Leave a comment

Comments 21

used_songs September 11 2008, 00:35:45 UTC
Hi, I followed the link from your post on sf_with_bite. I love this book. It was the first one by Willis that I read and I immediately went out and got all of the others and devoured them. I lent it to a friend and was so disappointed that he didn't like it at all.

Like you, I loved the characters and I became really invested in them. The ending was a gut punch - but so satisfying in terms of the researcher seeing the phenomenon from inside.

Reply

calico_reaction September 11 2008, 17:02:08 UTC
From what I hear, this book really creates a love/hate reaction. I wonder if it has more to do with the premise of NDE than anything...

Reply

used_songs September 11 2008, 21:23:19 UTC
Maybe so. I thought I would dislike it because of the premise, but I was pleasantly surprised by the way the topic was handled.

Reply


tcastleb September 11 2008, 01:00:43 UTC
I liked Doomsday Book a bit better, mostly because Passages bored me at times because there were a number of times that we see/are told about an event from one person, and then we get it all over again from another POV.

I *did* like it because some of it took place right where I got my undergrad at the University of Denver. I think she actually mentions a bridge over Evans street. That's where I was. :>)

But, sadly, I haven't read anything else of Connie's even though I did a workshop with her.

Reply

calico_reaction September 11 2008, 17:01:26 UTC
If I think about it, it's safe to say I liked DOOMSDAY BOOK better too. I am looking forward to her other books though. The only other thing I've read of hers was a short story, and that's it. :)

Reply


luna_glass_wall September 11 2008, 01:45:41 UTC
Joanna's dead, and the idea that her brain was still hanging on even after she's dead and buried is creepy as all hell
Not to mention nonsensical.

I think, based on the book, it's obvious that NDE is individual, that it's the brain working overtime to save itself, and therefore somehow constructs this reality from all its memories and knowledge.
Based on the actual research, it's not "obvious" that it's the brain working overtime to save itself, especially when the brain in question is effectively broken (drained of all blood, as in Pam Reynold's case, or left in cold storage for three days, as in George Rodonaia's case, or simply unconscious as the case is most of the time), or if the person experiencing is not near death but is actually having an out-of-body experience ( ... )

Reply

Part 1 calico_reaction September 11 2008, 16:59:25 UTC
I think it's pretty clear that with your arsenal, you're not going to be able to read this book, and what I'm about to say doesn't mean I think you should rethink your stance and read it. I doubt you'll be able to put your own knowledge aside to appreciate the book for what it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I did want to clarify some things ( ... )

Reply

Part 2 calico_reaction September 11 2008, 16:59:52 UTC
The set-up for the study that drives the book is this ( ... )

Reply

Re: Part 2 luna_glass_wall September 11 2008, 20:26:07 UTC
Yeah you're right, I probably shouldn't read this. Now, I don't mind fantasy or scifi. I mostly have no problems accepting things that don't exist or can't happen in real life. I'm in the middle of writing a fantasy epic, FFS. But what got me is that the book was praised for science and objectivism when what I thought was the stated premise...that Joanna is dead and buried yet her brain manages to work...is unsupported by research. (And also the fact that drug-induced and naturally-occuring NDEs, while sharing some aspects, have a totally different set of circumstances, but a lot of people try to shoehorn them together.) If that premise is interpretation only, and looking at it from the context of science fiction, then sensical/nonsensical isn't even an issue, and I'm sorry if I insulted you with "nonsensical", since I thought "Joanna's dead but her brain lives" was Willis's premise that she was trying to assert from a scientific angle. In other words, I thought I was knocking the book for sloppy research ( ... )

Reply


Connie Willis! ext_121909 September 11 2008, 02:40:43 UTC
I so agree. This is actually one of my favourite books of all time. Though I don't read it so often, since it's a bit to ponder.
I've read most of Connie Willis' books and I've found that a theme that often recurs is a frustrated sense of "searching." In Passage, Joanna is searching for answers about NDE's. In To Say Nothing of the Dog, the main character is searching for a Bishop's Bird Stump (whatever that is). In Bellwhether, it's a scientist searching for an answer too. There's often a feeling of a compelling need to find something, whether it's an answer, or a theory proved, or an actual object. Her writing pace is almost a bit slow and that makes your desire to see the main characters find what they're seeking grow.
Did you get this feeling at all when you were reading Passage? Anyhoo, I'd really recommend reading other books by her. There aren't so many, but they're all good. Some are more comedic as well.

Reply

Re: Connie Willis! calico_reaction September 11 2008, 17:00:30 UTC
I can certainly agree with that assessment. :)

Reply


mementozmori September 11 2008, 05:02:57 UTC
I'm neighbors with Connie. she's amazing.
my personal favorite is To Say Nothing Of The Dog.

Reply

calico_reaction September 11 2008, 16:31:41 UTC
Really? That is so cool. :)

I haven't read that one yet, but next time I get to the store, I'll pick it up.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up