Ken MacLeod: 'The Execution Channel'

[hawkwing_lb]

Book 156, Fiction 148

148. Ken MacLeod, The Execution Channel

This one's been sitting on my shelf for a while (though not nearly as long as Geoff Ryman's Air). At first glance, it's not science fiction: it's alternate history where the alternate history is now or some indeterminate point in the not-too-distant future, and it's a rather grim examination of the machinery, as well as the pomp, of the security state in a world that exists in a constant state of low-grade warfare and under the threat of the war to end all wars.

(Sound familiar? God, does it ever.)

MacLeod mixes it up with a unique approach to the spy thriller, tight pacing, and a tense denouément. The SF really only comes into play at the very close.

Is it good? Is it ever. This one's going on my list of grim-but-beautiful, right beside Stross's Glasshouse and Walton's Farthing.

Good book.

Comments

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

My one twitch about this, prior to the introduction of the way-out SF element from a different genre which is IMO not quite providing a solution on the terms on which you set the problem, is why make it AH in the first place; as I understand it, Ken MacLeod has said that his reasoning there was not wanting to write about a present-day situation that became obsolete by the time the book was in print, which I'm not certain is quite sufficient.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I recuse him for making a point: security theatre (and the security state and dangers thereof) are the same no matter who's the big brass monkey at the top of the pole.

Well, that, and reader-reaction reasons. Putting Republicans in the centre of the spiralling security theatre show might have (I say might) alienated a certain percentage of his readers. Not sure that's a good reason, but it is a reason.

And you know? I wouldn't blame him if it was cover-you-arse paranoia, either. Because reading it has fucked my trust in the human race for the evening, so I suspect writing it? Perhaps moreso. :)

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I recuse him for making a point: security theatre (and the security state and dangers thereof) are the same no matter who's the big brass monkey at the top of the pole.

Thing is, I'm not sure I accept that point; it shades dangerously close to regarding all power structures as both inherently corrupt/eeeeevil and the same degree of inherently corrupt/eeeeevil, which is to my mind both wrong and dangerous.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I agree and disagree. Since I'm willing to wager that power structures which have the potential to reward deceit and greed (see oligarchy) do encourage corruption.

I do think it's a useful point to raise, that things set in motion with the best of intentions have the tendency to snowball. But I figure the way MacLeod's done it is somewhat... disingenuous, is, perhaps, the word? Not something I precisely agree with, anyway.