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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more