Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

J.G. Keely's Reviews > The Speed of Dark

The Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
84023
's review

it was ok
bookshelves: science-fiction, contemporary-fiction, novel, reviewed, america

This book is about as 'sci fi' as an episode of . Moon basically takes 'Flowers for Algernon' and hacks off the ending. The writing was alright, and there was some interesting characterization, but I suspect it only got the Nebula and Clarke because award committees love nothing as much as political correctness. This book is the equivalent of an actor making an Oscar bid by playing a mentally-challenged character.

I know Moon is a sci fi author, but in this book, it feels like she just stamped on the 'Sci-Fi' label in order to draw an audience, or perhaps because her publisher refused to authorize a genre switch. I hope that isn't true, because that's always a cheap move. This is just modern pop-fiction, an 'emotionally confessional' book with a veneer of 'vaguely near-future'.

This wouldn't have been a problem if Moon had used this opportunity to explore human psychology, which was how 'Algernon' and 'A Clockwork Orange' treated this same theme, but she didn't. She rehashed half of an interesting idea, and failed to capitalize on it.

Speculative Fiction has always been obsessed with what makes us human, and how much we can change before we stop being human at all. While that should be the main theme of this book, it goes almost unexplored.

The climax is rushed and inauthentic. We never actually see the character change, we don't witness the effects as they happen, instead they are lightly explained in choppy montage at the end. Compared to the rest of the book--an internal, step-by-step presentation of a fairly different mind--this sudden, convenient, external ending is disappointing and jarring.

The denouement following the climax is particularly tidy, with all the subtlety of the end of an 80's college movie where we learn through super-imposed text that "Barry went on to win the Nobel prize" to the strains of Simple Minds.

And it's a shame, because the story leading up to the climax is interesting enough, presenting the psychological workings of autism. Moon researched this disorder much better than Mark Haddon in his 'Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night Time', but then, Moon's son is actually autistic.

There was also a part about fencing, which excited me at first, being a former competitive fencer and coach, but instead, it was just weird SCA dressup boffing. Not that I have anything against SCA dressup boffing (or do I?).

It's an alright read, goes pretty quick, and it might give you some insight into brain disorders, but it doesn't tie human experiences together; which is really a shame, because other sci fi books have successfully used this topic to ask some very difficult and profound questions about how the future of technology might change the way we think, and about the different ways people process information.

'Flowers for Algernon' tackled the exact same themes and was written sixty years before Moon's less profound attempt. You'd think we'd have something more to say after sixty years of neurology and psychology, but apparently not. It also pales in comparison with 'A Clockwork Orange', another good light sci fi which explores the morality of changing the way that people think.

This book was light and fluffy, especially given its subject matter, and while it will probably make soccer moms feel proud of themselves for reading something so 'different', it doesn't endeavor to change the way they think about humanity, the mind, or the possibilities within us.
97 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read The Speed of Dark.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
March 15, 2007 – Finished Reading
May 13, 2007 – Shelved
May 26, 2007 – Shelved as: science-fiction
May 26, 2007 – Shelved as: contemporary-fiction
January 29, 2008 – Shelved as: novel
June 9, 2009 – Shelved as: reviewed
September 4, 2010 – Shelved as: america

Comments Showing 1-22 of 22 (22 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

J.G. Keely You're quite right, my use of 'real' here is not specific enough, and does not act to further my points about the author.

What I meant is that science fiction is a genre mainly interested in exploring possibilities. By means of technological and social change, sci fi not only attempts to come to terms with the coming future, but uses that imagined future as a set of symbols for viewing the present; especially the parts we take for granted.

Science Fiction has always been concerned with the question of what makes us human, and of how our new discoveries will undermine our assumptions about our existence, as they always do.

The idea that one could take someone who was not socially functional and change him fundamentally, through technology, is a very powerful idea, and begs many questions, such as whether people should be forced to fit in, or whether different methods of processing information are somehow 'better'.

Moon does not use her imagined future to explore these questions. She does not ask what it means to change someone so fundamentally, or why it would be considered an improvement, or whether there something beyond mere social norms at work.

If her culture has developed a way to aid people with autism in processing information, how else can this technology be used, and where did it develop? Is it military, can 'normal' people be somehow 'improved' through this technology, and in such a case, does the improvement of social pariahs let them match the improvement of other individuals?

There was no reason that the first portion of the book had to take place in the future. The protagonist lives his life and we get a view of how life is for him. It is an interesting view, but it isn't sci fi. The 'cure' itself is simply an extension of our modern drug treatments (another parallel that goes unexplored in this book), and so only marginally futuristic.

Ellison never liked the term 'sci fi'. He found it reduced the purpose of the genre to rocket and ray gun fantasies. He prefered to write what has become known as 'speculative fiction'. His work (and that of many authors classified as 'sci fi') is interested in philosophical speculation about the state of man and the universe. It is about meaning.

The cure and its ramifications take up very little of the book, and the part most fertile for questioning the human state (his reintroduction into society and recognition of the meaning of that shift) are completely left out.

What I meant when I said 'real sci fi author' was that in this particular book, moon is barely writing in sci fi. Moon's book is not a power fantasy with shiny toys. Neither is it philosophically speculative.

She gives us a view the life of an autistic character, which is compelling but could have been done in any contemporary fiction book. She then summarily cures him with a minimum of fuss, and he lives happily ever after.

I certainly have nothing against someone writing a very low-level sci fi story in principle, but I don't see the caliber of a Nebula or Clarke in it. Perhaps they felt she was 'left out' previously and 'due an award', perhaps they were grabbing onto something populistic.

I didn't dislike the novel, but perhaps it upset me to be reminded of the fact that the revolutionary, thought-provoking, exciting books out there are not being given their due.


Spider the Doof Warrior I agree. I am hoping for a future where autism would be understood more than vilified, it was rather disapointing to me. It didn't seem any different than this day and age except with things like aging serums.
In FfA you see the main character's transformation to genius, back to someone with an intellectual disability. You don't get this sort of transition in this story.


J.G. Keely It's true, both 'Flowers' and 'A Clockwork Orange' follow the character progressions both through their changes and back, whereas the original change happens 'offscreen' in Moon's book and there is no aftemath.


J.R. Tomlin Oh, please. I take it you are unaware of Elizabeth Moon's reputation AS a science fiction writer. It completely fits as a science fiction piece since the plot depends on FUTURE SCIENCE.


J.G. Keely I wasn't reviewing Elizabeth Moon's career as a writer, I was reviewing this book. Just because Lovecraft is famous for his horror stories doesn't mean that 'The Silver Key' is automatically a horror story, or that Howard's pugilism stories should be shelved under 'Fantasy'.

Yes, this book fits the barest definition of Science Fiction: it contains technologies we have not yet developed, which makes it as sci fi as a James Bond flick or the average . Sure, she includes some light scientific elements, but she never really explores them or their effects.

She has the opportunity to do so, but instead she passes over her climax in a quick succession of broken images followed by a thoughtlessly happy ending. Nothing about that demonstrates a commitment to exploring the effects of technology on the human mind or on society.

For me, what defines sci fi isn't whether it has some technology in it, but how the author explores the way people and society change because of technology (and I'm not exactly alone in using ). Moon's use of science elements wasn't speculative, it was hastily tacked on and the ideas that technology suggested went unexplored.


J.R. Tomlin One we all have a right to our own opinion. I obviously don't agree with yours, but that's what makes us human or something. I think the entire novel explored how he was changed by differences in how autism is treated and considered in a possible future world. Even the first page, what is happening to him as an autistic man is NOT what could happen to him now. And the entire novel is about exactly that.


