What do you think?
Rate this book
2121: A Tale From the Next Century
In the near future, humanity has experienced a great schism. The larger part is ruled by instinct and they are ageless, beautiful yet wholly dependent on technology designed by previous generations to sustain them. Having no social structure or self-consciousness to speak of, to the minority they are simply known as the Others.
But into this unmarked, timeless community walks Fred, the first visitor from a far-off land. His people are the N-Ps, governed by logic, revolted by the mindless, unfettered sollipsism of the Others. In all respects a model N-P, as Fred conducts his studies, he finds himself caught in an awkward relationship with his test subjects.
Fred begins to feel for the childlike members of the Dwelling he observes. Embracing their gaudy, hyperreal life of screens and implants, Fred begins to be changed himself, even as he begins to affect the minds of these Others in ways that may not be to their benefit.
But into this unmarked, timeless community walks Fred, the first visitor from a far-off land. His people are the N-Ps, governed by logic, revolted by the mindless, unfettered sollipsism of the Others. In all respects a model N-P, as Fred conducts his studies, he finds himself caught in an awkward relationship with his test subjects.
Fred begins to feel for the childlike members of the Dwelling he observes. Embracing their gaudy, hyperreal life of screens and implants, Fred begins to be changed himself, even as he begins to affect the minds of these Others in ways that may not be to their benefit.
353 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 1, 2013
14 people are currently reading
165 people want to read
About the author
Susan A. Greenfield
30 books83 followersGreenfield is Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford. On 1 February 2006, she was installed as Chancellor of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. Until 8 January 2010, she was director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 28, 2014
I dithered about how to rate this book because as a work of fiction, I found it hard going - it takes far too long to get started (our hero finally begins his mission 100 pages in). However it was fascinating to read the author's vision of our future, which is all too scarily possible!
For me, the big stumbling block with this book was that I wasn't convinced by the two civilisations portrayed. Looking at everyone mesmerised by their mobiles, I can imagine us evolving (devolving?) into The Others - totally immersed in our virtual worlds, co-existing but not interacting with other people, with no need (and therefore no desire) to learn, strive or plan. Work is no longer necessary because nanotechnology manufactures and maintains everything, including food.
The problem I have is this: if everyone no longer thinks of the future, has no interest in (real-life) sex, and has lost all sense of maternal/paternal instinct and social responsibility, who is making the decision to continue producing children? Why on earth would any of these lotus-eaters agree to suffer the indignities of pregnancy and childbirth? The "womb" in the Dwelling seems to jealously guard her status as the only one allowed to have babies - but that makes no sense, because there is no such thing as status any more, so why would she care (it's not maternal instinct - she has nothing to do with the babies after they're born)?
It seems to me that in reality, no one would volunteer to be a serial baby-carrier and no one would remember to feed the resulting babies, so the Others would just die out.
On the other side are the N-Ps, and they don't convince either. They ran away from The Others to form their own society, because they saw the dangers of being absorbed into the virtual world. However, their Spock-like society seems at odds with their principles. They say they moved because they value human relationships - yet they don't allow their children to see their grandparents or any other relatives (they are given a pet rat to learn about caring...). They think people should experience the wonder of the real world not the virtual one, yet they've created a city that's drab and colourless. They think people should embrace their natural appearance, yet they allow no variation in hairstyle or dress. Each couple is allowed only one child - as they're not over-populated, this seems a strange decision which is only going to reduce their number.
Of course, that's not really the point, I think. This story is meant to be a warning about where we are heading. The author has a message to convey about the dangers of technology and her attempts to do so factually are being heard, but not taken to heart by society. So she's trying another tack. The N-P's have to be the opposite of the Others or Fred wouldn't fracture in the face of Yakawow culture, and the author wouldn't be able to make the contrasts she wants. However because the logic didn't quite gel for me, it affected my enjoyment of the book. I skimmed rather than read after about page 150.
For me, the big stumbling block with this book was that I wasn't convinced by the two civilisations portrayed. Looking at everyone mesmerised by their mobiles, I can imagine us evolving (devolving?) into The Others - totally immersed in our virtual worlds, co-existing but not interacting with other people, with no need (and therefore no desire) to learn, strive or plan. Work is no longer necessary because nanotechnology manufactures and maintains everything, including food.
