[LordBalthazar]

Gristle! Quel fromage! I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with everyone here and proclaim this novel one cheesy piece of fiction. As I was reading it, I was reminded of Maxine MacArthur’s Time Future - a story with a lot of potential let down by a clumsy, often annoyingly pedestrian execution. Unlike Time Future, however, Hominids was brimming with a great ideas. Sawyer’s portrayal of the alternate Neanderthal society was fascinating, not the least because he has used his background in the field to extrapolate on established theories concerning Neanderthal man. I found the presentation of these established theories, and the section in which many of these long-held theories are discredited, fascinating. I also loved the notion of the road not taken, the alibi archives and the proposition of extreme genetic weeding to deal with crime - a solution that impacts not only the criminal but his or her family as well. Lots of amusing little instances pepper the narrative - the Letterman Top 10 List of how we know he’s a Neanderthal which I found genuinely funny, Ponter’s views on heterosexuality, Adikor’s contemplation of how quickly the Neanderthal legal system would degenerate with the introduction of legal professionals (a.k.a. lawyers) - which made for a quick read (I finished the book in two days). All that said - holy crap was the plot, the characters, and their “meaningful” conversations incredibly contrived.

People jump to conclusions way too quickly throughout the book because, I guess, it’s much easier to take this shortcut than build believable motivation in the narrative. Everyone jumps on the possibility that our mystery man is a Neanderthal way too quickly, then jump on the theory of a parallel universe way too quickly, Ponter’s daughter agrees to defend Adikor way too quickly. Again, I’m not saying they wouldn’t have gotten there eventually, just that it would have been nice to seem some sort of progression toward these rather sudden turns.

The rape scene read like it had been written with all the paint-by-numbers aplomb of someone who had just watched an after school special on the subject and then decided to fortify their research with a quick perusal of the complimentary pamphlets at a rape crisis center.

Speaking of paint-by-numbers, Mary’s conversations with Ponter on the topics of her faith, the legal system and eugenics felt incredibly pat and superficial. The author sets up the possibility for a very interesting discussion and ends up short-changing the reader with a facile presentation of these presumably weighty subjects. I found it silly that Mary couldn’t even come up with counter-arguments to Ponter’s question of why adultery should be considered a bad thing (her incredibly lame response is “because it’s a sin” which really isn’t so much a counter-point as an easy segue to the topic of faith), or why would anyone want to tamper with alibi archives (has Mary ever watched a news report?). I mean, come on.

Another huuuuge stretch is the relative lack of any sort of ruling authority in the action. If word got out that a Neanderthal had suddenly appeared in our society, the authorities would have swept in and whisked him away in no time. Instead, we’re expected to believe that the “live and let live” Canadian government will just step back and allow these three scientists to go all Thelma and Louise with this visitor from another universe. And when they do finally take action, it’s only to send in the CDC to quarantine the area after Ponter gets sick. By the way, how did they find out that Ponter was sick?

In short, lots of great ideas sloppily treated. The fact that this book won the Hugo effectively undermines my respect for this apparently prestigious award. Gristle indeed.

[Ysanne]

I met Robert Sawyer today when he came to my school as a guest speaker, on invitation by the Literacy Committee. He gave a very short presentation in cafetorium to approximately 300 tenth graders. A lot of students asked a lot of good questions.

He later joined the LCommittee for lunch, and my colleague who has read Hominids and Humans asked him the question about the graphic rape scene. Why was it portrayed in such graphic detail, and what purpose does it serve? Mind, my colleagued asked this in a much less blunt manner.

The answer we got was:
1. He wanted to portray how troubled our society is when a woman cannot spend a few minutes walking around a parking lot at night time without being sexually assaulted.

2. He later writes a sex scene where Mary is making love to someone she cares about, and who cares about her, too. It is a love-making that is healing for her and it serves to contrast the previous violent sexual assault.

I, personally, have not read the books so I cannot evaluate whether these answers would suffice.