|
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Flawed, But Good, December 26, 1999
I must admit serious amusement and minor shock over the venom being unloaded on this little confection of Eric's. I mean hey, it's just a book. Chill out, kids.I own a copy of Hello Sailor and I can assure you all this is four million light-years better than that book. Eric has advanced mightily from that 1976 effort, moving on from the strange calculus of politics and sex (its main character's goal was to bed all the daughters of the British government's cabinet) to the richer, more rewarding issues posed by science, comedy, the future of humanity, and how the three relate to each other in turn. That having been said, I tried to give this book 2 1/2 stars but can't do so under this system. And in the interest of full disclosure, I am compelled to state I'm exactly the sort of person who would watch a test pattern with Eric on it (hey, I videotaped Nearly Departed, for cryin' out loud). I ran out to buy this in hardback. I am also a great flaming fan of Pratchett (sp?) and Adams as well as the Red Dwarf series and Blackadder. I feel the book is not as good as it should be, given Eric's prodigious talents, but not as bad as others would have you believe. In other words--wait for the paperback. The schooled Python fan should have fun with this one, as RM's flaws are flaws one finds in Python productions--the female characters are poorly drawn (especially the romantic lead). The only female characters that threaten to be interesting are Brenda Wooley and the Sammy character, but both are cliches and the latter is killed before she can be rescued from one-dimensionalism. In fact I find it a bit disturbing that the android has more depth and complexity to him than any of the women in the book. The Alex character is a blatant caricature of John Cleese, and this is a goldarn scream. (Come on--thinning hair, young daughter, distant ex-wife, hours on end with a shrinkbot, what am I supposed to think?) yet it fails to go far enough. This could have been a remarkable portrait of Cleese through the eyes of one who worked alongside him, and I feel Eric copped out--making obvious jokes, but retreating when it came time to draw blood or take it to the next level. A missed opportunity, but still better and more insightful than that odious Margolis bio of Cleese. The reference he makes to himself in the text is muffed, in my opinion, since he singles out a detail (the death of his father--Eric lost him at the age of two. He was an RAF solider who died not in WWII but a Christmas-season car accident) that only serious fans could be expected to know. Like Python, there are distracting subplots that go nowhere or fail to bear fruit, and it doesn't know how to properly end itself. You can also see Eric's special mark--here working against himself. He earned a reputation within the group for firing off wickedly funny one-liners. You'll find them in RM, too--my favorite comes on page 49 ("She was not available for other people's feelings"). Unfortunately, funny one-liners do not a plot make. (Exhibit A: Splitting Heirs). At worst, these sparkling one-liners feel forced into or pasted on the story, thus throwing a monkey wrench into the engine of the plot, bogging down the forward momentum of the story. The Road to Mars had been a filmscript for many, many years before it became a novel (I remember speaking to Idle about it in 1989--at that time, he said he was shopping it around Hollywood and envisioned Robin Williams, David Bowie, and Bobcat Goldthwaite in the film). Unfortunately it was the sort of script that made the execs fall about laughing and earned Eric reams of high compliments--but no green light. (For this sorry phenomena, see "The 50 Greatest Films Never Made", by Chris Gore. RM is not in the book). I suspect that out of sheer frustration, he adapted it as a novel. However, as a reader I felt he hadn't spent enough time and thought finesseing the filmscript into a proper reading experience. Filmscripts and novels are two different animals, after all. There are too many holes, things not explained enough or not explained at all, and things meant to work on screen that in text form just don't make it. Perhaps a graphic novel would have been a better option, I dunno. Even still, I did like the book. It was great fun watching Eric's wickedly clever, supple, nimble brain calculating the plot points into place. I read it in one sitting and had a good giggle. I have quoted and cited jokes in the book. I spent $ and I do not regret it. I had fun. If you can see it not as a sci-fi novel but a roller-coaster ride through Idle's magnificent mind, I think you'll all enjoy it much more.
|
by Michael Palin
by Eric Idle
by Terry Jones
by The Pythons
See all Editorial Reviews
