tomislavus's review against another edition
3.0
A dark cynical book verging on pure nihilism but stepping a single step from it. We can see the same ideas distilled in the Prince of Nothing series but with a Sci-Fi bent this time.
Like with every book from Bakker, it has quotes for days, but it being highly quotable doesn't save it from all the weaker points. The story lags a lot, the plot progression is murky and at times non existent, the characters are shallow and mostly just mouth pieces for Bakkers musings and the pacing is all over the place.
The good things in it are the deep ideas and philosophical/psychological questions, and that's what propels you to finish the book, the book goes into dark and unnerving territories, and it's constantly leaving you questioning your sanity and identity.
All in all, an okay read, but nothing to write home about.
Like with every book from Bakker, it has quotes for days, but it being highly quotable doesn't save it from all the weaker points. The story lags a lot, the plot progression is murky and at times non existent, the characters are shallow and mostly just mouth pieces for Bakkers musings and the pacing is all over the place.
The good things in it are the deep ideas and philosophical/psychological questions, and that's what propels you to finish the book, the book goes into dark and unnerving territories, and it's constantly leaving you questioning your sanity and identity.
All in all, an okay read, but nothing to write home about.
kellhus's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder, Sexual content, Gore, Blood, and Death
Minor: Animal death
rotorguy64's review against another edition
2.0
I have to admit, I was one of the people lured in by how depressing Neuropath is supposed to be and how ruthlessly it makes its case. My expectation was that I wouldn't want to like this book, but end up doing so anyway. Take a look at my rating; I obviously didn't do the latter.
The first problem with this book is that both setting and characters are dull. The setting is pretty much the world during the time the book was written, except that climate change ruined the world, the US law enforcement and intelligence community has become fully authoritarian instead of somewhat-authoritarian and there are t-shirts with animated pictures on them. Also, neuroscience and its practical applications are far advanced. Sadly, the ramifications of this technology end at more authoritarianism and more opportunities for philosophical rants. As far as worldbuilding goes, Neuropath is one of the weakest sci-fi books I ever picked up. This is made worse by it trying to be prophetic, when all it did was capture contemporary fears (of terorrism, the Bush-administration and climate change) and exaggerate them.
The characters are slightly better than the setting, but not by much. The main villain of the story, Neil, is the lovechild of your stereotypical edgy atheist and the jerk that stole your girlfriend. He's charming, ruthless, cruel, and highly intelligent. The protagonist, Thomas Bible, is Neil's best friend, and an apathetic loser who spends most of the book contemplating how awesome Neil is. It gets bland sometime after page 30, but goes on and on and on for the rest of the book. Neither of these characters is very compelling, and taken together, they don't make for a good story. Neil is simply overpowered and basically drives the entire plot, with Thomas as his mouthpiece. And these are the two best-written characters in the story. At least they appear like real people, which is more than can be said of anyone else in this story. Save for Thomas' children, especially his daughter, but they can hardly carry this piece nor are they supposed to.
The philosophy is mostly carried through dialogues, I'll deal with the latter first. A typical exchange goes like this: Neil does something horrible, to prove a philosophical point; someone expresses his outrage over this point; Thomas tells them that Neil is right; they lose their shit and storm out of the run, intellectually vanquished by Neil. That third person can be any character in the book besides Neil and Thomas, but the reaction always stays the same (which is part of the reason why the characters suck so hard). It's not even like there was a fundamentally different philosophical view that was being discussed each time. No, it all ties back into Neil's radical materialism and nihilism, something I'll come back to later. In general, all the dialogue - even the one that differs from this format - only serves to make a philosophical argument, or just any argument. At one point, a man is knocked out with a roundhouse kick, and Thomas' contemplates that this could cause long-term brain damage or even turn out lethal. Yeah, no shit, a roundhouse kick directly to the face is dangerous?! I already knew that, and I don't want to be reminded by it for the sheer sake of ruining everything that's fun!
Now, to finally let the cat out of the bag: The philosophy of Neuropath. Was it as good as everyone says it is? Well... no. Not at all. Basically, you're nothing but your brain (or rather the processes going on inside it), you have no soul and not even a real essence. Everything you love and care about is an illusion, including religion and morality. That's interesting to hear about, but it cannot carry an entire book by itself, not when it's presented in such a redundant manner and with all the good counter-arguments left out. Neil makes his case that individuals have no soul or essence and no free will by rewiring their brains, hence you could easily create a counter-argument based on a difference between internal processes of the brain and external interference. That would at the very least spice the book up, so that I could appreciate it as a philosophical tract.
As it is, Neuropath simply isn't fun. It's overly long, the story and all its elements are bland, the action is forced and uninspired, and the philosophy just isn't that great. Part of the reason why it gets two stars (with a tendency towards three stars, even) is because of the end scene, where Neil presents "the argument", as it's called in the story, most effectively, and in the most gruesome and harrowing manner imaginable. This scene was genuinely very good and would've made for an exciting short story and a decent philosophical work, as I don't expect a short story to deal with every argument and counter-argument under the sun. In short, these last twenty to fourty pages are everything that's good in Neuropath condensed and refined. Too bad it was just a torture to get there.
If you want to get a taste of Bakker's radical determinism and materialism, read [a: Peter Watts|27167|Peter Watts|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]. His books are both more sophisticated (even though I eventually ended up disagreeing with a lot of his philosophical ideas) and far more fun to read than Neuropath. He even got an addendum where he explains the science behind his works, with footnotes no one ever reads and shit like that. That's my personal recommendation, but as Neuropath is a very polarizing work, take it with a grain of salt. Maybe you'll enjoy it, even though I didn't.
The first problem with this book is that both setting and characters are dull. The setting is pretty much the world during the time the book was written, except that climate change ruined the world, the US law enforcement and intelligence community has become fully authoritarian instead of somewhat-authoritarian and there are t-shirts with animated pictures on them. Also, neuroscience and its practical applications are far advanced. Sadly, the ramifications of this technology end at more authoritarianism and more opportunities for philosophical rants. As far as worldbuilding goes, Neuropath is one of the weakest sci-fi books I ever picked up. This is made worse by it trying to be prophetic, when all it did was capture contemporary fears (of terorrism, the Bush-administration and climate change) and exaggerate them.
The characters are slightly better than the setting, but not by much. The main villain of the story, Neil, is the lovechild of your stereotypical edgy atheist and the jerk that stole your girlfriend. He's charming, ruthless, cruel, and highly intelligent. The protagonist, Thomas Bible, is Neil's best friend, and an apathetic loser who spends most of the book contemplating how awesome Neil is. It gets bland sometime after page 30, but goes on and on and on for the rest of the book. Neither of these characters is very compelling, and taken together, they don't make for a good story. Neil is simply overpowered and basically drives the entire plot, with Thomas as his mouthpiece. And these are the two best-written characters in the story. At least they appear like real people, which is more than can be said of anyone else in this story. Save for Thomas' children, especially his daughter, but they can hardly carry this piece nor are they supposed to.
The philosophy is mostly carried through dialogues, I'll deal with the latter first. A typical exchange goes like this: Neil does something horrible, to prove a philosophical point; someone expresses his outrage over this point; Thomas tells them that Neil is right; they lose their shit and storm out of the run, intellectually vanquished by Neil. That third person can be any character in the book besides Neil and Thomas, but the reaction always stays the same (which is part of the reason why the characters suck so hard). It's not even like there was a fundamentally different philosophical view that was being discussed each time. No, it all ties back into Neil's radical materialism and nihilism, something I'll come back to later. In general, all the dialogue - even the one that differs from this format - only serves to make a philosophical argument, or just any argument. At one point, a man is knocked out with a roundhouse kick, and Thomas' contemplates that this could cause long-term brain damage or even turn out lethal. Yeah, no shit, a roundhouse kick directly to the face is dangerous?! I already knew that, and I don't want to be reminded by it for the sheer sake of ruining everything that's fun!
Now, to finally let the cat out of the bag: The philosophy of Neuropath. Was it as good as everyone says it is? Well... no. Not at all. Basically, you're nothing but your brain (or rather the processes going on inside it), you have no soul and not even a real essence. Everything you love and care about is an illusion, including religion and morality. That's interesting to hear about, but it cannot carry an entire book by itself, not when it's presented in such a redundant manner and with all the good counter-arguments left out. Neil makes his case that individuals have no soul or essence and no free will by rewiring their brains, hence you could easily create a counter-argument based on a difference between internal processes of the brain and external interference. That would at the very least spice the book up, so that I could appreciate it as a philosophical tract.
As it is, Neuropath simply isn't fun. It's overly long, the story and all its elements are bland, the action is forced and uninspired, and the philosophy just isn't that great. Part of the reason why it gets two stars (with a tendency towards three stars, even) is because of the end scene, where Neil presents "the argument", as it's called in the story, most effectively, and in the most gruesome and harrowing manner imaginable. This scene was genuinely very good and would've made for an exciting short story and a decent philosophical work, as I don't expect a short story to deal with every argument and counter-argument under the sun. In short, these last twenty to fourty pages are everything that's good in Neuropath condensed and refined. Too bad it was just a torture to get there.
If you want to get a taste of Bakker's radical determinism and materialism, read [a: Peter Watts|27167|Peter Watts|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]. His books are both more sophisticated (even though I eventually ended up disagreeing with a lot of his philosophical ideas) and far more fun to read than Neuropath. He even got an addendum where he explains the science behind his works, with footnotes no one ever reads and shit like that. That's my personal recommendation, but as Neuropath is a very polarizing work, take it with a grain of salt. Maybe you'll enjoy it, even though I didn't.
rhulad's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
5.0
Holy shit. This book will be on my mind for a very long time.
1) because its ideas are utterly fascinating and call into question everything we think we know about the human consciousness. This book genuinely makes you contemplate your everyday experience as a human being.
2) because it's absolutely horrifying stuff. It's incredibly dark and some scenes and descriptions will probably haunt me forever.
This book is so effective because it's also fucking great at making you care about the characters. There's some genuinely loveable characters here that feel like real people. So you cannot turn away and really worry for their well being. The suspense due to that is incredible. I could not put this book down.
This also meant that there were some dramatic moments that really hit hard. I got genuinely emotional and really felt affected which I didn't expect.
All of that makes this a 5 star read for me.
1) because its ideas are utterly fascinating and call into question everything we think we know about the human consciousness. This book genuinely makes you contemplate your everyday experience as a human being.
2) because it's absolutely horrifying stuff. It's incredibly dark and some scenes and descriptions will probably haunt me forever.
This book is so effective because it's also fucking great at making you care about the characters. There's some genuinely loveable characters here that feel like real people. So you cannot turn away and really worry for their well being. The suspense due to that is incredible. I could not put this book down.
This also meant that there were some dramatic moments that really hit hard. I got genuinely emotional and really felt affected which I didn't expect.
All of that makes this a 5 star read for me.
vickis's review against another edition
4.0
I think I have to say I really liked it, though not in the conventional sense of enjoying it. First, my husband gave this to me as a gift as he was leaving for an extended vacation. This means lots of lights on at night as it was truly scary. Then I found myself thinking about the discussions and arguments in the book and having to remind myself that I had already had many of those discussions and could let them go.
That said, the book is well written, good plot that carries you along and many scary things that are well based in reality. I found it hard to believe that the author is not a neurologist, for instance; he has obviously done his research. The characters are, in general, people you could imagine meeting, that is, not cardboard. And imagining meeting some of them is part of the scariness of the book.
So, well written and engrossing, pulls you along, try to read it when you are not alone at night.
That said, the book is well written, good plot that carries you along and many scary things that are well based in reality. I found it hard to believe that the author is not a neurologist, for instance; he has obviously done his research. The characters are, in general, people you could imagine meeting, that is, not cardboard. And imagining meeting some of them is part of the scariness of the book.
So, well written and engrossing, pulls you along, try to read it when you are not alone at night.
anatta's review against another edition
4.0
So many questions and almost any answers. I like it, it gave me a lot of what to think about.
stuffandwhatnot's review against another edition
2.0
Professor Tom Bible is drawn into an FBI manhunt for a killer (his college roommate/close friend/secret NSA mind-hacker Neil Cassidy) who tortures his victims via neurosurgery. Half torture-porn, half stoner dorm-room philosophical musing on the nature of free will and the self. Fast pacing and some plot twists kept me reading, but I ended up wanting to like it more than I did.
mackattack108's review against another edition
4.0
Rivetting. Haunting. A psychological thriller that is full of twists and turns.
littoface's review against another edition
3.0
While it's not the best written book, Neuropath will definitely get you thinking about some philosophical questions. How much of what we do and feel is by choice? Is there even such a thing as free will and choice? Or are we slaves of tiny neurons firing in our brains?