Loophole (SF) - Ian Stewart ****

The tendency is for science fiction written this century to work on the small, personal scale, focusing more on characters than plot, but there is a long tradition of older SF novelists from E. E. (Doc) Smith, through Isaac Asimov to Larry Niven who took their stories big and bold - and that is the direction taken by mathematician and author Ian Stewart in his chunky (560 page) novel Loophole.

A strange phenomenon is discovered where a moon appears and disappears - it turns out it is orbiting through a wormhole, spending part of each orbit in two different universes. The discovery of this weird phenomenon leads to three sets of main characters being able to interact - something they need to do, as a mysterious fourth force is rapidly destroying stars. The first set we meet are distinctly alien (even though they behave like parish councillors), a second are apparently normal humans who aren't quite what they seem, and the third are humans of our future - between them spanning at least two universes.

It's mind boggling stuff, containing a truly remarkable collection of ideas. Each group has its own, different high-tech abilities, which together it is hoped can save both universes from the superorganism-like mechanical 'horde' that are killing stars. Only it seems that this horde is unstoppable and ever living thing will be destroyed.

It’s those high concept, massive ideas that earn this novel four stars. Beyond that, I have to say that it has significant weaknesses. The book is way too long, in part because Stewart insists on spelling out what’s happening in far too much detail and giving too much time to long, rather dull, expositions. There's something of a tendency to throw in lots of meaningless terms and explain them many pages later, including unnecessary ‘alien’ units: when alien speech is translated, why not translate the units too? This is just obscurity for the sake of it. Then, about 40% through, we suddenly get a flashback and a third set of characters. This does work out effectively, but only after another information dump. And the final chunk of the book is another information dump - after the action has finished, we get page after page of explanations. There are some nice twists in there... but it isn't great fiction.

Stewart, then, isn’t an outstanding novelist. His writing skills are more oriented to the putting across the factual. But just as, for example, Fred Hoyle’s SF was better than his writing skills suggested because of the idea content, the same applies here. It’s a fascinating attempt at portraying both human and non-human future tech on a grand scale.

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

Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

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

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

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare

Search This Blog