Skip to main content

Fire of the Dark Triad (SF) - Asya Semenovich ***

Classic science fiction from the 1950s, such as the work of Isaac Asimov, is rightly criticised these days for lacking characterisation, a tendency to tell rather than show, and an absence of meaningful female characters, even if the ideas were often excellent and the action scenes could be quite engaging. In many ways, this novel takes us back to those flawed classics of the genre.

The problem is worst at the start. The first twenty pages or so takes us from prehistory to the future in such a skimpy way that it is tedious to read. This is the telliest opening I have ever seen in a published piece of fiction. It's often little more than a summary, with a key concept for the book covered in little more than a page. Here we discover  that gateways to parallel universes are discovered where variants of Earth aren't occupied by intelligent life, giving a limitless opportunity for colonies to be set up and develop in their own way, eventually becoming a threat the the Earth.

The other central concept, which the whole storyline rests on, is the 'dark triad' of the title. These are the attributes of narcissism, psychopathy and machiavellianism. It's apparently a genuine term from psychology (though I'm not sure why it's necessary, in the sense that I've never heard descriptions of psychopaths who don't have the other two traits). I admit my knowledge of psychopathy is limited to Jon Ronson's brilliant book The Psychopath Test, but the 'triad' concept does feel a little like someone in the psychology world just looking for an excuse to publish popular psychology books.

In Fire of the Dark Triad, though, Asya Semenovich makes a link that I've never seen, in suggesting that creativity and innovation are primarily the results of being a 'dark triad' person - i.e. a psychopath. This seems distinctly contrary to reality - I could believe it more from other psychological traits, but not psychopathy. However, the whole book rests on this premise. The future Earth, it seems, in breeding and editing out psychopathic tendencies, has become unable to be creative and needs to bring in dark triad people from the parallel Earth colonies to thrive and develop.

The book is by far at its best in the action sections, featuring an Earth agent called Nick (a dark triad person himself, though Earth-born) whose job is to retrieve these useful psychopaths, but who is faced with a huge personal dilemma. This takes up the majority of the rest of the book, and worked well enough to keep me reading, though Nick's technology is so advanced compared to that of the colonies that his AI assistant could sometimes verge on being a deus ex machina.

There was one big plot hole - Nick somehow went from being totally broke to hiring a private island - and there's one oddity in that the main characters are mostly male, with the female MCs defined by their relationship to men, particularly strange in a novel by a female author when most modern male SF authors don't fall into this trap. Also, like the classics, the characters were fairly two-dimensional and those who were supposedly strong on dark triad characteristics seemed no more malevolent and self-centred than anyone else in the book. There's also a distinctly misleading plug on the cover 'As featured in the exciting new film Married to Math', as this refers to the author: it's not saying that this book has been made into a movie.

It was enough to get me to the end, though. A fair holiday read, but nowhere near the best that modern science fiction can offer.

Paperback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Steven Pinker *****

In the past I've found Steven Pinker's books hypnotic - I drift along enjoying the words and feeling I'm getting something deep from it without anything much sinking in. This one was different - it was sometimes a little harder to get your head around the underlying concept, descending as it tends to into infinite regression, but overall I did feel I'd gained a lot.  Pinker's focus here is 'common knowledge' which is when not only do we both/all know something, but we know that the other(s) know as well and the implications this has for human interactions. One entertaining thing to emerge from this is the ability to get into infinite loops of the 'I know that you know that I know that...' variety. Although we aren't mentally equipped to deal with more than a handful of iterations, we are told that a simple but limited interaction like a text exchange strictly needs the full infinite set to be definitive. For example, if you and a friend are tryin...