Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Sagan was a lucid and impassioned defender of rationality and clear thought. Unfortunately, his foray into fiction did little to increase the understanding of his philosophies, and much to muddy the waters of once clear thought. Inspired by Asimov and Heinlein, he decided that fiction was as good a place as any to explore his ideas on science, belief, and wonder.

While we expect long, in-depth explanations from non-fiction, fiction readers want more than just a lecture from the author. They expect that the characterization, plot, and themes will build the author's case for them, and in a way that will engage the reader without getting bogged down in rhetoric.

Sagan's characterization and plotting are unrefined, and he builds no suspense. His characters often fall into cliche, mere mouthpieces for Sagan to explore this or that view. While Heinlein and Card are known (and sometimes reviled) for lecturing the reader, they still returned to the story at hand, and Heinlein at least made sure his asides were directed to his text.

The more complex the idea, the more difficult it is to show through character interaction and symbolism. Anyone familiar with Sagan's non-fiction work will immediately recognize the same arguments in Contact . Without this foreknowledge, the ideas become lost and muddled.

Many religious readers come away from this book with the sense that Sagan is condoning faith. Sagan struggled in 'Contact' with the themes of 'wonderment' and 'the unknown'. They became so intermingled and vague that they do seem to suggest spirituality. In non-fiction, Sagan differentiated the minute points that separate his brand of rationality from religious faith, but floundered when he found himself in unfamiliar waters.

When presenting an explanation for an idea, he can warn against pitfalls and refine specific points. Contrarily, presenting such ideas through a story requires that the symbolism of the story be extremely precise. The examples in the text must elegantly illustrate the point without leaving leeway for alternative interpretations. This is one of the hardest tasks any writer can set himself, and Sagan's inexperience with fictional construction showed through here.

Sagan hoped to widen his audience, to increase discussion and the understanding of his philosophy. He wanted to ensnare the non-scientific reader by couching scientific ideas in an entertaining story, but in his inexperience, he chose ideas much grander than his story could support.

This book is much more accessible than most of Sagan, simply because it is genre fiction. It is then doubly unfortunate that most readers will know Sagan primarily from this work, since it fails to communicate his ideas to new readers. This book is more likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding than to impart knowledge.

The vagueness of the book leaves it so open for interpretation that both the rational and irrational can grasp onto it to support their own ideas. Sagan should have looked at the conflicts caused by similarly confusing symbolic books (like the bible) and stuck with the clear and concise writing that so often served him well.