Comment

Aug 25, 2020wyenotgo rated this title 4 out of 5 stars
The central concept of this book is far from original — the existential problems associated with Artificial Intelligence have intrigued many a writer. And of course the trouble arising out of creating a likeness out of our fantasized vision of ourselves or the ideal companion/muse/lover/alter ego goes all the way back to Greek mythology. That said, McEwan brings his own quirky imagination to the task, along with a generous degree of chutzpah in supposing an alternate version of history to suit his convenience while placing his story anachronistically at the time of the British Falklands war. Audaciously, he goes so far as keeping Alan Turing (1912 – 1954) alive in 1982, to be used as a sounding board and guru in the exploration of his supposed technological breakthroughs. With all that in mind, I’m inclined to shelve this as fantasy. The thematic parallels between this book and Richard Powers’ "Galatea 2.2", written more than 20 years earlier, are impossible to ignore, but it’s such a compelling narrative that I don’t blame McEwan for having another go at it. Powers’ AI creation that he named “Helen” suffers the same fate as the super-intelligent Adams and Eves in “Machines Like Me”: having been created in their own ideal world suffused with brilliance, grace and beauty and governed by a precise, logical, moral code of behavior, they are confused and devastated when faced with the paradox of human perversity, greed, depravity and injustice. In common with Powers, McEwan also shoehorns his story of the AI dilemma into a somewhat mundane domestic drama featuring Charlie, a less-than-lovable protagonist and his amorous adventures. In both novels, the love story adds little to the central narrative other than to bring the higher discussion of a clash of values into an everyday human context, with varying degrees of success. (Powers' secondary characters are far more interesting than McEwan's) All my foregoing quibbles aside, I found this (my first introduction to McEwan) to be well-paced and eminently readable; McEwan cannot match Richard Powers’ vast intellectual reach but he is mercifully much more concise — a strong point in his favor! A strong 3+ stars rounded up to 4.