What do you think?
Rate this book
Aspects of Power #5
Shadows of Ecstasy
An alternate cover for this ISBN can be found here
Charles Williams had a genius for choosing strange and exciting themes for his novels and making them believable and profoundly suggestive of spiritual truths. Shadows of Ecstasy tells of a mysterious invasion that threatens Europe from Africa. United in a fanatic crusade against death, the spiritual powers of the "Dark Continent" rise up with exultant paganism.
Charles Williams-novelist, poet, critic, dramatist and biographer-died in his native England in May, 1945. He had a lively and devoted following there and achieved a considerable reputation as a lecturer on the faculty of Oxford University. T.S. Eliot, Dorothy Sayers and C.S. Lewis were among his distinguished friends and literary sponsors.
Charles Williams had a genius for choosing strange and exciting themes for his novels and making them believable and profoundly suggestive of spiritual truths. Shadows of Ecstasy tells of a mysterious invasion that threatens Europe from Africa. United in a fanatic crusade against death, the spiritual powers of the "Dark Continent" rise up with exultant paganism.
Charles Williams-novelist, poet, critic, dramatist and biographer-died in his native England in May, 1945. He had a lively and devoted following there and achieved a considerable reputation as a lecturer on the faculty of Oxford University. T.S. Eliot, Dorothy Sayers and C.S. Lewis were among his distinguished friends and literary sponsors.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1933
22 people are currently reading
412 people want to read
About the author
Charles Williams
84 books389 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Please see: Charles Williams
Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website
Please see: Charles Williams
Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
October 16, 2015
"Shadows of Ecstasy" was published in 1933, a year after "The Greater Trumps". It also marked the end of his first sequence of novels. There were only to be two more: "Descent Into Hell" in 1937 and "All Hallow's Eve" in 1945. However, "Shadows of Ecstasy" was actually the first novel Williams wrote and the 1933 publication was an extensive revision of the earlier work. Despite that revision I don't think it is as successful as the four written between 1930 and 1932. The great mystical disclosure moments which are such significant features in the other books are far less effective in this one--indeed, they are rather pallid. Nor is the characterisation of women as good. Generally the women in Williams are better realised than those in Tolkien or Lewis. Isabel does have some quite good moments but she is only a secondary character and her sister, Rosamond, is little more than a silly stereotype. There are some lapses in taste. At one point Roger Ingram tells Isabel that what Rosamond requires is "Prussic Acid". It's a cruel and egregious remark. On the other hand, the African King has a powerful nobility of character and Nigel Considine certainly effectively conveys a very ambiguous charisma.
The novel has some interesting features. Roger Ingram is evidently a self-portrait of Williams himself. Certainly we can see his love of poetry and sophisticated literary analysis. Williams confronts the problem of anti-Semitism and--to a lesser extent-- Racism.
I wonder if the original version of the novel is extant. It would be interesting to see exactly what changes Williams made. If it has been lost we can only theorise but
perhaps the relative weakness of this novel lies in the fact that the original was simply not as inspired as those novels that followed. By 1933 Williams had greatly improved in his technique but I suspect that the earlier version may have had limitations which he could not effectively overcome and his creative interest may have waned. And it is possible that, considering the lapse of time which separates the two final novels, Williams had simply become more involved with other areas.
While I personally found "Shadows of Ecstasy" weaker than the others, it still offers insights--especially regarding the place of great literature as an ethical value system within Christianity.
December 21, 2015
I like Williams but this wasn't as good as The Place of the Lion. Still, I enjoyed it. People have asked me what Williams' novels are like. It's pretty hard to describe but they're a bit like C.S. Lewis's last of the space trilogy, That Hideous Strength, only if it had been written by Algernon Blackwood. Then people ask me who Algernon Blackwood was, and since when did Lewis write a space trilogy? :-)
August 7, 2011
Let me start this review with the punch-line: this by far the weakest of Williams' novels. The set-up for what could have been a promising theological thriller in his usual mode is squandered and energy and interest dissipate until the novel doesn't so much end as simply drift off into the bathos of a gun-battle followed by a slow fade-out. So I don't think I'll be reading it again.
