Laith
Published in 1943 and structured as 3 lectures (Men Without Chests, The Way, The Abolition of Man) that focus on a concept of natural laws and a defense of objectivism, Lewis sought to warn of the dangers of modern attempts to do away with parts of traditional morality. Not at all a novel, this is a collection of essays about the trend of reduction and definition that he was noticing as we became entrenched in the scientific age. Lewis was concerned with how we were to live our lives as we came to consider ourselves in an increasingly quantifiable sense, nothing more than collections of cells and molecules, mere creatures of needs and nature. He frets about the future of a humanity that has lost its moral compass, devoid of the traditions that in his eyes are what make us human.
Lewis posits that there's something greater than the quantifiable about Man; that there's an order to everything- a purpose, a natural law, which exists outside of the finite. Our purpose as Men bound to this natural law is to seek happiness and live lives of virtue- not lives of value as defined by whichever society we live in. In seeking to master nature, to quantify all, we rob ourselves of the capacity to imagine and ponder its mysteries. As society further focuses on efficiency and value we in turn become a part of nature, another thing to be mastered- another system to be exploited. To Lewis the ultimate consequence of conquering nature leads us to be conquered by nature as we reduce ourselves in kind, living lives of mere nature rather than lives according to the Tao.
At the very core of all three lectures is a firm rejection of moral subjectivism; the concept that there is no external or objective truth and that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. Lewis claims the opposite; leaning on the arguments of the ancients he proposes that the purpose of education is to ingrain in children what is good and should be loved and what is bad and should be hated. Further there is a shared set of objective values that exist across the moralities of the East, West, and all major religious groups, these values he later coins as the Tao, the Way. In Men Without Chests he claims that to stray from the Tao is to rob men of their "Chests", their emotional and moral instincts; without their chests men are detached from their moral compass- the thing that makes them human.
In The Abolition of Man, the final lecture in the series, Lewis keys in on the consequence of this reduction in moral instinct. It's really about as sci-fi as a lecture can get as he envisages an dystopian future where a minority with a perfect understanding of human psychology rule over the rest, a world where they define the morals and values of the many as they see fit. These rulers are in turn so advanced as to see through any system of morality which could seek to influence their actions, they are ruled by their base instincts, their whims- as they have surrendered their mechanisms for reflection. Divorced from the ability to reflect on their motivation these controllers cease to be human in the recognizable sense, the rest of us robot-like in our systemic obedience.
Lewis actually published a sci-fi novel that expands on the dystopian ideas put forth in these essays called That Hideous Strength (part of The Space Trilogy), and these ideas certainly influenced Orwell's conceptualization of Big Brother in 1984.
While I don't personally agree with all the points that Lewis made, particularly his disdain of subjectivism and his conceptualization of the Tao, I found this thought provoking and generally right in its premise and intent. If you're seeking a little philosophy to pair with your notions of sci-fi, seeking to challenge your own conceptions of morality, or if you're just generally unimpressed with the modern school curriculum I'd recommend this highly.
Published in 1943 and structured as 3 lectures (Men Without Chests, The Way, The Abolition of Man) that focus on a concept of natural laws and a defense of objectivism, Lewis sought to warn of the dangers of modern attempts to do away with parts of traditional morality. Not at all a novel, this is a collection of essays about the trend of reduction and definition that he was noticing as we became entrenched in the scientific age. Lewis was concerned with how we were to live our lives as we came to consider ourselves in an increasingly quantifiable sense, nothing more than collections of cells and molecules, mere creatures of needs and nature. He frets about the future of a humanity that has lost its moral compass, devoid of the traditions that in his eyes are what make us human.
Lewis posits that there's something greater than the quantifiable about Man; that there's an order to everything- a purpose, a natural law, which exists outside of the finite. Our purpose as Men bound to this natural law is to seek happiness and live lives of virtue- not lives of value as defined by whichever society we live in. In seeking to master nature, to quantify all, we rob ourselves of the capacity to imagine and ponder its mysteries. As society further focuses on efficiency and value we in turn become a part of nature, another thing to be mastered- another system to be exploited. To Lewis the ultimate consequence of conquering nature leads us to be conquered by nature as we reduce ourselves in kind, living lives of mere nature rather than lives according to the Tao.
At the very core of all three lectures is a firm rejection of moral subjectivism; the concept that there is no external or objective truth and that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. Lewis claims the opposite; leaning on the arguments of the ancients he proposes that the purpose of education is to ingrain in children what is good and should be loved and what is bad and should be hated. Further there is a shared set of objective values that exist across the moralities of the East, West, and all major religious groups, these values he later coins as the Tao, the Way. In Men Without Chests he claims that to stray from the Tao is to rob men of their "Chests", their emotional and moral instincts; without their chests men are detached from their moral compass- the thing that makes them human.
In The Abolition of Man, the final lecture in the series, Lewis keys in on the consequence of this reduction in moral instinct. It's really about as sci-fi as a lecture can get as he envisages an dystopian future where a minority with a perfect understanding of human psychology rule over the rest, a world where they define the morals and values of the many as they see fit. These rulers are in turn so advanced as to see through any system of morality which could seek to influence their actions, they are ruled by their base instincts, their whims- as they have surrendered their mechanisms for reflection. Divorced from the ability to reflect on their motivation these controllers cease to be human in the recognizable sense, the rest of us robot-like in our systemic obedience.
Lewis actually published a sci-fi novel that expands on the dystopian ideas put forth in these essays called That Hideous Strength (part of The Space Trilogy), and these ideas certainly influenced Orwell's conceptualization of Big Brother in 1984.
While I don't personally agree with all the points that Lewis made, particularly his disdain of subjectivism and his conceptualization of the Tao, I found this thought provoking and generally right in its premise and intent. If you're seeking a little philosophy to pair with your notions of sci-fi, seeking to challenge your own conceptions of morality, or if you're just generally unimpressed with the modern school curriculum I'd recommend this highly.
Published in 1943 and structured as 3 lectures (Men Without Chests, The Way, The Abolition of Man) that focus on a concept of natural laws and a defense of objectivism, Lewis sought to warn of the dangers of modern attempts to do away with parts of traditional morality. Not at all a novel, this is a collection of essays about the trend of reduction and definition that he was noticing as we became entrenched in the scientific age. Lewis was concerned with how we were to live our lives as we came to consider ourselves in an increasingly quantifiable sense, nothing more than collections of cells and molecules, mere creatures of needs and nature. He frets about the future of a humanity that has lost its moral compass, devoid of the traditions that in his eyes are what make us human.
He posits that there's something greater than the quantifiable about Man; that there's an order to everything, a Tao- a purpose, a natural law, which exists outside of the finite. Our purpose as Men bound to this natural law is to seek happiness and live lives of virtue- not lives of value as defined by whichever society we live in. In seeking to master nature, to quantify all, we rob ourselves of the capacity to imagine and ponder its mysteries. As society further focuses on efficiency and value we in turn become a part of nature, another thing to be mastered- another system to be exploited. To Lewis the ultimate consequence of conquering nature leads us to be conquered by nature as we reduce ourselves in kind, living lives of mere nature rather than lives according to the Tao.
At the very core of all three lectures is a firm rejection of moral subjectivism; the concept that there is no external or objective truth and that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. The subjective world view was gaining ground, as Lewis perceived "intellectuals" were aiming to debunk objective value and instead ground all things in a rational approach. Lewis posits the opposite; leaning on the arguments of the ancients he proposes that the purpose of education is to ingrain in children what is good and should be loved and what is bad and should be hated. Further there is a shared set of objective values that exist across the moralities of the East, West, and all major religious groups, these values he coins as the Tao, the way. In Men Without Chests he claims that to stray from the Way is to rob men of their "Chests", their emotional and moral instincts; without their chests men are detached from their moral compass- the thing that makes them human.
In The Abolition of Man, the final lecture in the series, Lewis keys in on the consequence of this reduction in moral instinct. It's really about as sci-fi as a lecture can get as he envisages an apocalyptic future where a minority with a perfect understanding of human psychology rule over the rest, a world where they define the morals and values of the many as they see fit. These rules are in turn so advanced as to see through any system of morality which could seek to influence their actions, they are ruled by their base instincts, their whims- as they have surrendered their mechanisms for reflection. Divorced from the ability to reflect on their motivation these controllers cease to be human in the recognizable sense, the rest of us robot-like in our systemic obedience.
Lewis actually published a sci-fi novel that expands on the dystopian ideas put forth in these essays called That Hideous Strength (part of The Space Trilogy), and these ideas certainly influenced Orwell's conceptualization of Big Brother in 1984.
While I don't personally agree with all the points that Lewis made, particularly his disdain of subjectivism and his conceptualization of the Tao, I found this thought provoking and generally right in its premise and intent. If you're seeking a little philosophy to pair with your notions of sci-fi, seeking to challenge your own conceptions of morality, or if you're just generally unimpressed with the modern school curriculum I'd recommend this highly.
Published in 1943 and structured as 3 lectures (Men Without Chests, The Way, The Abolition of Man) that focus on a concept of natural laws and a defense of objectivism, Lewis sought to warn of the dangers of modern attempts to do away with parts of traditional morality. Not at all a novel, this is a collection of essays about the trend of reduction and definition that he was noticing as we became entrenched in the scientific age. Lewis was concerned with how we were to live our lives as we came to consider ourselves in an increasingly quantifiable sense, nothing more than collections of cells and molecules, mere creatures of needs and nature. He frets about the future of a humanity that has lost its moral compass, devoid of the traditions that in his eyes are what make us human.
He posits that there's something greater than the quantifiable about Man; that there's an order to everything, a Tao- a purpose, a natural law, which exists outside of the finite. Our purpose as Men bound to this natural law is to seek happiness and live lives of virtue- not lives of value as defined by whichever society we live in. In seeking to master nature, to quantify all, we rob ourselves of the capacity to imagine and ponder its mysteries. As society further focuses on efficiency and value we in turn become a part of nature, another thing to be mastered- another system to be exploited. To Lewis the ultimate consequence of conquering nature leads us to be conquered by nature as we reduce ourselves in kind, living lives of mere nature rather than lives according to the Tao.
At the very core of all three lectures is a firm rejection of moral subjectivism; the concept that there is no external or objective truth and that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. The subjective world view was gaining ground, as Lewis perceived "intellectuals" were aiming to debunk objective value and instead ground all things in a rational approach. Lewis posits the opposite; leaning on the arguments of the ancients he proposes that the purpose of education is to ingrain in children what is good and should be loved and what is bad and should be hated. Further there is a shared set of objective values that exist across the moralities of the East, West, and all major religious groups, these values he coins as the Tao, the way. In Men Without Chests he claims that to stray from the Way is to rob men of their "Chests", their emotional and moral instincts; without their chests men are detached from their moral compass- the thing that makes them human.
In The Abolition of Man, the final lecture in the series, Lewis keys in on the consequence of this reduction in moral instinct. It's really about as sci-fi as a lecture can get as he envisages an apocalyptic future where a minority with a perfect understanding of human psychology rule over the rest, a world where they define the morals and values of the many as they see fit. These rules are in turn so advanced as to see through any system of morality which could seek to influence their actions, they are ruled by their base instincts, their whims- as they have surrendered their mechanisms for reflection. Divorced from the ability to reflect on their motivation these controllers cease to be human in the recognizable sense, the rest of us robot-like in our systemic obedience.
Lewis actually published a sci-fi novel that expands on the dystopian ideas put forth in these essays called That Hideous Strength (part of The Space Trilogy), and these ideas certainly influenced Orwell's conceptualization of Big Brother in 1984.
While I don't personally agree with all the points that Lewis made, particularly his disdain of subjectivism and his conceptualization of the Tao, I found this thought provoking and generally right in its premise and intent. If you're seeking a little philosophy to pair with your notions of sci-fi, seeking to challenge your own conceptions of morality, or if you're just generally unimpressed with the modern school curriculum I'd recommend this highly.
Added to listFull Reviewswith 150 books.
This book was only 250 pages long, but I had to let it marinate a full week before even attempting a review. That is because this book is uncommonly difficult to read, I'd put it at a 7 or an 8, but of course I've never given a difficulty rating to a book before. The title is the biggest hint as to why; this book is about dreams, and as a result it is aptly structured as a dream would be. You know what I mean, maybe you're getting creamer at the supermarket only to open the fridge door and find yourself on Omaha beach, and it's D-Day. It's got to be a mark of insanity to seek out a book called "The Dream Master" and then complain that it was too dreamlike, but here we are.
Of course, dream "like" is the qualifier here, there is a narrative contained within the shifting jumble of ideas and imagery. Much like The Lathe of Heaven the story concerns a doctor, their patient, and a dream machine. We follow the Shaper, Charles Render, an acclaimed neuroparticipant therapist- a doctor who enters into the minds of others and builds dreamscapes within. This dream therapy is used to treat neuroses and obsessions, but the melding of minds is inherently dangerous, the shaper is ever at risk of losing hold of their own sanity. Render takes on Eileen Shallot as a patient, a neuroparticipant therapist herself, but congenitally blind and thus unable to construct visual dreams for her patients. Render's treatment aims to expose her to the full range of visual stimuli, simultaneously exposing her to sight and attempting to cure any underlying vision-related neuroses so that she may undertake her own shaper practice.
