EXCESSION – Iain M. Banks (1996)

Excession BanksPeople change. It must have been 2008 when I started reading fiction again, and Iain Banks’ Culture series became among the first things I devoured. Excession was my favorite of the series back then, and I decided it was time to reread it – hopefully to be entertained and awed again, and, at the very least, to take a long, hard look in the mirror of time.

For those unfamiliar with Banks & the Culture novels: they are widely considered to be among the best in the genre. Hugely influential space opera, on a grand scale. And a big plus: contrary to most of today’s series, the nine Culture books – published from 1987 to 2012 – can all be read as standalones.

As hivemind Wikipedia has it, the Culture is “a utopian, post-scarcity space society of humanoid aliens, and advanced superintelligent artificial intelligences living in artificial habitats spread across the Milky Way galaxy.”

The Culture is technologically so advanced that it can practically do anything with matter, has access to FTL and nearly unlimited genetic technology. That results in near-immortality and, just to pick one example, the ability to change sex in about a year just by thinking about it. Banks hit upon a gold vein when he conceived of the Culture, as it allows for about anything to happen, but not in an inconsistent or random way.

Excession is about an unprecedented alien artifact appearing out of nowhere. It particularly zooms in on the reaction of a couple of so-called Minds – “benevolent AIs with enormous intellectual and physical capabilities” that often inhabit & control enormous ships of ten or more kilometers, some of them home to billions of individuals. These Minds all have distinct, at times eccentric, personalities.

The ‘excession’ of the title is a sphere that suddenly appears in space, seemingly older than the Universe, resisting attempts to be probed easily, its control of physical laws vastly superior to the Culture’s. It’s Banks riff on a Big Dumb Object.

Last time I read a speculative work of Banks was in June 2019, over 4 years ago. I didn’t think Transition was a success, and I vehemently disliked The Algebraist, which I started in 2018. Before that I read Inversions, and I didn’t really like that either. So I was starting to wonder: was I too easily impressed in 2008 and 2009? Or did, by sheer luck, I read all the Iain M. Banks books that where least to my liking last?

It turns out – as expected – the answer is a bit of both. I did like rereading Excession – mostly, that is. But I wouldn’t call it a favorite book anymore, and I’ve taken it off my list.

Let’s do a quick run-up of the good and the bad.

+ The Culture, as a system, is great. It aligns ideologically: Banks shows that the means of production determine society. In a world where everything can be produced everywhere without much problems or effort, class based on income ceases to exist. He also shows that much of morality is based on the body too, so if the body is overcome, it has an effect on morality as well – a bit like the invention of birth control changed everything in the 60ies. In a world of plenty and without pathology, crime simply does not exist, except for some fringe cases. And all that ties again into morality. Technology & wealth distribution have an effect on human relations, love, families. And so Banks indeed writes a utopia. Avoid doing harm, live and let live. The ethics of the Culture may superficially seem merely hedonistic, but ultimately they are about personal freedom and the avoidance of suffering. As a sociological thought experiment, the Culture as an idea continues to have merit, and I don’t think it has lost any of its relevance in 2023 – whether you are woke, libertarian or a classic liberal reading The Economist.

+ Banks’ theory of mind aligns with mine too. Our brains are matter, and hence other matter could be made aware too. It’s just a matter of patterns & assembly – not that I think we’ll get conscious AI in our own world soon. All the drones and Minds and ships do have rights and can make their own decisions. It is not that dissimilar from what ethicist Peter Singer talks about. Add to that the fact that Banks realizes the mind is the only place where we truly exist.

+ It would be a good master’s thesis to check Banks’ stance on determinism. In a way, people and AI have endless choices to reconfigure themselves, yet they still retain a certain essence, a way they just are, that does determine their decisions – like that warship that does what it does because it is a warship.

+ Even though Banks stresses matter, there is explicit mysticism and Miracle too. Just like in real life.

+ Original. Wild imagination. Diverse. The works. This doesn’t feel almost 30 years old at all.

+ Two good action scenes, one of which is just about building momentum.

+ Smooth prose.

+ Great sense of universal time & galactic space. Banks manages to convey something of distance and time – be it millennia or microseconds. A sub-theme of Excession is not about survival of a planet or a star system, but about the survival of the universe as such.

– Parts of this are a bit juvenile. I’d noticed this streak too when I read The Wasp Factory, Banks’ debut, a non-sci fi novel. Especially one of the opening chapters on the Affront, another alien species, seems just there for shock value. On the other hand, the Affront themselves do pose a typical Banks’ conundrum: how far should you go to protect others from suffering, when to intervene as a ‘more developed’ culture? It’s an old question in scifi: questioning the ethics of the Prime Directive.