Thus the message, now for the commentary. Basically, Williams sets up a situation where a lunatic has decided to destroy Western civilisation because, well, because it's civilised and it goes in for order and science instead of the ecstasy of being and feeling. Only it turns out that in fact he doesn't really experience much in the way of ecstasy because all pleasure must be avoided in the interests of the greatest goal of all: to be with the utmost depth of being, and to stand strong alone and conquer death. Basically, he's an almost exact personification of the Nietzschian Superman. Anyway, there's a rather dim young man who fancies himself a poet. You know, the sort who doesn't actually write poetry, but thinks that if you spend enough time quoting others then people will think you're one too. And the Superman somehow convinces him that you can only be a real poet if you discard reason and order and plunge into the depths of passion and being. You can tell he's not a real poet, can't you?
And so there's a lot of silliness about an African invasion of London (!) and about the Superman's plan to conquer death by persuading his followers to commit suicide in the hope they might come back after a bit. Naturally he gets a bit riled when someone points out that actually Christ did that 2000 years ago. And there's an utterly bizarre subplot involving a bunch of super-mega-ultra-orthodox Jews and a whole passel of jewels. And we get loads and loads of tedious drivel about passion and art and poetry which makes me wonder if Williams somehow ghosted this one out to someone who had never actually created anything themselves and who actually believed all that stuff about inspiration. And it all ends with a gun battle. And leaves one wondering: did Williams really believe all that? I sincerely hope not.
The thing is, in the middle of all this there is one sequence which is vintage Williams, in which a man is rescued from a mysterious imprisonment and is brought back to himself in a midnight communion service led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here we really feel the sense of awe that is one of Williams' hallmarks, but which is lacking from all the rest of this rather unfortunate book.
Thus the message, now for the commentary. Basically, Williams sets up a situation where a lunatic has decided to destroy Western civilisation because, well, because it's civilised and it goes in for order and science instead of the ecstasy of being and feeling. Only it turns out that in fact he doesn't really experience much in the way of ecstasy because all pleasure must be avoided in the interests of the greatest goal of all: to be with the utmost depth of being, and to stand strong alone and conquer death. Basically, he's an almost exact personification of the Nietzschian Superman. Anyway, there's a rather dim young man who fancies himself a poet. You know, the sort who doesn't actually write poetry, but thinks that if you spend enough time quoting others then people will think you're one too. And the Superman somehow convinces him that you can only be a real poet if you discard reason and order and plunge into the depths of passion and being. You can tell he's not a real poet, can't you?
And so there's a lot of silliness about an African invasion of London (!) and about the Superman's plan to conquer death by persuading his followers to commit suicide in the hope they might come back after a bit. Naturally he gets a bit riled when someone points out that actually Christ did that 2000 years ago. And there's an utterly bizarre subplot involving a bunch of super-mega-ultra-orthodox Jews and a whole passel of jewels. And we get loads and loads of tedious drivel about passion and art and poetry which makes me wonder if Williams somehow ghosted this one out to someone who had never actually created anything themselves and who actually believed all that stuff about inspiration. And it all ends with a gun battle. And leaves one wondering: did Williams really believe all that? I sincerely hope not.
The thing is, in the middle of all this there is one sequence which is vintage Williams, in which a man is rescued from a mysterious imprisonment and is brought back to himself in a midnight communion service led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here we really feel the sense of awe that is one of Williams' hallmarks, but which is lacking from all the rest of this rather unfortunate book.
November 2, 2015
The theological musings are classic Charles Williams, albeit somewhat more comprehensible. However, the details of the Africa plot are entirely ridiculous and mildly, unintentionally(?) racist.
I find it interesting that the way Considine's personality is described presages the way many people described Williams himself. (See for example T.S. Eliot's introduction to All Hallows' Eve.) Williams seems to have put all his ideas of romantic theology into the mouth of the "bad guy" and then went out of his way to avoid calling him bad. What little literary criticism of this book I have read cite this as a negative that is rectified in his later novels. I'm not so sure this is the right interpretation, but I'm also too early in my Charles Williams journey to speak intelligently on this. I think reading Shadows can help one to understand where Charles Wrenn was coming from when he quipped about burning Williams as a heretic.
The ideas about Love and how to practice it herein I think are borderline psychologically unhealthy and it is troubling to think that people actually tried (try?) to put them into practice. At any rate, I've come to terms with the notion that the best way to enjoy Charles Williams' novels is to overlook this fact.
