(Tears) Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch

[James Nicoll]

Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch

A conscientious objector is given the opportunity to materially
advance science. Shame the research is probably junk. Too bad
participation is lethal. USA! USA!

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/through-the-dark-cloud-shining
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Jack Bohn]

James Nicoll wrote:
> Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch
>
> A conscientious objector is given the opportunity to materially
> advance science. Shame the research is probably junk. Too bad
> participation is lethal. USA! USA!
>
> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/through-the-dark-cloud-shining

Re Footnote 1: I tend to agree with DemetriosX. How close was magazine publication in the '60s to what we'd call beta reading today?

Plus sf has the tradition of the fixup novel, with the publication and composition of the stories spread over an even longer period.

--
-Jack

[Tony Nance]

On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:06:11 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch
>
> A conscientious objector is given the opportunity to materially
> advance science. Shame the research is probably junk. Too bad
> participation is lethal. USA! USA!
>
> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/through-the-dark-cloud-shining
>

So........the night before you posted this review, I finished a book[1] and
went downstairs to figure out what to start reading next. I grabbed two
books, thinking to read Flare (by Zelazny & Thomas)[2] before reading
Camp Concentration. When your review showed up the next morning,
I figured "serendipity" and swapped the order to read Camp Concentration
first.

I just finished the Disch about 30 minutes ago, then read your review, and
also read through some reviews on Goodreads. In this case, the reviews
very much helped me digest this book better.

Although it is short, it took me three different sessions to finish, in
roughly this way:
1st night = fascination with part 1;
2nd night = wow, what the hell is this part 2? I'm gonna put it down for a bit;
3rd night = well, well, well...hm...part 2 turned out to be pretty intriguing.

In two specific ways, it reminds me of much of the Gene Wolfe I've read:
1) While there are some terms and references I did catch, I'm sure there
are many that I did not.
2) I suspect this will stick with me a while, even though I'm not yet sure
what I think about it.

It's well written, memorable, thought provoking, I'm glad I read it... but is it
enjoyable? Does "enjoyable" even matter?

I very rarely re-read any fiction - ever. But while this is fresh, I may re-read it,
or perhaps just re-read certain parts.

Tony
[1] Forced Perspectives by Tim Powers [Vickery & Castine #2]
[2] I'm not expecting much, but I do want to read it anyway, since it's
the last Zelazny novel I own that I have not read[3].
[3] The only novel-length Zelazny I have not read are his co-authored works
with Sheckley and Saberhagen, and I'm still deciding if I'll read them.

[Titus G]

On 15/04/23 13:40, Tony Nance wrote:
> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:06:11 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>> Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch
>>
>> A conscientious objector is given the opportunity to materially
>> advance science. Shame the research is probably junk. Too bad
>> participation is lethal. USA! USA!
>>
>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/through-the-dark-cloud-shining
>>
>
> So........the night before you posted this review, I finished a book[1] and
> went downstairs to figure out what to start reading next. I grabbed two
> books, thinking to read Flare (by Zelazny & Thomas)[2] before reading
> Camp Concentration. When your review showed up the next morning,
> I figured "serendipity" and swapped the order to read Camp Concentration
> first.
>
> I just finished the Disch about 30 minutes ago, then read your review, and
> also read through some reviews on Goodreads. In this case, the reviews
> very much helped me digest this book better.

I read James' review after finishing the book but have not read any
further reviews. I appreciate his reviews which are concise, interesting
but clinical. I would prefer more opinion other than comment on what is
not politically correct.

> Although it is short, it took me three different sessions to finish, in
> roughly this way:
> 1st night = fascination with part 1;
> 2nd night = wow, what the hell is this part 2? I'm gonna put it down for a bit;

I almost threw it at the wall.

> 3rd night = well, well, well...hm...part 2 turned out to be pretty intriguing.

Yes. I am glad I persevered.

> In two specific ways, it reminds me of much of the Gene Wolfe I've read:
> 1) While there are some terms and references I did catch, I'm sure there
> are many that I did not.

I'm sure that I missed an awful lot and that much of the philosophy and
religious references went whoosh!

> 2) I suspect this will stick with me a while, even though I'm not yet sure
> what I think about it.
>
> It's well written, memorable, thought provoking, I'm glad I read it... but is it
> enjoyable? Does "enjoyable" even matter?

I am ninety nine per cent certain that Disch had been taking Pallidum
for some months before writing it.
I loved it even though I did not enjoy the episode of his insanely early
excessive brilliance. Perhaps there was too much philosophy, religion
and literary references which were more interesting than enjoyable but I
have recently finished Ada Palmer's Will to Battle, the third of four of
Terra Ignota which was very heavy going and I was looking for a pot
boiler, something light so I was biased to begin with and was not
expecting such depth and, yes, to me enjoyable does matter.

> I very rarely re-read any fiction - ever. But while this is fresh, I may re-read it,
> or perhaps just re-read certain parts.

I do re-read fiction but don't know if I would re-read this even though
it is short but as you said, well written, so maybe.

>
> Tony

[Tony Nance]

As it turns out, I haven't re-read any parts of it, and it seems unlikely
that I will at this point. I do think I'll read another by Disch some time,
though.

Thanks for circling back to this - I appreciate your thoughts.
- Tony

[Titus G]

On 28/05/23 13:09, Tony Nance wrote:
snip

>> I do re-read fiction but don't know if I would re-read this even though
>> it is short but as you said, well written, so maybe.
>
> As it turns out, I haven't re-read any parts of it, and it seems unlikely
> that I will at this point. I do think I'll read another by Disch some time,
> though.
>
> Thanks for circling back to this - I appreciate your thoughts.
> - Tony

No. Thank you. I wouldn't have read it without reading your reply to
James' review. Even though the writing style reflects 1960s Science
Fiction, it was unique enough not to be "dated". It was a most
fascinating unpredictable short read with unexpected plot twists,
recommended.