Kay's Bookshelf

The book is developed on two planes: the particular, dealing with Newland and May’s personal life, and the general, expounding on the high society’s mores of the time. While the former was interesting, I was captivated by the latter. I was amazed to discover a world completely opposed to my image of New York, a world ruled by rigid moral codes and manners, a closed circle where only a precious few have access. While I have read about this kind of people here in Europe (I think almost every country had such circles of “blue bloods” that lived the same way as those in the book), I would never have imagined it was the same in America too (I don’t have a particular reason why not, I just couldn’t imagine it).

For this reason the parts of the book that interested me the most were Newland’s musings on society. I loved to see the way he was struggling to reconcile his upbringing and the old fashioned thoughts of the people around him with his sentiments that things should be different, that (as an example) women should be as free as men, and that things aren’t necessarily to be done the way everyone else does them. Newland is at times ahead of his time (and I was fascinated by him each time that happened, as I believe it’s not easy for one to challenge the convictions one grew up with), and at times just as prejudiced as his peers (“It was easier, and less dastardly on the whole, for a wife to play [the part of faithful spouse] toward her husband. A woman’s standard of truthfulness was tacitly held to be lower: she was the subject creature, and versed in the arts of the enslaved.“).

At first sight the very opposite of him is May, the beautiful and serene woman that is well on her way to turning into a perfect copy of her mother. Newland sees her as incapable of growth and quite unable of thinking on her own (“As she sat thus, the lamplight full on her clear brow, he said to himself with a secret dismay that he would always know the thoughts behind it, that never, in all the years to come, would she surprise him by an unexpected mood, by a new idea, a weakness, a cruelty or an emotion.“). Yet the author does at times offer the reader clues that, although she doesn’t show it much, May is capable of more depth that her husbands credits her with; however she is too trapped in the conventions of the age, that require for a woman to be a good housekeeper more than anything and just leave the thinking to the husband.

Speaking of the age, I had fun noticing the few mentions of technological advancements some people at the time expected with wonder to see in the future, and I regarded them as nice touches of the author’s (the book was released in 1920). For example Countess Olenska (if I remember correctly) is very excited at one point about the idea of a telephone perhaps being able to “transport” voices from street to street, or maybe, wondrously, even from town to town. Also, at another point someone mentions “visionaries who likewise predicted the building of ships that would cross the Atlantic in five days, the invention of a flying machine, lighting by electricity, telephonic communication without wires, and other Arabian Night marvels“. Almost all of these came true by the time the book was written (for example the first successful crossing of the Atlantic by plane was done in 1919, by Alcock and Brown). For some reason I loved these small details; I know it can be said that the mentions of then non-existent technology make the book seem a bit dated, but I prefer to think of the characters as imagining the future with wide-eyed innocence (unlike the jaded people of today), adding yet another dimension to the title (the age of innocence = the age of long ago, when people were still untainted by technology).

And speaking of the title, I have spent quite a bit of time trying to figure what the title was meant to refer to. First of all, naming the book “The Age of …” was clearly a nice touch, since the book is, more than anything else, a picture of a certain time and age. How about the “Innocence” part though? That I have had a bit more trouble to place because, while the people were highly judgemental and so everyone tried, on the outside, not to break any moral code, very few of them actually are what might be called innocent in the long run. And then I thought that “The age of innocence” is actually an ironic name for what would have better been called “the age of keeping up appearances”, and then it all made sense.

Thoughts on the ending: The last chapter takes place 26 years after the previous one. While it deals with the changes in Newland’s life too (nothing that I’ll mention here so as not to spoil the book), the author doesn’t miss the opportunity to show the reader the changes in the society. A lot of progress has been done, and young people of the day are feeling a lot more free than the ones before them did: codes of conduct are more relaxed and people are less judgemental, the city starting to sound at last like the New York I was expected to see all along. The age of innocence has ended; the age of freedom and opportunities has arrived (and I am thankful to the author for mentioning this part, expanding thus the little bit of knowledge about old New York that I have gathered while reading the book).

A quote I liked, regarding that (out of Newland’s musings comparing the old with the new):

“The difference is that these young people take it for granted that they’re going to get whatever they want, and that we almost always took it for granted that we shouldn’t. Only, I wonder – the thing one’s so certain of in advance: can it ever make one’s heart beat as wildly?”

What I liked most: All the insight it offered regarding the way the things were in New York back then. I feel so naive now but there were a lot of things I have found surprising while reading :)

What I liked least: Nothing. Well, I did get a bit confused at times because of the names, as some people’s first names were others’ last names (there is Newland Archer and the Newland family, for example; there is an Emerson Sillerton and a Sillerton Jackson; and so on), but this was more of a source of amusement than anything else, without detracting a whit from my enjoyment of the book.

Recommend it to? I, for one, have loved it and I glad to have read it, so naturally enough I recommend it to everyone :)

I read this book for The Classics Circuit – yay! Interested in more Wharton reviews? Click here for the full schedule of the tour.

Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 16% [?]

As the author puts it in the prologue, the book is an exercise in describing “the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh.“. It tells the story of the life of Christ, from this very point of view: the feelings the human part of Christ might have felt at one time or another. Mr. K’s Christ is not the serene person we might have in mind when we think of Him of the gospels; he has moments of peace, but he also has moments when he is angry, afraid or feels lust. Overall, this Christ is so utterly, so incredibly human that one can only resonate with his plight. Sure, it can be said that this whole process is demeaning to the godly part of Christ, he being considered the one without sin (and he says it himself in the Bible that even thinking of sinning with a woman is just as sinful as the deed itself). However I tend to be in the opposite camp: after all, we are taught that Christ was just as much human as he was God, which makes it very plausible that he had all the basic human feelings too.

To think that the book opens with Jesus being a cross-maker! A cross-maker, working on the Sabbath, in an effort to defy God so much that He’ll leave him alone, and working up more and more anger seeing how useless his battle was (““Yes, yes,” he murmured, “you understand perfectly. Yes, on purpose; I do it on purpose. I want you to detest me, to go and find someone else; I want to be rid of you! [...] and I shall make crosses all my life, so that the Messiahs you choose can be crucified!“). But God still, ceaselessly, calls to him, and despite his not feeling up to the task (“I can’t! I’m illiterate, an idler, afraid of everything. I love good food, wine, laughter. I want to marry, to have children. … Leave me alone!“) Jesus has to give in in the end, especially as his whole being was thirsting for God despite the unjust way he thought himself treated.

And so it begins. Judging by the apostles mentioned, Mr. K has used the Gospel of John as main source (the only one where Nathanael was one of the followers). Which isn’t to say that Bible is followed to the letter. It’s actually interesting to notice how the author has handpicked a few elements in the Bible and distorted them a bit, to serve as a basis for the legends about to be born not as the legends themselves. For example the visit of the three magi has not actually happened, it all was a dream Mary had one time. Mary’s husband has become paralysed on the very day of their wedding, a way to explain how Mary remained a virgin until Jesus was born. Jesus walking on water and inviting Peter to join him is also a dream that only hints at its possibly being true. At the other end of the spectrum we have Jesus who is literally slapped and he literally turns the other cheek (a thing that I don’t remember actually happening in the Bible, I only remember this being advised).

There are of course some moments that have been kept faithful to their Bible telling though. The one with the stoning of Magdalene is almost one of those — I say almost because. unlike in the Bible, in this book this is the very scene where the cross-maker becomes the Son of God in the eyes of the people. The author has nevertheless preserved the very essence of the moment, the “Let him among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone!” part, and the way everything is narrated makes this one of my favorite scenes in the book.

The author has done a great job depicting the general atmosphere of the time, that of urgent expectancy: most people (Judas among them) feel that the Messiah should arrive any day now, and they are constantly looking for Him and taking what they think is steps to clear His path (alas, one of these steps was planning the murdering of Jesus himself but oh well, at least they had good intentions). Here or there though there are also a handful of people (Old Zebedee for one) content with their earthly lot and thinking all the talk of Messiahs nonsense (“[...] it seems that wherever you go and wherever you stop, you find a cross. The dungeons are overflowing with Messiahs. Ooo, enough’s enough! We’ve been getting along just fine without Messiahs; they’re nothing but a nuisance.“). It should be perhaps noted that the Messiah was seen by many as an overturner of the current way of life, someone who will help the Jewish people shake of the Roman yoke (a thing that very much explains why mostly poor people dreamed about His coming while the well-off didn’t much care). I was actually very much disappointed later on, during the book, to discover how few of Jesus’ followers went with him out of conviction and how many of them did so hoping that they are on the road to riches, honors and greatness (“Impressiveness, rank, clothes of silk, golden rings, abundant food and to feel the world under the Jewish heel: that was the kingdom of heaven.“).

An unexpected portion of the book deals with the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene knew each other as children, and they were actually in love. But God did not let Jesus marry her, and it’s for this very reason that Magdalene has turned to selling her body (“In order to forget one man, in order to save myself, I’ve surrendered my body to all men!“). It’s not only her though, as Judas and even Barabbas were previous acquaintances of Christ when a carpenter too. Speaking of which, it was very interesting to observe many of the apostles-to-be before the event that was to forever change their lives: John was a very religious young boy, Peter was a fisherman, his brother Andrew has lived in the desert for a while, Judas was a blacksmith and so on) — people with day to day lives, a “detail” I haven’t given much thought before.

Someone I had trouble liking was Mary, although I did partially understand her. She is a simple woman and wants nothing more from life than what she considers her due: her only son to take a wife and give her grandchildren. Granted, Mary’s life has been a hard one, what with her husband being unable to move or speak for many years now, and her only son considered crazy by some (herself included). And yet I cannot help finding her reactions exaggerated (although I admit that perhaps they weren’t so at the time): she scratches her cheeks, beats her head against stones and once she even wants to curse her own beloved son. A very contrasting image to the one we have of Mary in the Bible, where she is aware of Jesus’ role on earth and accepts it, despite its leading to her own heartbreak.

What I liked most: What I took to be the sermon on the mountain. First of all that is one of my favourite parts of the Bible. Because of it I paid particular attention to the moment in the book and it didn’t disappoint. At that moment Jesus was not yet a full fledged Messiah, “a gawky bird he was, struggling to twitter for the first time“, and yet his whole being was struggling to get God’s message across. A message of love, a message that was rather badly received by the people around him (who expected something different), and Jesus’ authenticity was doubted by some. I very much like these parts, where people have issues with what Jesus has to say, because they sound very real to me — I mean, if someone came and told you to believe something completely opposed to your innermost thoughts, would you jump and take it for granted, or would you have to struggle with the new ideas for a while?

A quote to better illustrate the idea:

Andrew was infuriated. He extricated himself from his brother’s grasp and went and stood before Jesus.

“I’ve just come from the river Jordan in Judea,” he shouted. “There a prophet proclaims: ‘Men are chaff and I am the fire. I have come to burn up and purify the earth, to burn up and purify the soul so that the Messiah may come forth!’ And you. son of the Carpenter, you preach love! Why don’t you take a look around you? Everywhere: liars, murderers, robbers! All are dishonest—rich and poor, oppressed and oppressors, Scribes and Pharisees—all! all! I too am a liar, I too am dishonest, and so is my brother Peter over there, and so is Zebedee with his fat paunch: he hears “love” and thinks of his boats and men and how to steal as much as he can from the wine press.”

Other details I liked: the relationship between Jesus and Judas (my favorite ever, show spoiler

Does God’s will change, then, Rabbi? asked John, surprised.
No, John, beloved. But man’s heart widens and is able to contain more of God’s will.

What I liked least: The part where Jesus was in the desert. I was expecting it to be somehow “muddled” since I thought he’d be half hallucinating after spending all that time without food or water, but I didn’t expected it to be that long. I even ended up skipping some lines now and then. Darn.

Recommend it to? Anyone up to a story of the life of Christ a bit different than what we were taught. It’s not an easy read (the writing is beautiful at times but heavy at others) however the ideas explored might be worth the time.


Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 12% [?]

(if you don’t know what the book’s about you might not want to read further as a major spoiler could follow)

Hailsham seems, at first, like a normal school. Sure, the personnel there does not consist of “teachers” but of “guardians”. Sure, the pupils there have very little contact with the outside world. And there is certainly a good deal of importance placed on developing the pupils creativity. Despite it all, the daily life is just as normal as one would think. Children are being taught, they interact with one another in ways more or less mature, they grow up and, once they reach sixteen, they leave. All seems natural enough… but there are also mentions of things that make the reader wonder just how ordinary the school is.

For example, all the students know that they can never have babies of their own. All students know that they must keep as healthy as possible, and smoking is so taboo that even the pages in the books mentioning it are being ripped out. Every now and then there are talks of having to make donations later on. All clues are pointing to one simple truth (unveiled one rainy day by one of the teachers): the students are not ordinary children. They are just clones that have been created in order to “donate” their organs later on.

But this surprise is not, in my eyes, the central point of the story. For me, everything focuses around the fact (easily forgettable by the people of that time, and understandable too under the circumstances) that these clones are people too. Although they have been brought to life with a specific purpose, and their path in life has already been traced for them, they’re just like everyone else: they argue, they fall in love, they enjoy reading books, etc. A truth that’s obvious to the reader, especially given that the story is narrated by “one of them”, but way less so to the society Kathy, Ruth and Tommy live in.

Here is a quote explaining precisely that (and also a quote that makes everything seem very possible, like it could actually happen the very moment the logistics and technology would be available):

Suddenly there were all these new possibilities laid before us, all these ways to cure so many previously incurable conditions. This was what the world noticed the most, wanted the most. And for a long time, people preferred to believe these organs appeared from nowhere, or at most that they grew in a kind of vacuum. Yes, there were arguments. But by the time people became concerned about… about students, by the time they came to consider just how you were reared, whether you should have been brought into existence at all, well by then it was too late. There was no way to reverse the process. How can you ask a world that has come to regard cancer as curable, how can you ask such a world to put away that cure, to go back to the dark days? There was no going back. However uncomfortable people were about your existence, their overwhelming concern was that their own children, their spouses, their parents, their friends, did not die from cancer, motor neurone disease, heart disease. So for a long time you were kept in the shadows, and people did their best not to think about you. And if they did, they tried to convince themselves you weren’t really like us. That you were less than human, so it didn’t matter.

(I know that cloning people is theoretically possible even today, but right now the moral part is prevalent and the process is forbidden in most countries. And yet I can only too easily imagine how the morals would have to take a step back once it may be discovered that this would be the way to cure cancer, for example. Luckily for everyone involved, as far as I know efforts are being made to grow organs in labs, out of stem cells, so theoretically the need for creating a “whole human” would not exist, ever. Only the future will tell, though, if that is the case or not).

Another issue that got me thinking (and as I write this I have yet to decide what my feelings are on the matter) is whether these children-clones should be told or not about what is in store for them. Should things be kept hidden from them, should they think themselves normal and should they be allowed to have plans for the future? Or should all their little ambitions be nipped in the bud, and the harsh reality fully exposed to them? Hailsham’s head guardian has one way of looking at things, Kathy and Tommy have another. And I… I have no idea who to agree with. Or better yet, who not to agree with as I currently tend to think both sides are as correct as possible, given the circumstances.

As a final consideration, the world the author has created is, towards our characters and their peers, harsh and cruel. A world where twenty-something year olds have to die in order for other people to enjoy longer life. Frightening. But also a world where people no longer die from, say, heart disease (one of the leading causes of death these days). Two sides of the same coin, and there cannot be one without the other. I do hope that there won’t ever be such cases in real life, that we will never “create” people like that, and yet I am lured by the benefits too. It all boils down to the person whose shoes I’m putting myself in whenever I try to decide which option is best. Yay for lab-created organs is all I’ll say.

What I liked most: The way the Hailsham students were told about who they are. show spoiler

I found the last few phrases particularly moving too:
show spoiler

What I liked least: Nothing. It was great.

Recommend it to? Anyone. It saddened me while reading (and a bit after), but that is a sign of how good a book it is.


Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 36% [?]

I added this book to my list of planned-to-be-read books more than a year ago, since first hearing about it, because the topic seemed new to me and full of potential. A husband that was so in love with his wife that he wrote her letters for the future, so that a small part of him could be around her then. For some reason I expected each letter to be long, I expected him to explore previously unseen sides of him each time, in order to… I don’t know, make him harder and harder to miss, make the love they had seem even more precious. But. It is only now, after reading the book, that I realize this couldn’t have been. First of all, because there are no “previously unseen sides” in a couple like that. Also, had the letters been like I hoped they were, long and full of promise, it would have done a world of harm to Holly, as she had enough trouble coping as it was and she didn’t need any extra reminders of what could have been and now could never be. I very much admire the author for the way she chose the letters from Gerry to be (although I, as a reader, always wanted more, more, more :) ).

Another thing that I have liked was the way the author has written the relationships between characters: they seem real, and I felt for Holly’s pain of her loss all throughout the book. There’s more to the book, relation-wise, than this, as Holly is anything but an island: she has four siblings, a mother and father, friends, work colleagues, casual acquaintances and so on. I watched her struggle with the said relationships, trouble to form them, trouble to keep them when worse came to worse, and I was glad to find them fairly well written (at least for a chick lit book, of course).

There are plenty of characters in the book, and, while none of them are perfect, all of them were likable with one notable exception. Unfortunately, I really couldn’t like Holly herself (all the more reasons why I thought the author has done a great job with portraying her emotions, making me care for them and their effect on Holly although I didn’t like her). Holly celebrates her thirtieth birthday somewhere at the beginning of the book, and yet she acts mostly like a teenager (including a most annoying habit to call things “stupid” at times). The most fun she knows how to have is getting drunk in a pub (with friends, of course, but she has definitely spent too much of the book being drunk for my personal taste). I may be too uptight but really, her work ethic was dubious too (“Holly would daydream the majority of the day, make personal phone calls, especially abroad, because she didn’t have to pay the bill, and would be first in queue to collect her monthly paycheck, which was usually spent within two weeks.“). While I get she didn’t like her job and so on, I kinda have a problem with her being so unreliable for her employers (but then perhaps everyone does that and I live in a world of my own). Oh, and she cannot even spell!! How am I supposed to identify with that???

(Well, to be completely honest with the author, Ms. Ahern was 21 when she wrote the book so understandably enough she made Holly have the ideal life for a girl that age, forgetting or ignoring the fact that Holly is supposed to be a whole decade older and presumably more mature (the kind of maturity that was nowhere in Ms. Ahern’s sight at her tender age). I can of course understand that but I still didn’t like Holly at all.)

Gerry on the other hand is a whole other matter. While I admit that we see him very little and only in situations meant to emphasize his good side, I really liked him nevertheless (at least all his letters are spelled just fine). As for the rest of the cast, the author has definitely done a good job with them, as they are multifaceted enough and at times a joy to discover — although some changes in them were somewhat forced (I am thinking here about Richard, one of Holly’s brothers, who became almost a different person mid-book).

A quote I very much liked:

Growing older became something he wanted desperately to accomplish, rather than merely a dreaded inevitability. How presumptuous they both had been never to consider growing old as an achievement and a challenge. Aging was something they’d both wanted so much to avoid.

As a final mention, I for one have never been through what Holly’s been through (thank God!), but I’ve seen it mentioned among young widows that the year the book spans is quite unrealistic, way too short a time for Holly’s heart to heal as much as it did. I can understand the need for the book to take a shorter while rather than longer (as no one would write letters for the next I don’t know how many years), and also I think that the ending is a bit ambiguous with respect to the exact amount of healing Holly has managed: show spoiler

What I liked most: I know I have already blabbed on and on about the relationships between the characters, but bear with me a bit more: my favorite part of the book was the light banter all of them shared throughout the book. Everyone has a nice sense of humor, they tease each other now and then, and they actually manage to be funny without looking like they’re trying to hard — unlike other books I read *coughWitchlingcough*

The ending was bound to appeal to me too: show spoiler

What I liked least: Out of curiosity I have seen the P.S. I Love You movie prior to reading the book. While the two have nothing in common other than some character names and the central plot (Gerry, an Irish guy, married Holly, and then he died, but not before writing her some letters), I have nevertheless the main protagonists’ physical appearance stuck in my head as belonging to them. Now, I like Gerard Butler and he did a decent job as Gerry (especially as we don’t very much see the Gerry in the book, so while I had an idea he was younger than Mr. Butler looked in the movie I didn’t much care). However Hilary Swank really and truly ruined (what was left of) Holly for me. While I have nothing against Ms. Swank herself, I kept imagining Holly looking as her, and then it felt wrong, because in the book Holly is a bit shorter and blonder and a lot more vulnerable than Ms. Swank portrayed her in the movie. But, of course, serves me right for watching the movie first :)

Recommend it to? Anyone in the mood for a chick lit story a bit more gloomy than usual. It’s a light read though and as fun as can be with the said topic.


Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 40% [?]

The book is an example of what I call “light SciFi”: everything happens in the future and the technology is very advanced — there are many things that are taken for granted by people living in that time (and our narrator, Douglas Hall, among them), and yet it isn’t hard for the reader to “get” what the new things are and what do they do. Usually the names are very descriptive (such as “simulectronics”, a combination of simulation and electronics, “staticstrip”, a strip of normal, non-moving sidewalk, as opposed to the “pedistrips” that moved along, carrying people at various speeds), and sometimes there are explanations in a few words (such as when the way laser intensity affects people is explained). Because of this I could easily get into the book and the world it depicted, despite its differences from my own world — and, predictably enough, I loved that.

The characters are very few and quite underdeveloped (and none of them except the narrator gets enough “screen time” for the reader to get to know them and/or get to care for them) — and yet this doesn’t make the book less interesting. Once, because of the plot and the mystery surrounding Hall, but also because of the questions it makes arise in the mind of the reader. For example, the professor was very attached to what he called “his little people”, and we also get some insight into the mind of one of the simulated characters (a special one, cursed with the knowledge that he was nothing but bits of information and electric impulses). It makes the reader wonder — what actually makes a person real? Can a simulated person be called a person? Does a simulated person have a soul? Are their feelings any less important because they don’t actually exist? And more such questions, because all the people in the simulated environment do not realize (with very few exceptions) that they are not real people, that their reality is not a reality. It is perhaps a perfect example to illustrate the relativity of everything and its dependence on the observer: a simulated person is real in the eyes of another resident of the same reality; and it’s just a simulation, no more serious than a plaything in Hall’s and his colleagues’ eyes.

A simile that I liked:

[...] she seemed like a fragile Dresden that might crumble beneath the feathery assault of moonlight.

As a last thought — the book was written in 1964; I wonder what would the author (dead in ‘76) think about The Sims (every bit the immaterial beings in the immaterial world that he has envisioned all these years ago; sure, they don’t have consciousness as of yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that time would also come).

What I liked most: A large part of the book consists of Hall’s ruminations as he tries to make sense of what is happening around him. I very much liked the fact that he was open to all possibilities, including the somewhat lesser plausible one, that is was his mind playing games with him and that he had just imagined Lynch and and all the rest. I am trying to decide whether I would have done the same in his stead — would I be certain I had seen something or would I trust the rest — but so far I have reached no conclusion. Nevertheless this detail added depth to the character (and interestingness to the book, because, after all, one couldn’t not ask himself now and then, what if it’s all in his head?)

