A
quick Google search reveals that I am late to the party—very late. There are seemingly hundreds of reviews of
Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven
(2014) available online. From the most
regarded newspapers to Joe Blow’s SF Nook, everyone has an opinion of the
novel—many raving. Moving in that
direction, this review may be more of a review of reviews as much as a review
in itself, the novel’s import captured in the offing.
There
are schools of thought that believe a reader/reviewer may interpret a
novel/poem/story/etc. however they like.
The writer has written something, put it into the public arena, and
there it is the right of anyone who encounters it to perceive what they will. While I think the general idea of this
concept is something to support, it quickly crumbles anytime someone attempts
to examine the deep psycho-social quandaries and post-modern angst of a Clive Cussler novel, for example. There are
limits, and those limits are most often dictated by what is actually on the
page.
One
of the things I enjoy while reading is puzzling out a novel’s aim or agenda. In
other words, I don’t fully buy into the idea a reader can interpret a text any
which way they like and be “correct”.
The interpretation must be supported with evidence. It can’t just be an emotional reaction to
superficial elements or an under-informed view that missed a significant facet
to the text. The words and ideas are
placed intentionally on the page, and while everyone perceives them
differently, they do not change. Writers
write with purpose, from political agendas to commercial aims, and almost
always of a very limited number. This
means we readers have specific targets to work toward interpreting novels.
This
is all a long winded way of saying that there is much of the content I’ve read
online regarding Station Eleven that
seems rather abstract from the novel I read.
There are genre readers who, taking some offence at a non-sf writer
utilizing “their” tropes for literary effect (e.g. as what happened with Cormac
McCarthy’s The Road), have gone
through the text with not only a fine-toothed comb, but also a rather blindered
view to science fiction’s place in literature as a whole. There are also genre readers who, having been
steeped in years of mainstream fiction, don’t recognize subtext when it hits
them on the head. Most sf superficial,
examining a text deeper than space ships and blasters, aliens and sex is not in
their repertoire of tools, and as a result, I think many reviews I’ve read are
off-point to some degree or another.
Kirkus
reviewer Thea
James feels Station Eleven’s
unifying theme is how “everyone and everything are connected.” While certain characters and elements of the
text are indeed interconnected, the reviewer has in fact identified a writing
technique, i.e. something that unified the story to create a cohesive narrative,
that is, rather than a lighthouse guiding the story through the stormy seas of
drama toward that grand idea of “theme”.
The
Sunday
Book Review believes that the novel is trying to offer hope for survival
through the power of art. They ask: “Survival may indeed be insufficient, but
does it follow that our love of art can save us?” Really?
The book can be siphoned through such a trite funnel? What about the religious cult—a much better
point to start making criticisms of the novel?
What about the storyline of the embedded novel, or as it actually is,
the embedded graphic novel from which the book takes its title? And, most importantly, what about the Museum
of Civilization that features so prominently?
The power of art…pbbbbbt.
Tomcat
in the Red Room and others critique the novel for falling short “in its
descriptions and its worldbuilding” and “failing to evoke that sense of
wonder-at-emptiness that’s characteristic of the best post-apocalyptic
fiction.” Knock, knock. Hello. Just because a writer chooses to use
post-apocalyptic elements does not mean they are trying to create the ultimate
human wasteland. If you want post-ap
nihilism, read Bacigalupi. The post-ap
element of Station Eleven, again, is
a literary device that allows the comparison and contrast of what we think of
as “civilization” today to the post-pandemic version presented in the
novel. Another way to approach this
criticism would be to ask: is it necessary for every author who wants to use
some aspect of a post-apocalypse to create ‘wonder-at-emptiness’? The answer is obvious, thus I can’t help but
think the recent spate of post-ap fiction and its mob-like attempt at creating
that ultimate human wasteland have affected the way we think about novels which
feature such settings. It’s as if we’ve
been trained to expect body counts, devolution to animal savagery, and complete
anarchy. Nobody, as far as I know,
critiqued George Stewart for drinking Post-Ap Lite in Earth Abides. (If you havn’t
read the novel, Stewart’s is a very similar, very bucolic version of the world
after a catastrophe.)
Getting
closer to the prize is Fantasy
Book Review who, in the sub-header of their review, write: “I could hardly put it
down. This is a story that engages you with ideas on existentialism.” Though moving in the
right direction, again I think this giving credit to technique rather than
theme. What the reviewer has perceived as
‘existentialism’ I see as just damn good characterization—one very important
step to the grander agenda of the novel.
Arthur, Miranda, Kristin—all of the characters are rendered in full
3D. We get the details of their outer
world as much as their inner, creating complete portraits of people, yes,
dealing with this thing we call life, but in a particular context, and with
particular results to their situations, which taken as a whole complement the
other ideas under discussion. It is at
this point the real theme of Station
Eleven can be found.
Not
just art. Not just survival. Not just existentialism or that religion can
be a plague in itself. The real theme of
Station Eleven is the awakening to,
awareness of, and subsequent appreciation
of the so-called important things to society. This is a broad statement, and indeed Mandel
covers everything from family and friends to art and technology. While I would chasten Mandel for not digging
too deeply into the negative aspects of technology, all else receives full
representation through individual perception: before the pandemic and
after. Some characters are able to come
to terms with the things they should be focusing on but aren’t before the
Georgian flu strikes, e.g. Arthur and Miranda.
But for most it takes the apocalyptic event to re-contextualize their
lives—to find deeper meaning and appreciation of the things Western affluence
takes for granted—easy communication, flight, availability of information,
family and friends close by, law and order, etc., etc.
For
this, the Museum of Civilization may be the center piece of Station Eleven. At a crossroads both socially and
technologically, it’s in the Skymiles lounge of a Michigan airport that many of
the characters come to terms with their situation when viewing humanity’s
artifacts. Regardless how unrealistic some
sf fans decry the museum to be, its myriad collection of random bits and pieces
of the 20 th and 21 st centuries are both a reminder of the past and hope for a
renewed future that humanity is not just a dirt circus, but a causal chain that
has achieved something tangible in its few thousand years of playing in the
sandbox of knowledge. Kristin and the
traveling symphony may keep alive one key aspect of civilized society, but
their destination in the novel is the Museum.
Regardless whether the reader believes the novel possesses a paucity of
anarchy, its symbolism transcends setting.
"I don’t fully buy into the idea a reader can interpret a text any which way they like and be “correct”. The interpretation must be supported with evidence."
ReplyDeleteI agree in part--because I think any interpretation of a text needs to involve evidence from the text and not just any old thing someone happened to think of at the time--but I also have seen multiple situations where the evidence in the text supported more than one answer.
I fully agree that the author is not the final arbiter on the content of their text. They are as human as readers, and may not always be conscious of the elements they include. Moreover, there are some writers who intentionally leave major thematic aspects ambiguous. (Jeff Noon's Vurt comes to mind.) But as I said, I still believe most writers write with specific purpose(s) in mind, and where there may be evidence to support several perspectives of what that purpose is, when the theories are put on the judging stand and tested for holes, there usually are only one or two left standing. The perfect example is the reviewer who stated that Station Eleven is about the interconnectedness of humanity, which they based on how Mandel interwove the characters. Indeed, this interweaving is evidence supporting the claim. However, upon closer inspection this statement ignores a couple other items which are highlighted for greater thematic importance (i.e. the ideas of civilization and art), and in the end, can also be explained as a writing technique.
DeleteThis gets even more interesting in the context of contemporary criticism wherein some believe everything is relevant in some fashion - gender, tradition, economics, race, culture, etc. While I don't buy into it all the time, it certainly makes for interesting reading.