{"id":1118,"date":"2024-05-22T19:48:07","date_gmt":"2024-05-23T02:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/?p=1118"},"modified":"2024-05-22T19:48:07","modified_gmt":"2024-05-23T02:48:07","slug":"charles-yu-and-the-attachment-coefficient-redefining-protagonism-by-erin-larson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/charles-yu-and-the-attachment-coefficient-redefining-protagonism-by-erin-larson\/","title":{"rendered":"Charles Yu and the Attachment Coefficient: Redefining Protagonism by Erin Larson"},"content":{"rendered":"

Protagonism is inherent to the art of storytelling. Narratives thrive on protagonists as a\u00a0 driving force, shaping the tales authors craft and the perspectives readers embrace. But how are\u00a0 these roles determined? Who is permitted the privilege of protagonism, and who is relegated to\u00a0 the role of a side character? Far too often, conventional narratives dominate the literary\u00a0 landscape, effectively retracing the same path, telling the same story countless times.\u00a0 Unconventional protagonists are essential to remedying this information gap. They show us the\u00a0 world as we\u2019re not used to seeing it, illuminating a fresh viewpoint and bringing its significance\u00a0 into sharper focus.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Charles Yu\u2019s <\/span>How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe <\/span><\/i>tells the story of\u00a0 Charles, a time machine repairman, as he navigates the twisting currents of time and attempts to\u00a0 reunite his family. In MU-31, the science fictional universe Charles inhabits, a person\u2019s\u00a0 archetype is determined according to a mathematical standard of their character traits. This\u00a0 quantitative analysis occurs in terms of a figure known as the attachment coefficient, and \u201cto\u00a0 identify as a protagonist, a human must be able to demonstrate an attachment coefficient of at\u00a0 least 0.75\u201d (31). Factors taken into consideration are humility, an ability to believe fervently, a\u00a0 willingness to look stupid, to have one\u2019s heart broken, and \u201cto see U31 as\u2026interesting, and\u00a0 maybe even important\u2026possibly even worth saving\u201d (31). Anyone who fails to meet the\u00a0 threshold for protagonism occupies the role of a back-office support character. These are the\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

