Submitted by Kopaka-Nuva t3_117gj59 in books
Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9dcapq wrote
Reply to comment by and_dont_blink in A Disappointed Review of The Emperor's Soul by Brandon Sanderson by Kopaka-Nuva
I think I get what you're saying now (and I'm sorry you're getting downvoted for it). There's a limit to how much ground you can cover in a story, especially a short one. But I feel that some things cry out to be addressed if they're included--a bit like Chekhov's Gun, but applied to themes. I don't necessarily want the author to tell me "AI bad!," but if they're going to have their protagonist play God, I think that's a really serious matter and deserves to be examined at least a little bit. What bothered me wasn't that I dislike the outcome (I'm not entirely sure that I would morally condemn it), what bothered me was that the main character does something that's inherently a Big Deal and there's little serious thought given to it. To use a better analogy than Moby Dick, it'd be like having a story where the protagonist kills someone to achieve a goal, but barely discussing whether it was justified or not either before or after doing it. It might have been justified, it might not have been, and there might be an interesting debate to be had about that, but what you can't do is just ignore it.
(To deflate all this, it was pointed out to me in another thread that I didn't interpret the story quite right in the first place--the nature of the magic in the story forces the artificial soul to be extremely similar to the original. I think the story would still be improved by having the characters spend more time thinking about whether creating an artificial soul is justified, or whether they should make any changes to it at all, but they're not really creating a whole new person in the first place, which makes it a less serious matter than I had perceived it to be, and thus not as essential to address.)
and_dont_blink t1_j9dibpj wrote
> (and I'm sorry you're getting downvoted for it).
That stuff doesn't matter, plenty of fake internet points to go around.
>But I feel that some things cry out to be addressed if they're included
Again do they need to be to tell a good story, and specifically the story the author wants to tell? Additionally, the absence of consideration can be a trait, point or setting in and of itself. If everyone is genetically modifying or casting spells on their offspring in a novel, past the YA audience do you need a character to stop and pontificate about the nature and dangers of what they're doing or do you follow one character's story and mindset living in that world?
Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9djoxv wrote
I mean, sure, there are more ways to address an issue than have characters pontificate about it, especially if it's a "fact of life" in your setting that's meant to cause values dissonance with the audience. But what bothered me in this particular story involves something that isn't typical (in fact, some characters do view it as an abomination, but they're hypocritical background villains who aren't given any depth) and classic sci-fi novellas (which is essentially what Sanderson wrote, whether he calls it fantasy or not) are all about pontificating over moral issues.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments