Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Books Media Book Reviews

Star Maker 40

Posted by Hemos from the more-science-fiction dept.
Duncan Lawie has returned with a review of Star Maker, a science fiction novel written by Olaf Stapledon. Part science fiction, part philosphical text, it's worth checking out. Originally published in 1968, it was re-printed last summer, making it available again for the first time in a long time.
Star Maker
author Olaf Stapledon
pages 270
publisher Peter Smith Publishing (06/1999, orig. 1968)
rating 8/10
reviewer Duncan Lawie
ISBN 0844629952
summary A complex philosophical novel filled with enduring images spiralling from the human to the universal scale.

Olaf Stapledon was a British writer and philosopher whose first science fiction was published in 1930. Much of his writing concerns the concept of "true community" and his belief that humanity, as it currently exists, has no real capacity for a genuine understanding of truth. This places him far outside of the pulp mainstream of science fiction in his period. His emphasis on social comment rather than action and his use of science fictional processes to advance philosophical discourse instead continues the strand of "scientific romance" by then established in the British literary tradition.

Star Maker, first published in 1937, is generally considered Stapledon's best work. From the first the book displays its lyricism despite the mundane early subject of the suburbs after sunset. In these quiet homes, the possible existence of a genuine relationship between two people is explored in a first attempt to illuminate the concept of true community. Placed in conflict with such an ideal is the immensity of the world and the apparent impossibility of any human having a true relationship with all people. From these eminently recognizable circumstances the narrator quickly extends his viewpoint to consider the world and its multitudes before coming to the suggestion that all this is insignificant in the face of the universe.

Having touched upon his main themes, Stapledon expands his focus. The next section is a clearly written account of an alien race with which the narrator comes into contact. The successes and failures of that alien society become an implicit counterpoint to human experience, though the narrator cannot help rounding this out with a number of more explicit comparisons before moving on to describe countless further societies. These descriptive passages are powerful examples of the richness of Stapledon's imagination. Many of the ideas summed up in a few brief pages could have been developed into full chapters or novels of their own. In fact, the narrator repeatedly states that he "has not space to describe" details of many of the events he witnesses. The text also contains repeated comments on how little the narrator has retained of the events and situations experienced. Whilst this is at times frustrating, it is clear that Stapledon has greater things in mind than simple description of the fantastic diversity of the universe.

As each level of his story becomes clear, the themes of community, hope and futility are played out in a grand spiral of ever escalating scales of action. After several iterations, the process seems clear and the book looks likely to become tedious. Instead the very rate of magnification is itself transformed to a whole new scale. As the book reaches universal immensity, early heights become trivialities against the ineffable activities of increasingly sane, immortal beings, though hope and failure are still a vital impetus. The end point of intelligent life is approached and revelation - of sorts - is achieved in a final ecstasy.

The resultant novel is rather dry, infinitely high minded and focused on a philosophy which requires the best from each of us without necessarily offering any reward. However, the ideas are endlessly fascinating and many of the passages are profoundly satisfying reading. The book's use of repetition in theme and punctuated revelation allow complex ideas to be absorbed without conscious effort. Star Maker is a novel which deserves savouring and rewards careful reading.

Purchase this book from fatbrain.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Maker More

Star Maker

Comments Filter:

  • Star something or other.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't know what these guys are on about..
    Star Maker has a kick-ass storyline, where these super-advanced beings called the Protoss arrive and start blowing away terran colonies! Then it turns out there's this crazy evolved race called the Berg (Borg?) No, ZERG, that's it, and they're..
    Oh, hang on.. maybe I'm getting this confused with something else..
    Anyway, the sequel is called Spoon Wars. That much I'm positive about.

  • Star Maker--Slashdot Paradigm (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    [snip]
    computer network, religous arguments over content, and addiction to it
    [snip]

    So is he ripping off Slashdot or vice versa?

