[Messremb]

The Register's Review

This gives me a few doubts about the book...


Carry On Cosmonaut: Willful Child is a poor taste Star Trek parody
Cringeworthy, crude and crass jokes abound in Steven Erikson’s sci-fi debut
By Brid-Aine Parnell, 18 Oct 2014

Page File Anyone who’s read Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen, a searingly bleak and intricate fantasy series, will be bitterly disappointed with Willful Child (and yes, pedants, that is how he spells it).


Instead of a blistering and fascinating foray into sci-fi, Erikson does a limp, lacklustre job of Star Trek fan fiction, a parody in the style of John Scalzi’s Redshirts or the movie Galaxy Quest, but lacking in much of the basic ingredients for good comedy. We laugh hardest when something is newly funny or outrageous, but the tired old jokes trotted out in Willful Child fail to muster up even a small smile.

It’s possible that this is intended to be a parody of a parody, as Captain Hadrian Sawback strides across the deck of his very own starship, the Willful Child, making seriously off-colour jokes, offering to blow everything up and generally being an uber-masculine oaf – like Captain James T Kirk dialled up by another 90 per cent.

The trouble is that parody is supposed to say something about the thing it’s critiquing in an intelligent and humorous manner. This novel is more like an homage, as the crew come to love and respect him, women fall at his feet and he extricates himself and the ship whole and virtually unscathed from one precariously deadly situation after another.

Even that wouldn’t be so bad if Willful Child was very funny. Instead, you get pretty lame wordplay humour:

“I was one of twenty-two survivors, sir.” Hadrian nodded.

“It would have been unusual, don’t you think, had you numbered among the crew members lost.”

“Yes, sir.”

And tired computer humour:

Hadrian held up a finger.

“Here it is,” he said. “Everyone! See this finger? It is the finger of God! Watch it now, as it strikes any key!”

He stabbed down and the finger stabbed home. After a moment, HUB said, “Keyboard malfunction. Strike any other key.”

“Oh fuck!”

Fortunately, the next one worked.

Not every joke falls completely flat, but enough do that the whole set-up starts to feel ridiculous and you begin to wonder just how many pages of the damn thing are left. And it also makes it difficult to see the novel as a parody instead of an endorsement.


'I think I spot a female alien, Captain.' 'Thanks McCoy'

That’s particularly true when it comes to Sawback’s blatant misogyny and mistreatment of women. This is obviously intended as a send-up of the Kirk, Picard and Riker set of Starfleet officers, always looking to get on intimate terms with the crew and/or any passing aliens. But Erikson also throws in a few sexual assaults that are played for laughs, which actually make for quite uncomfortable reading.

Twice the Captain is assaulted, once by a huge alien and then by his female Marine Lieutenant, and both times he ends up in sickbay. At another point, a female officer who hates Erikson is passed out drunk in his stateroom and when another character, who happens to be the Lieutenant, goes to get her, she is “now mostly naked” and still unconscious. It’s unclear what the implication is supposed to be, but the last time she was seen conscious the Captain was mauling her and his only comment to the Lieutenant is, “I understand that what you discovered in my office might seem, well, a contravention of regulations and, indeed, decorum. But I assure you, it’s only half as bad as you think.”

These episodes are just plain weird. There’s no point being made and they’re not terribly funny, so it just seems totally bizarre. Because this is difficult subject matter to do in comedy, if you want to make jokes about sexual assault, it needs to be really funny and preferably come loaded with some sort of intelligent commentary as well. Just making it a man who gets attacked instead of a woman isn’t anywhere near inventive enough and pretty far from commentary of any kind.

These episodes are so WTF, it’s like watching Bill Bailey get up on stage at the Apollo and go, “Well, take my wife … go on, take her!” while making lewd gestures as if it’s the height of hilarious originality. Whatever Erikson was trying to achieve with this Star Trek parody, he seems to have missed his mark by quite a distance. ®

Author Steven Erikson
Title Willful Child
Release date 6 November (UK) / 4 November (US)
Publisher Tor/Macmillan
Price £14.99 (Hardback) / £6.99 (Kindle)

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Can someone explain this:

Quote

...Willful Child (and yes, pedants, that is how he spells it).

