Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mburnamfink 's review for:
Love is Strange
by Bruce Sterling
What happens when a Seattle Venture-Capital Futurist falls in love with a Brazilian-Italian Voodoo Priestess? More to the point, what happens when a Texas Cyberpunk Design Guru married to a Serbian Feminist Novelist decides to write a romance?
The end result of that could only be Love is Strange, which is about what you'd expect; a little clunky, a little awkward, characters that are both totally unbelievable and absolutely real. People like the characters exist; I've met them and they're on the same conference circuit as Chairman Bruce. And occasionally some high quality near-future-past-present-perfect weirdness (the extended rant on Carla Bruni, for example, all of which you can independently verify. On Wikipedia).
As for the book itself, the first act is a little rough, and the final act strange and confusing, but I greatly enjoyed the middle act, as our star-crossed lovers figure out what they're supposed to do with much philosophical angst. It feels a lot like being in love, or at least, I imagine it's a lot like being in love if you're that aforementioned Texan cyberguru pursuing strange witchy European activists.
So why am I only giving this book three stars? First, from a literary perspective I've heard that characters need to grow and change and experience some kind of arc. In Love is Strange, the characters simply react; brilliantly, explosively, and fascinatingly, but without really changing. And they deserve some sort of real introspective moment of clarity, because they represent important modern archetypes. Because the future is being made by poorly dressed cybernetic Seattle accountants and the conflicts between their innate conservatism and demands for ever more Economic Creative Destruction. And the future is mostly going to be lived in by globalized favela-dwelling pop superstar with immense skills and no traditional career prospects. More to the point, The Future (and futurists, and futurismo) are central to the book, and even after reading Gothic High Tech, I'm still not sure what Sterling thinks The Future is. Is it a holy transcendent calling? The province of uber-capitalist TED talk hucksters? Tomorrow's history? An early 20th century Italian art movement obsessed with speed and movement? Maybe it's too much to ask for a single definitive definition, and a (romance) novel is probably not the proper place for this kind of weird philosophy, but I think this central idea deserves more consideration.
I enjoyed this book, being a certified Bruce Sterling acolyte and a 26 year-old futurist with a comparatively dull life (and love-life, natch), but it has some significant problems from both literary and idealistic perspectives.
The end result of that could only be Love is Strange, which is about what you'd expect; a little clunky, a little awkward, characters that are both totally unbelievable and absolutely real. People like the characters exist; I've met them and they're on the same conference circuit as Chairman Bruce. And occasionally some high quality near-future-past-present-perfect weirdness (the extended rant on Carla Bruni, for example, all of which you can independently verify. On Wikipedia).
As for the book itself, the first act is a little rough, and the final act strange and confusing, but I greatly enjoyed the middle act, as our star-crossed lovers figure out what they're supposed to do with much philosophical angst. It feels a lot like being in love, or at least, I imagine it's a lot like being in love if you're that aforementioned Texan cyberguru pursuing strange witchy European activists.
So why am I only giving this book three stars? First, from a literary perspective I've heard that characters need to grow and change and experience some kind of arc. In Love is Strange, the characters simply react; brilliantly, explosively, and fascinatingly, but without really changing. And they deserve some sort of real introspective moment of clarity, because they represent important modern archetypes. Because the future is being made by poorly dressed cybernetic Seattle accountants and the conflicts between their innate conservatism and demands for ever more Economic Creative Destruction. And the future is mostly going to be lived in by globalized favela-dwelling pop superstar with immense skills and no traditional career prospects. More to the point, The Future (and futurists, and futurismo) are central to the book, and even after reading Gothic High Tech, I'm still not sure what Sterling thinks The Future is. Is it a holy transcendent calling? The province of uber-capitalist TED talk hucksters? Tomorrow's history? An early 20th century Italian art movement obsessed with speed and movement? Maybe it's too much to ask for a single definitive definition, and a (romance) novel is probably not the proper place for this kind of weird philosophy, but I think this central idea deserves more consideration.
I enjoyed this book, being a certified Bruce Sterling acolyte and a 26 year-old futurist with a comparatively dull life (and love-life, natch), but it has some significant problems from both literary and idealistic perspectives.