I have to say that I spent a lot of time recommending this author to people. "Light", and "Nova Swing" are both ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
I was on holiday, and stopped at a second hand bookshop to grab something hopefully a bit trashy to read. I picked up Nova Switch because the cover made it look like some weird sci-fi detective romp. But after about three pages it became apparent that I had happened upon something very special indeed, and when I made it to the end I did something that I'd never done before. I turned back to page one and read the entire thing again.
It is magnificent. Everyone should read it. It turned out to be the second book in a trilogy, and maybe that was part of its appeal. It didn't explain anything, it just launched into a beautiful and strange sci fi world, filled it with extraordinary characters, and moved languidly through the story.
So much science fiction is just dreadful garbage. Harrison is most definitely not.
So, so good. I’ve probably read Nova Swing six times by now…
The Death Sentence episode on Light is a very good discussion and introduction to Harrison and his work. https://soundcloud.com/death-sentence-pod/m-john-harrison-li... (start from 55 minutes in if you want to skip some three-year-old-news and obligatory death metal interlude)
I loved all three books. I do most of my reading before going to bed. These ones had a huge effect on my dreams, in a way no other books have. I'd describe it as adding colour where there was none before. The prose was exuberant. I usually find detailed descriptions boring, but here it felt like they had a purpose beyond just making you imagine what things looked like.
I only read his book "Climbers" which I thought was really good, non-linear and vague but atmospheric. I am a climber or at least know the world of climbing and M John is also a climber.
I'm tempted to read his other books but as mentioned the reviews are quite divisive. Climbers took me back to when I first read Iain Banks books, that is the kind of vibe I was getting.
Wow, pretty divisive, reviews are all over the place. I haven't read it yet, but the reviews seem to tend towards people annoyed at abstract and flowery plot / writing?
I will have to try, but I've also struggled through (possibly) similar books like Gnomon by the British sci-fi author Nick Harkaway which had plots too abstract to properly hold my attention but were well liked by others. Similar but opposite, How to Win the Time War, which was so abstract the whole book was a metaphor, stayed together enough that I followed the plot and enjoyed it (though it was quite short).
I am tempted to try this one just because it has won a major award, and I'm a huge sci fi reader.
However, I suspect I will be one of the one star or DNF reviewers - I haven't enjoyed any of the other M John Harrison books I tried. The ideas are usually interesting but the execution tends towards weirdness and not much plot. Great at creating atmosphere but not so good at holding my attention. Maybe I will give it a go...
> I haven't enjoyed any of the other M John Harrison books I tried
100% this.
I like the man and he's a great public speaker. I do not get on with his novels at all, from In Viriconium to a few decades later when everyone loved Light so I gave his "SF" another try.
Klara and the sun was really good, though I heard the movie not so good.
Also anything by Adrian Tchaikovsky. The one that stood out from him was the Void series and Alien Clay. Of course I'd you haven't read him do start with his main series as it was excellent too, but I'm pretty sure before 2020
> Of course I'd you haven't read him do start with his main series
Assuming you're talking Children of Whatever, eh, I'm not sure I agree. IMO some of his other novels are _far_ better (Children of Whatever are _good_, but some of the other stuff is _great_.)
I’m in the middle of _Children of Strife_ right now and I’m not sure I’m going to finish it. Children of Time was great, Ruin was ok, Memory was saved by the ending, but Strife has up to this point been two female protagonists getting tortured and/or abused in various timelines, some of them possibly simulated. Not a great read.
Perhaps he means the Final Architecture series? Shards of Earth, Eyes of the Void, and Lords of Uncreation.
That series is a true favorite of mine, but not everyone I've recommended it to liked it as much as I did.
Elder Race and Dogs of War are also awesome entry points for people who enjoy S&S fantasy and military themes, respectively.
Not sure what your definition is for 'recent' - but "The Expanse" is great IMO, I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the entire series. I've not read any of the "spin offs" from the main storyline though.
Also, "There is no anti-memetics division" is interesting but I'm divided about it. The first 60-70% is great, but after that it's kinda "meh" and by the time I finished the book I was glad it was over lol. The initial 2/3rds of the book are really good and almost makes up for the lackluster ending (imo).
The authors of the Expanse have another trilogy called The Captive's War which is pretty interesting. Only 2 of the 3 books are out so far, so I hesitate to recommend it, but I did enjoy those two (plus a novella).
I felt the same about "anti-memetics division"- the first half felt like a couple 'monster of the week" episodes of X-files, then suddenly the tone shifts and the world is doomed, but here's a deus ex machina that is totally justified because everyone forgot about it and here's the explanation how.
Ever since Amazon.com allowed blank feedback alongside proper reviews, there's been inflation in every book's rating, with most books clustering around 4.2 - 4.6 Stars.
These days, a 4.0 on Amazon means that a book is questionable, divisive, or has editorial errors. A 3.8 has serious issues.
I believe this is because Amazon prompts you for a review/rating after you've finished the book -- if you read on a Kindle, you only get the prompt when the book is at 100% complete -- so those who do not finish a book seem not to rate.
I don't think I've ever seen anything with a 3.1-star rating across >100 reviews. This suggests that the book is exceptionally bad -- that people were motivated to leave poor reviews.
Harrison is generally very challenging. A lot of people don't want challenging. That doesn't make it bad.
Just don't read Harrison if you're looking for Heinlein, just as you wouldn't read Delany if you were looking for Asimov, or Le Guin if you were looking for Sanderson.
To me, one of the biggest red flags, is a lot of the positive reviews seem to have trouble articulating what they like about the book and come across very generic. I think most of the positive reviews could be written about any challenging book if you just swap out the book title.