I'm only scratching the surface with the premise, everything else is up to interpretation. The narrative shifts between straightforward dialogue, mesmerizing dreamscapes, and seemingly disconnected vignettes and cutaways. There is one thread that cuts across it all, and that's the distinct Merlin and Nimue theming; English majors rejoice. For the bad students and the unfamiliar, I'm talking about Vivianne - The Lady of the Lake; the student of Merlin and the ultimate cause of his downfall. You've definitely seen this before, a bubbling tension between the wizened (typically male) master and his young (typically female) protégé that leads to betrayal and disaster for the master. It's an old story, but Zelazny does his best to obscure the connection with a fresh face of 60s SF cutting edge ideas and peppered in reference to Norse legend.
Before I move too far along, I just NEED to comment on the talking dogs. The Dream Machine is the big SF idea in this book, but Zelazny threw a lot more in here: self-driving cars, thermal-sight implants, and of course genetically engineered talking dogs. We all know what they were smoking in the 60s, but that doesn't explain the obsession with talking dogs-they're in almost everything I've read from this time period. In the Dream Master, we're introduced to Sigmund, Eileen Shallot's super-intelligent-talking-seeing-eye dog. His perspective is included in the narrative, and it really puts a pin the in "coolness" of intelligent talking dogs. Sigmund is aware that he's different, and Zelazny really drives home the isolation that intelligence imposes on him. There is a sequence from Sigmund's POV that was probably the stand-out passage in the book for me, as it adequately captures my horror and revulsion to the idea.
As interesting as this book was, I did not like it all that much. The ideas in here may have been groundbreaking or fresh in 1966, but to me, it was all old hat and needlessly confusing. Honestly, I was tempted to chalk this whole review up to "This is Inception V1" and keep it pushing. I was expecting a little more from such an acclaimed literary master, the prose in this book was particularly disappointing. I was expecting the language to be less clinical and much more poetic, especially as I began to pick up on the Arthurian themes. Allow me to admit at this late juncture that I did not understand the end of this novel until I sat down to write this out; as approriate as it is, the fact that I couldn't follow it should speak volumes to how dissolute and nonsensical the delivery gets by the end.
Of course, there are mitigating circumstances. This was originally a Novella that won the '65 Nebula but was padded out to novel length (poorly I might add) at the insistence of his publisher. Unfortunately enough for me, this was my first Zelazny, and I would not suggest this as an entry point to his work. Although I haven't read the novella, I'd suggest that anyone still interested in this book start with that; save yourselves some time and the headache.
P.S.: Zelazny's outline for the 1984 film Dreamscape is in part based on this work, that's about the total extent of this piece's cultural relevance.
This book was only 250 pages long, but I had to let it marinate a full week before even attempting a review. That is because this book is uncommonly difficult to read, I'd put it at a 7 or an 8, but of course I've never given a difficulty rating to a book before. The title is the biggest hint as to why; this book is about dreams, and as a result it is aptly structured as a dream would be. You know what I mean, maybe you're getting creamer at the supermarket only to open the fridge door and find yourself on Omaha beach, and it's D-Day. It's got to be a mark of insanity to seek out a book called "The Dream Master" and then complain that it was too dreamlike, but here we are.
Of course, dream "like" is the qualifier here, there is a narrative contained within the shifting jumble of ideas and imagery. Much like The Lathe of Heaven the story concerns a doctor, their patient, and a dream machine. We follow the Shaper, Charles Render, an acclaimed neuroparticipant therapist- a doctor who enters into the minds of others and builds dreamscapes within. This dream therapy is used to treat neuroses and obsessions, but the melding of minds is inherently dangerous, the shaper is ever at risk of losing hold of their own sanity. Render takes on Eileen Shallot as a patient, a neuroparticipant therapist herself, but congenitally blind and thus unable to construct visual dreams for her patients. Render's treatment aims to expose her to the full range of visual stimuli, simultaneously exposing her to sight and attempting to cure any underlying vision-related neuroses so that she may undertake her own shaper practice.
I'm only scratching the surface with the premise, everything else is up to interpretation. The narrative shifts between straightforward dialogue, mesmerizing dreamscapes, and seemingly disconnected vignettes and cutaways. There is one thread that cuts across it all, and that's the distinct Merlin and Nimue theming; English majors rejoice. For the bad students and the unfamiliar, I'm talking about Vivianne - The Lady of the Lake; the student of Merlin and the ultimate cause of his downfall. You've definitely seen this before, a bubbling tension between the wizened (typically male) master and his young (typically female) protégé that leads to betrayal and disaster for the master. It's an old story, but Zelazny does his best to obscure the connection with a fresh face of 60s SF cutting edge ideas and peppered in reference to Norse legend.
Before I move too far along, I just NEED to comment on the talking dogs. The Dream Machine is the big SF idea in this book, but Zelazny threw a lot more in here: self-driving cars, thermal-sight implants, and of course genetically engineered talking dogs. We all know what they were smoking in the 60s, but that doesn't explain the obsession with talking dogs-they're in almost everything I've read from this time period. In the Dream Master, we're introduced to Sigmund, Eileen Shallot's super-intelligent-talking-seeing-eye dog. His perspective is included in the narrative, and it really puts a pin the in "coolness" of intelligent talking dogs. Sigmund is aware that he's different, and Zelazny really drives home the isolation that intelligence imposes on him. There is a sequence from Sigmund's POV that was probably the stand-out passage in the book for me, as it adequately captures my horror and revulsion to the idea.
As interesting as this book was, I did not like it all that much. The ideas in here may have been groundbreaking or fresh in 1966, but to me, it was all old hat and needlessly confusing. Honestly, I was tempted to chalk this whole review up to "This is Inception V1" and keep it pushing. I was expecting a little more from such an acclaimed literary master, the prose in this book was particularly disappointing. I was expecting the language to be less clinical and much more poetic, especially as I began to pick up on the Arthurian themes. Allow me to admit at this late juncture that I did not understand the end of this novel until I sat down to write this out; as approriate as it is, the fact that I couldn't follow it should speak volumes to how dissolute and nonsensical the delivery gets by the end.
Of course, there are mitigating circumstances. This was originally a Novella that won the '65 Nebula but was padded out to novel length (poorly I might add) at the insistence of his publisher. Unfortunately enough for me, this was my first Zelazny, and I would not suggest this as an entry point to his work. Although I haven't read the novella, I'd suggest that anyone still interested in this book start with that; save yourselves some time and the headache.
P.S.: Zelazny's outline for the 1984 film Dreamscape is in part based on this work, that's about the total extent of this piece's cultural relevance.
Book Club For Jan - I am behind on both the book club and on these reviews, life's just been very busy since the holidays
___
No looking inside the box.
No asking what is inside of it
No telling anyone where they are going.
Black Box is really just one massive red haring, a wild goose chase of a novel. Abbott (our male protagonist and Lyft driver) meets Ether (our female protagonist) for what he believes is a typical Lyft fare that's anything but. Ether offers him a life changing sum of money to transport her and her mysterious black box across the country, from California to DC. Abbott is not Ether's first choice, she's been hired to transport the box under condition of secrecy but she's out of options to meet her deadline and her mission is further complicated by dodging the pursuit of a mysterious biker. Unfortunately for Ether she couldn't have picked a worse driver, as Abbott is a sort of minor Twitch celebrity- his chat so alerted by his change in schedule and the involvement of a woman so as to kick off a Reddit manhunt in search of him. The hunt for Abbott quickly evolves into a rabid conspiracy revolving around Ether, a retired FBI agent, and what exactly is in the black box of doom.
I'd describe Black Box as a true 21st century novel, laden heavy with references to the current day- Reddit, Bitcoin, even commissioned furry art, it runs the referential gamut and opines broadly on the impact of the internet and social media on society. The premise is great: equal parts the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers and a classic American road trip comedy, the story serves as vehicle for Pargin's opinions on the toxic influence of the internet on the human species. It's a bizarre tonal mix, on the one hand you've got some fairly heartfelt and broadly accurate critiques on modern society and on the other hand you've got Abbott chasing down rabbits down the side of Route 66. When you consider that road tripping across the US is a boring and desolate drive broken up by occasional moments of danger and entertainment the structure of the book makes sense, unfortunately that means the book winds up being more social commentary than actual plot. It's very fun whenever the plot is progressing, but mainly it's Ether lecturing for 300 out of 400 pages.
I really found myself powering through the middle of the book, that's largely because the more I learned about Abbott and Ether, the more I started to hate them. Abbott, the modern anxious every-man happens to have some problematic opinions about women- and he's extremely vocal about it. Conversely Ether has had something like a modern spiritual awakening and cannot help but to lecture Abbott about the wonders of the modern age and the importance of believing in the inherent good of your fellow man. These two are locked in a car for 2,310 miles and so are you the reader, so you get to read and reread Abbott's one dimensional take on the powers of femininity, Ether's constant lectures, and the extremely awkward interactions that result as these two verbally spar. It wouldn't be so bad either if Abbott could articulate his points to the same degree as Ether, maybe there'd be something to glean from a discourse like that, but his character is constantly vacillating between "everyman" and "strawman" alternating between playing the determined hero and the petulant child as the plot demands from moment to moment. It's exhausting, and honestly despite Ether's point being generally correct, the message is cheapened when it's bounced off such an obvious sock puppet, the whole debate reads like epistemic theater.
While not quite a doomer book, the image it paints is not a flattering one- Pargin is laying bare his issues with everything, from crowdsourced conspiracy and misinformation to the toxic effect of social media and the internet on interpersonal relationships. We're addicted to our screens, addicted to outrage, and it feels like some shadowy cabal of billionaires is trying to erode our faith in humanity and transform us from people into subscribers. I can't say I disagree with any of the talking points conceptually but I personally hate it when books preach at me through character dialogue, and that's how 90% of the commentary is delivered. What makes it particularly offensive here is that the plot is effectively delivering the same message! The double dose of rhetoric really beats you over the head with the messaging, choking what would otherwise be a very entertaining and thought provoking thriller narrative.
Generally this is a fun read with some interesting information about how online conspiracies are built and perpetuated, but this is absolutely dating itself. You may or may not get turned off by the overtly rhetorical style, and while the characters are flawed and unlikable they do grow along their arc, no matter how manufactured that growth may feel at times. Honestly the last fifth of the book is worth the slog, it's wacky and wild, and while you do eventually find out what's in the box that's not the only reveal in store by the end.
Book Club For Jan - I am behind on both the book club and on these reviews, life's just been very busy since the holidays
___
No looking inside the box.
No asking what is inside of it
No telling anyone where they are going.
Black Box is really just one massive red haring, a wild goose chase of a novel. Abbott (our male protagonist and Lyft driver) meets Ether (our female protagonist) for what he believes is a typical Lyft fare that's anything but. Ether offers him a life changing sum of money to transport her and her mysterious black box across the country, from California to DC. Abbott is not Ether's first choice, she's been hired to transport the box under condition of secrecy but she's out of options to meet her deadline and her mission is further complicated by dodging the pursuit of a mysterious biker. Unfortunately for Ether she couldn't have picked a worse driver, as Abbott is a sort of minor Twitch celebrity- his chat so alerted by his change in schedule and the involvement of a woman so as to kick off a Reddit manhunt in search of him. The hunt for Abbott quickly evolves into a rabid conspiracy revolving around Ether, a retired FBI agent, and what exactly is in the black box of doom.
I'd describe Black Box as a true 21st century novel, laden heavy with references to the current day- Reddit, Bitcoin, even commissioned furry art, it runs the referential gamut and opines broadly on the impact of the internet and social media on society. The premise is great: equal parts the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers and a classic American road trip comedy, the story serves as vehicle for Pargin's opinions on the toxic influence of the internet on the human species. It's a bizarre tonal mix, on the one hand you've got some fairly heartfelt and broadly accurate critiques on modern society and on the other hand you've got Abbott chasing down rabbits down the side of Route 66. When you consider that road tripping across the US is a boring and desolate drive broken up by occasional moments of danger and entertainment the structure of the book makes sense, unfortunately that means the book winds up being more social commentary than actual plot. It's very fun whenever the plot is progressing, but mainly it's Ether lecturing for 300 out of 400 pages.
I really found myself powering through the middle of the book, that's largely because the more I learned about Abbott and Ether, the more I started to hate them. Abbott, the modern anxious every-man happens to have some problematic opinions about women- and he's extremely vocal about it. Conversely Ether has had something like a modern spiritual awakening and cannot help but to lecture Abbott about the wonders of the modern age and the importance of believing in the inherent good of your fellow man. These two are locked in a car for 2,310 miles and so are you the reader, so you get to read and reread Abbott's one dimensional take on the powers of femininity, Ether's constant lectures, and the extremely awkward interactions that result as these two verbally spar. It wouldn't be so bad either if Abbott could articulate his points to the same degree as Ether, maybe there'd be something to glean from a discourse like that, but his character is constantly vacillating between "everyman" and "strawman" alternating between playing the determined hero and the petulant child as the plot demands from moment to moment. It's exhausting, and honestly despite Ether's point being generally correct, the message is cheapened when it's bounced off such an obvious sock puppet, the whole debate reads like epistemic theater.
While not quite a doomer book, the image it paints is not a flattering one- Pargin is laying bare his issues with everything, from crowdsourced conspiracy and misinformation to the toxic effect of social media and the internet on interpersonal relationships. We're addicted to our screens, addicted to outrage, and it feels like some shadowy cabal of billionaires is trying to erode our faith in humanity and transform us from people into subscribers. I can't say I disagree with any of the talking points conceptually but I personally hate it when books preach at me through character dialogue, and that's how 90% of the commentary is delivered. What makes it particularly offensive here is that the plot is effectively delivering the same message! The double dose of rhetoric really beats you over the head with the messaging, choking what would otherwise be a very entertaining and thought provoking thriller narrative.
