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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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