I find it interesting that the way Considine's personality is described presages the way many people described Williams himself. (See for example T.S. Eliot's introduction to All Hallows' Eve.) Williams seems to have put all his ideas of romantic theology into the mouth of the "bad guy" and then went out of his way to avoid calling him bad. What little literary criticism of this book I have read cite this as a negative that is rectified in his later novels. I'm not so sure this is the right interpretation, but I'm also too early in my Charles Williams journey to speak intelligently on this. I think reading Shadows can help one to understand where Charles Wrenn was coming from when he quipped about burning Williams as a heretic.
The ideas about Love and how to practice it herein I think are borderline psychologically unhealthy and it is troubling to think that people actually tried (try?) to put them into practice. At any rate, I've come to terms with the notion that the best way to enjoy Charles Williams' novels is to overlook this fact.
September 18, 2024
I think Charles Williams is one of the best authors I know of. So many layers of symbolism and philosophy interwoven into a really exciting story.
November 30, 2025
This is the first novel Williams wrote and the second I've read from him. It didn't quite work for me, but do Williams's books truly work for anyone?
Regarding themes, it's fairly straightforward. "Shadows of Ecstasy"—pale resemblances of the true and higher realities that fulfil man's thirst for happiness. Williams develops his argument through the cast of characters: Caithness advocates for the Christian solution, Sir Bernard for reason and natural virtue, while Philip stands for the ephemeral blissfulness of the hopeless romantic, and Roger for the devotion to art. Finally, Considine is the incarnation of pagan mysticism, to some extent.
In this context, Isabel and Rosamond appear less to discuss ideas and more to embody a philosophy through their actions. Isabel is as fierce a lover to her husband as Rosamond is loved by her fiancé; they both embody the ecstasy of love, though in different ways: Isabel in its mature form, Rosamond in its inception.
It's useful to note that, in classical culture, "ecstasy" has more than one meaning: to Christian mystics, it's a supernatural operation of God in the soul; to Scholastic philosophers, ecstasy is also one of the effects of the natural act of love, by which the lover is raptured away from himself and drawn to his beloved. It can be applied to any kind of love: love of pleasure, drinking, sleeping, food, someone, poetry, and so on. People are carried away and transformed to match the things they love, for good or worse. That's why every character in this story has a passion that defines them—or a lack of passion, in Rosamond's case. Very clever, Mr. Williams.
What bothered me was pretty much everything else. Scenes are messy, transitions nonexistent. Characters over-explain their ideas instead of relying on subtext, and the monologues become too tiresome. It would be much better if there were attention to pace. The dialogue and descriptions could also be tighter. Just like his characters, Williams seemed very passionate about his work—so passionate that phrases flow in a spectacle of words and striking imagery, so much so that I felt dizzy at the end of certain paragraphs.
The more I think about it, the more I see it's mostly rhetoric. It's beautiful, of course, but it's far from the prose that makes a good novel. The best novelists prefer to say more with less; Williams likes his pasta with a lot of sauce. A lot.
Regarding themes, it's fairly straightforward. "Shadows of Ecstasy"—pale resemblances of the true and higher realities that fulfil man's thirst for happiness. Williams develops his argument through the cast of characters: Caithness advocates for the Christian solution, Sir Bernard for reason and natural virtue, while Philip stands for the ephemeral blissfulness of the hopeless romantic, and Roger for the devotion to art. Finally, Considine is the incarnation of pagan mysticism, to some extent.
In this context, Isabel and Rosamond appear less to discuss ideas and more to embody a philosophy through their actions. Isabel is as fierce a lover to her husband as Rosamond is loved by her fiancé; they both embody the ecstasy of love, though in different ways: Isabel in its mature form, Rosamond in its inception.
It's useful to note that, in classical culture, "ecstasy" has more than one meaning: to Christian mystics, it's a supernatural operation of God in the soul; to Scholastic philosophers, ecstasy is also one of the effects of the natural act of love, by which the lover is raptured away from himself and drawn to his beloved. It can be applied to any kind of love: love of pleasure, drinking, sleeping, food, someone, poetry, and so on. People are carried away and transformed to match the things they love, for good or worse. That's why every character in this story has a passion that defines them—or a lack of passion, in Rosamond's case. Very clever, Mr. Williams.
