Skip to main content

Entanglement (SF) - Andrew Thomas ***(*)

There’s a lot to like about Entanglement, though it has to be read with a few reservations, which I will come back to.

In this first novel by Andrew Thomas, we have a humorous science fiction thriller, with a love story or two thrown in. A top-secret government research station in the Scottish highlands disappears, a colony of moles are mysteriously transported from Cambridgeshire to Lundy Island, and a brick starts behaving very strangely. The main thread of the story is interspersed with the story of another character who repeatedly finds herself in parallel worlds - initially terrifying, over the years it becomes a way of life.

Thomas has some really clever ideas and pulls them together in an unexpected way that echoes the book’s title. Although what happens is downright weird, sometimes feeling closer to fantasy than SF, Thomas grounds what is happening in some of the more outré aspects of quantum physics. I found myself wanting to read on to discover how it would all turn out, and there are a couple of enjoyable plot twists.

However, I do need to highlight three issues. One is the humour. Early on there is a real feeling of a Douglas Adams pastiche, without Adams’ deft hand at humour. One of the main characters is an Arthur Dent clone, though the humour is probably closer to the less hilarious Dirk Gently series, but lacking a strong Gently-like character to carry it. The humour, supported by a lot of footnotes (mostly informative rather than funny in the Terry Pratchett style) rarely works well and thankfully tails off to a degree later in the book. Secondly, there is a lack of focus as point of view flies between many different characters. This is partly required by the book’s outcome, but it makes it hard to identify with any main character. Those characters, incidentally are mostly from central casting - Adams gets away with this using irony, but we don’t feel it here, particularly with an RAF character straight from W. E. Johns. Equally, the author seems to want the book to be too many things - a science fiction adventure, a comedy and a romance (going on the tagline ‘What if the love of your life disappeared?’) - a clearer focus would have helped.

Finally, Entanglement really could do with a professional edit. It is relatively free of typos (though there are some), but it’s more a case of clumsy phrasing and uninspiring prose that could have been so much better with a polish throughout. I enjoyed it despite this, but it would have been a lot better after a good work over. I ought also to say (as the author of a book on quantum entanglement) that there is no real connection between the many worlds interpretation, which is central to this story, and entanglement - it’s too much to expect science fiction to be scientifically accurate - it is fiction after all - but this is claimed as if it were fact.

So, there are some issues to contend with - a bit like a movie with a so-so soundtrack, but that shouldn’t get in the way of the fact that Thomas gives us an intriguing SF hypothesis and some genuinely clever twists. I’m looking forward to see what he does with the sequel.
Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more