completely unknowingly do fuck-all to do with anything actually to do with the overall plot.  It was rather disappointing.

It was called River of Gods.

I _loved_ the writing in River of Gods.  I liked the characters.  I liked the background.  But nothing _anyone_ in the book did really made any difference to the outcome.  The individual stories were generally pretty nicely written, but didn't really go anywhere or reach any kind of conclusion, and the one story that did have a conclusion (that of the AIs) was affected by precisely one decision in the entire book - and that decision wasn't made for any particularly good reason.  Politics flowed back and forth in a chaotic manner, and I felt like we got interesting glimpses of various characters as they were moved around like chess pieces, but as they mostly came across as pawns in a greater game and we never got to see anything from the perspective of the 'people' moving the pieces, I was left with the feeling that none of it really mattered.

Comments

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

So in effect you read the same novel twice only with different titles? Sounds like a rip off/desperate agent to me.

[andrewducker]

Nope, very different novels except for a few ideas in common. You'll note I didn't complain about the similarities at all.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

David Eddings had been recycling the same plot for years.

In fact most fantasy authors do.

[andrewducker]

Did I complain about the plot recycling? That wasn't a problem at all.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Um............indeed not, I read your entry too fast and jumped to a conclusion.

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

And he didn't even have the decency to make "the place that no longer exists" Maragor! He just jammed some plot device in worse thatn Agatha bloody Christy!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Er, what device would that be?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Since you asked ...

But nothing _anyone_ in the book did really made any difference to the outcome

On one level, I just don't think this is true. Vishram orders the demonstration of the zero-point energy, Lull brings Aj to India, Mr Nandha triggers the exodus, etc. Everyone has a part. There is something that everyone does that impinges on the outcome--even, say, Parvarti, if only for the effect her story has on Mr Nandha's emotional state and the zeal with which he pursues his job. And of course what Lal Darfan (or the rest of it) does drives a lot of what happens.

But it's true to say that none of them, none of the humans at least, have any real perspective. Lull comes close, but none of them have any sense of what the real story of the book is, because that story is too big for any one person. And I think that's one of the points of the book, because this is what the world we live in means. In a hyperconnected, rapidly changing world there are no great men of history, there are only individual decisions. People have their individual stories, but the stories of the world come from the interactions of the stories of individuals. If that makes sense.

[andrewducker]

It does - but I've seen it done in more satisfying ways. I think the problem is that almost nobody makes any moral choices - except for Vishram. He makes the choice to allow the demonstration to proceed - despite knowing who is funding it. But everyone else is just wrapped up in their own lives - making choices for their own ends, without any moral connection to the overriding story.

I mean, sure, don't have any of them know the overarching plot - but almost nobody knows there _is_ an overarching plot, and this leaves it a tad pointless. It's like having an episode of Eastenders followed by an epiode of The Bill and then an episode of Coronation street - at the end of which a 3 minute short explains how because of the actions in these programs World War 3 is averted - if none of the people even knew there was a World War to be averted, their actions aren't of any moral interest to me in that context.

In many ways I'd have been happier if River of Gods had been a short story collection set in that universe - where there are, indeed, many interesting stories to tell.

Oh, and it doesn't help that right up to the end he's still introducing new characters and viewpoints to do with the political side that I never managed to connect up - and that it's never actually clear how some of the events he raises tie in at all. It is unclear, for instance, what Jivanjee actually gets out of all of his plotting and planning - or what Khan actually does at the end to redeem himself.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

But everyone else is just wrapped up in their own lives - making choices for their own ends, without any moral connection to the overriding story.

Which is exactly one of the things that I like about it, as is the way it feels like short stories. :) Though to me there's a stronger sense of connection than you allow--almost all the threads intersect in some way at some point.

You know he has a related story in the June Asimov's, right?

