#david brin

[70sscifiart]

One not-uncommon iteration of the dolphin suit is to add gripper arms separate from flippers, as in David Cherry's 1985 frontispiece to David Brin’s Startide Rising

[animate-mush]

What the book looks like it's about: Feminism and/or gender politics

What the book thinks it's about: what would human society look like if we reproduced like aphids?

What the book is actually about: 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️PIRATES🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️ (and to a lesser extent board games)

[beatrixripley]

My theory regarding Pluribus is that a type III civilization decided to send a virus to push artificially other civilizations to type I or reach others already at type II or III to push the universe itself to type IV. Humans are now almost to type 0,8, according to Carl Sagan who thought we would reach type I in 2100. Operating globally at a planetary scale, the hive will use all the planet’s energy to send the virus then humans will die having destroyed themselves and the planet in doing so. But the idea, the concept will continue to spread ready to be catched by sufficiently advanced civilizations. Maybe a civilization not even a type one like human race in the XXI century can’t get the whole information and is just destined to pass it further down the line and maybe this information will reach another type III pushing to IV. A divine like one which could use the energy of the whole universe. Spreading the virus in other universes after that. OR they know there are always a Carol and a Manousos who will use wavelengths to reverse the effects. What will happen then. Humans would have learnt how to operate at a global scale and would cherish the individuality and the collective. They would be able to reconcile both and work with both. They would be able to save the planet from the self destruction which is always a risk before reaching type I and would accelerate to type II. Maybe the virus is an elaborate form of Elevation (described by Brin and Clarke).

[batbetbitbotbut]

Unexpected prescience of vintage scifi in The Practice Effect by David Brin.

Highlighted quote: "it had been proved back in 2024 that true artificial intelligence was a dead end field". The rest of the page discusses general uselessness of AI that can imitate a human conversation for a few minutes.

Published in 1986.

[haveyoureadthisbook-poll]

Have you read Startide Rising by David Brin (1983)?

yes

no

I didn't finish it

I've never heard of it

Voting ended onApr 17, 2025

[mental-mona]

For all its beauty, honesty, and effectiveness at improving the human condition, science demands a terrible price—that we accept what experiments tell us about the universe, whether we like it or not.

— David Brin, Existence (2012 novel)

[snazzy-hats-and-adhd]

Snazzy, I am looking for books that aren't manga to add to my to read list (I just have a lot of Manga on it already XD)

Do you recommend Startide Rising by David Brin? I saw you talking about it on another post and I was wondering if you would Actually Recommend It or is it one of those "this piece of media impacted my life irrevocably and I wouldn't be who I am without it but I would never actually RECOMMEND IT to other people" kind of deals...

So, there are two things to know about Startide Rising. The first is that it is part of a series of two trilogies, and while it is technically the second book, the first trilogy are all kinda vaguely standalone books that just happen to be set in the same universe. The second trilogy are a lot more interconnected.

The second thing to know is that some of the "sci" is a little dated, particularly the psychology-flavoured bits. I didn't enjoy Sundiver (technically the first book, but I probably read it last) as much as I might otherwise have because of that, but if you are like me and you enjoy picking apart a piece of media in your head to see how it fits together then this is kind of a negligible complaint.

There are a LOT of aliens, almost all of them can probably be read as problematic if you're into that, and the whole series is built around a model of galactic society that, looking back, kinda reeks of infantilizing paternalism, and the books KNOW this. Half of all the action is politicking and subterfuge, and the other half is politicking and backstabbing. Also, whie it has been a Long Time since I read them, I remember the final book (Heaven's Reach) was kind of a fucking mind bender towards the end and I had to stop and marinate a couple times.

If you want a book to dump a dozen deeply compelling questions directly into your brain, it's great! Just be aware that it was written for people who enjoy giving their brain a workout.

If you want something that is a light, fun read, then these books are probably not it. For that i reccomend pretty much anything in the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.

