Extinction [Paperback]

As a disaster movie fan I really enjoyed this book and think it would make a cracking movie up there beside Armageddon and The Day After Tomorrow.

Set in the not-too-distant future Man has decided to ‘manage’ the worlds climate for the benefit of those who can afford it. The highest bidder gets to buy rain or shine depending on its countries needs. Storms are diverted and all seems right with the world. Until ‘The One’ hits San Francisco (why is it always San Fran that gets the 1st hit in these disaster movies?!?).

Meanwhile, lawyer Michael Fairfax gets set to sue the worlds climate management companies. After the demise of San Francisco Michaels witnesses start disappearing and it seems the US is doing everything it can to gag their testimony that climate management is in fact wrecking the planet. Then Mother Nature decides to prove his point for him. Volcanoes across the globe start coming back to life and before you know it the apocalypse is upon us.

Extinction is a really gripping read and I read it in 3 days because its one of those books that you just can’t put down. The ending is expected but I don’t think it ruins the story at all. With a bit of luck the good old US of A will get somebody in the White House to read Extinction and maybe then they’ll realize that their failure to acknowledge let alone tackle global warming could lead us to an Extinction-level event in the near future! Mans arrogance will eventually catch up with him!

Once I started I couldn't stop reading this book! It opens with a scene like 'Waterworld,' but much bigger and better, then it moves up a gear with every chapter. Some of the things in this 'fictional' story seem really wierd - like a full scale tsunami in Indonesia, just like the one that's happened - but that's only the beginning. Disaster follows disaster, but it's done in a really credible way with characters I liked and wanted to know what happened to. All the time I kept seeing this as a film, but I don't know whether even the latest special effects are up to this one. There's an incredible ending with real sense of satisfaction and justice. I just wish theyd read this in the White House.

Ray Hammond is a successful futurologist, so you might expect his take on Armageddon to contain some self-consistent analysis of the effects of science and technology on our future, and particularly on our planet's climate and ecology.

Hammond here pictures our extinction as triggered by attempts to control the planetary weather systems, using the moon as the site of much of this industry. It can improve the tourist trade in some places, agriculture and fishing in others, it can stimulate economic growth and expansion. The unforeseen spin-off of weather control, however, is appreciated only by a few dissident academics, one of whom predicts geological and electromagnetic meltdown.

This is a well presented sci-fi thriller - you don't need a science background to understand it, you don't have to be a sci-fi fan to appreciate the story. The narrative presents science and technology as clearly in the grasp of vested interests, but suggests that science is not like a religion - there is no orthodoxy, no heresy, the methods and knowledge of science are open to all, the status quo can be challenged. Hammond develops the theme of radical scientists pursuing truth and thus being in a position to question. They are united in a legal battle to secure justice for those dispossessed by climate control. Will their warning be heard in time, or must the Earth be extinguished?

The novel is plot-driven - the characters are fairly one-dimensional. It moves along at a fair pace, picking up momentum as it goes. If I have criticism it's that sometimes the plot becomes a little too mechanistic. Hammond employs a standard device - he has one corporation, one state so powerful it can impose its will on the world ... it's a "Star Wars" scenario of the evil empire confronting the resistance.

The characters are all influential, powerful, rich, their actions can be a bit too abrupt - there are aspects of the book which read a bit like, "with one bound he was free", a sort of Boy's Own writing. Some of the action is just a bit too casual, a bit too obvious, and a bit too unlikely. You sense Hammond's writing becomes a touch formulaic in places, he gets obsessed with pushing the plot along and the characters suffer because of this, their superficiality becomes their most prominent characteristic.

But my major criticism is that the last few chapters of the book telescope action, things happen very mechanically and instrumentally ... and we get an ending which is sentimental, trite, and, frankly absurd in its irony.

This is a shame, really. Without wanting to spoil the storyline, Hammond sets up an excellent apocalypse scenario. The novel is really a pre-apocalypse tale - it leads up to extinction and explores the causes of extinction, it does not consider the nature of survival for those few lucky enough, or unlucky enough to escape the devastation. Hammond seems a bit too optimistic.

He's also a bit too optimistic about the neutrality of science and altruism of scientists - he recognises that the application of science and technology can be perverted by the demands of industry and capitalism, he underestimates the pressure put on dissidents to remain silent, he underestimates the way finances are withheld from research which fails to meet with official approval. As a futurologist you'd expect Hammond to be optimistic about science and technology, and he clearly is concerned that the neutrality of knowledge can be perverted and hijacked. His major weakness, really, is in exploring the human dimension and the nature of politics. The storyline can become too formulaic, can be dehumanised.

Overall, an enjoyable read, though the end is a bit of a letdown. It's a good, ecological thriller which, you feel, would have been significantly improved by better characterisation and a less optimistic optimism.