HOME / culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

The Strange Powers of Richard Powers

Having mastered subjects as abstruse and varied as artificial intelligence, game theory, Flemish history, and the manufacture of soap, Richard Powers (The Gold Bug Variations, Galatea 2.2, and Gain, among others) is one of America's best-informed novelists of ideas. He's also one of its worst writers of prose. Few can match Powers for florid metaphor-making and puzzling epigrammaticity. Consider the masterpiece of italicized clunkiness which opens his latest novel, Plowing the Dark:

This room is never anything o'clock.

Minutes slip through it like a thief in gloves. Hours fail even to raise the dust. Outside, deadlines expires. Buzzers erupt. Deals build to their frenzied conclusions. But in this chamber, now and forever combine.

Granted, Powers is trying to drum up interest in a room in which absolutely nothing is going on--a writerly challenge, to say the least. But still, a less overambitious novelist would have toned down the breathless grandiosity of "Deals build to their frenzied conclusions" or excised the cheap poetry of "now and forever combine." The book continues in that vein, with overwrought lyricism giving way to something calmer and more workmanlike, only to have the emotions rise again whenever Powers starts in on a topic that excites him.

Powers' strained style doesn't seem to diminish his appeal all that much. As fans observed when Gain was published in 1998 to high acclaim--it was his sixth novel and his breakthrough book--Powers is among a very small number of American fiction writers with a broad yet deep understanding of the technological and industrial processes upon which much of this country's wealth and a lot of its problems rest. He's a student of the Thomas Pynchon and Don Delillo school of scientific allegory, but where their accounts of the forces thrumming unseen around us tend to add up to giddy, apocalyptic, paranoid goofs, Powers' are informational. (Luckily, they're also mostly shorter.) Another distinction between Powers and just about everyone else is that he's obsessed with a subject notoriously difficult to treat in novelistic form--symbolic analysis. What is it we do when we work at our computer screens? Few novelists even try to describe it, mainly because, as New Republic critic James Wood has pointed out, from the physical perspective required by literary realism, deskbound day jobs all look alike, and yet they are actually so different that it's almost impossible for a professional in one field to explain her activities fully to another.

Explaining what professionals do is what Powers does best. Gain, in part, is the history of Clare, a Proctor & Gamble-like conglomerate founded in 1830. With a precision more to be expected from a business historian than from a novelist, Powers explores the contributions of key individuals to the company's evolution: the transfer of capital from shipping to manufacturing that gave Clare its start; the refinements in soap and candle-making that allowed it to dominate its regional market. This goes on through a century and a half of advances in cleansing agents, as seen through the eyes of the chemists who discover them; of revolutions in transportation, as viewed by the Clare board members who take advantage of them; and in brand marketing, as pioneered by one clever Clare executive. Eventually we learn about the efforts of people to incorporate the company, to take it public, and finally, to defend it against lawsuits and to conduct its public-relations campaigns, since Clare's products are implicated in environmental poisoning and a high incidence of cancer.

The other half of the book recounts one woman's losing war against that cancer, which lodges in her ovaries. Although the woman is granted more interiority than any member of the Clare family, she never quite springs to life: Powers invariably fails to give his characters a sense of independent existence. Rather, the woman provides the opportunity for a detailed account of the trajectory of the disease through her body, and how the medicines (some of them made by Clare) affect it.

Plowing the Dark is less successful than Gain, perhaps because it homes in on a subject and period--virtual reality in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it looked like the future of technology--of less intrinsic interest than the vast, complex sweep of American capitalism. The book is laid out much the same way as its predecessor, with one half devoted to work and the other half, indirectly, to its consequences. The work involves a team of software designers at a Seattle-based company called TeraSys, who are out to re-create the look and smell and sound of the actual world--an immersion environment, they call it--in a cavern called the Realization Lab. Into their midst comes a conveniently clueless New York artist named Adie Klarpol, whose education in the arcana of hardware and software doubles as our own. The other story details the inner life of Taimur Martin, an American English teacher in Lebanon who is kidnapped by the Hezbollah and held in solitary confinement for more than three years.

The link between the two plots is strictly metaphoric, since the story lines never converge. Instead, there are parallels: Adie, the software engineers, and Taimur all dwell deep inside their own heads, the first two voluntarily, the last one perforce. All labor to fabricate from language (artificial or natural) and visual imagery a world that can be substituted for the real one--the engineers and artist borrowing from art and architecture for their alternate universe, the prisoner from any memory he can coax out of his battered brain. Toward the end of the novel, the Gulf War breaks out, and as Adie watches the first war waged more or less for television, she realizes in horror that the customer for her beloved project is the very military that is bombing Baghdad. Over on the other side of the world, Taimur is a casualty of the greater battle between Islam and the West, of which the Gulf War is little more than a skirmish.

What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? It would be easy to skewer Powers by coming up with Biblical quips that would allow you to re-assemble the separate halves of his novels (almost all of them employ this dual structure). But then, you don't read Powers for the originality of his larger themes. You read him to peer over the shoulders of people like the software engineers. For that task, Powers is equipped. Here's how Steve Spiegel, the old friend and former poet who has lured Adie out to Seattle, explains why he switched to writing code after having devoted the first half of his life to trying to become the American William Butler Yeats:

Think of it: you just spell out a few descriptions. OK: a lot of descriptions. But still, you type some words, the inner name of the thing. You describe how you want it. You build a topical outline of its behavior. Then you run the description, and there the idea is. Actual, working, in all of its functional glory. Coming to life, on the terminal in front of you.