It is unclear, for instance, what Jivanjee actually gets out of all of his plotting and planning

I think the point there is that it's in his nature. He's a thing of stories, and at one point says that politics is the greatest story of all, or similar--he literally can't help himself. So it might not be the most straightforward way, from our point of view, for him to achieve his goals (which if memory serves is to fight back, isn't it? Alterre is the one that tried to understand, and Odeca is the one that sought escape), but it's the way that comes naturally to him.

[andrewducker]

The threads intersect - but largely in much the same way as Banks' Walking on Glass - people see each other walking down the street. Or they play a part in the other's life - but there's no connection.

But that I could live with, except that by having the overarching plot, it's that I'm moved to care about - and then find that it's impossible to get a grasp on that plot, because it's all hidden from us, except for a few small details.

I guess what it comes down to is the feeling that everyone in the book is a puppet on the string of an AI, and we never get to see what the controllers thing, we only get to see the movement of puppets. I fundamentally don't care about the manipulated - I care about the people making the choices - and we never get to see more than glimpses of them.

Oh, and my main problem with the Jivanjee plotline is that he puts an awful lot of effort in, and then it gets destroyed by Khan - only we don't actualy discover _how_ or _what_ causes the downfall, it all happens offstage. It's like getting to the end of ROTJ and then having Luke vanish from the plot halfway through and then be mentioned by Han to Leia at the end "Oh, Luke's back - the Emperor's dead and Vader's redeemed." - there's no feeling of connection to any of it.

In fact, thinking on it further, the lack of detail makes it feel less 'real' to me - I find politics fascinating, and the firt 2/3 of the politics works for me, but the end feels like an ending by fiat - he's only really caring about getting the AIs off stage - everything else is just filling in the minimum detail necessary now that the story's over.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

One thing here [sorry for the scattered answers but am too tired to marshall all the points in one comment]: Khan receives his information from Najia. Partial disclosure of the information causes the downfall. Neither of this happens offstage.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Blame Niall for linking to this discussion. :)

their actions aren't of any moral interest to me in that context

Your suggestion is that a novel only really deals satisfyingly with questions of morality if those questions are Writ Large. The interesting thing about River of Gods is that each of the characters has moral decisions to make in their own lives - personal choices which they perceive as effects on their own world and their own identity - which they resolve using personal motivations. These motivations are still full of moral dimensions but they exist for the characters as they do for most of us - as questions primarily answered by reference to our own sense of obligation to others and our own self-interest.

These characters are not puppets - they are us, making the decisions we make in the ways that we make them. But, crucially, there exists a world beyond ours that we cannot often perceive but which, try as we might, we cannot escape. Our actions will effect a canvas broader than the one we believe to be painting onto. We must make moral choices in our everyday lives for that very reason - because our choices are liable to have effects beyond those we can calculate. There is no difference between that personal morality and a wider one. This links somewhat with the conversation Niall and I had a while back (the link escapes me) about the issues of individual and society in the book.

The characters in River of Gods are asked moral questions and the quality and probity of their personal answers will have very public consequences. This is not grand narrative in the traditional sense, but it is no less - and perhaps more - morally interesting for that.

[andrewducker]

But largely their moral choices don't affect their stories in a large way (because they get affected by the larger story) or the larger story (except for one decision).

And the individual stories aren't very satisfying in and of themselves either:
1) Lull encounters a strange girl, who displays wierd abilities, finally discovers who she is, and then watches her get killed.
2) Shiv gets pushed from pillar to post doing nasty things for people, and the gets killed.
3) Najia gets caught up in a political game, and then flees from it.
4) Tal likewise.
5) Khan likewise, although he manages to pull himself back in using information he gains from _somewhere_ (for the life of me I can't work out when/where he gets this information, which makes it feel especially deus ex machina).
6) Lisa goes looking for an explanation for a wierd asteroid, and finds it. But not because she actually does anything, just because she gets pushed into the right place at the right time.
7) Mrs Nandha _does_ have a decent story arc, albeit one with a pointlessly downbeat ending.
8) Mr Nandha also has a decent story, of which he is the hero although the overall story certainly made _me_ feel that he's on the wrong side.
9) Vishram has a decent arc - with some nice character development.

