Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by lkedzie
A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge
3.0
Eh, I'm more of a cat person, really.
This book is a land of contrasts. The author is, to first impression, genius and skilled. The text has this deep sense of verbage and texture without losing any signal, giving the sense of what would happen if someone told Faulkner 'you're at a 9; we need you at a 4.' Just managing a 600+ pager that does not slack until the epilogue is a feat.
There is an intense sense of pathos so much of the time, a kind of feeling of a tragedy playing out in a way that I do not associate with science fiction (sad stories, yes, but not like this). But it does not linger, instead working to fuel the drama and tension. And in those moments of micro-climax is when the book struts its stuff.
For me, the most impressive part is the meta-storytelling, that operates in a non-meta fashion. The heroic story, not the Campbell monomyth but the old fashion idea of a hero having an adventure, is important to the book. Yet it is not any one part of the book. It is not even referenced or alluded to most of the time. But it is the sort of theme that if you are thinking about in the context of reading the book, it is a kind of skeleton key or chiaroscuro to the plot. And with only indirect reference! I struggle to think of any other author who has managed something like that.
In general, I like the setting, as I am a fan of impossibly weird and big space civilizations and the different aliens are all great (more
And speaking of fantasy novels, I hate the concept of zones. I do not know why this point is a breaking point for me and something like, say, The Force, is not. I think, perhaps, it is because of how non-mystic it is. A loopy, quasi-religious plot contrivance treated with hard sci fi magnitudes. I was deeply invested in the plot, but about the time that I realized the idea was a load-bearing one for the climax itself, you will need to imagine my onanistic gesture. The same to whenever a human saying 'and who's a good boy? And who's a good boy???' was mission-critical. And I frequently found the characters unlikable, not in the way that is commonly used, but in the sense of being disinterested at seemingly everyone's thinking and doing, even when the telling of the same was top quality.
This then is the greatest book, but without being a good book. Still recommended but curiously unsatisfying to complete.
This book is a land of contrasts. The author is, to first impression, genius and skilled. The text has this deep sense of verbage and texture without losing any signal, giving the sense of what would happen if someone told Faulkner 'you're at a 9; we need you at a 4.' Just managing a 600+ pager that does not slack until the epilogue is a feat.
There is an intense sense of pathos so much of the time, a kind of feeling of a tragedy playing out in a way that I do not associate with science fiction (sad stories, yes, but not like this). But it does not linger, instead working to fuel the drama and tension. And in those moments of micro-climax is when the book struts its stuff.
For me, the most impressive part is the meta-storytelling, that operates in a non-meta fashion. The heroic story, not the Campbell monomyth but the old fashion idea of a hero having an adventure, is important to the book. Yet it is not any one part of the book. It is not even referenced or alluded to most of the time. But it is the sort of theme that if you are thinking about in the context of reading the book, it is a kind of skeleton key or chiaroscuro to the plot. And with only indirect reference! I struggle to think of any other author who has managed something like that.
In general, I like the setting, as I am a fan of impossibly weird and big space civilizations and the different aliens are all great (more
Spoiler
sociopathic imperialist butterflies, please). But I also think that is where the book start to drift of course, because the book never manages the feeling of that sort of world, only the representations of it. At points, particularly in the context of the general plot of a Big Journey to Save the World, it starts to feel like a corpulent fantasy novel.And speaking of fantasy novels, I hate the concept of zones. I do not know why this point is a breaking point for me and something like, say, The Force, is not. I think, perhaps, it is because of how non-mystic it is. A loopy, quasi-religious plot contrivance treated with hard sci fi magnitudes. I was deeply invested in the plot, but about the time that I realized the idea was a load-bearing one for the climax itself, you will need to imagine my onanistic gesture. The same to whenever a human saying 'and who's a good boy? And who's a good boy???' was mission-critical. And I frequently found the characters unlikable, not in the way that is commonly used, but in the sense of being disinterested at seemingly everyone's thinking and doing, even when the telling of the same was top quality.
This then is the greatest book, but without being a good book. Still recommended but curiously unsatisfying to complete.