SFWRITER.COM > Novels > Frameshift > Writing Frameshift
Writing Frameshift
A Discussion with Robert J. Sawyer
Interview by David Pitt
On May 26, 1997, David Pitt, a journalist in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, interviewed Robert J. Sawyer by email about the
writing of Rob's eighth novel, Frameshift, for an article
which appeared in the July 5, 1997, Halifax Chronicle-Herald.
Here's a transcript of that email interview.
Note: This interview discusses many aspects of the plot of Frameshift.
You may prefer not to read the interview until after you've read the book.
David Pitt: Were you worried about readers' reactions to
Pierre's fate at the end of the novel in the sense that most
readers will probably expect a happier ending?
Robert J. Sawyer: The one area of real disagreement my
editor and I had over this book was the question of what should
happen at the end. It's often said that American SF has happy
endings and Canadian SF has unhappy ones. I don't think the
ending of Frameshift is unhappy; indeed, I think it's
rather uplifting. But I posited a character with a fatal
disease, and had to decide whether or not to save him at the end
of the book. There was some thinking that, well, you know,
Huntington's is a genetic disorder and my main character is a
geneticist, so maybe he could find a cure. But I felt that would
have been a cheat. First, of course, I didn't want the character
devoting his life to trying to cure his own disease; there's no
particular nobility in that. Second, I felt that real people who
had Huntington's would be insulted if I pulled a magic rabbit out
of the hat at the end; it would have been as though I were
minimizing their very real problem.
Pitt: Molly's telepathic gift: Did you introduce it to
fulfill certain plot requirements e.g., Pierre's search for
the genetic difference that leads him to the realization that
Amanda may be Hapless Hannah or did those plot developments
grow out of her gift? In other words: which came first, Molly's
gift or the plot?
Sawyer: Molly's genetic gift her limited ability to
read minds came first, and, indeed, I tried as much as
possible to avoid letting it drive the plot or use it as a
convenient way of solving plot problems. What I was really
interested in was a family portrait of the human species through
time. I knew where we'd come from mute Neanderthals. And I
knew where we were: articulate beings. But where were we going?
Well, telepathy seemed a reasonable guess for the next stage in
human evolution, and Molly exists as my way of portraying what
that might be like.
Pitt: What made you choose the Demjanjuk case, instead of
creating a fictional Nazi war criminal (as most writers probably
would have done)? And where did you do your research? (I pulled
an article by Pat Buchanan off the Internet; it confirms most of
what you say in Frameshift.)
Sawyer: All the facts I present relating to the Demjanjuk
case are absolutely accurate. In researching it, I relied on
countless newspaper and magazine articles, plus the books
Identifying Ivan: A Case Study in Legal Psychology by
Willem A. Wagenaar (Harvard University Press, 1988); The Trial
of Ivan the Terrible: State of Israel vs. John Demjanjuk by
Tom Teicholz (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1990); and Show
Trial: The Conspiracy to Convict John Demjanjuk as "Ivan the
Terrible" by Demjanjuk's Israeli attorney Yoram Sheftel
(Victor Gollancz, London, 1994 that's the title of the current
paperback edition; the hardcover edition was called The
Demjanjuk Affair: The Rise and Fall of a Show-Trial).
At first, I didn't know if I'd be able to use a real Nazi in the
book or not, but I preferred not to have to make one up. What I
needed was someone who had been involved in mass exterminations
and who was possibly still alive and still at large. It took
only ten minutes to think that, well, if John Demjanjuk isn't
really Ivan Marchenko, the gas-chamber operator at Treblinka,
then somebody else must be.
Buchanan, by the way, is a somewhat controversial figure in the
Demjanjuk affair; take what he says with a grain of salt. The
Teicholz book is probably the most balanced account, even though
it was written before the conviction of Demjanjuk was overturned.
Pitt: Does Frameshift exist to solve the "Ivan the
Terrible" mystery? (Of its many story threads, that does seem to
be the most important.)
Sawyer: Interesting take. To me, the "Ivan the Terrible"
mystery, although fascinating, is a subplot; the main story is
the effect of breakthroughs in genetics on the insurance
industry. So, no, Frameshift doesn't exist to solve that
particular mystery, although I do think my own explanation for
why Demjanjuk was misidentified by so many people is the most
likely one.
Pitt: Why did you choose Huntington's, as opposed to any
other disease? Was it because the cure to Huntington's may lie
in genetic research, and you needed to keep genetics in the story
without "telegraphing" the Hapless Hannah subplot? (Even so
Pierre's quest for the secret of Molly's gift would have kept
genetics in the story.) So why Huntington's specifically? Was
there a personal reason?
Sawyer: When I started writing Frameshift, I had
never met anyone with Huntington's disease, so there's no
personal connection. But it seemed natural, if I was going to
tell a story about genetics research, that the main character might have
a hereditary disorder, and Huntington's, with its slow
onset in middle age, fitted my dramatic purposes perfectly.
Also, I wanted to make clear that genetics research is a
two-sided coin. On the one hand, there's enormous potential for
evil hence the subplot about genetic discrimination. But on
the other hand, it's only through genetics research that people
with hereditary disorders, such as Huntington's or diabetes
another disease I touch on in the novel have any hope of a
cure. To leave out the plight of those with genetic diseases
would have left me writing a Luddite anti-genetics-research
novel, and I didn't want to do that.
Pitt: Were you concerned about "dumbing down" the science
in the novel? (You didn't dumb it down but did you worry that
you might have to?)
Sawyer: I always worry about how much science I can put
in my books, and how much I have to explicate it. It's amazing
how many otherwise-educated people know no science at all. But I
figure, what the heck, the science fascinates me, and my job is
to make it interesting even for those who don't have a natural
affinity for it. After all, I enjoy Dick Francis's books, and I
don't care at all about horse racing but any author tries to
be infectiously enthusiastic about his or her personal interests,
and my personal interest happens to be science.
