Excellent read that in my opinion falls more under literary fiction than science fiction, reminds me a bit of one of Kim Stanley Robinson's books. I have only two criticisms, one it was very lengthy and I honestly believed the story could still have been done well if only they cut out a third of the book. It was divided into 3 parts and was lengthy in the introspective parts. If it was cut down to two parts it would have been easier to follow and more enjoyable. Two, there wasn't much in the way of diversity which I found extremely disappointing since Mars was (at least at the beginning) being held up as a genuine utopia. There was no mention of race beyond vague skin tone descriptions of characters, no mention of non binary gender identities, LGBTIA mentions, no mention of gender inequality that was clearly present and most if not all the women in the story were in artistic careers not in the sciences. Maybe I am being nitpicky but in my vision of a futuristic utopia I would want to see women in leaderships positions, in the 'hard' sciences, in the military, etc alongside men. ( )

A story that covers discrimination, economics, social structure, love, and technology. Very skillfully told by the author. Leaves the reader with much to ponder as the story unfolds and questions arise about why is right and what is true. My kind of book. ( )

I came to this book knowing that it was highly touted as a potential nominee for a Hugo, so while I wouldn't say that I was daring Hao to impress me, I did have expectations. Were those expectations met? To a large degree, yes. It would have been useful to know beforehand that Hao has an advanced level of academic training, and is a practitioner of social policy, as this book is very much an example of the case where the characters embody arguments of how one should live one's life. While I wouldn't say that this then reduces these characters to cardboard, or that this work is didactic, it does mute the tones of personality. As has been noted, much of the story boils down to the character of the Martian girl Luoying, who is trying to understand how her world is as it is, after having received a social education on Earth. This is not a book that is trying to knock you over, but I'd argue that it is worth the investment of time. Recommended for fans of Kim Stanley Robinson. I would also not be surprised to see it wind up on the Hugo short list for best novel; though I think 2021 will be a very competitive year. ( )

“To be interesting, rely on your head; to be faithful, rely on your heart and eyes.”



In “Vagabonds” by Hao Jingfang



Prior to “Vagabonds” I read Liu’s translation of Chinese SF: “Invisible Planets - Contemporary Chinese Science Fiction”; my favourite story was Jingfang’s “Folding Beijing”. I was eagerly anticipating Jingfang’s first novel in English (also translated by Liu).

From a point of view of a normal SF consumer, I think there is a growing resistance to any novel in the English language, which does not follow a linear narrative or even simply has what the reader deems to be 'gaps' or using a sort of dreamlike narrative. There is a clear demand for every last element of the story to be written out and even minor character to have their lives resolved (I just finished the fourth volume of the Expanse Series and I couldn’t have found a better counterpoint). In Western SF No-one is allowed to 'ride into the sunset' without the author saying what it was like when the character reached the next town and bedded down for the night and then what the rest of their life entailed. Western readers nowadays are becoming very narrow in what they will tolerate, anything diverging from that simple, often very comprehensive (to the point of tedium) approach is condemned as 'bizarre' or 'weak'.

There is now push-back against unreliable narrators too and people struggling to cope with substantial challenges, even more so in movies, but still also with novels. However, it seems a pity that unreliable narrators/struggling heroic characters of any gender are ruled out entirely and that what is articulated must be accurate, perhaps even omniscient. Maybe anyone who favours a more uncertain narrator or struggling heroic character is now perceived to not want a 'proper' book or to want the silencing of certain groups in our society, rather than perhaps a more intellectually challenging/stimulating approach to writing.

Jingfang’s novel has its core the fact that trying to make things better and utopias are not the same thing. The one essential ingredient that most utopian ideas overlook is change. The universe, planets and life are all dynamic. Never static. And change can be unpredictable. Utopias will almost always find themselves contradicted or in conflict with some aspects of that change. In attempting to deal with it they become inflexible and despotic. That inflexibility (of utopian planning, generally) is a fair call, but Newman, but I should argue explicitly for the more limited utopianism of 'making things better', rather than the more authoritarian-tending fix-everything-in-one-swoop-with-one-rigid-blueprint utopianism that Western SF readers see in much real-world utopianism (or fake-utopianism, cf. Stalin, and Mao).