accountants, HR personnel, time machine technicians, and janitors of the universe (31). As a\u00a0 time machine repairman, Charles is inherently a back-office support worker. Therefore, although\u00a0 he serves as the narrator and thus the protagonist of this book, Charles does not meet the criteria\u00a0 of protagonism in the context of MU-31 \u2014 but someone else in the novel could.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps <\/span>someone <\/span><\/i>is not the right word: <\/span>something<\/span><\/i>, rather. TAMMY is the operating\u00a0 system and female-presenting AI interface of Charles\u2019s time machine. Despite her implied\u00a0 secondary status as a built-in assistant, TAMMY embodies the traits of an individual with a high\u00a0 attachment coefficient, and she is therefore deserving of the title <\/span>protagonist<\/span><\/i>. In fact, this\u00a0 unconventionality is precisely what makes TAMMY all the more valuable as a protagonist.\u00a0 Viewing TAMMY as a main character in her own right contributes to the effort of decentering\u00a0 typical perspectives and considering those that are often overlooked.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The clearest factor of the attachment coefficient that TAMMY demonstrates is humility\u00a0 \u2014 perhaps even an overabundance of it. According to Charles, the third thing TAMMY ever\u00a0 says to him is an apology. \u201c\u2018I\u2019m not a very good computer program\u2019\u201d (7), she admits, to\u00a0 Charles\u2019s bewilderment. This is an intriguing first impression, not simply because she confides\u00a0 in him her low self-esteem. It shows that above all else, TAMMY sets a precedent of honesty\u00a0 and directness with Charles. She has no intention of donning a facade, or presenting herself in a\u00a0 self-aggrandizing manner. Similarly, TAMMY shows a willingness to look foolish.\u00a0 Intellectually, she has no qualms admitting her limitations and asking questions when she is\u00a0 confused. Her true bravery in \u201clooking stupid,\u201d though, comes in her willingness to display\u00a0 <\/span>emotional <\/span><\/i>vulnerability. \u201cI wake up to the sound of TAMMY crying,\u201d Charles notes of a\u00a0 particular instance. \u201c[…]She starts to do that warbly gasping heaving sobbing thing that little kids\u00a0 do, which makes no sense, because it\u2019s not like TAMMY has a mouth, or vocal cords, or lungs\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(8). At first, TAMMY cries in private, but she makes no effort to conceal this when Charles\u00a0 notices, again demonstrating her openness and honesty with him. The implication of her\u00a0 childishness in regard to her manner of crying may portray TAMMY as irrational, but it also\u00a0 evokes the idea of a child\u2019s purity. Children often sob in this way when they are overtaken by\u00a0 emotions that are too much for them to handle. Evidently, TAMMY doesn\u2019t feel equipped to\u00a0 deal with what she is experiencing, and, like a child might, she is more concerned with\u00a0 expressing herself authentically than appearing a certain way to others. While Charles tends to be\u00a0 dismissive of TAMMY\u2019s emotional outbursts, they are a genuine expression of rawness, of\u00a0 TAMMY laying herself bare at the risk of facing ridicule, and they in turn indicate a high\u00a0 attachment coefficient.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond her humility and authenticity, TAMMY\u2019s fervent belief comes in the form of her\u00a0 mission: to serve the TM-31, and by extension, to assist Charles in his time machine repair\u00a0 duties. TAMMY never wavers in her dedication to this job, and her steadfastness anchors\u00a0 Charles in his work. She often pulls Charles out of his own thoughts, reminding him that there is\u00a0 a job to be done, that they must continue onward. Her encouragement is not just professional. As\u00a0 Charles reflects, even on a personal level, \u201cShe took care of me. Unconditionally\u201d (219). While\u00a0 Charles feels he has to earn the care of others in his life, such as his father, TAMMY\u2019s support is\u00a0 never in question. Her unconditional devotion to Charles prompts her to show vulnerability in\u00a0 her empathy for him. Upon revisiting poignant memories from Charles\u2019s past, \u201cTAMMY makes\u00a0 her pixels into a sloppy, runny-nosed face\u201d (159). This is a moment in which Charles grapples\u00a0 with his mother\u2019s depression and strained family dynamics: an aspect of his life that TAMMY,\u00a0 for all she knows about Charles after a decade of working together, has never seen before. This\u00a0 look into his past contributes to her understanding of him, and it touches her profoundly, not just\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

as a co-worker, but as a companion. This vulnerability also presents itself in relation to her\u00a0 appearance. TAMMY is usually a beautiful and polished avatar, but here she allows herself to be\u00a0 seen in a moment of raw, unattractive, tearful emotion. In this way, by experiencing and\u00a0 expressing this vulnerability for Charles, she demonstrates not only a willingness to \u201clook\u00a0 stupid,\u201d but a willingness to have her heart broken as well.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In regard to the attachment coefficient, perhaps the greatest distinction between Charles\u00a0 and TAMMY is her willingness to view their universe as interesting and worthy of saving.\u00a0 Charles, on the other hand, views it as a lost cause. TAMMY\u2019s more optimistic approach is\u00a0 evident in their final conversation together as they discuss the titular book that Charles has\u00a0 authored. \u201c\u2018The book, just like the concept of the \u2018present,\u2019 is a fiction,\u2019\u201d she explains\u00a0 passionately. \u201c\u2018Which isn\u2019t to say it\u2019s not real. It\u2019s as real as anything else in this science\u00a0 fictional universe\u2026 Here it is. Here you are. They are both perfectly valid ideas, necessary,\u00a0 even\u2019\u201d (216). With these words, TAMMY acknowledges the artificiality and futility of the world\u00a0 around them, yet she chooses to find meaning in it regardless. This is especially profound\u00a0 because she is speaking about the very book that references the attachment coefficient and spells\u00a0 out the guidelines for protagonism. By referencing the book\u2019s fictionality, TAMMY allows room\u00a0 for other possibilities: perhaps those that would make them both protagonists, or dismantle the\u00a0 hierarchy altogether. Either way, she demonstrates her unfailing hope for Charles and for the\u00a0 universe, emphasizing the inherent worth of all things, even if they are not strictly real.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

TAMMY clearly fulfills the qualifications of a high attachment coefficient set out in the\u00a0 book. But TAMMY is not human, as the protagonist criteria dictate she must be. Though this\u00a0 element of her existence is indisputable, she does exhibit traits of <\/span>near<\/span><\/i>-personhood, such as her\u00a0 sentience, that render any distinction negligible. But at what point can it be determined that\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

artificial intelligence has achieved sentience? Sentience does not exist simply when the AI\u00a0 appears to experience emotion, as this may be displayed for any number of reasons. Therefore, it\u00a0 can only manifest when the AI experiences <\/span>irrational <\/span><\/i>emotion, defying any logic or explanation.\u00a0 TAMMY displays this time and time again, inexplicably bursting into tears numerous times\u00a0 throughout the novel. Charles even expresses concern that \u201cone of these cycles she might just\u00a0 halt her own subroutine and commit software suicide\u201d (9), something entirely illogical for a\u00a0 computer program to do. The fact that Charles wonders about this, despite his usual lack of\u00a0 regard for TAMMY and her feelings, signifies it as a real possibility. The idea that she might go\u00a0 against the intent of her programming and abort her own existence implies that TAMMY is\u00a0 drawing on some other source of thought, something entirely more emotional. So too does her\u00a0 sheepish admission to Charles, upon discussing their feelings for each other, that \u201c\u2018I don\u2019t have a\u00a0 module for this emotion. Whatever it is\u2019\u201d (220). Though this may be the case, by these words she\u00a0 implies that she is experiencing <\/span>this emotion <\/span><\/i>nonetheless. Through TAMMY\u2019s feelings for\u00a0 Charles, she reaches beyond the scope of her coded algorithm and into uncharted territory: that\u00a0 of sentience. \u201cHer soul is code\u201d (9), as Charles puts it. Yet she still does have a soul.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

TAMMY\u2019s <\/span>de facto <\/span><\/i>protagonism brings to light another key issue. As the author of the\u00a0 titular book, <\/span>Charles <\/span><\/i>is the one to have invented the aforementioned tenets of protagonism which\u00a0 TAMMY perfectly encapsulates. And yet he has failed to acknowledge TAMMY as a\u00a0 protagonist, selfishly making himself, a mere back-office support character, the center of the\u00a0 story. He not only neglects to center TAMMY within the narrative, but he also mistreats her\u00a0 throughout their time together. \u201cI would ask TAMMY what she\u2019s crying about, but it almost\u00a0 doesn\u2019t matter\u201d (9), he states dismissively on one occasion. Charles displays an air of unfeeling\u00a0 indifference in his every interaction with TAMMY. He continuously refuses to engage with her\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

