PLOT: Fifteen years into the future, a disease condemns millions of people to live locked-in—fully
conscious and with all their intellectual capacity unscathed, yet inability to control their body. In order to help the former patients live a fulfilling life and contribute to society, a device is being created—a sort of robot connected to and controlled by the patients minds. Also some of the former patients are left not locked-in, but with the ability to link to a patient’s mind—a temporary human “robot,” which allows the patients to experience taste, etc.
Of course, such a setting paves the way to the perfect crime.
And here comes Chis, the most famous former child patient, who is now an FBI agent. Chris is asked to solve the mystery of a peculiar suicide. But of course nothing is what it seems. Because who really controls these “robots” and the “human robots?”
COMMENTS: As always Scalzi delivers a fun story, with an interesting twist on the police procedural. Despite the fact that this is such an easy read, its message is a serious one: is such a disease really a curse, or a blessing in disguise—the next evolutionary step of humanity? Those affected have learned to live with it. By now they don’t regard themselves as crippled, but as a different kind humans. It opens the room to interpretation of what really disabled really means. It points out our flawed thinking that the so-called disability means bad. That’s not the case. Here we have a group of people who consider themselves not only lucky, but the future of the entire humanity.
The world building focuses on technology and its social implication, rather than on “scenery.” It is a lavish framework, even if the reader doesn’t learn much about how the world looks.
TECHNIQUES: John Scalzi is the king of accessible writing, making his books some of the smoothest reads. LOCK IN is no exception. Written in the first voice, this book creates a strange opportunity—it conceals the main character’s gender. By doing so, it eliminates any stereotypes regarding the gender, and instead focuses on the message of the book. Also, the use of these “robots” allows the author to disguise the race of the main character until almost the end. Yes, Chris is African-American, but this isn’t relevant when it comes to solving the case.
Who saw the movie and, in spite of the great cast, found it too gory, dehumanized, obsessive, and (shReview subtitle: Don't Judge a Book by its Movie!
Who saw the movie and, in spite of the great cast, found it too gory, dehumanized, obsessive, and (should I say it) psychotic? Raise your hands! (Count me in... ☝) I'm happy to say that the original novel was a different story. All the elements that bothered me in the movie adaptation are there, yet there is always a (relatively) sane motivation for even the worse decisions.
The synopsis is simple: using a couple of diaries, the descendants of two stage magicians try to unravel the mystery of their feud, which more than a hundred years later, still continues to claim victims in both camps. Alfred Borden, a genuine talent, almost a prodigy in the field, sees Rupert Angier as a fraud, a worse than mediocre magician... and so the conflict is born. Over the years, both men try successively to mend the gap and unfortunately they always fail. In my opinion, this is the essence of the novel: not the obsession (which is the apparent theme), but the tragedy of two people unable to break free from a vicious cycle.
One of the reviewers said that the characters are not likeable, but I disagree. They both make dreadful choices, but in the end what I felt for them was an infinite sadness for never being on the same page. If only they could have put their anger aside, they would have seen (before it was too late) their similarities and end the enmity. And how similar they are! They both "kill" a part of themselves in order to prove to the other that they are better.
What I found extremely interesting about this novel is that the story is circular: the end is a "karmic" reflection of the beginning and both protagonists have to pay for their pseudo-suicides. (view spoiler)[Rupert Angier who started by faking a communication with the spirits turns into a "ghost" and the Borden-twins, who always pretended to be one person, remain one after being separated by death. (hide spoiler)]
Although not your typical SF story, this is altogether an excellent read!["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>...more
The Yiddish Policemen's Union is a story about uprooting, about the desperation of never finding one's "land," about the insecurity of never knowing wThe Yiddish Policemen's Union is a story about uprooting, about the desperation of never finding one's "land," about the insecurity of never knowing where one is going to be tomorrow. I'm not Jewish, but in my opinion this novel tells the millennia-old story of a people always forced to run, always prejudiced against, always oppressed. Because from Antiquity (going through the horrid Inquisition era) to World War II, these people never enjoyed a pause in the their flee. Do they even enjoy it now, during the twenty-first century?
But first things first, let's get over with the writing technique that everyone talks about. Simple test: do you like the following sentence? "The clock on the hospital wall hummed to itself, got antsy, kept snapping off pieces of the night with its minute hand." YES → lucky you; you're in for a great ride. NO/MAYBE → this novel is about 380 pages of akin sentences to the one above.