– I didn’t really care for the human characters. They don’t seem developed enough. That made the last part of the book a bit boring too, when everything conjoins. Also the Minds were a bit lackluster. I remembered their conversations as verbal firework, but I guess I leveled up in the meantime. Character-wise, most of the Minds are pretty interchangeable as well, and that’s a bit of a problem for a novel explicitly focused on Minds. A few stand out though: Sleeper Service, Killing Time and Grey Area – especially Sleeper Service is a great character.

– All and all, the plot seems complicated, but in the end it’s rather thin. Banks is very good at setting up mysteries though, and manages to keep interest going for the bulk of the novel. It’s just that in the final 4th of book at times I thought: ‘is this it?’

– On a second reading, the sense of awe & discovery is a whole lot less, and a book like this significantly hinges on that sense. I think if I had read this now, in 2023, for the first time, I’d enjoyed it a whole lot more.


All and all, Excession is a solid, entertaining book that I have no trouble to recommend. But, but – I used to rate it 5 stars on Goodreads, and now I want to downrate that to three and a half. Still good, just no masterpiece. That said, the Culture as a whole, as an invention, a storytelling frame, remains 5-star material. At the same time, I think the chance is slim I’ll ever reread another Banks. I’ll keep them on the shelves though, and that counts for something too.

If you are new to Banks or the Culture, my advice is to start with Player of Games, the second Culture book, and then read more or less in order of publication. In a way, I envy such blank slate – there’s lots to discover.



Consult the author index for my other reviews, or my favorite lists.

Click here for an index of my non-fiction or art book reviews, and here for an index of my longer fiction reviews of a more scholarly & philosophical nature.

20 responses to “EXCESSION – Iain M. Banks (1996)

  1. Glad you made this discovery and hence the choice to keep your old memories and not sully them.

    I know it’s been a decade since his death, but do you foresee any “undiscovered” works coming to light and being published? And would you read that?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Depends on what it would be, but most likely I wouldn’t read it, as it probably won’t be a fully finished Culture novel. In all other possible stuff, I wouldn’t be interested.

      Iirc, you don’t like Banks. Care to explain why not?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I found his set of rules for his society to be so outlandish that I couldn’t stomach them. He explains it away by claiming “aliens”, but they’re humans in all but name. Heck, when I read the first couple I thought it was about humanity far in the future. Maybe if it had been made much more evident that they weren’t human? But even then, his framework is what he believes about humanity too, so…..

        I guess it comes down to philosophical differences on the nature of humanity that he uses to guide his stories.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I thought so too. It’s only when I read State of the Art – a novella in which the Culture visits 20th century Earth – it dawned on me the Culture coexists with humanity.

          I do wonder why you find the rules outlandish though – in a post-scarcity society without such technological prowess, I think you could get to something like the Culture on Earth eventually – a world government ruled by benevolent AI without rows about land, money or sex. Most moral rules today evolved as the result of limiting access to resources/property and shielding females from getting unwanted pregnancies. If these things don’t apply anymore, and if people don’t have to worry anymore about disease, violence and property/poverty, the rules would (slowly) change.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Your final paragraph is why I dislike Banks. Because I disagree, completely. Human nature is human nature, and selfishness and all the attendant ills that happen because of it (war, greed, exploitation, etc) will still be there even in a post-scarcity society. They might take slightly different forms, but humanity itself won’t have changed on the inside.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I agree it will be very hard to get there, nigh impossible.

              But selfishness basically evaporates when everybody can have anything. What are people selfish about today? Power & influence, food & things, living space, sex.

              Conflicts that are about power will evaporate when everything gets sorted out by technocratic AI. Moreover, most of the political conflicts today are about the allocation of money/taxes, so again, the subject of most of the political bickering today becomes moot, even it we wouldn’t turn over government to a benevolent AI.

              Conflicts about land: lots of those becomes moot too when resources are no problem, because it would nullify the most important reason for a significant chunk of current migration. The other big reason to migrate (fleeing war) would also diminish significantly, as lots of war is, again, about resources. And personal living space (housing) would just be divided more or less equally by the AIs.

              Conflicts over access to sex. In a world where everybody would be pretty due to genetic tinkering, and a world where resources are not a problem, lots of exploitation would disappear. The only determining factor then becomes personality, and that is a big stick & carrot to get people to behave more nicely to each other. That leaves sexual pathologies that might generate sexual conflict, but again, those could be fixed genetically/hormonally.