  • Star Maker--SF Paradigm (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stapledon's books, Star Maker especially, contain in prototype almost every science-fiction trope. In particular, a world-wide full-sensorium computer network, religous arguments over content, and addiction to it are all found in the first chapter of this work. Only a few science-fiction novels are not rip-offs or reinvention of Stapledon's material. He is a lost master indeed.
  • go out on a limb and state that the reason for this is because slashdot has deals with book sellers

    Which is true.. unless that link to fatbrain just disappeared. What that means for slashdot revenue, I don't know.. but it's there by agreement.

    And I don't know andover.net policy. Despite what the official word is (that they maintain complete control over slashdot) - I know better than to trust "official word". They might be bound by contract not to say anything bad about andover.net or it's policies. Maybe it's a catch-22 I don't know about. How the f-ck would I know? Since Hemos has now posted and stated WHY he doesn't do bad book reviews, it makes alittle more sense. Just because I state an opinion and then I turn out to be wrong doesn't mean I can't go and say "I was wrong" and change my mind. What's so bad about that?!?!?!

  • Is it crystal clear yet?

    Nope. You're still wrong.

  • Perhaps before impugning integrity you could simply ask the question? We don't have any deal with the book sellers, beyond the affiliateship.

    Sorry for the slam. I just note that most places that are dedicated to book reviews have both good and bad - more slanted towards "bad". I was curious as to why that was. I wasn't intending to question your integrity.

  • Odd John is a terrific story. I read a reference (with plot summary) to it in one of Julian May's Galactic Milieu books (The Surveillance, the first half of The Metaconcert.) It sounded terrific, but when I tried to find it, I was out of luck since it was long since out of print. One day, I saw the Odd John and Sirius reprint at some bookstore in the mall, and snapped it up immediately.

    Anyway, they're both great books. Olaf Stapledon's writing was certainly ahead of his time, and probably ahead of ours. While the premise of Odd John has been covered plenty of times since then (like in Ted Sturgeon's More than Human) I've never heard of anybody tackling something like Sirius with anything like the depth he gives it. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to reading any of Stapledon's other books, but since my library's got those on the shelves, I'm not in any rush to do it.
  • A book has to be AWFULLY bad for me to do more than say, "I didn't like this book". I mean who wants to sit down and say "This sucked" in a review, much less finish a book that was bad.

    I also seem to remember Cmdr. Taco saying he threw "The Diamond Age" across the room after he finished it. I can't remember if it was in the review of the book, though.

    And I'm too lazy to look.

  • Expressing philosophy through science fiction seems more effective than Plato's dialogs, and certainly more entertaining than Judith Butler (if you've read her you'll know what I mean). Most [good] science fiction can be seen as a thought experiment -- not necessarily exploring a philosophical theme but a social or technological possibility. My question: what are some other examples of science fiction (or other genre of novels) that are strongly based on philosophy?

  • Is it just me or did Hemos forget to tell us in the book review exactly what the book was about? He goes on about societies and complexities of the book, but in the end, who are the main characters? What are they doing? Why are they doing it? Is there anything besides broad, general science fiction terms in the book? Story? Plotlines? Point? Hello?

    -----------
    Obi

  • Jamie / Michael and Jon's Mission to Mars review [slashdot.org] had me laughing so hard I had to replace the chair.

    That one worked. Some don't though ...

    timothy
  • This is on my Top Ten list of SF. When I read this , after 20 years of reading every species of science fiction, my jaw dropped. I thought I'd read about every kind of alien and ET culture.

    I think Brian Aldiss said, "Other science fiction writers have made whole careers out of a single sentence from Star Maker". Think of Arthur C. Clarke, Doc Smith, Asimov, Niven. This doesn't diminish their brilliance, but it shows how many creative ideas are jammed into this book.

    No, it isn't an easy read for modern readers, and it doesn't have a normal plot, but it's well worth the ride.
  • a) send in your acerbic, laughter-inducing, wince-worthy book reviews, and they may run =) The problem is that sometimes folks who do negative reviews get a kick more out of playing the dozens then actually addressing the points in the books they pan, even if they really are genuinely bad.


