Scan barcode
leonidskies's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
This wasn't really my kind of book. It tries very hard to be literary (and succeeds) and extract meaning from its events (just about manages to pull it out from the end) but I felt overwhelmingly like it didn't quite manage to deliver on its premise.
I didn't like pretty much any of the characters, but particularly disliked the narrator. His interactions with almost everyone - but especially women - tipped over from interesting character work to infuriating relatively easily. Perhaps I'm too young, but I just didn't 'get' his various romantic attachments and non-attachments and felt like the novel slightly ran out of space to deal with that in a way that would have been satisfying. In general, I felt like the most interesting parts were rushed and crammed in at the end, which did make for a good ending after feeling like the prior 20-25 pages weren't going anywhere near resolution.
The impact of Helen as a 'being' fell a little flat for me, though it was what attracted me to the book in the first place. I didn't see the same consciousness in her that the narrator did until the end, at which point it felt retroactive. The moments when she did come out with really interesting statements or observations were some of my favourite parts of the novel, though, and I think her development towards the end was particularly interesting.
That said, I enjoyed the narration and prose. It's not my usual thing, but I found the technobabble (I have no idea how legitimate any of the science was) at the very least possible to parse, and the rest of the writing was fun to roll around in my head. I prefer slightly more direct narration, but it was nice for a change. The concept, too, was really strong, and as someone who likes to think/write about the sci fi part of AI (rather than the technical, LLM side of it, which was also VERY interesting to think about given the current technological climate around "AI").
Not my kind of book. Probably better for people who like more literary fiction/classic sci fi!
The impact of Helen as a 'being' fell a little flat for me, though it was what attracted me to the book in the first place. I didn't see the same consciousness in her that the narrator did until the end, at which point it felt retroactive. The moments when she did come out with really interesting statements or observations were some of my favourite parts of the novel, though, and I think her development towards the end was particularly interesting.
That said, I enjoyed the narration and prose. It's not my usual thing, but I found the technobabble (I have no idea how legitimate any of the science was) at the very least possible to parse, and the rest of the writing was fun to roll around in my head. I prefer slightly more direct narration, but it was nice for a change. The concept, too, was really strong, and as someone who likes to think/write about the sci fi part of AI (rather than the technical, LLM side of it, which was also VERY interesting to think about given the current technological climate around "AI").
Not my kind of book. Probably better for people who like more literary fiction/classic sci fi!
bentrevett's review against another edition
3.0
Basically a Richard powers autobiography. Liked the stuff at the university. Cared less about his relationship history.
bb001's review against another edition
emotional
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
ketelet's review against another edition
4.0
hate the character richard powers, love the concept of the novel - so intricate and beautiful (memory, humanness, consciousness, loss, love)
profpeaton's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
dietsmarrissjohnson's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
jenhawkins's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars — Only Richard Powers can write a self-titled protagonist without it becoming a congratulatory exhibition. This novel, like many of his works, tells many congruent stories that mostly revolve around his mounting interest in developing a machine that can learn and critically analyze literature & a recollection of his formative relationship with a woman we only know as C. At some moments, I find myself swimming in neuroscience jargon that flies right over my head. Other times, I feel a tug at my heart as Powers’ story unfolds; his characters are so impressively human. It’s Powers at his most lofty, but he doesn’t ask you to stay. “Galatea 2.2” feels like a novel that had to be written, and whether you stick around to learn like his machine becomes your conscious choice.
aleffert's review against another edition
5.0
This book is good good good. It's about a lot of things from writing novels to neural networks. But probably the most important theme is an age old question: Why even bother?
The premise is that a novelist, sharing a name with the author and certain similarities in back story, is doing a year at a fictionalized research lab at what is apparently actually UIUC. He gets involved in a bet to construct a machine that can convincingly discuss literature.
But it's mainly about the narrator picking up the shards of his life in the wake of the devastating collapse of a long term relationship. Most of the major characters have had some sort of traumatic relationship experience that they're dealing with. Each an example (though not necessarily a good one) of how to continue, what people live for. And then there's one example that doesn't. Actually, that part of the conclusion felt sort of weak, if structurally necessary.
Some of the characters and places don't get names: In B. with C. It's not totally clear to me which things get to have names and which don't, but it felt very purposeful in the same way that it felt like every character and scene served the plot. There was a sort of mechanicalness to its construction, but I am kind of a sucker for that.
Some of the computer science is nonsense, but that's like complaining about the science in frankenstein. This is a story about making life, not about the tragic failure of connectionism as a research programme.
Anyway, it takes a while to really get going, but it works wonderfully.
The premise is that a novelist, sharing a name with the author and certain similarities in back story, is doing a year at a fictionalized research lab at what is apparently actually UIUC. He gets involved in a bet to construct a machine that can convincingly discuss literature.