Generally this is a fun read with some interesting information about how online conspiracies are built and perpetuated, but this is absolutely dating itself. You may or may not get turned off by the overtly rhetorical style, and while the characters are flawed and unlikable they do grow along their arc, no matter how manufactured that growth may feel at times. Honestly the last fifth of the book is worth the slog, it's wacky and wild, and while you do eventually find out what's in the box that's not the only reveal in store by the end.
This is my second foray into “published” fan fiction and I feel short-changed. The description seemed right up my alley but I am realizing that the sort of people who write fan fiction really love getting lost in the weeds. I read the omnibus 2200 page epub not realizing that this series was broken up into smaller more digestible releases, so this is a review of the series as a whole. It hardly matters since this is basically all one story. The arcs aren't really distinct from each other, and this whole story takes place in the same timeframe as The Sorcerer's Stone.
This is a Rationalist take on Harry Potter. What that means in practice is that Harry in this series is a child prodigy raised by a muggle professor, and as such is highly educated and possesses an adult understanding of the world around him. His behavior, personality, and thought process are significantly divergent from the original work. We largely follow the plot and setup of The Sorcerer's Stone but there are minor differences in the setup alongside the largescale changes to characters.
There is a lot of the scientific method, a lot of decision theory, and a lot of ethical debate and philosophy in this book. This story is written by a self-taught but by all accounts legitimate scientist/researcher who is using Harry Potter as a medium to talk about his area of expertise. This author is not a novelist and you can tell. This book is really leaning hard on the framing and story beats of the original while at the same time actively dismantling that structure. The parts where he is making up a “brand new story” are interesting but are lacking when it comes to prose and polish. His story beats are logical and easy to follow but lack any of the punch and drama that come with OG HP.
The draw here is seeing how a “smart” Harry would have dealt with the challenges he faced at age 11. He makes different choices with his friends, he reads into the power structure of the wizarding world early on, and he is constantly trying to introduce science and the scientific method into the magic system. Watching Harry pick apart problems and plots in two or three chapters that were sustained throughout the entire original series is pretty satisfying in its own way. There's also a Sagan-esque quality to this whole thing; Harry introduces and applies various models of logical and rationalist thought/problem-solving. Through hypotheticals and examples, there's a real effort made to explain the rationalist worldview and philosophy. What is best about this book is the logical reordering of events. Despite how bogged down this fic is, it does stick to its own rules and maintains consistency as events play out - though it does cheat a little with small details and tweaks to the setup (For example: Draco's mom is presumed dead for much of this story and it does factor into his motivations and decision making)
There are hiccups. Science and reason don't map onto the Harry Potter universe very well, a lot of Rowling's world is just silly nonsense at its core. Taking the rationalist approach means that everything needs to be logically consistent and explained, but the world of Harry Potter is intrinsically irrational. Thanks to that incongruity there is way more hypothesis and speculation in this book than there needs to be. Maybe some readers liked the conjecture and structure that was added to the magic system here (because I will admit the lack of structure did bother me in the original) but I did not and it choked the pacing something fierce.
I finished this work only to see the complete version of events. All things told I didn't like this series, and a lot of it has to do with this version of Harry (honestly I didn't like any of the altered cast, but it all flows from this Harry). He seriously lacks the charm of the original; this oddly aged-up Harry man/child thing that is the main character really put me off. He got on my nerves from the outset; the way this Harry speaks to people early on is so unnatural and condescending. What really got my goat was his multi-person inner dialogue and his “mysterious dark side” alter-personality, the whole thing reads like bad manga to me. The further the story goes the more “Eighth Grader Syndrome” gets injected into his personality and I think by the halfway point I'd totally written him off and considered dropping the novel. There is an explanation provided by the story, Harry's scar horcrux imprints a part of Voldemort's personality rather than merely establishing a psychic link like in the original. It's a plausible explanation for this whole telling of events but man is it lame. I'm not trying to be a weeb by calling this out either, there is a distinct and unwelcome anime/anime-trope slant to this whole thing and it spoiled any sort of atmosphere or tonal consistency for me.
This is HP nerdcore and if you aren't a serious head then I recommend skipping this one. If you want to know what happens do yourself a favor and read the Wikipedia summary instead.
TL;DR: “smart” Harry Potter, an 11-year-old boy genius uses the powers of science and rational thinking to speed run the plot of the original series. This is a quality rewrite but it is also nerdy, dense, and stilted.
This is my second foray into “published” fan fiction and I feel short-changed. The description seemed right up my alley but I am realizing that the sort of people who write fan fiction really love getting lost in the weeds. I read the omnibus 2200 page epub not realizing that this series was broken up into smaller more digestible releases, so this is a review of the series as a whole. It hardly matters since this is basically all one story. The arcs aren't really distinct from each other, and this whole story takes place in the same timeframe as The Sorcerer's Stone.
This is a Rationalist take on Harry Potter. What that means in practice is that Harry in this series is a child prodigy raised by a muggle professor, and as such is highly educated and possesses an adult understanding of the world around him. His behavior, personality, and thought process are significantly divergent from the original work. We largely follow the plot and setup of The Sorcerer's Stone but there are minor differences in the setup alongside the largescale changes to characters.
There is a lot of the scientific method, a lot of decision theory, and a lot of ethical debate and philosophy in this book. This story is written by a self-taught but by all accounts legitimate scientist/researcher who is using Harry Potter as a medium to talk about his area of expertise. This author is not a novelist and you can tell. This book is really leaning hard on the framing and story beats of the original while at the same time actively dismantling that structure. The parts where he is making up a “brand new story” are interesting but are lacking when it comes to prose and polish. His story beats are logical and easy to follow but lack any of the punch and drama that come with OG HP.
The draw here is seeing how a “smart” Harry would have dealt with the challenges he faced at age 11. He makes different choices with his friends, he reads into the power structure of the wizarding world early on, and he is constantly trying to introduce science and the scientific method into the magic system. Watching Harry pick apart problems and plots in two or three chapters that were sustained throughout the entire original series is pretty satisfying in its own way. There's also a Sagan-esque quality to this whole thing; Harry introduces and applies various models of logical and rationalist thought/problem-solving. Through hypotheticals and examples, there's a real effort made to explain the rationalist worldview and philosophy. What is best about this book is the logical reordering of events. Despite how bogged down this fic is, it does stick to its own rules and maintains consistency as events play out - though it does cheat a little with small details and tweaks to the setup (For example: Draco's mom is presumed dead for much of this story and it does factor into his motivations and decision making)
There are hiccups. Science and reason don't map onto the Harry Potter universe very well, a lot of Rowling's world is just silly nonsense at its core. Taking the rationalist approach means that everything needs to be logically consistent and explained, but the world of Harry Potter is intrinsically irrational. Thanks to that incongruity there is way more hypothesis and speculation in this book than there needs to be. Maybe some readers liked the conjecture and structure that was added to the magic system here (because I will admit the lack of structure did bother me in the original) but I did not and it choked the pacing something fierce.
