Scan barcode
alaharon123's review against another edition
4.0
I vaguely remember this being really cool because he's transported into someone else's idea of what the future looks like. Hope I'm remembering the right book when I'm logging this.
kmccubbin's review
3.0
Simple idea fleshed out in the way that Brown does so well with fascinating details and a wonderful sense of impending paranoia is scuttled a little as the last third becomes telegraphed and the ending forced and unsatisfying.
This book has a lot going for it and while Brown is rapid-firing clever (and often funny) plot points at it, it rolls along jauntily. But then it starts veering into a tired conclusion without the rest of the novel's verve and, frankly, I just wanted to get through it.
It's fun enough and worth it for the clever parody of the pulp magazine industry, but it doesn't hold a candle to Brown's crime novels.
This book has a lot going for it and while Brown is rapid-firing clever (and often funny) plot points at it, it rolls along jauntily. But then it starts veering into a tired conclusion without the rest of the novel's verve and, frankly, I just wanted to get through it.
It's fun enough and worth it for the clever parody of the pulp magazine industry, but it doesn't hold a candle to Brown's crime novels.
sjstuart's review
2.0
This is a well respected, classic sci fi novel that routinely makes it onto lists of the top books in the genre. It predates the Hugos or Nebulas, or it surely would have won some awards. So I was fairly surprised that I didn't actually enjoy it that much. It's the best novel-length work by a sci-fi author who is better known for his short stories… perhaps that should have told me something.
I suppose the problem is that I can't get enthusiastic about pulp-era science fiction. This is a satire of a pulp novel, written from the more enlightened perspective of the Golden Age of science fiction, in 1949. Because it's a parody, I can't very well critique it for being pulpy. The bug-eyed monsters, bikini-clad space girls, and New York thugs are all walking clichés… but of course that's the point. Anything I could point out as being poor writing or flat characterization could be defended as artful mimicry of the genre it's trying to satirize. That doesn't mean I have to enjoy it, though.
One interesting feature of the book is how very meta it is, for an era when sci fi was in no danger of being called post-modern. It's written from the point of view of a sci-fi editor, with winking, insider's caricatures of publishers, annoying fans, and writers.
I was also interested in this book's take on the parallel universe concept. While far from the first sci-fi work to feature parallel universes (a distinction generally credited to [a:Murray Leinster|83359|Murray Leinster|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1235095585p2/83359.jpg]'s 1934 [b:Sidewise In Time|6513551|Sidewise In Time|Murray Leinster|/assets/nocover/60x80.png|6705315], but arguably belonging to [a:H G Wells|7712240|H G Wells|https://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-d9f6a4a5badfda0f69e70cc94d962125.png]) this book nonetheless has a view of the multiverse not at all inconsistent with Everett's many-worlds hypothesis (sans the quantum details) that wouldn't be formulated for another 8 years. At the risk of a small spoiler, I'll point out that this many-worlds interpretation saved the book from one criticism. Initially, thinking it was more like an alternate history timeline in whicha serendipitously malfunctioning sewing machine treadle in 1903 led to the discovery of teleportation and space travel , I thought it incredulous that in the presence of such a large change, most details were identical down to the names, addresses, and occupations of specific individuals. But with an infinite number of parallel universes, of course, none are impossible, and it turns out that there is a good (or at least plot-related) reason that this particular one is involved.
These interesting features notwithstanding, I can't claim to have actually enjoyed the book. From the stereotyped caricatures all the way through to the deus ex machina ending, it too much in common with books that are best avoided. Unless you're a fan of pulp sci fi in particular, I can't really recommend it.
I suppose the problem is that I can't get enthusiastic about pulp-era science fiction. This is a satire of a pulp novel, written from the more enlightened perspective of the Golden Age of science fiction, in 1949. Because it's a parody, I can't very well critique it for being pulpy. The bug-eyed monsters, bikini-clad space girls, and New York thugs are all walking clichés… but of course that's the point. Anything I could point out as being poor writing or flat characterization could be defended as artful mimicry of the genre it's trying to satirize. That doesn't mean I have to enjoy it, though.
One interesting feature of the book is how very meta it is, for an era when sci fi was in no danger of being called post-modern. It's written from the point of view of a sci-fi editor, with winking, insider's caricatures of publishers, annoying fans, and writers.
I was also interested in this book's take on the parallel universe concept. While far from the first sci-fi work to feature parallel universes (a distinction generally credited to [a:Murray Leinster|83359|Murray Leinster|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1235095585p2/83359.jpg]'s 1934 [b:Sidewise In Time|6513551|Sidewise In Time|Murray Leinster|/assets/nocover/60x80.png|6705315], but arguably belonging to [a:H G Wells|7712240|H G Wells|https://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-d9f6a4a5badfda0f69e70cc94d962125.png]) this book nonetheless has a view of the multiverse not at all inconsistent with Everett's many-worlds hypothesis (sans the quantum details) that wouldn't be formulated for another 8 years. At the risk of a small spoiler, I'll point out that this many-worlds interpretation saved the book from one criticism. Initially, thinking it was more like an alternate history timeline in which
These interesting features notwithstanding, I can't claim to have actually enjoyed the book. From the stereotyped caricatures all the way through to the deus ex machina ending, it too much in common with books that are best avoided. Unless you're a fan of pulp sci fi in particular, I can't really recommend it.
esttorhe's review
awesome book
a classic for old "horror" books
very imaginative, a well located story for its time
7/10
a classic for old "horror" books
very imaginative, a well located story for its time
7/10
expendablemudge's review
5.0
Real Rating: 4.75* of five
These old Golden Agers are novellas! Just realized it. Need to cogitate.
These old Golden Agers are novellas! Just realized it. Need to cogitate.
brizmus's review
3.0
6/10
This was a cute science fiction read. The story was fun, as were the ideas behind it. Even for being older, it felt unique and fresh.
I loved Mekky!! And all the talk of infinity (though I would have liked for it to be mathier)!!
Unfortunately, though, the main character fell flat for me. Keith just seemed so reckless and stupid. All the time. And also incredibly self-centered. I think I would have enjoyed this a looot more if I had enjoyed him even a little more.
This was a cute science fiction read. The story was fun, as were the ideas behind it. Even for being older, it felt unique and fresh.
I loved Mekky!! And all the talk of infinity (though I would have liked for it to be mathier)!!
Unfortunately, though, the main character fell flat for me. Keith just seemed so reckless and stupid. All the time. And also incredibly self-centered. I think I would have enjoyed this a looot more if I had enjoyed him even a little more.
More...