What bothered me was pretty much everything else. Scenes are messy, transitions nonexistent. Characters over-explain their ideas instead of relying on subtext, and the monologues become too tiresome. It would be much better if there were attention to pace. The dialogue and descriptions could also be tighter. Just like his characters, Williams seemed very passionate about his work—so passionate that phrases flow in a spectacle of words and striking imagery, so much so that I felt dizzy at the end of certain paragraphs.
The more I think about it, the more I see it's mostly rhetoric. It's beautiful, of course, but it's far from the prose that makes a good novel. The best novelists prefer to say more with less; Williams likes his pasta with a lot of sauce. A lot.
July 17, 2010
I love Charles Williams' books. Everyone who knows me knows this. Others may think them strange or obscure, but I find them pulsing with life and power. They remind me, in language that transcends knowing, what it is that I'd forgotten I'm looking for.
Honestly, though, I didn't know what to do with this book. Normally I like Williams' ambiguity -- I think it's part of his stories' power. I wouldn't say that I DIDN'T like it this time, only that it left me perplexed and confused, shaken and unsure.
Is Considine an antichrist or a returned messiah? Does it even matter? To some degree, it seems irrelevant to the story's point. A story that is about living in an ambiguous world, where no morality is certain, out of the necessity of your own being. Living the life you have to, in the face of the choices you can't control.
The problem with this is two-fold: 1. Is evil and goodness truly such a matter of relativity? Is physical action, such as murder, truly irrelevant if the perpetrator burns with what, for lack of other words, seems terrifying similar to the Joy of the Lord and the Glory of God? And while it's easy to thrust this back into our black and white understanding, and declare "NEVER!" what do we do with those Old Testament passages in which the prophets, and the God that they serve, seem to burn with just such joy, and act with just such a terrifying mix of innocence and violence? 2. Most of Williams books, the scholars agree, are ultimately about coinherence -- the beautiful mystery of unity. What does one do with a book, thrust in the middle of this collection, that seems to be about the necessity of living first and foremost for oneself? Of turning everything that is experienced inward, for personal power and gain? And the one antithesis to this -- Isabel who lives only for the other -- encourages her husband down its path, because it is what his soul craves. Yet if he were to succeed in his quest, it would separate him from that which makes him whole.
Who is the hero, who the villain? Who's path is righteous, who's selfish? Who makes the right choices, who the wrong? And what ending are we supposed to hope for? Williams doesn't tell us, and sometimes I wonder, does God?
Honestly, though, I didn't know what to do with this book. Normally I like Williams' ambiguity -- I think it's part of his stories' power. I wouldn't say that I DIDN'T like it this time, only that it left me perplexed and confused, shaken and unsure.
Is Considine an antichrist or a returned messiah? Does it even matter? To some degree, it seems irrelevant to the story's point. A story that is about living in an ambiguous world, where no morality is certain, out of the necessity of your own being. Living the life you have to, in the face of the choices you can't control.
The problem with this is two-fold: 1. Is evil and goodness truly such a matter of relativity? Is physical action, such as murder, truly irrelevant if the perpetrator burns with what, for lack of other words, seems terrifying similar to the Joy of the Lord and the Glory of God? And while it's easy to thrust this back into our black and white understanding, and declare "NEVER!" what do we do with those Old Testament passages in which the prophets, and the God that they serve, seem to burn with just such joy, and act with just such a terrifying mix of innocence and violence? 2. Most of Williams books, the scholars agree, are ultimately about coinherence -- the beautiful mystery of unity. What does one do with a book, thrust in the middle of this collection, that seems to be about the necessity of living first and foremost for oneself? Of turning everything that is experienced inward, for personal power and gain? And the one antithesis to this -- Isabel who lives only for the other -- encourages her husband down its path, because it is what his soul craves. Yet if he were to succeed in his quest, it would separate him from that which makes him whole.
Who is the hero, who the villain? Who's path is righteous, who's selfish? Who makes the right choices, who the wrong? And what ending are we supposed to hope for? Williams doesn't tell us, and sometimes I wonder, does God?
October 19, 2015
Staying true to his genre of mystical fantasy, William's delves once more into the show-down between good and evil. What I find fascinating about his novels is that his treatment of good and evil is never reduced to simple black-and-white divisions. The reader is often challenged to exercise his/her own discernment in deciphering the difference.
