So, I...uh...had a deal with spenke I was supposed to be knifing open the satsuma plum of my Vonnegut chastity belt with Breakfast of Champions. But,...more So, I...uh...had a deal with spenke I was supposed to be knifing open the satsuma plum of my Vonnegut chastity belt with Breakfast of Champions. But, you know, patience hasn't been coded into my DNA, let alone cultivated as one of my virtues (sic).
In 1999, Kurt Vonnegut was asked to write an an epitaph for the 20th century. His response?
"I have written it: The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."
2 B R 0 2 B (RIP Shakespeare) is a flash fiction he wrote in 1962. Back in the good ol' days of closed, equilibrium state systems, Friedman economics, white male supremacy and the little lady at home, burgeoning consumerism as the slipslide into "utopia", and "Duck and Cover" as your friendly neighbourhood mantra in the event of a nuclear warhead coming to a cinema near you.
Vonnegut extrapolated into a future and you know, he wasn't too far wrong. It's not so much his vision that was imperfect, as the fact that physics had yet to pronounce to all and sundry that although the status quo is infinite and everywhere, like wave-particle duality when seen from the perspective of the observer it doesn't behave independently or even with necessary predictability. So what we have sixty years after Vonnegut's peek into our future is ineffective population control in the face of population growth, rather than the demand = supply steady state scenario of his story, and a continuation of resource appropriation enforced via an oligopoly of corporation-states, as opposed to the euphoric prosperity for all that is the corollary of that steady state.
"Everything was perfectly swell.
There were no prisons, no slums, no insane asylums, no cripples, no poverty, no wars. All diseases were conquered. So was old age.
Death, barring accidents, was an adventure for volunteers."
That's the opening scene. But Vonnegut doesn't go for the global perspective, he bats the ball straight into middle class suburbia and takes out a father obliged to choose which one of his three new born offspring will survive, since only his own father has offered to partake of euthanasia in order to maintain the balanced equation.
This is witnessed by the artist who is painting a garden mural - think Hieronymus Bosch' Garden of Earthly Delights and the ambiguity of what Bosch intended with his triptych - to be populated by the likenesses of the medical staff responsible for delivering life and simultaneously extinguishing it. The painter, two hundred years old, displays a callousness that indicates his contempt not just for the society in which he lives, but for the society which will follow him should he choose to commit suicide: "...express[ing] with an obscenity his lack of concern for the tribulations of his survivors."
In the aftermath of the means the father uses to resolve his state-imposed moral and emotional quandary, the painter "...ponder[s] the mournful puzzle of life demanding to be born and...fruitful...to multiply and to live as long as possible...on a very small planet that would have to last forever. All the answers...were grim." He reneges on his professed disdain and schedules himself to be euthanised, and is thus eulogised by the terminating staff: "Your city thanks you; your country thanks you; your planet thanks you. But the deepest thanks of all is from future generations."
It's not something we can expect from ours, given that we've been too damn insular and apathetic.(less)
Although Myrdal's title addresses itself to social research, his message is aimed at the insular and ivory towers of neoclassical economics, particula...moreAlthough Myrdal's title addresses itself to social research, his message is aimed at the insular and ivory towers of neoclassical economics, particularly with respect to development economics, in which so much of policy prescription is based on a normative science which not only pretends a positive fundament, but self-consciously and purposefully obfuscates any attempt to redeem itself of its fallacious self-appraisal, its faulty theoretical framework, and its biased methodology.(less)
I'll never know whether it was the homage as apology that prefaced this book which coloured my reaction to it. My suspicion, however, is that it played a minor role.
I dug out the two preceding books and rifled through each after I finished The Ascension Factor. Rather fearfully, in fact. I was hoping that my memory of both justified the five star ratings I'd given, simultaneously sad that the premise set up in the series should have come to such a dismal end, and worried that in actuality The Jesus Incident and The Lazarus Effect were as poorly written and trite as The Ascension Factor.
One of the things which reportedly frustrates people about Herbert is his prose. He doesn't explain his meaning - the reader must sift through clues, piece together snippets, hold multiple abstract concepts simultaneously in sight. He does not elucidate beyond a chapter quote that teases a direction of thought. It was this brilliance that was most clearly, and quite painfully, missing from The Ascension Factor. The n-dimensional perspectives that Herbert brings to his work, the nuanced meaning and cryptic references to ideas that entice groping towards understanding, were wholly absent. This book was void (pardon the pun) of Herbert's ability to interweave themes through subtlety and inference.
So talking about the plot is a bit of a farce. It all went . . . nowhere. It didn't finish on a note of grand vision or even abstruse complexity. It was a let-down of quantum proportions.
To be fair to the real author of this work, which is not Frank Herbert but Bill Ransom, who in their right mind would want the thankless task of trying to put pen to the path blazed by Herbert? A brave soul, indeed, if a well-meaning and somewhat foolhardy one.(less)
This book is an analogy for how we justify enjoying our good fortune obtained though the enforced suffering of others. Whether it is within the circle...moreThis book is an analogy for how we justify enjoying our good fortune obtained though the enforced suffering of others. Whether it is within the circle of your own family, your neighbourhood, your state or your country, there is a chain of events, circumstance, belief and acquiescence which continues to sustain an amoral inequality in our local and global societies. We wouldn't need this book or others like it if reality was different.(less)
I have quite some things to say and so little time in which to say these. And now we have the great year of Proust...it may be some time before these...more I have quite some things to say and so little time in which to say these. And now we have the great year of Proust...it may be some time before these things are said, time being what it is, holidays being what they are, and my thoughts being scattered as usual.
So perhaps it's best to attempt the following:
Comparisons with Austen are appropriate for the social commentary and the (at times gently and perhaps not so gently snide) remarks the narrator makes about the actions of the characters. But this is not Austenesque prose by any stretch of the imagination.
There is an internal consistency to this book that makes it appear the author spent most of the ten years it took her to write the book in plotting - in fact, that wasn't the case, so even more impressive.
Comparisons with Dickens are odd - perhaps my knowledge of Dickens is lacking but the only resemblance is in the sprawling nature Dickens employed and which has been executed to good effect in this book. With respect to the development of social disparity, Dickens was far more caustic.
Was it really nearly 900 pages long? My goodness, I hardly noticed at all.
Footnotes in a fiction book - well, really. How delightful. Brilliant asides which added depth and flavour without detracting or distracting from the story - it helped that I simply read the footnotes at the end of each chapter in the e-book version, of course. But still. To be savoured rather than spurned.
The arbitrariness of the magic - well, yes. That was rather the point. Magic doesn't solve problems, particularly when it's been out of action for such a long time and its two lead proponents are two sides of the same coin (not quite Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, but definitely ivory tower scholar and mad, experiential scientist) both blind to their lack of understanding of its capriciousness - not for nothing is one labelled Fearfulness and the other Arrogance.
The villain - well, there wasn't. Actually, there was not one single (male) character (with the possible exception of the Hero (view spoiler)[Stephen Black (hide spoiler)] and Dr Greysteel) who did not display villainous tendencies of one or other inclination. The ladies remained virtuous and pure to the last (which was perhaps the only fault I would have with this book, a kind of inverted sexism if you will) and were a driving force for the action of the book because of their value as objects (sadly - but then, this is an historically accurate portrayal, therefore it would not be appropriate to have our 21st Century sensibilities criticising Regency ignorance/value systems).
The setting - perfect. Just enough historical realism so that suspension of disbelief was never even an obvious factor in slipping into a world where odd occurrences had as much a surreal as a rational explanation.
Accuracy and research of both English folklore and Regency England - could not be faulted. Natty little snippets included Lord Byron being jinxed and a footnote as to his later death.
But the highest accolade I can pay this book - I was not aware I was reading it until I was (forcibly) interrupted and suddenly became aware of my own existence again. This book is that good.(less)
No. Those three stars are because this book has not read me. This book is utterly, if adroitly, contrived. It is belletristic masturbation of astoundi...moreNo. Those three stars are because this book has not read me. This book is utterly, if adroitly, contrived. It is belletristic masturbation of astounding proportions.
The three stars are an acknowledgement of Mr Mitchell's deliberately smug composition....see remainder of review at www.abookwithaview.com and the comments for a raise-the-eyebrows and dimple-the-cheeks discussion.(less)
If you've noticed the tags I've chosen for this book, you're probably wondering if I've made a mistake about the book I think I'm reviewing. A book wh...moreIf you've noticed the tags I've chosen for this book, you're probably wondering if I've made a mistake about the book I think I'm reviewing. A book which should be in its early stages of causing a tsunami in its effects on the way we view sentience. Let those tags be your guide.
A full-disclosure clause, because although I don't know the author, I'm the person about whom she is writing. That's how I feel every day of my life, in my mind, in my reality, as another sentient entity.
To explain the last sentence would mean I have to 'spoiler' my review. So I won't do it except by saying that, in further full-disclosure, I'm not going to read the entirety of this book. Because the reality that Ms Hope describes is what I experience every day, in my mind, when I observe my other fellow sentients, from whom I feel hopelessly, ineluctably estranged. It is a suffering too harsh to bear in the written word as well as in my daily existence.
You'll have to read the book for yourself to understand why Ms Hope has so brilliantly captured what it feels like to be a sentient entity unrecognised.(less)
Fairly meticulously researched. What is refreshing in this madness is that Tolan tells the story through the eyes of real people and lets the reader d...moreFairly meticulously researched. What is refreshing in this madness is that Tolan tells the story through the eyes of real people and lets the reader decide what to think - of course the subjectivity is present in Tolan's choice of which stories to tell, but he makes a very brave and thorough attempt to be as unbiased as possible.
Worth reading unless you cannot put aside your own prejudices about this topic.(less)
I liked the ideas, the setting. I just had a hard time with the prose - I couldn't sink into it. A r...moreWindup as in Clockwork?
AgriGen and Co....Monsanto?
I liked the ideas, the setting. I just had a hard time with the prose - I couldn't sink into it. A reflection on the reader, and not on the writer.(less)
This is a long novel, with plenty of twists and turns. The intricate nature of the plot and some of the subject material of this book resemble The Bou...moreThis is a long novel, with plenty of twists and turns. The intricate nature of the plot and some of the subject material of this book resemble The Bourne Identity, Tom Clancy's works or Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy. So if you're a fan of corporate and international espionage, techno-bio thrillers with a sci-fi feel, apocalypse, races-against-the-clock, quirky-but-fun characters, this is for you.
The plot kept me reading - where was it going, how was it going to be resolved. Some of the characters were obvious, but remained believable. There were a couple of glaring plot devices eg deus ex machina, towards the end, and the end itself felt very rushed, almost as it the author had gotten the whole drama of his chest, and wanted to call it a day. This jerked around suspension of disbelief - but it was so late in the book as to make no difference.
Why I wouldn't give it more stars is because the version I read is an older one. The author has just signed (congratulations) a contract with Underland Press, and a good editor will smooth out the rough edges and pull out some unnecessary scenes (and hopefully insist on a few new ones towards the end of the book). The foreign language use in the book is often incorrect, and this needs attention in the upcoming hard/soft editions. However, I don't think these caveats should put you off reading the book.
Other reviews mention the 'techie' nature of the book. I'm neither a scientist nor a computer geek, and the few instances of hard-core heavy-duty bioscience/computerspeak aren't enough to label this book 'just-for-the-nerds'. I rather admired the author for the research he had undertaken and the ease with which he pulled the various disciplines together.
There's minimal use of coarse language and violence, the latter is not described ad nausaeum, which I appreciate.
