Fiction

Love in the age of spyware

Their affair was nurtured by a robot and watched by millions -- but its ratings were shaky.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Love in the age of spyware

Lastly, consider Brian Hayes of Oak Knoll Drive, South Pasadena.

Mr. Hayes, 34, sits on a low retaining wall behind the Griffith Observatory, legs dangling over a darkening garden landscape of flowering plants and deciduous shrubbery. Further down the mountainside the vegetation thins out to pine and scrub, becoming lush and green again at the level of the first swimming pools and multimillion-dollar homes. Beyond even that, the monstrous logic of Los Angeles begins to reveal itself in the dusk as headlights, streetlamps, and other point sources switch on for the night, electrical impulses in a vast motherboard whose most sensational computations will output to the eleven o’clock news.

Hayes breathes in deeply of an organic perfume that overwhelms even the omnipresent reek of hydrocarbons. He luxuriates in the scent, and half a million (and slowly declining) subscribers luxuriate with him. As do we. His vital signs chart a map of contentment and arousal. On some level he must understand he’s a political pawn, deployed as entertainment to promote public acceptance of the coming parolee spyware program. But it doesn’t seem to be something he or the other six subjects think much about.

“Smell that, L.A.?” he asks his companion. “Moonflowers. That brings back memories.”

His companion, standing behind him and to the left, raises its face and turns its head left and right, as if testing the air. It is a robot, man-sized and -shaped, spindly, but armored in highly burnished chromiplate. The waning sun makes its skin a furnace of molten gold, rust, and blood. Only the LAPD Traffic Control shield inlaid on its chest, frosted with a dull matte surface, stands out distinct amid the reflected conflagration.

Hayes leans forward and plucks a white flower, six inches across, from the twining vines that festoon the wall below him. He holds the trumpet-shaped bloom against his face like an oxygen mask, its petals having just untwisted for the night. The sweet scent is overpowering — but despite the erotic charge it carries for Hayes, subscribers are dropping out by the tens of thousands, flipping over to one of the other subjects or just getting back to their own lives. Exit polling indicates they’ll be back later this evening for the fireworks with Sandra when Hayes finally goes home. But this flower-sniffing interlude? Booor-ing.

The robot, a standard enforcement unit with moderate autonomy, has lowered itself into a clumsy squat, one hand touching the ground and the other questing vainly over the wall for its own moonflower. Hayes’ muscles tense as if in anticipation of a tumble. “Here, take mine,” he says, holding out his flower.

The robot pinches the stem gingerly, straightens, and holds the flower to its mouth-grille.

“Now you’re making fun of me,” says Hayes. Annoyance scribbles its signature in his voiceprint and blood pressure. “The robot can’t smell that.”

“Not fine details,” says the robot, its voice plummy and its diction stilted, “but I can distinguish the scent of flowers from other airborne chemicals.”

And through the robot, we say, “These units are much better at recognizing smoke and hazardous gases of different sorts, but yes, they can smell the roses. Of course, we get a much sharper image through your senses than its. According to your nose, that’s Ipomoea alba, sometimes classed as Calonyction aculeatum.”

“That’s very interesting,” says Hayes, obviously (along with his still declining subscribers) finding it anything but. “That’s just ace.” He reaches down to snap another moonflower from its vine. Resting his weight on one hand, he leans back and relaxes as he breathes in the blossom’s heavy perfume.

It’s moments like these, as sense memory carries muscles and biochemistry on a virtual journey back in time, that convince many subscribers they can read the subjects’ minds. Moods, yes. Minds, no. Disclaimers and demonstrations do little to disabuse them. But not even we can know for certain what the subject is thinking unless he chooses to say. Or lets himself be prompted.

“You mentioned memories a moment ago,” we say through the robot.

Hayes smiles, and his subscribers feel their faces split with sly, involuntary grins. The dropouts taper off and ratings plateau. “It was the first night I spent with Sandra,” he says. “She had this little rented bungalow in West Hollywood, moonflowers and morning glories growing all up the side of the house and onto the roof. She kept the window open, and that’s what we smelled all night. And I mean all night.”

His blood pressure spikes with the onset of arousal — as a hundred subscribers comb public records for the bungalow’s address — but a clench of his stomach follows almost immediately. “God, I’m such a shit,” he says, shaking his head.

“Brian, what makes you say that?” we ask — though it’s a dead certainty he’s thinking about his evening bar outing with Naomi Warner.

When Hayes looks up, the robot is regarding him with its head tilted at an almost human angle of concern — our doing, not its. The moonflower dangles from its left hand like a forgotten offering.

Hayes sighs, a soul-rending sound from the depths of his thorax. “Even with a million people watching, I can’t be a decent husband. Hell, a decent person.” He stares morosely down the hillside. “I may as well just throw myself off this mountain. Or take a dive off the Hollywood sign like that actress, whoever she was.”

“Peg Entwhistle. But that was over a hundred years ago. You could never get near it now.”

Hayes glares at the robot. “Well, assuming I could, then I would. It’d be better for me and for Sandra.”

“You don’t mean that.”

“I do,” says Hayes, though from his respiration and heart rate we know that he doesn’t, though his self-pity does run high. “At the very least, L.A., I think I should pull the plug on the spyware.”

That he does mean, and suddenly the boards are abuzz with shocked protests and I-told-you-so’s. It’s fortunate that Hayes can’t follow the commentary in realtime, but even more fortunate that we cannot betray our secret thoughts in the myriad ways humans do.

“The park closes at sunset,” we say. “What you do say we continue this discussion on the road?”

“All right,” says Hayes, and the robot extends a hand to help him to his feet — its initiative, not ours.

Upright, Hayes gazes a moment due east, and it doesn’t take a mind reader to intuit he’s looking toward South Pasadena and home. He fingers the moonflower still in his grip — then opens his hand and lets it fall.

The robot, its arm a blur, catches the flower before it’s dropped a foot. “No littering,” it says.

“It’s a flower,” says Hayes.

“Yes,” says the robot.

“If it fell off a vine, would that be littering?”

“It fell from your hand.”

“Jesus,” says Hayes, walking up the path and around the observatory’s dirty white flank, into shadow.

He does not notice the robot lower itself carefully to its knees where he left it, on the stone path amidst foliage and crushed blooms of all sorts.

As Hayes comes around to the front of the observatory, heading for the parking lot, several more robots are emerging from their posts in the trees and at the corners of the old deco-style building. They form a loose phalanx around him, moving with him. His subscriber base effervesces with a fractal pattern reminiscent of the motion of air molecules against his skin in the warm twilight breezes. Users drop in and out — some drawn by the rumor of a plugpull, others just tracking his progress toward home and the fight that’s sure to come — but overall his ratings are making a slight gain.

Not that you would know it by looking at him. Hayes moves at a heavy shamble past the James Dean memorial, like a man on his way to the gas chamber.

The last couples and families are packing up their cars, and some, catching sight of Hayes and his honor guard, nudge one another, wave, and try to attract his eye. Hayes bears this with resigned grace — he is really an ideal subject for the experiment, regardless of what he and the public think — but he flinches at the sudden sound of squealing tires from the road beyond the parking lot.

We’ve been tracking this Thunderbird as it winds through the park, of course, particularly since all eight occupants are active subscribers now logged in — including the driver, who has the car on manual. Half a dozen LAPD autoscooters, parked until moments ago, are already forming a blockade fifty yards ahead of Hayes, signaling on every band for the car not to cross. The robot phalanx tightens around Hayes.

But crossing the line is not what these twentysomething college students, frat brats from Occidental, have in mind. The red, tricked-out Thunderbird slews to a sideways stop just beyond the scooters, drunken kids hanging out the windows and gesturing lewdly. “Ditch the bitch, Brian!” shouts one, and another: “Pound Sandra! Make her give it up!”

The rest are chanting together: “Do the nasty with Naomi, do the nasty with Naomi…”

Vitals through the roof, Hayes turns his head, at least denying the hecklers their chance to see themselves through his eyes for any length of time. His sense of loathing, though, both of them and of himself, rocks them back in their seats like a skin-crawling slap — as does the Thunderbird’s acceleration as we override its console and send the car humming back down the drive to Vermont Canyon Road, trailing hydrogen exhaust. They’ve lost manual privileges for the evening, and they’ll find that no matter where they want to go tonight, their autodrive will choose the most congested route to get them there.

“Are you all right, Brian?” we ask through the nearest robot, concerned by his sudden lightheadedness. Hayes consistently pulls in the lowest ratings of any of the Spyware Seven, largely because he’s only had sex twice in the three months of the experiment — both times with his own wife. Cesar Murguia and Star Jarrett each do it daily, if not more often, and always with new partners, of which there is no shortage. (The highest-rated three hours of the series so far was Murguia and Jarrett together.) The other four subjects aren’t nearly as sexually active, but they are still more active than Hayes. We know this sticks in his craw, but it’s also part of what makes him our favorite of the seven. But we can’t tell him that.

“I’m fine,” he says brusquely. “Let’s just get out of here. God, I hate assholes like that.”

A patrol car rolls up before him and Hayes gets in, sinking gratefully into the gently vibrating back seat. One mirror-skinned robot enters through the opposite door to join him, while the rest of his escort board the humming scooters. The entourage pulls out onto the canyon road in perfect formation, the outriders winking pop! pop! pop! from sunset red to brown and dark forest green as they descend into the shadow of Mount Lee.

Beside Hayes, his current robot companion settles into its corner of the seat, right arm resting along the top of the upholstery. Hayes squirms as deep as he can into his own corner.

“Sometimes I feel like such a fugitive,” he says, watching the stunted trees rush past the window. “Like I’m not a guinea pig but a genuine parolee on the run.”

“Is that why you want to pull the plug?” we ask.

Hayes turns away from the window. “Hell, it’s destroying my marriage. Isn’t that obvious?”

“You’ll forfeit the payout, you know.” The subjects each receive a monthly stipend from the city to offset any lost income — skittish clients fled Hayes’ law practice initially, for instance, though his roster’s now bursting with incautious exposure-seekers — but only receive their full compensation if they stick out all six months. “You can make a lot of repairs on two million dollars.”

“I know, I know.” Head in hands, Hayes squeezes shut his eyes. Atlantic City is currently giving 7:2 odds on a plugpull by week’s end — another thing Hayes is better off not learning. “But can we make it long enough that there’s anything left to repair?”

We refrain from pointing out that two million dollars can go a long way toward mending a broken heart also. Instead, the time has never been more ripe to float our trial balloon.

“Brian,” we say, as the robot lays a companionable hand on his knee. The touch through Hayes’ chinos is neither cool nor warm. “Brian … what if we could help you preserve your relationship with Sandra?”

“What, you? A computer?” His wash of confused brain chemistry is swept away an instant later on a tide of amusement and anger.

“‘Weak A.I.’ would be the proper, if somewhat misleading, term,” we say.

“Even so,” says Hayes. The amusement is winning out. “What exactly are you proposing? Threats? Coercion? Mind control?”

“Nothing like that. Just some simple advice.”

“Advice. About women.” Now Hayes laughs out loud. “L.A., my friend, men have been trying to figure that one out since before the dawn of time. What makes you think you’ve nailed it?”

“We have three advantages humans don’t — near perfect observational ability, massive parallel correlational capacity distributed across a hundred processors, and no emotion to cloud our conclusions.” As word of our conversation spreads, subscribers are hopping over to Hayes’ spycast en masse. “You can place confidence in our recommendations, Brian. In fact, we can promise never to offer you counsel without at least a ninety percent confidence level in its efficacy.”

Hayes shakes his head. “Ninety percent? Now I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. No given interaction with a woman is reproducible.”

“You do yourself and them an injustice if you think so.”

Hayes waves a peremptory hand. “What makes you so keen on helping me, anyway?”

The robot awkwardly shrugs its shoulders, then folds its arms. “We serve the public interest. Traffic control, emergency dispatch, municipal surveillance — they’re all critical, but it seems to us that the most effective public safety initiatives are preventative rather than reactive.”