Kiri I suppose you might accuse Moon of "stamping on the Sci Fi label" because of the end bit - admittedly, the rest of the book was not science fiction, and I agree with you that the ending was disappointing and did not live up to the standards of the first section, however I think the book and Moon's take on autism and the possible future speculative cure of the disease has more validity when one knows that she herself has raised an autistic child to adulthood.


J.R. Tomlin I disagree that the rest of the novel was not science fiction, since NONE of it could have taken place today which automatically put it in the science fiction category.

I do agree that the end didn't live up to the rest of the novel, but the first part was SO excellent that it still ranks as one of my all-time-favorite science fiction novels. Not all science fiction is about gadgets. Nor should it be.


J.R. Tomlin The way the autistic are treated in the world she creates in Speed of Dark is different from how they are treated now. There have been advances in their integration into the world. It is, in fact, a different world than the one we now live in. This makes it science fiction. Gadgetry is not the issue.

I am dismayed in this day and age to see anyone take science fiction down to such an issue. Her view of autism in the novel was purely speculative.


J.G. Keely Jeanne wrote: "One we all have a right to our own opinion."

I don't think that's true; opinions have to be earned. If someone said 'all women should be shot into the sun' I wouldn't say they had a right to that opinion, they would have some serious explaining to do.

"Even the first page, what is happening to him as an autistic man is NOT what could happen to him now."

How so? What about the world makes it different enough to be considered speculative from page one? You talk about 'advances in integration', but a lot of autistic people work in the tech field and are able to live relatively normal lives, even today. Certainly, it depends on their functionality, but then, that's true of all people.

"Not all science fiction is about gadgets. Nor should it be."

It's true, and I specifically compare it to 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'Flowers For Algernon', two stories that are certainly speculative, but hardly gadget-based. My argument was never about the gadgets, but about the speculative elements.

I indicated in my comments that simple use of gadgets in no way makes CSI or James Bond into sci fi, so I'm not sure how that makes me 'pro-gadget'.

Elizabeth wrote: "I love Elizabeth Moon and has similar problems with this book. My theory on it is that she was too close to the material, with her son ..."

That seems likely, to me. It felt like she was more interested in expressing her own fantasy of her son getting a 'happy ending' rather than actually exploring the possibilities of the condition. Like I said, the early part was promising enough.

Kiri wrote: "I think the book and Moon's take on autism and the possible future speculative cure of the disease has more validity when one knows that she herself has raised an autistic child to adulthood."

I suppose it's easier to understand why she wrote it, but I don't understand how that makes it more valid. It certainly explains why she was able to represent an autistic character more realistically than most authors, but I don't feel it helped her to explore the theme as a speculative author.


message 11: by Kiri (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kiri Must admit, that even as I wrote that about her take having more validity because of her own experiences with an autistic son, I thought to myself that one shouldn't need to know that kind of detail about an author for the book to have meaning. You make some good points, Keely; it's been a while since I read it, and mostly I recall enjoying how deeply into the autistic character mindset it took me.


message 12: by Jim (last edited Jan 30, 2018 11:05AM) (new)

Jim Chiming in here. Hi Keely.

And Hi, for the first time, Jeanne.

Jeanne wrote: "it still ranks as one of my all-time-favorite science fiction novels"

What are some of the others on your short list? Perhaps you could offer some capsule reviews - or link to them.

Here are a few of mine (the latest was written in 1984, so you will see that I've been out of the SF genre for a long time):

Neuromancer (1984) - Gibson - near future noir-style drama about a "cyber-space cowboy", who steals and resells valuable software - and pays/paid a heavy price for messing with a bad crowd - Won all the SF awards that year.

Dune - Herbert (ca 1965) - far future, socio-political drama - one of the first with an SF setting - Won all the SF awards that year.

Childhood's End (mid-50s?) - Clarke - Clarke's magnum opus - he never wrote anything near that good again. It plots the coming of an advanced civilization, so advanced that they shepherd Man into his next stage as a species. The "End" blew away my little 15-yr-old mind so much, that I walked around in a daze for several hours afterward (and, now I wonder how I would receive it 30-plus years later - is my jaded, calcified mind still "blowable"?)

