“All You Zombies,” by Robert Heinlein- it’s probably the best mind-blowing time travel paradox story ever written. (Which is saying something.)
What’s interesting, and what I didn’t really pick up until this reading, is the point of the title. The protagonist knows that his circumstances are really unusual, but he’s accustomed to them- what baffles him is how everyone else manages get along.
It’s bizarre to take his point- his life, logically, actually does make sense. It’s our lives, causally sloppy and indeterminate, that require a great effort of explanation.
Showing posts with label Heinlein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heinlein. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The Accidental Time Machine
Joe Haldeman's latest novel, The Accidental Time Machine, is a book perfectly described by its title. Graduate student Matt Fuller accidentally builds a graviton meter that also functions as a time machine, with two major limitations:
1) It only goes forward, not backward;
2) Each jump through time is twelve times longer than the last.
The machine starts out jumping a few seconds into the future; by the time Fuller's ready to try a full-fledged experiment, with himself along for the ride, it takes him a month forward.
The machine isn't really controllable, or navigatable. The only thing it's indisputably good for is escaping your present time; which is good, because Fuller has a knack for getting into trouble.
This is my first Haldeman novel. It's readable (and it helps that I'm a total sucker for time-travel stories.) Some of the entries are weak: the future period ruled by a fundamentalist theocracy (complete with a holographic Jesus Christ) reminded me intensely of Heinlein's Revolt in 2100.
(Hey, I'm linking myself! That's a triumph of blog depth! Or self-indulgence. Don't answer that.)
The ending is disappointingly incoherent; I have no clear understanding of what happened, and I'm not sure that I'm meant to. It may just be a mystery of unthinkably-advanced science and time-travel weirdness. But I'd at least like to be clear on my unclarity, if that makes any sense.
Come to think of it, the entire plot- invent forward-going time machine, explore the future, get into trouble, keep moving farther ahead- was Poul Anderson's novella "Flight to Forever." Which was, frankly, done a lot better.
But this wasn't too bad. Like I said, I'm a sucker for time-travel.
1) It only goes forward, not backward;
2) Each jump through time is twelve times longer than the last.
The machine starts out jumping a few seconds into the future; by the time Fuller's ready to try a full-fledged experiment, with himself along for the ride, it takes him a month forward.
The machine isn't really controllable, or navigatable. The only thing it's indisputably good for is escaping your present time; which is good, because Fuller has a knack for getting into trouble.
This is my first Haldeman novel. It's readable (and it helps that I'm a total sucker for time-travel stories.) Some of the entries are weak: the future period ruled by a fundamentalist theocracy (complete with a holographic Jesus Christ) reminded me intensely of Heinlein's Revolt in 2100.
(Hey, I'm linking myself! That's a triumph of blog depth! Or self-indulgence. Don't answer that.)
The ending is disappointingly incoherent; I have no clear understanding of what happened, and I'm not sure that I'm meant to. It may just be a mystery of unthinkably-advanced science and time-travel weirdness. But I'd at least like to be clear on my unclarity, if that makes any sense.
Come to think of it, the entire plot- invent forward-going time machine, explore the future, get into trouble, keep moving farther ahead- was Poul Anderson's novella "Flight to Forever." Which was, frankly, done a lot better.
But this wasn't too bad. Like I said, I'm a sucker for time-travel.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Improbable Libertarian Revolt
Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a classic sf novel about libertarians revolting against oppressive authority.
The libertarians in question are moon colonists, most of whom were sent there as political criminals (or, I guess, actual criminals) several generations back. So it's a sort of American Revolution parable set in Australia's frontier culture.
The oppressive authority is the Warden, appointed by Earth's government, and accountable only to them. This becomes an intolerable problem when the protagonists learn that the Moon is facing disaster in the coming years, and that (being governed by Earth) the Warden has no incentive to take the hard steps needed to stop it.
The most important revolutionary is a supercomputer named Mike; unknown to anyone but his repairman, Mike has spontaneously gained sentience and a personality. When the repairman joins the revolutionary movement, Mike is carried along with him, and ends up taking charge.
The characters are likeable, and I can see several popular sf concepts being laid out here- most notably, the idea of a national leader who's nothing but a TV simulation.
But what's really interesting in the book is something similar to Asimov's Foundation novels- practical politics is presented as an elaborate intellectual shell game, with brilliant people secretly controlling the course of society through their own cleverness.
In Asimov it was enthralling; but of course I read Asimov years ago. Now, it just seems implausible.
The rebel leaders spend some time talking about the importance of a cell network, since betrayal is inevitable and is the undoing of rebel movements; but once things start happening, nothing seems to come of it. Everyone does what's expected of them, and the only problem is that some of the low-ranking rebels think they should also have a chance at power once the revolution is over. They are shunted harmlessly into a fake government body where they can't get in the way of the real leaders, and they all buy it.
The book is described as "libertarian," which is true in a way; but a very odd way. The Moon colonists aren't libertarian out of any specific doctrine or political principle, but more as a matter of culture. Libertarianism is simply the way things are done up there.
Perhaps that's how libertarianism works best; as a political movement, it will always be prone to the contradictions of power.