So the end result (for me) was a bunch of stories that didn't really do anything except feed us snippets of the overall plot, a whole bunch of deus ex machina, and a general feeling of pointlessness.

Which doesn't mean that I didn't love the style, characterisation, background, etc. I just felt that the plot(s) should have worked a lot better. Unless his point was "Life is pointless and random, and you either never get to understand what's going on, or if you do it gets taken away from you in a very dangerous way." - which frankly isn't a lot of fun in a novel.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Again, I think you're missing the point somewhat. Shiv only gets killed because he has chosen to live a life of crime (a moral choice). Khan falls prey to the political game because of his predilection for neuts (a moral choice), Mrs Nandha's (tortured) decision to finally elope with the gardener is, as Niall points out, the moral decision that results in Mr Nandha's singular state of mind at the end of the novel. None of these choices are in any way linked to the plot, I agree, but to suggest that the characters have no input into the novel's events is surely to fail to recognise how McDonald is playing with the notions of individual and corporate responsibility?

[andrewducker]

Shiv makes almost no moral choices _in the book_. He starts out as a street-thug, ends as a street-thug, and about the only interesting scene with him in it is when he's not sure if he wants to kill the girl or not.

A sexual prediliction is _not_ a choice. Following it up is tho. But it's a choice that happens to have effect on the plot, but not one about it.

I felt unsatisfied with almost all of the individual stories, and also with the overarching meta-story. If the whole had added up to more than the sum of its parts then it would have been a success to me, but as it was it felt like more of a mess.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I remain fairly satisfied that the characters' ignorance of the Big Picture and their existence as moral creature with free and important choice are not mutually exclusive, but I suspect we've hit the Personal Taste brick wall, here. :P

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

But largely their moral choices don't affect their stories in a large way (because they get affected by the larger story) or the larger story (except for one decision).

But that *is* what happens sometimes, isn't it? Events take on a life of their own and most individual choices have no bearing on the shape or behaviour of the emerging beast. Also, I disagree with the bit about their moral choices not effecting their own stories. Parvati, Nandha, Vishram, Tal, Najia, Khan all face greatly altered lives by the end of the narrative, and only Nandha can say that the change wasn't brought about by a moral choice made by him.

Unless his point was "Life is pointless and random, and you either never get to understand what's going on, or if you do it gets taken away from you in a very dangerous way." - which frankly isn't a lot of fun in a novel.

Well, that is not really what he is saying, is it? Or at least that isn't all of it. Look at Najia and Tal - both of them start out as pawns in a political game, they realise it, are too curious to let things be, find out the details, release them to the other pawn, Khan, who then helps them escape the country and uses the knowledge to redeem himself and stabilise his country. Nothing about that speaks of pointlessness or despair.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

It is unclear, for instance, what Jivanjee actually gets out of all of his plotting and planning

What any demagogue gets out of his/her machinations - an enhanced nuisance value which might translate into political power if things work out right. He comes close to success too. After Sajida's assassination, when he was bargaining for the position of the Home Minister.

- or what Khan actually does at the end to redeem himself.

This one is clearly mentioned. He disseminates the information given to him by Najia in such a way that the hindutvavadis are thoroughly discredited and branded as traitors. Khan also takes care to not let out the whole truth for that would have led to massive panic and a complete breakdown of law and order. The civil servant, protecting the nation he had sworn to protect.

[talvalin.livejournal.com]

And in gaining that position within the government, Jivanjee would have enough power to get rid of the Krishna Cops and repeal the law (McAuley?) that prohibits aeais of Generation 3 level and above, thus giving the aeais a safe haven within Bharat. I believe Jivanjee relays most of this information to Najia.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Hamilton Acts. But Jivanjee was depending on the Tabernacle to help him influence America.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

And yes, the Home Minister controls the police force. So he could have issued an administrative ordinance, effective immediately, while waiting for the law to be repeealed within Bharat.

