Reviewing a piece of fiction means satisfying a different set of requirements than what would be expected from a review of an academic text. For one, it is essential that I do not reveal the whole plot by providing a chapter-by-chapter summary. Secondly, the review is inherently subjective, and thus I have to say up front that I really did not enjoy the book. Had I not been reviewing it, I would not have read beyond the first 40 pages, as at many points throughout the book, I was extremely tempted to just drop it into the closest recycling bin.

The book, based a few years in the future, centers around four characters. Three of them are human and the fourth is a semisentient computer program called Turing. It is this final character that in many respects is the biggest obstacle to enjoying the book. Whereas Isaac Asimov’s Robot inspires sympathy, and Arthur C. Clark’s Hal, fascination, the Turing character here, to abuse a quote from the book referring to another piece of writing, is “irritatingly pretentious.”

My two sharpest criticisms are what Turing says and how the other characters react in the presence of the program. The book is only barely disguised as a work of fiction. Turing delivers a 26-page monologue on what is truth, a ten-page monologue on how a central processing unit (CPU) works, 18 pages on operating systems, 24 pages on algorithms, 13 pages on biology, 14 on economics, 11 on encryption, and 13 pages on artificial intelligence! In a book of 237 pages, that leaves very little room for character and plot development.

These monologues would not have been such a problem if their content had not been pitched at such a simplistic level. Phrases such as, “Meanwhile, the little programme, its mission accomplished, terminates, signs off...” and “the operating system relies on a specialised programme, the driver of that device, a sort of diplomatic mission, an ambassador who speaks the operating system’s language,” can only be intended for readers who know nothing about computers. It is within the context of these statements that my second criticism is based.

Somehow, when confronted by such demeaning lectures from the computer program, the characters do not get angry, but instead acquire what is best described as Homer Simpson-style mental capabilities. After the first phrase mentioned above, one character responds, “It is very complicated, but at least it makes sense.” Somehow, none of the other characters are capable of challenging the statements made by the program. Many of these statements would have been heavily contested, had they originated from a human.

Often, a book disliked by one person can be enjoyed by another. I gave this some deep thought and could only think of a single person to whom I would not be embarrassed giving the book. That person is my mother-in-law: someone who would not read a computing text out of principle, but could be persuaded to do so under the guise of a love story; someone who would be educated, and not feel insulted, by statements that tell her a monitor is “the televisionlike device in front of you.”