[Imperial Historian]

Wilful and willful are both recognised spellings of the word, but it's one of those where some people will flat out deny the other is correct.

[James Hutton]

Messremb, on 18 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

This gives me a few doubts about the book...

I've heard so many people say MBotF's bad, a single negative review of Willful Child doesn't deter me. I found the preview of chapter 1 right up my alley! Have you read it? What do you think of it?

[Illuyankas]

I didn't realise Erikson had a stateroom.

[pat5150]

I finished it this afternoon and pretty much loved everything about it. It's a Star Trek spoof, a comedy/parody, nothing deep or throught-provoking. Anyone looking for a light and funny read will probably enjoy the ride.

If you're looking for a blistering and fascinating foray into sci-fi , then you obviously failed to read the cover blurb. . .

Patrick

[Ribald]

I am pretty much with Pat on this one. I thought Willful Child was exceptionally funny and it had me laughing out loud in various places.

Given that people have very different ideas about what is funny and what isn't, and given that we all like different forms of comedy, I think it is safe to say that the reviews will be divided on this. So, if the whole point of the book is to be funny, and some people don't find it funny, then their reviews aren't going to be particularly flattering.

I thought it was very like Galaxy Quest, Get Smart! and Spaceballs. I happen to like those films and tv shows, so I found it hilarious. I loved the Star Trek references and jokes. And I stand by my review that is a funny book that is worth reading.

But in response to the review above:

Messremb, on 18 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

That's particularly true when it comes to Sawback's blatant misogyny and mistreatment of women. This is obviously intended as a send-up of the Kirk, Picard and Riker set of Starfleet officers, always looking to get on intimate terms with the crew and/or any passing aliens. But Erikson also throws in a few sexual assaults that are played for laughs, which actually make for quite uncomfortable reading.

Twice the Captain is assaulted, once by a huge alien and then by his female Marine Lieutenant, and both times he ends up in sickbay. At another point, a female officer who hates Erikson is passed out drunk in his stateroom and when another character, who happens to be the Lieutenant, goes to get her, she is "now mostly naked" and still unconscious. It's unclear what the implication is supposed to be, but the last time she was seen conscious the Captain was mauling her and his only comment to the Lieutenant is, "I understand that what you discovered in my office might seem, well, a contravention of regulations and, indeed, decorum. But I assure you, it's only half as bad as you think."

These episodes are just plain weird. There's no point being made and they're not terribly funny, so it just seems totally bizarre. Because this is difficult subject matter to do in comedy, if you want to make jokes about sexual assault, it needs to be really funny and preferably come loaded with some sort of intelligent commentary as well. Just making it a man who gets attacked instead of a woman isn't anywhere near inventive enough and pretty far from commentary of any kind.

I had a very different take on and reaction to these particular incidents. I would strongly disagree with this characterisation of the events.
To mention the specifics here is a spoiler so I will tag it.

Spoiler

Hadrian and some other crewmen are held captive. They are approached by a female giant insect alien that seems to be making eyes at Hadrian.... like every other female alien seems to do in Star Trek, regardless of the fact that it will have different aesthetics, cultural understandings of beauty, sexual attraction and so on.... Erikson highlights the absurdity of aliens falling in love with mammalian based space captains on a regular basis. So just like James Bond, Kirk, or any of the other traditional masculine heroes, Hadrian voluntarily responds to this come on and they go off page.

Due to the extreme differences in physiology, having sex with a giant insect leads to some uncomfortable noises from Hadrian off page. The sheer absurdity of trying to have sex with a giant insect with a chitinous plated exoskeleton made me laugh. I never treated it as 'this is a sexual assault'. Hadrian tried to seduce the alien to get free, the alien was a giant insect, this led to Hadrian having uncomfortable sex with an insect.

