Four Sided Triangle

by William F. Temple

THE ETERNAL LOVE TRIANGLE...

This is the story of how two men and one woman reach a solution to the eternal love triangle through the use of a secret scientific device—a machine that will reproduce anything . . . or anyone!

Fame and honor come to them, and then this incredible situation turns savage. For there is no escape from the net of the four-sided love triangle . . .

Genres: Science Fiction, Fiction, Pulp

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1949

About the author

William Frederick Temple was a British science fiction writer.

Reviews

[Lindsay · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book, though the science is by now dated. Exquisite wording. A paragraph I want to remember, about the enthusiasm of youth being often overtaken by the disappointment of experience.
I got this book due to a crowd funding effort I participated in - to save out of print sci-fi books by digitizing them and making them available. This is one of the best I've seen!

[Jay Maxfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

Firstly I would like to point out to the British Library that the cover of this book is totally unrelated to the story and is misleading about the stories content - the story has nothing to do with aircraft/rockets or barren/arid land or alien worlds - a very poor choice or mistake?
This re-issue is the first novel in the new British Library Science Fiction Classics Series (there have been two short story anthologies published) - the book was originally published by John Long in 1949. This edition comes with an introduction by Mike Ashley who reading between the lines choose this book for re-issue on behalf of the British Library.
This story is based on four characters - Doctor "Doc" Harvey, Bill Leggett (the Doc's foster child) Rob Heath (Squire/Lord of the Manor's son) & Lena an unaccomplished artist and unconventional thinker. Without giving anything away the book is set in the 1940s in the village of Howdean in the south of England where Bill & Rob (who where both at Cambridge together) have used some capital provided by Rob's father to invent a replicating machine. It considers the ethics, advantages and dangers of such a device. The story is narrated by the Doc in a kind of John Watson (Sherlock Holmes) style.
Most of the novel is taken up not by sci-fi dialogue or situations but by romance, psychological study and conversations about each of the characters which is why it is 300 pages long. The book is adventurous in some areas in that it deals with nakedness, suicide and even skirts child abuse which for 1949 was brave. It has a very unconventional female role in Lena which I am sure would have made some males wince - however the author puts her in her place by the later half of the novel.
I personally wouldn't have chosen this book for re-issue as much of the book isn't about Sci-Fi topics but about the personality differences between the four main characters. The narrator is often irritating as he is unable to even predict the most obvious thing that is going to happen even though it is totally predictable from a modern day perspective.
A comment to the British Library - it would have been better to get a group of at least 6-10 Classic Sci-Fi readers to review the book before deciding to publish - as this book won't appeal to many readers (in my opinion) and may spell doom to the series before it's had chance to mature (which would be a shame) and was probably chosen by just one person who happens to enjoy William Temple's novels. The person who chose the cover obviously hasn't read the book!
I would give the book 5.5 out of 10 as it does try to brake out of the female stereotype of the time and covers issues that would have been consider extremely modern/unconventional at the end of the 1940s.

[Katia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two mad scientists fall in love with the same girl and decide it’s a great idea to duplicate her using a type of cloning machine called ‘The Reproducer.’

Oh no! The girl wakes up madly in love with the same one the original was in love with.

Definitely dated although I’m not going to hold that against Temple given that it was the 40s. Honestly I’d say he was probably quite progressive in terms of the general view of women in society - as the main female character was frankly badass, independent, strong, smart and, well, a great three-dimensional character.

The story is cheap though to an extent. It’s classed as sci-fi but it’s light on the science and heavy on the romance and….ethics? Temple clearly indulged in airing his thoughts on these pages. The whole thought process behind each action was idiotic. And I have a hard time believing any man can lead two women to such measures. But here we are.

Not bad. I was mostly interested. But I’d say that I was only mildly amused. It was with pleasant surprise that I came across a few profound passages but I’m not the sort to go sifting for gold in the sand.

[Rob Hopwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four-Sided Triangle by William F. Temple

This full-length science fiction story was published in 1949. A glance at Wikipedia (or Mike Ashley’s introduction to the British Library Science Fiction Classics version) will reveal that there is quite an interesting background to the writing of this book, and that the author lost the unfinished manuscript twice while serving in North Africa and Italy during the Second World War.

