One of the advantages of having a light term is that I have time for pleasure reading and I’ve been trying to take advantage of it. Here are my latest reads.
Accelerando
Charles Stross
Stross writes hyperkinetic science fiction that crosses hard scifi with cyberpunk. Accelerando spans several galaxies, a number of states of consciousness, and much of the 21st century. The speed at which he tosses out new ideas obscures the character development somewhat, but there are so many neat things to think about that it almost doesn’t matter. Stross did a particularly good job of capturing a modern vision of the future. Accelerando still features aliens and space travel, but the driving technologies are artificial intelligence and nanotech. I particularly recommend the Accelerando technical companion as a reference for some of Stross’s more out-there ideas and in true cyberpunk style, the entire book is available online.
The Oxford Murders
Guillermo Martinez
Trans. by Sonia Soto
The Oxford Murders continues the recent trend of “scholarly thrillers” that The Da Vinci Code reignited (though I wouldn’t call that particular novel “scholarly”). The Oxford Murders follows an Argentine mathematics student during a visit to Oxford, England, where he becomes involved in solving a sequence of mysterious murders (how come my REUs never turned out like that?) While a perfectly good mystery, I wasn’t blown away by this particular book. Maybe I was expecting too much, but the mathematics theme seemed superfluous. I gather that the author has a degree in Math, and I certainly sympathize with the desire to write a thriller in which the hero is a mathematician, but I think that in the process of making it accessible, Martinez turned the math into pseudo-philosophy akin to Dan Brown’s “symbology.” I certainly didn’t expect advanced math, but it was kind of weird when all the mathematicians started running around making weighty claims about Pythagorean cults and whatnot. All in all, I would say The Oxford Murders was a pleasant, but ultimately forgettable, diversion.
in your(crazy, smart, lucky, something) light term, i still recommend Kafka on the Shore, though in part so i can have someone to discuss it with.
nods
Also, have questions for you.
How much did Accelerando influence/change your visions of the future? You commented earlier about how, culturally, visions of the future are moving more from a space/distance orientation to an information/people centered orientation. Is this book an indication, a harbinger or both?
Also, I think that the reason that your own REUs never turn out like The Oxford Murders is because you’re a computer scientist. and obviously they never have any adventures 😉 In all seriousness, though, how does a book about a mathematician draw the line between math and philosophy? (not that Dan Brown was real philosophy, or even real religion, but, you know, it’s a thing worthy of thought and so I ask…on your blog…)
I’m not sure that I would say that Accelerando changed my vision of the the future. I think it presented a convincing a alternative to space-centered science fiction like Star Trek, but it’s still very definitely fiction. The basic underlying idea is that of a technological singularity, a point at which technology (usually involving some sort of strong AI) changes so so rapidly that the world changes almost overnight. The idea is certainly interesting to think about, but I’m not sure that I buy the argument that such an event is imminent and inevitable.
As for math and philosophy, I’m not sure I was trying to make any sort of significant claim about either. In fact, I think part of the problem with the Oxford Murders is that it didn’t really address the line between them. The main mathematician was a “logician” who dealt with series, numerical or otherwise. That’s a bit vague, but it gets worse when it starts being used to explain crime and when “ancient Pythagorean philosophy” gets thrown into the mix. There are certainly connections between math and philosophy, but my point was that the book eschews both for a sort of Dan Brown-esque pseudo-science.