A Review

[davidschroth]

lsanderson loaned me an ARC of Little Brother after he finished reading. I don't know that any agreements lsanderson made with regards to Little Brother are binding on those he might loan the ARC to, but I can chip in anyway.

Answer: Twelve

Question: What's the Golden Age of Science Fiction?

I'm not sure I've read so much expository lump posing as a book since my own Golden Age of Science Fiction. Oddly enough, I found it both fun and nostalgic. I think one difference between the barely remembered books of my Golden Age and Little Brother is that the science in Little Brother seems rather more realistic - probably because large parts of Little Brother's expository dump are explaining things that exist, as opposed to some imagined super-science maguffin. The author has a tendency to be a little too ham-handed, and my enjoyment of the book undoubtedly suffered from my having lived through a number of the subjects of expository lumps.

Overall, I think it's a good book. It's not, in my opinion, a book that will enter the pantheon of great YA books - but it's good. Almost certainly better than most of the books I devoured during my Golden Age of Science Fiction.

Comments

At least it's slicker

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

Than the Golden Age stuff I ustta read.

[arkuat]

My Golden Age was all about Ursula K. LeGuin and Larry Niven. (Not to mention Kurt Vonnegut and all that other dirty stuff they used to keep behind the counter.) I don't know who is writing the Golden Age of Science Fiction for all the people who were born in 1996, but I hope Cory Doctorow is living up to the standard set by Octavia Butler.

"Little Brother"

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The book is too seeped in present-day technology and issues to become timeless.

B