Hugo Nom review: "Article of Faith", by Mike Resnick
Alright, here's the deal. kevin_standlee is always talking about fans getting more involved in Hugo nomination and voting. This year, I've been trying to do some of that. I occasionally listen to the Escape Pod podcast; starting this week, they're reading this year's Hugo nominated short stories. On my way to cmdrsuzdal's meetup thing yesterday, I listened to the first story, "Article of Faith", by Mike Resnick.
So, the story is about a minister and the robot who cleans his church. The storyline was very trite to me -- and I'm not as well read in the genre as many of you are. You know, robot asks difficult questions, thinks it's more human than humanity wishes to acknowledge. Bicentennial Man, stuff like that.
I could forgive the plot, though. What I can't forgive is the sloppy religious writing. Some of you are scientists or engineers of one sort or another. Ever read a story that is so full of vague description and crappy science references that it makes you wince? Or better yet, seen a movie that is so full of crappy pseudoscience that it makes you cringe with the surety that no one involved in the project has the first idea about the basics or tropes of the genre?
Wellllll, let me put it this way: by half way through the story, I wanted to hunt Resnick down and ask him if he's ever set *foot* in a church at all. The description of everything involving religion in the story (which hinges on religion) is so vague, contradictory, or just *wrong* that it's constantly jarring. There are references to a parish, but the minister is a Reverend, not a priest. (Yes, there are a very very few Christian denominations that organize by parishes and yet have ministers (instead of priests) -- but not with the other details and doctrines that are pivotal in this story, like oh, Biblical infallibility.) Members of the church kneel, and yet it seems to be a mainstream Protestant denomination, based on the (very vague) doctrine referenced. In short, Resnick has set his story in the most generic of generic churches, with very little detail, except enough to place it in absolutely no real world church. He also has main character - the Reverend -- who spouts a sort of stereotyped kind of Christian thought of the sort I hear atheist talking heads pinning on them.
So, I know, you're thinking, "So?" So, if a writer decided to write a story set in some other realistic setting -- colony on Mars, operating room, cryonics lab, ship orbiting the sun -- you would probably expect the writing to demonstrate at least a cursory understanding of the setting. Like, oh, it's hot near the sun, or cold on Mars, or germs exist and cause infections. That sort of thing. From what I can tell, Resnick's research for a story set in a church in the United States consisted of watching the movie "Footloose".
But that's not the only problem. The dialogue? Trite. And worse, Resnick commits the sort of novice writing sins even *I* know are pesky. Cultural opinion of robots is critically important to the plot of the story. Of course, we don't know what that opinion is until about half way through the story, when one character says to another, "There is enormous antipathy towards robots these days." Absolutely nothing occurs in the story to tell us that prior to that disclosure, on page 11 of 17. The plot depends on that cultural antipathy, so it's introduced in a short, crappy bit of expository dialogue, sort of like this:
"I'm a robot, and I want to do this thing humans do, too."
"Why, you can't do that, because everyone knows that humans hate robots, of course!"
Well, I guess we know *now*, thanks. By the way, Mr. Writer, have you considered reviewing the part in "Writing Fiction 101" where it says, Show, don't tell. Check it out sometime. You might learn something.
And then the whole thing sort of climaxes in the most overused Christian plot device EVAR. I mean, I am pretty sure there's a Star Trek episode and everything.
After I finished listening to the story, I was very disappointed. Is this really the state of Hugo-nominated writing? Thankfully, cmdrsuzdal talked me down by explaining the many reasons the story might have been nominated and reiterating some of the things kevin_standlee has written about the logistics and statistics of Hugo nominations. I also re-read johnnyeponymous's Hugos coverage; he also considers Resnick's story weaker than the other offerings this year, though he's more polite than I've been.
Who's read it? What do y'all think?
So, the story is about a minister and the robot who cleans his church. The storyline was very trite to me -- and I'm not as well read in the genre as many of you are. You know, robot asks difficult questions, thinks it's more human than humanity wishes to acknowledge. Bicentennial Man, stuff like that.
I could forgive the plot, though. What I can't forgive is the sloppy religious writing. Some of you are scientists or engineers of one sort or another. Ever read a story that is so full of vague description and crappy science references that it makes you wince? Or better yet, seen a movie that is so full of crappy pseudoscience that it makes you cringe with the surety that no one involved in the project has the first idea about the basics or tropes of the genre?
Wellllll, let me put it this way: by half way through the story, I wanted to hunt Resnick down and ask him if he's ever set *foot* in a church at all. The description of everything involving religion in the story (which hinges on religion) is so vague, contradictory, or just *wrong* that it's constantly jarring. There are references to a parish, but the minister is a Reverend, not a priest. (Yes, there are a very very few Christian denominations that organize by parishes and yet have ministers (instead of priests) -- but not with the other details and doctrines that are pivotal in this story, like oh, Biblical infallibility.) Members of the church kneel, and yet it seems to be a mainstream Protestant denomination, based on the (very vague) doctrine referenced. In short, Resnick has set his story in the most generic of generic churches, with very little detail, except enough to place it in absolutely no real world church. He also has main character - the Reverend -- who spouts a sort of stereotyped kind of Christian thought of the sort I hear atheist talking heads pinning on them.
So, I know, you're thinking, "So?" So, if a writer decided to write a story set in some other realistic setting -- colony on Mars, operating room, cryonics lab, ship orbiting the sun -- you would probably expect the writing to demonstrate at least a cursory understanding of the setting. Like, oh, it's hot near the sun, or cold on Mars, or germs exist and cause infections. That sort of thing. From what I can tell, Resnick's research for a story set in a church in the United States consisted of watching the movie "Footloose".
But that's not the only problem. The dialogue? Trite. And worse, Resnick commits the sort of novice writing sins even *I* know are pesky. Cultural opinion of robots is critically important to the plot of the story. Of course, we don't know what that opinion is until about half way through the story, when one character says to another, "There is enormous antipathy towards robots these days." Absolutely nothing occurs in the story to tell us that prior to that disclosure, on page 11 of 17. The plot depends on that cultural antipathy, so it's introduced in a short, crappy bit of expository dialogue, sort of like this:
"I'm a robot, and I want to do this thing humans do, too."
"Why, you can't do that, because everyone knows that humans hate robots, of course!"
Well, I guess we know *now*, thanks. By the way, Mr. Writer, have you considered reviewing the part in "Writing Fiction 101" where it says, Show, don't tell. Check it out sometime. You might learn something.
And then the whole thing sort of climaxes in the most overused Christian plot device EVAR. I mean, I am pretty sure there's a Star Trek episode and everything.
After I finished listening to the story, I was very disappointed. Is this really the state of Hugo-nominated writing? Thankfully, cmdrsuzdal talked me down by explaining the many reasons the story might have been nominated and reiterating some of the things kevin_standlee has written about the logistics and statistics of Hugo nominations. I also re-read johnnyeponymous's Hugos coverage; he also considers Resnick's story weaker than the other offerings this year, though he's more polite than I've been.
Who's read it? What do y'all think?