Scan barcode
A review by dee9401
Colossus by D.F. Jones
1.0
I read the Colossus trilogy back in the 80s. I remember enjoying it and really liking the film version of the first book, entitled "Colossus: The Forbin Project." Over time, I lost or gave away my copies of these books. When I was in Cali early this year, I picked up a paperback of the first book from Logos, an excellent indie book store in Santa Cruz. I got around to reading the book about a week ago. I didn't enjoy the re-reading and I'm amazed at the casual racism and overt/covert sexism in the book.
On racism, it comes out only a few times and while it is subtle, it is forceful. I never saw it the first time I read it, but then again, as a white male adolescent, I doubt I would have seen anything wrong. Five reporters are called in for a press conference at the beginning of the book. When the author introduces the reporters, the ones from England, France, Russia and the US were all excellent, top of their field and game. Of the Pan Afric's representative, he says "M'taka was a good, solid reporter, but outclassed by the rest" (p. 19). During the course of the reporters asking questions, M'taka never asks one nor is he asked to by anyone. Further, the author writes, "M'taka rubbed his fuzzy white pate and wished he had studied science instead of the humanities."
Reading it now, it seems far from subtle, but flying over those words while reading the book as a young mind, one might just incorporate such prejudices into their own memory banks. He is an African, with a name that points out he's not a white African. He is not as good as his colleagues in journalism. Nor is he competent to cover the current press conference as he has no science background. On another level, there's also the common practice, still happening in the 21st century, of portraying Africa as a monolithic entity. Some Americans even think it's just one country.
As for the sexism, it's much more in your face and constant. One might argue that some of it is a result of the time the book was written (1966) and the author's age at the time (~ 49). However, throughout the opening of the book, the author stresses how women in the world the book creates are now first-class citizens and have thrown off the sexism and roles of the past. They ae now equal with men. Having set such a stage, the author goes on to portray these women as girls, second-class people, servants who fetch coffee and make food. They are often weakened physically and mentally by their emotions and actively seek out men to steel themselves.
Outside of dialogue, every male characters is referenced by his last name. The two women characters are always called by their first names. Forbin, the main male characters, is never called Charles by the author, but always Forbin or Professor. Cleo is never Dr. Markham or Markham. Angela, Forbin's secretary, isn't even given a last name. Using just a first name makes sense in dialogue, that's the way people often speak, especially with close colleagues. But the author has a higher responsibility, I think. It shows a lack of respect and a casual familiarity with the female characters that places them noticeably below the male counterparts.
On a individual level, women are barely more than cardboard stereotypes. Angela, the last name-less secretary will flirt with everyone but secretly desires her male boss. Dr. Cleo Markham, once a peer of the main character, is deferential to her boss and considers her looks more often than her work. In the course of the story, she is demoted so that she may act undercover as the main character's mistress. The author's reasoning for this demotion is weak yet implied. For her to be a mistress, she couldn't be an equal, so she's demoted. She accepts this willing and without question, as if this is the way of the world. It might be for the author but it's just sad for this reader. Further, to cement it, throughout the rest of the story, she turns catty toward Angela and secretly rejoices about finally "getting her man." As for getting her man, when she is placed into stressful situations, she turns to her thoughts of love and soft issues while her man remains, no pun intended, hard and focused. Finally, when describing the emergent behavior of the Colossus system, Forbin describes it as "complex, possibly devious, almost feminine" (p. 77). For this, I just shook my head and scribbled down WTF.
I guess I should say one good thing about the book. In an section about 1/3 of the way through the novel, the author takes a wonderful swipe at Muzak. "At one time there had been piped music, but the nationwide revulsion a few years before had not missed the Secure Zone, and there had been unanimous relief when the system was ripped out" (p. 73).
