Skip to main content

Macroscope (SF) - Piers Anthony ***

Having recently re-read a classic in Neuromancer, a friend asked if I'd come across Macroscope (which I hadn't). Dating back to 1969, it's very much a period piece. It reinforces my view of Piers Anthony as capable of coming up with interesting and different ideas but not being a great writer in terms of style.

The macroscope in question is a kind of super-telescope that instead of using photons makes use of macrons (as opposed to macarons) - which travel at the speed of light but don't follow an inverse power law, making it possible to observe in detail what happens at any location in the galaxy. But it can also act as a kind of super-educator with a catch.

Central characters initially are two mid-twenties individuals: Brad who is super-intelligent and Ivo who is super-intuitive. They have a mysterious past which is only hinted at - Brad brings in Ivo to try to deal with the aforementioned catch that the macroscope wrecks the brains of intelligent people when trying to obtain information from alien races. (Soon after, Brad becomes less of a central character and three others are added to the mix, but I can't say why without spoilers.)

Our heroes head out to Neptune to avoid the UN (surely there are easier ways to do this), but escaping requires surviving 10 g for a long period - the solution for this is weird in the extreme (not to mention unsavoury in its description), though it does allow for the sort of discussion the crew of the Enterprise really should have had about using the transporter. (Apparently it does come up in James Blish's Star Trek novel Spock Must Die.) Along the way we get plenty of obsession with IQ and racial identity.

From here on in things get more and more extreme and when the crew arrive at the location of one of the sources of the signal that wrecks brains, we find astrology worryingly taking on a major role along with odd excursions into something between dreams and the ability to move to different times and places. Frankly, the last part is a bit of a mess.

The date the book is set in is initially somewhat confusing. Ivo was born in 1955 and is around 25 - and later evidence suggests the setting is 1980. This is reinforced by them using Saturn VI rockets (presumably imagined as the follow up to the Apollo Saturn Vs). Yet it's hard to imagine anyone in 1969 really imagined the developments in space travel featured here would be possible by that year - and more confusingly, Ivo sometimes appears to remember events before 1955, though this is presumably an early dip into those experiences between dreams and time travel.

This is makes the book a fascinating relic of the period, if not always very readable. Anthony throws in the kitchen sink and reveals what's happening sufficiently slowly that it can be frustrating to read, not helped by his limited abilities as a writer. And I really find it difficult to forgive the inclusion of astrology as a science. But Macroscope is definitely worth a place as a significant book in SF history, even if it's read more as a curiosity than an enjoyable experience.

Paperback:   

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who Invented the Computer? – Ian Watson

Ian Watson is the author of  The Universal Machine  and featured in a recent  Four Way Interview . Saturday June 23 2012 was the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, the troubled genius who invented the modern computer. Why though do so few people recognize his name and his great achievements? In 1936 English mathematician Alan Turing, published a paper,  On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem . This became the foundation of computing. In it Turing presented a theoretical machine that could solve any problem that could be described by instructions encoded on a paper tape. A Turing Machine could calculate square roots, whilst another might solve Sudoku puzzles. Turing demonstrated you could construct a single  Universal Machine  that could simulate any Turing Machine. One machine solving any problem for which a program could be written – sound familiar? He’d invented the computer. Then,  computers  were peop...

The Star Book – Peter Grego ****

This attractive landscape format book combines an excellent introduction to the stars and basic astronomy with a set of star maps, plus in depth looks at some of the stars featured, with a  bonus section on the solar system. Amazon says it’s a hardback, but in fact it’s a paperback with a rather ingenious cover – you can’t tell from the photo, but the words ‘The Star Book’ are punched through as a series of holes that show the white paper of the next page beneath. Like many astronomy/space books, the cover lacks shelf appeal because it is mostly black, but at least there is some original thought here. Unlike many books in this format which tend to concentrate on the pictures, there is a good deal of excellent text by Peter Grego, so there was no feeling that you were only getting the star maps and star ‘biographies’, something these days much more suited to an iPad or smartphone app. Instead, the opening 30 or so pages give a very good introduction that would be valuable to ...

Ignorance: How it drives science – Stuart Firestein *****

This is a delightful little book that really gets you thinking. I stress the ‘little’ part not as a negative, but as a good thing. There is nothing worse than fat, bloated popular science books where the author feels they have to get 120,000 words to be taken seriously. This is the sort of book that can be read in a couple of hours – but you will get so much more out of it than one of those tedious doorstops. The premise underlying the book is in once sense extremely simple, yet is fundamental to an understanding of what science is and what scientists do. And it is an understanding that is totally at odds with the typical way science is portrayed both in university lectures and popular science books. As Stuart Firestein points out, what is important is not the facts, but rather the area of ignorance. The interesting part and the fundamental heart of science is not about what we know, but about what we don’t know and where we want to look next. Take this lovely quote: ‘Working ...