To Say Nothing of the Dog

A few years ago, a friend recommended Doomsday Book to me as a good example of "science fiction lite". I think it was a term he made up himself, and after finishing the book I told him I didn't really think it was science fiction at all.

It was my first introduction to Connie Willis, and in the years following I read through pretty much all of her fiction. She does reuse certain character motifs, but her writing is engaging and her books fun to read.

My favorite is To Say Nothing of the Dog, which is a light, funny, clever book inspired (and named after) Jerome K. Jerome's Three Men in a Boat. Recently, I recommended it enthusiastically to a friend.

A few weeks later, she returned it, having been unable to finish it. I was perplexed, so I talked to another friend (also a Connie Willis fan) and we came to the conclusion that even though Willis' books are light on explicit scientific theory, they do involve a certain amount of logical reasoning, skepticism, and focus on detail. In short, they require a techy thought process.

For example, the plot of "To Say Nothing of the Dog" is based heavily on time travel, and the protagonist spends the first hundred pages or so in a time travel-induced daze. As a reader, it's difficult to remember that the main character's interpretation of events may not be entirely trustworthy. Also, like a mystery writer, Willis expects her readers to retain seemingly innocuous plot points until they become significant. One of the reasons that I enjoy her writing is that I am forced to concentrate, rather than being fed a simple, easy-to-follow plot. Others may not agree.

I still highly recommend Willis' books, especially "To Say Nothing of the Dog", "Doomsday Book", "Passage", and "Bellwether", but I will probably shy away from recommending her and other "science fiction lite" writers to less technical readers.