Customer Reviews

Calculating God

5 star:		(66)
4 star:		(62)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

CALCULATING GOD is a terrific book. Sawyer's research is wonderful and far reaching. He has clearly gone beyond just popular science sources. The main character's struggle with cancer is the perfect subplot, for one does wonder how such injustice can exist. All Sawyer's characters come off well, alien or otherwise. I thought at first that the two fundamentalists were going to be given an unfair treatment, but they were seen being very competent at what they set out to do. And, as a Sikh, I must applaud Sawyer's use of a Sikh character in a nonstereotypical role. Very well done! I enjoyed the aliens very much, from the affable Hollus to the almost incomprehensible Wreeds. I do not know the Royal Ontario Museum, where Sawyer sets his book, but I do know the politics of other museums and what he writes has the ring of real truth about it. A fresh and welcome contrast to the ridiculous portrayal of how a museum really works in for instance THE RELIC by Preston Child. CALCULATING GOD should be enjoyed by science fiction readers (I loved it) and by those who don't read sf (my wife loved it as well).

Those of us who have been reading science fiction for more than a couple of decades are notorious for complaining that so few modern writers in the genre live up to the old masters. Well, I'm happy to report an exception. Robert J. Sawyer writes excellent stuff, and this book seems to be as good a place as any to start (both reading and reviewing).

I tend to evaluate SF writers/books along two dimensions -- one for the techie stuff, as measured against James P. Hogan (one of my two favorite living SF writers), and one for the humaneness of the characterization and plot, as measured against Spider Robinson (my other favorite). It's hard to find anybody who does well at both; Charles Sheffield, for example, rates pretty high on the first axis but not too high on the second, and Connie Willis is approximately the reverse.

Well, Sawyer measures up well along both dimensions. His plots include both plausible extrapolations from current science and his characters are always interesting and engaging. And he writes very well; it's hard to put one of his books down once you've started it.

This one is no exception, and it's one of his more ambitious efforts to date. The plot: a non-Terran spacecraft sets down outside the Royal Ontario Museum, and an eight-legged alien (named, as it later emerges, Hollus) walks into the museum and asks to see a paleontologist.

The paleontologist on call happens to be Tom Jericho, who happens to have cancer. And when he learns that on Hollus's planet, scientists think it's just _obvious_ that the universe was designed by an intelligent God, he finds that he has to deal with his own reasons for not believing in God. ("If there were a God, cancer wouldn't exist." The Oncological Argument?)

Most of the plot is devoted to scientific and philosophical discussions between Jericho and Hollus. These are well done; Sawyer is right on the money in his characterizations both of the shortcomings of Darwinian theory and of the "fine-tuned" nature of the universe. (Check out Michael Denton's _Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_ and _Nature's Destiny_ for good discussions of all this stuff.)

Sawyer's own speculative resolution of these issues probably won't please too many traditional theists and I think it's questionable on other grounds as well. But hey, that's what speculative fiction is about, and Sawyer's speculations are veeeeeery interesting even when they're not altogether convincing. (I won't spoil things by giving away any details, but I think I can mention that the Oncological Argument does receive an answer in the end. Not a Pollyanna-ish one, either, but still a hopeful one.)

So why did I deduct a star? Partly because Sawyer's two "fundamentalist/evangelical" characters are such stereotypical caricatures, and partly because I think he rushes his ending a little.

But he's a fine writer and very much in the same class as the old masters of the genre. SF has _always_ (a) dealt with tough theological issues and (b) proposed speculative solutions that depart from both the religious and the scientific mainstream. Sawyer continues this tradition and adds lots of new twists of his own.

I am always leery when I see the word "God" in the title of a science fiction book .... but I like Sawyer, so I bought this .... and like it too! The theme of evolution vs. creationism is a very touchy one .... but Sawyer handles it very very well. I liked the characters a lot too. The alien Hallus, the human being Jericho .... both were very believable and very sympathetic. And Sawyer knows his evolutionary science and palaeontology .... any book with the Burgess Shale fossils in it is fine by me! You won't be disappointed by this one.