I read lots of comments from people who wondered what was the purpose of the plethora of Yiddish terms? Does Mr. Chabon try to create a language barrier and hence suggest the idea of isolation? It turns out, the language was in fact the spark that kindled the idea of this novel. Here is the story as told by the author himself in "Guidebook to a Land of Ghosts," an essay first published in 1997 (yes, ten years before the novel first saw the light).
In 1993 the author bought a book published in 1958, named Say It in Yiddish (by Uriel Weinreich and Beatrice Weinreich). It was an modern phrasal dictionary, which he calls "probably the saddest book that I own." The issue that gnaws at him is the futility of this phrase-guide, since by that time Israel already abandoned the Yiddish language. From there to brainstorming about possible needs for such a dictionary, there was only one step. (He puts forth two speculations but, for lack of space, I'll mention only the relevant one.)
"I can imagine a different Yisroel (Note: a post-war equivalent of Israel), the youngest nation on the North American continent, founded in the former Alaska territory during World War II as a resettlement zone for the Jews of Europe. (I once read that Franklin Roosevelt was briefly sold on such a plan.) [...] The resulting country is a cold, northern land of furs, paprika, samovars, and one long, glorious day of summer. It would be absurd to speak Hebrew, that tongue of spikenard and almonds, in such a place. (Nota bene: so he assumes that they would speak Yiddish instead)[...]
But grief haunts every mile of the places to which the Weinreichs beckon. [...] By taking us to Yisroel, the Weinreichs are, in effect, taking us home, to the 'old country.' To a Europe that might have been."
It is the old country that the author attempts to recreate in The Yiddish Policemen's Union, and he success admirably. Because this world is not just a scanty pencil sketch - it is a luscious Renaissance-style oil painting (you know, the ones that dwell in every minute detail). Mr. Chabon "paints" credible humans with their emotions and personal histories, which are part of a plausible community history, placed in a made-up but once again believable development, subject to the bigger geographic interaction. No element is left aside and no effort to improve on the novel's world is too small. The author could have chosen to tell the story of the old country from a historical perspective, with much less time-cost and subsequent creative effort. But, by molding a contemporary world, Michael Chabon appears to point out that the character's feelings of uprooting are in fact still a painful reality.
This is not a happy story, but neither is altogether a dejected one. The relentless bereavement of the people who have lost their land is an ever-present shadow. But so is the hope that one day they will find their land. ------✁------------
P.S. At the end, the edition that I read (Harper Collins's ebook published in 2012) has a Glossary of Yiddish Terms, which unfortunately is nowhere before mentioned. Do yourself a favor and check to see whether your edition has one. You'll need it......more
This is by far the best book in this series, if not the best book by Patricia Briggs that I read. It is a mystery, which is a novelty compared to allThis is by far the best book in this series, if not the best book by Patricia Briggs that I read. It is a mystery, which is a novelty compared to all of the Mercy Thomson novels and the previous Alpha & Omega stories. It is also one of the better written works of her (coming right after reading Hunting Ground, which was a disappointment in style, the undeniable improvement in technique shows right from the start).
I see that there are already quite a few reviews that expand on the plot, so I won't go there. I'll mention instead what I liked about it.:
1) the contradictions in the plot that irked in the Mercy Thomson series are gone (do you remember the part where Mercy learns that ghosts try to avoid vampires at any cost, yet she finds the vampires' dens because these are the houses with a deluge of ghosts? Yup, me too...). Fair Game brings no contradictions, no lose ends, no stretches of imagination (well, as long as you don't complain to the existence of werewolves or fae), no coincidences, no holes in the story.
2) the plot is full-fledged, not just a smidgin of action as a background for the romance. While the previous stories in the series are categorically romances, Fair Game is foremost a mystery with a romantic background. It's almost as if the romance and the plot stop fighting with each other over the spotlight, and in doing so, both of them win.
3) the dynamic between Anna and Charles is realistically narrated, and unlike the previous installment, I found Charles's protectiveness convincing, not half rebarbative, half melodramatic. Maybe because the problems that they face as a couple are so serious, the interaction between Anna, Charles, Brother Wolf, and Anna's Wolf feels much more undirected.
3) as I said before, the writing, although still undemanding, is an improvement compared to the previous book in the series. I want only to mention here that there are no more tiresome redundancies of wiki-like werewolf-information, and when this information is related, it is incorporated in the dialogue not told by the narrator.
4) last but not least, I absolutely loved the ending! That was so unexpected and I don't want to spoil anyone's surprise. Now I can't wait to see where Ms. Briggs takes the story... ...more