Pitt: How did the novel evolve? (I'm assuming you didn't
sit down and say, hey, I think I'll write a novel with a Nazi war
criminal, the Human Genome Project, a one-way telepath,
Huntington's, and a cloned Neanderthal.) And were you worried
about whether you could pull off a novel with so many different
plot elements?
Sawyer: After I finished my previous novel,
Starplex, I actually sat at my desk
and made a list of intriguing topics that I might write about
next. I wrote down "artificial intelligence," "genetics," "first
contact with aliens," and a bunch of others. But I very quickly
homed in on genetics as being the most likely to have potential
for a terrific human story and that was important to me, just
then, because, although I'm very proud of Starplex, it's a
very cerebral book, full of ruminations on quantum physics and
cosmology. I needed to write something very human next. Well,
once I'd decided on genetics, I made a list of words we associate
with genetics research, and one you keep hearing, fairly or
unfairly, is Nazism. So it wasn't much of a leap to come up with
the search for a potential Nazi war criminal who might have a
senior position in the Human Genome Project.
I knew I'd put a lot of stuff into this one book, but the
feedback I've gotten from readers of my earlier works is that
that's one of the things they expect and enjoy in a Rob Sawyer
novel: the interplay of disparate areas. But I did worry about
how it would be received, and whether people would call it a mess
or if all the elements would jell for the readers the way they
did for me as a writer. Fortunately, most reviewers have gotten
the point. Library Journal said, "Sawyer has created a
gripping medical SF thriller. Skillfully interwoven is the
misidentification of John Demjanjuk at the Treblinka death camp's
Ivan the Terrible, the cloning of Neanderthal genes, and a greedy
insurance company. Highly recommended." So, it looks like it
was a success.
But, in fact, my
agent at the time I wrote Frameshift did
suggest that I should cut out some of the
plot elements. I
actually tried that at one point. The Polytechnic University of
Catalonia in Spain has an
annual contest for the best SF novella
written in Spanish, Catalan, French, or English. I won their
250,000-peseta prize for a shortened version of Frameshift
that concentrated solely on the Neanderthal/telepathy subplot.
But I felt as I removed various elements to get it down to the
length required for that contest that I was diminishing the book.
All those things aren't in there to pad it out; they're in there
because they each form an integral part of the overall view of
genetics I wanted to present.
I did, however, drop one plotline from the novel before its
publication in book form: there was a whole sequence about
what's called a "wrongful life" lawsuit by the parents of a boy
who has Down's syndrome; the mother's OB/GYN botched the tests
that should have warned them in time to abort the pregnancy
because it was bound to result in what the mother would have viewed as
a defective fetus. The boy actually still appears in a scene or
two in the novel, but the lawsuit plotline got cut to save space.
Pitt: Hapless Hannah: Unlike Huntington's (a real
disease), the Human Genome Project (a real scientific
enterprise), and Demjanjuk (a real person), Hannah is so far
as I know fictional. Were you disappointed you could not
"adapt" a real Neanderthal to suit the requirements of the story?
Or was the Neanderthal in Frameshift intended to be
fictional from the outset? (I confess I wondered why you didn't
use Lucy who's not a Neanderthal perhaps by having Klimus
make some new (and fictional) discovery about her.)
Sawyer: I didn't use Lucy for the same reason I didn't
use a real Neanderthal: at the time I wrote the book, there was
no real DNA available from Lucy or any existing Neanderthal fossil.
People have gotten the wrong
impression from Jurassic Park and the use of DNA to clear
up old murder mysteries: DNA is actually a fragile substance,
and so I had to posit a very specific set of events that might
result in a Neanderthal dying in such a way that the DNA might
survive intact. Hapless Hannah dies in a a cave-in that
completely sealed her in, and aerobic bacteria in the cave used
up all the oxygen, meaning her remains spent the last sixty
thousand years in an oxygen-free environment. That prevented the
cytosine and thymine in her DNA from oxidizing, meaning that her
DNA could be recovered intact.
Another reason not to use Lucy is, of course, that Lucy wouldn't
pass as a modern woman's natural child for even two seconds after
birth. Lucy is Australopithecus afarensis far more
similar in appearance to a chimp than a human whereas
Neanderthals arguable are even the same species as us, and so
might indeed look like modern humans.
But, to answer your question, sure, I was disappointed that there
was no existing Neanderthal that I could have used; it's much
better from the point of view of making the whole thing seem real
to have to invent as few things as possible.
Pitt: Were there are "suggestions" (to use the polite
term) from your publisher or editor about changing any parts of
the novel? (i.e., making the science simpler, making the plot
less complicated, or whatever) And, if so, how did you react?
Sawyer: I've touched on this already above, but the
answer is that it's my novel. Frameshift sold in an
auction, with three houses (HarperCollins, Warner, and Tor)
bidding against each other for the rights to publish the book;
in a situation like that, they're not likely going to ask for
big changes. Still, there were a bunch of minor things my editor
suggested I change, and on most of them I agreed but
suggestions isn't just the polite term; it's the correct term.
I've never had a book editor demand any change. For those
suggestions that I didn't want to adopt, my editor understood.
After all, it's my name that goes on the book's cover.
More Good Reading
Other interviews with Rob
The first chapter of Frameshift
Writing The Quintaglio Ascension trilogy
Writing The Terminal Experiment
Writing Starplex
Writing Illegal Alien
Writing FlashForward
Writing "Lost in the Mail"
Writing "You See But You Do Not Observe"
My Very Occasional Newsletter
HOME • MENU • TOP
Copyright © 1995-2024 by Robert J. Sawyer.
|