This doesn't hold up -- there are lots of challenging books that were well-received by the public, and Harrison's Light and his Viriconium books were also quite well-received. Their review scores -- at around 4 stars -- are perfectly in line with what you'd expect of challenging work. For my part, I read Light and enjoyed it.
The End of Everything has ratings that place it in the bottom 0.1% of all published books with >100 reviews. This very strongly suggests that an absolute majority of readers found it frustrating or incomprehensible, and that among those readers are some who had enjoyed his other works.
Be that as it may, a score of 3.1 (Amazon) and 2.8 (Goodreads) with >100 ratings makes this book an extreme outlier.
On Goodreads, that's -4.4 standard deviations.
On Amazon.com, where reviews cluster around 4-4.6 stars, it's -8.5 SD! (Actually quite amazing, when you think about it. It's easily in the bottom 0.1% of titles.)
To borrow a phrase from Rick and Morty: "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."
That is, I've seen plenty of very high ratings on Goodreads/Amazon for things that (in my opinion) range from mediocre to slop.
That tells me there are lots of raters who use some criteria that, while I'm sure it's reasonable to them, doesn't correlate well with anything I'd recognize as "quality".
Glancing at the actual text of the Goodreads reviews, it seems like most of the negative ones are outright saying that they didn't understand the book, and therefore decided that it's meaningless. I'm not saying this because I'm trying to sneer at those reviewers, it's just quite literally what they're saying about the book.
Okay, but I've never seen a book with such poor public reviews. I'm dead serious about this: I've never seen anything comparable. And I spend a lot of time buying and reading science fiction books. The public disdain for this book is quite remarkable, really.
So there are a lot of boos. And even the book's supporters seem to strain to find meaning in it. The most parsimonious explanation is that it's genuinely incoherent.
Wow 2.8 stars. Goodread ratings are pretty BS generally speaking, but i'm not sure i've ever seen a book that low.
Not to mention, if you click on show 5 star reviews, it shows the first 10, 3 of which have disclosures about receiving compensation, which seems like a pretty high ratio to me, but i dont know what is normal.
Gnomon might be my favorite book ever. It’s one of those books where the first time through it’s disjointed and almost seems like a collection of novellas, then the second read you see the connections from the beginning and it all makes sense, and reads 3+ reward with really deep semiotics and structural parallels that I can only describe as fractal.
So Harrison aside, if you find yourself without reading material at some point, I’d really encourage giving it another try. It’s certainly abstract, but there is incredible depth and coherence throughout.
I have read The End of Everything and other M. John Harrison books, both conventional rock-climbing memoir and way out space opera.
IMHO if you like Harrison's prose and the atmosphere, keep going. Even if the plot is hard to make out. IHMO, If you are reading M. John Harrison for the plot, then you're in the wrong book.
I can see how some would be bored or baffled by this book, or even dislike it intensely. If you didn't like his other books, then this one is more in that vein, and in some ways more so. If so, you probably won't enjoy this one either.
He has said "A good ground rule for writing in any genre is: start with a form, then ask what it's afraid of" (1) He is deconstructing, not constructing, stories.
The End of Everything has an anti-plot, is set in anti-places and contains at least character that is anti-person.
If it's not for you then that's perfectly OK. I don't pretend to understand why it won an award, but I liked it. Probably. It's hard to be sure. And that's something out of the ordinary.
There are though, themes or images that are of a particular time and place (2026, South coast of England). Most notably Boats taking people across the Channel to some-place uncertain but "not here". If you are somewhere else then that image might not mean anything to you, but the resonance with current UK political discourse must be deliberate. And it helps to "get" it.
In the same way that his last book The Sunken Land Begins to Rise Again (2020) was about the fallout, the curdled nostalgia and communication failures of the post-Brexit moment. (2) Maybe. If it's "about" anything other than aquatic humanoids, dodgy jobs and fairy tales, IDK.
She's 71, so I assume she's pretty much retired, and can dedicate a lot of time to this (you'd really have to be willing and able to do so to sign up for this). That's about one a day. It seems... doable, though it's obviously a lot.
So, a little less than one a day? That seems eminently doable -- I read more than that in my teens, considerably more sometimes, for years at a time. (Of course I had no internet to distract me: my teens were from about 1977 to 1986.)
I have read the Lord of the Rings trilogy 5 times, Kim Stnaley Robinson's Mars trilogy 6 times, and the entire Frank Herbert _Dune_ series twice. In my early teens, if under time pressure, several times I read about half a dozen novels in an afternoon.
For a retired professional? Sure. I'd be surprised if she couldn't.
Around 1997-1998, I was freelance, not working a lot, and lived with a judge of the Arthur C Clarke award. I read pretty much all the new SF published in the UK both years. A couple of hundred books a year, while working.
Let’s take your six novels in an afternoon. Il be generous and give you the entire six hours for six novels. Even at a relatively low page count of 250 pages each novel it would mean you read more than 4 pages a minute, for six hours straight. And if any of those six novels had more pages (very likely given the books you name drop) you could easily need to double the number of pages read per minute.
So at best you skimmed six books in an afternoon, which IS a time-honoured tradition by school kids who have reports due.
I think you seriously underestimate just how fast a properly fast reader can go. On an unrelated note, I remember a line (from Jo Walton I think) on seeing one of those tedious ads—most CEOs read six book a week. To which, “not surprising, they’ve terribly responsible jobs and not much time”
If you listen her speak off the cuff about material she has read and respond in real time to random questions you would likely soon come to believe her to have significant powers of recall and comprehension .. in a few languages.
Might explain how she landed a role as Professor of classics at Cambridge, a fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge, and Royal Academy of Arts Professor of Ancient Literature.