The existence of God is central to the theme of the novel. What if God really exists? What if he's not the omnipotent being that humans have made him out to be? What if he's all too real, and flawed, and indifferent to the individual? This is the premise that gets developed throughout the novel. Sawyer does a wonderful job of weaving science with moral issues, and yet the book doesn't pretend to have all the answers, and in fact, leaves the reader with more questions than when he/she began to read CALCULATING GOD.

For science buffs, there is a ton of discussion on a variety of subjects: biology, evolution, paleontology, and cosmology, to name a few.

I loved the way CALCULATING GOD was written - from the perspective of a terminally ill man, who does not believe in God but wishes he did, if only to have a way to explain what is happening to him. The characters were wonderfully created. Hollus, the alien that arrives on earth at the beginning of the novel, appealed to me from the beginning. Sawyer did a wonderful job of making him (her) a believable entity.

I was a little confused by the scientific talk at times, and while reading through particular chapters, I was reminded of Plato's Dialogues (two beings speaking to each other, one trying to convince the other that issues of science, morality, or just abstract ideas are true in the way he/she sees them). Neither one of these issues is enough to take away from the fact that this is an engrossing novel.

A definite must-read for science-fiction fans, especially those with a taste for moral/religious questions, and the mix of faith and scientific discovery.

BEFORE reading this novel the only thing I knew about Robert Sawyer was that one of his books was the basis for ABC's "Fast Forward," which I love. AFTER reading "Calculating God," I can now clearly attest that I'm going to invest in other novels of his as soon as I can.

I picked it up on a whim, as I enjoyed the premise: "An alien walks into a museum..." I tend to enjoy stories that poke at mankind's seminal questions and, as the title seemed to pose a similar conundrum, I took a chance and bought it.

And what a great purchase it was. It's a Big Idea book, a compelling look not only at the question of whether God exists, but what His role might be in the cosmic picture. When such notions occur within a novel I tend to look less critically at other aspects like deep characterization; firm, clear endings; and absolute plausibility--I've noticed it's these things that account for a good deal of the negative reviews on Amazon. For instance, some have expressed disbelief about whether an alien species could get by if it didn't count numbers higher than 50.

My feeling? I agree that these are arguable points, and maybe this or that make the aliens a bit implausible, but as the story doesn't hinge on these notions, I don't worry. They simply aren't a big deal. Verismilitude in these areas can be suspended. I am after something else, and I choose not to fret so much about these nitpicky points.

Our aliens (it turns out that there are two species on board) show up on the first page of the novel, and in no time at all the story gets down to brass tacks. It's only a few pages in that we find there is a neat twist to the story: it's actually the aliens who believe in God, and it's the museum paleontologist who initially refuses to be convinced of His existence. Therefore, on the way to "solving" this question it's the Darwinians--the pro-science, pro-evolution, anti-creationist fellers--who take most of the punches.

Sawyer cleverly disguises his arguments as discussions as our narrator (Thomas Jericho) slowly begins to re-examine his beliefs. There are several moments when the narrator's interior battles are the focus, and it takes some time, if you'll forgive the pun, until Jericho's interior "walls" come tumbling down. I never felt the plot slowed during these philosophical moments. In fact, they propelled the book, and sped my reading along. I lead a normal, busy life, and still finished this novel in three days.

As a former high school teacher, I often became pretty scornful of those who promoted creationism in opposition to natural selection and evolution. I, in turn, closed my mind to them...in essence, I did the very thing I thought they were guilty of. But this is the first time that anyone has opened my eyes to the other "side" and let me see things from a different perspective. I'm glad it did.

Don't get me wrong: "Calculating God" did not totally flip me on this subject, nor did I think it meant to. It just opened my eyes. Some elements of the story--such as coincidental catastrophes occurring on several planetary systems--are pure fiction, and therefore cannot be part of any real discussion on this subject outside of this novel. Still, Sawyer made me believe that there just might be some room for BOTH theories, and for that I'm quite grateful.

I have to say that I am stunned by the 5-star reviews of this book - not to mention the people calling Sawyer the best Sci-Fi writer alive. This book is poor fiction, and it is certainly poor SCIENCE fiction.

The discussions of science are superficial fluff -- Sawyer throws in a lot of stuff as if to show that he is aware of its existence, but the book doesn't have any logical, in-depth discussions that are germane to the plot, or that make any sense.

