Picture
Charles Yu's novel How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe has been getting lots of year-end attention, making the "best novel" lists for Time, Amazon.com, and others. I finished reading Alice's copy about a week ago, and I liked it, though the praise seems a little overstated -- if Time is only going to use one of its 10 slots for a science fiction book (yes, there are other novels on the list with fantastical elements), is Yu's really the best of the best?

Of course, this book seems guaranteed to set off a lot of my kneejerk warning signals. There's the metafictional title, with its suggestion that the author feels superior to regular old science fiction, a feeling reinforced by the pop art array of ray guns on the cover. There's the self-consciousness of naming the narrator Charles Yu. (It's hard for me to get too critical when I've written a story called "Anthony Ha Goes to Hell".)

And yet, most of it works. Within a few pages, the protagonist's name feels like a natural choice, not an affectation. (It helps that the character isn't Charles-Yu-the-author, but rather a parallel universe version of the same.) Yu deftly inserts an awareness of race and class into the book without making the book about race or about class (not that there would be anything wrong with that -- they're just not his main concerns). The plotting in the novel's second half is quite clever, tying the vectors of "Yu"'s self-discovery together with the time-loop plot in a way that feels satisfying, even moving.

And Yu uses his science fictional conceits and language to bring his characters to life in a new way, one that would have been less powerful in a realistic family novel. For example:

"Our house was a collection of silences, each room a mute, empty frame, each of us three oscillating bodies (Mom, Dad, me) moving around in our own curved functions, from space to space, not making any noise, just waiting, waiting to wait, trying, for some reason, not to disrupt the field of silence, not to perturb the delicate equilibrium of the system. We wandered from room to room, just missing one another, on paths neither chosen by us nor random, but determined by our own particular characteristics, our own properties, unable to deviate, to break from our orbital loops, unable to do something as simple as walking into the next room where our beloved, our father, our mother, our child, our wife, our husband, was sitting, silent, waiting but not realizing it, waiting for someone to say something, anything, wanting to do it, yearning to do it, physically unable to bring ourselves to change our velocities."

However, the language also points to the book's biggest flaw. Obviously, science fictional ideas can hold real metaphorical power, but they should be more than metaphors. To quote Scott Westerfeld on stories (and, um, zombies), "They don't just stand around 'being metaphors' whose sole purpose is to represent things in the real world; they eat the real world." In Yu's novel, virtually all the technological and fantastical armature serves some metaphorical purpose, and that makes the world seem thinner, more solipsistic, like it only exists to illuminate Charles Yu's inner life. For a novel that supposedly spans multiple universes and times, Yu's book feels awfully small.


 
 
Picture
One of my more obnoxious habits in college involved forcing my friends to watch things that they had no interest in, which usually meant episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Firefly. At some pont I realized that I was being an inconsiderate jerk, and I don’t think I’ve been done it in years … until Friday, when I forced a jetlagged and inebriated Karan to watch an episode of Doctor Who. He endured it for about 20 minutes before finally declaring that he had to get some sleep.

I guess I’ve matured less than I thought. In fact, I suspect I haven’t matured at all -- my inner fanboy was always inside, waiting for the right time to remerge. There have been shows in the last few years that I’ve liked and recommended, but none of them has taken over my brain and heart the way Buffy did in the early ‘00s, and the way Doctor Who has now.

My route through the show’s long history has been convoluted. The hype (plus the plentiful Hugo Awards) finally tempted me to watch "The End of Time". That was the final special to feature David Tennant as the Doctor, and it served as the capstone on Russell T Davies’ hugely successful tenure as head writer, so it’s no surprise that it was a pretty bad place to jump in.

I tried again when the show returned in April with a new Doctor (Matt Smith) and a new showrunner (Steven Moffat, who wrote many of the most popular episodes of the Davies years). This time, I was hooked. I watched the premiere episode, “The Eleventh Hour”, over and over again, until I knew it by heart. The next two episodes weren’t quite as good, but they were fun enough to keep me going until I reached “The Time of Angels” and “Flesh and Stone”, a thrilling two-parter featuring Moffat’s famously scary aliens, The Weeping Angels. My devotion to the show, especially to the Moffat version, was cemented.

I haven’t ignored the older Who. I’ve dipped into the original incarnation (which ran from 1963 to 1989) by watching the initial “Unearthly Child” storyline, the introduction of the show’s most famous monsters in “The Daleks”, and one of its most famous episodes, “Genesis of the Daleks”. (Now that I’ve read Kim Newman’s enjoyably opinionated British Film Institute book on Doctor Who, I expect I’ll be watching a lot more classics.) And I’ve also been getting together with friends to catch up on the Davies revival -- so far we’ve made it through the first two seasons, and I expect we’ll start season three in the next week.

After all that, I have to say that Moffat’s version still comes closest to my ideal version of the show. It’s consistently inventive, exciting, funny, and optimistic -- not only does it realize the potential of Who, but it also captures the fun that Star Trek aimed for (and occasionally achieved). A couple weeks ago I showed “The Eleventh Hour” to my friend Jeffrey (it was consensual!). He had seen an earlier episode of the show (from the way he described it, I’m guessing it was “Bad Wolf”) and come away unimpressed. This time, when the credits rolled, he said, “Wow, I didn’t realize Doctor Who was this good.”


And I still can't watch "Vincent and the Doctor" without getting a little teary-eyed. (Partly for personal reasons. But still.)

It’s not perfect. “The Hungry Earth” and “Cold Blood” have a few exciting moments, but are mostly tedious and preachy. And when you finish a Moffat-penned episode, you sometimes realize that his surface cleverness has hidden some thin plotting or characterization -- the sharp twists and breathless pace make the season finale “The Big Bang” a joy to watch, and the against-all-odds happy ending is movingly staged. But boy, a lot of the time travel mechanics make no sense at all when you think about them. (You can read more about the logical gaps on io9.)

There’s a cliche that the first Doctor you watch becomes your favorite, and that’s held true for me. The Doctors I’ve seen -- William Hartnell, Tom Baker, Christopher Eccleston, and David Tennant -- have all been fine, but Matt Smith does the best job of being convincingly (and entertainingly) alien without seeming like he’s putting on a big show. In “The Lodger,” when he’s forced to share an apartment in contemporary England, his fish-out-of-water-ness is obvious -- and hysterical -- in every single frame, even when he’s just standing around.

The show has had its ups and downs, and I’m sure they will continue. Whenever my faith wavers, I remember the end of “The Eleventh Hour": Amy Pond looks equal parts terrified and delighted to discover that all her dreams have come true. She throws the switch, the big blue time machine makes the familiar wheezing noise, and she heads off with the Doctor to “anywhere you want, any time you want, one condition: It has to be amazing.”