The problem I have is this: if everyone no longer thinks of the future, has no interest in (real-life) sex, and has lost all sense of maternal/paternal instinct and social responsibility, who is making the decision to continue producing children? Why on earth would any of these lotus-eaters agree to suffer the indignities of pregnancy and childbirth? The "womb" in the Dwelling seems to jealously guard her status as the only one allowed to have babies - but that makes no sense, because there is no such thing as status any more, so why would she care (it's not maternal instinct - she has nothing to do with the babies after they're born)?
It seems to me that in reality, no one would volunteer to be a serial baby-carrier and no one would remember to feed the resulting babies, so the Others would just die out.
On the other side are the N-Ps, and they don't convince either. They ran away from The Others to form their own society, because they saw the dangers of being absorbed into the virtual world. However, their Spock-like society seems at odds with their principles. They say they moved because they value human relationships - yet they don't allow their children to see their grandparents or any other relatives (they are given a pet rat to learn about caring...). They think people should experience the wonder of the real world not the virtual one, yet they've created a city that's drab and colourless. They think people should embrace their natural appearance, yet they allow no variation in hairstyle or dress. Each couple is allowed only one child - as they're not over-populated, this seems a strange decision which is only going to reduce their number.
Of course, that's not really the point, I think. This story is meant to be a warning about where we are heading. The author has a message to convey about the dangers of technology and her attempts to do so factually are being heard, but not taken to heart by society. So she's trying another tack. The N-P's have to be the opposite of the Others or Fred wouldn't fracture in the face of Yakawow culture, and the author wouldn't be able to make the contrasts she wants. However because the logic didn't quite gel for me, it affected my enjoyment of the book. I skimmed rather than read after about page 150.
May 3, 2021
Bad science
Not many famous scientists write fiction to convey a scientific idea. The accepted tradition is to publish experimental results in a peer reviewed journal with scientific data that is open to discussions. But Oxford University neurobiologist Susan Greenfield chooses the former route. This high priestess of the British cult with the mentality of English colonists weaves an unbelievable story belittling the wisdom of science book readers. The author does not shy away from expressing her opinion wildly from her Oxford University pulpit. Greenfield's hypothesis is that our exposure to modern technologies like social media and computer games affect our brains leading an abnormal human evolution. It is a sort of mind change she claims, the human brain will adapt to whatever environment in which it is placed. The cyber world is offering a new type of environment for brain to change. She suggests that this is like climate change which also due to environmental change created by the human civilization.
The story is this: In 22nd century, the human beings evolved into two groups: The Hedonists referred to as “Others,” are technologically advanced beings who live inside geodesic domes playing video games have grown out of traditional values of humans as we know now. And on the other side of the same planet live the neo-puritans (NPs) who follow the traditional beliefs focused on intellectual pursuits like neurobiological research. The NPs send their top neurobiologist to study the others and perhaps change them! Doesn’t this feel real! That is the same strategy used by the English colonists, who believed that they are more civilized, and hence they can colonize countries in Asia and Africa.
This book is full of dull narratives and terrible characters and even weird discussion about sex and reproduction. I wonder if this reflects on unfulfilled sexual fantasies of the author who loves to wear miniskirts, high heels, and deep lipstick, and always eager to pose for a fashion magazine than delivering a lecture at a science conference. Fellow Oxford Professor Dorothy Bishop points out that there is no scientific evidence to support the mind change ideas of the author.
Not many famous scientists write fiction to convey a scientific idea. The accepted tradition is to publish experimental results in a peer reviewed journal with scientific data that is open to discussions. But Oxford University neurobiologist Susan Greenfield chooses the former route. This high priestess of the British cult with the mentality of English colonists weaves an unbelievable story belittling the wisdom of science book readers. The author does not shy away from expressing her opinion wildly from her Oxford University pulpit. Greenfield's hypothesis is that our exposure to modern technologies like social media and computer games affect our brains leading an abnormal human evolution. It is a sort of mind change she claims, the human brain will adapt to whatever environment in which it is placed. The cyber world is offering a new type of environment for brain to change. She suggests that this is like climate change which also due to environmental change created by the human civilization.
