The Museum of Second Chances (SF)

The Museum of Second Chances (SF) - A E Warren ***

The premise of The Museum of Second Chances is very intriguing. In a future with a much-shrunk population, where Homo sapiens are second class citizens to more advanced humans, a museum recreates Neanderthals. The central character, Elise, a Homo sapiens, is recruited to be a companion to a Neanderthal, taking Elise from a squalid existence outside into the hi tech museum.

The development of the Neanderthals and the fate of the downtrodden Homo sapiens individuals is well done, with an engaging storyline that's solidly written. It's not uncommon for a first time novel that is self-published or very small press to sag in the middle, or simply lack writing skill, but the book was enjoyable and made it easy to identify with the main character.

I was a little worried by some of the science. I know science in science fiction should never get in the way of story, but this wasn't done to develop the storyline. So, for example, we are told that humans evolved from chimpanzees, a big no-no. And the author seems to think that the 'sapiens' in 'Homo sapiens' is plural.

Most of those problems are got out of the way early on, though, and the book was heading for a four star review until I hit the ending. This seemed rushed. It didn't ruin the book, I'm still glad I read it, but it did feel as if there ought to have been some more to round it off.

Overall, though, a well-told story, incorporating some particularly interesting ideas.

Paperback:

Kindle:

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare

The Science of Weird Shit - Chris French ****

This is a highly engaging topic, but before diving into the content of the book I ought to mention two issues with its title. The first is that in this age of algorithmic censorship, the final word of the title can cause problems - the publisher had an issue with publicity emails being caught by spam filters, and I'm nervous enough about the contents of this review being pulled that I won't use it in the text. The other, more subtle problem is that it's only partially what the book is about - as the subtitle makes clear. Most of it doesn't concern the science of weird stuff, but rather the science of why many of us believe weird stuff. Those aren't the same things. Such is the joy of titles - often hard to get right. But what about the book itself? Considering it's covering what can be quite a showy field, it takes a measured approach (in fact, I'd say occasionally it's a bit too academic in feel, focused on relating facts with limited storytelling). Ho

Search This Blog