What I liked least: I have yet to decide whether that’s a touch of genius on the part of the author or just sort of a slip (lately I tend towards the former): at one point Hall sees the daughter of the dead professor almost crying for her loss, and he wonders why, since in this day and age the technology has made it very easy for one to be certain that one person has really died so there’s no need for wakes and funerals. First of all, I don’t very much understand what is the connection (why should there be a connection) between mourning a loss and an actual funeral. I tried hard to understand what the author wanted to say by this paragraph and ended up with two possibilities: either he wanted to make crying for a lost father seem suspicious, and this was the best way he knew how (in which case, booo!!), or it was a very subtle hint at things to come show spoiler

Recommend it to? Anyone (but, of course, SciFi fans most of all). I am not particularly fond of SciFi but I have seen The Thirteenth Floor a while ago, and, as it’s inspired by this book, it made me curious about it too and I haven’t regretted it :)


Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 14% [?]

In a time where there are very few animals left, their value increases tremendously. They become a symbol of social status and morality (“You know how people are about not taking care of an animal; they consider it immoral and anti-empathic.“). Every person is proud to have and care for at least one animal, however small. People who cannot afford one (such as Rick and his wife since their sheep died) try to make do with electrical replacements, looking realistic enough to fool one’s neighbors (Rick is the not so very happy owner of an electric sheep). In this context the title suddenly becomes a lot more clear (I’ve been wondering about it since I first read there’s a book with this title, ages ago): in a world where caring for an animal means the ability to have good feelings, to care for the others — do androids dream to have an animal? Do they have empathy? Do they care about living things around them? After reading the book, the answer is an obvious no. Rick Deckard seems to think otherwise though (and the same goes for the other main character, J.R. Isidore, a man who befriends some androids out of sheer loneliness).

Another predominant concept featured in the book is that of Mercerism, a religious movement based on the life story of Wilbur Mercer. In short, he was a guy who had the power to revive animals; however that was deemed illegal so when he was caught his brain was treated with a chemical that was supposed to annihilate the part of Wilbur’s brain controlling his special ability. As a result, he felt he ended up in a world filled with dead animals and decay, a world that he tries to escape by climbing a mountain hill. It’s mostly this difficult ascent that his followers are trying to participate in via an empathy box — an electrical contraption with a screen and two handles that when touched put the person touching them in “mental fusion” with Mercer and the rest of the people grabbing the handles of their empathy boxes at the same time. This way, people can share their experiences, feeling others’ joys and pains while making their own felt by others too. I didn’t exactly get what happened when Mercer reached the actual top of the hill he was climbing (did he die?), but whatever it was made the cycle start all over again, forever (I imagine it much like Sisyphus and his stone). Although I found the story to be somewhat vague and hazy, I did like very much its effect on people — they became better, more ready to share, more caring with the helpless (see Mr. Isidore and his spider), so in a way I think that if that empathy box were actually invented the world would actually become a better place.

Since I am mentioning new and interesting concepts, this review would not be complete without the item that fascinated me the most, the “mood organ” (a device that could induce a person various moods, such as the desire to watch TV no matter what’s on or (my “favorite”) “pleased acknowledgement of husband’s superior wisdom in all matters”. While it had many positive emotions to offer, it also had negative ones available (such as a deep, dark depression), making me wonder why that was. Sure, Rick’s wife has found an occasion for using the depressive setting, but nevertheless I would have expected such device to be positive only (you know, like pills in our world, there aren’t any pills to make one miserable while there are plenty of happy alternatives).

In the end, perhaps I should talk a bit about the characters too. I liked Mr. Isidore, the “special” person (he had an IQ too low for him to be allowed to reproduce or leave the planet), because he was, simply put, a nice guy. Not very bright, of course, and quite shy, but he was essentially nice and I liked reading about him. Rick Deckard, having a higher IQ, is a lot more complicated. He is mostly seen struggling with the way he sees the world as opposed to the way he thinks the world should be seen. His empathy levels are good enough for me to like him though (although I do disapprove of him in one particular instance) and I rooted for him throughout the book (although rooted is perhaps a term badly matched to the level of dark moods this book has). I also found interesting the other bounty hunter (Phil Resch) because of his behaviour when confronted to the fact that he might be an android too (the very symbol of what he despised) and for the fact that it seemed to me that his purpose in the book was to represent normality itself as a reference for comparison for Rick (as in Peter was the way every bounty hunter should be; Rick was looking at him and sometimes longed to be the same, because it felt right).

What I liked most: The way the people in the new world related to animals, hands down. The fact that in that world animal cruelty has been eradicated because everyone empathized with all living creatures. Did I mention that I’d really like for the empathy box to be actually invented?

World War Terminus was quite a cool term too. Oh, and the idea of kipple (debris left behind by people moving out, quietly multiplying until taking over whole buildings) was also interesting. I wonder where does the name come from.

What I liked least: Possible spoiler: at one time Mercer appears in front of Rick and tells him something he couldn’t possibly have known. To me it seemed an impossible feat (as I saw Mercer, a religious leader in a story of long ago, as existing only in his followers’ minds not outside them) that sort of detracted from my reading pleasure (although interestingly enough I had no issues whatsoever with rocks flying out of empathy boxes when their users shared Mercer’s ascent as his enemies chased him with rocks).

Recommend it to? SciFi fans, of course. All the rest of the world too since it’s one of the classics.

Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 21% [?]

As it’s usually the case with Mr. Gaiman’s books, this too has an assorted cast of characters. We have Richard, the all around nice guy that has discovered a world he never knew he existed (and that becomes a stronger person in the process). The Lady Door, the descendant of a family of door openers (a concept that has fascinated me). Hunter, the woman hunter whose life purpose was to kill as many dangerous beasts as possible. The Marquis of Carabas (a self-given name straight out of the Puss in Boots story) that I have found a bit annoying at the beginning but that has earned my respect later on. Not to mention the two hired hands, Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar, the former being one of the more interesting such characters that I have ever met, and whose manner of speaking being one of my favorite things in the book.

Mr. Gaiman’s imagination doesn’t disappoint when it comes to places either: we have an ever-moving market (whose variety reminded me of the one in Stardust), an Earl’s Court (complete with a jester) in a subway train, a bridge that captured people now and then, and many more. Speaking of the Earl’s Court, I have found quite cool the way the author has chosen to reinterpret the meaning of some of the London tube stations. for example Knightsbridge becomes Night’s Bridge (the one I mentioned before), The Angel, Islington is an actual angel named Islington, Shepherd’s Bush is a place where actual shepherds hang out, and so on. The thing is perhaps all the more interesting when coupled with one of the very first scene, where Richard gives away his tube station map (it was printed on an umbrella, and it was raining) to an old woman who warns him to stay away from doors. I see Richard’s losing the map as a metaphor for the fact that he’ll soon become lost in London Below, and have difficulties finding his way there (as in “of course he had trouble making sense of the underground world since he had no map”).

Speaking of metaphors, I have very much liked the mention of “a fraction of a second that becomes a tiny forever” (probably because a second is so the opposite of forever that even the mere idea of associating the two seems somewhat out of this world :) ).

What I liked most: I was fascinated most by the idea of opening doors, especially when it came to creating doors where there previously were none. The image that I liked most though was that of the house Door and her family lived in:

The swimming pool was an indoor Victorian structure, constructed of marble and of cast iron. Her father had found it when he was younger, abandoned and about to be demolished, and he had woven it into the fabric of the House Without Doors. Perhaps in the world outside, in London Above, the room had long been destroyed and forgotten. Door had no idea where any of the rooms of her house were, physically. Her grandfather had constructed the house, taking a room from here, a room from there, all through London, discrete and doorless; her father had added to it.

I was also fond of the ending, more precisely of the fact that show spoiler

What I liked least: I found it a charming book with nothing to criticize :)

Recommend it to? Everyone who enjoys reading fantasy, of course :)

Written by the same author:
American Gods
Coraline
Good Omens (with Sir Terry Pratchett)
The Graveyard Book
Snow, Glass, Apples
Stardust


Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 15% [?]