But it's mainly about the narrator picking up the shards of his life in the wake of the devastating collapse of a long term relationship. Most of the major characters have had some sort of traumatic relationship experience that they're dealing with. Each an example (though not necessarily a good one) of how to continue, what people live for. And then there's one example that doesn't. Actually, that part of the conclusion felt sort of weak, if structurally necessary.
Some of the characters and places don't get names: In B. with C. It's not totally clear to me which things get to have names and which don't, but it felt very purposeful in the same way that it felt like every character and scene served the plot. There was a sort of mechanicalness to its construction, but I am kind of a sucker for that.
Some of the computer science is nonsense, but that's like complaining about the science in frankenstein. This is a story about making life, not about the tragic failure of connectionism as a research programme.
Anyway, it takes a while to really get going, but it works wonderfully.
dotorsojak's review against another edition
3.0
2.8 stars
This is Richard Powers’s (RP) 5th novel, seemingly autobiographical, full of ideas and allusions, but also full of wandering tangents. It’s a book that ought to have appealed to me, but didn’t much.
The main character is an ex-physics student turned author, adept in some aspects of computers, but also quite foolish and naive. As the book begins, that main character (and first person narrator) named Richard Powers, but usually called “Ricky” or “Beau” or “Marcel” according to his interlocutor, has returned to the town of his undergraduate alma mater “U” (Urbana, IL) as a writer in residence/fellow at an institute for advance study there. He meets scientists and gets involved with a reclusive AI scientist named Lentz. Most of the book deals with his and Lentz’s construction of a computer based being who will be able, at the end of one year, to answer a masters level comprehensive literary exam. The other main part of the book consists of RP giving his auto-biographical narrator long flashbacks to his first love, who is named “C.” This part of the novel I found tedious, and C never came alive for me. Then at the end of the book, Ricky falls for a young graduate student named “A.” This character is introduced late and never gets much to do in the novel.
I did not think that RP was successful in making the various threads of the narrative twist together into one braid. I also found his style off-putting. Lots of big words, lots of oxymoronic sentences, whole paragraphs that seemed deliberately obtuse. And normally I think I’m attracted to this sort of writing. I tend much more to appreciate the “mandarin” style—as Cyril Connolly called it—than the plain, vernacular style that was characteristic of much of American writing of the mid 20th century. But I found RP’s way of writing show-offy and difficult for the sake of difficulty.
The last 50 pages of the book picked up a bit of steam and there was at least some plot suspense. However, ultimately, I was disappointed in the way RP resolved the computer based AI being. Abrupt to say the least. The narrator references FRANKENSTEIN in the book and I think RP would’ve done well to have spent more time on the AI “monster” than on the various self involved longueurs the narrator indulges in.
Overall, a disappointing book from this celebrated author. I’m suddenly a lot less interested in THE OVERSTORY.
This is Richard Powers’s (RP) 5th novel, seemingly autobiographical, full of ideas and allusions, but also full of wandering tangents. It’s a book that ought to have appealed to me, but didn’t much.
The main character is an ex-physics student turned author, adept in some aspects of computers, but also quite foolish and naive. As the book begins, that main character (and first person narrator) named Richard Powers, but usually called “Ricky” or “Beau” or “Marcel” according to his interlocutor, has returned to the town of his undergraduate alma mater “U” (Urbana, IL) as a writer in residence/fellow at an institute for advance study there. He meets scientists and gets involved with a reclusive AI scientist named Lentz. Most of the book deals with his and Lentz’s construction of a computer based being who will be able, at the end of one year, to answer a masters level comprehensive literary exam. The other main part of the book consists of RP giving his auto-biographical narrator long flashbacks to his first love, who is named “C.” This part of the novel I found tedious, and C never came alive for me. Then at the end of the book, Ricky falls for a young graduate student named “A.” This character is introduced late and never gets much to do in the novel.
I did not think that RP was successful in making the various threads of the narrative twist together into one braid. I also found his style off-putting. Lots of big words, lots of oxymoronic sentences, whole paragraphs that seemed deliberately obtuse. And normally I think I’m attracted to this sort of writing. I tend much more to appreciate the “mandarin” style—as Cyril Connolly called it—than the plain, vernacular style that was characteristic of much of American writing of the mid 20th century. But I found RP’s way of writing show-offy and difficult for the sake of difficulty.
The last 50 pages of the book picked up a bit of steam and there was at least some plot suspense. However, ultimately, I was disappointed in the way RP resolved the computer based AI being. Abrupt to say the least. The narrator references FRANKENSTEIN in the book and I think RP would’ve done well to have spent more time on the AI “monster” than on the various self involved longueurs the narrator indulges in.
Overall, a disappointing book from this celebrated author. I’m suddenly a lot less interested in THE OVERSTORY.