Although this novel was intriguing in its treatment of a rather bizarre effort to defeat death, I did not find this book quite as compelling as some of his others. His writing style is often difficult to follow and at some points during the book, it seemed that the effort was not always worth the reward.
Although this novel was intriguing in its treatment of a rather bizarre effort to defeat death, I did not find this book quite as compelling as some of his others. His writing style is often difficult to follow and at some points during the book, it seemed that the effort was not always worth the reward.
February 9, 2022
3.5 stars
I've never been disappointed with Charles Williams.
I've never been disappointed with Charles Williams.
January 13, 2011
My new least favorite Charles Williams book. This book is largely about an occultist ritual, really a life style that can be used to overcome death. Williams seems fascinated by it, but does not convey his fascination in such a way that the reader also becomes fascinated. I suspect it is also a tale about his friends, his fellow Inklings. Perhaps Tolkien is Roger, Lewis is Caithness and the O fellow who's name I can't remember that wrote primarily nonfiction and perhaps some poetry is Bernard. As I have only read the book through once, and not under the best conditions, and also have not done extensive bibliographical studies on the inklings I of course can not be sure, but I have my suspicions.
December 28, 2017
I was liking this book pretty well when I thought good power was coming out of Africa to confront the Western world. Then it turned out that evil power was coming out of Africa to confront the Western world. So that was a big disappointment.
However, I did like the rest of the book. In fact, disappointment aside, I'd place it in my two or three favorite Williams novels. The main characters are interesting and imperfect and misguided. The antagonist is especially interesting, a particularly good portrayal of a powerful (but not all-powerful) and dispassionate Antichrist.
However, I did like the rest of the book. In fact, disappointment aside, I'd place it in my two or three favorite Williams novels. The main characters are interesting and imperfect and misguided. The antagonist is especially interesting, a particularly good portrayal of a powerful (but not all-powerful) and dispassionate Antichrist.
July 30, 2010
Almost done reading this metaphysical thriller on the quest of immortality, achieved somewhat by Nigel Considine who has duped Roger and certain Zulu elite into following him, but Sir Bernard and Fr. Caithness are wise to his schemes. Reminds me in some ways of G. K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday and C. S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength. I had already read C. W. S. Williams' The Place of the Lion, years before with some fascination.
July 31, 2013
I found this really hard to follow in places. Basically it is the story of a man who seeks conquer the world and overcome death by some mystical lifestyle. This man, Nigel Considine, is an Anti-Christ figure. Historically interesting is the fact that the story was published prior to WWII and Hitler's world-conquering aspirations. However, I found the story hard to follow in many places where Williams describes the spirituality Considine and those who follow him.
August 16, 2014
I read a slew of Williams' novels and one history on the recommendation of a faculty friend at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Although I liked the history, Descent of the Dove, I wasn't very impressed by the novels. If I were a high church Anglican with Neo-Platonic leanings I probably would have taken them more seriously.
August 31, 2016
A fascinating, astute Anti-Christ story. I understood his point much better the second time around, because it really helped knowing where it was going. Again, Williams gave me my usual heartburn about trying to figure out whether or not he is a good author. This one is a count for him.
Also read Fall 2012
Also read Fall 2012
December 27, 2016
While the ideas are here the book struggles to work them through in coherent imagery and narrative. Many of the notions Williams is working through are highly relevant to the 21st century but the narrative is overwhelmed with verbosity. The characters rarely rise above representation. It is interesting as an early work from which he developed as a writer.
July 9, 2025
If you are new to Charles Williams, don’t start here. This one is abstract, even for Williams. Considine hasn't aged a day in more than 50 years. His secret? Well, that’s what he wants to share with the world, forcing each character to face the choice that his ideas require.
https://thatladywhoreadsalot.wordpres...
https://thatladywhoreadsalot.wordpres...
June 26, 2017
This one, his first published novel, is not his best. It starts off well enough, but towards the end there are too many long monologues explaining Considine's philosophy.
April 10, 2023
3.5 or so. Utterly mad mystical adventure yarn which has, um, more than the usual quota of 1930s attitudes, here some rather eye-watering 'dark continent' type racism...