    Clearly, you mean like the review of the Star Wars Christmas Special [slashdot.org] that Kirby [slashdot.org] posted last December. Follow the link to the article and search for "I have seen this". Kirby's review had me gasping for air as it brought back memories of the very things he was reviewing. This is an excellent example of where bad art and a caustic review are far funnier than either one can be alone.
  • In the Dover omnibus edition of Odd John and Sirius, the copyright for the former is in the name of George Pal. Pal was a fantasy film maker, best known for "The Time Machine" and "War of the Worlds." After many years of asking around, I learned from Forrey Ackerman that Pal had indeed plans to film a treatment of Odd John.

    WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN!

  • I keep running across the Dover editions in places like Borders and Barnes & Noble. Also in lots of thrift shops. They've been in print since 1968 or so.

    Sirius is one of Stapledon's last novels. Very sad and moving story about an "uplifted" dog (border collie / mastiff / german shepherd) dealing with life in WWII Wales and London.

    Stefan

  • Several people have mentioned Last and First Men and someone mentioned Sirius. I discovered Stapledon over 20 years ago and tried to read everything he wrote: I liked Starmaker and Last and First Men that much. Unfortunately, I can't say much for the likes of "A man divided" or "Darkness and Light." Each has its moments that approach the quality of his better novels, but the average quality is lower and sometimes simply cliche. About 10-15 years ago, I encountered a paperback reprint of a Stapledon novella called Nebulamaker, which represented a prequel to Starmaker and has much the same themes. Its use of sentient Nebula certainly predates Hoyle's Black Cloud by 20 years or more. I certainly wouldn't recommend Stapledon to everyone, but his best work certainly has earned a special place in my library and my philosophy. I'm glad to see that publishers besides Dover (meaning no slight to Dover) are continuing to reprint Stapledon. predates Hoyl'e
  • I agree, many sci-fi authors write great thought experiments. I would say there are only a few true philosphers though.

    Of course one true sci-fi philospher is Stanislaw Lem. Occasionally Robert Silverberg will right a good philosophical novel (such as "The Face on the Waters"). That's all I can come up with right now. It's quite rare, I think. I don't think even Philip K Dick really managed it.
  • Mine are trade paperbacks printed on acid-free paper.

    Last and First Men and Star Maker : Two Science Fiction Novels. ISBN 0486219623.

    Odd John and Sirius : Two Science Fiction Novels. ISBN 048621133

    Dover's based in New York.

  • From reading the review I get the impression that the book is more about ideas and that plotline and characters are almost irrelevant. As for the point of the book Much of his writing concerns the concept of "true community" and his belief that humanity, as it currently exists, has no real capacity for a genuine understanding of truth.

    Besides I like it when reviews arn't filled with spoilers.
  • The main character is intelligent life in the universe.

    The story is the travelogue.

    The plot line is the beginning, history, and end of intelligent life in the universe.

  • Well, if I was running a web site that was not dedicated to book reviews, when I *did* do a book review I'd make a point of it being one I thought folks would like. Think of the reviews here as an extended recommendation rather than a good/bad review of a random book. Write up the wheat, forget the chaffe.
  • The way it is reviewed, it sounds like a knock-off of St.Thomas Moores 'Utopia' only, St. Thomas uses the equation; (Society + Thoecracy)+(no outside input) = Utopia Lawie uses: (Society - God) + Aliens = whatever he wants
  • Wow!

    -Thanks for the info.. George Pal did some really cool stuff, I really like some of his wartime puppet animations (I picked up a documentary on Pal at a garage sale for a buck..)

    This is also cool, because when I first read Odd John, I was a film student, and I was trying to imagine how a good film version of the book could be made.. At one point I was contemplating making my grad-film a short piece inspired by Odd John..

    I would love to see what someone could do with a film adaptation of this book, although I worry that with many adaptations, the translation to film just doesnt work out.

    --
  • It's kind of like Gremlins, huh? *grin*

  • I only speak for myself, not the other reviewers, but I *hate* reading bad books and am not likely to finish them, even if I do start them. (chromatic's rule of book covers: if it's colored like a fire truck, or has more exclamation points than recommendations from people I've heard of, it's probably not worth reading).

