Notes on Charles Stross' Glasshouse

[cpxbrex]

I just got done reading Glasshouse by Charles Stross and while I am finding that I am enjoying his books, I didn't like this one quite so well as Accelerando. Or, rather, I really, really enjoyed the first half of Glasshouse and found the second half tolerable but quite weak compared to the first half of the book

Comments

[bdunbar]

Too much of the plot depends on the antagonists on being complete and total idiots.

People do that all the time in my line of work - default password of 'password' on a firewall appliance, for example.

In another life I took a course in Operations Security - one part of which was to provide examples of Good and Bad jobs in operations security, and to draw out the lessons learned.

Something I took away was that people - even with Really Important Stuff to protect - can reliably be counted on to be complete idiots.

[cpxbrex]

A problem isn't that people were stupid - it's that they were institutionally stupid. Not that an individual put a lousy password on something - but that in a military prison they kept a vital piece of machinery that even a semi-intelligent person could use to inflict massive harm. So, yeah, even a three star general might have a trivial password on his computer, but you can't just walk into the secure sections of the Pentagon without passing half a dozen checkpoints.

[t3knomanser]

I'd argue that lots of good science fiction takes a D&Dish approach to things. It derives from that Clarkeian idea about advanced technology and magic.

When I think of hard sci-fi that did a really good job predicting a plausible future, I think of things like Ringworld, Eon, Accelerando, Singularity Sky (my personal favorite far-future Stross book), Blindsight. All of them start reading less like science and more like fantasy, where technology takes on the role of magic

[cpxbrex]

I have an element of chagrin with this comment. I mean, first, my tongue was somewhat in my cheek about the D&D comment - Stross' first publication was with a D&D magazine, White Dwarf, and it amuses me to consider both how far he's come AND I think it's fairly evident that much of his sci-fi *does* draw somewhat on his D&D experiences. It's a game that almost all D&D players have played: "What would the world *really look like* if people had access to teleportation circles and resurrection?" Secondly, y'know, on the other hand I have some amusement that you've felt it necessary to pontification on what's really science-fiction.

Any discussion on what sci-fi vs. fantasy is likely to break down into nonsense. There are wide areas of overlap in both of them, and for my part I don't see why one has to be one or the other - participation in both groups seems possible. Like many linguistic constructs, something is sci-fi or fantasy largely on consensus, loosely based on a Wittgensteinian family resemblance and not a whole lot else.

[t3knomanser]

Tongue in cheek or not, it's definitely true of more than just Stross. Or maybe I'm just projecting my familiarity on RPGs onto other science fiction works. I have a bad habit of explaining American Football it terms of D&D and miniatures wargaming, so the latter is probable.

I'm a huge fan of tedious discussions. I'm the special kind of polymath that can bore an audience to tears on a variety of niggly little details that only I care about.

But you're right, there's certainly broad overlap. And there are works that straddle the line, works that cross the line, works that ignore the line. Off the top of my head, I can name a half dozen counterexamples to my statement above.

In the end, and I think this is true for lots of people, my statements about the difference are less a statement of fact as they are wishful thinking.

[cpxbrex]

For me, it really depends on the tedious discussion. I just don't find the distinction, in particular, between fantasy and sci-fi to be interesting and, generally, I find when people are arguing about the definitions of words they usually have something up their sleeve - they're generally trying to manipulation the conversation by splitting hairs. I'm not accusing you of doing that - you seem a reasonable guy and honestly interested in the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy and aren't using it as a superficial way to stop the conversation - but I'm a bit guy shy of that particular kind of argument is all.

Also, Stross came 'round and told me I was wrong about the D&D thing, anyway. Which, I think, pretty conclusively settles it, hehe.

[autopope]

But, first, I will reveal something you might not realize about Stross. His futurism is based off of D&D. No, seriously! His sci-fi seems to involve instant teleportation, frequent resurrection and instantly producing material technology. It's teleport circles, true resurrection and hero's feast on a broad scale - I feel his futurism is basically a really well thought out D&D game, hehe. My tongue is only half in my cheek, there.

Wrong. Wronger than a very Wrong thing indeed. So Wrong that they sold out of Wrong at the Wrong store.

At least about the D&D. (I'll cop to The Sims.)

Here's a hint: Robin/Reeve is an unreliable narrator. (This ought to be telegraphed by the rather odd anomaly -- for a first person narrative -- of the narrator being murdered two-thirds of the way through the text.) Second hint: Stanford Prison Study. Third hint: Milgram experiment. Fourth hint: Robin was told that the Glasshouse was a prison system designed to rehabillitate immortal war criminals then given some sort of cock-and-bull yarn about it having

[cpxbrex]

I'm not following your reasoning here. I mean, I know that Reeve is an unreliable narrator - I basically assume all first person narrators are, that an even vaguely competent writer is going to write first person from the perspective of the character, flaws and all, unless they're writing a marysue - but I'm not sure how Reeve's unreliability speaks to how a lot of your stuff comes off to me as being a good solid take on the game that many gamers have played, y'know, "What would the world look like if things were REALLY LIKE D&D

[autopope]

OK, it's quite simple: D&D has occupied approximately zero hours of my life in the past 27 years.

And it was zero influence on the world and background of GLASSHOUSE.

I can't put it more clearly than that. If you want to see the SFnal genealogical roots of GLASSHOUSE you'd do better to look at John Varley's "Eight Worlds" novels and stories -- for a good start, try "The Steel Beach". Note that he was hatching that particular SFnal universe at much the same time that Gary Gygax was hatching original D&D back in the early 70s; I can't rule out parallel formative influences at that level. But GLASSHOUSE was not in any way consciously (or as far as I can tell unconsciously) influenced by D&D.

(On the other hand, "Halting State" is another matter ...)

[cpxbrex]

You say it so, like I said, I can't argue with you saying that D&D had no influences on Glasshouse. I just wasn't following the reasoning of why Reeve as an unreliable narrator had anything to do with the influences behind the novel. It's obvious that Glasshouse, Accelerando and The Atrocity Archives have elaborate influences that you sorta, well, flaunt and part of the pleasure in reading your books is to sort them out. I thought I'd come across one that might not have been obvious to other people and I'm wrong. D'oh!