In regard to the Marine he sleeps with. Hadrian propositions her and she takes him up on the challenge. They go off page and engage in consensual energetic, physical sex. It is never shown nor reported in any detail. Hadrian ends up in sick baybecause he has essentially pulled something having energetic sex. He wasn't assaulted, attacked or held against his will. He just wasn't in good enough physical shape to keep up with the marine. Again, I thought this was funny because he keeps chasing women, and the only times in the main narrative he 'gets lucky' he is confronted with the fact he is not the universe's greatest lover. It punctures his sexual ego.

Now I freely admit that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and while I cannot be sure what Erikson intended these scenes to reflect, having read the MBotF, I am fairly sure that Erikson was not glorifying or celebrating sexual violence. If you don't think these scenes are funny, if you interpret them in a different way to how I have, then that is perfectly fine. Not everyone will find them funny.

But that doesn't mean that your interpretation is the only one, and that other people cannot or will not see other things in those scenes that you don't. I found them funny for the reasons in the spoilered section. I certainly don't think that everyone should think exactly the way I should, or share my sense of humour, but there is an interpretation of those events that I think is inoffensive and sociably acceptable.

As to accusations that Hadrian's character is misogynist, I would also take partial exception to this. Hadrian does not hate women, he does not countenance violence against women, and he is clearly willing to promote them over men, so he doesn't discriminate against them. He does view them as potential sexual partners. He seems to view almost all female characters, regardless of species, as potential sexual partners. But he seems to have been more than happy to work with, serve with and have in places of command, female characters. A number of his senior staff and command crew are women. The leader of the marine contingent is a woman. Hadrian doesn't express any doubts about their ability or competence to serve in these command roles due to their sex. So yes he is an asshole who is always trying to find a woman to sleep with him, but he seems very happy to work with the female officers. So while his hound dog ways and skirt chasing might annoy a number of readers, I don't think that Hadrian is truly misogynist. But again, that would be my interpretation of the character.


In short (although it is a little late for that) I would strongly disagree with the reviewer's interpretation of the events and tone of the book.

But that is just me.

My advice would be read the book yourself and find out. I thought it was hilarious.

[Ribald]

Well it seems that another reviewer liked the book.

http://archeddoorway...erikson-review/

"Willful Child follows the exploits of the incorrigible Captain Hadrian Sawback and his ill-chosen crew aboard the A.S.F Willful Child on a mission to seek out and stop a smuggling operation in the Blarad System. It only takes you a handful of paragraphs before you realize this book is one giant Star Trek parody, and that is about where I first started laughing so hard I choked. Hadrian Sawback is quite possibly the best and worst starship captain I have ever read about. If the fact that he crewed his ship with a mix of incompetent family members and buxom women doesn’t give you that feeling right away, the suspicion you’ll probably get right away is that he most likely lied and cheated his way through officers school to get his ship probably will."

[Ribald]

The rest of the review is pretty positive too.

[Salt-Man Z]

That "Insisteon" sounds pretty darn Douglas Adams.

[Ribald]

Salt-Man Z, on 22 October 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

That "Insisteon" sounds pretty darn Douglas Adams.

There is an element of the absurd in Willful Child that is indeed reminiscent of Douglas Adams, but I think that Hitchhiker's Guide was a great deal more surreal.

But there is a real sense of ridiculous fun in the technology and the guns that are also bizarrely believable.

[Ribald]

If Douglas Adams had written Star Trek.... that might work as a description.

[Gorefest]

With all do respect to SE, I think what Douglas Adams did was a bit more than mere parodying of a genre. I've only read the first chapter of WillFul Child, so I may be well off the mark, but that chapter did not remotely strike me as Adams-esque. WC is more like fan fic, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it does make the comparison rather floppy.

[Ribald]

Gorefest, on 23 October 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

With all do respect to SE, I think what Douglas Adams did was a bit more than mere parodying of a genre. I've only read the first chapter of WillFul Child, so I may be well off the mark, but that chapter did not remotely strike me as Adams-esque. WC is more like fan fic, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it does make the comparison rather floppy.

Yeah, I agree. But Adams used exaggeration to create humour, and it was then dusted very liberally with absurdity to create brilliant moments of humour (the petunias and the whale appearing the wake of the Heart of Gold).

So if Adams had taken a stab at writing Star Trek I would imagine that he would exaggerate some of the established tropes and conceits and add in some absurdity and surreal moments to create humour. Willful Child is not as surreal or as wonderfully absurd as Hitchhiker's, but there are a number of moments in the later sections and chapters of the book that struck me as reminiscent of Adams' humour. Particularly as SE used the exaggeration and extrapolation of some SF conceits and concepts to create the humour.

So while Willful Child is not Hitchhiker's Guide or Dirk Gently, if Adams had taken a stab at writing Star Trek there may have been some similarity to what we get in Willful Child.

[QuickTidal]

A quick gander at what Brid-Aine Parnell is posting on that site in general...and it seems they picked the absolute worst, most righteous, pickiest person to review the book. Her other articles (one that I had already read [a review of recent DW ep FLATLINE] previously) seem to be an example of "I want to complain, so here is me complaining...about everything...because reasons."

[Tiste Simeon]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the review.

Also re: the "confusing" scene about the naked officer in his room:

Quote

At another point, a female officer who hates Erikson is passed out drunk in his stateroom and when another character, who happens to be the Lieutenant, goes to get her, she is “now mostly naked” and still unconscious. It’s unclear what the implication is supposed to be, but the last time she was seen conscious the Captain was mauling her and his only comment to the Lieutenant is, “I understand that what you discovered in my office might seem, well, a contravention of regulations and, indeed, decorum. But I assure you, it’s only half as bad as you think.”

There was no actual hint of any kind of assault there.

Spoiler

Basically she started drinking because she realised he was going to do what he wanted regardless of her trying to be officious and legalistic. The relationship between the two is hilarious and a running gag through the book. The "mostly naked" bit is just that he left her there while he went to deal with something else and she, getting drunker by the minute, decided to start taking clothes off. She was alone in the room at this point and she was then taken to her own quarters IIRC.

This reviewer is very nitpicky.

[Obdigore]

Tiste Simeon, on 12 November 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the review.

Also re: the "confusing" scene about the naked officer in his room:

Quote

At another point, a female officer who hates Erikson is passed out drunk in his stateroom and when another character, who happens to be the Lieutenant, goes to get her, she is “now mostly naked” and still unconscious. It’s unclear what the implication is supposed to be, but the last time she was seen conscious the Captain was mauling her and his only comment to the Lieutenant is, “I understand that what you discovered in my office might seem, well, a contravention of regulations and, indeed, decorum. But I assure you, it’s only half as bad as you think.”

There was no actual hint of any kind of assault there.

Spoiler

Basically she started drinking because she realised he was going to do what he wanted regardless of her trying to be officious and legalistic. The relationship between the two is hilarious and a running gag through the book. The "mostly naked" bit is just that he left her there while he went to deal with something else and she, getting drunker by the minute, decided to start taking clothes off. She was alone in the room at this point and she was then taken to her own quarters IIRC.

This reviewer is very nitpicky.

I agree, when I got to the 'shes mostly naked' part, I went back and read the other part thinking I missed it, but nope.

Reviewer is wrong.

I read it in an afternoon, and it was enjoyable and pretty entertaining. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was up there with Douglas Adams, but if you want a short, funny, silly, laugh at Star Trek, then this one is pretty good.

[worry]

Just finished. I agree that the review in the OP got the facts wrong in those cases, but on the other hand I still felt ~90% of the sex humor fell flat. Then again, I liked the "press any key" joke. I'd say about half the jokes clicked with me. Overall I was entertained but not particularly enthused.

[Primateus]

I received this book as a christmas present and I'm looking forward to reading it immensely.