There was an attempt. It failed. [Athena's Choice by Adam Boostrom]
Be warned, spoilers ahead.
The premise of the theft of world-changing technology in an all-female world had so much promise. Promise to be a hard-hitting discussion about gender identity and gender politics, all in a futuristic setting. Any success in fulfilling that promise proved to be superficial. But I suppose the effort and anything it did achieve is deserving of moderate applause. It did something okay, as far as could be expected for a novel about an all-female world written by a man.
Environmental crises led to the water levels rising. Then we there were environmental refugees, and their presence that sparked conflicts, in-story, within the next 30 years, (from 2019) that apparently brought out the worst in humanity and inspired the launching of a virus that would rid the Earth of half its population. In just 50 years after the elimination of the men technology has advanced so much, and of course for the better. Programmable plastic, three generations of a near omniscient AI, essentially every disease eliminated - so much progress has been made. Still there are women who remember the men and want them back. In this post-environmental crisis, future utopia women miss their husbands, their brothers, their friends, and that concept for future generations. And so there's a genetic program underfoot to bring back the men. Athena, a genetically engineered, fresh out of high school 19-year old girl, becomes embroiled in the search for the truth after the genetic program's research is stolen. That's the premise.
Before I continue on, let me say that for the initial problem being an environmental one and for being presented with the notion of an AI being able to divert a hurricane, the idea that the damage was not reversed in the future didn't make sense. The wanton use of plastic in everything didn't make sense. Why is plastic melting and being reformed? The hydrocarbons dude. The hydrocarbons alone. Regardless.
Arguments were made against the return of men and for the return of the men. Those against cited historical violence, and in most compelling fashion. I mean the peace and achievements of the world without men, again in only 50 years, is the biggest argument itself. But the argument for the return of men? Girl. Fine, you want men back because of sentimental reasons? Because why not? Yes, agreed. Makes sense. You want men back because you innately have some yearning for male physicality? You're willing to risk all the peaceful, social, and economic achievements because you want some heterosexual sex? Sure, fine, but that shouldn't have been the driving reason.
Society is at a point where children are genetically engineered and presumably all children are engineered female? Or boys aren't born because of the virus? Surely at that point there'd be some immune male children? In fact, we find out who was responsible for the virus. But they don't ever consider engineering the cure? What? So many things didn't make sense. That worldwide there was no male immunity to the virus is ridiculous. The exact details of how women were able to have children without men were not detailed. CRISPR was thrown out as if that means anything. In one example a syringe of blood was all it took to father a child. I mean, you had his body right there and you didn't take...never mind. Sigh.
The science in this was not good, which is fine because I was waiting for the philosophical and social discussions to blow my mind. Didn't get those either. The fact that the author is a man lent credibility whenever characters complained about the evils, innate or otherwise, of the male gender. What was a giant cop-out however was the attribution of all of male ills to genetics. If men are controlled by their genetics and they have a genetic disposition and desire for violence, then can men ever be held accountable? That's the other side of the trash argument made here.
If men aren't around the world transforms into a magical, peaceful, equality all around utopia. Because women are innate peacemakers? Because women are not violent? Because women are all about community? Women aren't greedy or sexually violent, women are respectful of others! All these qualities are built into the female genome. These are the ideas reinforced by saying that "without men, X is how the world is or would be." One scientist character in the book dismissed the idea that women could raise peaceful men. Because, violence is the natural result of genetics and women can't outnurture nature. But then, nurturing IS the genetic disposition of women? BIG SIGH.
That Thomas Jefferson's enslavement (of so many) and rape of Sally Hemings, the woman how mothered so many of this children, was instead referred to as"personal indiscretions" is hella wild. That not even 50 years without men had passed and the women had already been clamoring for their return? The idea that somehow, despite peace and freedom and equal rights, there were still women who wanted the men back? Who missed the patriarchy? GIRL.
The biggest slap in the face is that this book, called Athena's Choice, ends semi-ambiguously. No definitive choice is known to be made. Contextually I'd like to say she made the choice to bring back the men, but it seems the author in his epilogue would like that to be ambiguous. Having read the book it seems pretty straightforward what she did.
The book itself wasn't written poorly. I actually enjoyed a lot of it. I enjoyed the insertion of texts between chapters for more context into the world the characters lived in. At times however, and especially when it came to Athena's lustful internal monologues and thoughts of desire for a man, this book read like a horrible fanfic or whatever you might think of when you think of a "cheesy romance novel." The pacing didn't make sense, the book could have been fleshed out a lot more and the book should have been longer. I don't know that I'd recommend it. At the same time once I got interested I finished 70% of it in one go. Looking at how I've rated other books so far this will probably be a 3-star review.
The premise of the theft of world-changing technology in an all-female world had so much promise. Promise to be a hard-hitting discussion about gender identity and gender politics, all in a futuristic setting. Any success in fulfilling that promise proved to be superficial. But I suppose the effort and anything it did achieve is deserving of moderate applause. It did something okay, as far as could be expected for a novel about an all-female world written by a man.
 |
| Le sigh. |
Environmental crises led to the water levels rising. Then we there were environmental refugees, and their presence that sparked conflicts, in-story, within the next 30 years, (from 2019) that apparently brought out the worst in humanity and inspired the launching of a virus that would rid the Earth of half its population. In just 50 years after the elimination of the men technology has advanced so much, and of course for the better. Programmable plastic, three generations of a near omniscient AI, essentially every disease eliminated - so much progress has been made. Still there are women who remember the men and want them back. In this post-environmental crisis, future utopia women miss their husbands, their brothers, their friends, and that concept for future generations. And so there's a genetic program underfoot to bring back the men. Athena, a genetically engineered, fresh out of high school 19-year old girl, becomes embroiled in the search for the truth after the genetic program's research is stolen. That's the premise.
Before I continue on, let me say that for the initial problem being an environmental one and for being presented with the notion of an AI being able to divert a hurricane, the idea that the damage was not reversed in the future didn't make sense. The wanton use of plastic in everything didn't make sense. Why is plastic melting and being reformed? The hydrocarbons dude. The hydrocarbons alone. Regardless.
Arguments were made against the return of men and for the return of the men. Those against cited historical violence, and in most compelling fashion. I mean the peace and achievements of the world without men, again in only 50 years, is the biggest argument itself. But the argument for the return of men? Girl. Fine, you want men back because of sentimental reasons? Because why not? Yes, agreed. Makes sense. You want men back because you innately have some yearning for male physicality? You're willing to risk all the peaceful, social, and economic achievements because you want some heterosexual sex? Sure, fine, but that shouldn't have been the driving reason.
Society is at a point where children are genetically engineered and presumably all children are engineered female? Or boys aren't born because of the virus? Surely at that point there'd be some immune male children? In fact, we find out who was responsible for the virus. But they don't ever consider engineering the cure? What? So many things didn't make sense. That worldwide there was no male immunity to the virus is ridiculous. The exact details of how women were able to have children without men were not detailed. CRISPR was thrown out as if that means anything. In one example a syringe of blood was all it took to father a child. I mean, you had his body right there and you didn't take...never mind. Sigh.
The science in this was not good, which is fine because I was waiting for the philosophical and social discussions to blow my mind. Didn't get those either. The fact that the author is a man lent credibility whenever characters complained about the evils, innate or otherwise, of the male gender. What was a giant cop-out however was the attribution of all of male ills to genetics. If men are controlled by their genetics and they have a genetic disposition and desire for violence, then can men ever be held accountable? That's the other side of the trash argument made here.
If men aren't around the world transforms into a magical, peaceful, equality all around utopia. Because women are innate peacemakers? Because women are not violent? Because women are all about community? Women aren't greedy or sexually violent, women are respectful of others! All these qualities are built into the female genome. These are the ideas reinforced by saying that "without men, X is how the world is or would be." One scientist character in the book dismissed the idea that women could raise peaceful men. Because, violence is the natural result of genetics and women can't outnurture nature. But then, nurturing IS the genetic disposition of women? BIG SIGH.
That Thomas Jefferson's enslavement (of so many) and rape of Sally Hemings, the woman how mothered so many of this children, was instead referred to as"personal indiscretions" is hella wild. That not even 50 years without men had passed and the women had already been clamoring for their return? The idea that somehow, despite peace and freedom and equal rights, there were still women who wanted the men back? Who missed the patriarchy? GIRL.
The biggest slap in the face is that this book, called Athena's Choice, ends semi-ambiguously. No definitive choice is known to be made. Contextually I'd like to say she made the choice to bring back the men, but it seems the author in his epilogue would like that to be ambiguous. Having read the book it seems pretty straightforward what she did.
The book itself wasn't written poorly. I actually enjoyed a lot of it. I enjoyed the insertion of texts between chapters for more context into the world the characters lived in. At times however, and especially when it came to Athena's lustful internal monologues and thoughts of desire for a man, this book read like a horrible fanfic or whatever you might think of when you think of a "cheesy romance novel." The pacing didn't make sense, the book could have been fleshed out a lot more and the book should have been longer. I don't know that I'd recommend it. At the same time once I got interested I finished 70% of it in one go. Looking at how I've rated other books so far this will probably be a 3-star review.
Comments
Post a Comment