I finished this work only to see the complete version of events. All things told I didn't like this series, and a lot of it has to do with this version of Harry (honestly I didn't like any of the altered cast, but it all flows from this Harry). He seriously lacks the charm of the original; this oddly aged-up Harry man/child thing that is the main character really put me off. He got on my nerves from the outset; the way this Harry speaks to people early on is so unnatural and condescending. What really got my goat was his multi-person inner dialogue and his “mysterious dark side” alter-personality, the whole thing reads like bad manga to me. The further the story goes the more “Eighth Grader Syndrome” gets injected into his personality and I think by the halfway point I'd totally written him off and considered dropping the novel. There is an explanation provided by the story, Harry's scar horcrux imprints a part of Voldemort's personality rather than merely establishing a psychic link like in the original. It's a plausible explanation for this whole telling of events but man is it lame. I'm not trying to be a weeb by calling this out either, there is a distinct and unwelcome anime/anime-trope slant to this whole thing and it spoiled any sort of atmosphere or tonal consistency for me.
This is HP nerdcore and if you aren't a serious head then I recommend skipping this one. If you want to know what happens do yourself a favor and read the Wikipedia summary instead.
TL;DR: “smart” Harry Potter, an 11-year-old boy genius uses the powers of science and rational thinking to speed run the plot of the original series. This is a quality rewrite but it is also nerdy, dense, and stilted.
Beyond Apollo is the starting point for most people when it comes to Malzberg, it's probably his most widely read novel. Told from the perspective of Harry Evans, the sole survivor of a failed two man mission to Venus, Beyond Apollo is a recounting of those events. The heart of the story is about the death of the Captain of the mission, the How and the Why- Was he insane? Was it an accident? Was it self defense? The story is re-told endlessly, the details differing with each re-telling. What results is something fragmentary, the story-telling kaleidoscopic and generally not plot driven, the narrator is possibly (probably) insane and we are strapped along for the ride.
Like most of the Malzberg I've read there is no real resolution. It's never made clear if Harry is the killer, in fact nothing is ever made obvious other than the fact that he is the sole returning member of the mission. Whether it was aliens or murder or self defense, or even if the captain never really existed at all (or if Harry is himself the captain) remain as possibilities by the end. Many of these re-tellings come in the form of interrogations by Forrest (a psychiatrist) about the “truth” of the trip, but also in the form of dream conversations. Harry is obviously scarred by his experience, and is either unwilling or unable to tell us the truth of the experience. The truth itself a subject of meta-textual gamesmanship as Harry and the Captain play a game while on the voyage in which only the telling of absolute truth will make one a winner.
There's also the Malzbergian hallmark of sexual neurosis and ineptitude. A lot of the story seemingly focuses itself on Harry's perceived lack of sexual prowess, and his obsession with the Captain's sex life and virility. There's a distinctly gay undercurrent/slant to everything, Harry's sexual dysfunction is painstakingly detailed as chapters vacillate between moments of sexual disappointment with his wife, his impotence as a result of his training, and his hypersexual observations of the Captain. It's a little much- but I can't say that it doesn't serve the story, as it's used to flesh out Harry's character and psychosis and underpins the satire.
That's right, on-top of all of that this novel is a satire critiquing the space program- something fairly unique in the bounds of SF, where mankind's grasping of the stars is typically glorified. If there's one real continuous narrative thread in this book it's the distinct anti-space stance that the developments take. To borrow the words of the novel the space program is painted as a hyper-masculine system that makes machines out of men, explicitly stated during sex with his wife: "We have been geared for efficiency. I begin to fuck her like a proper astronaut." The message seeming that the American obsession with space is ultimately pointless and masturbatory. I cannot fail to note that this was published in 1972, the year which marked the cancellation of the Apollo program, and one of two books about astronauts that Malzberg published after being asked to resign as the editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin in 1969 because of a critical editorial he wrote about the NASA space program.
I think the primary appeal of the novel is coming in its form and prose. I've never read anything formulated quite like this, it's a stand out among the other new-wave giants. This novel is fragmentary and experimental, with a plot that never resolves- something heavily postmodern and inventive in its approach. This book can be a disconcerting and tedious exercise to read, it's definitely not for everyone, and while I typically like inventive structures the lack of resolution is something I didn't much care for. I'm also decidedly in the NASA-good camp so I didn't much relish him shitting all over the space program. That said, I can see genius at work here, and I can appreciate the immense talent on display even if the book didn't cater to my particular tastes.
Beyond Apollo is the starting point for most people when it comes to Malzberg, it's probably his most widely read novel. Told from the perspective of Harry Evans, the sole survivor of a failed two man mission to Venus, Beyond Apollo is a recounting of those events. The heart of the story is about the death of the Captain of the mission, the How and the Why- Was he insane? Was it an accident? Was it self defense? The story is re-told endlessly, the details differing with each re-telling. What results is something fragmentary, the story-telling kaleidoscopic and generally not plot driven, the narrator is possibly (probably) insane and we are strapped along for the ride.
Like most of the Malzberg I've read there is no real resolution. It's never made clear if Harry is the killer, in fact nothing is ever made obvious other than the fact that he is the sole returning member of the mission. Whether it was aliens or murder or self defense, or even if the captain never really existed at all (or if Harry is himself the captain) remain as possibilities by the end. Many of these re-tellings come in the form of interrogations by Forrest (a psychiatrist) about the “truth” of the trip, but also in the form of dream conversations. Harry is obviously scarred by his experience, and is either unwilling or unable to tell us the truth of the experience. The truth itself a subject of meta-textual gamesmanship as Harry and the Captain play a game while on the voyage in which only the telling of absolute truth will make one a winner.
There's also the Malzbergian hallmark of sexual neurosis and ineptitude. A lot of the story seemingly focuses itself on Harry's perceived lack of sexual prowess, and his obsession with the Captain's sex life and virility. There's a distinctly gay undercurrent/slant to everything, Harry's sexual dysfunction is painstakingly detailed as chapters vacillate between moments of sexual disappointment with his wife, his impotence as a result of his training, and his hypersexual observations of the Captain. It's a little much- but I can't say that it doesn't serve the story, as it's used to flesh out Harry's character and psychosis and underpins the satire.
