Submitted by Kopaka-Nuva t3_117gj59 in books

I made the mistake of reading The Emperor’s Soul shortly after reading Frankenstein. In some ways, they are surprisingly similar tales: both involve the artificial creation of what is effectively a new conscious being. Yet while Frankenstein unflinchingly explores the dubious morality of such an undertaking, The Emperor’s Soul largely ignores the issue.

In The Emperor’s Soul, a character named Shai must essentially create an artificial mind for a brain-dead emperor. She is instructed to make this artificial mind as close as possible to the man’s original mind, before the accident that left him brain-dead. At first, she complies, but gradually comes to realize that she can “improve” him by giving him a little extra moral fiber. She comes to view this as creating her life’s masterwork—an incomparable artistic achievement that will be her legacy. The book makes this its main theme—the connection between art and obsession, the drive to excel, and what have you. On the surface, this may seem all well and good, but when read in light of Frankenstein, it all becomes rather disturbing.

What gives anyone the right to create a new life-form? Shai is effectively playing God—under coercion at first, but over time, as she begins to view the project as an expression of her artistic skill, she leans into the part and takes it farther than anyone intended. She decides to make the titular emperor a better person, but who is she to say what’s better? She is accountable to no-one and nothing but herself. Even if she’s justified in trying to make him better than the original, the question remains whether she’s justified in creating a new mind at all. How would this new person, inhabiting the body of a similar but not mentally-identical person, react if he knew he was the creation of a human? What if there’s some unintended consequence, and he turns out to be a worse person than the original? Isn’t it also highly questionable to undertake such a morally-fraught endeavor entirely in secret, to preserve the illusion that the new emperor is the same as the old one? (The secrecy is mostly not Shai’s fault, but the narrative doesn’t dwell on the enormity of such a deception.) In light of all this, isn’t it incredibly prideful to view this project as a form of artistic expression, with little concern for the deeper metaphysical implications? Isn’t it, in fact, strikingly reminiscent of Dr. Frankenstein’s attitude at the beginning of his tale?

These are all important questions that are not nitpicks or minor incidental details. They are implicit in the very premise of the story, and to gloss over them is to share in the blind hubris of Dr. Frankenstein—the hubris that’s lead our species to seriously endanger itself countless times, especially in the past couple of centuries, by valuing technical achievement over morality. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” as another similarly-themed story can tell you. If you’re going to play God, you’d damned well better think long and carefully about it first. Sanderson’s chosen theme of exploring the nature of artistry is a fine one, but he should have chosen a less-fraught premise to explore it with unless he was prepared to simultaneously explore at least some of the questions Mary Shelley raised two hundred years ago.

On a different but interesting (to me) note, there's something else that bothered me a bit about the novella: it’s sci-fi barely disguised as fantasy. Shai is essentially creating an AI. The magic system resembles computer programming in the way the final “product” must be built up to with a complex series of interrelated directives and failsafes. This is reinforced in the dialogue—there’s talk, for instance, of building “back doors into the emperor’s soul” and magical effects “not taking.” To many, this is a beloved feature of Sanderson’s writing, and I don’t mean to say it’s necessarily bad. But it doesn’t give me what I’m looking for from fantasy. Science fiction, tending more towards empiricism than fantasy, is more suited technical conversations about “mechanical” procedures.

As a final complaint, Sanderson is of course no master prose-stylist, but couldn’t he come up with better systems of nomenclature? Does he need silly apostrophes in his names? Do terms like “MaiPon and “reForging” need capital letters in the middle that forcibly call to mind brand names like FedEx and PlayStation? Of all the awkward PG-rated swear words he’s come up with, couldn’t he do any better than “Nights?” (Nights, that’s a limp swear-word.) I also dislike the way he tosses in little worldbuilding details that don’t matter and aren’t embedded in any kind of meaningful context—for example, early on he tells us that the stonework in a certain location was “after the Lamio style, with tall pillars of marble inlaid with reliefs.” This doesn’t really tell us enough specific about the Lamio style to let us envision it as anything other than generic columns with some kind of undefined reliefs. And styles of architecture have nothing to do with the plot, nor any of the character’s interests, nor even with the story’s symbolism, so why do we need to hear a made-up name for a thing we have no reason to care about? It’s supposed to add “immersion,” but it does so in a shallow way bereft of genuine meaning or interest.