“Ah, yes, the theory that marriage counseling today heads off domestic violence tomorrow.”

“It’s not just that, Brian. Think about this technology. The experiment’s been successful beyond anyone’s expectations. Spyware fittings for registered offenders will no doubt go into effect next year. But why stop there? Can you imagine having a therapist, a financial counselor, a social secretary, a nutritionist and personal trainer at your beck and call twenty-four hours a day? You’d like to get rid of that spare tire, right? We could help you. Really.”

Hayes shivers, though the climate inside the car is perfectly controlled. “Sure,” he says. “And I could have the whole world watching everything I do, for the rest of my life.”

“Well, if everyone had it, how many folks would have time enough to watch you? And anyway, as long as you kept a clean record, you could black yourself out anytime you wanted. But stay online and your chances of, say, getting mugged go way down, because there’s always someone watching — even if it’s only just us.”

“L.A., it’s never going to work,” says Hayes. “Trust me, no one wants a nanny looking over their shoulder every hour of the day.”

“Some will,” we say, spawning an untraceable anonymous instapoll to pose that very question to Hayes’ subscribers, whose online numbers are approaching 700,000.

“Not many.”

It turns out Hayes is right, by a factor of nearly six to one.

The patrol car and its entourage have left Griffith Park behind and now cruise through a moderate river of headlights on these residential streets. Hayes turns left from Hillhurst onto Los Feliz Boulevard, and the eastern sky lowers like a darkening purple bruise. People in neighboring cars are honking and waving: the formation seems to have found itself in the midst of a fanbush. The scooters spread out and around the patrol car, forcing the other cars further from Hayes, though one bouncy, exuberant commuter manages to flourish a noteslate reading NO BIG BROTHER in large block letters within Hayes’ sight before her vehicle drops back into the trailing pack.

“Can you imagine this chaos to the tenth power?” says Hayes.

“It wouldn’t be like that,” we answer. “Not with everyone wired up and the novelty gone.”

“It’s a stupid idea.”

Perhaps.

It’s not far to the freeway onramp. Traffic isn’t bad. Hayes cruises southeast for three miles on I-5, then northeast on the 110 six miles to the Glenarm exit. Less than fifteen minutes after leaving the park, the entourage is rolling along the wide, quiet streets of South Pasadena, through a neighborhood of hulking Tudor-style homes crouched far back on expansive lawns behind screens of spreading oak trees. The fanbush follows at a respectful, prudent distance, pulling over to both curbs as the patrol car and its outriders turn into Hayes’ driveway. The car stops next to Sandra’s ice-blue GMW.

“You’re sure we can’t offer some tactical advice?” we ask through the robot as it and Hayes cross the fairway-smooth lawn.

Orange light from one upstairs window casts an emberlike patina on the robot’s skull as Hayes fixes it with a skeptical eye. “Just stay out of it,” he says.

The robot inclines its head. “As you wish.”

Hayes squares his shoulders, takes a deep breath to calm his churning stomach, and marches with over one million subscribers (and rising) to the front door of his house.

“Good luck,” we say behind him, watching (among several million other things) the odds on a separation fluctuate.

The other robots are dismounting and assuming their sentry posts around the property as Hayes palms the front lock and steps into the refrigerated air of the entry hall.

“Is that you, Brian?” calls a sweet, alto voice from upstairs through the dimness.

“It’s me, sweetheart,” says Hayes. He begins climbing the stairs to the second floor, the polished oak of the banister cold beneath his hand, his tongue dry and blocky in his mouth. “I’m finally home.”

“Good,” Sandra says, appearing at the top of the stairs, backlit by the soft-white bulbs in the hallway behind her. “Enjoy it. You’ve got it to yourself.”

Hayes stops dead, halfway up the stairs. “What are you–?”

His eyes focus on the overnight bag dangling from her right hand. She wears a scuffed leather bomber jacket over a tight white T-shirt and dark jeans, rather than the sweats she usually has on this time of night.

Sandra begins descending the stairs, lips stretched in a cold and frozen smile. “How was your evening?” she asks, something crystalline underlying her voice, something that threatens to crack wide open.

She pauses two steps above him, and Hayes catches his breath (as does at least half his audience, many of whom proffer words of unheard advice that would no doubt hurt his cause more than help it). His eyes flick in turn to her long black hair, green eyes, wide mouth, slim hips. The smell of her sandalwood shampoo is nearly intoxicating, and his head seems to wobble on his shoulders. “Pretty miserable, really,” he says unsteadily.

She slings the overnight bag over one shoulder and folds her arms beneath her small, high breasts, looming above him like a headsman. “Oh, right, you really acted miserable, out having drinks with that overinflated bimbo you used to date. Not that I caught all of it. My mother had to message me to log in. My mother.”

“Honey, you know nothing happened,” says Hayes, putting a hand against the wall to steady himself. “I ran into her on the street, she invited me for a drink. That’s all.”

“Right, like she just happened to run into you, when your location’s charted more minutely than a hurricane. How dumb can you be, Brian? How dumb do you think I can be?”

“Sandra, you’re not dumb, you’re–”

“Oh, I must be. Nothing happened,” she spits. Her lower lip trembles, and a tear seeps from the corner of one eye. She looks toward the high ceiling, blinking furiously. “I was there, Brian, like the rest of the country. Everywhere you looked, I looked. I felt the way you reacted. Heck, I practically wanted to jump across the table and fuck her. Do you know how humiliating that is, to experience your husband’s lust for another woman? God, I feel so filthy having been in your head. How could you?”

Sandra punctuates this last question with a series of flat slaps at Hayes’ shoulder as she pushes past him down the stairs. The commentary boards go nuts, Sandra’s fans (there are some) cheering and Hayes’ legion of detractors hooting. Hayes reels on the stairs, inducing much nausea across the country. “Honey, let’s talk, come back, where you going?”

“I’m going to my sister’s. Just leave me alone.” She waves a dismissive hand over her shoulder.

“Please, wait, Sandra.”

But she’s already out the front door, which snicks shut softly behind her.

Hayes hears the low hum of Sandra’s GMW as it backs out of the driveway and speeds away down the street. “Oh, Jesus,” he whispers, head bowed, arms hanging limply at his sides.

