?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

March Books 2) Learning the World

2) Learning the World, by Ken MacLeod

I don't plan to get into a habit of meta-reviewing, but I have read coalescent and immortalradical here, and ninebelow here, also greengolux's observations, and papersky's praise. I am much more towards the coalescent and papersky end of the spectrum. I really liked it. I thought that it does indeed add something new to the old sf theme of first contact between humans and aliens. It takes the premise of Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky, a book I really didn't like at all, and does it a whole lot better - basically, the aliens on their planet have a society which feels much more like ours than do the humans in the approaching spaceship. I thought the various cultures and subcultures, both human and alien, were convincingly fleshed out. (Planets in sf novels are too often portrayed as having just one culture and one language - in extreme cases, appearing to possess a single time zone.) MacLeod is on top form in both depth and humour in his portrayal of the intellectual shock of the encounter for both humans and aliens.

I did feel the novel had one glaring weakness, shared with most of the classics of the hard sf genre to which it clearly belongs. We find out very little about the characters' inner lives. Much of the human side of the story is conveyed through the blog of a teenage girl, which is frankly much more reminiscent of the author's own blog than of the real thing at the younger end of livejournal; I guess I must be reading more teenage blogs than Ken does (and I don't read them much at all). The human characters jump in and out of bed with each other and suffer little emotional embarrassment; as for the aliens, this is the one respect in which we really don't get inside their heads.

However, it's going on my Hugo nominations list.

Comments

andrewducker
Mar. 5th, 2006 05:29 pm (UTC)
I apologise for any offense I've given. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what it was I said that was arrogant and patronising, so I don't do it again.

I'd agree that the humans are nastier than the Spiders tpp/

It is my recollection that the way the Spiders are portrayed is entirely through the translations of the humans, and given a positive "homely" spin, and that when this is explained to our heroes, the methods given for making the Emergent's friendlier to the spiders are explicitly the same as ones used in the sections of the book pertaining to them.

However, my copy of the book is 450 miles away at the moment, and buried in stacks. I'll have a dig about when I get back.
nwhyte
Mar. 6th, 2006 04:16 pm (UTC)
Andy,

Apology accepted.

I took offense at your introductory sentence, "I think that there's been misreading of ADITS." I would not have minded "I don't agree with your reading of ADITS", since obviously you don't or we wouldn't be having this discussion; but it seemed to me unnecesarily aggressive to say that my reading of it is categorically wrong; and then on top of that, irritatingly arch to not even dare to put it as directly as "You have misread ADITS" but instead say "There has been misreading of ADITS". The initial qualifying statement "I think that..." did help a little, but not enough.

I hope that is clear.

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel