Reviews

A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay

outcolder's review against another edition

3.0

I get how British veterans of the metapsychic wars might seek wisdom here. I appreciate the unrelenting strangeness and unlike Tolkien, I dig the framing device. If you’re going to Tormance, be sure to gird your third eye with queer theory. I did not love it though. I think the philosophy behind it has a lot that is just Wrong and the opposite of helpful. I don’t think I would want to read it again, but I have to see the 1970s Antioch student movie version of it as soon as possible!

book_nerd_1's review

2.0

Two stars because I KNOW it was way over my head. Every page of this book was a struggle and I finished only out of stubbornness.
Still have no idea what it was about. Lots of philosophy about male and female, love and duty, pain and death; but it all comes at you so fast I really couldn't begin to understand it.

toniak's review

2.0

I can see how he was influenced by George MacDonald (an author I usually enjoy), but the plot was pretty boring as all books about religion and morality often are. The seance scene at the beginning tricked me into thinking this would be a more fun and exciting book than it is. It definitely feels like it's a product of it's age.

wylsonated's review

adventurous challenging dark mysterious slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? N/A
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.25

misanthrope's review

adventurous challenging dark mysterious fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? A mix
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? No

1.0

Not much story.   Mostly a series of descriptions of a journey.  Probably was meant to be profound, but it fails in that pursuit. Does not feel dated in spite of the time period it was written. I would not read more from this author.

sophw1's review against another edition

adventurous challenging dark mysterious reflective fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

5.0

wtfwtfwtf 

biblio_ione's review

challenging dark mysterious reflective tense medium-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? A mix
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.0

karp76's review

2.0

A story, a narrative, is like cooking. It is a blending of characters, setting, plot, feelings, intellect, purpose and an assortment of all manner of flavorings. Metaphor, analogy, allegory and the like are the seasoning, the spice. Used in the right proportions, the meal, the story, is only enhanced. Not used at all, the story can be flat. Used too much, and the story is drowned out by the message by the "zing" of illusion. Here there is no story, no meal. It is all flavoring. It is all allegory. And, it is a mess. Employing the standard early 20th century trope of a "voyage to mysterious world," we are bombarded by a heavy-handed, clunky, poor rendition of the world of the Gnostics, the doctrine of Demiurge. Whole sections are given over to vague conversations that speak "to larger mysteries" but, by and large, speak to nothing at all. The narrative is episodic and meandering, and though the world is fantastic and surreal, it is not memorable in the slightest. My greatest wonder is why such praise is heaped upon this flawed work. It is beyond me. The meal is not good and tastes worse than it should. Send it back.

mc_j_ho's review against another edition

3.0

I don't know what to make of this book other than that it was a difficult read but not without elements that were worthwhile to persist for.

pufforrohk's review

2.0

This early speculative fiction novel is over 100 years old and you definitely see it in the text. It recalls early space opera works like John Carter, with a protagonist involved in a quest on a weird, distant planet. John Carter though is a romantic, noble hero and the challenges he needs to tackle are immediate. Maskull's story is more philosophical, with a lot of death, sacrifices, discussions of philosophical concepts and so many weird names and characters.
The novel is definitely imaginative and describes very different cultures in broad strokes.
There a lot of discussion of gender roles, and even non-binary characters, which I did not expect in such an old novel.
Still, my main issue is that I still don't understand what the novel was discussing. The novel is mostly allegorical, and I was not able to grasp what the author was trying to say.