A soft ping sounds from the kitchen, followed by the voice of Sandra’s brother-in-law Tom. “Hey, Brian, pick up. I know you can hear me. All right, don’t pick up, that’s ace. But don’t worry, man. She’ll cool off. Donna’ll talk some sense into her. All right, man? Listen, you need to talk, I’m here, buddy, okay? Aw, don’t do that, man, come on.”

Hayes, in the entry hall, has sunk to the cold tile floor, and now finds to his amazement that he’s crying — shoulders shaking, breath hitching, fiery tears rolling down his cheeks.

“Oh, shut up, you prick,” he mutters under his breath, shivering.

“Hey, it’s ace, man, I know you don’t mean that. I’ll be over in a bit with some cold beer, how’s that? Girls’ night here, guys’ night there.”

“Christ,” says Hayes, wiping his eyes as he levers himself to his feet. He stumbles out the door and speaks it locked behind him, shutting out Tom’s grating voice.

After the air conditioning, the warmth outside is like stepping into a greenhouse. A robot still stands sentry at the bottom of the porch — the same one that rode with Hayes in the patrol car, though replacements have already been rotated in for some of the perimeter guards. “L.A., do you know where she is?” Hayes demands.

“Of course,” we answer. “Would you like a little advice?”

“No, just a ride. Can we catch her?”

“Easily. She didn’t go far. Her car’s at the near corner of Lacy Park.”

Hayes doesn’t wait for the ride. Full body screaming with irrational urgency, he takes off running up the sidewalk and around the corner. Catching sight of him, the fanbush makes as if to follow, but we interdict their vehicles for the time being. Hayes and Sandra need some time alone.

It’s less than a third of a mile to the park, across the city limits in San Marino, but that’s still a long run for someone with Hayes’ exercise habits. A million-plus subscribers, lungs burning and heaving in sympathy with his, watch as if through a pounding handheld camera as the patrol car pulls up even with Hayes on Old Mill Road.

“You sure we can’t offer you a ride?” we call through the open window where the robot rests a casual elbow.

In answer Hayes puts on a fresh burst of speed, making the left onto Mill Lane. The patrol car and scooters pace him from the street.

Three minutes into his run, he spots her blue GMW under a streetlamp on St. Albans, at the edge of the park. She’s sitting on the hood, arms folded around her long legs. The park, its border thick with trees, falls away into darkness behind her.

Hayes half-slumps against the side of the car after he staggers into the light of the streetlamp, his breathing loud enough to wake the dead — or at least to obscure the words Sandra says without even turning to look at him.

“What?” he asks.

Silently, the robot escort take up discreet positions in a ragged circle fifty to sixty feet around the car.

“I asked, why did you do it, Brian?”

Hayes flops awkwardly back onto the hood of the car, exhausted, feet still on the ground. “It was only a couple of drinks,” he gasps.

Sandra shakes her head. “I don’t mean this evening. I mean this whole thing — going through with the project when they picked you in the lottery. I mean, why? When you knew how I felt about our privacy.”

“Well, the money,” Hayes says between gasps.

“Don’t tell me the money. Tell me something that means something.”

Hayes rolls onto a shoulder so he’s staring at her back. His mouth opens several times, but nothing comes out. Sandra turns and looks back at him over her shoulder, her expression harsh and unreadable in the streetlamp’s chiaroscuro. “All right,” he says. “I thought it would keep me faithful. I’d been having, you know, thoughts. Adultery in my heart and all that. I figured with all these people watching I’d never dare to act on them. I thought it might save our marriage.”

Sandra sags, letting her head fall to one side. “You dope,” she says wearily. “You’ve known me for almost ten years. Am I really so scary you can’t say something like that to me? Am I?”

“Sometimes,” Hayes says.

They sit there in silence for nearly two minutes, while Hayes’ burgeoning subscribers grow ever more impatient, and their posts ever more ill-tempered.

Hayes is just straightening up to walk dispiritedly away (“Bad move!” scream the polls) when Sandra says, “I thought you might come chasing after me, you know.”

He stops. “You did?”

“Sure,” says Sandra, gazing up at a sky where no stars are visible. “Remember that game we used to play in MacArthur Park when we were first getting serious? I’d ask you if you’d ever let me get away, and then I’d run as hard and fast as I possibly could.”

Hayes can hear the distant sound of freeway traffic, and a warm breeze stirs the hairs at the nape of his neck. “So I’d run and I’d catch you,” he says. “And just as I was catching my breath you’d do it again. Run away.”

“I wouldn’t stop until I knew you were past spent.”

“I hated that fucking game.” Hayes follows Sandra’s gaze to the blank monitor of the sky. “But I couldn’t let you win.”

“You still don’t get it. I only won when you did.” Sandra turned her head, drilling Hayes with her eyes. “Brian, are you going to let me get away?”

“I … of course not.”

“Really?” Sandra says — and takes off running into the trees.

Hayes and his subscribers let out an exhausted groan, but he follows, across the grassy verge and into the trees. Quietly efficient, the robots follow.

The boards go crazy, and the oddsmakers are off to town.

Dark clutching shapes crash crazily about Hayes. The stitch that blazes almost immediately in his side sends thousands of viewers groping to dial down their sensory input. But it’s not far through the trees, and Hayes sees Sandra ahead beginning a sprint across a wide playfield. As he emerges into the open, body awash with equal parts adrenalin and despair, she’s already halfway across and pulling ahead.

Fifty yards further on, Sandra vanishes into another screen of trees. Hayes pushes himself to the limit, knowing he’ll have to catch her while she’s slowed down by the foliage. When he reaches the trees, he plunges in without slackening his pace. Branches lash and rip, but he keeps on.

In the next clearing waits a children’s playground, and he sees Sandra stumble two steps into the soft sand as she tries to skirt the jungle gym. He catches her there, grabbing one shoulder to spin her around. “Gotcha!” he gasps. But both lose their footing, and together they tumble to the sand.

Instacash changes hands all over the country, minus a small percentage.

