With stories like "Ferryman" (Eric Brown), "The White Stuff" (Peter F. Hamilton & Graham Joyce), and "A Night on Bare Mountain" (Graham Charnock), anthologies don't get any better than this. My only quibble is with the experimental narrative "Thirteen Views of a Cardboard City"(William Gibson) which rounds out the volume with a whimper, not a bang. Otherwise, this is Hugo & Nebula territory.

Originally, Lady into Fox and A Man in the Zoo were two titles--two independent short novels. Lady into Fox appeared in 1922, followed by A Man in the Zoo in 1924. The edition listed here is clearly for a book that combines the two, but at least one previous review is written in such a way as to suggest that the reviewer in question only had access to Lady into Fox.

I come from the other direction; I have only read A Man in the Zoo. I suppose my comments on that short novel will cause what is known as equilibrium.

After a young fellow is made to feel rather beastly by his bride-to-be, he spirals into self-pity and disillusionment, and has himself checked into a Zoo, as an exhibit. He turns out to be very popular with visitors, and insists on staying for life, despite his disgusted girlfriend's demands that he stop such nonsense, and despite a jealous, hostile orangutan for a nextdoor neighbour.

The main problem with the book--despite a delightful premise--is that not much really happens. The man is allowed out at night. The man argues and sulks when his girlfriend is around, with crowds watching. The man is given a pet to look after. The man gets too close to the orangutan's cage and pays for it. The man gets another man--a black man--as a new neighbour, when the Zoo decides to start displaying men of all races. And other than that, it's a pretty quiet Zoo.

I suppose all of this is some kind of comment on self-inflicted purgatories. Or maybe it says something about the nonsensical aspects of romance. Or the message is that if we allow them, people will find entertainment in our sorrows. Anyway, the book is interesting for its assertion that man is another form of ape, and can fit in splendidly with all the other apes--no doubt a controversial point to make back in 1924. But the book also features a most unacceptable word when refering to the black man, so it's not that ahead of its time.

A short, eccentric oddity that goes nowhere with a nifty premise. It sounds like Lady into Fox may be the choice item of the duo. Hopefully I'll get to add comments on it in the future.

"Lady into Fox" resembles Kafka's more famous "Metamorphosis" in that both begin with the inexplicable fact that a person is transformed into an animal, whereupon the narrative proceeds in a perfectly realistic fashion from there. In this case, a man's wife suddenly becomes a fox, and we follow the man's doomed efforts to conceal her from dogs and people, to keep her living a human-like existence, and to carry on as best he can. There a moments of odd humor in so strangely premised a tale, but overall it is fairly sad and really touching. A few readers may find the ending unsatisfying, but I think it works well enough,and even suggests a moment from Greek Mythology. This is a short novel that can be read at a sitting or two, and one that may haunt your dreams.

After I had finished college I looked my English Lit book for recommended reading, and saw this book listed. I read it on July 30, 1950, (started and finished it in one day) and have never forgotten it. Poignant and sad. If you have not read it, do. It is a memorable book.

Yes, as you can probably tell, I found this book a little weird. I just thought I would warn anyone who was thinking of buying it, since it seems I am the only one in all of Amazon .com who has bought it. (Oh, and by the way, because of the weirdness factor, any strictly religious people might want to change their minds and spend their money on something a little more wholesome.)

I think I can safely assume that anyone who wants to buy this book is doing so because he/she is a fan the wonderful-but-obscure musical. Well, in that case you won't be disappointed. The musical follows the book almost verbatim. The only real changes are that Alex Dillingham is now Alexis Golightly, George is a baronet, and Guilietta is...I forget what her name is in here. Anyway. I won't bore you with a plot summary, since you've probably seen the play if you're here.

It is pretty well written, vividly portaying the characters' emotions. Your heart will break right along with Alexis'. (Poor guy. He's such a mess.) But I wouldn't recommend this book for Rose fans. She is depicted as a cold and heartless...well, I won't say that word, just in case the religious people are still reading, but you get the picture. So, in short, if you can get around the occasional weirdness and the many love-polygons, then this is the book for you.

Oh, so this novel was supposed to be funny. Well let me tell you, I read this while I was waiting for a flight out of Chicago O'Hare and I would have to say that this novel was roughly as amusing as the random search and pat down I got to go through before boarding the plane. David Garnett is trying to be Terry Pratchett or perhaps Harry Harrison. Unfortunately writing science fiction is hard and writing funny science fiction is even harder. This book is a pointless waste of money. One of the cover blurbs on the book says that "A billion monkeys working for a billion years couldn't come up with this one" I take that as a testimony to the writing abilities of the lower primates and not as a recommendation for this book.

The blurbs on the inside front page were the funniest things in the book. It is not even remotely on the level of PG Wodehouse or Douglas Adams, and I doubt any of the people giving testimonials even read the book. It simply isn't very funny. The author develops bizarre settings and situations, but the joy of reading Wodehouse or Adams is the way the sentences are constructed, the craftsmanship used, the delightful metaphors and similes. The writing here is pedestrian and largely unimaginative. Garnett may develop into a humorous writer, but right now the book is painless, but NOT VERY FUNNY. The reason I am mad is that I was mislead by the promising blurbs. Those writers were shameless, and should be taken to task. If any of them think this comes close to Hitchhiker's Guide, they immediately lose all credibility.
Incidentally, this book will most appeal to lust-crazed juveniles, as it describes how the main character (a virgin until the middle of the book) and his gorgeous companion manage to end up naked and copulating over-and-over again. However, the sex is PG-13 rated, and the situations truly are out of a teen-ager's fantasies. Is it farce? Is it satire? Is it interesting? Not what I was expecting, and not on the level of PG Wodehouse or Douglas Adams.

Wayne Norton is a cop in 1968 Las Vegas; he's as reliable as a brick wall, and pretty much as thick. When a gangster puts him on ice, he does it by chucking him into a cryogenic sleep chamber. Revived some three hundred years later, he finds himself submerged in a world beyond his comprehension. Struggling to come to grips with this brave new world, Wayne finds that he can't makes sense of things, no matter how hard he tries.

This book is very hard to describe. In the beginning, the author succeeds in making Wayne's confusing meanderings quite humorous and interesting. Towards the end, though, the story becomes surreal to the point of absolute chaos. Three different endings are offered, none of which really tie up the story.

This book had a lot of potential, but missed out on it. If you want a goofy book, then you might like this one (the first three-quarters are absolutely priceless!). Otherwise, I would just give it a pass.