November 16, 2025
this was the last of Williams' i read this year. i did not intend to save it for last, but that perspective helped me understand it better. it does feel like the "roughest" of the lot, if you take into account what he usually seeks to accomplish in his stories.
i read on some random blog that he re-worked it a good bit in 1932 before it was published. this does complicate my opinions; i figured it was a longshot if the manuscript just sat around for a few years before publishing, but it is such a strange story that it would be easier to have the excuse that it was just an early work.
none of Williams' other villains function like Nigel Considine does. Williams isn't scared of complicated characters, or characters that go from good to bad (or vice versa) - but Considine feels like something from a different universe. an almost immortal magician... who can almost raise the dead... who can bend others to his will, at least at times... i suppose it's *like* a lot of the magical objects the other novels are centered around (the Holy Grail, a tarot deck, the Stone of Solomon), except that it's a person.
i enjoyed the first part; i liked that the scope of the story was taking place on a global scale, i. e. the continent of Africa uniting and waging war against Europe. however, as the plot progressed i saw why other people don't recommend this one as highly. while i appreciate that he tried to write a complex African character, Inkamasi did fall a bit flat to me - and it's not a stretch at all for other readers to find Williams' depictions of African characters as pretty offensive. weird!
i read on some random blog that he re-worked it a good bit in 1932 before it was published. this does complicate my opinions; i figured it was a longshot if the manuscript just sat around for a few years before publishing, but it is such a strange story that it would be easier to have the excuse that it was just an early work.
none of Williams' other villains function like Nigel Considine does. Williams isn't scared of complicated characters, or characters that go from good to bad (or vice versa) - but Considine feels like something from a different universe. an almost immortal magician... who can almost raise the dead... who can bend others to his will, at least at times... i suppose it's *like* a lot of the magical objects the other novels are centered around (the Holy Grail, a tarot deck, the Stone of Solomon), except that it's a person.
i enjoyed the first part; i liked that the scope of the story was taking place on a global scale, i. e. the continent of Africa uniting and waging war against Europe. however, as the plot progressed i saw why other people don't recommend this one as highly. while i appreciate that he tried to write a complex African character, Inkamasi did fall a bit flat to me - and it's not a stretch at all for other readers to find Williams' depictions of African characters as pretty offensive. weird!
June 5, 2022
This book grew on me. At first I was distracted by the racist tropes of 1930s Britain and it seemed a rather shallow "emotion vs. intellect" plot. However, the relationship between the figure of the nearly-immortal adept Considine, and the poetry professor Roger who falls under his sway, becomes more complex, as does Considine's character. The book is a cautionary tale toward all with esoteric or even worldly ambitions: The human imagination must, in the end, either find something greater than itself worthy to submit to, or be corrupted. The book is also a critique of hyper-rational Western culture in the 20th century, warning that if some balance were not found with "the shadows of ecstasy," they might errupt yet again as unsavory passions, and the culture swing too far in the other direction.
March 22, 2021
While I really enjoyed the rest of Williams' novels, this one fell sort of flat. While the rest delve into strange and splendid spiritual visions, this one was sort of a bore with no redeeming philosophical maunderings to redeem it. The premise is interesting but there is no resolution, no finale, no closure, just a dead sort of end and a meaningless void of ideas with no shape or hint as to their true meaning or significance, if any.
June 7, 2025
The novel was somewhat in the sci-fi catalogue to me with the promise of a man’s ability to die and resurrect himself in the physical world. The themes of the story were varied and I look forward to reading Thomas Howard’s guide to the Williams’ novels since there were too many currents for me to draw a correct analysis of the book. It was a fascinating read and quite enjoyable, even if I am in doubt about the entire philosophy.
February 15, 2023
A man may have discovered the secret of immortality. Is it worth the price? While the debate goes on Africa revolts against European rule and takes the fight to Europe. This Williams novel is a little harder to get into. Intriguing characters. People have to face and overcome their weaknesses. May need to reread later. The ideas were that intriguing.
May 5, 2022
I will have to re-read this one because I'm not 100% on what the ending meant. I never got a feel for whether there was even, really, a 'bad' guy in this one.
William's books are always a little difficult for me to grasp completely.
William's books are always a little difficult for me to grasp completely.
Want to read
October 6, 2019😂 😂
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 5, 2023
Slow first two-thirds, heck of an ending.
June 10, 2025
I was less than ecstatic.
Read
June 10, 2025This has been the least compelling to me of Williams' 7 novels. This it took me the longest to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews