Zeitgeist

Ever heard the lost decade theory? Like there was a decade, give or take a year, between en of 70s and beginning of 90s, that, well, were lost, forgotten, erased from conventional timeline. Key events were redelegated to end of preceeding and beginning of following decades. Lesser stuff were shuffled, mis-dated, mis-quoted, steganographied.And thus there're tons of supplanted memories of eighties that never were in collective subconscious.Fold a rug neatly enough to match elements of pattern and noone will notice because there's noone clise enough, or far enough, to see disruptions. Lines blending into other lines. Stories look plausible. They have just the right amount of imperfections and randomness in them to pass for real stuff.Now imagine 20th century as a rug made of countless folds, patches, superimposed and crossing each other. Sample of a sample of a sample of a copy of an analysis. Because from where you stand there's no big pucture, nor there is _other_ close-up views to compare with your own. Only stories. Often badly told by an army of unreliable narrators.This book gives you an insight into what could possible have went into one of such folds of a narrative's fabric. Everything described here could have happened. You have no way to prove or disprove it. Screw it; read the story. Then maybe look up stuff like "intersubjective reality" and simulacrums and underlying narrative. Or just re-read the book, it's totally worth it. And look around more. )

First, if this is the first time you have heard of Sterling and haven't read his other work, STOP right there. Read his short stories in Globalhead or A Good Old Fashioned Future. Then, decide if you are interested in reading more. If this were the first Sterling work you ever picked up, I doubt you would ever read anything more by him. You need a gentler introduction to Sterling.Second, before you purchase this book, take a look at Sterling's Leggy Starlitz short stories. The three that I know of are: "Hollywood Kremlin" (in Globalhead), "Are you for 86?" (in Globalhead), and "The Littlest Jackal" (in A Good Old Fashioned Future). If you like those stories and want to know more, for sure read Zeitgeist - you will probably like it. Also, if you don't read the short stories, you will have a harder time figuring out all of the details in Zeitgeist - not 100% necessary but very helpful.Leggy Starlitz is definitely one of those characters that you really love and "get" or one of those characters that you hate, you think is shallow, and you just don't understand. Personally, I think that I understand at least a little of who/what Starlitz is and (especially in the short stories), I really loved him. He's not a flat character and there is a lot about him that is not explained either in the short stories or in Zeitgeist.That said, did I like Zeitgeist? "Yeah, no, maybe" sums it up pretty well. In case you don't know, the word zeitgeist is German for "the spirit of the times". That's the basic concept driving this book. The question is, what is time all about? How does time work? Does the millennium have any meaning at all or is it just another year?I'm not going to pretend that I actually figured out answers to those questions by reading Zeitgeist, but it did make me think about them a lot. Honestly, I felt that I was a bit out of my depth reading this book. I could definitely tell that there were some super high level concepts that Sterling was trying to get across but I had a hard time understanding them. The main idea was something along the line of time being a narrative and about how events either "fit" the narrative or just don't make sense in it. If events don't belong in the narrative, then bad things tend to happen.There is a great deal of depth to this novel beyond the high level plot about Starlitz managing a faux Spice Girls band. This is also the case with all of the Starlitz short stories - there's always more than meets the eye. Although that high level plot isn't half bad either, it's the behind the scenes action that I really like. And the tiny Princess Di subplot made me fall over laughing when I figured it all out.As for the argument that this is a book about Y2K that was published a year to late... If you actually get to the end of the book and still think this, you have definitely missed the point.Also, as for the argument that Sterling is mired in jargon and doesn't make sense... come on! It's Sterling for crying out loud. This should not be your first Bruce Sterling experience and if you've ever read anything by him, you know what to expect in terms of jargon and being "kool".Basically, no guarantees that you will actually like this book if you buy it. I would not say that I liked it that much. It's not my favorite work of Sterling's - Heavy Weather and his short stories seem much better to me. In fact, on occasion, Sterling's style falls a little short - in the final section when we're getting closer to Y2K, the story seems to get a bit muddled... but that might be part of the point as well.Not my favorite Sterling work, but DEFINITELY a book that I will want to re-read in six months or a year. To me, actually wanting to re-read a book is the best possible test of how worthwhile the book was to read.

great read

It has this crazy half-superman anti-hero.Sterling is good at throwing out literary names and factsI've never heard of.Examples:1) Pelevin ( Russian author) wrote Omon Ra and The Yellow Arrow2) Turkish cabaret music3) America is basically nine different cultural regionsThe book is humorous but somehow too negative.It is basically a satire on made for pop groups.Bruce Sterling is sort of a cyberpunk James Barrie.I think it it is his lack of integrity that bothers me most?

To be honest, I don't get why this book has only good ratings (until now). Maybe I make a fool out of myself for not seeing the subtle brilliance and depth of it. And for sure there are some nice innuendos that made me laugh, they are not revealing though. So let me write it straight ahead: This book has no arc of suspense, there is no unscheduled twist of story, the protagonists appear and disappear without any reasonable explanation, the story is a heartlessly connected chain of events and the few philosophic "revelations" about corporate media, pop culture, western hegemony and eastern nationalism are buried under boring phrases about the twentieth century.The last chapter wasn't that bad so I gave 2 stars. But all in all this book was definately no fun reading and a waste of time.