Scan barcode
alynastan's review against another edition
4.0
Very strange and with a difficult plot in the beginning. It took me about 100 pages to understand what it was all about, but afterwards it was really intriguing and I couldn't put it down.
If you think it was written in the late '40, as one of the early modern SF books it is quite revolutionary.
If you think it was written in the late '40, as one of the early modern SF books it is quite revolutionary.
lakmus's review against another edition
Unfinished, p.122. Something about the superiority of integrating emotions and reason, but really it's just packing away emotions to serve reason, it seems; and who needs coherent storytelling and world-building?
Still, this is somehow not /the worst/ old sci-fi I've picked up (looking at you, Ringworld), I just can't be bothered to finish it because judging by the reviews it doesn't quite get anywhere.
Still, this is somehow not /the worst/ old sci-fi I've picked up (looking at you, Ringworld), I just can't be bothered to finish it because judging by the reviews it doesn't quite get anywhere.
madfil's review against another edition
1.0
(26 April, 2024)
A shitty protagonist, a crappy plot, a truckload of fuck-all secondary characters, and a pointless ending. Too many incomprehensible elements for this to make any sense. The world of science-fiction literature is better than this 'classic'. Urghhh!
A shitty protagonist, a crappy plot, a truckload of fuck-all secondary characters, and a pointless ending. Too many incomprehensible elements for this to make any sense. The world of science-fiction literature is better than this 'classic'. Urghhh!
theslowreader's review
adventurous
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- 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
3.0
glowingskeleton's review against another edition
5.0
This book is an accidental surrealist masterpiece. Really think with your mind brain shit.
tstevens3's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
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? No
3.0
Can’t tell if I didn't follow the philosophy, the book is a convoluted mess, or both. Probably both—is that a null-A thought process?
smiorganbaldhead's review against another edition
3.0
2.5/5. There are some interesting ideas in this book. Unfortunately, they mostly get lost in a hectic and often confusing plot. The initial setup of the world sounds like one of the recently popular YA dystopias, with periods of no law or police and games deciding who gets to move the paradise of Venus. Underlying all of this is the philosophy of null-A, but the explanation of what it entails is vague at best. It seems to involve the idea that a thing and the representation of the thing are not the same, reminding me of the painting The Treachery of Images (“this is not a pipe”). However, the implications of this idea are unclear, somehow involving the ability to instantly adapt at both the individual and societal level to the point that collective action problems can be immediately solved by a group of “integrated” null-A experts. There is also the idea that no two things are identical. Somehow, though, if two things are similar enough, some weird stuff like teleportation and telepathy become possible.
In some ways, this book reminds me of Jack Vance’s the Languages of Pao. Both involve philosophical ideas about how people think, with an intrigue plot involving invasion from space. In both cases, the philosophical ideas are underdeveloped, getting lost in the plot (even more so here than in Vance’s book).
There are other little annoyances with the writing. There is one scene where someone draws and gun and is subdued, but it’s not clear until the next chapter who actually drew the gun. I don’t think this was intended, but rather just lexical ambiguity. Later there is a fight involving teleporting all around a building, but it’s quickly summarized in one short paragraph like an afterthought.
The ending is kind of cool, though not hard to guess. Overall, I’m wouldn’t say this book is good, but it is sometimes interesting. I can understand why some people like it and why others find it a confusing mess. Fortunately, it is short, so it’s not too much of a time investment if you’re curious enough to read it.
In some ways, this book reminds me of Jack Vance’s the Languages of Pao. Both involve philosophical ideas about how people think, with an intrigue plot involving invasion from space. In both cases, the philosophical ideas are underdeveloped, getting lost in the plot (even more so here than in Vance’s book).
There are other little annoyances with the writing. There is one scene where someone draws and gun and is subdued, but it’s not clear until the next chapter who actually drew the gun. I don’t think this was intended, but rather just lexical ambiguity. Later there is a fight involving teleporting all around a building, but it’s quickly summarized in one short paragraph like an afterthought.
The ending is kind of cool, though not hard to guess. Overall, I’m wouldn’t say this book is good, but it is sometimes interesting. I can understand why some people like it and why others find it a confusing mess. Fortunately, it is short, so it’s not too much of a time investment if you’re curious enough to read it.
d_audy's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0