Difference between revisions of "The Genesis Machine"

From Wikitheus
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bookheader | author=James P Hogan | pubdate=1978 | pages=338 | read=2006.01.03 | rate=9 | expect=10|ISBN=0-743-43597-4}}
+
{{bookheader | author=James P Hogan | pubdate=1978 | pages=338 | read=2006.01.03 | rate=9 | expect=10|ISBN=0-743-43597-4|title=Genesis Machine, The}}
 
I really enjoyed this one.
 
I really enjoyed this one.
  

Latest revision as of 23:10, 16 December 2006

Genesis Machine, The
Author James P Hogan
ISBN ISBN 0-743-43597-4
Published 1978
Pages 338
Date read 2006.01.03
Rating 9/10

I really enjoyed this one.

First on the science:

Hogan's K-space is very similar to modern String Theory. (This shows how up-to-date with physics and forward-thinking he can be at times. String Theory was just starting to be discussed in scientific circles, but hadn't hit the public awareness yet.)

I thought it was interesting seeing some of the possible ramifications if mass can indeed be operated on and rotated through the extra dimensions. Of course, he's short a few dimensions, but hey :D


Next, on to the politics:

The ACRE scenes (unfortunately) reflect work at a national lab very well. A lot of politics, too much security, etc. I could visualize scenes in different places at Argonne very easily. (Although I think he was aiming more at Los Alamos.)

One problem with near-future prediction is that it becomes dated very quickly. So, all of the socio-political aspects from the middle of the book don't work very well. (Hey, it was written in the 70s) However, if you replace 'Communism' with 'Terrorism', a lot of it DOES work. The measures enacted in the book are a lot like the measures enacted under the blanket of Homeland Security in today's America / National Labs.

Of course Hogan feeds the hubris of scientists :) Science is good, science is pure, science will cure all of society's woes. The main reason I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 is that I do realize that Scientists aren't perfect :D

--Tometheus 5 January 2006 (PST)