Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ryannrripley 's review for:
The Terraformers
by Annalee Newitz
Wildly imaginative, inspiring, and giggle-worthy. Still, it’s not a page turner and is slow to get through (that’s why it’s a 3, not a 4). Thought-provoking. Lots of pauses necessary when reading to contemplate. My girlfriend read this in one sitting, but they are a fast reader. It took me weeks. Still, it was probably the craziest thing I’ve read this year, which is saying something. Very SF Bay Area. Felt like this book was invented by someone nursing an IPA in a local brewery surrounded by tech bros and people who have too much money.
Lots of questions, not enough answers. What counts as a person? InAss ratings are insufficient, yes, but when and how are decisions made? Why do trains get to be people but houses don’t? What about ants? Why aren’t ants people? Why does no one really question the point of continuing to do the job they were designed for when the world is unfair and dystopian? Why not stop and focus on the things you actually like doing? Instead, stuff you like doing seems determined by biology and design, at least in the author’s perspective. Like, what if the trains don’t want to be trains? Doesn’t matter, in the author’s view. Bad question, they seem to suggest. Trains fucking love being trains (I disagree. There are people alive today who would rather be something else, so why would trains want to stay trains?). Just seems like it brings up more questions than answers. Lots of biological determinism. Also, inter-species sex is brought up but like… not fully explored (we don’t really have explanations for what makes robots horny). And robot marriage. What does marriage mean in the year 59,000? We don’t know. It’s never explained.
Still, it was a fun romp. Picked up this book with no idea there would be a romance between a homeless journalist cat and a sentient train, but fuck yeah was I there for it when it happened! Beautiful. Still, it’s a solid 3 out of 5. Worth it, but like I said, it’s not a page-turner.
Lots of questions, not enough answers. What counts as a person? InAss ratings are insufficient, yes, but when and how are decisions made? Why do trains get to be people but houses don’t? What about ants? Why aren’t ants people? Why does no one really question the point of continuing to do the job they were designed for when the world is unfair and dystopian? Why not stop and focus on the things you actually like doing? Instead, stuff you like doing seems determined by biology and design, at least in the author’s perspective. Like, what if the trains don’t want to be trains? Doesn’t matter, in the author’s view. Bad question, they seem to suggest. Trains fucking love being trains (I disagree. There are people alive today who would rather be something else, so why would trains want to stay trains?). Just seems like it brings up more questions than answers. Lots of biological determinism. Also, inter-species sex is brought up but like… not fully explored (we don’t really have explanations for what makes robots horny). And robot marriage. What does marriage mean in the year 59,000? We don’t know. It’s never explained.
Still, it was a fun romp. Picked up this book with no idea there would be a romance between a homeless journalist cat and a sentient train, but fuck yeah was I there for it when it happened! Beautiful. Still, it’s a solid 3 out of 5. Worth it, but like I said, it’s not a page-turner.