In general, Temple seems to have been more successful with short stories than with novels, but although as a young man he knew other science fiction fans and writers, most notably Arthur C. Clark, he never achieved the fame of the latter. I think that prior to its republication by British Library Science Fiction Classics, this particular book had become largely forgotten.

Four-Sided Triangle is a well-written novel with a convincingly human narrator. It definitely has a firm science fiction basis (albeit not one of the hard science fiction genre), and is as much an analysis of character and interpersonal dynamics as it is a fantastic tale.

The story centers around the invention of a “reproducer” or matter replicator, and the difficulties (ethical and otherwise) which arise when it is used to reproduce living beings complete with the memories of their lives up to the point when they were copied. Thus, the tale is not about cloning, but about something else entirely. The narrative concentrates on how the device affects a group of five people, but only briefly touches on wider ramifications that could have produced a completely different story.

The narrator (a sixty-year-old unmarried doctor) also frequently ponders on philosophical questions such as determinism and free will. I think that the author may have chosen to employ a bachelor as his storyteller partly because such a person may be more likely to retain certain romantic notions that the average middle-aged person who is married may have been disabused of long ago. One of the ideas central to the unsolvable conundrum of the book is that someone could be so in love with a partner after only a relatively short time together that they could not possibly live without that person, as though there is only one individual in the whole world who could fulfil the role of soulmate. I assume that most people who have reached the age of around fifty have become too realistic and cynical to give any credence to this way of thinking, even if they were inclined to do so when they were younger and more naive. And while the principal female protagonist is pretty progressive for the time when the book was written, the gender roles are of course largely presented in the traditional vein, which may grate on some modern readers, although it should be born in mind that part of the fascination of reading works from decades ago is the contemporary thought they reflect through their pages.

I felt that the novel starts out really well, is a little slow in the middle, and then recaptures its brilliance later on, especially when a completely unexpected “double twist” in the tail draws the loose ends together and provides a satisfying finale. The ending also ensures that no answers are provided to the philosophical questions which are raised throughout the book.
It is certainly a unique story, and was a worthwhile read.

Below are some quotations from Four-Sided Triangle which are representative of the writing style and content:

Oh, this incurable English habit of pretending to treat as a joke the strange and the new, whether idea or fact; and the more important the subject the lighter the treatment! No doubt a laugh is better than a bawl of rage and fear prophesying calamity and downfall, but it is no more helpful a reception, and lord knows how much genuine inspiration has wilted, withered and died under gentle but wearing Anglo-Saxon laughter. There is one thing forgivable about it: it is just as often disarmingly self-deprecating, if no more reasonable.

I have often noticed that in significant, historical and therefore presumably serious events, some incongruous factor generally pops up and twists things away towards the ludicrous. Hamlet, after the performance of the year, has fallen dead, but in that death holds the audience in an iron grip—and the theatre cat strolls up and licks his face.

It is said that alcohol affects people in different ways. It does not. It merely releases their inhibitions, and they blossom forth into a queer imitation of the sort of person they secretly wish to be.

Heaven lies about us in our infancy not solely because of our clinging trails of glory, nor because of the novelties we encounter here, but because of the possibilities of things yet to be discovered and explored, and the eager, excited anticipation of the imagination. The dullness of maturity only thickens upon us after a long succession of disappointments.

“It’s not really a tragedy,” I said. “One must accept these things. There’s a lot of compensation in being able to appreciate beauty—it isn’t necessary to create it.”

“There is no meaning,” she said dreamily. “Life has no meaning. It is only an experience, like a beautiful view or the scent of a flower. All you can do is try to transmute the experience through art, change it into a form of expression, so that feelings may be recorded and felt again. But it’s awfully hard to do. It’s the hardest thing in the world. That’s why I like to try to do it.”

“Atomic physics has passed beyond simple analogies or working models of the Kelvin kind. One is just at a loss trying to think of any material conditions adequate to represent states that can only be conceived mathematically.”

Everybody respects a man who is consistent. You know where you are with him. He is a unit. He is all of a piece. I am all pieces and they are all over the place. “And yet, you know, I get glimpses. Glimpses of a reality more fundamental than anything Rob even suspects…”

And rage that humanity had to be tormented through its feelings in this way. Why did nature take such a clumsy, tortuous path to gain her ends? Why must birth and growth always be a friction and a suffering?

