.NET (306) administrative (42) Ajax (42) AngularJS (2) ASP.NET (146) bicycle (2) books (213) browser (10) C# (139) cars (1) chess (30) CodePlex (11) Coma (8) database (63) deployment (3) Entity Framework (2) essay (120) flash/shockwave (2) flex (1) food (3) friend (2) game (22) idea (5) IIS (8) javascript (86) LInQ (2) Linux (6) management (4) manga (47) misc (736) mobile (1) movies (105) MsAccess (1) murder (2) music (64) mysql (1) news (101) NuGet (1) permanent (1) personal (69) PHP (1) physics (2) picture (356) places (12) politics (15) programming (536) question (2) rant (124) religion (3) science (44) Sharepoint (3) software (60) space (2) T4 (2) technology (13) Test Driven Development (4) translation (2) VB (2) video (106) Visual Studio (45) web design (47) Windows API (8) Windows Forms (3) Windows Server (6) WPF/Silverlight (64) XML (12)

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Dark Universe, by Daniel F. Galouye

Book cover I read about Dark Universe online, in a "best" sci-fi book list from somewhere. Richard Dawkins recommended it as a very good book and one of his favourites. I can see why the book would appeal to Dawkins, perhaps he even read it when he was a child. The idea is that the book is classical pulp fiction; the characters are simple and undeveloped, the logic strained and the science only consistent with the times in which it was written. At first, when I started reading, I was captivated by the world of people living underground after a nuclear apocalypse, but then I started getting more and more annoyed with the leaps of logic and superficial characterisation. I thought it was a book written by a teenager, like Eragon maybe, but instead it was written by a grown man in the 50s. When I learned about this I understood more of why the book existed at all and why people seemed so... stupid and onetracked. The ending, something that almost offended me, not by its quality - which wasn't good to begin with, but by its implications, is classic 1950 "scientific" thinking. The hope of humanity as small minded arrogant assholes.

Bottom line, it is a simple and easy to read book, in a bad way. The science for it is lacking, the characters are simplistic and the plot classic pulp (prince and princess kind of crap). Too bad that a good initial concept was wasted by a mediocre writer in a mediocre time.

No comments: