Not that long ago, I was looking for a book suggestion, and someone pointed me in the direction of
China Mieville's Kraken.
I will admit that there was some trepidation going into this, mainly based on Mieville's history of writing fantasy novels. (As you may remember, I am a genre guy, but I lean to the more speculative fiction side of the debate, especially works that are based in our world...see: Gibson, William.) When I think of fantasy, I think wizards, and spells, and awful imagery (not awful in the graphic sense but more like the "one" with special powers who dies, and resurrects to save the world...see: Potter, Harry.) that takes me out of the narrative and makes me want to shake the author for being...disingenuous(?) or using magic as a crutch to drive the story forward. Write yourself into a corner, introduce a "special" ability of the protagonist and "BOOM" there is now a pathway from your corner to the third act.
This is not to say that speculative fiction, especially Hard Sci-Fi, does not suffer from this as well, generally in the ability of a reasonably primitive culture to utilize some wonderfully advanced alien artifact in order to "save the day/planet/galaxy". For an example of this, see: Stargate...any iteration. Star Trek would always re-purpose their engines to do something amazing within the last twenty minutes of broadcast, saving the day, et cetera. One of the things that made me love the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica was Ronald D. Moore's promise to fans that he would not use "science as magic" to drive the story forward, and he mostly lived up to this until the end of the series, where he went off the rails and had actual FRACKING ANGELS. (Yes, I am still bitter. I will remain bitter.)
Yes, someone will remind me of the
quote from Arthur C. Clarke. Yes, yes. I understand. It is still a cheat. Alastair Reynolds makes his physics work, and while he does have a Ph.D in the stuff, his writing does not suffer from over explanation or the "science is magic crutch.
"Why don't you like magic?"
Well, because it is not real. Magic, and the supernatural, can be easily explained, and if it cannot be explain yet, it will be soon. Like the canals on Mars (which may have been apocryphal to begin with), with a little time and understanding of what people are actually seeing, a natural explanation, that works withing physics will be put forth. One of the (myriad) of reasons that I do not like cars is because they have become so advanced that I cannot understand how they really work. There are too many subsystems that are locked to the user and non-serviceable that they become...wait for it...magical. One of the reasons I like Open Source is that if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of what is going on under the hood of your computer, you are allowed, encouraged even, to do so. There is an order to my universe and I want my fiction to follow that same order. Sure, orcs were cool...when I was eleven.
But, I am off topic...
So,
Kraken is about magic. Magic (called knacking), cults, gods (and Gods), and competing apocalypii (I am assuming that is how you pluralize apocalypse. Edify me.) as well as having the some of the characters speak in something that I would have difficulty describing as English, some patois of lower class English that was undecipherable for me for the first one hundred pages.
Yes, I read it. Yes, it was enjoyable, and for five hundred pages, a surprisingly quick read. Is it a great book? No. It is, however, well written and almost playful. I found myself laughing at various aspects of the story (the manufactured soul who had created a union of magical creatures and then set the union on strike...that is the funny.) and generally laughing at the story itself. I went through reviews after finishing the novel and saw that Kraken was described as "Pynchon-esque". I would not go that far, for both good and bad reasons. Pynchon has never written anything, or I have never read anything by Pynchon, that made me laugh out loud, and Mieville was a much more accessible author. Actually, the comparison to Pynchon, who some people love (I am not among them) is unfair because Mieville is better, at least for what is a beach book.
I spoke to a friend who had read this, and made the comparison to "House of Leaves" (which is another book that I alternately love for being so weird and readable while hating for the use of "magic") and I did not see it immediately however, I understand.
Anyway, if you want an odd book, about gods and men, cults and cops, and a curator who gets caught in the middle, plus a fun beach book, I suggest this.
Especially if you are by a body of water.