“My dear Doc, let us get ourselves straight about this. Knowledge as such, little or great, is not a dangerous thing. It is the unscientific education of the public and politicians who may mishandle it that is dangerous.” “The point is,” I said, “that it’s not wise to bring razors into a house containing too many imbeciles.” “Is it wrong to invent razors, then? Are all men to be cursed with filthy beards because some fools will not learn to use an instrument for its proper purpose?”

“But that raises a point. Could these imitation human beings be said to have souls of their own? The problem of Frankenstein’s monster or Rossum’s Universal Robots in fact.” “You know my views on that, Doc. I don’t believe in individual immortal souls. If anything survives, it is the larger soul of mankind. We are drops in an ocean, mingling and intermingling—our individuality is as transitory as spray.

It is so easy to be sentimental when one is sad. It is so easy to be sad when one broods upon the past beyond regain.

I began to perceive that my bachelorhood had been a mistake, and an irretrievable one now. Divested of the work that had blinkered me, I saw now the cold and empty spaces that stretched about me, bridgeless, linkless, the gulfs between our private lives, the loneliness of each little fearful or vain and self-absorbed ego. What time had people for those who could serve no personal use for them—not heal nor instruct them, give them material or monetary gain, nor yet love them or flatter them in more blatant ways?

“I was a child and she was a child In that kingdom by the sea…” I had accepted now that what I had missed in life was gone for ever. Yet there remained the ghost-memory of a pang…

His darting intelligence was too aerial to descend often into the slow courses of wisdom.

For, you see, we’re that improvident type of person who can’t be bothered to wonder how we’ll react to any change. We think of a thing only when we get to it. We’re not so very good at putting ourselves mentally in other people’s places, and less good at foreseeing our own mental states.

She—do you know what William James said of his wife? He said, ‘She saved me from my Zerrissenheit’—that is, literally, ‘torn-to-pieces-ness’—‘and gave me back to myself all in one piece.’ That’s what Dot has done for me. I couldn’t do without her for any length of time.”

Intuition’s the thing—to be roughly right. All the sages of all the ages have striven by reason to disprove either Determinism in favour of Free Will, or vice versa. And still neither is disproved. Intuition tells me, therefore, that there is truth in both, both exist,

….everything can be resolved into the opposing forces of positive and negative. Resistance and non-resistance. Plan and laissez-faire. Ambition and apathy. Or, if you wish, Free Will and Determinism.”

Circumstances always seem to be forcing people to hurt one another against their wills. Sometimes I think we’re all caught up in a mad machine.”

What sort of life was this, that such things could happen to decent, well-meaning people? Even the most heartless man would recoil from tormenting animals so long and so devilishly ingeniously as this. “God is love,” I thought with bitterness. And again, “God helps those who help themselves.” Help ourselves!

All man’s virtues stand in doubt at some time or other, except courage. Love might be a payment for returned love. Humour might be an escape from, a way of laughing off, responsibility. Generosity might be a bid for a reward in heaven, quid pro quo. Humility and resignation could be weakness. But courage stood like a rock, and no cynicism could shake it.

“I suppose it’s no use trying now to explain again how over-conscientiousness can lead to evil,” I said.

Words, words, words! Intellectual distinctions are just meaningless to a man who cannot help thinking with his emotions.

When we get old we seek the company of youth, to get again that precious taste of optimism, gaiety, freshness of outlook, and hope.

Very distant, but very clear, Bill’s voice came through the nerve-tearing clamour of the machine, speaking Cassius’s line: “Men at some time are masters of their fates…”

[Two Envelopes And A Phone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhere, sometime, maybe over and over again:

Bookworm #1: “What trope are you most sick of? Amnesia?”

Bookworm #2: “Twins.”

I rate Four-Sided Triangle at 4.5 stars, and choose to round down to 4 stars. I almost always round up to 5, in such cases…but there are a few “didn’t age well” blemishes I’m going to penalize this time, not absolve, even while still in the afterglow of this wonderful book.

So much to unpack here, if one is unpack-minded. Me, I’m not going to try and parse out deep meaning in the identity, and free-will-versus-determinism, themes that are on offer in Temple’s book. I just know when I had fun with a great idea fleshed out into a cracker of a story. The near-ending is a bit wobbly, threatening to undo all that has preceded it - even before that, as many LUDICROUS as BRILLIANT lights were going off, constantly, in my head (and somehow that made the book more delightful, a unicorn) - but the actual ending rallies big-time. Fun story, to my mind, triumphs over “you’re not really going to try and take this too seriously, are you!?”.

Four-Sided Triangle…as in duplicating a human being to fix a regular, three’s-a-crowd “triangle” of romantic relationships. Of course that makes a mess of a mess. More quick fixes and bright scientific ideas make things even worse…

The premise of this book at first made me brace for a Thorne Smith comedy…an impending problem, since I don’t like Thorne Smith’s stuff. Luckily, this is like taking one of Thorne Smith’s wish-comes true-with-crazy-consequences Fantasies, removing eight of the ten cringe-worthy “have not aged well” scenes, throwing in some gizmos and atoms-can-whatnow? chatter to change it from Fantasy into Science Fiction, and slowly, quietly siphoning off more and more of the cutesy smart-alecky Thorne-y dialogue, and deciding it’s all supposed to be more like David Cronenberg’s The Fly, than Topper or Turnabout.

“Stop experimenting with her…and her…you’re just making things worse!”

Some books I love go like this: “I did not know this story existed. But now that I found out about it and read it, it seems impossible that someone would NOT think this up.”. This is not a clone of all the cloned SF novels we have today about clones, but it’s from the same literary lab, when it comes to replicating thoughts on individuality, predisposition, uniqueness, soul or no soul, and knowing oneself beyond one’s own one head. And, the six times the book’s twists threaten to flush its deeper significance down the toilet, sure, one of those times might make you say “that flush flushed it for good…but it’s all still so much fun!”. That’s what happened to me. And then the last few pages made me say “ah! the deep meaning’s coming back up for a second, even overflowing just a little bit. that’s nice…”.

[Baswood · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had this science fiction novel on my 1951 to read list, but it was actually published in book form in 1949, no matter it proved to be an entertaining read. This was Temple's first novel worked up from his short story, which appeared some ten years earlier. Terence Fisher directed a film version for Hammer Film Productions some two years later.

The story is told in the first person by Dr. Harvey who takes care of an extremely intelligent boy (Bill Leggat) who comes from an abusive family. Bill becomes something of a scientific prodigy and after meeting Robin Grant at University the two men work together to produce a successful duplicating machine. Along the way they have employed the beautiful free spirited Barbara and the team form the three sides of the triangle. Both men fall in love with Barbara, but she chooses Robin as her partner, but there is the duplicating machine standing by and it is pressed into action.

This novels strengths are not so much the science fiction, but some very good characterisation and a plot that kept me reading until the denouement. William F Temple captures small town England well and the class system that pervades everything. Robin comes from a rich family and is the natural winner in the contest for the love of Barbara, but his adherence to the culture in which he was raised always threatens to blow the relationships apart:

"They were so certain of their ideas of right and wrong, these people. They could be coldly logical in practical things, yet hopelessly illogical in things that touched their emotional springs. They would be aghast at the moral wrongness of using poison gas in warfare, but if the enemy used it just once they would with a burning sense of righteousness, drench him and his family with it, with interest......"

It is the moral issues that dominate this book, they to a large extent drive the plot. The science and the choices made by the protagonists are in the realms of fiction, but the moral issues that they face are not and this is where I think the novel succeeds. It does show signs of being padded out from a short story. Temple includes some scientific theory, along with some literary references and I wondered how much of this was featured in the original short story. This is a good, well written science fiction yarn and so 4 stars

[Skjam! · Rating 3 out of 5]

Suppose for a moment that you had access to a device that would create an exact duplicate of any object placed inside. What would you do with it? Solve world hunger? Commit massive art fraud? Resolve your sexual attraction to your best friend’s wife? Yeah, that last one is the possibility we’re exploring here.

This 1949 novel is narrated by Dr. Harvey, one of the last old-fashioned country doctors in the village of Howdean. He’s very specifically not possessed of a full scientific education, and would never pass muster in today’s technically-oriented medical profession (indeed, he’s already having trouble keeping up when he’s in his forties!) But he is bright enough to realize that young Bill Leggett is a child prodigy.