              I think the big difference here philosophically is that I do not think there is an eternal essence to what humans are. What humans ‘are’, just like for all living things, is determined by the ecology/context they live in. Sure, some things are more hardwired than others, but even the hardwiring has been proven to change, as we are just the current final version in a long list of evolutionary ancestors, and we are not the last version either. If you just look at the last 2000 years, it is clear that there has been significant moral progress, and that as such, humans have indeed changed. (see https://wp.me/p1tcLv-7G4)

              Of course, if you do not believe in evolution & science, all this becomes moot.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. Great review. I have such a love/hate relationship with Excession. I’ve read it three times across about 20 years – I hated it, I loved it, and then I gave it 3 and a half stars (heh). I think most of that speaks to how much I’ve changed over time as a reader, but it was those thin human characters that really lost me last time. I’m don’t think I’d ever give it a fourth go, although I’ll happily reread the first 3 Culture books at some point – they stand up remarkably well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks! Yes the thin human characters are the biggest flaw. They just seem there to add a bit of unnecessary drama, while I think the story could have worked equally well, if not better, without any humans – even though there is something to be said for a substory about a couple of humans on board of Sleeper Service. But Banks kinda butchered that to go all baroque with the back story of Dajeil.

      Good to know the first three held up for you, if I reread other Banks it will be Use of Weapons or Consider Phelbas, in a few years, we’ll see. Player of Games seems a bit too light in my memory for a reread.

      Like

  3. I read it once, long ago, and loved it. But it is true that Banks has a juvenile streak, and even back then I reluctantly accepted that. I think though, that Banks’ books will continue to shine simply in comparison to the writing of other science fiction. Because it is unique and fun and sparkles in a way that most other science fiction doesn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fun and sparkling are very apt descriptors indeed, not that Banks is just derivative and entertainment only, but you are right. Most 30+ year old stuff ages badly, but this seems to retain its freshness for now. And that’s probably partly because he hit on something unique indeed. He doesn’t taken himself too serious, and yet has some serious stuff to say about our own culture too.

      Like

  4. Excession was my first “Banks disappointment”, indeed… To sum up my reaction, I could not find any narrative “heart” in it, and I struggled all the time with the sensation that something was missing, so I ended up rating a 3 and 1/2 as well.
    My re-read of Consider Phlebas did not work so well, too, and I have become a little reluctant to move forward with the other Banks books as a result…
    Thanks for sharing!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Do you remember what irked you when you reread Consider Phlebas? I thought it was pretty confusing when I first read it, so I’d reread it mainly to see if I could get a better grip on it now – and because it’s the Culture debut.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Confusing” is indeed a good way to describe Consider Phlebas’ plot and that played prominently in my reaction to it – both on the first and the second reading – and what irritated me was that he took a long time and a very circuitous way to reach his real task, to the point that by that moment I had lost most of my interest in seeing how that played out. And the events preceding it were quite over the top, chief among them the…ahem… cannibal interlude…

        Like

  5. A neighbour has lent me a Banks SF novel, Matter which I hope to make time to read next year – is this a title you’ve read, and if so, what did you think of it? The neighbour was desperately keen for me to try it as my first Banks and I didn’t want to disappoint him by refusing him! But I’ll also consider Player of Games after that – if I’d had a good experience…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. After reading your review I started to think I started reading Banks too late. I’ve read the first two Culture novels, and while Player of Games was better than Consider Phlebas, I experienced no sense of wonder, just plodding exposition and uninteresting characters serving as message boards for Banks’s ideas. The ideas were intriguing, granted, but not enough to elevate the novels above 3/5 stars for me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, could very well be. Ideas are not enough. But you do like Neil Asher though, and they don´t seem that dissimilar from what I gather?

      That said, Consider Phlebas is the worst of his Culture books, still finding his voice, muddled. Played of Games is better because it is leaner, but all and all it´s fairly one dimensional: a society that uses games to political ends, but the how is never truly developed. It works perfectly as entry level Culture for most, but I don´t think I´d like it today either.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Is there a Culture book you’d still fully recommend/keep fond memories of/would feel good about revisiting?

        Asher I think is similarly imaginative but much less idealistic, as he doesn’t believe human nature can be changed that easily and its limitations are a form of primordial sin that we will bestow upon AI as well – which makes for a better reading experience 😜 also, he writes better action scenes 😄

        Liked by 1 person

        • I´m not confident to recommend anything of Banks to you. Maybe Matter, that has also a chunk of fantasy, and I guess he was at his peak then, years and years of experience, faults ironed out.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Or maybe Use of Weapons or Look to Windward. I´d read some reviews and see which plot you like most.

          It´s been too long ago to truly recommend something to you, given what you have written here.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment