Reviews

Pellucidar by J. Allen St. John, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Phillip R. Burger, Jack McDevitt

Only show reviews with written explanations

hstapp's review against another edition

3.0

I enjoyed this book better, even though it has all the same problems as the last book. Really how long would it take for people to create the tools needed to make cannons and rifles and the balls to go with them. Even if you have books to help. Still I enjoyed the story overall, and it's nice that David's taken an interest in something other than genocide.

tstevens3's review

Go to review page

adventurous medium-paced

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

3.0

pixelorchid's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

Not Burroughs best work. Some of his works have aged well and are still enjoyable despite the inherent prejudices from the time period. This book reads like a repetetive chain of getting captured then saved by ridiculous coincidences. The last third of the book is a depressing tale of brutal imperialism where the native people are slaughtered and subdued by the vastly superior advanced military weaponry that was brought to the world by the protagonist. It becomes ironic that he talks extensively about how money is the root of all evil and will not allow it, yet he brings guns and cannons and full scale naval warfare to these people.

andrewspink's review against another edition

Go to review page

1.0

Science fiction is of course not really about the future but about contemporary society. This book, written 100 years ago is clearly about colonialism. The fascinating and somewhat horrifying thing is that this is a novel glorifying colonialism, presenting it as something necessary and good for.the "savages" (a recurring word in the book). The outsiders with their guns and their ships are clearly destined to dominate and subdue them and this is a Good Thing.

It is not a good idea to judge the morals of one era by those of another. Neverthless this is close enough to our own time that we know there were enough alternative voices at the time who were also clear about colonialism's evils that that a bit of judgementalism isn't such a bad idea here. Who to side with, Rhodes or Ghandi?