Customer Reviews

Woodsman

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Theoretical biologist Thomas A. Easton presents an ugly view of the future in WOODSMAN, the third novel of the The "Organic Future" series, first published by Ace in 1992. Between writing novels, Easton has been reviewing science fiction for Analog since 1979.

Set some time in the future, genetic engineering allows scientists to replace many non-organic needs, thereby introducing issues of what constitutes humanity. Indeed, "Gengineering" allows the genetic mix of plants, animals and machines. Conversely, growing opposition from "Engineers" want to return to the good old days of "Machines not Genes," regardless of the damage to the environment.

While the concept of splicing human genes with plants or animals creates fascinating moral implications, the author fails these expectations. The shallow characterization relies entirely on plot to move the novel along. For example, when Frederick leaves being a pig behind to become human, a reader is left to assume he mourned his deceased wife, but sees no evidence of grief. Further, although Sam and Sheila Nickers have turned themselves into half-plants as anniversary presents to each other, consequently loosing their jobs, their homes, and their futures, the cold lack of emotional backlash leaves the reader flat.

Easton's greatest sin is the same of many authors: all telling and not enough show. The concepts on which the novel rest are fascinating, but reading the novel becomes a cerebral experience rather than an emotional one. Indeed, Easton's language choices clearly demonstrate his extensive academic background, making the novel less approachable for the layman reader. Nevertheless, for a challenging moral read, science fiction fans will find WOODSMAN an interesting read.

This is the third volume in Thomas A. Eastons Organic_Future series. It looks better that the second volume in that it is more stimulating and contains more ideas. The story is a little stilted but it is sufficiently readable. The book may make it into a list of 'most_notable_SF', but never into 'greatest_SF_ever'.