What I found most interesting about The End of Everything is that the book aligns better with Trump's rhetoric (the "fake news" of apocalpse, the uselessness of global institutions, a cynical anti-establishment mood) than with someone like e.g. Hillary Clinton's ideals (e.g. the rules based order and that well-crafted policy by experts can overcome global disaster), even though the author specifically wrote it to criticize the very mindset that Trump represents. Our politics are broken
Haven't heard the term "abstract" applied to a plot, unless you mean highly metaphorical? Genuinely curious in case it's something I'd like. What's an example, without giving too much away?
I'd say it's a deserved winner. I'm not usually someone who reads many booker prize nominees but I happened to have read I think at least 6/7 of the long list and I would say flowery plot and writing is common to getting nominated so I can't complain about that. John of John being far worse for this. I possibly if I had to pick my favourite I would have gone Helen of Nowhere or Switzy but that's simply I'm often very drawn into the type of story Fitzcarraldo publish, (Switzy not being Fitzcarraldo but of a similar vibe).
I think the key for me is sci fi being recoqnised as an important category in media creation. It's a genre that doesn't often get the big awards despite in my view often having some of the best character development and emotional and moral plot lines. Obviously TNG with the late great Patrick Stewart being a huge cultural influence for those reasons.
Mike Harrison is very much not the first Booker-prize winner I have read by a long long chalk. I was reading Booker nominees during my English Literative 'A' level in the early 1980s.
But he's the first I've been to sci-fi conventions with, met, heard speak, probably had a beer with...
Congratulations -- and, it should have happened so, so much more sooner.
(It's interesting to think about how Harrison pierced the veil between "genre" and "general literary fiction": he won the Goldsmiths prize in 2020, and judged the Bookers in 2022. His individual recognition as an author was a process.)
> Harrison pierced the veil between "genre" and "general literary fiction"
Indeed, as did the much-missed Iain Banks. The Guardian's headline is tiresomely reductive, although of course that's no more than one expects from the press. I would suggest that Harrison's two best-known books are The Course of the Heart and Climbers, both of which fall squarely into the category of "general literary fiction".
There've been others, too; notably Children of Men and the Handmaid's Tale. And going back a bit further, Gulliver's Travels (he goes to a different weird place every week, meets weird aliens, and makes some minor political points; that's basically just Star Trek TOS).
Feel like Ishiguro got close, with Never Let Me Go making the shortlist and Klara and the Sun making the longlist, but neither of those feel like they had the gravitas to win it.
Curious what books you think should've potentially clinched it?
Right, "Never Let Me Go" was disappointing to me as SF because it wasn't very interested in how this can possibly work, the focus was on the emotional impact. I'm not made of stone, I cry every time I re-read the last few pages of "Incandescence", but for me it hits harder if I'm not wondering whether any of this makes any sense.
Ishiguro clearly doesn't care about that, which is fine, and I made peace with it, but as a result I'd actually be disappointed if somehow "Never Let Me Go" had won the Booker.
I haven't read the novel, but going by the Wikipedia article you could argue that just because it features astronauts on the ISS doesn't yet make it science fiction - as long as nothing unusual happens to the astronauts, what goes on on the ISS is no more science fiction than what an airline pilot does in their day-to-day job.
Even the author seems to agree (also from Wikipedia): "In an interview, Harvey stated that her goal was to write the novel as a "space pastoral", focusing on realism and the beauty of space rather than the speculative nature of science fiction."
Yeah, the key distinguisher for "Science Fiction" is that it asks a "What if?" question. Some SF authors (e.g. Margaret Atwood) don't like that because they're writing novels with no robots or spaceships, but too bad, you don't get to choose how other people experience your work.
There's been a few scifi authors who've won the Booker Prize for non-scifi; at least Atwood and Ishiguro. And both the Handmaid's Tale and Never Let Me Go were shortlisted for the Booker. But they didn't actually win it.
EDIT: Oh, actually, missed that Atwood won it for The Testaments! Yeah, I mean that is clearly scifi.
Margaret Atwood did not win the Booker Prize for Oryx and Crake and sequels, the "arguably SF" ones mentioned above, but for other novels. IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though.
This might make MJH the first Sci-Fi author to win a Booker prize for a Sci-Fi novel.
I would have a hard time countenancing an argument that The Handmaids Tale (and by extension, The Testaments) is not sci-fi, in a world where Heinlein's "If This Goes On—" is widely regarded to be sci-fi.
On the other hand, if Atwood doesn't wish to be regarded as a sci-fi author, so be it
> Atwood doesn't wish to be regarded as a sci-fi author
She's repeatedly said she doesn't. Indeed her dismissive remark that "SF is that 'squids in space' stuff, isn't it?" is what inspired the great Ken Macleod to write his "Engines of Light" trilogy which starts with Cosmonaut Keep.
Due to her attitude I've never even tried to read any fiction of hers. Macleod is a genius nearly on a level with his close friend Iain Banks.
I am with the other commenter in this thread: I've read quite a few (usually very highly-regarded) alleged SF novels by literary authors who say they don't write SF. I have hated pretty much every such book.
As one of very few women in the field, and one of even fewer who writes primarily about women, I tend to think a lot of this attitude is a reflection of the extent to which sci-fi has been an "old boys club" for most of Atwood's career, more than it is about the genre itself
One of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time is a woman. Most consider her to be the best. Ursula LeGuin.
And she absolutely is not the only one. There are plenty of very talented and very popular women authors in the genre.
Margaret Atwood just wants to be thought of as literary.
The handmaid's tale is without a doubt speculative fiction (SF), the umbrella term for writing that includes sci-fi, fantasy, alternative history, etc.
All of literature can be regarded as an "old boys club" if you squint, but it's not like she'd have been unique. "The Left Hand of Darkness" was published before I was born, but I was old enough to read "The Handmaid's Tale" by the time that was published, albeit not quite old enough to properly understand it.
In fact I don't think "The Handmaid's Tale" really makes sense without the context of the AP feminists. Gilead comes about, as I understand it, because the AP feminists think they can use the Religious Right to achieve their goals and unsurprisingly that goes badly for them. AP feminism doesn't even exist when "Left Hand" was published.
I saw her talk once and I thought this statement was more about her being glib. If I recall what she said correctly, it was “I don’t consider what I write to be science fiction, because something like it has already happened.”
But maybe that’s just post-hoc rationalization for a reactionary stance, idk.
Margaret Atwood likes to position herself as a champion of values such as equity, justice, and progress, while using her clout to oppose a multi-family condo development close to her multi-million dollar mansion [1]
Needless to say, I will also never read any of her work.
I would say that Atwood's "The Handmaids Tale" is as much Sci-Fi as similar low-tech dystopias, e.g. "Parable of the Sower" (Octavia Butler), "A Canticle for Leibowitz" (Walter Miller).
But the difference is that Atwood was, when she wrote "The Handmaids Tale" an author but not a Sci-Fi author. Whereas Butler and Miller were Sci-Fi authors.
And yes, "is this book sci-fi?" is a fuzzy category, and of no great importance.
I respect Margaret Atwood's opinion here but I don't quite hold it myself. More so about Oryx and Crake and sequels.
By "IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though" I mean that I have not read it, just "The Handmaids Tale" so I'm not going to opine on something that I don't know about.
It doesn't beg the question, "begging the question" is a type of fallacy in which we insist upon presuming X and then rely on that to prove X which is a waste of everybody's time. But yes, it is reasonable if we notice that Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is Science Fiction to expect that awarding a Booker to its sequel "The Testaments" would constitute a Booker for Science Fiction.
I would imagine the distinction attempted here is that despite writing those novels, Atwood doesn't consider herself to be an SF author, perhaps Harrison says he is an SF author. Atwood also won for "The Blind Assassin" which very much is not Science Fiction, it's historical fiction, it's not history but all the stuff happening in the background was real.
This shades over somewhere. If your story features an England ruled by literal Nazis it's Science Fiction (alternate history is a type of SF, "What if the Nazis won?" is a fairly popular theme) but if your England just has some Nazi sympathizers and your story is set in the 1930s it might just be historical fiction.
For Oryx and Crake and sequels, it's hard to argue that "a novel with no robots or spaceships ... but a whole lot of genetic engineering" isn't actually SF.
It doesn't pass the test that e.g. a novel set on the actually existing International Space Station does. It does contain a core fictional scientific "what-if" extrapolation.
I respect the author's opinion here and I hold a different opinion, for that reason.
I love books that cross the category boundaries. Unfortunately some people do not, and adding a bit too much romance to your sci-fi novel, or too-much sci-fi to your romance novel will likely piss off some readers of the genre and kill the rating, which career writers are forced to maximize for sales. The genres are forced on the book at the publishing stage and, unless you are an established author, picking the wrong one can be a disaster. (Been there, done that!)
When you read Orbital, you very much get the feeling that it is squarely planting itself in the territory of "exploring right now in a literary way" rather than being sci-fi. I think it has a strong vibe of really not wanting to be considered sci-fi. That what makes it an interesting book
The distinction is that Harrison has spent his entire fairly lengthy career being published as a science fiction author, and the others did not. They were all firmly in the mainstream literary camp, even if their books occasionally strayed over.
I read The Course of the Heart because I'd heard it was sci/fi lit, it helped that I was enjoying a bit of a gnostic/occult kick at the time, and an author I hold in high esteem considers it one of the greatest works of fiction ever produced.
But I found it provincially little britain and too obviously desperately trying to be literary that I was confused by the praise, I don't think I'll read another Harrison, but I'm glad he's won the Booker, not that it carries the same weight any more.
I have to say that I spent a lot of time recommending this author to people. "Light", and "Nova Swing" are both ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
I was on holiday, and stopped at a second hand bookshop to grab something hopefully a bit trashy to read. I picked up Nova Switch because the cover made it look like some weird sci-fi detective romp. But after about three pages it became apparent that I had happened upon something very special indeed, and when I made it to the end I did something that I'd never done before. I turned back to page one and read the entire thing again.
It is magnificent. Everyone should read it. It turned out to be the second book in a trilogy, and maybe that was part of its appeal. It didn't explain anything, it just launched into a beautiful and strange sci fi world, filled it with extraordinary characters, and moved languidly through the story.
So much science fiction is just dreadful garbage. Harrison is most definitely not.
So, so good. I’ve probably read Nova Swing six times by now…
The Death Sentence episode on Light is a very good discussion and introduction to Harrison and his work. https://soundcloud.com/death-sentence-pod/m-john-harrison-li... (start from 55 minutes in if you want to skip some three-year-old-news and obligatory death metal interlude)
I loved all three books. I do most of my reading before going to bed. These ones had a huge effect on my dreams, in a way no other books have. I'd describe it as adding colour where there was none before. The prose was exuberant. I usually find detailed descriptions boring, but here it felt like they had a purpose beyond just making you imagine what things looked like.
Mjh deserves this and more. Viriconium is a portal to ultravivid, unrelenting dread. Can't recommend it enough.
Do not want anything related to dread. I’ve got enough of that in my life.
Thanks for the warning!
I only read his book "Climbers" which I thought was really good, non-linear and vague but atmospheric. I am a climber or at least know the world of climbing and M John is also a climber.
I'm tempted to read his other books but as mentioned the reviews are quite divisive. Climbers took me back to when I first read Iain Banks books, that is the kind of vibe I was getting.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/241835818/reviews
Wow, pretty divisive, reviews are all over the place. I haven't read it yet, but the reviews seem to tend towards people annoyed at abstract and flowery plot / writing?