For example (do not read this if you don't want to know about the plot): One of the mysteries of the book is where several other intelligent species have gone. They are evidenced by ruins discovered on various planets, but no living representatives of these species can be found. The main character "resolves" this quandry by "figuring out" that they have all uplodaed themselves into computers and are living in a virtual world now. The only problem is that there is NO evidence to support this. It is pure conjecture (and not even likely conjecture in my opinion), yet the remainder of the book seems to treat it as fact. A lesson in critical thinking this book is not...

Here's another example of a "scientific" discussion lacking all rationality: One of the alien species in the book does not have the ability to count higher than about 45. Further, it isn't just that they can't assign numbers to more items than that, it is that they really don't recognize the difference, so 100 might as well be a million. A discussion ensues about why this might be, and the supposed explanation is that since the Wreeds (the aliens in question) have a societal structure where they live in small clans of no more than 20 or so, they have never needed to be able to count higher than that. Come on... I won't bother to list the numerous evolutionary disadvantages that not being able to count past 45 would have. Not that it couldn't happen perhaps, but that's not the point. The point is that the book puts forth some silly explanation that doesn't hold water and acts like the issue has been explained. That happens far too often about all sorts of scientific matters.

In addition to the poor science, the characters are very poorly developed. (And to those who would say otherwise, as some do in their reviews, I ask this: Why does it take half the book to find out Hollus is female, and 4/5 of the book to find out she has children? Answer: Because up to that point there are no discussions of a personal nature of any depth).

And finally, the ending in an IMMENSE let-down. The ending is the final straw in a parade of non-sensical "scientific" events or explanations. DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE PLOT REVEALED: A God who won't respond to any radio messages or any other means of technological communication, but will talk to one of the alien races telepathically? A God who apparently can't survive the collapse of the universe, but can make a child out of DNA that can? This book is a big let-down.

Calculating God, a Hugo nominee for 2001, is told mostly from the point of view of Tom Jericho, a paleontologist who is a curator at the Royal Ontario Museum. Tom is 50ish, with a 6 year old adopted son, and he is dying of cancer. He is a confirmed rationalist, sort of a second-string Stephen Jay Gould. One day a spaceship lands in front of the ROM -- and an eight-legged alien steps out, enters the museum, and asks to speak to a paleontologist.

Tom and this alien, named Hollus, forge a friendly relationship over the next weeks and months. The aliens have been exploring local space in a near-FTL ship for some time, looking for other alien species. So far they have found one other still-extant species, the Wreeds, and the remains of 5 or 6 more species on a variety of planets. Various aliens come to Earth (mostly via telepresence) to study various aspects of Earth -- trading knowledge of the two alien species for the knowledge offered by the humans. It turns out that all three species of very similar levels of advancement -- more remarkably, all three homeworlds have shockingly similar paleontological histories: in particular, extinction events that happened at all but exactly the same time (despite having local causes), and that seem to have been aimed at producing intelligent species. To Tom's complete surprise, the two alien species regard this, and a number of other remarkable facts about the delicate balance of physical constants in the universe, as absolute proof of the existence of God.

The book, then, becomes to some extent a debate on this issue: is the universe the product of an intelligent designer? Unfortunately, much of the book rehashes the same old sophomoric arguments we've all heard before. One of the worst examples is when Tom argues that his cancer is proof that God can't exist -- surely an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, God could have designed out cancer. But of course, as should have been obvious to the meanest intelligence, the "intelligent designer" that the aliens postulated was not at all necessarily "omnipotent", to say nothing of "omnibenevolent".

The other focus of the book is a gradual building up of a mystery involving the fate of the various disappeared races -- particularly one which apparently sent a spaceship to Betelgeuse. The questions raised here are pretty intriguing, and Sawyer's ultimate resolution is not bad, though aspects of his explanations were unconvincing. Worse was his presentation of the various mysteries, which included Jericho instantly reaching obvious conclusions that the aliens, in considerable time, had never thought of; and which included, particularly at the end, a lot of overconvenient jumping to immediately correct conclusions on minimal evidence by all the characters. I suppose Sawyer was constrained by available space and by the form of his tale: a first person narrative. Still, while it's not quite fatal to the book, it is unconvincing.