    Slashdot doesn't tell me what to write, and hasn't changed a word of my reviews yet. Even if I don't care for a book, I try to find *some* appropriate audience for it. Besides that, technical book reviews are more interesting for *what* they say than how they say it (unless they're wrong or the writing gets in the way of the information -- which I've seen in a few books). That said, I'm slogging through a couple of books now that

    You're less likely to see a review of a zero-star, rushed to market celebrity tell all here than an interesting discussion of the Linux Kernel or the latest Stephenson tour-de-force, simply because those of us who do reviews are not as much interested in the former. (At least, I'm not.)

    I pick good books to read? I do positive reviews. Hemos likes positive reviews.

    Hemos hasn't published anything from me in a while... uh oh.

    --

  • Signal 11 wrote: "When was the last time slashdot posted a BAD book review? I mean, comeon.. most sites that do this kind of thing have both good and bad reviews... like movie critics. When are we going to see a "zero star" on slashdot - something so god-awfully bad you want to go read it just to see how bad gets (the same affliction that made me see Army of Darkness three times *g*)."

    a) send in your acerbic, laughter-inducing, wince-worthy book reviews, and they may run =) The problem is that sometimes folks who do negative reviews get a kick more out of playing the dozens then actually addressing the points in the books they pan, even if they really are genuinely bad. Take Cluetrain -- it's a well-intentioned book that probably does as good a job or better than any other at speaking to buzzword-addicted business types who want to understand what the Web actually means to them, or ought to. But it'd be pretty easy to make fun of -- it's got some lines which lend themselves to parody [gluetrain.com]. A lot of the comments on the review of that book do just that. My brother once wrote on the back of a zine (I don't know whether he made it up) "Unfounded cynicism is the deepest form of naivete."

    b) As a lot of other posters have pointed out, reviews on Slashdot are not generally there just to fill a "Oh, we gotta have a review" time slot -- more that a reviewer wants to let others in on a book he or she enjoyed. There are some out of print or otherwise overlooked books which surely deserve review, that their memes not dissappear.

    timothy
  • I don't think you need absolutely bad reviews to augment credibility of the reviews on this site, nor do I think it means Slashdot is sold out to book dealers. Most of the reviews I see here (except the crappy movie reviews by Katz) are books or movies that are interesting to the Slashdot community in the first place, and I tremendously enjoy the SF book reviews of SF classics, because it allows me to catch up on what I missed.

    Besides, review sites just come across as arrogant snobs by picking on a movie or book from time to time. It sounds as if they have a 'quota' of bad reviews, and latch on to some movies that don't deserve it. I prefer a clear review of a book or movie, pointing out target audience, strengths and flaws, to a total destruction of someone's work. The former is much more productive and useful anyway.

  • An English fellow has a spat with his wife.

    He storms outside, considers the state of the world (this is 1937, and most intellectuals figured the next war would end up with everyone dead from plagues and gas).

    Turns his eyes to the stars and wonders what it's all about, and finds himself (for lack of a better phrase) astrally projected on a series of encounters with increasingly strange alien species caught up in various crisis.

    With time, other astrally projected observers join him in the tour, which is across time as well as space. They see some races create superficially 'good' utopias . . . which they they try to force on others. They see others form mature utopias that observe other races without interference until they're ready for contact. (Sound familiar?)

    What's left? Planetoid-sized habitats full of aquatic creatures linked by webs of neural tissue. Suns enveloped by swarms of space colonies inhabited by dozens of species. Convert-hungry 'Pervert' utopias frying entire solar systems. The two-billion year history of humanity reduced to two paragraphs.

    And all this doesn't give the central theme away. Is that enough to go on?

    Stefan

  • Well, I would say that the set of books that I would consider buying is much, much smaller than the set of books that I would not consider buying (either because I know I would not want to or because I never even considered it). A given random book review is more likely to hit a book in the set that I would not consider buying, and hence it might be useful for me to see a review of such a book that would make me consider moving it into the "might buy" category. It's rather more unlikely that a random review is going to be of a book already in my "might buy" (although of course this is possible). So a negative review is most likely to have the effect of just keeping a book in my "not considered" category. So one might possibly view positive reviews as more useful.
  • "Starmaker" is the sequel to "The First and Last Men", of which I discovered after reading an interview with Philip K Dick, who really loved that book ("The First and Last Men").

