"The Political Officer" by Charles Coleman Finlay

First appeared in Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. Reprinted (one, a major retrospective), by Gardner Dozois, John Joseph Adams, Alan Kaster, Rich Horton, Sean Wallace. Up for Hugo, Nebula, and Locus Awards.

Summary:

Part locked-spaceship mystery, part thriller, part space-opera, part science-fictional sneak-peek into a possible secular-religious society--"The Political Officer" has much to intrigue the reader.


Maxim Nikomedes is a Political Officer aboard a small spacecraft, which means he shares some of the commanding duties aboard the ship with the captain and Lukinov, an officer of Intelligence. Intelligence has a rivalry with the political officers. Maxim's job is to seek out a suspected traitor, whom initially we are led to believe Maxim doesn't know who it is.

During Maxim's investigations, he is almost strangled, so he needs to find his would-be assassin and the man conspiring to get the people of Jesusalem in a war.

Analysis with spoilers:

I said "secular – religious society" as their society goes by the name of Jesusalem, a play on the name of Jerusalem and perhaps a mixture of Jesus and Salem, where Puritans burned supposed witches – suggesting that maybe a witch-hunt is underway. This has impacted the ship crew members in that only one is female, a victim of every faction in her society. However, no one appears especially religious or shares any religious convictions/thoughts, especially our POV character. Usually, there is also a religious hypocrite or two in the upper echelon of any religious organization. We do not witness this in this particular tale, though. Perhaps the narrator himself is the hypocrite although it is difficult to say without knowing more about Maxim's religious convictions.

The POV character, Maxim, is not particularly likable. While he does prevent a war, he busts into rooms, uninvited. He interrogates only the female ensign so viciously. He sets her up to take a fall. He promises she'll be okay in the end although necessarily she will have problems with her record. Granted, she was to be used by the other side, and they intended her to take the fall of a murder, far worse. However, Maxim does not appear moved by her impossible plight. She tried to follow three different orders on a ship with three different leaders.

Does the mystery play fair with the reader? Sort of. Initially, it says, "Now it was time to shake them up again to see if he could find the traitor he suspected." All true. Although we are in his point of view, we do not learn whom he suspects. Finlay gives immediate misdirection: "He brushed against Kulakov on purpose as he passed by him." This leads us to suspect Kulakov, but it isn't Kulakov, and it isn't clear why he would brush against Kulakov purposefully except to be a pain in the butt.

Clearly, this is a psychologically complex tale. The reader feels no particular admiration for any character. The sequel, "The Political Prisoner", which appears to share with this story the distinction of being Finlay's most popular and critically acclaimed stories, may shed light on mysteries still left behind about the character psychologies and societal customs--Maxim in particular.

F&SF did an interview about the stories with Finlay here. Whenever he finishes the series, it might be kind of a big deal. Let's hope he gets cracking on it.

What's So Funny about Secret Hate, Love, and Understanding, X-Men (review / discussion)

Friend and fellow writer, Susan Linville, I believe, was the first to break down the magazines by gender.  I remember us discussing it with Karen Joy Fowler.  My pulled-from-the-butt theory was that boys liked to read about a boy's adventure.  

When I was poetry editor at Abyss & Apex, however, I consistently surprised myself by sometimes selecting more poems from women than men.  I never thought about it consciously but would look at the contents in retrospect.  My theory became that maybe I was biased in favor of women.  I do enjoy--favor?--discussions with females.

Overall, though, the contents were about 50-50 while I was editor.  It wasn't something I'd planned.  I never counted up the slush-pile contributors, though I suspect they were equal numbers. When I tried to edit an experimental anthology, the slush-pile contents were overwhelmingly male and the female contributions weren't very interesting.  Maybe it sounded like a boy's game, so the girls decided not to play.

In John ONeill's "An Open Letter to Dave Truesdale", he lists why he thinks he and Truesdale were sexist.  I don't buy Truesdale's assertion that “science-fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body… Not once have I personally seen a smidgeon of racism or sexism.”  The statement has no flexibility for human error for one thing.  Also, SF has often favored one creature over another.  Some people prefer women in charge, some men.  The world is full of bias. True, though, is that SF has always been at the forefront against such racism and sexism, including positive portrayals of the other. Maybe that is what Truesdale meant to say.

My problem is mind-reading other people and saying that so-and-so's racist or sexist, without evidence or with secret evidence that may or may not be valid evidence.  Feel free to speak of your experience, not other people.

Often, when people do deconstruction, they don't do it properly.  It requires an understanding of the work before analysis, and then using that analysis to inform the deconstruction.  But most people have good intentions, trying to end hate.

X-Men Spoilers:

Charles Coleman Finlay analyzes X-Men but performs deconstruction before analyzing the movie, which boils down to not necessarily killing all of your enemies (which seems pertinent to this discussion in more ways than one).  Finlay writes, "[T]he whole premise of the movie is that Mystique is so awesome and effective at identifying her targets and following through on her plans that she literally changes the course of human history. Of course, it's a terrible future. Because she created it and she's a woman."

I watched a different movie it would seem.  First, we have three central characters in the past--Charles, Magneto, and Mystique.  All three are problematic, but Mystique may be the least problematic, the least psychologically damaged.  Not only is one of the writers (at least appears to be) a woman, Jane Goldman, but also Mystique is rather more powerfully portrayed than in any of the other movies.  With the other leaders incapacitated, she alone is saving mutants from experimentation.  Her DNA holds the technological key to destroying all mutants.  Living in the past, she does not know this--just as none of us know the future.  She holds the key to saving everyone in the end.  She is flawed, but that only serves to make her human.  Wolverine, really, is little more than a messenger--albeit a necessary one.

In fact, one might make a case that to go against this movie where a female is so pivotal to the story is to be sexist.  After all, she's the most interesting, least flat character in the movie.  But this, again, is problematic mind-reading.  Finlay means well.

I'll just address Finlay's further comments (his in quotes):

"And hey, Mystique talks to him the next day and forgives him, so why can't we?"

Does she?  Does shooting him in the neck and putting him in the hands of Charles so she can do what she wants represent forgiveness?

"when his chance comes he goes inside her head and physically controls her, at least long enough to make a speech about how important it is for her to make up her own mind."

But of course he controls other people as well.  Don't forget she's been moved by what's happened to the mutants.  It would take anyone a lot of convincing... plus revenge stories are tiresome.  I'd rather we didn't champion the destruction of others, even if we disagree with them. (We could also couch this in terms of handicapped vs. non-handicapped and have a very different sort of discussion.)

"So the world is a better place because Mystique grows and changes as a person. And when we snap back to the future, we'll get to see a glimpse of her and how she's changed. Hahaha! Sorry. Just like Mystique only functions earlier in the story as a foil for Charles' man-pain vs. Magneto's man-pain, she's completely absent from the denouement. Because her growth as a character is irrelevant to the rewards that the men-folks get for a job well done."

Again, we have to follow story logic.  Mystique isn't a part of Xavier Academy, which is where Wolverine ends up.  This is the team we've been following, not Magneto and Mystique.  Besides the denouement isn't about any one person but about how the Academy is back and history has changed somehow.  The end.  And again, no one is more interesting than Mystique--the supposed bad guy, helping others.  Her pain is far more fascinating than Charles' or Magneto's.  Besides, look where she stands in the poster:  ahead of all guys except our POV.  Although she is not fully informed about the future, who is?  


Three cheers for Finlay sticking up for underdogs.  Three cheers for X-Men--a fine movie in terms of speculation and large ensemble cast, which is always difficult to tackle and not make all characters look flat.  Three cheers for Truesdale and O'Neill.  Even if we don't agree, who says we have to?  Share a beer, clink your mugs.  As Elvis Costello told us, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?" (BTW, isn't Elvis better looking now than as a lad?)  

Free ebook magazine

Michael Knost's respectable yet short-lived Noctem Aeternus is available free.   It features writers Charles Coleman Finlay, Cherie Priest, Michael Laimo, Tim Waggoner, and Ramsay Campbell.