Welcome to the Escape Velocity Collection!
We are an opinionated group of friends reviewing all sorts of fantasy and science fiction media. Don’t forget to get to know the curators and visit our curated Collection, where we discuss the stories that never cease to transport us to another world.
Will you escape with us?
LATEST POSTS:
- Book written by Adrian Tchaikovsky
- Published 2 November 2017
- Followed by Bear Head
Listened to the audiobook with William Hope, Laurence Bouvard and Nathan Osgood – a nice mix for the different perspectives.
My rating on Dogs of War is probably skewed by a personal pet peeve, which is that – for whatever reason – I’ve never been able to suspend my disbelief on anthropomorphic human-animal hybrid bio-engineered super soldiers. I have never been able to believe that we could make that work, or that the resulting creatures would actually be better at warfare than either humans or animals.
Bio-engineered human-dog hybrids have always felt like children’s cartoon-level villainy to me, and that makes it tough for me to take a book like Dogs of War seriously. I am going to have to admit that I put this book on without reading the blurb, and I probably would not have picked it up had I known.
Dogs of War was a relatively short read for the speculative genre (just under 10 hours of listening at 1x speed), so I decided to push on through, just to see what I would make of it. Had it been one of these 25 hour epics, I probably would not have finished.
Tchaikovsky’s core themes in Dogs of War are acceptance and tolerance and fear of the unknown. In this case, it is about the acceptance of hybrid bioforms in human society. The message is clear: these animal-human hybrids deserve our compassion and acceptance. The implication is that people who fail to see the bioforms as human, are bigoted.
One difficult aspect of Dogs of War is that the bioforms, the group it wants you to root for, are by their nature very alien. It takes preaching acceptance and inclusion to an extreme. That is an interesting premise, I’ll admit, but I didn’t feel like Tchaikovsky made it work fully.
Dogs of War’s main villain treats his bioforms like objects – tools or obstacles. This is cast in contrast with other human characters, who see the bioforms as individuals deserving of individual dignity. That would appear to set up the central conflict, but the problem is that the main villain also treats humans as nothing other than tools and obstacles. He lacks any compassion towards anyone at all. His treatment of bioforms and humans hardly differs. The main villain therefore doesn’t really do much for the central theme.
Which leaves the question of the acceptance of bioforms in human society unfortunately on the sidelines. There are a couple of scenes and narratives describing humans’ difficulty in interacting with the hybrid bioforms, but these are few and far between, even though these should maybe have been central to the book.
The main reason, I feel, humans fail to accept bioforms is not that the bioforms committed atrocities in war – humans, too, commit atrocities in war. The main reason is that bioforms are alien to us, and scary. And that aspect, while present, is left underdeveloped in the book. I can’t go into the conclusion without spoilers, but I ended up feeling the resolution was just slightly unearned.
So, what did I think? The bottom line is that it is a fine novel, but that it failed to grip me.
On a side note, I have to mention that Tchaikovsky includes a couple of scenes at the International Criminal Court in Dogs of War, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that he had figured out the concept of command responsibility, which played a central role in a couple of chapters. He might miss the mark on a number of other aspects of the ICC, but getting that one important detail right earns him high praise from me!
- Novel written by Alasdair gray
- Published 1992
Poor Things is such an ambitious book that I feel like I need to reread it at least once before I will be able to fully comprehend it. But even in the first read-through I already very much appreciated how skillfully crafted this story is.
The book is written in the style of a Victorian novel, with an intricate narrative structure. The various stories within stories have the purpose of making you doubt the reliability of the different narrators. Therefore, from the very beginning you are forced to question everything that you are reading, and to decide for yourself which version of events you believe.
The many references to Frankenstein, Jane Eyre and other famous texts serve to support the books themes of female agency, freedom and sexuality. But here too the book refuses to provide easy answers, forcing the reader to do a lot of the thinking for themselves and to make up their own mind.
Apart from the structure of the story, the book also plays around with language itself. My favourite example of this is the evolution of Bella’s speech, as this is where Alasdair Gray really gives free rain to his ability to engage and experiment with language.
The story is in many ways alligorical, which results in some of the characters being somewhat of a caricature. While this fits to book and it’s purpose, it does mean that the readers are kept at more of a distance to the characters, not really being able to fully identify with them. Nevertheless, I found enough to puzzle over in this book that this did not keep me from enjoying it.
The book is very different in tone compared to its 2023 movie adaptation, so if you saw the movie and did not enjoy it, that does not necessarily mean that you will not enjoy the book. I would definitely recommend it to any lovers of either Victorian(-style) or feminist literature.
