Machine Vendetta (SF) - Alastair Reynolds *****

I recently read another SF thriller and moaned that it was very slow to get going. You can’t say that about Machine Vendetta. In the first few chapters we get three separate major incidents - and that’s just the beginning of the problems for central character Prefect Dreyfus and his colleagues at Panoply. Alastair Reynolds set up a rich political position for this organisation - its primary role is to ensure the voting at the heart of democracy keeps going, but they effectively act as a sort of inter-habitat FBI as well.

It’s been a while since I read the previous novels in the series (Aurora Rising and Elysium Fire), and was concerned I’d have trouble keeping up, but Reynolds does an excellent job of filling in what’s needed without ever going into boring synopsis mode.

At the heart of the story are two rogue AIs, so powerful that they are god-like in their abilities - this, combined with the after effects of a failed attempt to control them, a conspiracy to continue this effort and unrest due to what appears to have been an act of terrorism by one of the supposed good guys gives a rich and engaging plot - true page turner stuff. I think it’s a sign of just how good Alastair Reynolds is at packing detail and plot into his novels that I was really surprised that this is only the third (and probably final) book in the series.

I can’t say much more without spoilers, but the whole thing is a delight. Well, almost. Some might raise an eyebrow at the ending - not because it’s a cliff hanger (thankfully - novels really shouldn’t end with cliff hangers), but because it ties everything up almost too neatly in just a few pages. Even so, the book forms a great ending to the trilogy.

Hardback:

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

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically? Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

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 ...

Search This Blog