That's right, on-top of all of that this novel is a satire critiquing the space program- something fairly unique in the bounds of SF, where mankind's grasping of the stars is typically glorified. If there's one real continuous narrative thread in this book it's the distinct anti-space stance that the developments take. To borrow the words of the novel the space program is painted as a hyper-masculine system that makes machines out of men, explicitly stated during sex with his wife: "We have been geared for efficiency. I begin to fuck her like a proper astronaut." The message seeming that the American obsession with space is ultimately pointless and masturbatory. I cannot fail to note that this was published in 1972, the year which marked the cancellation of the Apollo program, and one of two books about astronauts that Malzberg published after being asked to resign as the editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin in 1969 because of a critical editorial he wrote about the NASA space program.
I think the primary appeal of the novel is coming in its form and prose. I've never read anything formulated quite like this, it's a stand out among the other new-wave giants. This novel is fragmentary and experimental, with a plot that never resolves- something heavily postmodern and inventive in its approach. This book can be a disconcerting and tedious exercise to read, it's definitely not for everyone, and while I typically like inventive structures the lack of resolution is something I didn't much care for. I'm also decidedly in the NASA-good camp so I didn't much relish him shitting all over the space program. That said, I can see genius at work here, and I can appreciate the immense talent on display even if the book didn't cater to my particular tastes.
Beyond Apollo is the starting point for most people when it comes to Malzberg, it's probably his most widely read novel. Told from the perspective of Harry Evans, the sole survivor of a failed two man mission to Venus, Beyond Apollo is a recounting of those events. The heart of the story is about the death of the Captain of the mission, the How and the Why- Was he insane? Was it an accident? Was it self defense? The story is re-told endlessly, the details differing with each re-telling. What results is something fragmentary, the story-telling kaleidoscopic and generally not plot driven, the narrator is possibly (probably) insane and we are strapped along for the ride.
Like most of the Malzberg I've read there is no real resolution. It's never made clear if Harry is the killer, in fact nothing is ever made obvious other than the fact that he is the sole returning member of the mission. Whether it was aliens or murder or self defense, or even if the captain never really existed at all (or if Harry is himself the captain). Many of these re-tellings come in the form of interrogations by Forrest (a psychiatrist) about the “truth” of the trip, but also in the form of dream conversations. Harry is obviously scarred by his experience, and is either unwilling or unable to tell us the truth of the experience. The truth itself a subject of meta-textual gamesmanship as Harry and the Captain play a game while on the voyage in which only the telling of absolute truth will make one a winner.
There's also the Malzbergian hallmark of sexual neurosis and ineptitude. A lot of the story seemingly focuses itself on Harry's perceived lack of sexual prowess, and his obsession with the Captain's sex life and virility. There's a distinctly gay undercurrent/slant to everything, Harry's sexual dysfunction is painstakingly detailed as chapters vacillate between moments of sexual disappointment with his wife, his impotence as a result of his training, and his hypersexual observations of the Captain. It's a little much- but I can't say that it doesn't serve the story, as it's used to flesh out Harry's character and psychosis and underpins the satire.
That's right, on-top of all of that this novel is a satire critiquing the space program- something fairly unique in the bounds of SF, where mankind's grasping of the stars is typically glorified. If there's one real continuous narrative thread in this book it's the distinct anti-space stance that the developments take. To borrow the words of the novel the space program is painted as a hyper-masculine system that makes machines out of men, explicitly stated during sex with his wife: "We have been geared for efficiency. I begin to fuck her like a proper astronaut." The message seeming that the American obsession with space is ultimately rendered pointless and masturbatory. I cannot fail to note that this was published in 1972, the year which marked the cancellation of the Apollo program, and one of two books about astronauts that Malzberg published after being asked to resign as the editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin in 1969 because of a critical editorial he wrote about the NASA space program.
I think the primary appeal of the novel is coming in its form and prose. I've never read anything formulated quite like this, it's a stand out among the other new-wave giants. This novel is fragmentary and experimental, with a plot that never resolves- something heavily postmodern and inventive in its approach. This book can be a disconcerting and tedious exercise to read, it's definitely not for everyone, and while I typically like inventive structures the lack of resolution is something I didn't much care for. I'm also decidedly in the NASA-good camp so I didn't much relish him shitting all over the space program. That said, I can see genius at work here, and I can appreciate the immense talent on display even if the book didn't cater to my particular tastes.
Beyond Apollo is the starting point for most people when it comes to Malzberg, it's probably his most widely read novel. Told from the perspective of Harry Evans, the sole survivor of a failed two man mission to Venus, Beyond Apollo is a recounting of those events. The heart of the story is about the death of the Captain of the mission, the How and the Why- Was he insane? Was it an accident? Was it self defense? The story is re-told endlessly, the details differing with each re-telling. What results is something fragmentary, the story-telling kaleidoscopic and generally not plot driven, the narrator is possibly (probably) insane and we are strapped along for the ride.
Like most of the Malzberg I've read there is no real resolution. It's never made clear if Harry is the killer, in fact nothing is ever made obvious other than the fact that he is the sole returning member of the mission. Whether it was aliens or murder or self defense, or even if the captain never really existed at all (or if Harry is himself the captain). Many of these re-tellings come in the form of interrogations by Forrest (a psychiatrist) about the “truth” of the trip, but also in the form of dream conversations. Harry is obviously scarred by his experience, and is either unwilling or unable to tell us the truth of the experience. The truth itself a subject of meta-textual gamesmanship as Harry and the Captain play a game while on the voyage in which only the telling of absolute truth will make one a winner.
There's also the Malzbergian hallmark of sexual neurosis and ineptitude. A lot of the story seemingly focuses itself on Harry's perceived lack of sexual prowess, and his obsession with the Captain's sex life and virility. There's a distinctly gay undercurrent/slant to everything, Harry's sexual dysfunction is painstakingly detailed as chapters vacillate between moments of sexual disappointment with his wife, his impotence as a result of his training, and his hypersexual observations of the Captain. It's a little much- but I can't say that it doesn't serve the story, as it's used to flesh out Harry's character and psychosis and underpins the satire.
That's right, on-top of all of that this novel is a satire critiquing the space program- something fairly unique in the bounds of SF, where mankind's grasping of the stars is typically glorified. If there's one real continuous narrative thread in this book it's the distinct anti-space stance that the developments take. To borrow the words of the novel the space program is painted as a hyper-masculine system that makes machines out of men, explicitly stated during sex with his wife: "We have been geared for efficiency. I begin to fuck her like a proper astronaut." The message seeming that the American obsession with space is ultimately rendered pointless and masturbatory. I cannot fail to note that this was published in 1972, the year which marked the cancellation of the Apollo program, and one of two books about astronauts that Malzberg published after being asked to resign as the editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin in 1969 because of a critical editorial he wrote about the NASA space program.
