BOOK CLUB KIT
READING GUIDE 1. Providence is told from the points of view of four very different characters—Anders, Gilly, Jackson, and Talia. Did reading the novel from these multiple perspectives change your reading experience? How did the four perspectives inform one another? 2. Discuss the different motivations presented for conducting the war on the aliens. Do you think the war is justified? Why or why not? 3. Gilly says that human beings are “throwaway survival machines� for genes, and Talia suggests that the ship is the same thing for them. Do you think this is correct? 4. Talia believes that her position as Life Officer is the most important on the ship. Do you agree or disagree? What role did each crew member serve, both within and outside of their assigned jobs? 5. Discuss the way that isolation impacts each member of the crew, comparing and contrasting their different reactions to being cut off from the world. 6. What role do social media and propaganda play in the Providence mission? Do the characters and the mission change after access to social media is lost? 7. The characters have different opinions about the nature of the salamanders and the ship. How reliable are these? What do they say about the characters themselves?
8. Discuss the ways that artificial intelligence and humanity are intertwined in the novel. Look specifically at moments when both human relationships and technology break down. 9. Providence is set in the future but has many parallels to our life on Earth today. What are the lessons or warnings that you took away from your reading that may apply to the present? 10. Discuss the final actions of the ship—why do you think it sacrificed itself to rescue Talia? Does this imply that there was something “human” about the ship? Do you think that technology can ultimately be trusted? 11. What did you make of the final scene in the novel after Talia’s return to Earth? Have the humans really “won”? If so, what exactly does winning mean in this context? 12. Was the crew necessary? The final chapter asks if “the whole thing really was providence, and once the ships were built, nothing any mere human did at any stage made the slightest difference to the ultimate outcome at all.” Was this the case? 13. What genre do you think that Providence falls into? Is it science fiction, a social novel, a thriller, a dystopian tale, or something else entirely?
A Conversation with
MAX BARRY Photo © Chris Hopkins 2019
What is your new novel, Providence, about? Ultimately, Providence is about the connections between all living things—how we’re involved in a series of interlocking struggles. At the heart of the story are four people who are supposedly representing humanity against an existential alien threat. They’re on a four-year mission, crewing a huge battleship out beyond where anyone else can reach them. So their first challenge is to navigate one another, which is more difficult than it seems, because they weren’t chosen for the mission for the reasons they thought. But there’s also an alien species they know little about, which they’re trying to figure out. At home, there’s a mix of military and corporate interests fighting a propaganda war. And, most importantly, there’s the ship itself, which has more in common with the crew than they realize.
Where did the idea for this novel originate? My very first thought was about a tank crew fighting a modern-day war—Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe—where the conflict is very one-sided, because the good guys have all the tech. And then the tank breaks down. By historical standards, many soldiers in modern-day wars are incredibly safe, and also detached from the fighting, which is more about drones and displays than the kind of combat where you have to look your enemy in the eyes. I thought it would be interesting to explore that, then strip it all away and see what happened. But my ideas almost always evolve beyond recognition once I start writing them, because most of the time, what sounds like a good story idea and what is actually a good story idea are two different things. That happened with Providence.
Science fiction and speculative fiction are not always character-driven, but this is. Why is character important to you and the stories you tell? This is a more character-driven novel than I’ve written before—I’m increasingly interested in character the older I get, but I’m still probably more of a plot guy. This time I had four people isolated from everyone else. That meant I could get more personal with them, which was very appealing because I’m always drawn to write something new, which teaches me about storytelling from a different angle.
The “futuristic” war that is being waged in Providence is very impersonal and yet the story is really a very personal story of the four crew members. How do you interlace these two disparate threads in one narrative? Right. The crew are removed from the war to the point where— at first, at least—they’re not even really fighting it. They’re on the front lines, but the ship is running all the actual combat. That provided narrative space to explore who they are, because they don’t have to rush frantically between tasks; they’re kind of bored and so can be exactly who they are. I wanted to craft a personal journey—four of them— through a seismic moment that affected the future of multiple species on an existential level. So if I did it right, the story is small enough to allow you to get inside of the characters, but big enough to say things about who we are as a species and what our future might hold.
Can you talk a little about the four crew members—who they are, their individual places in the story, and why you chose to create each of them the way you did? My first, mostly complete draft of this novel was written in the first person from Gilly’s perspective. It was very plotty, because that’s the kind of person Gilly is: He’s mostly interested in what’s happening; he wants to know what’s going to happen next and why. He’s a puzzle guy. It was okay, but didn’t feel like the kind of story I wanted it to be. I then tried a chapter from Talia Beanfield’s perspective, just to see how it came out, and loved it. She’s so much
more introspective—she cares about all the things that Gilly doesn’t. That gave the book a much better balance, and I wound up rewriting Gilly’s chapters in the third person to make them consistent. Anders was challenging, because when he’s viewed from someone else’s perspective, it’s fine that he doesn’t always seem to make sense; that’s just him being the slightly insane person he is. But as soon as I’m writing from his point of view, his every action must be completely reasonable in his own eyes. So that changes how he feels to the reader in a fundamental way. That was part of the appeal, though; I wanted you to revise your opinion about each character as you saw different perspectives—not flip your understanding on its head, because that’s just annoying, but, hopefully, deepening over time. I saved Jackson until last because I knew it would be short and I wanted to get it right. She’s the oldest—the closest to my own age— and I loved how this created a contrasting viewpoint to the others.
ple, there’s a war raging to colonize the human genome, fought between genes—it’s very slow, and has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, but it’s a desperate struggle to the death. And that war has defined who we are—and what we are—today. So I loved the notion of these interlocking conflicts: Humanity is at war, but human beings are also vehicles created by genes to fight a genetic war. And there are many more like that. The conflicts are too large or small for anyone to comprehend the whole thing—they only see pieces. I wanted to create a canvas that had a lot of moving parts—some slow, some fast, but all ultimately connected, all variations of the same struggle, repeated across many different forms of life.