Dr. Harvey acts as a mentor to the young genius as much as he can, and when Bill’s abusive and alcoholic father dies, gets himself appointed Bill’s guardian. He sponsors Bill’s further education, and secures the lad a scholarship to Cambridge. At university, Bill meets and becomes friends with Robin Heath, who as it turns out is the son of the lord of the shire Howdean is located in. Robin is much more conventional in his thinking than Bill, and not nearly as brilliant, but is a good steady problem-solver who complements Bill’s impatience well.

With a loan from Rob’s father, the two young men start a research laboratory (“the Dump”) together on the outskirts of Howdean. While they are pursuing their esoteric goals, Dr. Harvey is called upon to aid a young woman who’s taken a drug overdose. This is Lena, a beautiful (of course) lass with an artistic bent, a fervor for creation, and no noticeable artistic or musical spark. She can play other people’s compositions competently, and is good at art and color theory, but whenever she tries to create something new, the result is a fiasco. Thus her attempt at suicide.

Dr. Harvey realizes that Lena needs a completely new endeavor to distract her from fatalistic thoughts, and convinces Bill and Rob to take her on as a sort of housekeeper and general assistant. This works swimmingly. The young men both take a fancy to Lena, Bill’s soaring imagination and Rob’s common sense working together to restore her love of life, and her bright spirit (and a spot of much-needed cash) allowing the Reproducer to become functional.

Things go well for a while, with the Reproducer bringing the young scientists renown and steady paychecks. Dr. Harvey’s share of the enterprise even allows him to take early retirement from active medical practice. But just as Bill is ready to propose to Lena, Lena proposes to Rob, and the latter two get married.

Bill does not take this well, but he has a plan. He’s been working on a way to allow the Reproducer to duplicate living beings. If there were another Lena, then she could marry him and everything would be hunky-dory! Yeah. The obvious objections are raised, but the somewhat selfless Lena becomes convinced that her feelings of friendship for Bill could deepen into love given time.

So it is that a second Lena is created, named Dorothy, and marries Bill. Unfortunately, it turns out that Dorothy is too identical to Lena, and is unable to turn off her love for Rob, the man she remembers as her husband. She cares deeply for Bill, but the stress of pretending to love him is driving her to despair.

In a twist of fate, Bill blows himself and the Reproducer up with an attempt at creating a nuclear power plant, being just a little too impatient for Rob to return with a safety device. This leaves Dorothy free to reveal her true feelings, and Lena wants to share Rob with her as they have identical emotions. Unfortunately, Rob is very conventional when it comes to monogamy, and nixes the idea.

Sometime later, there is another accident, leaving one of the women dead and the other amnesiac, but which is which? Rob cannot love Dorothy, no matter how identical to Lena she might be. Dr. Harvey discovers a clue in Bill’s papers that should allow them to settle the matter one way or the other….

The good: Since the plot depends heavily on the personalities of the people involved, the characterization is much more in-depth than was common for science fiction novels of the time. The author makes it believable that the characters make decisions believing they will make things better, but instead make them worse.

Bill, as a survivor of childhood abuse, physical, emotional and (all but said outright) sexual, has difficulties forming normal social relationships. When he finds the one woman he wants to be with forever unavailable, it is unimaginable to him to find another love. This one was so hard to work up to! His impatience and willingness to overlook important social cues also play a large part in the tragedy.

Lena had a stage as a feral child, and has learned to make her own decisions, hide her feelings, and not ask for nor expect help. But she’s also very tender-hearted towards others, and willing to make any sacrifice for those she loves. Ditto for Dot.

Rob is very much the conventional English gentleman, which is great as long as there are conventional English gentleman things that need doing. He’s reliable and steady, and good husband material. But if there’s an ethical dilemma where his code of honor gives contradictory results, or it’s an unprecedented situation, Rob is at a total loss.

Dr. Harvey’s lack of science smarts means that the author can get away with never having to fully explain how the Reproducer actually works; just describing the end product, without having to worry about plausibility.

Not so good: Period sexism–it’s mentioned more than once that women just aren’t interested in science (always excepting Madame Curie), and Dr. Harvey believes that Lena’s creative impulse would be best put to use in making a family (i.e. children) and she comes to believe the same.

Also, some science fiction cliches: There’s only ever one Reproducer; Bill and Rob never patent it nor do they seem to publish any work explaining the principles behind it–one part is even revealed after the fact to be a “black box” that Bill installed without telling Rob how it worked or how to fix it. Yet they are able to make a decent living from renting out the use of the Reproducer without anyone trying to steal their work or having the government confiscate it or demand proof of concept.

