A Box of Birds by Charles Fernyhough

A Box of Birds Reviews

• 
  Nick

  Not sure how to rate this mess of a book. It tries to be three stories at once and fails at all of them. When reviewing this book, it made me realize how frustrating this book is.
  
  Full review
  
  *** SPOILERS GALORE ***
  
  First, I will address the main issues before going into minor plot points / book characters
  
  [1] This book wants to be three things at the same time: a thriller, a love-story and a clash of two predominant philosophical questions: materialist view
  
  It falls flat on all three parts because neither of them is fully developed. The “darkly intense love story” turns out to be mainly based on lies from a character. Questioning the basis of that ‘love’ and underlining the materialist view of chemical brain reactions of falling in love. Our main character Yvonne seems gladly content about being in love with James. Her materialist view is that she is just ‘sleepwalking through life’ and so this is part of it.
  My concerns with the love story is it is annoying due their clashing views. They repeat several times about how to they view the world or truth but both do not come closer to each other. There is no resolve for both of them and their relation falls apart of it. Their relation is hamfisted to question the reader with these ideas but done in a not so fluid way. Questions like if science has all the answers, if so should it or if not which other ways for finding truths, and so forth.
  
  Also “the pace of a literary thriller” is all over the place. There multiple elements: the great ‘evil’ biotech company Samson, Gareth and the animal-rights organizations: conscience and Aslan’s Law. It’s all a mixed bag but in the end the 'antagonist' is James/David. James pretended that David played a big role in his and the book story but it turns out that David was dead for quite some time. James took on David’s role or there was no James to even begin with. Among this he makes more fairytales about himself and what he views as truth, opposed to idea that sciences can claim it all.
  Gareth is the catalyst for the whole story but I will sketch the basic of the story: a neuroscientist teacher gets involved with two mental unstable students. We were led to believe that only one of them is unstable but in the end, it turns out he wasn’t the only one. Actually, he seems to be the ‘sane’ one compared to the other.
  They need to find Gareth before the ‘evil’ biotech company Samson does so because Gareth has stolen the brain-mapping data from Lycee institution (which Yvonne works for). Only there not a single moment of tension that this will ever happen. As Yvonne and James characters reminds us multiple times that Gareth is a hacker wizard which can erase all his traces because reasons. Gareth only wants to be found when he wants it which is through Yvonne remembering a story he confined her in. So, the company decides they just wait on Yvonne to remember this.
  Which takes too long and they decide to intervene and mess things further up for no good reason. Just add an electrode to her brain and give herself a remote which will occasionally jolt her thalamus in order to stimulate her memories. Just hoping that this will work. ‘Genius’.
  It comes close to becoming interesting/exciting when Yvonne discovers something along the lines of James being directly involved with Samson and the very dreamlike / strange scenes which preceded this moment. For a moment, I thought Yvonne was part of a Samson experiment and was misled by James all that time. I hoped it would go in that direction and more science / science-fiction like. Only the story never goes in that way. It just basically flips the bird to the reader and continues its ramblings about the two philosophical questions drenched with love butterflies which are attracted to each other physically but are never sure of themselves.
  This is a prime example of the ‘thriller-like’ story that gets near the mystery of what Samson actually is doing instead of people telling her what Samson is doing (which are biased views because of their involvement with animal rights organizations). They just a get a snippet of it and then the writer decides to ignore this until the end of the book.
  
  Almost the whole book is about Yvonne remembering what Gareth told her in order to find him and to find the Lorenzo circuit data, aka the underlying map of the brain of memory. Just a dreadful story with several illogical and really convenient events in order to create a certain story for the authors narrative. Such as the ‘twist’ that not one but both students are in love with their teacher. The writer addresses this point in the ending with the following:
  
  “The poor boy (Gareth, the second student twist) was in love with you!”
  “What does it say, Daren, that all these young men keep falling for me?”
  “It says, Yvonne, that you have an interesting personality. And you’re not wearing anything under that dress.”
  
  I’m not editing the writer words: this is literary what he wrote. I’m baffled by this because it feels like the author is taking the piss with the readers. Flipping the bird to the readers (aka ‘peace among worlds’ for R&M fans).
  
  It seems to me that you should not read the book to get anything out of the clash of the two philosophical questions and debate about it. You’ll get almost nothing out of this book. Actually, I feel like a bit like Yvonne here: misled by a person (the writer) for strange and unclear reasons.
  
  [2] This book has lot ridiculous things in it. Not sure of the author wants to ‘shock’ or ‘jolt’ us out of the reading but it just falls flat on the face because the underlining of it is lacking.
  
  Two of the most ridiculous things come to mind:
  Two characters are travelling a moorland and have a moment of respite. One of the character, James, is unsure of himself and starts crying (the real reason become clear later in the book). He has fallen in love with our main character Yvonne and vice versa. Yvonne feels sorry for him, so sorry that she decides to give him a blowjob because of the following line “aware that I’m being rough with him, dimly convinced that I can manhandle him out of his grief.”
  
  What the fuck am I reading? It’s a quarter page about James dick and how this is like a missing part for the main character Yvonne. As I’m writing this I can’t help to laugh about this next level weirdness of writing. Why does she have to ‘comfort’ him in this way which seems the opposite of woman behavior in general. Is Yvonne an exception? Could be but just sigh. But there is more. Here is non-sexual ridiculous example which frustrated me for even caring about these two characters:
  
  This part is preceded by arriving at a sort of historical group of huts in Saxon style in which tourists can get a feeling of ancient history. Actors try to ‘simulate’ the life and the folks from that time. From one of these people, they get a map because they know James for some unknown reason. Why? I don’t know and I don’t care anymore.
  
  James and Yvonne are looking for a way into the headquarters of the “evil corporation Samson”. Conveniently it is built on top of a series of old mines, which apparently are not secured enough because reasons, and they need to get to a specific entry point for these mines. They get a map from a group of people on how to get to a hut in a huge moorland: the entry point to a part of the mines. Only it is not a normal printed map of the area with coordinates. It is hand drawn. Without clear landmarks. In mediaeval eight-century, Saxon style: here be dragons.
  
  …
  
  Really? Wow. A neuroscientist only cares about a map of the brain but never minds what goes outside of it.
  
  They of course get lost because:
  [a] they have a useless map drawn by a ‘child’
  [b] they don’t have a proper working GPS device because old phone
  [c] they have no sense of directions except for something of a forest and a hut
  [d] they did not prepare what to do in case they get lost
  [e] they are bloody morons
  I sincerely hoped in this point of the story that they would never find it because of their stupidity and unpreparedness. That their story ended there. But out of sheer luck they get there eventually.
  
  Tl;dr: not a recommanded book if you're looking for a thriller and/or love story with philosophical elements about science. It is dreadfull. Only good part of this book are the sometimes neatly descriptions of some events/scenes or thought/ideas such as the aviary for all the different thoughts of a person.
• 
  Maree Kimberley

  I first learnt about Box of Birds through the book publishing crowdsourcing site Unbound. As soon as I saw the plot was all about neuroscience I signed a pledge for it straight away.
  
  The book's blurb descibes it as a literary thriller, though I'd place it more in the category of speculative fiction as the "Lorenzo Circuit" - a complete map of the brain at the centre of the plot's novel - doesn't exist...yet. The main character, Yvonne Churcher, is a neuroscientist working in a university as a tutor and researcher. She becomes involved with two of her students. One, Gareth, is a brilliant but slightly mad young man determined to solve the mysteries of the human brain. The other, James, is a member in a radical animal rights organisation. Together they lead Yvonne on a journey of scientific and political intrigue and danger, as a rich biotech company seeks to find and exploit a cure for Alzheimers.
  
  I really enjoyed the neuroscientific and political aspects of this story and feel that is where Fernyhough is most comfortable and fluent in his writing. The romance/love scenes scattered throughout the book didn't really work for me, however. I found them often a little forced (and in one or two instances a little silly). This didn't take away from my enjoyment of the novel, though.
  
  Fernyhough explores important issues around science and its politics, including the ethics of animal testing, of who should 'own' scientific knowledge (particularly around important issues like dealing with debilitating diseases such as Alzheimers) as well as the role of memory in our lives. What are our memories? Do we make them or can they be implanted? How would we know the difference? He handles his material with insight and originality, creating full and interesting characters that I could empathise with. The pace of the narrative is good, the plot is solid and the scientific detail adds an extra dimension to the novel.
  
  This is an original, intelligent book that has a lot to offer, particularly if you have an interest in neuroscience and medical ethics. Recommended.
  
• 
  Rhett Griffiths

  I really enjoyed this. On one level, it was the intimate, personal story of a woman and her relationship with both herself, and the people around her, about love and the voices in her head as she tries to be happy and make sense of her life, just like any of us might do. However there's a building sense of something much bigger going on, which grows to the scale of a Hollywood conspiracy epic. She is caught at the centre of a complex story of academic neuroscientific research, and the corrupting power of global pharmaceutical companies, a thriller which begs questions like who owns science, our memories, the future even? I was sometimes reminded of films like 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes', 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Fugitive', as I read it, as it explores the ethical boundaries of scientific research and has a David and Goliath style struggle with a few individuals vs global capitalism. At the centre of this tale, a delicate, dangerous love story is teased out, teacher and student, two people both in search of the truth, both searching for themselves and a sense of meaning in their lives. Science can explain so much about the world, but can it tell us, or help us know who we are, or how to live and love? It's a book that asks many provocative questions and somewhere in this story the answers tantalise.
• 
  Susan Kent

  I struggled at times with my understanding of the science element of the story-line - I reread some parts before moving on which helped me. I found it quite an odd book and I'm not really sure whether I liked it or not. Some books do that to you, you have to think about the experience a few times before making a final decision. I will try and find the other book Fernyhough has written and so how I get on with it.
• 
  cardulelia carduelis

  Oh dear.
  
  This had an interesting premise: the nature of science vs. arts, activist's beliefs vs. actual scientific practices, the role of the scientist as a subject in her work, romance in STEM, it goes on.
  The setup was fun too! A futuristic lab where employees live in 10m tree houses! Convolution of fMRI scans to map the conscious plumbing in our brains! Mines full of monkeys! Scientists meeting animal rights activists in a squat! Memory manipulation! Science! Drama! Action!
  
  And then there's the writing, the characters, the DIALOGUE.
  
  My biggest peeve was the central, UNNECESSARY, relationship in the story mostly because of the actions of the protagonist. I had basically the identical problem with another Woman in STEM, technology/science-is-evil novel just recently: David Egger's The Circle. In both, our young women are skilled, if gradually reluctant, participants working at the cutting edge, plagued by doubts.. about how attractive they are to men :/ *sigh* In both novels our young women eventually morph from protagonist to antagonist: in The Circle Mae becomes seduced by the very evil she was initially repulsed by.
  In A Box of Birds our character goes from interesting-but-complex to so-mind-numbingly-oblivious that we cease to care if she lives or dies.
  
  3.5 stars for creativity.
  -3 for everything else.
  
• 
  Clare

  I thought the blurb for this book sounded interesting. One of the main characters, Yvonne Churcher, is a neuroscientist working in a university who becomes embroiled with two students. Fernhough's portrayal of female characters is very limited in insight. One student, Gareth, is eccentric and the other we are supposed to find overpoweringly attractive. Although the book attempts to tackle some complex issues it ultimately does so in a very heavy handed and inelegant way, and the prose seems much too impressed with itself. And the love scenes will surely be in the running for some Bad Sex award in the not too distant future, they are mawkish in the extreme. If you're interested in these subjects I would suggest turning to a textbook because in the end this is a rather clumsy book despite its admirable ambitions.
• 
  Jane

  An interesting neuroscience based thriller. Appeals to my love of thriller fiction. And my interest in psychology. It may be a bit niche. Nicely written. The characters weren't the best developed ever, but to some extent I think that's the point.
  
  Worth reading and kept me interested and turning the pages
• 
  Meike Jensen

  An interesting genre, but strange characters that I had a hard time to really connect with. The story is complicated and interwoven, but that makes for some of the appeal.