Reviews and Comments

While it's an interesting book on the joys of simple living, I found that there were some things that were either not mentioned or very "off" in Brende's description. He mentions Catholic vs Anabaptist leanings, but talks about religion as a component of living off the grid -- while he has questions about the orthodoxy of the church and boring church sermons, he doesn't have a problem with the basic concept of religion as an integral part of life there. I do. Every time I was interested or found the idea seductive, an offhand reference of religion was enough to make me very glad I wasn't doing that.

The second thing that seemed off was his treatment of his wife. From the start, his description of his wife as an "assistant" is disturbing... and there's very little mention of her doing anything other than passively agreeing with him. Even when Brende is discussing how she felt herself being placed in the kitchen, it's very clearly his voice rather than hers.

Finally, Brende doesn't discuss to my satisfaction how he re-entered "normal" life and how he and his children live without a job or health insurance. I don't dispute that he lives the life he leads, or that it works for him. But his choices don't seem nearly as safe as he'd like to imply, even considering his background as an MIT educated worker, and his "off the grid cred" seems a bit silly considering that he has electricity, a phone and typed up his manuscript on a word processor.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good book. But it's one that is very clearly written by someone who knows where he stands, and stands so firmly on that line that he has trouble seeing the other side.

This is a half-baked treatise that uses global warming and peak oil as a rationale for "spiritual" living. Actual science and studies are thin on the ground.

I really should have guessed that something was up when looking at the recommendations: they are from the authors of "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg", "Conversations with God", "Conscious Evolution", "The Shaman's Doorway", "A Deep Breath of Life" and "Voice of the Planet". I read to the point where he started talking about the indoctrinating effect of television on today's youth. It's going in my recycling pile when I can be bothered to pick it up.

I suppose I shouldn't be quite so hard on it given that it was written in 1998, but having just read Plan B, Hot: The Next 50 years, and The Ecotechnic Future -- this book doesn't measure up to any one of them. There are more comprehensive, more complete books out there now. Go buy one of them.

It's an okay book, but the central conceit (humanity can create small artificial universes) is played out so that the full capability is only discovered by necessity when under attack. Which leads to lots of breathless "I never thought of it this way, but might get us out of this!" where the idea is actually being used for creating a world with bizarre physics that is considerably more complex than the idea itself.

The villain is also weak. Perhaps intentionally so, but still, the moustache twirling got old quickly.

But the biggest problem is that the language just doesn't inspire. For all that it is a novel of the future, it's so clearly a book of the present that the protagonist is making Leroy Jenkin jokes and complaining that no-one remembers Batman. Meanwhile, the civilization itself is Americana. There's nothing that's odd or shocking or alien about it, and with the technology and power that they have available, I'm surprised they're even human to begin with. Yes, there's some back story that goes into how they avoided the Singularity, but I wince hearing about the Asimovian postulates.

So while this book is readable, it's also more forgettable than it should be. Oh well.

This book... made me itch.

It reads like a 1950s potboiler. The characters are cardboard stereotypes. The plot is hackneyed. And the central conceit, a system of incorporation, is a problem, because a) it's silly (WHY was this solution considered? HOW did it get introduced?) and b) social forces would have acted far sooner to challenge the central premise, without requiring the figurehead. The ridiculous figurehead.

Justin Cord is basically John Galt, frozen and petrified. The book reads like Ayn Rand fanfic, and the only bits which are truly original and compelling -- the VR plagues and the destruction of the old world -- are sidelined for a truly stupid fight between Justin and Hektor. And most of the time I was rooting for Hektor. If anything Hektor is the real protagonist in the novel, because he's fighting for a system he believes in against the inexorable force of the plot.

I think part of the reason I dislike this book so much is because it could have been great. The writing could have been better. The protagonist could have been more human (no-one gets to be Justin Cord without a little collateral damage), and the female interest could have been less of a cardboard cutout. The sidekick could have been anyone but a salty down to earth miner. More than that, the society isn't fully thought out -- yes, the VR precepts argue against true insanity, but a world 300 years in the future would resemble something out of Transmetropolitan than it would anything a present day human would understand.

As it is, it's a book by people who aren't writers, who make up a straw world, argue against a system that doesn't even hold up to cursory examination, then want you to act surprised when a godlike marysue character makes it falls over. Unimpressed.