[superbdragoncollection-stuff]

The Postman

The novel is much better than the film. It's about a man in a post apocalyptic environment accidentally rebuilding the United States by being a dedicated civil servant. He pretends to be a postal worker.

Twenty years after World War III, Gordon is robbed and finds an old postal uniform in an abandoned truck. He takes it to protect himself from exposure, and is accidentally mistaken as a postal worker by a nearby settlement. He then decides at the next settlement to deliberately pretend to be a postal worker representing the "Restored United States". People are desperate for hope and believe in him. They remember fondly the old days of mail, and the postal workers. But more than that, the concept of the United States as one unified country is revived, how we're all the same.

Funny enough, the author actually brings up several obvious points about how this could be a scam(which it is at first!). In the best scene in the novel, he shows off his uniform, which they point out he could've taken from a corpse, and he shows off documents that he could've faked. The thing that makes them believe him is he legit DOES bring the mail! You can easily see that as desperate as they are for hope, there are people who see through his lies, but don't bring it up because he's providing a vital service.

He also deliberately doesn't push his luck. This scam is quite clever: he claims to be from the restored United States, but that he's a scout, there won't be anyone else coming for a long time. He's just here to deliver the mail, he is not threatening local warlords' powers. He fakes a document of rules the "new congress" "created", but they're all simple things that don't mess with local authority for the most part. So there's no reason for the warlords to challenge him.

What ends up happening though is he accidentally creates a revolution: the Restored United States becomes real through Gordon's efforts.

Civilization and it's symbols are what the book is centered around. By being a symbol, Gordon is accidentally able to recreate the country. It shows that government isn't some nebulous entity, it's a construct made of people, and that people can repair it as much as we tear it apart. It's not Gordon who overthrows the warlord, it's the common folk. He shows them, and reminds them, of what they used to be, and what they can become again. There's a heartbreaking scene where he visits a town that's having a dog fight. It's horrible, but what makes it so is the mounting depression Gordon instills through his disapproval. The mayor of the town thinks to himself, "what's happened to us? I was a member of the ASPCA!" The dog fight is stopped as they remember. It's not through some grand act Gordon brings about a revolution, it's a reminder of the good things the government does. It delivers the mail, and fixes the roads. Civil servants are the backbone of society! Through this little scam Gordon accidentally reminds people of what they are.

One of the best things about the book is Gordon. He's not a goody goody, he's a con man! The film casts Kevin Costner, when they should've cast Michael J Fox. Gordon is a former college student and national guard trooper who just wants a place that's civilized: he wants to find someone who's doing *something* to rebuild! All he wants is a place with electricity, showers, and hot food. He is NOT mad max. I think the writer was commenting on tropes of the time, Gordon HATES living in the squalor of the apocalypse! He doesn't think of himself as a hero, or a decent person. He acts pretty decently for a con man, and in fact constantly kicks himself for not being a ruthless monster that he views as being better for surviving this world. He survives not through gunplay, but through his wits and his skills. He kills few if any people that I recall. He's a scholar, not Mad Max. You feel sorry for him a lot, he's just some guy who wants somewhere to go, and a leader to follow. Yet he also retains a "civilized mind" as the book calls it. He laments this fallen world, how the US sent probes to Jupiter, how they were building genuine Artificial Intelligence before the war, and now they were reinventing serfdom. He's moved to tears by the little last stands made at the end of the war, by the last efforts of the mailman who's uniform he took. He's just a guy who wants to go home, but there's no more home left. And yet through his idealism, through his memory, and his wits, he recreates the world he lost.

I would put the book weirdly into the same category as The Handmaid's Tale, which I have yet to read. It's difficult to articulate; rather than the central theme being women's rights, The Postman is about civilization, yet spoken about in the same way as the Handmaid's Tale. The Handmaid's Tale was a commentary on the 1980s evangelical Christian ultra right wing nationalism that made itself known under Reagan. Women's rights falling apart was not an irrational fear: it happened in Iran in 1979. Check out photos of Iran from the 60s and 70s, women are all wearing western clothing, smoking, going to college, Iran was a very modern country. There is an American movie filmed months before the revolution which has a female police officer as a major plot element.