And some readers are just not going to like the ending, telling you now.

Still, if tragic romance with a science fiction twist is your thing, I think this one is well worth seeking out.

The edition I read was the 1951 Galaxy Science Fiction reprint, which was done using the same presses as their monthly magazine. It’s unabridged, so has small type to fit it in the available page count, and the cover is glossy but flimsy. You might be able to find a paperback edition in better shape.

The novel was also turned into a 1953 movie by Hammer Studios, a precursor to the full-fledged horror films they were soon to move into. It simplified the ending somewhat, making it less ambiguous.

[Andrea Bampi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Leggere un Urania originale del 1953 è sempre una bella esperienza. Sarebbe però assurdo negare che il piacere deriva per lo più da ragioni del tutto indipendenti dal valore intrinseco del romanzo - sono veramente pochissime le opere di SF pubblicate tra la fine degli anni '40 e l'inizio dei '50 che sono sopravvissute in condizioni dignitose al trascorrere del tempo.
E questo libro, considerato il "capolavoro" di Temple, non rientra sicuramente nel novero.
Non posso dire di esserne sorpreso - Temple è "noto" soprattutto per essere stato coinquilino di Arthur Clarke negli anni precedenti la Seconda Guerra Mondiale. Senza aver carpito granchè dal ben più celebre amico e collega...
"Il triangolo quadrilatero", trasposto con un certo successo in pellicola proprio nel 1953, è un classico esempio di SF di Serie B della Golden Age. Premesse scientifiche totalmente strampalate e situazioni forzatamente melodrammatiche, sorrette da una baldanzosa pomposità nel linguaggio. Nel caso specifico, con un pizzico di Mary Shelley e una certa voglia di scandalizzare il lettore. Temple non era uno scienziato, ma solo un appassionato di SF; di chiara formazione classica, con una certa eleganza espressiva - ma fondamentalmente un dilettante.
Faccio veramente fatica a credere che all'epoca qualcuno possa averlo preso sul serio, ma temo sia accaduto. Beati lettori della Golden Age, di bocca molto buona. Oggi il senso di un romanzo come questo sta esclusivamente nella curiosità collezionistica - non c'è alcuna altra valida ragione per perdere ore nella lettura. Spendete meglio il vostro tempo...

[Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I listened to this book, although the audio version isn't here on Goodreads.

I own 3 different editions of this book, and the premise has always intrigued me. Finally, I got around to it, and it was disappointing. The hole in the book is that no character at any time thinks outside the bounds of traditional marriage. There's not mention of borrowing, sharing, or cohabitation. The characters may reject these ideas as part of their make-up, but as each is written as a creative genius, it makes no sense none of these ideas get put on the page, even if it for a moment before rejection. A few sentences saying, "I can't share," or "I'd never think of going outside the traditional boundaries," are necessary to make the story work, and they are missing.

[Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a quirky but compelling piece of early science fiction. The problems of human identity that it brings up are certainly interesting, but it is hard not to be distracted by the slightly tawdry male fantasy that structures the novel, even if the events of the book seem to draw attention to the fantasy's status as a fantasy. Temple's choice of narrator (an aging doctor who pretends to be detached from the events taking place) is an interesting one, and the seeming inevitability of the story's events make it easy to keep reading. I recommend this as a good, worthwhile example of early science fiction. I'm glad that the British Library is making these works more accessible.

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Impossible to suspend disbelief for a moment.

Even putting aside the preposterous science, nothing that happened in this book could possibly have happened from a human perspective. These boffins create a matter duplicator and nobody shows an interest? They make a living duplicating museum pieces and nobody even looks their way?

The characters are impossible, the action is impossible, and the emotional incontinence is impossible. Even for 1949.

Utter codswallop, balderdash and poppycock.

[Jonathan Waugh · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book took me more than a year (perhaps more than two) to finish, reading a bit at a time. I wouldn't say it was a badly-written book. It has some decent characters, and prose. However, I felt it was over-long for the plot at 300 pages - it would have been better at a snappy 180. The other major downside (spoiler here) is that the plot turns on an event which surprises all of the major characters but was - at least for me - the obvious problem for the course of action they planned to take. All in all I think two stars is fair.

