“The birds sang as they should; the deer took flight, their white tails exclamation points against the green and brown of the underbrush; the raccoons, bowlegged, swayed about their business, ignoring us. As a group, we felt almost giddy, I think, to be free after so many confining months of training and preparation.”
Kind of funny that my last two books have been in the realm of “ecological sci-fi,” but here we are. However, Annihilation strips away any satire and comedy that may have been in Galapagos, and instead presents an anxiety-ridden atmospheric novel of four scientists who go out to explore the dangerous and unfamiliar “Area X.”
The descriptions of the flora and fauna of Area X are great, and the narrator writes with an unreliable tone while at the same time, sounding like writing a lab report. It’s kind of jarring, but VanderMeer captures the surreal and tense mystery through his Lovecraftian prose very well.
“I took samples as we went, but halfheartedly. All of these tiny remnants I was stuffing into glass tubes with tweezers … what would they tell me? Not much, I felt.”
However, while there was a plot, it didn’t go very far for me. And that’s okay, sometimes things don’t need to happen – I tend to really enjoy books that have no plot line at all. But for this particular brand of sci-fi, I wish for a little more. What might help with this, though, is not reading the blurb on the back of the book. Nothing is spoiled, but some things might hit harder without knowing ahead of time.
Will I finish the trilogy? Maybe. It’s not on the top of my to-read list, but I am curious to learn more about Area X and the world of Southern Reach. But if the genre of eco-horror sci-fi sounds interesting to you, you should pick this one up – and let me know your thoughts.
“Does it trouble me to write so insubstantially, with air on air? Well--my words will be as enduring as anything my father wrote, or Shakespeare wrote, or Beethoven wrote, or Darwin wrote. It turns out that they all wrote with air on air.”
Whether through the plot or the writing style, Vonnegut always plays with the concept of time in his novels. In almost every book I’ve read of his, it felt like his idea of “time” was stretched and distorted to his liking, adhering only to his rules. Galapagos is no different.
Although one of Vonnegut’s later works, Galapagos is still incredibly satirical, humorous, and sarcastic. Vonnegut takes on human evolution, survival of the fittest, and the failings of the human brain, from the perspective of an evolved human one million years in the future. This narrator consistently reiterates how the human brain is too big, and as a species, we have become too complex as we generate wars, famines, and any other horsemen of the apocalypse.
“Why so many of us knocked us major chunks of our brains with alcohol from time to time remains an interesting mystery. It may be that we were trying to give evolution a shove in the right direction - in the direction of smaller brains.”
However, the idea of human evolution is such a big one to me, and unfortunately it felt like his satire only brushed the surface of it. Through small-scale vignettes, connected by a single plot line, a cast of characters about to embark on the Nature Cruise of the Century become the only hope for humanity continuing as a species – but I felt that too much time was spent on the backstories of these characters (important, no doubt) rather than how they start anew. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it felt like a bit of a mismatch with the overarching implications of the human race starting over.
But don’t take my review to be a dislike of this book – if it sounds interesting to you, you should pick it up. Three stars, to me, is a simple “I liked it” with no real sway in either direction. And remember, Vonnegut is like New Jersey pizza: it’s always going to be at least pretty good.
“Some automatic device clicked in her big brain, and her knees felt weak, and there was a chilly feeling in her stomach. She was in love with this man.
They don't make memories like that anymore.”
“Similarly, at exactly the time when it has become clear that global warming is in every sense a collective predicament, humanity finds itself in the thrall of a dominant culture in which the idea of the collective has been exiled from politics, economics, and literature alike.”
As a quick overview, this book is divided into three sections: literature, history, and politics. Each section explores the relationship between that section’s theme, and (mainly) anthropogenic climate change. My thoughts on each section below:
From what I’ve seen, a lot of people enjoyed the first section, ‘Stories,’ which discusses how and why climate change is portrayed poorly in fiction. Personally, this section did not really capture my attention as well as the other two, but I will say that the connection Ghosh makes between the limitation of timescales in fiction and climate change is interesting; it just takes a bit long to get to that point (this is also the longest section in the book).
The second part, ‘History,’ is probably my favorite section, and one of the most interesting takes on climate change that I have ever read – Ghosh argues in great detail how imperialism (alongside capitalism) should be at the center stage in the rise of anthropogenic climate change in the 19th and 20th centuries. What cemented my love for this section was the well-thought-out argument of how the relationship between Asia and western countries (such as Britain and the US) perpetuated climate change into the 21st century.
The final section, ‘Politics,’ continues discussing imperialism as hidden driver of climate change, while simultaneously expanding on two well-known culprits, capitalism and denialism. This section concludes with another personal highlight, a comparison between the Paris Agreement of 2016 and Laudato si’, Pope Francis’ second encyclical, released in 2015.
I recommend this book to anyone who not only wants to take a deeper dive into human history and climate change, but to hear some intriguing takes on humanity’s relationship with the climate and each other.