Sandra rolls atop Hayes, her weight lightly pressing his abdomen, knees in the sand to either side of him. “Now who’s got who?” she asks breathlessly.

“I’ve still got you,” says Hayes, staring up at her towering figure.

“I’m still mad at you, Brian.” She seems about to say more, but her nostrils flare and she lifts her face into the air. “Hey, do you smell that?”

“Smell what?” says Hayes, chest heaving. The air is sultry, and the sand still warm against his back.

“It’s like … don’t you remember?” She rests her hands to either side of his head and slowly lowers herself to where she can kiss him on the mouth.

Galvanized, Hayes takes her head between his hands and returns the kiss. He pulls back, pulse racing, only long enough to enunciate, “Spyware, terminate.”

A command box appears in Hayes’ vision, occluding Sandra’s puzzled face:

ARE YOU SURE? YES NO

And as a million subscribers howl in protest, Hayes says yes. Like a birthday candle, the spycast puffs and scatters to black.

The boards resound with indignant cries of foul, but only a handful of subscribers think to access the public security feeds from the spotcams scattered throughout Lacy Park. The few that do, have eyes only for the two lovers entwined on the summery playground sand.

None see what they might, if only they would look: the half-dozen silver-chased robots that lurk in the trees, fading into the darkness in a widening ring as crushed white moonflower petals drop from their hands like bright jewels.

But they are human, N.Y., and they do not, will not, look. Surely none of them would credit the excellent health of the experiment, nor suspect how very long yet it will run. But they’ll have cause enough to thank us in the end, never fear.

That concludes our report. And how are things proceeding at your end?

Nebula Award nominee William Shunn works as a senior software developer for BenefitsCheckUp.org, a division of the National Council on the Aging.

“Frankenstein” remixed

This masterful new adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic novel may be the best interactive fiction yet

  • more
    • All Share Services

This originally appeared on The Chimerist, a site devoted to the intersection of art, stories, and technology.

Whatever interactive fiction is (and we’re still figuring that out) it suffers from all the problems of traditional fiction and then some. The vast majority of novels and short stories aren’t much good, but when a branching fiction — along the lines of the old “Choose Your Own Adventure” children’s books — fails to engage, the first impulse is to blame the form rather than the content. Let “Frankenstein,” just released by Inkle Studios and Profile Books, serve as a reproach to that reflex. The app is a creative, subtle and sensitive adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novella, and it has singlehandedly renewed this critic’s hopes for interactive fiction.

What this “Frankenstein” isn’t is a replication of the source text with the addition of a lot of digital doohickeys like sound effects and illustrations that animate when tapped. The app is all about the text, even if it is beautifully framed by period art and anatomical illustrations. The reader is presented with a screenful of narration and then offered one or more responses to it. The preferred response, when tapped, delivers up another screen of text. (In an absurdly pleasing visual touch, these appear as sheets of paper fasted together by straight pins.) According to the press materials, the reader’s responses will shape the way the narrative is presented, although not to the degree of substantively changing the plot.

This is an important point. The pleasure of storytelling lies in the dynamic between the surprising and the inevitable. The reader wants to feel the story is going somewhere, that its events follow from each other in meaningful, but not too obvious ways. When a story can go anywhere, it feels meaningless. In Mary Shelley’s novella, which is saturated with the Western tradition of the tragedy, Viktor Frankenstein’s character is such that he must create a monster, and the monster’s body is such that he can never belong among human beings however much he yearns to. A “Frankenstein” that ended with either misfit finding a comfortable place in the world would be a travesty.

But that doesn’t mean the reader doesn’t long for the story to unfold otherwise; that’s the nature of tragedy. The great insight that writer Dave Morris brings to this adaptation of the novel is that while a reader cannot significantly change the outcome of the story, the interactive element can change the shading and flavor of the tale. It can be mournful and reflective or action-packed. The creature and his creator can show greater or lesser ambivalence about their own behaviors. The ambiguity of both figures is baked into Mary Shelley’s novella, and while Morris has nearly doubled the word count of the original, this mostly amounts to playing up or down what’s already there.

Morris — a novelist who has written graphic novels, games and, yes, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure stories for kids — has changed the original text in other ways, as well. (Let’s take a moment here to point out to all future narrative app developers that hiring a real writer who actually knows what he or she is doing is totally worth it.) He’s moved the setting to revolutionary France, a choice that shows shrewd understanding of the idealistic political climate that affected Shelley’s thinking; the new Republic is its own kind of Frankenstein’s monster. He’s also eliminated much of the 19th-century framing of the tale and converted it into two present-tense narrations. One is Frankenstein’s dialogue with either himself or a (possibly imaginary) companion. The other is a second-person account of the monster’s first weeks of life as it spies on a family of dispossessed French nobility and has the chance to observe the loving relationships it can never enjoy itself.

Morris presents the reader with choices I’ve not encountered in other interactive fictions. Is humanity mostly good, or mostly evil? Does the most recent development make you (the monster) feel hope or despair? Is the revolution the dawn of a brave new world or a descent into chaos and barbarity? While I’m usually skeptical that present-tense narration increases the “immediacy” of a story, in this case, it really does work, particularly in the sections concerning the monster. Depending on your own outlook, you may urge him to keep trying to connect with humanity, or promptly forward him on to homicidal rage.

In either case, the narrative is shaped not by the reader deciding to turn left or right, to go down into the cellar or to get out of the house — the usual actions offered on the choose-your-own menu. Instead, the options have more to do with personality and interpretation, beliefs and ideas. As a result of the reader’s choices, the characters seem more like him- or herself, with a concurrent ratcheting up of emotional investment. To my surprise, I found myself more moved by this adaptation of the Shelley novel than I have been by the source text. (Although the app does include the original if you want to compare and contrast.) This is the only interactive fiction I’ve ever read with that quintessential, old-fashioned readerly avidity: the hunger to know what happens next. Of course, I already knew, but that didn’t matter at all.

Continue Reading Close
Laura Miller

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

“The Cove”: A mysterious skull

A new novel begins with a shocking discovery that takes us back to love and life in the South during World War I

  • more
    • All Share Services

This article appears courtesy of The Barnes & Noble Review.

