On fiction: "Rendezvous with NECA": mining the source material
Ok, so part one of this "making of" series is about how this story idea appeared. Now let's look a bit at the source materials.
"Rendezvous with Rama" is one of Clarke's most famous works. The setup is simple: some mysterious object (thereafter referred to as Rama) passes through the solar system. Humans notice it and its shape- "a perfect cylinder"- and decide that it's obviously artificial and should be investigated. Which they do: a ship meets with the object, crew gets inside, explorations ensues.
It's considered a key hard-SF text because of Clarke's mix of imagination and attention to scientific detail. Also, because it is very much a tale of exploration of the unknown, with that Clarkian disregard for deep characterization. Clarke doesn't care about characters really. He created a world, the world of Rama, and takes us the readers on a tour. The human crew of explorers is made of essentially identical people; competent, curious, selfless. They don't give each other grief and don't needlessly rush into trouble themselves. Some kind of conflict is tacked on near the end, but it's really not the point of this story.
It has spawned three sequels. Now, whatever's written on the cover, Clarke is not the author. That debatable distinction belongs to Gentry Lee, one of Clarke's friends. It's said Clarke provided some ideas and general support, but not actual writing.
I said "debatable distinction" because the sequels have a strong anti-fan base. I haven't read them, so I won't judge. Reading amazon reviews, and some plot summaries however, I can glean some information about them.
Apparently, Lee decided Clarke's focus on mysterious settings at the expense of building characters was not a good direction, so the sequels insist more on the human element, and eventually reveal the purpose behind the Ramans, the creators of Rama and other similar spacecraft. Also, while Clarke's characters are almost uniformly Lawful Good (to use a convenient label), Gentry Lee's humans are various shades of the Evil spectrum, with only a few exceptions.
The direction Gentry Lee took is certainly more in tune with contemporary sensibilities, as well as more in tune with most writing advice, but a consensus emerged among readers that he implemented it very poorly. Again, haven't read, won't judge. Just a warning for something to be mindful about in my own project.
Because I don't want to emulate Clarke's writing. Two reasons.
One is fairly venal and petty. I don't presume a finished "Rendezvous with NECA" (the title WILL change eventually) will be aimed for publication, but as an exercise I'll pretend it will be. And if Clarke were an unknown today, he'd never get "Rendezvous with Rama" published.
The other reason is more important. I like Clarke's ideas but fundamentally I don't like Clarke's style. To not focus on the human characters, to not even try to give them depth, is to miss the point. The universe may well be a chaotic mess and all purpose are faces we see in clouds, but that requires someone be there to see those faces. And it helps if that someone is interesting and engaging. Otherwise, without a traveler there can be no journey, however baroque and imaginative the strange lands.
It's also simply more interesting, from a conception stand point, to try and make an actual story, with characters and conflict and plot, rather than a guided tour. If I wanted to do that, I could just write an essay or a blog post.
There's another warning from the Rama books. In the end, the purpose of Life, the Universe, and Everything is revealed. The result is ... banal. In part of how the answer is presented. Ok, I skipped to the end to see it, but characters lecturing is in no way excusable. Why would we need a story to happen, then someone march on stage to explain what we just saw? It's lazy writing.The answer itself is also unsatisfying. It assumes a lot about the, let's call it prime mover, but doesn't follow the implications of the assumptions. In the end it's a quick easy answer that's not even too original.
The lesson here is not to tackle Life, Universe and Everything questions. Or, if I do, I should leave them open. BUT, if I do that, I should make there be another, more immediate question being asked, and an answer given. I think that, after shows like X-Files, Lost and Prometheus, it's safe to say one needs to earn their open ended questions by first venturing answers for other ones.
Speaking of Prometheus- well, I've written a lot about it already. Finally got to see the Blu Ray extras and the first part of the Making of though. And it's interesting to see that both Ridley and Spaihts had as a guiding principle that the story should be about humans. It's as if they too were somehow aware of Rendezvous with Rama (or, more likely, 2001), and decided, nope, we won't pull a Clarke either.
But there's a problem here too. Ridley (who had a greater contribution to the creation of Prometheus, including the flaws, than the fan-favorite whipping boy Lindelof) interpreted focusing on a human story to mean that the Engineers need to be human like. Or godlike. Or some kind of mix, like the classical gods.The result seems so parochial, so narrow.