To conclude, The Emperor’s Soul is not a bad story. It paints a reasonably compelling picture of a human soul, and its commentary on the artistic process is not without merit. However, I don’t think these elements are strong enough to outweigh Sanderson’s usual stylistic shortcomings and his myopic oversight of the philosophical implications of his story unless you’re already a fan.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

and_dont_blink t1_j9bkxxw wrote

I'm going to set aside your valid complaints and only focus on the idea that the book disturbed you after reading Frankenstein -- you had issues with the ethical issues it's raising. I don't get it, it's like someone reading Moby Dick and giving it a negative review because obsession is unhealthy and it bothered them to read about. I don't know how this mindset has gotten formed or why it's become more common in some, but I'd argue books are stories not a product to consume to have your feelings and worldview validated.

22

Thornescape t1_j9bn8dn wrote

One of the major points of the story is that she wrestles with the ethics of tweaking the personality. If she had no hesitations about changing the personality, she would have "programmed" him to do whatever she wanted.

That's pretty much the main point of the entire short story.

9

Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9bsz89 wrote

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not bothered that it raised ethical issues--I'm bothered that it doesn't really engage with them. Imagine if Moby Dick ended with Ahab killing the whale and going home in triumph--it would be kind of like that.

7

Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9btiso wrote

She does do some thinking about it, which is good and kept me from passing even harsher judgement. But as you say, she wrestles with the ethics of how much she should tweak the personality--not so much the fact that she is playing God by getting involved in fabricating a soul in the first place. And in the end, she feels justified in doing so.

0

Thornescape t1_j9bui0c wrote

Please bear in mind that she has no choice about creating this construct. She is literally in prison and forced to do it. This is not at all the same as Frankenstein. She isn't making this construct for giggles. She is being oppressed by an immoral regime, and she has a chance to make that immoral regime better.

She makes extremely subtle tweaks to hopefully make the construct a better person, and wrestles continually with the issue.

Personally, if someone was making a construct of me to recreate me, I would personally prefer if they would make me a better person. Sounds awesome. Please include a better sense of humour!

10

Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9c3ioj wrote

You're definitely right that the two stories can't be compared one-to-one. Shai has very little agency because of her circumstances, and she never would have attempted to do something so insane on her own initiative. But what bothers me is that the narrative focuses much more on how she's creating a great work of art than examining moral questions it implicitly raises. She questions how much she should change him (which is constrained by the practical limitation that the fake soul won't work if she changes it too much), but the question of whether or not it's moral to create a fake soul at all is barely addressed--only the self-righteous members of the oppressive regime really feel that way, and they hypocritically ignore their moral compunctions in favor of political convenience.

3

and_dont_blink t1_j9c4tef wrote

>I think you misunderstand me.

Respectfully, I don't think I do at all but I don't think you're getting what i'm laying down. I hate to quote you this much, but it's pretty apparent:

>On the surface, this may seem all well and good, but when read in light of Frankenstein, it all becomes rather disturbing.What gives anyone the right to create a new life-form? Shai is effectively playing God... She decides to make the titular emperor a better person, but who is she to say what’s better? She is accountable to no-one and nothing but herself. Even if she’s justified in trying to make him better than the original, the question remains whether she’s justified in creating a new mind at all. How would this new person, inhabiting the body of a similar but not mentally-identical person, react if he knew...What if there’s some unintended consequence, and he turns out to be a worse person... In light of all this, isn’t it incredibly prideful to view this project as a form of artistic expression, with little concern for the deeper metaphysical implications? Isn’t it, in fact, strikingly reminiscent of Dr. Frankenstein’s attitude at the beginning of his tale?These are all important questions that are not nitpicks or minor incidental details. They are implicit in the very premise of the story, and to gloss over them is to share in the blind hubris of Dr. Frankenstein-—the hubris that’s lead our species to seriously endanger itself countless times, especially in the past couple of centuries, by valuing technical achievement over morality. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” as another similarly-themed story can tell you. If you’re going to play God, you’d damned well better think long and carefully about it first.Sanderson’s chosen theme of exploring the nature of artistry is a fine one, but he should have chosen a less-fraught premise to explore it with unless he was prepared to simultaneously explore at least some of the questions Mary Shelley raised two hundred years ago

You have a worldview about technology and it's advancement rooted in fear, and the premise spawned all these questions you wanted answers to. Frankenstein was a cautionary tale (amongst other things) and due to the premise, you were primed and had questions that weren't answered.