The bottom line: if this book had been written by a better-known author, more people would be reading it. Go ahead and buy a copy - you'll be entertained.(less)
Recently a Very Dear GR Friend (VDF for short) asked me the following question:
VDF: By the way, I'm very very curious. What I know of your views would...moreRecently a Very Dear GR Friend (VDF for short) asked me the following question:
VDF: By the way, I'm very very curious. What I know of your views would not have made me think that you would have rated Atlas Shrugged so highly. What was it about the book that made you feel so highly about it?
This is an excerpt from my response. You'll need to understand my system of Ratings/Review as well. Which I'm now violating by writing this:
GNF: I read Ayn Rand about a decade or more ago and I remember going around in a daze for weeks afterward - it just appeals to the anarchist in me, you see, at the visceral level: DOWN WITH THE EBEL STATE! - as well as feeling totally dicked off with the love story garbage, because for me it got in the way of the REAL STUFF: ANARCHY!!!!
Ahem. I was more impressionable in those days. If you made me read her again, would I have exactly the same reaction? I love hard work. Independence. I'm the right reader for what I interpreted as being her political message, although I know that her politial message isn't necessarily what I interpreted.
......
Oh, and I just thought of Rand again. Because Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be a dystopia, right? When I read it, I never even thought about that. I just thought about the freedom to work and produce without institutional strangling. I didn't even get the dystopic stuff (ie America as the last bastion of a global economy crashing down (if that is even what it is!) - cue cultural blind spot - in fact, she pissed me off for bagging out Europe the whole time, since I think the EU is probably more compassionate at the community level than the US), because the Valley just sounded great - wow, I want to go there and work!!! And by working hard and being compassionate to others and giving people the opportunity to be productive in a way personally satisfying the Valley society will be like that. No deadwood government smothering the individual's drive to create. That's predominantly all I took away from it. Which is of course completely loopy if you take Ayn Rand's personal circumstances into account. In the interim, I've read briefly about her and I think she suffers a bit of intellectual/emotional dishonesty too. But I didn't know anything about Rand when I read her book, hence the emotional 'starred' response.
******
So there you have it. No analysis of the prose. Not even understanding of Rand's message - in fact, as you've guessed, most of it flew right over my head. I'd have to go back and read it to know whether what I took out of it reflects the prevailing view as to what her philosophy and politics were. And I would have to read the prevailing view. First.
Lawrence Durrell is not an easy author to read. His prose is long, fabulous, filled with wandering soliloquies and journeys into the human heart, mind...moreLawrence Durrell is not an easy author to read. His prose is long, fabulous, filled with wandering soliloquies and journeys into the human heart, mind, spirit which at first can seem completely lacking in intention and purpose, and mere descriptive play and fascination with the written word.
He writes on a number of levels and performs immense spatial-temporal tricks with both setting and characters so that at times it is difficult to understand not just where one is located in one's reading of the novel (taken as a group of five) but if one actually exists within it. Durrell speaks to those who can hear, and you may find yourself wondering whether you are a character he has written into the prose, living as one of the protagonists on simply another plane of his imagination.
UPDATE: I was very saddened to read this Guardian article about Golding's manipulation of the classroom as a means to inform this work. Here is the di...more UPDATE: I was very saddened to read this Guardian article about Golding's manipulation of the classroom as a means to inform this work. Here is the dichotomy between contextual analysis and the reading of a book in isolation. It's of no consequence to anyone but me that my previous rating is reduced to no stars, but a writer searching for plot events or people on which to base characters has a moral obligation, particularly when dealing with children, not to indulge in the seductive siren call to experience an authenticity in life with the intent of reproducing it on the page. It's one thing to write a book on previous experiences garnered as the unconscious evolution and transition from state of naivete to worldliness, it's another, and entirely reprehensible, to create situations for the purpose of observation and recording and insertion in a novel, without the consent and knowledge of the subjects forming the experiment. Worse, Golding's work has been lauded as commentary on the nature of political and social structures, as I mentioned in my review proper. That he used school children, innocent of and incapable of denying his intent, constitutes no less of an emotional dishonesty than that to which I have ascribed other authors, indeed the one to whose work I have compared his.
Loading...