For one, the humanlike appearance is unnecessary. In the end, what did it matter that the Engineer looked like a human? For all he did in the end, he could just as easily have been a shrimp from District 9- only, the District 9 shrimps had more personality and showed how you can pull off engaging, not-quite human aliens. It pains me to say it, but only Elizabeth/Engineer fan-fiction actually does anything remotely interesting with the Engineers' humanity.
For two, what's so special about the human form anyway? I don't mean kinda like human, in the way the District 9 shrimps are kinda like human too if you think about it: carbon based, bipedal, bilaterally symmetric, two eyes, mouth-anus body plan etc. The Prometheus Engineers are DNA-identical however. And they look exactly like a human would, with only minor details different.There's one scene, fortunately cut out, of Elder Engineers passing the cup to the sacrificial one in the beginning. It's meant to evoke human religious rituals. Suddenly, all the cosmos is reduced to tribal superstition. Why should we assume, by default and with no explanation, that one (human) life is so cosmically significant that it- and it alone- can be used to barter for favors from the forces that power reality?
Maybe that was intentional. Maybe we humans only can cope with caring about 150 other people, maybe we can only grasp concepts if they are impersonated in an avatar, maybe we can only relate to stories that are essentially rites of passage for a hunter-gatherer tribe.
It's become clear however that the world is much larger than any stone age tribe's hunting grounds. Humanity is bigger than that, let alone something so unimaginably huge as the cosmos. Maybe we need new rites of passage then, and new kinds of stories, especially if we claim to have a wider scope in mind.
Big things may have small beginnings. One human life may turn out to touch a lot of other things; may turn out to be the indispensable component of an enormous process. But that doesn't just magically happen by virtue of some soul essence. It happens because of a mixture of choice and circumstance. That's where the story should lie.
So then here's the challenge of "Rendezvous with NECA". It needs to dial down ambition, which is often a challenge in itself, from what Gentry Lee tried. It also needs to explore more boldly than the Prometheus story line did. In absolute terms, this is far from a difficult challenge. Any number of the better SF writers working today manage it routinely. I hope to join them.
"Rendezvous with Rama" is one of Clarke's most famous works. The setup is simple: some mysterious object (thereafter referred to as Rama) passes through the solar system. Humans notice it and its shape- "a perfect cylinder"- and decide that it's obviously artificial and should be investigated. Which they do: a ship meets with the object, crew gets inside, explorations ensues.
It's considered a key hard-SF text because of Clarke's mix of imagination and attention to scientific detail. Also, because it is very much a tale of exploration of the unknown, with that Clarkian disregard for deep characterization. Clarke doesn't care about characters really. He created a world, the world of Rama, and takes us the readers on a tour. The human crew of explorers is made of essentially identical people; competent, curious, selfless. They don't give each other grief and don't needlessly rush into trouble themselves. Some kind of conflict is tacked on near the end, but it's really not the point of this story.
It has spawned three sequels. Now, whatever's written on the cover, Clarke is not the author. That debatable distinction belongs to Gentry Lee, one of Clarke's friends. It's said Clarke provided some ideas and general support, but not actual writing.
I said "debatable distinction" because the sequels have a strong anti-fan base. I haven't read them, so I won't judge. Reading amazon reviews, and some plot summaries however, I can glean some information about them.
Apparently, Lee decided Clarke's focus on mysterious settings at the expense of building characters was not a good direction, so the sequels insist more on the human element, and eventually reveal the purpose behind the Ramans, the creators of Rama and other similar spacecraft. Also, while Clarke's characters are almost uniformly Lawful Good (to use a convenient label), Gentry Lee's humans are various shades of the Evil spectrum, with only a few exceptions.
The direction Gentry Lee took is certainly more in tune with contemporary sensibilities, as well as more in tune with most writing advice, but a consensus emerged among readers that he implemented it very poorly. Again, haven't read, won't judge. Just a warning for something to be mindful about in my own project.
Because I don't want to emulate Clarke's writing. Two reasons.
One is fairly venal and petty. I don't presume a finished "Rendezvous with NECA" (the title WILL change eventually) will be aimed for publication, but as an exercise I'll pretend it will be. And if Clarke were an unknown today, he'd never get "Rendezvous with Rama" published.