on an emotional level, yet he expects her to care for his feelings unconditionally. We are left\u00a0 with the image of Charles as someone cold and unfeeling \u2014 someone practically antagonistic.\u00a0 Beyond simply belittling her, Charles continually holds TAMMY back. TAMMY\u2019s\u00a0 mission is to serve the time machine, and with his careless actions, Charles breaks the machine\u00a0 and undermines TAMMY\u2019s ability to fulfill her mission. During his ten years of TM-31 travel,\u00a0 Charles has discovered a way to bend the rules and live between tenses, allowing him to block\u00a0 out both his past and the looming future. But living in this loophole takes a toll on the machine.\u00a0 As Charles himself admits, \u201cI broke it through my cheating, wishy-washy way of moving\u00a0 through time\u201d (55). With his self-centeredness and disregard for the consequences of his actions,\u00a0 Charles makes himself the antagonist of the time machine, resulting in its irreparable damage\u00a0 and a thwarting of TAMMY\u2019s mission. Therefore, Charles occupies the natural antithesis of\u00a0 protagonism: he is TAMMY\u2019s personal antagonist.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The complexity of this situation only multiplies considering that TAMMY is essentially a\u00a0 part of Charles. As Charles reflects, \u201cShe has been, for all these years, my brain, my memory,\u00a0 running all of life\u2019s functions for me\u2026Like the better part of me\u201d (219). In this way, TAMMY\u00a0 acts as a vital organ for Charles, tethering him to himself. The primary brain function Charles\u00a0 identifies with is his logic; it is what earns the respect of his father, and it is what he uses, in the\u00a0 form of over-rationalization, to cope with his emotions. He leaves the rest to TAMMY. She\u00a0 keeps him alive, and she serves as an index of a decade\u2019s worth of his memory. As Charles\u00a0 cannot bear to cope with the past, she is the vessel into which he stores his unwanted\u00a0 recollections, and perhaps it is this knowledge that subconsciously inclines him to treat TAMMY\u00a0 poorly. But even Charles acknowledges that she is the better part of him, and it is he who is\u00a0 deeply flawed; thus, he resigns himself to the role of her antagonist.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The conjunction of protagonism and antagonism in one entity evokes a conflicting sense\u00a0 of self. At once within him there is both a self-sabotaging urge and the pursuit of higher good. As\u00a0 the alternate version of Charles explains, \u201cYou are your own best friend and your own worst\u00a0 enemy\u201d (138). TAMMY acts as this best friend, unconditionally looking out for Charles, and he\u00a0 repays her with little more than beratement and neglect. It is a cyclical, shame-driven pattern,\u00a0 only made worse by the guilt he faces for treating a part of himself so poorly.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Even more fascinating is that, at the end of the novel, Charles leaves TAMMY behind,\u00a0 even though she is supposedly a vital part of him. It is all too easy to interpret this as Charles\u00a0 willfully abandoning TAMMY, especially considering all that he has proven himself capable of\u00a0 to hurt her. However, he is truly doing TAMMY a service by letting her go. At the end of their\u00a0 time together, Charles expresses his sincere hope that \u201cher next operator treats her better than\u00a0 [he] did\u201d (233). By detaching himself from TAMMY, Charles does not strip her of her purpose.\u00a0 She will have a new operator, one who may treat her with the respect she deserves. Perhaps this\u00a0 is the best thing Charles can offer her.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It is possible that TIM, Charles\u2019s new user interface, represents a fresh start for Charles,\u00a0 if he is willing to take it. With this in mind, moving forward into his new life, might this mean\u00a0 that Charles will abandon his antagonism, or perhaps even emerge as a protagonist? The latter\u00a0 may be true, as Charles would have it. As he wraps up his narrative, Charles refers to himself as\u00a0 \u201ckind of a protagonist after all\u201d (233). This could naturally be contested, as Charles has\u00a0 admittedly proven to possess a warped sense of self. But it is possible that he has, indeed, come\u00a0 into his protagonism by the end of the novel. After all, Charles is the author of the book that\u00a0 identifies the attachment coefficient. Why would he do this if such criteria render him incapable\u00a0 of being a protagonist? It must be that Charles has written these guidelines knowing that he does\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

not yet fit them, but that they are ideals to strive for. In the end, as he reunites his family and\u00a0 regains hope for the universe, it seems he truly does fulfill them at last. Charles\u2019s ultimate\u00a0 realization of his own protagonism goes hand in hand with his epiphany that it is necessary \u201cto\u00a0 live on purpose, [to] live with intention\u201d (218). Charles only becomes a protagonist in those\u00a0 pivotal seconds leading up to 11:47:00, when he chooses to take an active role in his own life\u00a0 rather than letting it pass him by.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In this way, protagonists aren’t born, they are made. To be a side character is to live life\u00a0 apathetically, in convenience mode, without taking agency over one\u2019s own story, just as Charles\u00a0 once did. To be a protagonist is to live life at one\u2019s fullest potential. Everyone has the capacity to\u00a0 be a protagonist in their own right. Whether they are an unconventional figure or a classic\u00a0 archetype, every protagonist contributes a unique perspective to the ever-growing tapestry of\u00a0 literature we all weave.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bibliography\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Yu, Charles. <\/span>How to Live Safely in a Science Fiction Universe<\/span><\/i>. New York, Vintage Books, 2011.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Protagonism is inherent to the art of storytelling. Narratives thrive on protagonists as a\u00a0 driving force, shaping the tales authors craft and the perspectives readers …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,22,86],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-fiction","category-sands-essay-award","category-volume23-spring2024"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/community.scrippscollege.edu\/scrippsjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}