[andrewducker]

Jivanjee _trys_ and fails. In fact pretty much everyone tries to get something and messes it up in some way (either through their own fault or because of circumstance). It might be very retro of me, but if I don't tend to turn to SF for stories of people trying and failing - I find them generally unsatisfactory on an emotional level.

And I've now checked _again_ and can't find the bit where Najia sends information to Khan. One moment she's jacked in and finding all of the information out, the next she's curled in a ball in the back of a taxi, then she's being thanked by Khan. So either she sent it while in a ball of shock, or I'm missing the point where it happens. Should you be able to give me a page number I'd actually appreciate it, because I can't seem to find it.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

The bit where Tal tells his taxi to stop, gets out, stops Khan's car and talks to him. Najia thinks that history is being made but this time it is Tal who is handing over the object of power. Pp. 532-533.

[andrewducker]

In which case it's rather unclear. Because they seem to accidentally arrive in the same place as Khan, and he seems to take in a vast amount of information (and believe it) in about 5 seconds.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Pg 530 now. Tal takes out the video recording of Najia's conversation with Jivanjee, uses the phone tracer to locate Khan's residence. When they reach the old haveli, they see the Merc coming out. They stop it, Tal gets out, talks to Khan, Najia has a brief flashback, doesn't even see khan walk up to her. So more than 5 seconds. And how much would Tal need to say anyway? 'Jivanjee is Lal Darfan, a Gen 3 AI. I have proof here.' Khan, with his background in politics, would absorb the implications immediately.

[andrewducker]

Aaaah. It wasn't at all clear to me that she was finding Khan's residence using the phone tracer.

I guess that with the huge amount of information beind funneled through the book, spotting the places where things are hinted at was beyond me. It's not normally a problem I have with books - but in the case of River of Gods I really felt a lack of cohesion. And it didn't feel like it was a deliberate thing - it felt more like the end of a Stephenson novel, where you get a few notes on things being sorted out, and no feeling that things _worked_.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

I haven't read anything by Stepehenson, but the feeling of things not really working was certainly there. But I thought that was simply because the book was placed in India. Most of the book placed in India automatically become a disaster novel. And if people survive, then that seems to be an achievement enough. ;)

[talvalin.livejournal.com]

I read that as "Most of any book placed in India automatically becomes a disaster novel". Ahem.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

*lol*

Well, that works for me, especially since I missed an 's' after the 'book'.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Jivanjee _trys_ and fails. In fact pretty much everyone tries to get something and messes it up in some way (either through their own fault or because of circumstance). It might be very retro of me, but if I don't tend to turn to SF for stories of people trying and failing - I find them generally unsatisfactory on an emotional level.

You know, I can almost empathise with what you say here. I tend to prefer books about people trying and succeeding myself. But in this book, given the plot [and yes, it *had* a plot], all of them couldn't have succeeded. Simply because their goals were mutually exclusive. So the book ended in some success stories [Vishram and his dad, Khan, Najia and Tal, Nandha and Odeca] and some failures. And that still leaves us with characters who neither succeeded nor failed, but found their lives changed by the event. Taken together, I found the resolution satisfying. Not how *I* would have done it, but certainly internally consistent with the book and its setting.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

But nothing _anyone_ in the book did really made any difference to the outcome.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. I thought the outcome was determined by the actions of the characters. Agreed that the Tabernacle didn't effect the outcome, but it would have been a different story then, one about the paradoxes of time travel.

The individual stories were generally pretty nicely written, but didn't really go anywhere or reach any kind of conclusion, and the one story that did have a conclusion (that of the AIs) was affected by precisely one decision in the entire book - and that decision wasn't made for any particularly good reason.

Again, I am not sure what kind of a conclusion you wanted them to reach. And if you are talking about Parvati's decision in that last sentence above, then it was made for a good enough reason.