- Book written by Robert A. Heinlein
- Published 2 June 1966
- Standalone
I love the classics of the genre, and if I have ever talked to you about science fiction, you will know that I am always explaining that ancient sci-fi novels are worth reading because they are still relevant to the present day. Still, even I am sometimes surprised myself exactly how true that statement can be.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is closing in on its 60th birthday. The overarching theme – of a population rising up against their oppressor – is as old as time, and will no doubt be recognisable for as long as people will be able to read. That is not what I am referring to, however. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress also delves into AI, deepfakes avant la lettre, polyamory, and gender – topics that may be more relevant now in 2024 than they ever were in 1966.
I will admit that Heinlein can be relatively crude about these issues – I don’t find his writing particularly thought-provoking because it lacks a little in subtlety (looking at you, Starship Troopers). There is a certain self-righteousness in Heinlein’s works, a certain conviction that doesn’t always feel like just the characters’.
In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the main character Manny’s dry cynicism can be a bit off-putting, though I do find it a charming way to introduce certain topics as extremely normal and hardly worth mentioning – such as the complex polyamorous family structure he is a part of. It is contrasted nicely with Wyoh’s rebellious fervour. But I never really liked the supposedly brilliant co-conspirator professor De la Paz’s platitudes about the evil of government and the virtues of self-organisation. He feels just a little too much as a conduit for Heinlein’s own political ideas. It is in fact the moments when Heinlein is consciously delving into the politics of building a nation that I think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is at its weakest.
Perhaps that is simply a matter of space: Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy is not dissimilar to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in some ways; though being a trilogy of books triple the size of Heinlein’s work certainly helps in establishing the Martian independence movement and the politics of the solar system in that.
Fortunately, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has more than enough to offer besides the supposed wisdom of professor De la Paz. In particular, the AI Mike is a delight to read. His development as a character is central to the story, and I think Heinlein does a great job of making his interactions with the human characters believable. I like that Mike could probably have been really frightening, but never comes across as such in the story (though that is probably a matter of perspective).
Overall, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a surprisingly relevant classic that is well worth the read for its interesting characters and the tension of its plot, if perhaps not for its politics.
- Movie directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
- Starring Millie Bobby Brown, Ray Winstone, Nick Robinson, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Angela Bassett and Robin Wright
- Released on March 8, 2024
- Runtime: 110 minutes
I had heard some rumors about this movie maybe being not so good, but avoided reading any reviews before going into it. I’m glad I did because I actually really enjoyed Damsel.
Damsel isn’t a masterpiece. But I would argue it’s not trying to be. This movie was clearly meant to be a subversion of a classic fairy tale. Girl gets sacrificed to a dragon, but lo and behold, she’s strong enough to save herself. Much like the fairy tales this movie takes its queues from, Damsel really isn’t that deep. I heard people complaining that Elodie’s father and stepmother don’t even get named. To me, however, this to me is another indication that this is really just supposed to be a classic story about a princess from a far away land.
I really enjoyed the themes of this movie. It’s very much about standing on the shoulders of women who came before you; how sometimes you can’t save yourself, but the work you did to help yourself can still help others. The movie is is both about literal and metaphorical sisterhood. It’s also about not being afraid to burn shit down. Once again, are the themes super well developed? No. But they’re developed enough to be defensible.
The ending of the movie is pretty predictable, but the way they get there is quite twisty and turny. I do have to admit that it gets frustrating at times, because you know how it’s going to end. However, at the end I did feel like the steps the movie takes to get to its ending serve a purpose. If Elodie just did the logical things that you as a viewer keep shouting at her to do she a) wouldn’t have defeated the dragon (which was kinda what the movie is about) and b) she could have died anyway.
I have mixed feelings about Millie Bobbie Brown’s acting in this movie. On the one hand, she manages to carry this movie really well. On the other hand her line delivery seems super stilted at times. I don’t know if I can really blame her for that. Most of the time she’s just kind of talking to herself. It has something viedeo game-y to it.
Overall I saw enough positives to recommend this movie. Just don’t expect the most elaborate story or developed characters.
Already before the release of Damsel, I had heard some very positive reviews that made me excited to watch this movie. In all fairness, I probably would have been thrilled anyway, because it is a fantasy movie with a dragon (!!!) and Millie Bobby Brown. However, shortly after its release, some lukewarm reviews dampened my initial drive to go and watch it. It took me a week or two to come to the conclusion I should just form my own opinion (and thereafter write a review for others to take to heart or ignore :p ).
