The Mind Parasites Q1 - The pace and feel of the book

RichardAbbott

How did you find it as a read? Quick and easy? Stodgy? Thought provoking or dull? Frightening?
Were you convinced by the rate of development of psychic powers within the span of the book?

Apocryphal

I rather enjoyed it up to the midway point, but after that I found it started to drag on a bit and I have to admit I didn’t follow it was well through the third quarter. It was interesting to me how it started off exactly as billed - very Lovecraftian, and better written - but then gradually morphed into a sci-fi novel. It was certainly a quick one for me. I had no issue with the rate of psychic development (after all, what could we possibly compare it to?) but I think the book would have been better as a novella.

NeilNjae

I felt much the same. The first half was mostly good, even if it suffered from long irrelevant diversions. I lost interest in the second half and especially the last quarter.

I didn't get any sense of menace or fear from it. It was all about heroic men being strong and heroic.

BarnerCobblewood

Easy read, but enormously boring. Sorry.

RichardAbbott

@BarnerCobblewood said:
Easy read, but enormously boring. Sorry.

No, I tend to agree with you, and with those others who reckoned it started well but could not sustain it. I was curious to see if I still enjoyed it, seeing as how when I first came across it (probably 40 years ago ) I thought it was both chilling and gripping. I guess I have changed over those 40-odd years. There are many books from roughly the same era which are still a good read, and in part I'm curious as to what doesn't work about this one.

NeilNjae

What doesn't work? I think it's a combination of an insular point of view, the disconnect between the two halves of the book, and the paper thin pulp style. (Pulp can be good: this isn't.)

RichardAbbott

An interesting thing happened today on the subject of genres (or more specifically, sub-genres, as in pulp here). I read a review of Consider Phlebas - I don't think we've read this as a group, though we did read the later (and IMHO better) Player of Games - and the reviewer referred to the book as space opera. Now I can understand people liking or not liking Iain M Banks as an author, but I wouldn't have called his work space opera, which to me suggests something more like the Perry Rhodan or Lensman series.

BarnerCobblewood

@RichardAbbott said:
No, I tend to agree with you, and with those others who reckoned it started well but could not sustain it. I was curious to see if I still enjoyed it, seeing as how when I first came across it (probably 40 years ago ) I thought it was both chilling and gripping. I guess I have changed over those 40-odd years. There are many books from roughly the same era which are still a good read, and in part I'm curious as to what doesn't work about this one.

The author and narrator confused themselves for one another, perhaps.

Also, the explicit antagonist (mind parasites) is utterly undeveloped, yet unlike say Sauron the protagonist defeats them so easily. Likewise there is no secondary antagonist, because people without the capacity to understand esoteric knowledge, and who thus can't see / understand what's happening, are likewise simply objects to be moved in space in time by the protagonist. No real questions are asked of the protagonist, even by himself. I seem to remember a few places where he congratulates himself on respecting others' persons for simply talking at them rather than invading their minds.

This is in part why I think the theme of contempt for ordinary people is an integral part of the novel.

NeilNjae

@RichardAbbott said:
Now I can understand people liking or not liking Iain M Banks as an author, but I wouldn't have called his work space opera, which to me suggests something more like the Perry Rhodan or Lensman series.

Big spaceships, galaxy-spanning empires, FLT travel and teleportation, the fates of entire planets depending on the actions of a few people... there's a lot of space opera in it. There's more than the superficial pulp of Lensman, but I think "space opera" is a fair description.

@BarnerCobblewood said:
This is in part why I think the theme of contempt for ordinary people is an integral part of the novel.

No comment on this other than strong agreement.

RichardAbbott

@BarnerCobblewood said:

@RichardAbbott said:
No, I tend to agree with you, and with those others who reckoned it started well but could not sustain it. I was curious to see if I still enjoyed it, seeing as how when I first came across it (probably 40 years ago ) I thought it was both chilling and gripping. I guess I have changed over those 40-odd years. There are many books from roughly the same era which are still a good read, and in part I'm curious as to what doesn't work about this one.

The author and narrator confused themselves for one another, perhaps.

Also, the explicit antagonist (mind parasites) is utterly undeveloped, yet unlike say Sauron the protagonist defeats them so easily. Likewise there is no secondary antagonist, because people without the capacity to understand esoteric knowledge, and who thus can't see / understand what's happening, are likewise simply objects to be moved in space in time by the protagonist. No real questions are asked of the protagonist, even by himself. I seem to remember a few places where he congratulates himself on respecting others' persons for simply talking at them rather than invading their minds.

This is in part why I think the theme of contempt for ordinary people is an integral part of the novel.

That's a neat summary

RichardAbbott

@NeilNjae said:

@RichardAbbott said:
Now I can understand people liking or not liking Iain M Banks as an author, but I wouldn't have called his work space opera, which to me suggests something more like the Perry Rhodan or Lensman series.

Big spaceships, galaxy-spanning empires, FLT travel and teleportation, the fates of entire planets depending on the actions of a few people... there's a lot of space opera in it. There's more than the superficial pulp of Lensman, but I think "space opera" is a fair description.

Yes, good points - I suppose I tend to think in terms of particular kinds of simple plots or characters

clash_bowley

I really tried so hard with this... but the - as Barner put it "contempt for ordinary people" is so very integral is made it more and more difficult to read until I gave up with about 10% of the book unread.

RichardAbbott

@clash_bowley said:
I really tried so hard with this... but the - as Barner put it "contempt for ordinary people" is so very integral is made it more and more difficult to read until I gave up with about 10% of the book unread.

I think you could probably have guessed the outcome - the (rather minor) mystery at the end doesn't substantially change anything!

clash_bowley

@RichardAbbott said:

@clash_bowley said:
I really tried so hard with this... but the - as Barner put it "contempt for ordinary people" is so very integral is made it more and more difficult to read until I gave up with about 10% of the book unread.

I think you could probably have guessed the outcome - the (rather minor) mystery at the end doesn't substantially change anything!

I wasn't expecting any surprises!