If you're looking for SF with a woman's novel literary sensibility - none on this short list will suit.

If you're looking for the stuff that the boys eat up (used to eat up?), then all of these will be right up your alley.


message 13: by Rhea (new)

Rhea So this is in the anti-SciFi Ghetto?


Derek No, just no. I'm not completely taken with this novel � after all, I started it in March and still haven't finished � but "not science fiction"??? I agree with J.R. that from page one it deals with a world that not only does not exist, but imo is unlikely to ever exist. If you think that's the real world, or even an instance that ever happens in this real world, you're sticking your head in the sand.

And what has Ellison's distaste for the label "sci fi" got to do with anything? I don't know an SF author—and I do know a few—who likes the label "sci fi".


Spider the Doof Warrior I actually hate this world. I would hate if people like me didn't exist because they thought they needed to "cure" us. I don't need a cure. I need a me friendly job!


°Õ´Ç³¾Ã¡Å¡ Wünsch @Synesthesia - I feel it similar - and be at ease - I am sure that E.Moon is feeling this same - she even say that she don't wish end of book to happen (to anybody) - you can find it in her very compelling testimony here:



I think I can understand KEELY's objections, but I found myself agreeing with J.R.Tomlin, Jerek and others:

a) the main reason for writing this novel down is (at least according by youtube link above) not so much to - explores the way people and society change because of technology like to find way how to describe and make accessible mind of autistic mind and its coexisting with "normal" society (either future or contemporary).
That was - at least I think - her main goal - and that's the reason why is end so cut off (i know, I would love to explore those possibilities too - but the fact that this is NOT Asimov's Foundation saga doesn't at least in my eyes mean, that is not good story, even sci fi one. Maybe is not "hard" or "classical" one (like you say "hi-level sci fi), but it is still good one.
And once again (Keely) - I don't belive that she wish for (at least this type) of happy ending for her son. To be even more concrete, I think she would much more love for the Lou to be happy "how he is" with his beautiful Marjory and good friends around.


°Õ´Ç³¾Ã¡Å¡ Wünsch Sry for my broken English here - I am not native speaker and I found not being able to edit his post (just the last word) and I didn't want to bother with word processor.
I hope it is readable - or understandable at least...
:-/


°Õ´Ç³¾Ã¡Å¡ Wünsch PS: Keely, give us pleas yours examples of books which should win instead of this one, than we can talk (and even enjoy other "hig-level" novels which we did not knew before...)


Lushr strongly disagree with this review. the book says it is set in the near future, so i didn’t expect anything major. it is a beautiful exploration of autism and how life might work for them in the future. that’s what the book is bout. if you font want to read that, fine. but quibbling about the genre seems petty. comparison to flowers for algernon are not relevant. how many tines has a book had a ship go into space, fi d trouble and a war starts? we don’t say they’re lol copying each other. and this is not a copy of Flowers. it is a different piece with a different sim, a different patient with a whole life, a complete life. more complete than mine. that is the real journey here.


message 20: by Derek (last edited Jan 28, 2018 04:37AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Derek How can comparisons to Flowers for Algernon not be relevant? Both are about people who do not fit into contemporary society because of what the majority considers to be a mental "defect" that needs to be fixed. They're automatically worthy of comparison. Keely's comparison is terrible, but hardly irrelevant!


message 21: by Simina (last edited Jan 20, 2023 01:05AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Simina The comparison to Flowers of Algernon does not hold ground. There is a huge difference between being autistic and being severely intellectually impaired.
And I don't think you've even read the book. The Flowers of Algernon is about how the transition transforms him, and Speed of Dark is about the moral and ethical dilemma of transitioning into someone else.


Carol Anne Brilliant review Luchr!!!
Loved and completely understood where and what Elizabeth Moon was writing about! It was very simple really � !??


back to top