Going in, I had a vague idea about what to expect: a dragon and a subversion of the ‘damsel in distress’ trope. I think the movie does a decent job at keeping you somewhat in the dark in the first act of the story. You know something is going to happen when the protagonist (Millie Bobby Brown) and her family move to their soon te be in-laws. The athmosphere is off, everything too good to be true. And where is that dragon from the beginning hiding? It’s an intruiging mystery. I thinks this set-up not only works when you have a good grasp of the traditional role of dragons in faerie tales and the usual story structures, but also when you go in blind.
The first plot twist, however, did not really surprise me. Frankly, I was a little impatient with the protagonist for her low ‘sense motive’ rolls (excuse my Pathfinder jargon). I couldn’t really stay mad, though, because of reasons I will soon elaborate on. First, I want to mention another thing I thought was interesting on a meta level. After the aforementioned plot twist, the tone of the movie suddenly changes into something very similar of a classical horror movie. I quite liked that, though it didn’t make the rest of the story less unpredictable in the end.
The absolute best part of this movie, for me at least, is undoubtedly the dragon. A whole star of this review is dedicated to her; I was squealing in delight every time she showed up. Menacing, beautiful and at times unneccesary brutal. She really felt like a terrifying predator. And because – unlike the protagonist – I had rolled very high on my perception and sense motive checks, I was absolutely rooting for her from the beginning. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised to see that her story took the turn I hoped it would take. All in all, Damsel’s dragon was a perfect example of why I like dragons in the first place.
As for Millie Bobby Brown’s acting, I must confess I was less impressed. I find it hard to pinpoint the specific reason why, but during the whole movie I just felt her performance was less convincing than what I’ve seen from her in Stranger Things and the Enola Holmes movies.
Ultimately, I didn’t think the plot and the themes of Damsel were as strong as they could have been. Though there’s enough of an ancient Greek deity in me to greatly appreciate the downfall of people due to their hubris, most of Damsel’s characters didn’t get enough spotlight to make me feel many emotions about their fate. Similarly, the feminist message of the story felt a little underwhelming to me.
Still, Damsel does more than enough good things to make it worth your while. The dragon, for example. So go watch it!
Tagged:
See also:
- Book written by Robert A. Heinlein
- Published 5 November 1959
- Standalone
The Paul Verhoeven movie is probably better known than Heinlein’s novel, but Starship Troopers is just as much a classic in print sci-fi as it is in Hollywood blockbusters.
The stories are completely different, however.
Where the movie is an angry commentary on the futility of dying for a fascist government, the novel is probably best described as salivating over how cool super-trained human soldiers in power armour can be. Basically, Warhammer 40.000 without the irony (so… just modern 40k then?).
Starship Troopers glorifies the military, and it is clearly intended for an audience that likes that. It’s also very conservative in its philosophy (though I’ve also heard it described as libertarian – I guess it doesn’t neatly fit in one box. For example, race is depicted as a non-issue for once). I’m not going to lie, it fits in a certain societal niche so well it made me slightly uncomfortable at times. Then again, the book was written in the 1950s and Heinlein has been dead for over three decades so it is probably best to look at it with some distance.
Political message aside, I think Starship Troopers is actually well-written, if perhaps overly detailed on military organisation. It has surprisingly easy-flowing prose for the level of detail, and is well-paced overall due to a couple of nice flashback scenes.
Starship Troopers builds tension well, especially towards the drops Johnny participates in, and releases tension well when he returns to safety. Starship Troopers reads like a WWII diary, except Johnny Rico is fighting Bugs on Klendathu rather than Germans in the Ardennes or the Japanese in the Pacific.
And that’s its strength as well as its weakness. The enemies are Bugs and the Mobile Infantry suits are cool, but apart from that… it’s just a novel about a guy in an imaginary war that makes war seem really cool. Yes, there is some discussion of philosophy and moral virtue, but it is really heavy-handed and kind of juvenile, to be honest. It makes you wonder whether Heinlein somehow felt like he ‘missed out’ due to leaving the US Navy ahead or WWII.
While Starship Troopers has been influential, I don’t really think it a necessary read in the 2020s. Its technological ideas have been internalised in science fiction to the extent that there is really very little in the book that is new or surprising, and again the right-wing philosophy is bordering on icky (’moral decline’ bullshit, advocacy for corporate and and capital punishments, for example…). In some ways, Starship Troopers feels like the most bland Hollywood-science-fiction-for-men-with-lots-of-testosterone-script ever put to paper.