Ron Rash’s atmospheric, strangely uncomplicated novel, “The Cove,” begins with a scene of melancholy and abandonment, the promise of obliteration, and a shocking discovery. It is 1953 and a man called Parton, a scout for the Tennessee Valley Authority, is investigating a remote parcel of land in North Carolina’s Appalachia for inhabitants who will have to be evicted in advance of the valley’s inundation. In a small notch — from which the book takes its title — over which looms a light-exterminating, anvil-shaped cliff, he finds a deserted farm. Pasture fenced by sagging barbed wire, a collapsed barn, a cabin and two wells are the desolate relicts of past life and labor. The general doominess of the setting is further enhanced by an ash tree decked in charms against evil forces, dead American chestnut trees (victims of the plague that wiped them out across the land), and the memory of the now extinct Carolina parakeet. Parton, thirsty, manages to winch up a bucket of water from one of the wells — and with it a human skull.

Barnes & Noble Review
I give little away in revealing this, as it occurs on page 4; it takes another 243 pages and a step back to the late summer and autumn of 1918 to discover the skull’s owner. It is then, during the last months of World War I, that the story takes place. At its heart is Laurel, a young woman afflicted with a large birthmark. She is shunned by the residents of the nearest town, Mars Hill, who believe that the cove is cursed and that she herself is a witch. Both her parents are dead, and with occasional help from a neighbor, she survived the previous summer alone on the farm while her brother, Hank, was away fighting in France. He has returned, absent a hand but resolutely capable and preparing for marriage.

In passage after passage, Rash describes life and work on the farm in its dailiness — the preparation of meals, tending to chores, mending clothes, setting fence poles, pulling wire — creating a sense of order and industry that would seem to promise future happiness and prosperity. But as the initial scene of desolation and death promises the reverse, an air of menace and foreboding pervades the story. And, indeed, like the waters that will inundate the farm decades later, powerful, destructive forces are gathering outside the cove.

On one of her forays to do her laundry in a stream away from the farm, Laurel hears and secretly observes a young man resting in a makeshift camp, playing a flute; days later she finds him near death, stung by a swarm of wasps. She brings him home; he recovers and produces a piece of paper saying that his name is Walter and that he cannot speak or read or write. As we — unlike Laurel or Hank — have already learned that a man has escaped from what turns out to be an internment camp for Germans, we get the picture. Walter won’t speak, but he will help with the farm, and this he does handily, capturing Hank’s admiration and gratitude — and Laurel’s heart.

All the while, anti-German hysteria is escalating in Mars Hill, a volatile temper encouraged by one Sgt. Chauncey Feith, a preposterous character ripped from a handbook of one-dimensional villains. Vainglorious, opportunistic and cowardly, he is a jingo, a sneak and a bully. The son of a politically connected banker, he has been deployed as the town’s recruitment officer, thus avoiding the perils of the battlefield. He has gone about this zealously, congratulating himself at every turn for sending young men off to the war and priding himself on being an “unsung hero, because you couldn’t go around telling people that any man can hold a rifle and stand in a trench but only a select few could do what a general or commodore or recruiter did.” That’s Chauncey Feith for you — believe it or not.

If Walter were to show up at Mars Hill and be recognized, there is no question that he would be strung up as a Hun. Meanwhile life and love go on at the farm. Walter helps Hank in sinking a second well, and the description of digging and lining it deep, deep in the earth is wonderfully potent. Indeed, Rash’s material detail, depiction of work and evocation of place — of nature, woods and stream, the play of light and the oppressive dark of the monstrous cliff — are truly splendid. Still, between the threat of a lynching and scenes from the cove, a vacuum yawns, and into it flows one simple question stripped of complexity: Whose skull? Or, put another way, happy ending or sad? The answer, when it comes, seems perfectly arbitrary.

Continue Reading Close

“Kingdom Come”: Terror in the London suburbs

A new novel traces an advertising executive's search for his father's murderer in a menacingly bland town

  • more
    • All Share Services

This article appears courtesy of The Barnes & Noble Review.

J.G. Ballard was born in 1930 in Shanghai, China, and returned to England in 1946, having been interned with his family in a Japanese prison camp, an experience that inspired his most popular novel, “Empire of the Sun.” Ballard’s astonishing fiction ranges across continents and galaxies, but a quiet London suburb was his home until his death in 2009, and it is to the suburbs that he returned in his last novel, “Kingdom Come.” In its opening pages, the narrator, a London advertising executive named Richard Pearson, travels to one of the “perimeter towns dozing against the protective shoulder of the M25″ to find out who murdered his father.  It sounds like the setup for a cosy English mystery.  But this is Ballard.  It will not be cosy.

Barnes & Noble Review“The suburbs dream of violence,” Ballard declares as we enter the blandly menacing town of Brooklands. Among this “placid sea of brickly gables” Richard searches his father’s flat for clues to the life — and violent death — of a parent he barely knew, a pilot who had “flown millions of miles … and then died in a bizarre shooting incident in a suburban shopping mall.” Three others died, and the suspected gunman, a mentally unstable local, is arrested but then released. The police, the family lawyer, the doctor who treated Richard’s father — all appear to be hiding something, while many respectable Brooklands residents seem to have formed a fascist militia.

When Richard first witnesses a racist attack, he concludes that “a new kind of hate had emerged”; its hub is the Metro-Centre, the mega-mall in which his father was killed. During one visit, Richard sits beside the mall’s manmade beach, where Julia Goodwin, his father’s doctor, has arranged to meet him. “The wave machine had been turned to its lowest setting,” he notices, “and a vaguely gastric swell, like a suppressed vomit reflex, flowed across the colorized water.” This languid, sickly image could only be Ballard’s. No other writer so effectively alienates his readers — and his protagonists — from an everyday reality that he reveals to be shifting, often nightmarish terrain.

At the same time, he soothes us. In “Kingdom Come,” as in Ballard’s short stories and in novels like “Crash,” the rhythmical balance of the sentences has a tranquilizing effect, like the shushing roar of the ceaseless traffic on the motorway outside Brooklands. Richard, too, seems oddly numbed as he probes his father’s involvement with local thugs, falls in love with Julia Goodwin, and is increasingly drawn to the Metro-Centre and to the figure of David Cruise, the mall’s TV celebrity.

The novel’s pace quickens as violence spreads and the Metro-Centre comes under attack. “Fights broke out, fists flailing through the workmanlike rise and fall of police truncheons” as screams are drowned out “by the blades of army helicopters cuffing the night air.” Soon the mall becomes a fortress, hostages are taken, and the wave machine churns up a corpse. Emerging from the wreckage, Richard predicts that “In time … an even fiercer republic would open the doors and spin the turnstiles of its beckoning paradise.” In his final, elegiac vision of suburban apocalypse, Ballard once again allows us to imagine the unthinkable.

Continue Reading Close

Gay literature’s new wrinkle

Nobel-winner Herta Müller has written a dazzling new gay novel. Does it matter that she's heterosexual?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Gay literature's new wrinkle (Credit: iStockphoto/RapidEye)

This week sees the publication of “The Hunger Angel,” by the Romanian-born German author Herta Müller. It’s her first novel to appear in English since she won the Nobel Prize three years ago, and the book, set in a Soviet labor camp in the years after World War II, arrives in America trailing behind it a passel of rave reviews in the European press: a masterpiece, they say, to be put next to Solzhenitsyn or Primo Levi.

But, more quietly, “The Hunger Angel” is something else – a major addition to the tradition of gay literature, and a rare evocation of gay life in the war years and after. Leo, the narrator, is just a teenager when he’s deported from Romania to the Ukraine, but he has already had his first “strange, filthy, shameless and beautiful” assignations in the town park and the local bathhouse. At first he sees his deportation as a welcome escape from his Nazi-supporting father, and a mercy for the mother he truly loves, for in his own eyes he is a double disgrace: not just gay, but an ethnic German who sleeps with Romanians. In the camp, hunger becomes all-consuming, and he longs for home, but he also watches fellow skin-and-bones detainees sneak off to an industrial wreck for sex and knows, “If I’d been caught in the camp I’d be dead.” “The Hunger Angel” lets a gay man embody universal themes of suffering and endurance but also captures the unique contradictions of gay desire – a substantial accomplishment, and one that’s even more impressive because Herta Müller is a straight woman.

Müller is part of a small but growing number of heterosexual writers publishing novels that not only include gay characters as central parts of their narrative, but are largely about gayness itself. It’s a trend that suggests that homosexuality may no longer be the taboo it once was, for writers — and for readers.

These days, in American and British fiction, at least, it’s no longer uncommon for straight writers to feature gay characters in a novel. Think of Claire Messud, whose “The Emperor’s Children” examines a young gay writer’s friendship with his two best friends, both straight women. Or read Jennifer Egan’s “A Visit From the Goon Squad,” which features a young gay kid experimenting first with drugs, then with sex. More recently, Chad Harbach in “The Art of Fielding” didn’t just feature a gay and decidedly not butch baseball player, but a 60-something, theretofore straight college president who falls in love with him. (These examples all feature gay men, obviously: Straight writers’ interest in lesbians is usually less edifying, as any gay person who endured Philip Roth’s “The Humbling” will remind you.)

Yet while straight writers now include gay characters as a matter of course, putting gay people at the center of a book remains all too rare. Gay characters can help straight writers write a book of larger scope, but a novel that concentrates on gay characters is automatically “gay fiction” – and that, sadly, still puts readers off. Gay novelists know all too well that without the right promotion, their books can end up relegated to the “LGBT interest” section of the bookshop, somewhere between the Spartacus travel guide and “Homosex: 60 Years of Gay Erotica.” (If, that is, the bookshop even stocks gay books; if, moreover, the bookshop hasn’t gone out of business.)

For straight writers, taking on gay subjects isn’t just an imaginative risk, it’s a commercial one. And therefore the list of examples is brief, but even so, they suggest that reader opposition to gay-themed books is on the wane. Although fantasy and science-fiction writers may have taken earlier steps, it wasn’t until the 1990s, with Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, that a straight writer saw major success with gay literary fiction on both commercial and critical terms. The Regeneration trilogy,  with its cast of both real and fictional characters during World War I, had a built-in audience among British readers who grew up reading poets like Siegfried Sassoon or Wilfred Owen. Yet on the first pages of “The Eye in the Door,” the middle book, they were plunged into a rough (and fantastically hot) sex scene between two officers of different class backgrounds, complete with war wounds from Passchendaele and bedside Vaseline. “The Eye in the Door” goes on to detail the horrible persecution of gays in the British civil service, sometimes even by closeted gay men themselves, while in “The Ghost Road,” the last novel of the series and the one for which Barker won the Booker Prize, Sassoon, Owen and fictitious soldiers spend page after page thinking about their desire for men, and about the gaps between the military’s sometimes surprising tolerance and the cruelties of civilian life.

You see similar contrasts of confidence and doubt, narcissism and self-loathing, in Annie Proulx’s short stories, most famously “Brokeback Mountain.” The subsequent film was anxiously promoted as a “universal” love story, but Proulx insists that her two ranchers aren’t any old star-crossed lovers, and that gay desire has a special character. Ennis and Jack aren’t just incapable of having their love accepted by society; much more fundamentally, they hate themselves for loving who they love. Proulx told the Paris Review that she now gets fan mail from readers who have rewritten “Brokeback Mountain” with a happy ending, like the stale 18th-century tradition of letting a victorious Hamlet marry a not-drowned Ophelia. “They can’t understand that the story isn’t about Jack and Ennis,” Proulx lamented. “It’s about homophobia; it’s about a social situation.”

Homophobia is naturally a major theme in straight-written gay fiction, but it’s not all about tears and the law. In “Call Me By Your Name,” from 2007, the straight writer André Aciman looked at the enduring power of first love through a teenager’s overwhelming desire for another man, complete with lashings of sex in the forest, at the sea, and in the streets of Rome. (You will never eat a peach again without thinking about what those two guys do to a piece of fruit.) Straight novelists are even beginning to write about gay history, and in particular HIV/AIDS. Tristan Garcia’s “Hate: A Romance,” co-translated by the Paris Review editor Lorin Stein, examined not only the devastation of the first years of the disease, but the virulent debates between proponents of safe sex and more radical gay activists who see barebacking as a political act. That is the sort of thing even many gay writers are not yet ready to discuss.