The story is this: In 22nd century, the human beings evolved into two groups: The Hedonists referred to as “Others,” are technologically advanced beings who live inside geodesic domes playing video games have grown out of traditional values of humans as we know now. And on the other side of the same planet live the neo-puritans (NPs) who follow the traditional beliefs focused on intellectual pursuits like neurobiological research. The NPs send their top neurobiologist to study the others and perhaps change them! Doesn’t this feel real! That is the same strategy used by the English colonists, who believed that they are more civilized, and hence they can colonize countries in Asia and Africa.
This book is full of dull narratives and terrible characters and even weird discussion about sex and reproduction. I wonder if this reflects on unfulfilled sexual fantasies of the author who loves to wear miniskirts, high heels, and deep lipstick, and always eager to pose for a fashion magazine than delivering a lecture at a science conference. Fellow Oxford Professor Dorothy Bishop points out that there is no scientific evidence to support the mind change ideas of the author.
October 6, 2016
2121 reminds me a little of Huxley's masterpiece Brave New World, which is a little unfortunate because there can never be any comparison. The two novels are worlds apart. Greenfield is primarily a scientific writer, and it shows; she has broken the golden rule of storytelling, to show not tell.
Instead of coming to the conclusion myself that the Others are infantile, or that the N-P's are emotionless and cold, I am quite literally told to believe it. Similarly, the characters themselves seem all too aware of how an outside may perceive their actions, and do all the judging for me. I guess I would have liked a little more subtlety in storytelling, or perhaps a bit more freedom to judge the characters and interpret the story for myself. I'm the type that likes to eat a carrot to learn what it is, rather than simply being told that it's crunchy and contains beta-carotene.
Also another couple of minor niggles I had-
1) is something which really shouldn't have gotten past the editor's notice - on page 112 there are two typos. Site instead of sight, and defiantly instead of definitely.
2) the characters lack substance, and are fickle in nature - I find it difficult to believe that
Apart from all of that though, the content is quite interesting and the concept definitely has potential, as it is in essence a subversion of Brave New World. 2121 isn't really something I'd recommend as a novel, however it is a piece of text that can be quite entertaining as a rumination on the human condition.
Instead of coming to the conclusion myself that the Others are infantile, or that the N-P's are emotionless and cold, I am quite literally told to believe it. Similarly, the characters themselves seem all too aware of how an outside may perceive their actions, and do all the judging for me. I guess I would have liked a little more subtlety in storytelling, or perhaps a bit more freedom to judge the characters and interpret the story for myself. I'm the type that likes to eat a carrot to learn what it is, rather than simply being told that it's crunchy and contains beta-carotene.
Also another couple of minor niggles I had-
1) is something which really shouldn't have gotten past the editor's notice - on page 112 there are two typos. Site instead of sight, and defiantly instead of definitely.
2) the characters lack substance, and are fickle in nature - I find it difficult to believe that
Apart from all of that though, the content is quite interesting and the concept definitely has potential, as it is in essence a subversion of Brave New World. 2121 isn't really something I'd recommend as a novel, however it is a piece of text that can be quite entertaining as a rumination on the human condition.
November 29, 2021
maybe i'm just dumb, but i literally have tried at least 3 times to read this book, and i can't get more than 16 pages in. like something about all the words they use and I'm confused about the basic premise i guess and don't understand anything
August 22, 2014
quite possibly the worst book i have ever read. basically what henry said plus a lot of gross gender (and other) stuff, as well as rape. i need brain bleach. lots.
October 14, 2015
About two people groups who split up years ago. A guy is selected to cross a mountain on a bicycle to check on the other group and ends up getting involved with them. Occasional insight into the human condition and eyes looking at screens- TV/phones.
July 5, 2017
3 and a half, rounded to 4 in the favour of the author because of the thought provoking, inspiring elements of this futuristic novel and despite the logical issues I stumbled on.
September 20, 2017
Doppia distopia per l'opera letteraria non scientifica unica di tale
Susan Greenfield, di professione neuroscienziata e autrice di testi tecnici specialistici.
Titolo: 2121: A Tale From the Next Century
non mi risulta ancora tradotto in italiano, quindi versione originale in inglese. Pensavo fosse un saggio, ed invece è un lungo racconto.
