You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ellenw 's review for:
Millennium
by John Varley
Hm. Clever, and fairly good, but I kept getting caught up by how dated this is, both in the sense that it was published in 1983 and in the sense that it was written in the 20th century.
I should probably explain the second part: the book takes place in two times, December in an unspecified year in the 1980s, and about 50,000 years in the future. (I don't think it's ever explicitly said when, but I vaguely recall "50,000 years" being mentioned.) The main character from the future constantly refers to the 20th century: the myths of the 20th century, the fashion of the 20th century, the beauty ideal of the 20th century, etc. etc. Why, with 50,000+ years of time to talk about, is it always the 20th century? Even if we're supposed to assume there was an apocalypse in our near future, at that remove the 20th and 19th should seem more or less interchangeable. (How many people nowadays can distinguish between the 13th and 14th centuries, less than a thousand years later?) This is especially obvious since I read the book in the 21st century, which was not once mentioned.
Nitpicking? I don't think so, because I think time travel stories really have to sell you on the time, and Millennium failed there. I'd like to see Varley tackle some Michael Crichton-esque present-day science fiction, since he definitely had a knack for those details.
I should probably explain the second part: the book takes place in two times, December in an unspecified year in the 1980s, and about 50,000 years in the future. (I don't think it's ever explicitly said when, but I vaguely recall "50,000 years" being mentioned.) The main character from the future constantly refers to the 20th century: the myths of the 20th century, the fashion of the 20th century, the beauty ideal of the 20th century, etc. etc. Why, with 50,000+ years of time to talk about, is it always the 20th century? Even if we're supposed to assume there was an apocalypse in our near future, at that remove the 20th and 19th should seem more or less interchangeable. (How many people nowadays can distinguish between the 13th and 14th centuries, less than a thousand years later?) This is especially obvious since I read the book in the 21st century, which was not once mentioned.
Nitpicking? I don't think so, because I think time travel stories really have to sell you on the time, and Millennium failed there. I'd like to see Varley tackle some Michael Crichton-esque present-day science fiction, since he definitely had a knack for those details.