There is also a monumentally stupid and completely unnecessary side thread a plot to destroy the Burgess Shale fossils. This thread wastes time, attacks easy targets for no reason related to the book, and proves basically a side issue. It should have been excised.

On the whole, the book is -- well, not bad but not very good. It goes after some big issues, albeit rather superficially. It presents some interesting SFnal ideas and mysteries. It introduces two well-designed alien species. The characterization is undistinguished but not teeth-grindingly awful -- most of the characters are basically ciphers, but Sawyer works hard at presenting Tom Jericho, and while the work shows too much, and aspects such as the disease-of-the-month TV movie feeling that his cancer suggests are slightly strained, he's at least acceptably done. The book reads breezily and holds the interest -- but thinking deeply about the issues raised, and the too convenient revelation of answers to mysteries, and the constant refusal to consider alternate answers, will leave the reader frustrated. I certainly don't find this remotely a Hugo-worthy book.

This is a major disappointment. CALCULATING GOD has quite a few good ideas about God (the aliens here are trying to find the hand of God in evolution), but nothing here isn't dealt with in a freshman level college philosophy class. But the biggest problem I had was the trivial plotting and the point of view shifts. He has two American red-necks, one named (of course) Cooter, who shoot up a fossil exhibit, both of whom are one-dimensional at best. However, the main character is dying of cancer and you'd expect a less energetic narrative from such a man (and certainly more self-pity); but no, Sawyer just plods happily along. (I envisioned the character looking like the smiling picture of the author on the back cover.) This wasn't a good book at all and seems, in the end, to have been something Sawyer just knocked off to get some money out of Tor. The last thing that galled me were the constant references to all things Canadian. Sawyer never explained why the aliens chose the Royal Ontario Museum to land at, out of all the great (and greater) museums in the world. Sawyer appears to want to constantly remind the reader of Canada's importance the way Orson Scott Card hawks all things Mormon and Harlan Ellison hawks ... well, all things Harlan Ellison. Read FLASH-FORWARD, Sawyer's clear masterpiece and avoid this book entirely.

I have read all of Sawyer's books, with the exception of Golden Fleece, which I believe is out of print. I was excited by the beginning, as I love aliens. I also liked the aliens analysis of why God must exist. However, I was thrown for a loop by the main character's illness-necessary for his theme of 'Why doesn't God care about little me'- but I kind of felt like God must feel- you whiner, why should I care? Perhaps it was the stereotypical way the illness was portrayed- there is actually a scene where the son says, "Dad, don't die" and Dad says, "But I must die!" I started to lose faith in this author when he then threw in two bomb toting fundamentalists- everything is told in the first person, and then in the middle of book you have this third person account of the fundamentalists???? I can understand the intent to create a central question, "if god is good why doesn't he literally save me?" and to distance his own analysis from those he considers to be ignorant religious hicks (unlike his sophisticated and wise aliens) but it's crudely stitched together. Sawyer is just a better writer than this. Sawyer has never disappointed me with his endings, and this was no exception- it pulled themes together nicely. However, if you're interested in Sawyer, try The Terminal Experiment- a much better book about the nature of the soul- or really, any other Sawyer- I have nothing but praise for his other books.

I must have been reading a different book than most of the other reviewers. The plot could have been interesting, but the characters are so wooden and the science so bad I lost interest. I couldn't get past Chapter 5, in which Hollus and Jericho display, on page 67, ignorance of basic science they both understood on page 63. They discuss, or rather Hollus lectures at length upon, the attributes of water as if those attributes were completely independent of, rather than the inevitable result of, the fundamental forces discussed moments before.

And that discussion was almost as irritating. After Hollus trotted out the anthropomorphic principle, Jericho counters with the many worlds hypothesis, which Hollus detroys with the author's fictional, and very convenient, 5th fundamental force. Why didn't Jericho point out the real fallacy with the anthropomorphic principle, that it is essentially drawing a bull's eye around the spot where your arrow fell? A cynic would suggest that the author had nothing up Hollus's sleeve, or rather the folds of his (her?) toga, to handle that objection.

Judging from some of the other reviews, I was spared the bad biology by abandoning the book when I did.