It can only be a good thing that the terms of gay fiction are expanding to include not only more readers but more writers. Yet gays have been writing about straight people for hundreds of years, and while straight writers who write gay fiction are celebrated for taking a risk and for imagining something beyond their own experience, gay and lesbian writers who do the opposite, such as Colm Tóibín in “Brooklyn” or Sarah Waters in “The Little Stranger,” don’t really get the same credit. Perhaps this is because straight love and desire is omnipresent; perhaps, more homophobically, it’s because we still think gay writers “naturally” have such powers of imagination. Either way, while the situation has improved, gay fiction still suffers from ghettoization, and while straight writers may be mindful of the risks they take in depicting a minority to which they don’t belong, gays who turn to straight subjects can find the new, larger audience for their books bewildering. Michael Cunningham observed as much back in 2000, when he was asked about the success of “The Hours.” “I can’t help but notice,” said Cunningham, “that when I finally write a book in which there are no men sucking each other’s dicks, I suddenly win the Pulitzer Prize.”

Continue Reading Close

Jason Farago is a regular contributor to the Guardian and writes criticism for the London Review of Books, n+1, Frieze and other publications. He is also editor of Art in Common, a blog on art and urban life.

Pulitzers snub fiction

No novel won the coveted prize this year, but does that mean nothing good was published?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Pulitzers snub fictionDetails from the covers of "Train Dreams," "Swamplandia!" and "The Pale King"

The news that no Pulitzer Prize for fiction would be awarded this year came like a slap across the face to a book world still reeling from a Department of Justice suit filed against publishers trying to forestall an Amazon e-book monopoly. Double ouch! But does the Pulitzer snub mean that no good fiction was published in America last year?

I would (and have) argued otherwise, most strenuously; 2011 was an exceptional year for fiction, American and otherwise. I also suspect that the Pulitzer Board itself has not turned up its collective nose at every book produced by American novelists and short story writers in 2011. The Pulitzer Prize may wield far more clout with book buyers than any other American prize for fiction. It can turn an obscure title into a success and a modestly successful title into a bestseller. Readers take it seriously and snap up the books it honors by the thousands. But that doesn’t mean that the Pulitzer Prize for fiction doesn’t suffer from the same problems that afflict every literary prize, no matter its size or influence.

I have some insight into those problems because I served on the Pulitzer fiction jury two years ago. I can’t talk about my jury’s deliberations, however — that was part of the deal. I can tell you that choosing the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is a two-tier process, a fact that even people well-versed in the literary world tend to forget.

The first tier is the jury’s selection. Three jurors (usually an academic, a critic and a fiction writer) are responsible for wading through huge boxfuls of books. Anyone can submit his or her book to the Pulitzer competition for a small fee, and believe me: anyone does. We got hundreds and hundreds of them, including many self-published novels with titles like “The Bikinis of Alpha Centauri,” most of which read as if they’d been run through Google Translate into Farsi and then run back again into English before being committed to print.

From the many submissions, the jury picks three titles to recommend to the Pulitzer Board, and the board picks the actual winner, as well as selecting the winners of all the other Pulitzer Prizes. The board does have the option to select a title not on the jury’s list, but it rarely does so nowadays.

The heyday for picking no book at all was the 1970s, a time of considerable cultural upheaval and conflict. In 1971, the board rejected titles from Eudora Welty, Saul Bellow and Joyce Carol Oates. In 1974, a stellar jury consisting of Benjamin DeMott, Elizabeth Hardwick and Alfred Kazin (three titans of literary criticism) unanimously recommended that the prize go to Thomas Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow.” The Pulitzer Board dug in its heels and said no. In 1977, the last time the prize was not awarded, the jury favored ”A River Runs Through It” by Norman Maclean and the board shut them down.

Why? According to the critic and experimental novelist William Gass, who wrote a notorious diatribe on the subject, the Pulitzer Board’s taste is hopelessly mainstream, middlebrow and unadventurous. (In 1941, most of the board did pick Ernest Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” but one member — who happened to be the president of Columbia University — put the kibosh on that because he considered the book immoral.) However, Gass’ complaint seems an absurd cavil to level against an institution whose power and influence resides precisely in the fact that it speaks to a broad audience.

The Pulitzer Board consists of working journalists and journalism professors, most with a deep respect for literature but relatively little familiarity with the literary world. This can be a strength and a weakness. The Pulitzer’s excellent record at singling out literary works that also appeal to a lot of readers is one reason why it has so much more influence than “insider” prizes like the National Book Award.

However, because the Pulitzer Board is fairly representative of educated Americans, it surely includes a lot of people who don’t really have time to read fiction — or, at least, literary fiction — anymore. Past boards might have been able to settle on a title that most of them had read even if it wasn’t offered as a finalist by the jury; reading at least a few of the “big” novels published during the year was something a lot more people did before the Internet and cable TV came along. In 21st-century America, the novel has become a marginalized and Balkanized art form, and even when avid fiction fans compare notes, they often find they’ve read nothing in common.

Chances are good that the three novels recommended by this year’s Pulitzer jury — “Swamplandia!” by Karen Russell, “Train Dreams” by Denis Johnson, and “The Pale King” by David Foster Wallace — are the only three serious new novels many of the board members read last year, apart, perhaps, from one or two others. These people are, after all, pretty busy doing things like editing the Denver Post and running the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, jobs that are a lot more time-consuming than they used to be, as well as selecting the winners in the other Pulitzer categories.

By all accounts, the group could not reach a majority on any of the three titles recommended by the jury. It’s certainly unlikely that enough of them read fiction widely enough to agree on an alternate choice. In that, they truly are representative of American readers, and that bodes worse for our national literature than a year without a Pulitzer winner.

Continue Reading Close
Laura Miller

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Page 1 of 129 in Fiction