August 7, 1999

Take 17th Street W
Turn R on Union Valley Rd
Go to end, turn R
First farm at end

//

 August 26, 1999: _Cyteen_ Kendra Langhaar



//////

4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

average = 7.1

JGallman: I gave this book a 6. I thought it
was a decent novel of ideas. It was short
on characterization -- the names are almost
interchangeable. Cloning in this post-holocaust
world. Clones become a hive mind. Becomes a very
totalitarian society. Made me think about Walden
Two, or any of these books about totalitarian
utopian societies. Flaw: Time was too compressed;
3 or 4 generations was not enough elapsed time.
Would have liked better characterization and
better handling of time. Clones weren't handled
that well; they were very smart, almost demonic
at first, but when they were looking at artifacts,
they almost seemed to have fallen apart. (PK:
separation? JG: The author said that, but it
didn't seem that way.) Felt no compulsion to
read this book carefully. Skimmed a good bit and
didn't miss anything.

A few good touches of characterization: When Ben
starts to lose it, Ben became fairly real. Molly
was okay. Otherwise the characters were at best
two-dimensional. 6. On the SF scale.

DW: I gave it a 6 also. Agree with JG in lots of
places but there were a couple of intresting things.
One thing I liked was the handling of the apocalypse.
Some people could see it coming, but there was denial
in government and press. One thing I don't see much
in SF is the actual *moment* of apocalypse, but saw
it here. Another problem was the *decay* of generations,
the idea wasn't really shown systematically.
Fast read, which was good.  She went as far as she could 
with the ideas she had; if you were to make this
a longer book, you'd need to have more ideas.

John: In FIre Upon the Deep, we got a good view of what it was
like to be a Tine.  Here, we just marched through, getting only
brief glimpses.  That's what I mean about it not being fully-developed.

Raja: Gave the lowest - a 4.  Usually give the highest.  Liked writing style, but 
apocalypse is never explained.  Where did the radiation come from?  Author didn't
have much grasp of technology (vacuum tube computers, etc.)  Geiger counters --
why not "lethalectroscopes," easier to build.  "Best novel about cloning"?  
Disagree rather vehemently.  _Imperial Earth_ same time, even earlier.  Not centrally
about cloning, but this isn't either.  No real feel of what it feels like to be a 
clone.  What Clarke does with cloning is a good deal better.  Liked denial in the 
press and the government.  In a sense this is not an SF novel.  Gregory and I would
be trying to figure out why these things were going on; where the sterility is coming
from.

Beth: What appealed (not as a big SF or science person) was the SCALE at which 
they were trying to do it.  This became a factory thing.  IF you think about how
factories work, things do get out of control.  Trying to accomplish foraging, etc.,
on a big scale.  Things always get out of whack when you try things on a large
scale.  When you try to extrapolate something from a lab into a factory situation,
all kinds of odd things are going to happen.  Seemed natural to me.

Raja: That was the only idea I liked from "Lost World": a throwaway line, "..any
cutting-edge industrial xxx has a 90 percent failure rate."  Another problem: 
cloning humans, but using computers with vacuum tubes.

(Discussion about whether the science was any good for the time)

Dadaimia: Are we overly-critical of this because it's within our domain, while we're
less critical of more recent stuff?

PKuchera: Not a hard SF novel by any means. More a sociological novel. Apocalypse
was more like window dressing to let the author run her thought experiment.
Her focus wasn't there; it was elsewhere. I would have given the author more
credit if the main focus had come off better.

Liked the end-of-the-world scenario: Creepy, in the sense it snuck up on everyone.

It's a fast read. A lot of generations in a short time. You get a lot of ideas,
but not a lot of emotional involvement with the characters. PK felt that the
book is dead; it's a fake. The ideas are fine. Was like reading the worst,
most unimaginative poetry on earth. Horrible characterization. Sex was fake.
Sense (smells, colors) were fake. Whole thing seemed *dishonest*. JG, DW,
(and I) disagreed: David and Celia's romance seemed reasonable to us! 
JG: Opening part was good, then died with the clones. DW: There *were* some
moments of humanity, with Molly & Ben, Mark, etc.


GJER: I disagree with *much* that has been said so far. This is a good book, well
made. She is a brilliant writer in the traditional sense of the word: Good at 
painting word-pictures, good at making metaphor to propel the story. This
book is about *diversity*, not fertility. The issue is raised by David wanting
to sleep with his cousin Celia. Why is he not allowed? There are taboo reasons,
but are there biological reasons? Wilhelm doesn't state it (JG, DW, PK: But
David says it!). Digression: I should never reread my nostalgia books. When
I was a kid, reading this book was *wonderful*. I didn't know anything about
computing, about biology. Thought characters were interesting, liked Walt.
Author describes things as if *you are there*. Don't count it as SF. It's
fantasy. Author makes no attempt to explain the biology at all. Pays lip
service to the magical technology that supports the people. It is a fixup
(taken from a story in _Orbit_ and two unpublished stories) and the seams
really really show. Having said that, in spite of the bad tech, in spite
of the transparent manipulations, I think it was a good book. Don't remember
most of what I wanted to say. 30 people is enough to perpetuate the human
species. Under 30, homozygozity piles up. ... The last line of the book
is "they are all different." Not a good book to read about biology, not a
good book about technology, but a good book about diversity, a good book
about living in the Shenandoah Valley, a good book about a continuing
argument across generations between David and Celia.

JAEngland: It was okay. I enjoyed it. It was an easy read. Wasn't complicated.
I liked the premise, but agree with PK that it was kinda flat. Being in the
woods, it didn't seem like the author knew what being in the woods was like.
Other things, I would have liked more details, like when they're trapped in
the hospital under attack and they fought back by flooding the fields. That
was it?? Liked the first story better than the others. Gave this book a 7
because I thought it was pretty good, but not as good as others I've read.

PK: I agree with JAE, I meant what JAE said about not describing the woods.

BGallman: The author *has* written 41 books .... BG was trying to think of
PKu's complaint that this is a passionless book. Loss of passion would be
associated with loss of diversity, major theme of the book.

KGimmler: I liked it. It was 
....

The beginning and middle of the book, I could have taken or left. But liked
Mark a lot -- he was Loki. Favorite scenes were when he was out in the woods
training these idiot clone kids. Was happy *not* to have extensive description
in the sex scenes. KG doesn't *need* a full description. Technology *was* a
big problem for KG. KG doesn't worry about, "What is the theme of this book."
Really liked sending the party downriver. Was annoyed that the author didn't
describe *what* was in the ruins, but KG filled it in with her imagination.
Kerrie does *not* want lengthy descriptions. She doesn't need it.

(PK: I thought that what *was* described didn't work.)

Judy Blackburn: The suspension of disbelief wasn't a problem for me. The
science didn't bug me. As with GJER, liked it a lot better when she was
younger. ... but likes the fact that KWilhelm doesn't say a lot, lets
you (the reader) fill it in. Also, the slow, drawn-out holocaust was
great, much better than a sudden big blast. KWilhelm is very good with
human nature, but not necessarily about individuals. Something about this
book that always touched me, something that's got me in the gut. She
does despair very well; she's done other books that are very good, but
hard to read (because of the despair). That seems very real. The whole
character of Mark: All the clones wanted was for things to be *orderly*.
Like KW in general because she does a good job of exploring and describing
despair, and the darker side of possibility.

BGallman: The sex was about sensation, not passion.
JBlackburn: Also about connection, not passion.

GJER reiterates: Book is about non-conformity and diversity.

//////