The question is do those questions need answers to tell the story Sanderson wanted to tell? I could write volumes about how the printing press changed the world for both good and ill (mostly good) and all the inherent challenges within it, or I can write a story about a person writing a novel. If the scope is large it enough it might include those things if they affect the story, but perhaps that they aren't in the story is telling you something about how she and others are approaching things.

You are bringing your own morality and worldview to the story being told (I don't think you realize how much of your post comes across as moralizing), and want to be told X is wrong or Y is dangerous. You seem fine reading about the weirdly ethical things but want someone sitting down saying X is bad, you want her wrestling with it, you want the structure of the black and white. And when you aren't getting it, you're slamming the book for it.

Again, I have no issue if you said you didn't find the protagonists story compelling compared to the world built and questions raised, it's simply in how your'e approaching these things. I don't get it.

>Imagine if Moby Dick ended with Ahab killing the whale and going home in triumph--it would be kind of like that.

I can imagine it, and I could see how that could be an awesome if disturbing story on obsession having an end result that makes you think and question, like the film Whiplash which I'd highly recommend.

16

Naturalnumbers t1_j9d9fzn wrote

Out of curiosity, let's have a bit of that discussion. In the context of the world of the story, what are the issues with creating a fake soul like this?

2

Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9dcapq wrote

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.)

−1

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?

9

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.

0

ADHD-HDTV t1_j9fd0el wrote

I’m going to be honest with you, it’s not necessarily the best look to “discuss your disagreements with Sanderson.”

It’s one of those things, sadly, that so many people here seem to love him and recommend him. He’s truly the Coleen Hoover (Tik Tok) but of Reddit.

I completely agree with your points — 100%. I think Sanderson’s naming conventions in nearly all of his stories fall flat. They’re very poor linguistically. And he spends so much time outlining and plotting that his characters just fall flat — seeing as he “discovery writes them — but they don’t cohesively flow like a tapestry into the plots he’s created.

The same goes for his prose. To me, Sanderson doesn’t like writing — telling a story. He likes gotchya moments, he likes hard fact, and rules. His prose and stories are never about immersion to me and sweeping me off my feet — but more like a DND Manual. Which kind of sucks cause he has some cool ideas!

Overall, I don’t think it’s worth “discussing” here with anyone as — seen above — you’re only going to state your opinions so that other people can tell you why you’re wrong about Sanderson, lol.

It might even be a more healthy discussion if you were to just post this on r/bookscirclejerk where most people aren’t infatuated with Sanderson like the second coming of Fantasy lol

−3

accersitus42 t1_j9g2xgi wrote

>I made the mistake of reading The Emperor’s Soul shortly after reading Frankenstein.
In some ways, they are surprisingly similar tales: both involve the
artificial creation of what is effectively a new conscious being. Yet
while Frankenstein unflinchingly explores the dubious morality of such an undertaking, The Emperor’s Soul largely ignores the issue.

This is probably the key. By reading your post, it seems like you have been looking so hard for parallels to Frankenstein that the search itself has colored your experience. A lot of your comments make me wonder if we even read the same book.

I would almost try reading the book again in a year or so and see if your perception changed.

8

ADHD-HDTV t1_j9g3o9e wrote

I don’t hate Sanderson, in fact I own most of his books.

There are other people I found, very much like you, who mistake critique of art with hatred and disrespect. It’s very strange, truly. Not once did I insult him, his religious views (which I don’t agree with), his family, or his personal appearance.

I strictly mentioned MY feelings on his work — an art — that I pay for an have every right to critique or not.

My feelings about the way his rabid fans treat others have nothing to do with him and are more of an interesting point brought up on how people treat others when the dislike something they love — as you did assuming I disrespected him.

You are entitled to your opinion. And I am entitled to mine. But you will not tell me how my opinion is wrong or how I’m being disrespectful for having it.

2

Kopaka-Nuva OP t1_j9hibtk wrote

Heh, you have a point. The reason I linked to my own subreddit at the end is that I'm slowly trying to build it up as a place for like-minded people to discuss fantasy books. I'm probably going to take a break from Reddit for awhile (for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand), but posting on r/bookscirclejerk is definitely an interesting suggestion.

2