Che ci dice la nostra? due società futuribili in cui è stata eliminata l'idea di futuro, o meglio l'incertezza del domani. Descritte e ridescritte mille volte attraverso le voci dei 5-6 personaggi che a rotazione raccontano la loro parte di storia.
Un soggetto ordinario per un film come tanti:
mondo "Yakawow", ovvero gente persa nella cybereality del divertimento hic et nunc VS mondo "Neo-puritani", ovvero razionalisti puri che lavorano incessantemente per eliminare ogni alea.
In apparenza mondi comodi e rassicuranti che la tecnologia ha reso possibili. Dal punto di vista della narrazione, è ovvio che l'incontro e il patatrac sono dietro l'angolo; dal punto di vista del messaggio, sono ovvi i rimandi indotti a quanto andiamo seminando nel nostro tempo.
Tre stelle.
Susan Greenfield, di professione neuroscienziata e autrice di testi tecnici specialistici.
Titolo: 2121: A Tale From the Next Century
non mi risulta ancora tradotto in italiano, quindi versione originale in inglese. Pensavo fosse un saggio, ed invece è un lungo racconto.
Che ci dice la nostra? due società futuribili in cui è stata eliminata l'idea di futuro, o meglio l'incertezza del domani. Descritte e ridescritte mille volte attraverso le voci dei 5-6 personaggi che a rotazione raccontano la loro parte di storia.
Un soggetto ordinario per un film come tanti:
mondo "Yakawow", ovvero gente persa nella cybereality del divertimento hic et nunc VS mondo "Neo-puritani", ovvero razionalisti puri che lavorano incessantemente per eliminare ogni alea.
In apparenza mondi comodi e rassicuranti che la tecnologia ha reso possibili. Dal punto di vista della narrazione, è ovvio che l'incontro e il patatrac sono dietro l'angolo; dal punto di vista del messaggio, sono ovvi i rimandi indotti a quanto andiamo seminando nel nostro tempo.
Tre stelle.
June 3, 2024
Well that went dark quickly! What started as a view of two societies—one halting emotional thought to allow logic to rule and the other halting rational thought allowing feeling to rule—intermingled into a third after mind manipulation. It raised a lot of concerns of society deciding for you what is best and stifling anything that counteracted what they wanted. But, it also raised concerns at technological and environmental manipulation. It was astonishing how quickly Sim latched onto being a heartless killer rather than deal with her emotions rationally. And amazing how quickly Fred changed into an irrational character clinging to a bike and then throwing that away too. And and, how quickly the logical society just moved on from the mess they created; experiment failed. It is a book that I hope does not reflect our future. One would hope we wouldn’t mindlessly give our brains away, would value people more, and can rationally put limits on technology use.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 1, 2022
Firstly, don't let my review deter you from reading this, especially if you love books like 1984 and Brave New World. I found this book difficult to read because of the language.
In regards to the actual story, it was very slow and I have been left with unanswered questions. I did appreciate the ending and what happened to our 3 main characters. But am dissapointed that there wasn't more information about how the others society is structured. How can the others be so far gone in such a short period of time. Surely there are more people like Zelda still out there and surely there is some form of government monitoring how the others live. How on earth was Fred not discovered by the others form of government and why is there no plan for the cleaning of the garbage when everything else is so perfectly structured?
In regards to the actual story, it was very slow and I have been left with unanswered questions. I did appreciate the ending and what happened to our 3 main characters. But am dissapointed that there wasn't more information about how the others society is structured. How can the others be so far gone in such a short period of time. Surely there are more people like Zelda still out there and surely there is some form of government monitoring how the others live. How on earth was Fred not discovered by the others form of government and why is there no plan for the cleaning of the garbage when everything else is so perfectly structured?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 9, 2019
Honestly this book looks so promising on paper, but it fails. I hated the negative tone the book brings into at the start, the world being so perfect that it sucks? The characters!!! I didn’t care for any of them at all. I had absolutely nothing to care about. Seriously I was so excited to read this dystopian novel but I was so so disappointed. The goodreads rating systems doesn’t lie it looks like.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2017
A heavy-handed imagining of a society split between those devoted to form and those devoted to function. Interesting but too extreme to seem even slightly believable.