[Tricia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just love older sci fi stories (this one was first published in 1949). This one had more actual story to it than I expected, but I surprisingly still liked it. I really really liked the writing - there was a lot of witty old timey banter but also plenty of insightful remarks. This is the first time I've ever used those sticky note book flag things and I marked around 50 places in this book, which I do not expect will be my norm with most books.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic science fiction story in the true sense, rather than science fantasy. The cover picture has nothing to do with the story, the story is a little HG Wells esk, social, science and relationships. The book is well written, good prose and proper English. If you enjoy reading real science fiction then you will enjoy this book.

[Michael Ritchie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, clever and unusual. Although has one of the most accidentally hysterical final paragraphs in literature...

[Alessio bozza · Rating 2 out of 5]

a book that pays its years and that speaks more about ethics than science fiction

[Leonardo Ferrando · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve read better books. I wasn’t gripped as I have been with others. That said, the characters are amicable and the writer does well to bond us with them.

[Victoria Gibbs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great story. Weird ending.

[Graeme · Rating 2 out of 5]

Light on the sci-fi, more of a love triangle, and vergeing on a dull one at that.

[William Wehrmacher · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book in High school, one of the two books I read in High school. I quite liked it. With 53 years of hindsight, I wonder why I didn't read more of them.

I decided to re-read Four-Sided Triangle as part of a Christmas gift from my younger daughter; to read one book per week. While I remember I read the book and recall it interested me in high school, I found it to be a vastly different read now 55 years later.

I did recall that there were problems when the copy of "the girl," I had completely forgotten how much of the book in invested in philosophical and moral debates, as well as a heaping helping of physicist's name droppings.

I think I might suggest that this book is all about the law of unintended circumstances. Everyone in the story burdens themselves to minimize the difficulty and sorrow of everyone else, resulting is as an unhappy set of people as I have every read.

I found the book very interesting. The three star rating I gave Four-Sided Triangle as 50 year plus recollection is still pretty accurate; my expectations for book content has increased.

I think I can recommend this book. It is a quick read and remains compelling.

Should anyone read this book and this review, feel free to message me. I would love to chat about it.

[Karmakosmik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un romanzo alquanto particolare questo "Il Triangolo Equilatero" ad opera dello sconosciuto, almeno per me, W. F. Temple. Pur prendendo spunto dalle scoperte scientifiche dell'epoca, Temple crea questo strano conflitto amoroso tra due promettenti scienziati, Bill (turbolente ma geniale) e Rob (calmo e riflessivo), e descritto dal padrino\tutor di Bill, e l'intrigante Lena. Al fine di non rompere l'armonia tra i tre, Lena accetta di farsi clonare, con lo straordinario strumento di riproduzione ideato da Bill. Purtroppo, il risultato ottenuto porta a dei risultati non previsti dal razionale Rob e lo stesso padrino...Questa è in sintesa la storia, ma che con la "nascita"\riproduzione di Dot prende una piega molto riflessiva ed intimista. Temple eccede forse nel rappresentare i due vertici del triangolo in maniera troppo rigida, ma il risultato finale è decisamente interessante e degno di riflessione. Anche lo stesso happy ending, non è così scontato come si potrebbe pensare per un romanzo dell'epoca. Libro da ripescare...

[Maria Beltrami · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il filo conduttore è lo stesso di Frankenstein, la creazione della vita, e il rapporto tra il creatore e la creatura, solo che in questo caso l'ingrediente fondamentale non è l'istintivo orrore che Frankenstein prova per la sua creatura bastarda, ma l'amore non ricambiato per una bella fanciulla, che viene così duplicata.
Il retroscena è fantascientifico, e così ci sarà un finale col botto, da quale non si sa chi sopravviverà tra l'originale e il duplicato. Ma in fin dei conti che importa, quando c'è l'amore?
Un bel libro di piacevole lettura, deturpato da orrori di traduzione

[Etabeta67 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ho letto questo libro inizialmente con dubbio, amo le avventure spaziali le grandi storie di frontiere fantascientifiche, ma procedendo l'ho amato sempre di più: l'idea di partenza è elementare e banale ma poi i colpi di scena, l'incredibile qualità dell'introspezione dei personaggi in particolare del narratore e l'incredibile storia d'amore mi hanno intrigato e fatto amare il libro.
consigliato caldamente

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perfect Sci Fi pulp.