Skip to main content

Snapshot (SF) - Brandon Sanderson ****

Although a science fiction story is just as capable of having all the usual furniture of a novel - character building, human reactions, locations and environment and so on - there is the added depth science fiction gains by being a genre of ideas. Some of the early greats of science fiction - Asimov, for example - managed the ideas and the 'What if?' far more eloquently than they did the traditional elements of fiction writing, presenting us with cardboard characters. Although Snapshot is nowhere near as bad as the old brigade in this respect, there is no doubt that Brandon Sanderson scores significantly more on the 'What if?' aspect. This is very much an idea-driven novella.

It's a dramatic idea at that. What if it were possible to recreate a day in a city with all its inhabitants, going through exactly what happened on the day? It would enable, for instance, police officers to go in and attempt to solve a crime, able to revisit the scene and interact with those involved. But Sanderson piles on the implications by making this not a virtual reality recreation, but a meatware one. By means we'll come back to, the whole physical reality of the city is recreated, then destroyed again at the end of the day. And to make the whole thing more laden with ethical dilemmas, the police officers carry a badge that makes inhabitants of the recreated city aware that they are copies who have less than a day to live.

Although some aspects of the story are a little predictable (Sanderson, in his afterword, actually says that he assumed that readers would guess one major twist), others still manage to surprise. It's a nicely constructed story within that jaw-dropping concept of a physical recreation of the city.

There are, I suppose, two issues to be addressed. One is that, as mentioned above, this is a novella, not a full length novel. I've a lot of time for the novella format, and they work well as ebooks, but I would usually expect it to be accompanied in physical form by a good bunch of short stories. Here it's left to fend for itself, and it's possible that a book that can be read on a shortish train journey is one that feels a little skimpy for the price.

The other issue is one that, again, Sanderson brings up in his postscript. The mechanism here is pure magic (though given a vague science-like wrapper with hints of an alien involvement). It has to be magic when you think about it. It's physically impossible to recreate anything at a quantum level other than making a copy and destroying the original. The practicalities are endlessly impossible (how to capture all the information, how to store it, how to manufacture the objects and people, what happens at the boundaries etc. etc.). So it requires a little more suspension of disbelief than most SF. I was also slightly surprised that Sanderson didn't refer to one of my favourite movies, Inception, when talking about the inspiration for the story - it's hard to read this and to believe that he's never seen Inception.

Overall, though, a truly interesting novella, which, though hardly creating deep characters, at least has some magnificent ideas to play with.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on