Spire by Aaron Safronoff

3.5
This Science-Fiction/Dystopian novel is set in a place ruled by the Collective- an omnipotent, authoritarian but mostly invisible force. In a world consumed with improving humanity via Genetic Enhancement, a drug- an extreme performance enhancer- is introduced whose effect is impossible to predict, but whose potential seems limitless. The story centres on Joshua, an unsuspecting test subject, but also moves between stories involving the drug's creator; a Collective Defector and a Collective Leader Himself.

For me, I think the first thing to point out is that the parallel stories didn't always seem to work. As I sometimes find with this way of writing, I only like one particular storyline and the others should all be supplementary to that storyline and take mostly a back-seat. I never actually lost interest in the other stories, but I often felt detached from them; reading them mostly because I would return to the story I liked (Joshua's). So I tip my hat at Safronoff for not losing my attention, but I want to say that it worked in way that could have easily failed.

The plot of the story isn't a bad one, though it was occasionally clichéd. The start was kind of difficult for me because I really hate being thrown head first into a story and having absolutely no idea what was going on. It starts with Joshua- a drug user- talking about coming down from a high and how he felt about it. I get that, at least theoretically. It makes sense as a way to say how he thinks, a bit about his life and it's mildly interesting. But then I started to get lost about what was going on. I think he bought drugs, and I think he is somewhat of an expert in the field in terms of identifying them, but that is the bare minimum of what I should know. Nothing else sticks out from the start except those plot points.

It wasn't until the intrigue was introduced that I was, for lack of better word, intrigued by the story. The enhancements people had (particularly Eve) were incredible to see and weren't so far-fetched that you couldn't accept them. I'm not a huge Sci-Fi reader, but this felt more like Urban Fantasy to me which I really enjoyed considering it was still in the realms of believability. The chemical enhancement was much more fantastical, but I loved it for that. It was the kind of thing that a film would get wrong every time because your imagination plays such a huge and incredibly powerful part in making the moment as powerful and awe-inspiring as it was. In some ways I would say the book was worth reading for the times when the enhancer was used and when the higher end GEaRs (the genetic enhancers...sorry, I can't remember and I didn't mark the actual phrase!) was put on show. Technology and the advances we have made, are making and could make astound me and interest me to equal degrees.

There were things that weren't great in the book: two of which I've mentioned. Other things are just niggles i.e. things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but annoyed me anyway. Sometimes it seemed the tone was off for what was happening, or that the writing was making me more confused and the story less understandable. There was also that cliché issue, and the feeling that not everything felt entirely new. I don't want to say he's a plagiarist: he isn't! I've been emotionally up and down this and it probably made me more temperamental whilst reading.

So it was good book, and I definitely wouldn't overlook it. But, in my mind, it's a Science Fiction more than a dystopia and one should approach with that in mind; as well as with the expectation to feel a bit lost on a number of occasions. And if you're the kind of reader who hates that, you have been warned.

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

09/07/2011


4

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury is a more classical dystopia in a world where books are against the law and incinerated if found. The reason I like this book is that the premise and the world itself are very clever and believable, but I found the writing itself wanting.

I don’t want to ruin the plot (not that there is much of it) so if I seem vague, assume it is for that reason. All I can say is that it isn’t too important, I think, because it is a book designed to encourage you to think and presents you with ideas; think like Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy trilogy of five books. In a nutshell, plot is peripheral, I felt.

The way the world is built in this novel is so understandably logical (and in a way, proven) that one could worry for our own books’ safety. Though the law encourages the destruction of books, books became obsolete before the law came in. It is a book about the most extreme of censorship, stemming from self censorship. In our desire not to offend others, we would censor our books to avoid this offense starting with words and phrases before gradually destroying the book itself. The other reason cited (which is more political) is that society is generally happier when it doesn’t have to think. In the achieving of this hedonism, all thought is stopped by limiting social interaction, confusing ideas and what Orwell coined “doublethink”. How? Television.

It is a different kind of television but it is the idea that these people are your friends and family and that interaction is straightforward with the technology causing you to feel something without having to go through the mental stages of reaching that emotion: through chemicals or colour. I think- this was something I sort of felt my way into understanding because Bradbury was a little wordy, but I’ll explain the way he wrote in a minute.

The other interesting pieces of technology are earpieces that play music to induce a certain mood. Sound familiar? You’re hearing the prophecy of your iPod and MP3 players! These are supposed to distract and occupy humanity. Because as long as we are occupied, we cannot stop to think: so cars drive at unimaginably fast speeds, porches were gotten rid of to discourage leisurely sitting and neighbourly chatting while the law keeps tabs on suspicious morning walkers; all in the interest of reducing free thought.

But away from the story: to prose and writing. I felt that Bradbury was just explicitly in love with ideas. While writing in the plot, he would start off down the winding road of tangent and rambling which- though coherent- made the return to the actual story sort of like dropping into cold water. Nonetheless, it was interesting. Yet, for me, as someone who likes the story to fit like a jigsaw and not just be held forcibly together, I found this way of writing detracted from my complete pleasure in reading. If it had been beautifully written, I would have given it the next point level.

I think if dystopia is your thing (as is abstract) you should read this, ideally before buying. It’s an ideas book and so you need to be ready to learn and absorb otherwise the book becomes are huge mess of utter confusion.

DISCLAIMER :-)

I know I babble and ramble a little incoherently, but that doesn’t mean I don’t find myself annoying as well. I would fix this problem, but it’s too difficult. I don’t have a problem with it, it just distracts me from the book a little.