original title: A world out of time
I admit it, probably I would have never bought this book, if I didn't find myself in the prospect of 45 minutes of bus without a book XD and I payed for it like two euros at a books kiosk in Piazza Mercanti, and that adds glamour to every purchase :D
Yes, books kiosks are my favourite shops, at the moment XD
Well, however.
It's kind of a strange book. At the beginning, it seems one of those distopic books that I love so much, but it's like the author wasted cheerfully all of his potential of describing a State that is the only form of world govern in a future earth that is overpopulated and hyper-organized (in every aspect of life). Then he moves on, and reaching the first third of the book I was wandering how could it go on, since I felt like I was reading a story that was drawing to an end.
And instead you find out that the whole part the I was so interested into was actually a preamble of the real focus of the novel: Earth, three million years in the future.
It's a scary idea, right? How could possibly be earth within three millions years? My mind paralyzes, it feels like I have a huge blind spot. Not to talk about describing it.
Niven, at least, tries to. And he gives an interesting description, weird enough to be believable. Maybe the only point that he underestimate a little is genetic evolution, but I believe that actually in the years this book was written (70s... another world) genetic still didn't have the importance that has today in imagining the future (if not in post-nuclear scifi... but probably that was more 50s/60s scifi now that I think about it).
Actually, and I was thinking about it just while I was reading this novel, reading scifi written before your own birth it's a tough challenge. I mean, if I read a 70s novel set in the 70, the greatest effort I'll have to do would be forget 30 years of technological progress, and that's all. Seriously, if something it's not there, it's not there. It's unlikely that I find myself thinking "Why doesn't he call him on the mobile phone?" or "She should search on the internet". After all, I'm not so stupid XD
But when we're reading scifi, we're already entering a different universe, the one generated by the author's mind. And this universe, more or less, is an extrapolation made by the author of themes and problems contemporary to him, an exaggeration of a situation that him, and who is metaphorically near him, knows perfectly. Us "reader of the future" instead, have first of all to forget of 30 years of technological and social change, and then face the elaboration of a reality that we never experienced.
In short, even if it's true that reading just one scifi novel written in the 70s will probably make me understand more things on the 70s that five "normal" novels of that time, it is also true that this novels can be terribly tiring (and boring, since the themes and problems often are not the ones that matter for us right now XD)
I admit it, probably I would have never bought this book, if I didn't find myself in the prospect of 45 minutes of bus without a book XD and I payed for it like two euros at a books kiosk in Piazza Mercanti, and that adds glamour to every purchase :D
Yes, books kiosks are my favourite shops, at the moment XD
Well, however.
It's kind of a strange book. At the beginning, it seems one of those distopic books that I love so much, but it's like the author wasted cheerfully all of his potential of describing a State that is the only form of world govern in a future earth that is overpopulated and hyper-organized (in every aspect of life). Then he moves on, and reaching the first third of the book I was wandering how could it go on, since I felt like I was reading a story that was drawing to an end.
And instead you find out that the whole part the I was so interested into was actually a preamble of the real focus of the novel: Earth, three million years in the future.
It's a scary idea, right? How could possibly be earth within three millions years? My mind paralyzes, it feels like I have a huge blind spot. Not to talk about describing it.
Niven, at least, tries to. And he gives an interesting description, weird enough to be believable. Maybe the only point that he underestimate a little is genetic evolution, but I believe that actually in the years this book was written (70s... another world) genetic still didn't have the importance that has today in imagining the future (if not in post-nuclear scifi... but probably that was more 50s/60s scifi now that I think about it).
Actually, and I was thinking about it just while I was reading this novel, reading scifi written before your own birth it's a tough challenge. I mean, if I read a 70s novel set in the 70, the greatest effort I'll have to do would be forget 30 years of technological progress, and that's all. Seriously, if something it's not there, it's not there. It's unlikely that I find myself thinking "Why doesn't he call him on the mobile phone?" or "She should search on the internet". After all, I'm not so stupid XD
But when we're reading scifi, we're already entering a different universe, the one generated by the author's mind. And this universe, more or less, is an extrapolation made by the author of themes and problems contemporary to him, an exaggeration of a situation that him, and who is metaphorically near him, knows perfectly. Us "reader of the future" instead, have first of all to forget of 30 years of technological and social change, and then face the elaboration of a reality that we never experienced.
In short, even if it's true that reading just one scifi novel written in the 70s will probably make me understand more things on the 70s that five "normal" novels of that time, it is also true that this novels can be terribly tiring (and boring, since the themes and problems often are not the ones that matter for us right now XD)
Current Mood:
blah
blahCurrent Music: Mi Le M'uilinn - Karen Matheson
Leave a comment

tired
apathetic