Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by fairymodmother
Schismatrix Plus by Bruce Sterling
3.0
My GR friend Charles accused me of "hating" this book because it's been a couple of months since I read it and I'm only now reviewing it. That is much more a consequence of life bein' life than it is of my sentiments.
I did not hate it. For this type of book to have been published in 1996, I can appreciate its significance and the import it had on the genre. I appreciate it as foundational to the genre. I can see how it shaped the hard social scifi of the next decade. I think it contemplated the paths current day humanity has before it in a prescient and honest way. That said, my money will forever be on Pandora's Star by Hamilton if I have to pick a multi generational epic based on economic differences.
CONTENT WARNING:
Things that were awesome:
-Gene splicing vs. body modification. In the 90s, cloning and genetic modification were a Big Topic. By sequencing a human's full DNA and cloning a sheep, we launched dozens of branches of science and ethics regarding the use of the human genome. It was also a time when we were considering how best to support people with limb differences, mobility issues, and body dysmorphia. As a child who grew up with this in the news, I remember, and I think this book is iconic for its contemplation of all the different outcomes over dozens of years.
-The immediacy of the writing. I always admire authors who can approach epics and maintain the same energy at each stage. You'd think someone would get tired of a character after narrating their activities for a few centuries, but Sterling was dogged.
-The internal consistency: The author made premises and built off of them. I'm not sure what else anyone can expect from SF. It was complex, nuanced, logical, and followed to its natural conclusion.
Things that did not work for me:
-Reaganism in SF. I'm no longer a child. I have seen how certain policies played out in real life and frankly, I'm over it. The 80s died. The 80s fucked me and mine hard. It was great while it lasted, but it did not last, and now in the cold light of late stage capitalism, the shine has worn off.
-Style. Again, Hamilton gets my vote for a book that survives the future. This one was an important stepping stone, but it is not the end all be all, and I'm not sure it's the best of its ilk. Perhaps fortunately, perhaps unfortunately, the generation spanning works in SF before this are fewer, and then about a decade later there were so many they become almost impossible to distinguish, so it gets compared against Foundation and then more pop culture works from my young adulthood.
So, I did like it, and find it extremely relevant to the history of SF, but I'm not sure I'd call it the future of SF either.
I did not hate it. For this type of book to have been published in 1996, I can appreciate its significance and the import it had on the genre. I appreciate it as foundational to the genre. I can see how it shaped the hard social scifi of the next decade. I think it contemplated the paths current day humanity has before it in a prescient and honest way. That said, my money will forever be on Pandora's Star by Hamilton if I have to pick a multi generational epic based on economic differences.
CONTENT WARNING:
Spoiler
casual sexism, jingoism, murder, bug things, ableismThings that were awesome:
-Gene splicing vs. body modification. In the 90s, cloning and genetic modification were a Big Topic. By sequencing a human's full DNA and cloning a sheep, we launched dozens of branches of science and ethics regarding the use of the human genome. It was also a time when we were considering how best to support people with limb differences, mobility issues, and body dysmorphia. As a child who grew up with this in the news, I remember, and I think this book is iconic for its contemplation of all the different outcomes over dozens of years.
-The immediacy of the writing. I always admire authors who can approach epics and maintain the same energy at each stage. You'd think someone would get tired of a character after narrating their activities for a few centuries, but Sterling was dogged.
-The internal consistency: The author made premises and built off of them. I'm not sure what else anyone can expect from SF. It was complex, nuanced, logical, and followed to its natural conclusion.
Things that did not work for me:
-Reaganism in SF. I'm no longer a child. I have seen how certain policies played out in real life and frankly, I'm over it. The 80s died. The 80s fucked me and mine hard. It was great while it lasted, but it did not last, and now in the cold light of late stage capitalism, the shine has worn off.
-Style. Again, Hamilton gets my vote for a book that survives the future. This one was an important stepping stone, but it is not the end all be all, and I'm not sure it's the best of its ilk. Perhaps fortunately, perhaps unfortunately, the generation spanning works in SF before this are fewer, and then about a decade later there were so many they become almost impossible to distinguish, so it gets compared against Foundation and then more pop culture works from my young adulthood.
So, I did like it, and find it extremely relevant to the history of SF, but I'm not sure I'd call it the future of SF either.