This sci-fi book was like so many I read as a kid. I wonder how many of them included such references that put down anyone other than white men, who also made up the preponderance of published science fiction writers. In the last few years, I've read several articles and reviews from contemporary writers about these issues and was glad to have been able to see if for myself. I loved science fiction for expanding my horizons and offering a way to critique contemporary society by hiding its analysis in different times and on different worlds. Sadly, Colossus wasn't a critique but a confirmation of the world then, and to be honest, now.
On racism, it comes out only a few times and while it is subtle, it is forceful. I never saw it the first time I read it, but then again, as a white male adolescent, I doubt I would have seen anything wrong. Five reporters are called in for a press conference at the beginning of the book. When the author introduces the reporters, the ones from England, France, Russia and the US were all excellent, top of their field and game. Of the Pan Afric's representative, he says "M'taka was a good, solid reporter, but outclassed by the rest" (p. 19). During the course of the reporters asking questions, M'taka never asks one nor is he asked to by anyone. Further, the author writes, "M'taka rubbed his fuzzy white pate and wished he had studied science instead of the humanities."
Reading it now, it seems far from subtle, but flying over those words while reading the book as a young mind, one might just incorporate such prejudices into their own memory banks. He is an African, with a name that points out he's not a white African. He is not as good as his colleagues in journalism. Nor is he competent to cover the current press conference as he has no science background. On another level, there's also the common practice, still happening in the 21st century, of portraying Africa as a monolithic entity. Some Americans even think it's just one country.
As for the sexism, it's much more in your face and constant. One might argue that some of it is a result of the time the book was written (1966) and the author's age at the time (~ 49). However, throughout the opening of the book, the author stresses how women in the world the book creates are now first-class citizens and have thrown off the sexism and roles of the past. They ae now equal with men. Having set such a stage, the author goes on to portray these women as girls, second-class people, servants who fetch coffee and make food. They are often weakened physically and mentally by their emotions and actively seek out men to steel themselves.
Outside of dialogue, every male characters is referenced by his last name. The two women characters are always called by their first names. Forbin, the main male characters, is never called Charles by the author, but always Forbin or Professor. Cleo is never Dr. Markham or Markham. Angela, Forbin's secretary, isn't even given a last name. Using just a first name makes sense in dialogue, that's the way people often speak, especially with close colleagues. But the author has a higher responsibility, I think. It shows a lack of respect and a casual familiarity with the female characters that places them noticeably below the male counterparts.
On a individual level, women are barely more than cardboard stereotypes. Angela, the last name-less secretary will flirt with everyone but secretly desires her male boss. Dr. Cleo Markham, once a peer of the main character, is deferential to her boss and considers her looks more often than her work. In the course of the story, she is demoted so that she may act undercover as the main character's mistress. The author's reasoning for this demotion is weak yet implied. For her to be a mistress, she couldn't be an equal, so she's demoted. She accepts this willing and without question, as if this is the way of the world. It might be for the author but it's just sad for this reader. Further, to cement it, throughout the rest of the story, she turns catty toward Angela and secretly rejoices about finally "getting her man." As for getting her man, when she is placed into stressful situations, she turns to her thoughts of love and soft issues while her man remains, no pun intended, hard and focused. Finally, when describing the emergent behavior of the Colossus system, Forbin describes it as "complex, possibly devious, almost feminine" (p. 77). For this, I just shook my head and scribbled down WTF.
I guess I should say one good thing about the book. In an section about 1/3 of the way through the novel, the author takes a wonderful swipe at Muzak. "At one time there had been piped music, but the nationwide revulsion a few years before had not missed the Secure Zone, and there had been unanimous relief when the system was ripped out" (p. 73).
This sci-fi book was like so many I read as a kid. I wonder how many of them included such references that put down anyone other than white men, who also made up the preponderance of published science fiction writers. In the last few years, I've read several articles and reviews from contemporary writers about these issues and was glad to have been able to see if for myself. I loved science fiction for expanding my horizons and offering a way to critique contemporary society by hiding its analysis in different times and on different worlds. Sadly, Colossus wasn't a critique but a confirmation of the world then, and to be honest, now.