    These books are true science fiction. Not the modern stories which often are normal stories with some sci-fi elements, or the stories the all revolve around an single sci-fi idea. This is what sci fi should be - it is untouched by John Campbell's influence, thank god.

    The true greatness of Starmaker is it actually has a coherent philosophy of the meaning of life (not a single life, but life in general), and our place in the universe. Stapledon was truly an important thinker, and his philosophy could best be expressed through science fiction. Not many sci-fi authors have come close to his achievement, and I'm not aware of anyone who has written a book of the scope of either the Last and First Men, or the Starmaker.
  • This book is late Stapledon, an elegiac exploration of the theme of nature versus nurture that Stapledon and Wells argued about in print in the '30s.

    Stapledon argues that our biologies limit us, so the dog's fate is determined by his character. The dog has the intelligence of homo sapiens, but the spirit of a dog.

    Wells' solid grounding in Biology and understanding of Science allowed him to project a future of disturbing consequences of technological change. He, a Victorian Socialist and member of the Fabian Society, believed in the perfectibility of human society. He saw that perfectibility as desireable for its own sake and necessary given the disturbing futures he could project.

    He spent most of his life trying to convince his contemporaries that it was possible and necessary to found a World State to provide a just society that would allow humanity to escape the ugly consequences of that future.

    His abilities as prognisticator and social critic left him struggling with despair at the failure of the West to found that World State. This might have something to do with title of his last book, written while his health was failing: Mind at the End of Its Tether.

    Anyone who thinks current struggles with Mattel over censorware, the DVDCCA over DeCSS and Microsoft over everything are something unexpected ought to read Wells' "A Story of the Days to Come" and "When the Sleeper Wakes." These are written in the same Future History as The Time Machine, but the action takes place in a near-term future .

    Anyone who thinks that their Socialism made the Fabians completely wrong ought to read at those three works and ask themselves how to solve the problems identified by those Victorian Socialist reformers. Those problems are still with us.

    Maybe it's time for a detailed SlashDot book review of Wells' Future History.

  • I always view the actual article of a book topic on Slashdot as more of a recommendation than a true review. Most book reviews are where a person was alocated a book and told to come up with a review. At Slashdot it weems more that a person finds a book that they are interested in telling other people about.

    However once it has become a topic on Slashdot then the responses from other people will give a much more representative impression of the book. At Slashdot the 'reviewer' proposes a positive impression and the rest of us support or argue against this position to give any interested parties a fairly comprehensive review.
  • You forgot "Odd John" which is definately one of my favorite Stapledon books- For those that found "Starmaker" dense, "Odd John" has a smaller more human scale (similar to "Sirius" in a way), but still shows Stapledons mastery of some deep sci-fi concepts.. Seems to me to be definately on of the grandfathers of modern Sci-fi..

    BTW- In the collection of Stapledon books I read, at least one entire chapter of "First and Last Men" was edited out completely.. It was published during the Mcarthy era.. Ah well..

    (No. not Jenny Mcarthy)

  • Criticize? (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Friday April 07, 2000 @06:28AM (#1145338)
    When was the last time slashdot posted a BAD book review? I mean, comeon.. most sites that do this kind of thing have both good and bad reviews... like movie critics. When are we going to see a "zero star" on slashdot - something so god-awfully bad you want to go read it just to see how bad gets (the same affliction that made me see Army of Darkness three times *g*).

    At the risk of being flamed to a crisp, I'm going to go out on a limb and state that the reason for this is because slashdot has deals with book sellers... bad reviews don't sell books.. and since slashdot as a profit-making entity is probably pretty close to break-even, every dollar counts. "Journalistic integrity" anyone? *grumble*

  • Re:Criticize? (Score:3)

    by The Dakota Kidd ( 22440 ) on Friday April 07, 2000 @06:41AM (#1145339) Homepage

    Or perhaps it's because slashdot authors don't read books they probably won't like. I know if I peruse a new book, and it doesn't look like something I'd enjoy reading or find useful, I'll ignore it.