I think the primary appeal of the novel is coming in its form and prose. I've never read anything formulated quite like this, it's a stand out among the other new-wave giants. This novel is fragmentary and experimental, with a plot that never resolves- something heavily postmodern and inventive in its approach. This book can be a disconcerting and tedious exercise to read, it's definitely not for everyone, and while I typically like inventive structures the lack of resolution is something I didn't much care for. I'm also decidedly in the NASA-good camp so I didn't much relish him shitting all over the space program. That said, I can see genius at work here, and I can appreciate the immense talent on display even if the book didn't cater to my particular tastes.
Beyond Apollo is the starting point for most people when it comes to Malzberg, it's probably his most widely read novel. Told from the perspective of Harry Evans, the sole survivor of a failed two man mission to Venus, Beyond Apollo is a recounting of those events. The heart of the story is about the death of the Captain of the mission, the How and the Why- Was he insane? Was it an accident? Was it self defense? The story is re-told endlessly, the details differing with each re-telling. What results is something fragmentary, the story-telling kaleidoscopic and generally not plot driven, the narrator is possibly (probably) insane and we are strapped along for the ride.
Like most of the Malzberg I've read there is no real resolution. It's never made clear if Harry is the killer, in fact nothing is ever made obvious other than the fact that he is the sole returning member of the mission. Whether it was aliens or murder or self defense, or even if the captain never really existed at all (or if Harry is himself the captain) remain as possibilities by the end. Many of these re-tellings come in the form of interrogations by Forrest (a psychiatrist) about the “truth” of the trip, but also in the form of dream conversations. Harry is obviously scarred by his experience, and is either unwilling or unable to tell us the truth of the experience. The truth itself a subject of meta-textual gamesmanship as Harry and the Captain play a game while on the voyage in which only the telling of absolute truth will make one a winner.
There's also the Malzbergian hallmark of sexual neurosis and ineptitude. A lot of the story seemingly focuses itself on Harry's perceived lack of sexual prowess, and his obsession with the Captain's sex life and virility. There's a distinctly gay undercurrent/slant to everything, Harry's sexual dysfunction is painstakingly detailed as chapters vacillate between moments of sexual disappointment with his wife, his impotence as a result of his training, and his hypersexual observations of the Captain. It's a little much- but I can't say that it doesn't serve the story, as it's used to flesh out Harry's character and psychosis and underpins the satire.
That's right, on-top of all of that this novel is a satire critiquing the space program- something fairly unique in the bounds of SF, where mankind's grasping of the stars is typically glorified. If there's one real continuous narrative thread in this book it's the distinct anti-space stance that the developments take. To borrow the words of the novel the space program is painted as a hyper-masculine system that makes machines out of men, explicitly stated during sex with his wife: "We have been geared for efficiency. I begin to fuck her like a proper astronaut." The message seeming that the American obsession with space is ultimately rendered pointless and masturbatory. I cannot fail to note that this was published in 1972, the year which marked the cancellation of the Apollo program, and one of two books about astronauts that Malzberg published after being asked to resign as the editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin in 1969 because of a critical editorial he wrote about the NASA space program.
I think the primary appeal of the novel is coming in its form and prose. I've never read anything formulated quite like this, it's a stand out among the other new-wave giants. This novel is fragmentary and experimental, with a plot that never resolves- something heavily postmodern and inventive in its approach. This book can be a disconcerting and tedious exercise to read, it's definitely not for everyone, and while I typically like inventive structures the lack of resolution is something I didn't much care for. I'm also decidedly in the NASA-good camp so I didn't much relish him shitting all over the space program. That said, I can see genius at work here, and I can appreciate the immense talent on display even if the book didn't cater to my particular tastes.
Beyond Apollo is the starting point for most people when it comes to Malzberg, it's probably his most widely read novel. Told from the perspective of Harry Evans, the sole survivor of a failed two man mission to Venus, Beyond Apollo is a recounting of those events. The heart of the story is about the death of the Captain of the mission, the How and the Why- Was he insane? Was it an accident? Was it self defense? The story is re-told endlessly, the details differing with each re-telling. What results is something fragmentary, the story-telling kaleidoscopic and generally not plot driven, the narrator is possibly (probably) insane and we are strapped along for the ride.
Like most of the Malzberg I've read there is no real resolution. It's never made clear if Harry is the killer, in fact nothing is ever made obvious other than the fact that he is the sole returning member of the mission. Whether it was aliens or murder or self defense, or even if the captain never really existed at all (or if Harry is himself the captain) remain as possibilities by the end. Many of these re-tellings come in the form of interrogations by Forrest (a psychiatrist) about the “truth” of the trip, but also in the form of dream conversations. Harry is obviously scarred by his experience, and is either unwilling or unable to tell us the truth of the experience. The truth itself a subject of meta-textual gamesmanship as Harry and the Captain play a game while on the voyage in which only the telling of absolute truth will make one a winner.
There's also the Malzbergian hallmark of sexual neurosis and ineptitude. A lot of the story seemingly focuses itself on Harry's perceived lack of sexual prowess, and his obsession with the Captain's sex life and virility. There's a distinctly gay undercurrent/slant to everything, Harry's sexual dysfunction is painstakingly detailed as chapters vacillate between moments of sexual disappointment with his wife, his impotence as a result of his training, and his hypersexual observations of the Captain. It's a little much- but I can't say that it doesn't serve the story, as it's used to flesh out Harry's character and psychosis and underpins the satire.
That's right, on-top of all of that this novel is a satire critiquing the space program- something fairly unique in the bounds of SF, where mankind's grasping of the stars is typically glorified. If there's one real continuous narrative thread in this book it's the distinct anti-space stance that the developments take. To borrow the words of the novel the space program is painted as a hyper-masculine system that makes machines out of men, explicitly stated during sex with his wife: "We have been geared for efficiency. I begin to fuck her like a proper astronaut." The message seeming that the American obsession with space is ultimately rendered pointless and masturbatory. I cannot fail to note that this was published in 1972, the year which marked the cancellation of the Apollo program, and one of two books about astronauts that Malzberg published after being asked to resign as the editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin in 1969 because of a critical editorial he wrote about the NASA space program.
I think the primary appeal of the novel is coming in its form and prose. I've never read anything formulated quite like this, it's a stand out among the other new-wave giants. This novel is fragmentary and experimental, with a plot that never resolves- something heavily postmodern and inventive in its approach. This book can be a disconcerting and tedious exercise to read, it's definitely not for everyone, and while I typically like inventive structures the lack of resolution is something I didn't much care for. I'm also decidedly in the NASA-good camp so I didn't much relish him shitting all over the space program. That said, I can see genius at work here, and I can appreciate the immense talent on display even if the book didn't cater to my particular tastes.
Answered a promptWhat are your favorite books of all time?