[Adie looks puzzled, and gestures toward the image of a towel that the two of them have designed on her computer screen.]

No, Steve said. You can't possibly understand. There are too many layers now, between you and the artifact. Assemblers, compilers, interpreters, code generators, reusable libraries, visual programming tools. It wasn't always like this. You have to imagine looking at this towel, this beautiful, woven, cotton towel, falling in natural folds, as good as cloth. Have to imagine looking at it and seeing the realization of your own words, your own perfect, workable essay about the way that cloth looks and feels and falls.

Pygmalion? [Adie asks.]

He's in there somewhere. Orpheus might be closer. I'm telling you, writing my first subroutine was ... like causing huge chunks of unravished bride to rise up, just by singing to her. A good polished program was everything I thought poetry was supposed to be.

Stevie. You must have had a very peculiar idea of what poetry was supposed to be.

No different than any person who ever wrote it. I was going to get inside of reality and extract its essence, write down on paper the magic metrical words that, read aloud, would do their open sesame.

No one talks like this, of course, not even lapsed poets. Powers' characters don't have verisimilitude; they have ventriloquism--the tendency to deliver grandiloquent disquisitions that the author has obviously slaved over for days. But what disquisitions! It's quite an insight: that code has all the rigor of poetry, demanding an equally precise control of language, but with a more powerful outcome. Code doesn't just mimic reality, the way literature does. It generates it, in the form of answers, programs, representations, even virtual existence. Ultimately, the novel will turn on the unintended consequences of manipulating reality in this way.

Insights like that are all around us--in business, medicine, law, politics, and all the other professions into which most of the available human ingenuity is currently channeled--but if you're a fiction writer, you have to do a lot of scut work before you're in a position to have them. Powers does the scut work, and while he may not bring to the resulting observations the full measure of elegance of which English prose is capable, at least he's out there making them.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Judith Shulevitz is a former culture editor of Slate. She is writing a book about the Sabbath.
COMMENTS

Reader Response from The Fray:


Thank you for being the much-needed first critic to point out how strained and kitschy-poetic Richard Powers is as a writer. His dialogue consists of DeLillo-esque one liners, his descriptive passages obey an almost mind-numbing lyrical cadence (Gain had way too many lyrical sentence fragments), and his heroines are all identical: stubborn, sarcastic spitfires with hearts of gold. In addition, I'd also reassess Powers' status as a great novelist of ideas. Yes, he deserves credit for tackling such diverse and arcane subjects. But even his best novel, Goldbug Variations, draws its premise, juxtaposition of ideas, and meditative form from another source (Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach). He's not a bad author, just overrated.

--Simon

(To reply, click here.)

(6/5)

To Simon: On the strength of The Goldbug Variations alone, Richard Powers stands at the forefront of contemporary fiction, in any language. Powers has not only understood, but also internalized scientific and economic themes that form our world today, a considerable feat. His technique might be jagged at times, but sentence by sentence, he is profound on the subjects he writes about. Powers is a master. His humaneness is filtered through so many layers of intellect and learning that it is obscured, but is very much there. How does one compare Powers with, say, William Trevor, or A.S.Byatt, or Alice Munro? He seems "kitschy-poetic" because he is trying to relate science to life as lived, without taking the convenient route of science fiction. Science has never intruded so far into human affairs and consciousness as today, and Powers is the battlefront reporter.

--Khurram Dastgir-Khan

(To reply, click here.)


To Khurram: Good points. I may have judged Powers too summarily in my post. Most of Goldbug is pretty great (especially, I must admit, the opening poem), but the lapses in that novel are more representative of his style than the good passages. He'll put disparate subjects together (DNA research, artificial intelligence, Bach, romantic love) but his analysis tends to go no deeper than juxtaposition; it's like an intellectual mix tape--smooth-flowing, revelatory in its selections, but without much original intellectual content. In the end, the best thing about that book is Powers' unabashed love for his characters. The problem with his prose is that he's trying to explain complex scientific subjects while still leaving them an aura of mystery, and this technique falls utterly flat, resulting in inappropriate metaphors and wispy abstractions.

--Simon

(To reply, click here.)



Richard Powers writes novels that struggle under the burden of their prescience to entertain, and somehow he manages to accomplish this task. Settling down into the couch with Gain is as rewarding as curling up with JR or A Frolic of His Own, very specific types of novels that use language in service of a larger and more convoluted idea, plot and concept. While I most often would agree with Culturebox and prefer the lean taut novels of, say, Nabokov, who so astutely balances big language and big ideas, Richard Powers represents the other end of the spectrum: the haute-literary equivalent of a Tom Clancy or Jeffrey Archer.

--Gorillamuseum

(To reply, click here.)


After reading the cryptic poem that opens The Goldbug Variations, my wife has refused ever to read another word of Richard Powers. If she had, she would have found that he, like other talented writers, has a gift for peeling away layers of the onion to arrive at the essential core. The difference with Powers is his relative speed: he peels his onions of truth within single paragraphs. He will pile five sentences in a row, each of which make the same point, with each sentence gradually more epigrammatic. If this makes him an acquired taste, so be it, but it certainly doesn't qualify to make him one of our "worst writers of prose." My God--have you not read Grisham?

--Tim Brandhorst

(To reply, click here.)

(6/11)



What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Berlin Wall.4/091109_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on guns and shootings.2/091109_TC.jpg
Ins and outs.73/091109_TD.jpg