    It's also a lot cheaper to spend $7.50 to see a bad movie than it is to spend upwards of $50.00 on a crappy book.

  • Not SF Re:Star Maker didn't just suck (Score:3)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Friday April 07, 2000 @07:48AM (#1145340) Homepage Journal
    Har! While I liked the book a lot, I enjoyed the show of bile.

    A significant fraction of the people I've lent the book too had similar reactions.

    Perhaps-important point: Stapledon didn't think he was writing science fiction. He was friends with Wells, but didn't know a thing about SF as a genre. What he thought he was writing were "myths of the future." Future histories. Few or no characters; little or no action on a personal level.

    If you're looking for a traditional story, you won't find it in Star Maker.

    Stefan

  • Star Maker didn't just suck - it REALLY sucked. (Score:3)

    by pestie ( 141370 ) on Friday April 07, 2000 @07:32AM (#1145341)
    I read Star Maker a few years ago. I picked up an ancient copy at a used book store. I'd never heard of the author before, but the book sounded remotely interesting, so I figured I'd give it a shot.

    Man, was that ever a mistake. Reading that book was a slow, agonizing process that made me want to shred my eyes with papercuts from the book's pages. I find it hard to even categorize the book as science fiction. It's much more accurately described as pompous, pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation, no doubt very satisfying for the author to write, but nothing anyone else in their right mind would want to read.

    I have a personality quirk that made this whole experience very difficult - I can't stop reading a book until I finish it, no matter how much I hate it. I kept reading this night after night, a few pages at a time because that's all I could stand. It was torture - sheer torture - and I'd rather die the death of Sir Robin's minstrels than read this book again. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone thinks this is a great work by a great author.
  • I am really glad that someone thought to review Star Maker here. I was thinking of volunteering a review myself.

    I don't think the review does the book justice. "Dry" and "philosophical?" Perhaps. But CRIPES, man, the sheer scale and pageantry of it! Most SF just doesn't cut it for me any more after reading this brain bomb. Ringworld? A plaything invented by a dilletante. It was from Star Maker that Freeman Dyson got the idea for "Dyson Spheres." (Go look it up in Disturbing the Universe.)

    Star Maker stretches from the condensation of the first galaxies (albiet in flashbacks) to the heat-death of the universe. It describes civilizations both humble (near-human races caught up in familiar problems) and fantastic (composed of thousands of artificial habitats, serving as home to dozens of symbiotic species). Warfare by artificially induced novas, entire multi-species empires mind-melding, interstellar travel via flying planet, something very much like Roddenberry's "Prime Directive," species living on collapsed stars . . . all this and more.

    Stefan

  • Why Slashdot Writes Good Book Reviews (Score:4)

    by zpengo ( 99887 ) on Friday April 07, 2000 @06:49AM (#1145343) Homepage
    Why shouldn't they?

    If a book that someone reads is crap, why spend the time writing an extensive review on it, and then posting it for tens of thousands of people to read. Most of the readers would never have heard of the book if the reviewer hadn't mentioned it, so it's not as if they were in any particular danger of actually reading it without the wise warnings of a reviewer.

    There are millions of texts in this world. I think it's nice to have someone share which ones they think are good, so that I can go read them -- rather than spending five minutes reading a review about a bad book I'd probably never get to anyway.

    The reason book critics typically write bad reviews is for no other purpose than that it makes their articles more interesting to read, so that they can continue to get paid. I'm glad that Slashdot has other motivations....

  • *sigh* (Score:5)

    by Hemos ( 2 ) on Friday April 07, 2000 @07:00AM (#1145344) Homepage Journal
    Ya know, Sig11, I would have thought with your posting record you'd have seen my answer on this before.

    I *don't want* negative reviews. Only if something is really terrible and I think people might buy it, will I post negative book reviews. But there's only a couple book reviews a week and several hundred books released of interest each month - so you do the month.

    Perhaps before impugning integrity you could simply ask the question? We don't have any deal with the book sellers, beyond the affiliateship. And if I had more people to write book reviews, I'd post more reviews. But most readers aren't real anxious to write reviews so....

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close