June 21, 2020
I had a difficult time motivating myself to finish this book. It's not bad and I appreciate the ideas it presents, but a majority of the book is characters thinking.
August 13, 2019
(This book includes rape scenes)
This one is - different.
That's the best way I can describe it. It left me feeling sad and frankly quite ill. I fully understand why a lot of people had a hard time with this one. The writing isn't the easiest to get into, but I found myself enjoying it because I'd never read anything like this before.
There's no real 'good' side to root for in this book and that makes it absolutely terrifying. Although I'm sure most people will find themselves strongly opposing the NPs and everything they stand for, neither society is exactly ideal.
The last 100 or so pages are difficult to read. This book is sad, scary and repulsive all wrapped up in one.
This one is - different.
That's the best way I can describe it. It left me feeling sad and frankly quite ill. I fully understand why a lot of people had a hard time with this one. The writing isn't the easiest to get into, but I found myself enjoying it because I'd never read anything like this before.
There's no real 'good' side to root for in this book and that makes it absolutely terrifying. Although I'm sure most people will find themselves strongly opposing the NPs and everything they stand for, neither society is exactly ideal.
The last 100 or so pages are difficult to read. This book is sad, scary and repulsive all wrapped up in one.
September 17, 2016
#32 A book by a celebrity
Baroness Greenfield is a prominent neuroscientist. In this novel she extrapolates knowledge of brain research to create a plausible future society in which humans divide into two groups according to their perception of the value of brain activity over sensation. Whilst it was interesting to read Greenfield is not a stylist and this dystopian narrative was somewhat laboured.
Baroness Greenfield is a prominent neuroscientist. In this novel she extrapolates knowledge of brain research to create a plausible future society in which humans divide into two groups according to their perception of the value of brain activity over sensation. Whilst it was interesting to read Greenfield is not a stylist and this dystopian narrative was somewhat laboured.
May 26, 2014
I looked forward to reading this book, which I selected in the library, as I crave true "hard" science fiction, and I like authors with scientific rigour. Sadly I very quickly gave up on this, as while the basic scenarios have potential the writing is stilted and paceless. I did skip ahead to see if the style developed but wasn't encouraged to go on trying.
March 27, 2017
There are some interesting concepts at play and some neat worldbuilding ideas, told from a very hard science perspective, but it really does show that it's a scientist writing a novel. The fiction from science fiction is sadly lacking. As another reviewer said, Greenfield has broken the 'show, don't tell' rule, and the reader is given way too much insight for the characters, their actions, and their world, so that very little of the story is organically 'felt' or experienced. The result of it is that it's very hard to identify with or root for these characters.
The whole time I was reading it (and I had to skim read a lot of it because the prose was not holding my interest) I was thinking that under another writer, namely Phillip K. Dick, this would have been a really interesting story. Take out a lot of the heavy-handed scientific prose in favour of a few character interactions that show those concepts. The scene I kept going back to (and was reminded of strongly in terms of the worlds being similar) is the emotion-dialling machine in Do Androids Dream...In just one opening conversation, the two characters introduce us to this science fiction element of the story without the prose having to explain the history of the machine, what it does, how it impacts the world and so on. We infer and interpret that information ourselves, while the characters do the business of the story. This book just needed some of that to elevate it, because there really is some good stuff in there, it just feels a bit swamped by the need to get the science and the author's dire warning about society across. But it did keep my mind off the incredibly uncomfortable and delayed Megabus journey I was on at the time!
The whole time I was reading it (and I had to skim read a lot of it because the prose was not holding my interest) I was thinking that under another writer, namely Phillip K. Dick, this would have been a really interesting story. Take out a lot of the heavy-handed scientific prose in favour of a few character interactions that show those concepts. The scene I kept going back to (and was reminded of strongly in terms of the worlds being similar) is the emotion-dialling machine in Do Androids Dream...In just one opening conversation, the two characters introduce us to this science fiction element of the story without the prose having to explain the history of the machine, what it does, how it impacts the world and so on. We infer and interpret that information ourselves, while the characters do the business of the story. This book just needed some of that to elevate it, because there really is some good stuff in there, it just feels a bit swamped by the need to get the science and the author's dire warning about society across. But it did keep my mind off the incredibly uncomfortable and delayed Megabus journey I was on at the time!
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews