Annihilation

(This thread is for discussion of the book/film only. Off-topic discussion will result in SEVERAL MURDERS.)

I'm thick into this now and liking it. Brings to mind H. G. Wells' The Time Machine and William Hope Hodgson's novels in its evocation of an alien landscape. Good going, JEFF.

I do have a legitimate question: am I alright watching the film after reading this? Or does it spoil the other books, as certain seasons of Game of Thrones would do if reading alongside them?

[Ibrahim]

Only watched the film. Very 'Stalker.' Visually strong. The scenes before the final scene reminded me of Harrison's novel 'Light'( also very 'Stalker'),because of, well, the light i guess. But that final scene was disappointingly clichéd ( unless i misread it ). Stock alien-invasion stuff that ruined the ambiguity of what came before.

Everything I am enjoying about this so far is so tied to its format of literature that it's hard to see how a visual medium could fully do it justice. I am experiencing the impressions of the narrator rather than seeing things, which is where the atmosphere comes from. I can't imagine it would be as effective if I were just shown what was happening.

[New Devilry]

I, too, am wondering how they pulled that off in the film. Hoping to see it film very soon.

[Ucasuni]

I finished this a couple of days ago. Spoiler alert: Superman = Clark Kent. It's the glasses, man.

Actually, I confess I tried reading this a couple of years ago, and was simply not in the right headspace for it, finding the first chapter an absolute slog. This time, in contrast, I found the narrative style and content very compelling. Indeed, I found it to be almost quintessentially Weird, effectively combining and contrasting horror and awe (in this case closely linked to curiosity). There's a real absence of malevolence without sacrificing the sense of underlying threat, which is a dynamic that I tend to associate with Weird fiction.

I understand—but disagree with—Joshi's complaint about the woodenness of the narrator. However, whereas he seems to consider this to be an unintended narrative failing, it resonated with me as something more deliberate. To me it emphasized the narrator's outsider status: outsider relative to her own society, to her own relationships, and to Area X. It effectively turned all these relationships (and their evolution) into metaphors for each other. Sort of Spoiler:

Spoiler

This made the incremental insights into her emotional framework as the story progressed more effective, much as her integration into Area X's ecosystem progressed.

I'm curious to see where the rest of the series goes stylistically. I'm not convinced that this is a narrative style that is sustainable... or even desirable. But I thought it fit the plot and length of this book perfectly.

There're three books that I've been meaning to read (Owen's More Things In Heaven, Sinclair's Dining on Stones, and Jarvis's The Wanderer) that I refuse to put off any longer. That said, I definitely intend to return to this series.

[Zaharoff]

I will probably watch the film (sorry, James), but I am very undecided about the book.
Is this SciFi? Fantasy? Unclassifiable?
The former two, I ceased reading in my twenties and have no interest in whatsoever.
Yes, I understand I'm denying myself untold pleasures.
How would any of you classify Annihilation?

It's sci-fi horror with an emphasis on awe, so if you enjoyed Lovecraft's The Shadow Out of Time, William Hope Hodgson's The House on the Borderland, Clark Ashton Smith's City of the Singing Flame, H. G. Wells' The Time Machine, Ridley Scott's Alien or John Carpenter's The Thing then you'll probably like this. Richly atmospheric. I'm highly impressed.

[Nemonymous]

Quote Originally Posted by Zaharoff

How would any of you classify Annihilation?

A moved-on gestalt of The Big Book of Science Fiction, a great book edited by Ann(ihilation) and Jeff VanderMeer.

I like the distant 'wooden' narrative voice. This person was hand-picked and brainwashed to give a drone-like, sober, reliable, professional, minute account of the facts. Of course she would write this way. The complaints of political correctness strike me as even more reactionary and insane now I have read half the book. What a completely bizarre thing to focus on.

I'm slightly dreading the second half because I have enjoyed this so much up to now, and the second halves of mystery stories are rarely as interesting as the set up. Your move, JEFF!

[Ucasuni]

Quote Originally Posted by James

I like the distant 'wooden' narrative voice. This person was hand-picked and brainwashed to give a drone-like, sober, reliable, professional, minute account of the facts. Of course she would write this way. The complaints of political correctness strike me as even more reactionary and insane now I have read half the book. What a completely bizarre thing to focus on. I'm slightly dreading the second half because I have enjoyed this so much up to now, and the second halves of mystery stories are rarely as interesting as the set up. Your move, JEFF!

Completely agree.

FWIW, I found the second half better than the first, which is by no means a knock on the first half. It's just that it naturally became a richer story, deepening on every level: character development, world building, and most importantly Weird-ness.

The political correctness commentary seemed to be more related to subsequent books in the series. I think Joshi erred in tackling the series rather than taking the books on one by one. No matter what happens with the rest of the series, the first book can stand alone as an excellent book.