The Postman is criticizing the same types of people, and there is real similar precedent. Reagan was talking about government being "evil", and his administration deliberately destroyed and undercut tons of government social safety nets and services. He fired so many air traffic controllers it was years before they could train more! The right wing is STILL trying to dismantle the postal service!

In the novel, civilization and government wasn't destroyed by the war itself, it was the conditions that came after. There is a faction of these nutty hyper survivalists who are all but stated to be white supremacists; basically every ultra macho racist misogynistic doomsday prepper you've seen. These guys deliberately destroyed reconstruction efforts and ruined what remained of society. Just like the Handmaid's Tale was a commentary on right wing politics of the 80s, I think The Postman is commentary on the exact same part. It really drives home that civilization, and government itself, is a positive thing despite its flaws, with more good than bad. The heroes are dedicated to rebuilding lines of communication, recovering all that was lost. We see over and over again that while we've stumbled, it wasn't government that destroyed civilization it was barbarity and cruelty, a *lack* of government. Society can train armies, create medicine, build roads and towns, and stop people from being hurt and dying. The war itself didn't even destroy civilization, it was neglect and the destruction of order. These people aren't trying to merely survive; they *are* surviving, they want to *live*. And that means rebuilding everything that was lost. Building cities, fixing libraries, and having dedicated civil servants. There's no hope that help will come from elsewhere, we must take action into our own hands. The book emphasizes that government is not this alien monolith, it's us, it's people, and without people, everything falls apart. It is so effective at delivering this message, it drives home a very moving and nuanced view of patriotism. Our heroes are farmers, workers, and postal workers. They're not rich folk, or macho men, they're everyday citizens who want things to get better. Our hero is a skinny little con man! "Don't you want more out of life?"

One can even argue the book is a battle between two views of the United States of America specifically. The survivalists have a right wing view of the country and the world, might makes right, individualism or death, manly man things, greed is good, and how everyone should be "independent". One of them is a former stock broker for crying out loud! Others are these ex military guys, many of whom rape and pillage. Gordon and his friends have a more left wing view of government, equality for all, might *for* right(if might is even in the equation), the ants must work together and stand together, that the smallest among us deserve as many rights as the largest; united we are strong, knowledge is power, and community is for the benefit of all, for justice, for peace, and for the future. Our hero is a lanky college student turned postal worker, others are a coalition of scientists, feminists, and *hippies*.

The book is surprisingly progressive with regards to women's rights. There's weird 80s attitudes toward feminism, but I would argue it's much more charitable than others. It's very clear the author does care about women's rights, and his heart is in the right place, he just doesn't quite grok all the issues. He puts feminism firmly on the side of the heroes. The female lead who is declared to be a feminist is depicted as naive, but it's more about her than feminism itself. And it feels more like the characters than the narrative. The one who calls her "an old school feminist" is a middle aged scientist, and Gordon is very jaded. His attitude is more about how he doesn't want anyone else to die more than being anti feminist. And the reason for her naivety might be more subtly implied to be that she learned her attitudes purely from books rather than lived experience. She manages to get female soldiers into an army at one point, and the problems aren't with that itself, but the army overall is in trouble. By contrast, the villains want to completely annihilate women's rights as a whole, again, A Handmaid's Tale. The ending has a segment that I'm not sure where to fall on, but I think remains in that thought that the writer very clearly has his heart in the right place but doesn't quite understand.

The book is, to quote another post I saw, filled with infectious optimism. Gordon is a fun hero who's not some macho loner, he just wants a bed and a hot meal, and accidentally causes a massive revolution. It's about how government is what we make of it, and is a force for good more often than not. We have to create the future, or others will do it for us.