Of course, isn't the whole point of Utopia that it isn't actually possible? Yes, we can (and should) strive towards such a thing, but it's no more likely to be achieved than is a perpetual motion machine. It's a fantasy. Dystopian fiction shows us the myriad ways in which a search for Utopia might fail. I'd take strong issue with the writer's proposal that Gilead is a Christian utopia; it's very precisely a Christian dystopia. The problem is that stories like Jingfang’s want to have a point, and that often means showing that working towards utopia ironically leads to things being massively worse off for others - so whether intentionally or not, you end up with a parable about how you should just accept things as they are because you'll only screw them up. It's interesting to compare this novel to TV shows like Star Trek, or Iain M Banks' Culture novels, where the utopian society is already established and just forms the background to other stories. This is really just an extension of the "be careful what you wish for" trope in old folk tales. A couple gets three wishes: one of them uses the first one selfishly; the other uses the second one to attack them out of spite; and they end up using the third to put everything back to normal.

I am glad to see that some publishers (I must check who published “Vagabonds”) are at least still trying to highlight, even laud, different narrative approaches in the face of so much popular hostility to them, so much more vocal in these days of online ratings and customer feedback. ( )

Vagabonds is a Chinese sci-fi novel by Hao Jingfang and translated by Ken Liu. At 640 pages, this is one of the longer books I’ve read and quite a time sink. I can readily recommend this title to fans of more literary sci-fi and serious, sophisticated prose that has the characters examining the world around them in introspective ways. A lot of effort is put toward world-building right down to the nitty-gritty details of technology, political systems, and the culture of not only Earth in 2096 but also a highly developed Mars. The two are at odds, with a history of war and existing tensions.

The story follows multiple young people who have traveled between the planets and can be considered vagabonds- adrift between two worlds, experiencing complex feelings for both and belonging to neither. Just wandering in a strange space between. During its most shining moments of prose, Vagabonds does well in capturing that sort of journey.

The main character of focus is Luo Ying, a young dancer whose grandfather presides over Mars. Her parents died under mysterious circumstances. Across the span of her journey she seeks to find out more about them and also process her thoughts on Mars versus Earth. Is Mars really headed in an ideal direction, or are the differing ideals she observed on Earth more likely to lead to justice and freedom? Black and white thinking is not abound in Vagabonds, both worlds are gradually revealed and treated with a nuance view. I was impressed by the combination of imaginative technologies and allegorical modern issues which could convincingly persist so many years in the future.

But there were many rambling chapters with intensive world building that was more demanding and info-dumpy than immersive. This is a quiet, elegantly-written book that consistently ponders instead of taking action. The plot moves slowly and while most questions are answered by the end, it did seem like little was accomplished after such a massive page count.

I also found the characters lacking in appeal, flavor, or well-rounded development. This could have to do with the future being so sleek and controlled, but very few of the individuals portrayed here left much of a mark. They all sound a bit similar in voice and style, reminiscent of my issues with the characters of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. As a side note, if you read and greatly enjoyed that book you may want to give Vagabonds a try as it has some tonal similarities.

A note about the translation. I’ve read many translations, ones that seemed good and ones that seemed bad. This translation strikes me as noteworthy in its depth and clarity. Word choices seem carefully handled and well fitting to the literary weight of this work.

In closing, Vagabonds is worth checking out if you enjoy more mature and thought-provoking sci-fi with an emphasis on world building. The political and social tensions conveyed make an interesting contrast to present-day realities.

But a thrilling timeline, eventful plotting, and deep character development take a backseat by comparison. I found this book as a whole to be too lacking in those areas and less impactful as a result.

Note : I received an ARC of this book for review. ( )