The libertarians in question are moon colonists, most of whom were sent there as political criminals (or, I guess, actual criminals) several generations back. So it's a sort of American Revolution parable set in Australia's frontier culture.
The oppressive authority is the Warden, appointed by Earth's government, and accountable only to them. This becomes an intolerable problem when the protagonists learn that the Moon is facing disaster in the coming years, and that (being governed by Earth) the Warden has no incentive to take the hard steps needed to stop it.
The most important revolutionary is a supercomputer named Mike; unknown to anyone but his repairman, Mike has spontaneously gained sentience and a personality. When the repairman joins the revolutionary movement, Mike is carried along with him, and ends up taking charge.
The characters are likeable, and I can see several popular sf concepts being laid out here- most notably, the idea of a national leader who's nothing but a TV simulation.
But what's really interesting in the book is something similar to Asimov's Foundation novels- practical politics is presented as an elaborate intellectual shell game, with brilliant people secretly controlling the course of society through their own cleverness.
In Asimov it was enthralling; but of course I read Asimov years ago. Now, it just seems implausible.
The rebel leaders spend some time talking about the importance of a cell network, since betrayal is inevitable and is the undoing of rebel movements; but once things start happening, nothing seems to come of it. Everyone does what's expected of them, and the only problem is that some of the low-ranking rebels think they should also have a chance at power once the revolution is over. They are shunted harmlessly into a fake government body where they can't get in the way of the real leaders, and they all buy it.
The book is described as "libertarian," which is true in a way; but a very odd way. The Moon colonists aren't libertarian out of any specific doctrine or political principle, but more as a matter of culture. Libertarianism is simply the way things are done up there.
Perhaps that's how libertarianism works best; as a political movement, it will always be prone to the contradictions of power.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
And Now I'm Back.
It was a good week underway- lots of engineering drills, which don't affect me directly.
(I should probably do some kind of biography post, shouldn't I, so this makes some kind of sense. Oh, well. Maybe later.)
The important thing about this underway week is that I had time to finish my latest Heinlein, Revolt in 2100. The revolt is against the theocratic government that's taken hold of the USA, backed by advanced psychology and sociology (and rebelled against by means of the same sciences.)
Not as good as my last two Heinlein novels, but a pretty decent science fiction adventure.
(I should probably do some kind of biography post, shouldn't I, so this makes some kind of sense. Oh, well. Maybe later.)
The important thing about this underway week is that I had time to finish my latest Heinlein, Revolt in 2100. The revolt is against the theocratic government that's taken hold of the USA, backed by advanced psychology and sociology (and rebelled against by means of the same sciences.)
Not as good as my last two Heinlein novels, but a pretty decent science fiction adventure.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Spoiler That Wasn't
One of the big holes in my science-fiction reading is Robert Heinlein. I don't know why; somehow I just never got around to reading him. So I'm trying to make up for lost time.
This week's Heinlein book was The Door Into Summer, an intriguing tale of cats, cryogenic freezing, time travel, and business fraud. I picked it because I love time travel; I'm a total sucker for almost any time travel story.
"The Spoiler That Wasn't" is the cover- which shows a cat, a female, a cryogenic freezer and a bush. Halfway through the book, I looked back at the cover and realized that it had just spoiled the entire plot for me. Grrrrrrr!
... And then I got to the end of the book, and discovered that it hadn't. That the cover, in fact, had no direct relation to the plot at all; it simply pictured several elements in the novel.
(The female, cat, and cryogenic chamber, that is. I have no clue why the bush is there.)
Something similar happened to me when I went to see The Sixth Sense. Someone on an online message board commented that the surprise ending was that the kid's mom had murdered his dad- and that's what prompted his uncanny connection with the dead.
I was really annoyed that the ending had been spoiled for me, went in, watched it- and was taken completely by surprise when the real ending hit. The guy on the message board had been joking, and his spoiler was actually an anti-spoiler: if I hadn't thought that I knew the ending, I would have been trying to figure it out, and I might have succeeded.
This week's Heinlein book was The Door Into Summer, an intriguing tale of cats, cryogenic freezing, time travel, and business fraud. I picked it because I love time travel; I'm a total sucker for almost any time travel story.
"The Spoiler That Wasn't" is the cover- which shows a cat, a female, a cryogenic freezer and a bush. Halfway through the book, I looked back at the cover and realized that it had just spoiled the entire plot for me. Grrrrrrr!
... And then I got to the end of the book, and discovered that it hadn't. That the cover, in fact, had no direct relation to the plot at all; it simply pictured several elements in the novel.
(The female, cat, and cryogenic chamber, that is. I have no clue why the bush is there.)
Something similar happened to me when I went to see The Sixth Sense. Someone on an online message board commented that the surprise ending was that the kid's mom had murdered his dad- and that's what prompted his uncanny connection with the dead.
I was really annoyed that the ending had been spoiled for me, went in, watched it- and was taken completely by surprise when the real ending hit. The guy on the message board had been joking, and his spoiler was actually an anti-spoiler: if I hadn't thought that I knew the ending, I would have been trying to figure it out, and I might have succeeded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