The other reason is more important. I like Clarke's ideas but fundamentally I don't like Clarke's style. To not focus on the human characters, to not even try to give them depth, is to miss the point. The universe may well be a chaotic mess and all purpose are faces we see in clouds, but that requires someone be there to see those faces. And it helps if that someone is interesting and engaging. Otherwise, without a traveler there can be no journey, however baroque and imaginative the strange lands.
It's also simply more interesting, from a conception stand point, to try and make an actual story, with characters and conflict and plot, rather than a guided tour. If I wanted to do that, I could just write an essay or a blog post.
There's another warning from the Rama books. In the end, the purpose of Life, the Universe, and Everything is revealed. The result is ... banal. In part of how the answer is presented. Ok, I skipped to the end to see it, but characters lecturing is in no way excusable. Why would we need a story to happen, then someone march on stage to explain what we just saw? It's lazy writing.The answer itself is also unsatisfying. It assumes a lot about the, let's call it prime mover, but doesn't follow the implications of the assumptions. In the end it's a quick easy answer that's not even too original.
The lesson here is not to tackle Life, Universe and Everything questions. Or, if I do, I should leave them open. BUT, if I do that, I should make there be another, more immediate question being asked, and an answer given. I think that, after shows like X-Files, Lost and Prometheus, it's safe to say one needs to earn their open ended questions by first venturing answers for other ones.
Speaking of Prometheus- well, I've written a lot about it already. Finally got to see the Blu Ray extras and the first part of the Making of though. And it's interesting to see that both Ridley and Spaihts had as a guiding principle that the story should be about humans. It's as if they too were somehow aware of Rendezvous with Rama (or, more likely, 2001), and decided, nope, we won't pull a Clarke either.
But there's a problem here too. Ridley (who had a greater contribution to the creation of Prometheus, including the flaws, than the fan-favorite whipping boy Lindelof) interpreted focusing on a human story to mean that the Engineers need to be human like. Or godlike. Or some kind of mix, like the classical gods.The result seems so parochial, so narrow.
For one, the humanlike appearance is unnecessary. In the end, what did it matter that the Engineer looked like a human? For all he did in the end, he could just as easily have been a shrimp from District 9- only, the District 9 shrimps had more personality and showed how you can pull off engaging, not-quite human aliens. It pains me to say it, but only Elizabeth/Engineer fan-fiction actually does anything remotely interesting with the Engineers' humanity.
For two, what's so special about the human form anyway? I don't mean kinda like human, in the way the District 9 shrimps are kinda like human too if you think about it: carbon based, bipedal, bilaterally symmetric, two eyes, mouth-anus body plan etc. The Prometheus Engineers are DNA-identical however. And they look exactly like a human would, with only minor details different.There's one scene, fortunately cut out, of Elder Engineers passing the cup to the sacrificial one in the beginning. It's meant to evoke human religious rituals. Suddenly, all the cosmos is reduced to tribal superstition. Why should we assume, by default and with no explanation, that one (human) life is so cosmically significant that it- and it alone- can be used to barter for favors from the forces that power reality?
Maybe that was intentional. Maybe we humans only can cope with caring about 150 other people, maybe we can only grasp concepts if they are impersonated in an avatar, maybe we can only relate to stories that are essentially rites of passage for a hunter-gatherer tribe.
It's become clear however that the world is much larger than any stone age tribe's hunting grounds. Humanity is bigger than that, let alone something so unimaginably huge as the cosmos. Maybe we need new rites of passage then, and new kinds of stories, especially if we claim to have a wider scope in mind.
Big things may have small beginnings. One human life may turn out to touch a lot of other things; may turn out to be the indispensable component of an enormous process. But that doesn't just magically happen by virtue of some soul essence. It happens because of a mixture of choice and circumstance. That's where the story should lie.
So then here's the challenge of "Rendezvous with NECA". It needs to dial down ambition, which is often a challenge in itself, from what Gentry Lee tried. It also needs to explore more boldly than the Prometheus story line did. In absolute terms, this is far from a difficult challenge. Any number of the better SF writers working today manage it routinely. I hope to join them.
Comments
Post a Comment