Ed's Reviews > Diaspora
Diaspora
by
by
Science fiction as a literary endevour is at a natural disadvantage. A novel set in the distant future cannot take for granted any common points of reference. It is forced to explain itself, to construct worlds and cultures through description and exposition. Furthermore the characters are often alien (perhaps literally) and are difficult to relate to. How can one feel sympathy for characters a thousand years removed, whose experiences are so vastly different from our own?
To overcome these limitations, many writers simply take a science fiction premise and shoehorn in a pop-fiction plot structure, with characters that are by any meaningful measure essentially the same as people living today. For me, this approach completely destroys any potential or interest that the premise may have held. What you end up with is a generic political thriller IN SPACE, or a murder mystery ON THE MOON. This is the worst of all garbage - science fiction completely devoid of any depth or meaning.
For all the faults of this book, I truly respect Greg Egan for taking the opposite approach. Diaspora is a novel with a poorly-plotted, clunky and disjointed story, and completely flat and uninteresting characters. The writing is not in the least subtle, and is devoid of any remarkable qualities. In short, Diaspora is terrible literature. But, it is very good science fiction. It is a grand though experiment, exploring the infinite possibilities of the universe. The speculative physics is detailed and demanding. This is very hard science fiction indeed. It challenges the reader to visualise and understand multi dimensional topography, the minute interactions of quantum particles, the movement of astronomical bodies, and the functioning of complex AI systems.
In fact, I actually found myself wishing that Egan had gone even further to discard the normal conventions of fiction, and explore the themes in an even more direct and immersive way. I felt the characters retained a little too much of their humanity. For example, Diaspora attempts something interesting with pronouns, but this only reinforced for me the limitations of human language. In fact all the dialogue seemed in some respects out of place. Why are these purely digital beings having awkward conversations through linear dialogue? Maybe this sounds a little strange, and I suppose I am here in a sense entering my own realm of speculative fiction. Maybe what I'm asking for is poorly thought out and would not work. It could be that there are simply some limitations inherent in the genre that we have to live with.
To overcome these limitations, many writers simply take a science fiction premise and shoehorn in a pop-fiction plot structure, with characters that are by any meaningful measure essentially the same as people living today. For me, this approach completely destroys any potential or interest that the premise may have held. What you end up with is a generic political thriller IN SPACE, or a murder mystery ON THE MOON. This is the worst of all garbage - science fiction completely devoid of any depth or meaning.
For all the faults of this book, I truly respect Greg Egan for taking the opposite approach. Diaspora is a novel with a poorly-plotted, clunky and disjointed story, and completely flat and uninteresting characters. The writing is not in the least subtle, and is devoid of any remarkable qualities. In short, Diaspora is terrible literature. But, it is very good science fiction. It is a grand though experiment, exploring the infinite possibilities of the universe. The speculative physics is detailed and demanding. This is very hard science fiction indeed. It challenges the reader to visualise and understand multi dimensional topography, the minute interactions of quantum particles, the movement of astronomical bodies, and the functioning of complex AI systems.
In fact, I actually found myself wishing that Egan had gone even further to discard the normal conventions of fiction, and explore the themes in an even more direct and immersive way. I felt the characters retained a little too much of their humanity. For example, Diaspora attempts something interesting with pronouns, but this only reinforced for me the limitations of human language. In fact all the dialogue seemed in some respects out of place. Why are these purely digital beings having awkward conversations through linear dialogue? Maybe this sounds a little strange, and I suppose I am here in a sense entering my own realm of speculative fiction. Maybe what I'm asking for is poorly thought out and would not work. It could be that there are simply some limitations inherent in the genre that we have to live with.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Diaspora.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 8, 2015
– Shelved
June 26, 2016
–
Started Reading
July 4, 2016
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Thanks very much for the feedback! I think sci-fi in many cases can work better on the screen, where the physical world can simply be shown without the need for description, but that medium has it's own limitations, especially in its ability to dig into the detail.
"Completely flat and uninteresting characters" is hyperbolic, but agreed that characterization isn't the centerpiece of the work.Also agreed that Egan could have pushed the boundaries of the dialogue beyond the pronoun creativity. It may have made the work that much more cryptic to approach, but given the context of Egan's thought experiment, it would have been further illustrative of its posthuman subject matter.
Either way, I'm looking forward to completing this work to allow for full reflection. It's one of a kind.

The reasons you expose about "bad sci-fi" works brought to mind many hollywood releases that receive great acclaim by the public while the original book leaves countless readers lukewarm and cheated most often than not.