Gordon R. Dickson. Mutants (1973)

 Gordon R. Dickson. Mutants (1973) Short stories, some of which have been published in other collections. Dickson writes clearly and economically, and his ideas are always interesting. Characterisation, as in any romance, suffices for the plot, but unusually for SF, Dickson is as interested in the psychology as in the technology - more so, in many stories. 

     He likes the figure of the “man of war,” which he explores at length in the Dorsai series. One of these, Warrior, leads this collection. Dickson also has a talent for the extended joke, as in Idiot Solvant (a genius is given a pill that has the effect of unleashing all his talents), and Miss Prinks (in which a lady decides not to use her superpowers, bestowed on her by a being from another dimension, since it might cause her to behave in an unladylike manner. 

     These stories all originally appeared in the SF pulps of 1950s and 60s, and like all such stories show a rather timid extrapolation of existing technologies such as computers. And like many other writers of the time (esp. Philip K Dick), Dickson writes stories that may be read as political allegories. Danger - Human! For example could be seen as a disguised claim that American individualism will win out over the stultifying effects of Russian communism. 

     But there’s no need to get all solemn and earnest about themes and motifs. Dickson writes very good entertainments, some of which exceed anything else in the genre. ** to **** (2002)

Richard Neely. Shadows of the Past (1987)

     Richard Neely. Shadows of the Past (1987) A “saga” involving teenage love, class conflict, friendship, loyalty, and sex. Trashy as can be, TV Movie written all over it. (For all I know, it was made into a mini-series -- it’s hard to tell, since they all seem to be the same story.) The book is a romance, unusual only in that it focuses on a man instead of a woman. Charles Dain, son of a poor immigrant, falls in love with schoolmate Sharon Fletcher, whose father throws him out. He enlists in the army (WWI), and she, pregnant, marries an old friend. He meets and marries Harriet Calder, rich, rich, rich heiress, who buys him a newspaper. Max, his and Sharon’s old friend (and supposed chaperone on their dates) becomes his managing editor, etc. Many years later, Charles and Sharon meet and resume their affair, which ends when Dain is shot by Max, who in a drunken rage realises he has never really given up hope of winning Sharon. Charles covers up the deed, and although several people now know Sharon’s daughter Kate is Charles’ child, everything will work out well. The “shadows of the past” will be deliberately forgotten.
     There are few wrinkles of plot I’ve left out, but that’s the essence. The characterisation is superficial, the dialogue is quite good, the narrative trick of shifting back and forth form past to present works well enough, but all in all, it’s fraud, a beach book designed to while away a few hours without too much imaginative or intellectual engagement. The book succeeds at this modest goal, but I can’t help feeling that Neely wanted to write a more serious book. However, like many romances, it’s full of anachronisms, most gratingly in speech and attitudes. *(2002)

Cynthia Freeman. Portraits (1979)

    Cynthia Freeman. Portraits (1979) A Family Saga Romance. A Jewish family emigrates to the USA in the early 1900s. The story follows their fortunes, etc to the present day, when one of the last survivors starts writing this story.
     A bad book, relying on incident (eg, a vicious beating of the hero) and plot (most of which is signalled well ahead of time, just in case your attention wanders), with cursory attempts at socio-economic description. Much telling, very little showing, stereotypical characters and incidents. The story is “realistic,” in that the characters are not saints by any means; but they have moments of insight which bring them round, so that their bad feelings and attitudes don’t last very long. The book has Hollywood and TV rights written all over it; in the right hands it would make a Serious Dramatic miniseries. In other words, light weight trash. I read about 1/4 of it, and had enough. Fay got this book at Books and Stuff, for light summer reading; which it is, but not the best example of its genre.
     Freeman started writing at age 55, and had some success. She explains a lot, which makes for easy reading. She aims at the middle, that kind of reader who doesn’t want to figure things out, doesn’t want to get too involved with the characters, doesn’t want too much intellectual or moral shock, in fact wants to have her prejudices and opinions confirmed, especially the progressive ones. In this, Freeman succeeds. But I don’t like it. * (2002)

Gordon R. Dickson. Mindspan (1986)

     Gordon R. Dickson. Mindspan (1986) Collection of stories about human-alien encounters. Several of the stories form short series, one about Harry Shallo, and one about Tim and Lucy Parent. In all the stories, human (i.e., American) orneriness, cunning, and sheer irrational savvy are shown to be a match for any mere alien. Which raises the question of whether we can imagine an alien of truly superior skill and intelligence. Apparently not. Entertaining, well plotted, nicely written, and swift moving, so that one doesn’t notice the holes in the logic or the thinness of the characters while enjoying these tales. Dickson wrote them for Galaxy and similar 1950s-60s pulps. The editors’ stinginess forced low word counts, which I’m sure contributed to the compressed and often elegant style of tale telling. ** to ***. (2002)

J. Thurber. and E. B. White. Is Sex Necessary? (1929, 1950)

     J. Thurber. and E. B. White. Is Sex Necessary? (1929, 1950) Somewhat dated in its coy humour, but stylish and amusing. Thurber’s analysis of “pedestalism” still stands. The fact that this book was considered screamingly funny when it first appeared tells us a lot about the American obsession with sex, and Americans’ false assumption that other, more sophisticated, societies (e.g. Europe) don’t have the same neuroses as they do. Thurber’s drawings are wonderful. He can put more expression in a single line than some more skillful draftsmen put into a whole picture. **-½ (2002)

Robert Campbell. Plugged Nickel (1988)

     Robert Campbell. Plugged Nickel (1988) Bought at Value Village because it’s set on a train, and obviously a remaindered copy, never read. Jake Hatch is the P.I., he’s a railroad cop working for the Burlington Northern. A severed body is found on the tracks, but the two parts turn out to be from different bodies. And so what might be a gruesome accident turns out to be murder. The puzzle is competently handled, although the denouement is somewhat perfunctory. The characters and atmosphere are pleasant, and we learn a little bit about gypsies. Not the best such entertainment, and not the worst either. Campbell doesn’t get the railroady bits quite right, which may be the reason this didn’t turn into a series as planned. Or maybe it did. The next book was to be titled Red Cent. I haven’t seen it, but I will look for it. ** (2002)

Barton J. Bernstein. Towards a New Past (1969)

     Barton J. Bernstein. Towards a New Past (1969) A collection of “dissenting essays in American History,” and as such containing interesting points of view based in some cases on new data. Many of these points of view would be considered subversive right now. The trouble is, it’s an academic book, put together for undergraduate history courses. I pity the people who had to read this book for credit. The style for the most part is clotted and obscurantist, often written to an audience that presumably has the same knowledge base as the writer. The most readable essay is Christopher Lasch’s, in which he lambastes the “liberals” that allied themselves with right-wing anti-communist paranoia.
      The date of the book suggests reasons for its publication: the 60s were a brief resurgence of the liberal tradition in American society, a tradition that is once again under attack, since it represents what used to be called conservative attitudes: respect for the individual; the view that the state exists to protect the weak from the powerful (which entails redistribution of wealth); a belief that government should promote the general good and not arbitrate between competing interests (for such arbitration inevitably results in co-option by one or another of those interests); and so on.
     Much of its material is, as the academics say, “valuable,” but the academic tone and attitudes put off the people who most need a corrective to their myths of the American past: the ordinary Jane and Joe who believe what is mostly a rickety structure of lies and conscience-salving myths. The heirs of the dissenting tradition, the ultra-sensitive would-be reformers of racist, sexist, classist attitudes, are themselves as guilty of misreading the past as those whom they attack. Since their misreadings for the most part have no political or economic consequences, they are happily included in current TV and movies. The real issues, which are misunderstanding of money and power, and hence mistaken analysis of how they work in our society, are ignored in favour of attempts to avoid affronting those who feel they have a historical grievance of one kind or another.
     Clearly a book that provokes responses. But, oh, how tedious to read! ** (2002)