Difficult one this; the core science fiction concepts and story were good, the horrendous sexism not so much so.
Timescape was published in 1980 and set partly in the early sixties and partly in the ‘future’ late nineties. The later sections are set in a world of ecological collapse with poisonous blooms forming in the oceans and facing possible global disaster. In an attempt to avert this disaster a team of scientists at Cambridge university are attempting to use tachyons to send a warning message back to 1962. This message is/was duly received by another team of scientist at the university of California in 1962.
Despite the now very dated feel of the ‘science’ it still formed a good solid core to a good hard science fiction story even attempting to give a plausible defence of the causality issues. I would even go so far as to say this element of the book was very worthy of the awards the book collected at the time. However, I sadly have to take exception to this quote: “The novel was widely hailed by both critics of science fiction and mainstream literature for its fusion of detailed character development and interpersonal drama with more standard science fiction fare such as time travel and ecological issues.” This ‘interpersonal’ drama was, for me, the most painful aspect of the book in almost every way possible and very nearly pushed me to not finish the book.
The two settings were cliched beyond belief. Was sixties California really that sexualised? I wasn’t there then and I guess Benford was so maybe. But it all seemed so full of social and sexual freedom and angst that it actually felt more like a comic satire of that era and, frankly, embarrassing to read. At least when it stuck to the science aspects it was good, if a little self-indulgent regarding academic status rivalry. The nineties setting was far worse. The entire social environment around middle class Cambridge academia was like a cliched Hollywood vision of the oh so correct and twee imaginary world of English suburbia, with the professor’s wife obsessed with make a success of the dinner party and keeping all the conversations on a suitably genteel track. And if that wasn’t bad enough it seemed like every male spent half their time eying up every female that appears with excessively long examinations of their appearance including breast size, thighs and bum. With one positively predatory married man who seem to continuously move from one affair to the next including a couple of colleagues wives and a picking up a shop girl in a book shop. And this same person feeling guilty about reading someone’s private mail because he is, after all, a gentleman! The ‘interpersonal drama’ also had nothing whatsoever to do with the main story making it feel like purely gratuitous ‘interpersonal tosh.’
The main story would have been a solid four stars, but all that peripheral rubbish was one star at best leaving me feeling generous giving the book an overall three star rating. Disappointing as it could have been so good!
3/5 stars
Timescape was published in 1980 and set partly in the early sixties and partly in the ‘future’ late nineties. The later sections are set in a world of ecological collapse with poisonous blooms forming in the oceans and facing possible global disaster. In an attempt to avert this disaster a team of scientists at Cambridge university are attempting to use tachyons to send a warning message back to 1962. This message is/was duly received by another team of scientist at the university of California in 1962.
Despite the now very dated feel of the ‘science’ it still formed a good solid core to a good hard science fiction story even attempting to give a plausible defence of the causality issues. I would even go so far as to say this element of the book was very worthy of the awards the book collected at the time. However, I sadly have to take exception to this quote: “The novel was widely hailed by both critics of science fiction and mainstream literature for its fusion of detailed character development and interpersonal drama with more standard science fiction fare such as time travel and ecological issues.” This ‘interpersonal’ drama was, for me, the most painful aspect of the book in almost every way possible and very nearly pushed me to not finish the book.
The two settings were cliched beyond belief. Was sixties California really that sexualised? I wasn’t there then and I guess Benford was so maybe. But it all seemed so full of social and sexual freedom and angst that it actually felt more like a comic satire of that era and, frankly, embarrassing to read. At least when it stuck to the science aspects it was good, if a little self-indulgent regarding academic status rivalry. The nineties setting was far worse. The entire social environment around middle class Cambridge academia was like a cliched Hollywood vision of the oh so correct and twee imaginary world of English suburbia, with the professor’s wife obsessed with make a success of the dinner party and keeping all the conversations on a suitably genteel track. And if that wasn’t bad enough it seemed like every male spent half their time eying up every female that appears with excessively long examinations of their appearance including breast size, thighs and bum. With one positively predatory married man who seem to continuously move from one affair to the next including a couple of colleagues wives and a picking up a shop girl in a book shop. And this same person feeling guilty about reading someone’s private mail because he is, after all, a gentleman! The ‘interpersonal drama’ also had nothing whatsoever to do with the main story making it feel like purely gratuitous ‘interpersonal tosh.’
The main story would have been a solid four stars, but all that peripheral rubbish was one star at best leaving me feeling generous giving the book an overall three star rating. Disappointing as it could have been so good!
3/5 stars
