The Fata Morgana

by Leo Frankowski

Ancient tales of European Man, recorded by pious monks, tell of the Western Isles, from whence King Arthur's father was said to have come. Ancient and medieval maps show them off the Western Coast of France. Irish records refer to floating islands drifting past the Emerald Isle. Modern sailors sometimes sight great, many tiered cities near the ocean's horizon, but they are rarely believed. It is easier for modern man to believe in an optical illusion, the Fata Morgana. And then two modern, hardheaded engineers found the Western Islands....

Genres: Science Fiction, Fantasy

320 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

Reviews

[liirogue · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a piece of shit. It started out promising, I thought - I enjoyed what appeared to be a quirky writing style and interesting main character. Don't be fooled by these first pages, however. The writing quickly turns into hackneyed schlock. The plot becomes a teenage boy's wet dream (literally - the main character remarks on how low-cut one female character's dress is, and revels in the fact that it even shows the tops of her nipples). The plot is constantly interrupted to the author can go on misogynistic, racist, or anti religious tirades.

The plot was unbelievable, so much so that I got the feeling the author was trying to see just how much bullshit he could get away with shoveling onto paper.

[Annette · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two engineers stumble upon the mythical Fata Morgana - the mysteriously appearing and disappearing Western Islands - while on a year-long cruise on their concrete yacht. Much hilarity, not to mention culture shock, ensues. Will any of them survive the encounter?
I thoroughly enjoyed it. As always, I am amused by and usually even appreciative of Frankowski's highly non-PC observations on everything from women to business, government to religion. It's not a demanding or "heavy" book, but a good diverting read none the less.

[Angelo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is about two engineeres, one of whom is the first-person narrator. After a rather long, although not boring, exposition, the two engineeres ship-wreck on a floating (as in: moving about on currents) island. On the island, they find a community of ~12000 people, living in a feudal christian society. The community existed since BC times (IIRC) and has had no contact with the outside world for ~1000 years (apart from the occasional ship or plane chrash survivors).

The book concerns itself with the island's unique social structure and technology, and how these are influenced by the special situation and environmental conditions the islanders find themselves in. The author describes the parallelities and differences of the islanders' culture to western society, mostly from the perspective of the main protagonist. The dynamics between secular government, religious institutions and science are also within the scope of the book, as well as the relation between "magic" and science.

While the book is not thrilling or exciting for the most part, I have found it very interesting. The culture and technology of the islanders, altough fictional, is plausible and well explained. I have found the exploration of how culture and technology are influenced by the requirements of a people's environment to be the distinctive feature of the book.

Most reviews here argue that the author uses the book to dictate his own views on the world to the reader, often in a very "my-opinion-is-correct-and-your's-is-wrong" sort of way. While such passages exist (which I, too, found irritating), it should be noted that because the book is written in the first person, any of the described trains of thought reflect views of the narrator/protagonist, and can only indirectly be said to reflect the opinion the author, which I think is the wrong interpretation here (see spoiler).


The main character often argues that all opinions, views, thoughts and actions of a person are caused by that persons perception of the world and are thus only sensible/valid within this persons personal "bubble". He observes that people often build walls within their minds and refuse to think about (or even to acknowledge) certain issues, so to keep their own personal views (seemingly) consistent with the world.

On the very last pages of the book, the protagonist learns that this also applies to himself.

I think that the often criticised "opinion-passages" are a means of emphasising this point, as they identify the protagonist as a very opinionated character, who is in the end confronted with his own hippocricy, when he comes to realise that he is not better suited to analyse and evaluate the world than others.


My major point of critique on this novel is that the author often resort to simply explaining many of the aspects of the island's society (in the form of an explanation by a character in the book or the narrator himself), instead of showing the the island and having the reader figure it out (See: Show, don't tell). This may be appropriate, as it is only a short book, but then again, maybe it should have been longer.

[Robert Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book starts with an interesting slate of characters and a worthwhile conceit-the Western Islands described and mapped in the days of early Europe really existed, and still do. I won't go into a lot of detail how that works out. Anyway our hero, suffering a crippling depression and accompanied by his hyper competent engineer friend end up sailing there. Politics and hijinks ensue and the book ends with a fairly satisfying conclusion.

So, why only 3 stars? Because the philosophical leanings of the author range from the cringeworthy to the truly despicable:
1. Hard libertarianism-the hero believes the government only exists to steal from the hardworking producers of capital. And when they're not stealing your money they're trying to manipulate and kill you.
2. Eugenics-c'mon, this is SO played out several generations ago. Regression to the mean means that eugenics results in lesser achievement rather than the impressive performance of "sports" that arise from unlikely backgrounds. Even if it's in the interests of population control, sterilizing or killing the inadequate is a really bad look.
3. Relatively unchallenged and pretty hard atheism. I get it, you can make your hero say anything you like, but he's a hard atheist to the point of being boorish about it-I can get that on Facebook, I don't need a book to try and force feed it to me.
4. The "people" of the book have the moral sense of alley cats. I could put up with it with Heinlein because he was a towering genius of ideas and great writing. This guy? Not so much.

So, if you're a fan of Ayn Rand and want some sci fi? Worth a read. If you enjoy being morally outraged? worth trying. Want a fun, escapist bit of modern swords and biology? Probably give it a pass.

[John Love IV · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, government is a con game and teachers are the indoctrinaters. In fact, they might have come up with the whole scheme to protect those cushy jobs.

What a moron. Frankowski isn't a Libertarian, he's a conspiracy nut. I could live with that if he didn't spend 1/3 of his book droning on and on about it these plots by stupid people to control all the other stupid people and how only he, through his main character, is smart enough to see that. Of course, how these stupid people keep it secret and going..... Maybe that's in another book.

Now, you might think by how this opened that I didn't like the book. That would be wrong. When he wasn't spouting his political beliefs, it was a fun, light hearted romp like the adventure books, John Carter of Mars, and such. Not quite as good but fun. Sexist, in a turn of the century way, but not horrible. (Ok, not to me anyway but I'm a guy so...)

If you can skim over the political crap, this might be a fun book. That's what I plan to do with his other stuff.

[Rom Lokken · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you assume this was written in 1950 you may be able to forgive the sexist tone, simplistic (and idiotic) libertarian ranting and absurd development that goes nowhere. Which is why you should remember it was written in 1999. A great premise utterly ruined by characters Ayn Rand would be ashamed to write. Not recommended.

[Joe · Rating 1 out of 5]

The initial premise seemed interesting, but the book quickly devolved into a series of rants on religion, politics, racism, sexual preference, etc.

[Juan Gallardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libertarian, rational and great if you love the works of Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand or L. Neil Smith!

[William Cali · Rating 1 out of 5]

Interesting story, the author spends about half the book preaching his anti-government, anti-Christianity, anti-women ideology that is really completely out of place among the plot.

[Angela · Rating 1 out of 5]

Interesting concept, but terrible book.