It actually makes you rather glad Paul Verhoeven decided to go for a satirical take rather than a straight up adaptation. As a result the movie stands out from the pack more than the book does.
Tagged:
See also:
Time to get to know the Escape Velocity Collection’s curators! How? By asking them the questions that really matter! Let’s see what our curators have to say…
Today’s question is:
Do you prefer books or films?
This is a no-brainer for me, 100% books. I don’t nearly spend enough time reading books, but whenever I do manage to find some time and sit down with one, I find myself transported almost straight away. I have so many fond memories reading books and I hope to have many more. Movies on the other hand… While there are definitely movies out there that I really love, my tolerance for less-than-great-tv is really low.
Don’t ask me why, but I have a mild dislike for television, both tv-series and films. Maybe it is because I grew up spending my evenings painting models while my parents watched TV, but for some reason I need to be in a very specific mood or watch a really engaging movie for me to be able to really focus on the screen – and on the screen only. Most of the time, I’ll be either drawing or painting or writing (or unfortunately, scrolling some feed on my phone) and casting only the occasional glance at the screen – my hands just need to be busy. It’s a strange quirk for someone who can draft contracts for more than twelve hours a day with no problems – but for some reason, most movies can’t hold my attention.
Peter
Lotte
I tend to prefer books, simply because it often takes me a while to get invested in something, and it sucks to get invested in characters only to be done with them after 2 hours. There’s definitely things that work really well in movies that work less well in books, and I like the fact that I can multitask while watching a movie., so it’s not all bad. I do find that if I’m in a movie theatre, I can enjoy pretty much any movie. If it’s unfolding in front of you on a big screen and you’re unable to just turn it off, it’s all good. Still, when watching movies at home, I… mostly just don’t.
Booksbooksbooksbooksbooks. Books.
Robin
Jop
I certainly prefer books, but in practice it’s often easier to put on a film or tv-series.
Books are great. They give me peace I can hardly find anywhere else. An experience I can enjoy at my own pace. A film, however, requires less commitment after a hard day’s work and other activities. In addition, while I can still be somewhat of a social creature while watching a film, when I’m reading a book I tend to ‘disappear’. This is fine by me, but Jasmijn doesn’t always think that’s a desirable result.
To be completely honest, though, I can really appreciate both media. If it has been some time since I’ve last seen a film, I’ll start to get cravings. And vice versa.
That’s it: another soul-searching question answered!
Still curious? Visit each curator’s page to see what they’ve recently been up to!
Check out our reviews of the media discussed in this post here:
No posts found!
Review: Dogs of War – Adrian Tchaikovsky
Rex is a dog-human hybrid, a bioengineered supersoldier known as a bioform, serving alongside a number of other human-animal hybrids in a private security company engaged in the supression of an uprising in Mexico. When he loses connection to his master on a mission, he and his team are faced with difficult questions on their role in the war and the world beyond. The world, meantime, is faced with exactly the same questions.
Review: Poor Things – Alasdair Grey
In Alasdair Gray’s thought-provoking twist on Frankenstein, the drowned body of a young woman is brought back to life with the brain of her unborn infant. Through humor and satire, Gray pokes fun at the classic Victorian novel while offering a profound commentary on politics and gender dynamics.
Review: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress – Robert A. Heinlein
Manny is a computer engineer in charge of programming Mike, the central supercomputer running the systems of Earth’s penal colony on the Moon. Unbeknownst to anyone but Manny, Mike has achieved self-awareness. Mike mainly wants to learn to understand human humour, but when the AI meets political activist Wyoming Knott through Manny, the three of them start speculating on an uprising that would free Luna from the yoke of the Warden and the Federated Nation’s Lunar Authority.
Review: Damsel – Netflix
Elodie, the daughter of a Lord, agrees to marry the prince in order to secure a better future for her people. The union seems like something out of a classic fairy tale, but a terrible secret will soon be uncovered…
Review: Starship Troopers – Robert A. Heinlein
The Earth is at war with several alien races. On a whim, rich kid Johnny Rico joins the Mobile Infantry on his 18th birthday, to serve a term and earn citizenship. But as he goes through bootcamp to join humanity’s greatest military outfit, and he trains for orbital drops on alien planets, his resolve is sorely tested.
Curator Question: Do you prefer books or films?
Another question for our curators: would they rather read or listen to a book, or have the story told through a television screen?