I will have to try, but I've also struggled through (possibly) similar books like Gnomon by the British sci-fi author Nick Harkaway which had plots too abstract to properly hold my attention but were well liked by others. Similar but opposite, How to Win the Time War, which was so abstract the whole book was a metaphor, stayed together enough that I followed the plot and enjoyed it (though it was quite short).
Curious how other people here found this book?
It's literary fiction; lots of people strongly dislike literary fiction. It doesn't sell well. I like it, though. Will definitely read this!
I am tempted to try this one just because it has won a major award, and I'm a huge sci fi reader.
However, I suspect I will be one of the one star or DNF reviewers - I haven't enjoyed any of the other M John Harrison books I tried. The ideas are usually interesting but the execution tends towards weirdness and not much plot. Great at creating atmosphere but not so good at holding my attention. Maybe I will give it a go...
> I haven't enjoyed any of the other M John Harrison books I tried
100% this.
I like the man and he's a great public speaker. I do not get on with his novels at all, from In Viriconium to a few decades later when everyone loved Light so I gave his "SF" another try.
I read a good bit of Light, I had the sense that it was probably very clever but just not for me. Too gloomy, with unlikeable characters.
I also began to suspect it was more magical realism than science fiction. Maybe incorrectly, but made me lose interest.
As a general rule I usually find scifi books that win awards outside the genere but aren't recognized inside the genere to be pretty bad.
Counterpoint: Kazuo Ishiguro and Richard Powers are both extremely good.
Also, the stuff that has won awards inside the genre these past ~10 years has been generally quite poor.
Can you list some of the recent good sci-fis please? I haven't read any new after Salvation series by P. Hamilton
This is less recent, but Embassytown by China Miéville is excellent science fiction.
Klara and the sun was really good, though I heard the movie not so good.
Also anything by Adrian Tchaikovsky. The one that stood out from him was the Void series and Alien Clay. Of course I'd you haven't read him do start with his main series as it was excellent too, but I'm pretty sure before 2020
> Of course I'd you haven't read him do start with his main series
Assuming you're talking Children of Whatever, eh, I'm not sure I agree. IMO some of his other novels are _far_ better (Children of Whatever are _good_, but some of the other stuff is _great_.)
I’m in the middle of _Children of Strife_ right now and I’m not sure I’m going to finish it. Children of Time was great, Ruin was ok, Memory was saved by the ending, but Strife has up to this point been two female protagonists getting tortured and/or abused in various timelines, some of them possibly simulated. Not a great read.
Perhaps he means the Final Architecture series? Shards of Earth, Eyes of the Void, and Lords of Uncreation. That series is a true favorite of mine, but not everyone I've recommended it to liked it as much as I did.
Elder Race and Dogs of War are also awesome entry points for people who enjoy S&S fantasy and military themes, respectively.
Thank you!
Not sure what your definition is for 'recent' - but "The Expanse" is great IMO, I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the entire series. I've not read any of the "spin offs" from the main storyline though.
Also, "There is no anti-memetics division" is interesting but I'm divided about it. The first 60-70% is great, but after that it's kinda "meh" and by the time I finished the book I was glad it was over lol. The initial 2/3rds of the book are really good and almost makes up for the lackluster ending (imo).
I've read The Expense, all of them and enjoyed the whole series.
The authors of the Expanse have another trilogy called The Captive's War which is pretty interesting. Only 2 of the 3 books are out so far, so I hesitate to recommend it, but I did enjoy those two (plus a novella).
Great! Will take a look
I felt the same about "anti-memetics division"- the first half felt like a couple 'monster of the week" episodes of X-files, then suddenly the tone shifts and the world is doomed, but here's a deus ex machina that is totally justified because everyone forgot about it and here's the explanation how.
Public reviews are not all over the place -- they are remarkably bad.
https://www.amazon.com/End-Everything-M-John-Harrison-ebook/...
Ever since Amazon.com allowed blank feedback alongside proper reviews, there's been inflation in every book's rating, with most books clustering around 4.2 - 4.6 Stars.
These days, a 4.0 on Amazon means that a book is questionable, divisive, or has editorial errors. A 3.8 has serious issues.
I believe this is because Amazon prompts you for a review/rating after you've finished the book -- if you read on a Kindle, you only get the prompt when the book is at 100% complete -- so those who do not finish a book seem not to rate.
I don't think I've ever seen anything with a 3.1-star rating across >100 reviews. This suggests that the book is exceptionally bad -- that people were motivated to leave poor reviews.
By all accounts it's a very vague story...
Harrison is generally very challenging. A lot of people don't want challenging. That doesn't make it bad.
Just don't read Harrison if you're looking for Heinlein, just as you wouldn't read Delany if you were looking for Asimov, or Le Guin if you were looking for Sanderson.
To me, one of the biggest red flags, is a lot of the positive reviews seem to have trouble articulating what they like about the book and come across very generic. I think most of the positive reviews could be written about any challenging book if you just swap out the book title.
This doesn't hold up -- there are lots of challenging books that were well-received by the public, and Harrison's Light and his Viriconium books were also quite well-received. Their review scores -- at around 4 stars -- are perfectly in line with what you'd expect of challenging work. For my part, I read Light and enjoyed it.
The End of Everything has ratings that place it in the bottom 0.1% of all published books with >100 reviews. This very strongly suggests that an absolute majority of readers found it frustrating or incomprehensible, and that among those readers are some who had enjoyed his other works.
I have not found either Amazon or Goodreads reviews to be a particularly good guide. Especially for scifi, actually. Tastes differ, a lot.
Be that as it may, a score of 3.1 (Amazon) and 2.8 (Goodreads) with >100 ratings makes this book an extreme outlier.
On Goodreads, that's -4.4 standard deviations.
On Amazon.com, where reviews cluster around 4-4.6 stars, it's -8.5 SD! (Actually quite amazing, when you think about it. It's easily in the bottom 0.1% of titles.)
Check this out: https://emerginginvestigators.org/articles/25-198/pdf
That it's this extreme would honestly make me suspect that it's just pissed off some group of Very Online(tm) people.
I note that virtually all of the 1 stars are from after it was longlisted. Annoyingly, Goodtime does not provide stats on rating over time.
To borrow a phrase from Rick and Morty: "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."
That is, I've seen plenty of very high ratings on Goodreads/Amazon for things that (in my opinion) range from mediocre to slop.
That tells me there are lots of raters who use some criteria that, while I'm sure it's reasonable to them, doesn't correlate well with anything I'd recognize as "quality".
Glancing at the actual text of the Goodreads reviews, it seems like most of the negative ones are outright saying that they didn't understand the book, and therefore decided that it's meaningless. I'm not saying this because I'm trying to sneer at those reviewers, it's just quite literally what they're saying about the book.
Okay, but I've never seen a book with such poor public reviews. I'm dead serious about this: I've never seen anything comparable. And I spend a lot of time buying and reading science fiction books. The public disdain for this book is quite remarkable, really.
So there are a lot of boos. And even the book's supporters seem to strain to find meaning in it. The most parsimonious explanation is that it's genuinely incoherent.
Wow 2.8 stars. Goodread ratings are pretty BS generally speaking, but i'm not sure i've ever seen a book that low.
Not to mention, if you click on show 5 star reviews, it shows the first 10, 3 of which have disclosures about receiving compensation, which seems like a pretty high ratio to me, but i dont know what is normal.
Gnomon might be my favorite book ever. It’s one of those books where the first time through it’s disjointed and almost seems like a collection of novellas, then the second read you see the connections from the beginning and it all makes sense, and reads 3+ reward with really deep semiotics and structural parallels that I can only describe as fractal.
So Harrison aside, if you find yourself without reading material at some point, I’d really encourage giving it another try. It’s certainly abstract, but there is incredible depth and coherence throughout.
I loved Gnomon. It's not complexity or depth that bothers me in Harrison's work, it's the apparent lack of it, just meandering weirdness.
Gnomon is quite tough. His earlier book Angelmaker is fun though. Maybe you’ll like it?
I have read The End of Everything and other M. John Harrison books, both conventional rock-climbing memoir and way out space opera.
IMHO if you like Harrison's prose and the atmosphere, keep going. Even if the plot is hard to make out. IHMO, If you are reading M. John Harrison for the plot, then you're in the wrong book.
I can see how some would be bored or baffled by this book, or even dislike it intensely. If you didn't like his other books, then this one is more in that vein, and in some ways more so. If so, you probably won't enjoy this one either.
He has said "A good ground rule for writing in any genre is: start with a form, then ask what it's afraid of" (1) He is deconstructing, not constructing, stories.
The End of Everything has an anti-plot, is set in anti-places and contains at least character that is anti-person.
If it's not for you then that's perfectly OK. I don't pretend to understand why it won an award, but I liked it. Probably. It's hard to be sure. And that's something out of the ordinary.
There are though, themes or images that are of a particular time and place (2026, South coast of England). Most notably Boats taking people across the Channel to some-place uncertain but "not here". If you are somewhere else then that image might not mean anything to you, but the resonance with current UK political discourse must be deliberate. And it helps to "get" it.
In the same way that his last book The Sunken Land Begins to Rise Again (2020) was about the fallout, the curdled nostalgia and communication failures of the post-Brexit moment. (2) Maybe. If it's "about" anything other than aquatic humanoids, dodgy jobs and fairy tales, IDK.
1) https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2012/jul/20/m-john-harri...
2) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/19/the-sunken-lan...
> I don't pretend to understand why it won an award,
By Mary's Beard !!
More correctly, by Mary's vote: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/sep/22/i-read-163-nov...
163 novels in 6 months!!! How is that even possible? This sounds like a good formula for producing noisy reviews.
She's 71, so I assume she's pretty much retired, and can dedicate a lot of time to this (you'd really have to be willing and able to do so to sign up for this). That's about one a day. It seems... doable, though it's obviously a lot.
27 a month?
So, a little less than one a day? That seems eminently doable -- I read more than that in my teens, considerably more sometimes, for years at a time. (Of course I had no internet to distract me: my teens were from about 1977 to 1986.)
I have read the Lord of the Rings trilogy 5 times, Kim Stnaley Robinson's Mars trilogy 6 times, and the entire Frank Herbert _Dune_ series twice. In my early teens, if under time pressure, several times I read about half a dozen novels in an afternoon.
For a retired professional? Sure. I'd be surprised if she couldn't.
Around 1997-1998, I was freelance, not working a lot, and lived with a judge of the Arthur C Clarke award. I read pretty much all the new SF published in the UK both years. A couple of hundred books a year, while working.
Let’s take your six novels in an afternoon. Il be generous and give you the entire six hours for six novels. Even at a relatively low page count of 250 pages each novel it would mean you read more than 4 pages a minute, for six hours straight. And if any of those six novels had more pages (very likely given the books you name drop) you could easily need to double the number of pages read per minute.
So at best you skimmed six books in an afternoon, which IS a time-honoured tradition by school kids who have reports due.
I think you seriously underestimate just how fast a properly fast reader can go. On an unrelated note, I remember a line (from Jo Walton I think) on seeing one of those tedious ads—most CEOs read six book a week. To which, “not surprising, they’ve terribly responsible jobs and not much time”
If you listen her speak off the cuff about material she has read and respond in real time to random questions you would likely soon come to believe her to have significant powers of recall and comprehension .. in a few languages.
Might explain how she landed a role as Professor of classics at Cambridge, a fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge, and Royal Academy of Arts Professor of Ancient Literature.
What I found most interesting about The End of Everything is that the book aligns better with Trump's rhetoric (the "fake news" of apocalpse, the uselessness of global institutions, a cynical anti-establishment mood) than with someone like e.g. Hillary Clinton's ideals (e.g. the rules based order and that well-crafted policy by experts can overcome global disaster), even though the author specifically wrote it to criticize the very mindset that Trump represents. Our politics are broken
Haven't heard the term "abstract" applied to a plot, unless you mean highly metaphorical? Genuinely curious in case it's something I'd like. What's an example, without giving too much away?
Gnomon by Nick Harkaway has a plot that is intricate and highly metaphorical. Read it for the intellectual plot.
Examples: have you read any Jorge Luis Borges or Italo Calvino?
M. John Harrison deconstructs plot. If you try to read him just for the plot, you will be bored or baffled.
So if we are talking scifi, is it comparable to dhalgren?
I suppose you could compare M. John Harrison's work to Dhalgren in terms of plot / absence of. But not subject matter or prose style.
Disclosure, I Did Not Finish Dhalgren: The prose style and subject matter did nothing for me. I have never DNF a M. John Harrison book.
a tangent, Nick Harkaway is John le Carré's son.
Where did you read that? His Wikipedia page says that his father died when he was young but never states his name. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._John_Harrison
I believe sorokod meant Nick Harkaway, not M. John Harrison.
Yes, edited.
I'd say it's a deserved winner. I'm not usually someone who reads many booker prize nominees but I happened to have read I think at least 6/7 of the long list and I would say flowery plot and writing is common to getting nominated so I can't complain about that. John of John being far worse for this. I possibly if I had to pick my favourite I would have gone Helen of Nowhere or Switzy but that's simply I'm often very drawn into the type of story Fitzcarraldo publish, (Switzy not being Fitzcarraldo but of a similar vibe).
I think the key for me is sci fi being recoqnised as an important category in media creation. It's a genre that doesn't often get the big awards despite in my view often having some of the best character development and emotional and moral plot lines. Obviously TNG with the late great Patrick Stewart being a huge cultural influence for those reasons.
This really cheered up my morning.
Mike Harrison is very much not the first Booker-prize winner I have read by a long long chalk. I was reading Booker nominees during my English Literative 'A' level in the early 1980s.
But he's the first I've been to sci-fi conventions with, met, heard speak, probably had a beer with...
Congrats, Mike!
Congratulations -- and, it should have happened so, so much more sooner. (It's interesting to think about how Harrison pierced the veil between "genre" and "general literary fiction": he won the Goldsmiths prize in 2020, and judged the Bookers in 2022. His individual recognition as an author was a process.)
> Harrison pierced the veil between "genre" and "general literary fiction"
Indeed, as did the much-missed Iain Banks. The Guardian's headline is tiresomely reductive, although of course that's no more than one expects from the press. I would suggest that Harrison's two best-known books are The Course of the Heart and Climbers, both of which fall squarely into the category of "general literary fiction".
> Indeed, as did the much-missed Iain Banks.
Banks cheated, with his 'M'.
There've been others, too; notably Children of Men and the Handmaid's Tale. And going back a bit further, Gulliver's Travels (he goes to a different weird place every week, meets weird aliens, and makes some minor political points; that's basically just Star Trek TOS).
Feel like Ishiguro got close, with Never Let Me Go making the shortlist and Klara and the Sun making the longlist, but neither of those feel like they had the gravitas to win it.
Curious what books you think should've potentially clinched it?
Right, "Never Let Me Go" was disappointing to me as SF because it wasn't very interested in how this can possibly work, the focus was on the emotional impact. I'm not made of stone, I cry every time I re-read the last few pages of "Incandescence", but for me it hits harder if I'm not wondering whether any of this makes any sense.
Ishiguro clearly doesn't care about that, which is fine, and I made peace with it, but as a result I'd actually be disappointed if somehow "Never Let Me Go" had won the Booker.
> first science fiction author to win the Booker prize
This feels like we're really splitting hairs in order to exclude Samantha Harvey’s Orbital (the 2024 winner) from the category of science fiction.
I haven't read the novel, but going by the Wikipedia article you could argue that just because it features astronauts on the ISS doesn't yet make it science fiction - as long as nothing unusual happens to the astronauts, what goes on on the ISS is no more science fiction than what an airline pilot does in their day-to-day job.
Even the author seems to agree (also from Wikipedia): "In an interview, Harvey stated that her goal was to write the novel as a "space pastoral", focusing on realism and the beauty of space rather than the speculative nature of science fiction."
Yeah, the key distinguisher for "Science Fiction" is that it asks a "What if?" question. Some SF authors (e.g. Margaret Atwood) don't like that because they're writing novels with no robots or spaceships, but too bad, you don't get to choose how other people experience your work.
But that then begs the question… isn’t Margaret Atwood already the first SF author to win the Booker Prize? Making Harrison second?
There's been a few scifi authors who've won the Booker Prize for non-scifi; at least Atwood and Ishiguro. And both the Handmaid's Tale and Never Let Me Go were shortlisted for the Booker. But they didn't actually win it.
EDIT: Oh, actually, missed that Atwood won it for The Testaments! Yeah, I mean that is clearly scifi.
That's a good point.
Margaret Atwood did not win the Booker Prize for Oryx and Crake and sequels, the "arguably SF" ones mentioned above, but for other novels. IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though.
This might make MJH the first Sci-Fi author to win a Booker prize for a Sci-Fi novel.
> IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though
I would have a hard time countenancing an argument that The Handmaids Tale (and by extension, The Testaments) is not sci-fi, in a world where Heinlein's "If This Goes On—" is widely regarded to be sci-fi.
On the other hand, if Atwood doesn't wish to be regarded as a sci-fi author, so be it
> Atwood doesn't wish to be regarded as a sci-fi author
She's repeatedly said she doesn't. Indeed her dismissive remark that "SF is that 'squids in space' stuff, isn't it?" is what inspired the great Ken Macleod to write his "Engines of Light" trilogy which starts with Cosmonaut Keep.
Due to her attitude I've never even tried to read any fiction of hers. Macleod is a genius nearly on a level with his close friend Iain Banks.
I am with the other commenter in this thread: I've read quite a few (usually very highly-regarded) alleged SF novels by literary authors who say they don't write SF. I have hated pretty much every such book.
As one of very few women in the field, and one of even fewer who writes primarily about women, I tend to think a lot of this attitude is a reflection of the extent to which sci-fi has been an "old boys club" for most of Atwood's career, more than it is about the genre itself
One of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time is a woman. Most consider her to be the best. Ursula LeGuin.
And she absolutely is not the only one. There are plenty of very talented and very popular women authors in the genre.
Margaret Atwood just wants to be thought of as literary.
The handmaid's tale is without a doubt speculative fiction (SF), the umbrella term for writing that includes sci-fi, fantasy, alternative history, etc.
All of literature can be regarded as an "old boys club" if you squint, but it's not like she'd have been unique. "The Left Hand of Darkness" was published before I was born, but I was old enough to read "The Handmaid's Tale" by the time that was published, albeit not quite old enough to properly understand it.
In fact I don't think "The Handmaid's Tale" really makes sense without the context of the AP feminists. Gilead comes about, as I understand it, because the AP feminists think they can use the Religious Right to achieve their goals and unsurprisingly that goes badly for them. AP feminism doesn't even exist when "Left Hand" was published.
I saw her talk once and I thought this statement was more about her being glib. If I recall what she said correctly, it was “I don’t consider what I write to be science fiction, because something like it has already happened.”
But maybe that’s just post-hoc rationalization for a reactionary stance, idk.
Margaret Atwood likes to position herself as a champion of values such as equity, justice, and progress, while using her clout to oppose a multi-family condo development close to her multi-million dollar mansion [1]
Needless to say, I will also never read any of her work.
[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-con...
I would say that Atwood's "The Handmaids Tale" is as much Sci-Fi as similar low-tech dystopias, e.g. "Parable of the Sower" (Octavia Butler), "A Canticle for Leibowitz" (Walter Miller).
But the difference is that Atwood was, when she wrote "The Handmaids Tale" an author but not a Sci-Fi author. Whereas Butler and Miller were Sci-Fi authors.
And yes, "is this book sci-fi?" is a fuzzy category, and of no great importance.
I respect Margaret Atwood's opinion here but I don't quite hold it myself. More so about Oryx and Crake and sequels.
By "IDK if "The Testaments" qualifies though" I mean that I have not read it, just "The Handmaids Tale" so I'm not going to opine on something that I don't know about.
If it helps, The Testaments is firmly in the same genre as The Handmaid’s Tale, whichever genre one wishes to assign to either.
It doesn't beg the question, "begging the question" is a type of fallacy in which we insist upon presuming X and then rely on that to prove X which is a waste of everybody's time. But yes, it is reasonable if we notice that Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is Science Fiction to expect that awarding a Booker to its sequel "The Testaments" would constitute a Booker for Science Fiction.
I would imagine the distinction attempted here is that despite writing those novels, Atwood doesn't consider herself to be an SF author, perhaps Harrison says he is an SF author. Atwood also won for "The Blind Assassin" which very much is not Science Fiction, it's historical fiction, it's not history but all the stuff happening in the background was real.
This shades over somewhere. If your story features an England ruled by literal Nazis it's Science Fiction (alternate history is a type of SF, "What if the Nazis won?" is a fairly popular theme) but if your England just has some Nazi sympathizers and your story is set in the 1930s it might just be historical fiction.
For Oryx and Crake and sequels, it's hard to argue that "a novel with no robots or spaceships ... but a whole lot of genetic engineering" isn't actually SF.
It doesn't pass the test that e.g. a novel set on the actually existing International Space Station does. It does contain a core fictional scientific "what-if" extrapolation.
I respect the author's opinion here and I hold a different opinion, for that reason.
I love books that cross the category boundaries. Unfortunately some people do not, and adding a bit too much romance to your sci-fi novel, or too-much sci-fi to your romance novel will likely piss off some readers of the genre and kill the rating, which career writers are forced to maximize for sales. The genres are forced on the book at the publishing stage and, unless you are an established author, picking the wrong one can be a disaster. (Been there, done that!)
When you read Orbital, you very much get the feeling that it is squarely planting itself in the territory of "exploring right now in a literary way" rather than being sci-fi. I think it has a strong vibe of really not wanting to be considered sci-fi. That what makes it an interesting book
The distinction is that Harrison has spent his entire fairly lengthy career being published as a science fiction author, and the others did not. They were all firmly in the mainstream literary camp, even if their books occasionally strayed over.
I read The Course of the Heart because I'd heard it was sci/fi lit, it helped that I was enjoying a bit of a gnostic/occult kick at the time, and an author I hold in high esteem considers it one of the greatest works of fiction ever produced.
But I found it provincially little britain and too obviously desperately trying to be literary that I was confused by the praise, I don't think I'll read another Harrison, but I'm glad he's won the Booker, not that it carries the same weight any more.
I tried to read it but it's very hard to get into and I've read the road by Mccarthy
Does "anti-plot" work if you go in expecting it or does knowing spoil whatever the book is trying to do?