Annalee Newitz's "Future of Another Timeline": like Handmaid's Tale meets Hitchhiker's Guide

Originally published at:


Hopefully it has incredible laugh out loud humour because the theme sounds fairly juvenile otherwise.

1 Like

Have you maybe considered that it wasn’t written for you and your tastes?

The amazing thing about books is not every book needs to be for everybody. If you don’t want to read it, don’t. It’s that simple.



What, in the Heinlein juveniles sense of the word? Those books are classics.

Ah, but you see, it makes fun of MRAs and incels, and we can’t have their fee-fees hurt.

“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” – Margaret Atwood

I like that Newitz associates the misogynist villains with Anthony Comstock, one of America’s nastier proto-Xtianists.


Yep. totally tracks!


Don’t think of them as incel extremists, think of them as Trump’s Unsullied.


Here’s a take from someone whose qualifications ‘to judge’ I actually trust:


the author?

I think she’s noting John Scalzi’s support for Newitz’s work in the first place.


gotcha. It was confusing since it’s just her synopsis posted on his site.


Autonomous was at least partially about sex with robots. That’s a tough plot element to pull off, yet she did it without resorting to “incredible laugh-out-loud humor”.

I look forward to reading this book.


I was; didn’t expect the one-boxing to do that.


Yes I did consider the book wasn’t written for my taste. The original critic of the book draws attention to its possibilities by mentioning Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and not, say, Brave New World. It’s in the title in case any of the armchair rebels in these comments missed it. As such, expecting humour to be a part of the content is pretty reasonable. Or are there readers who think Hitchhikers was anything but humorous? Anyway if the book doesn’t have high quality satire or thought provoking yet scientifically incisive commentary, then either it’s not like Hitchhikers (and the original critic should change the title of their review) or the rabid supporters in this thread might want to get off their high pony.

Everybody gets to read/watch/experience whatever they like, and they can also avoid partaking of any media that doesn’t appeal to them personally.


blown away


Humour is especially subjective. “Hitchhiker’s Guide” had plenty of silly fun mixed in with the more trenchant satire and worked for me, but either or both were not for everyone. If Cory and Scalzi feel Newitz came close to striking that balance, I’m more apt to take their word over a random Douglas Adams fanboi’s who thinks the use of the title of his book is somehow sacrosanct.

The core basic plot motif of the struggle between feminists and misogynists shared between “Handmaid’s Tale” and this book, on the other hand, seems pretty self-evident and (given the number of people currently dying at the hands of and the poisoning of public discourse by MRAs, incels, Xtianists, and the like) far from a “juvenile” choice for a theme.


You don’t have to believe Cory’s take:

Newitz blends exquisitely rendered historical research with complex science fiction,

But since he read it and you didn’t, forgive me but I’m going to lean his way on what the book achieves.


The visual adaptations never worked for me because the directors kept trying to make things look funny. But things don’t look funny in a radio show or a book. The situation was supposed to be the joke – and a very dark joke at that, Arthur’s family and friends had just been murdered by the Vogons. They didn’t have to put a frowny face on the robot and make the spaceship look like a pig.


I’m commenting on the title and the expectation it creates for one wanting to read. As such it’s evident I haven’t read it, and I am meant to be the audience of the piece we are discussing. Hope this is clear to the people eager to take sides without understanding what this discussion is about. Anyway thanks.