Turgid, ideological and pedantic
A novel beginning with anarchists on one planet, 'archists' on its twin. That is, the planets are astronomical twins; the anarchists' planet is only marginally habitable while that of their seeming bete noir is quite earth-like. Very earth-like, in fact, replete with capitalists and modified communists (the novel is a cold war artifact).
The author attempts to explore what happens in societies, how people lose their freedom. The anarchists become somewhat bureaucratic and terribly provincial in the worst sense, that of pruning outcroppings of creativity by means of social opprobation.
The capitalists, wealthy though the aristocrats are, are not free in the author's view. The society has its best analogue in 19th century Great Britain, complete with the class distinctions then normal.
The text is hard to read. It doesn't flow, it is heavy, and slow with a lot of internal dialogue. There are no memorable (or likable) characters. The characters without exception are shallow, mere ciphers for the author's didacticism. Of action we will not speak: there is none of which to speak.
Looking at the other reviews, I see one that says he got the message: "capitalism good, communism bad." I do wonder what book he read when he thought he was reading this book. The message here is "freedom,which implies responsibility, good; societal/governmental repression of freedom bad." This is a message that is easy to endorse, even if the book was far from my favorite.
A novel beginning with anarchists on one planet, 'archists' on its twin. That is, the planets are astronomical twins; the anarchists' planet is only marginally habitable while that of their seeming bete noir is quite earth-like. Very earth-like, in fact, replete with capitalists and modified communists (the novel is a cold war artifact).
The author attempts to explore what happens in societies, how people lose their freedom. The anarchists become somewhat bureaucratic and terribly provincial in the worst sense, that of pruning outcroppings of creativity by means of social opprobation.
The capitalists, wealthy though the aristocrats are, are not free in the author's view. The society has its best analogue in 19th century Great Britain, complete with the class distinctions then normal.
The text is hard to read. It doesn't flow, it is heavy, and slow with a lot of internal dialogue. There are no memorable (or likable) characters. The characters without exception are shallow, mere ciphers for the author's didacticism. Of action we will not speak: there is none of which to speak.
Looking at the other reviews, I see one that says he got the message: "capitalism good, communism bad." I do wonder what book he read when he thought he was reading this book. The message here is "freedom,which implies responsibility, good; societal/governmental repression of freedom bad." This is a message that is easy to endorse, even if the book was far from my favorite.
Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