Since this is your first “full-blooded sci-fi novel” (i.e., set in space), did you have to research any real space travel technology, etc., or did you just let your imagination run wild?
It’s somewhere between those extremes. Providence isn’t a hard sci-fi novel—I don’t attempt to explain the science behind a “hard skip,” for example. But I am militant about “That’s how computers work: internal logic, which means that I won’t let an idea survive unless it’s completely reasonable They’re not infallible, within the established rules of the universe. For but they don’t make example, it’s never made sense to me that a futuristic battleship would miss. If your weapons human-like mistakes.” system is being run by advanced AI, it will hit with practically every shot it takes. That’s how computers work: They’re not infallible, but they don’t make human-like mistakes, where they Would you classify Providence as a war get things wrong sometimes just because. They novel? A political novel? make a totally different kind of mistake. It’s about war because you can’t really talk It drives me crazy when sci-fi stories about life at a high level without conflict. include amazing technology but the computers From the perspective of a whole species, life still can’t shoot straight, so this was a chance is nothing but constant war. And it’s occurring for me to write in a universe that I thought at all levels, even below our notice. For exam- made more sense.
Now that you’ve “explored” space, do you think you will return in future novels? I don’t think so. I always want to do something new. I’ve had an itch to write a story with aliens for a long time, but next I’ll go somewhere else.
you follow it slavishly, you wind up writing a book that could have been written by anyone. (And may be written by AI in the future.) Really, every rule or guideline on writing boils down to: Understand what you’re putting into people’s heads. You can do whatever you want so long as you understand how it will make someone feel when they read it. Also, I think we all tend to become more conservative as we age. So you can always write your proper books when you get old. If you’re young, write young.
You also developed the online nation simulation game NationStates. Has working in that realm had an influence on your storytelling What writers have influenced your work? Are methods in your fiction? there any on the list that might surprise us? NationStates has given rise to a whole bunch of role-playing communities, to the point where it’s almost a writing workshop in some places more than a game. There’s just something about being able to create your own country online that seems to inspire people to tell stories within it. I haven’t gotten deeply involved in that myself, but I do think there’s crossover in that both require thought about structure and worldbuilding. There’s also a lot of ethical choices at the heart of the game that make you confront your own views and discover what you’re willing to sacrifice for what you value, which is the kind of thing that’s always at the core of a story.
You’ve said writers should “find their own voice and guard it.” Could you elaborate on that advice? I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel and been wowed by the author’s spelling, or grammar, or how rigorously they’ve adhered to the common wisdom on structure. I have been wowed by authors who did something different—who spoke clearly with an original voice from the very first sentence. There is a spark that some writers have, an energy or a clarity, that leaps off the page. When you’re learning to write—and we’re all still learning to write—you naturally want to figure out what the rules are and follow them. But that really only works at a very basic level, and if
Probably not—some of my all-time faves are Margaret Atwood, Stephen King, George Saunders, Neal Stephenson, Shirley Jackson, John Irving, Kazuo Ishiguro, and Philip K. Dick. If I’m going to pull a left-field one, Joss Whedon, who is responsible for a huge amount of the TV and film I enjoyed from the 1990s onward.
“Every rule or guideline on writing boils down to: Understand what you’re putting into people’s heads.” Are you at work on a new novel? Can you give readers a sneak peek into what to expect? I’m always at work on a new novel. I haven’t not been at work on a new novel since about 1990. I am incredibly reluctant to talk about the new book until it’s done, though—I feel like this is always a mistake, for two reasons. Firstly, it releases some kind of hype valve in my brain, diverting energy away from writing and into convincing other people that what I’m writing is really good. And secondly, such hubris angers the writing gods, on whom I depend to grant me story ideas.
C H A R A C TE R QUIZ
Who would you be on Providence Five?
1 3 5
How would your friends describe you? A. B. C. D.
Mostly quiet and thoughtful Bubbly and social Pragmatic and levelheaded Passionate and outspoken
2
What is your dream job?
4
What would you say is your best quality?
A. B. C. D.
Data analyst Therapist Government official Police officer
What is your ideal Friday night? A. B. C. D.
Reading at home Having drinks with friends A cooking class with your significant other An expensive dinner
What kind of traveler are you? A. B. C. D.
Planner with a meticulous itinerary Go with the flow Loves to organize tours Has to hit all the famous spots
A. B. C. D.
Intelligence Humor Ambition Confidence
Mostly A’s: YOU
ARE GILLY
A natural problem-solver, Gilly is the engineer and intelligence officer of the ship. He has a head for numbers and mechanics but identifies mostly as an introvert who is less adept with the social aspects of life on the ship.
Mostly B’s: YOU
ARE TALIA
Talia is a social butterfly, a true people person, and the most empathetic of the group. According to her, she has the most important job on the ship as Life Officer. It is her job to maintain the emotional wellness and relationships of the crew while onboard.
Mostly C’s: YOU
ARE JACKSON
The captain and a war hero, Jackson is the most experienced and levelheaded of the group. While she misses her husband back on Earth, she is able to remain practical and see the big picture while commanding the crew.
Mostly D’s: YOU
ARE ANDERS
Anders is a weapons officer with a hot head. He is passionate, handsome, aggressive, and has a tendency to be somewhat narcissistic. While he may alienate his other crewmembers, losing his brothers to the salamanders makes him a highly motivated and hardworking individual.
