Love and Other Thought Experiments: Longlisted for the Booker Prize 2020

Product Information

The core characters are Eliza and Rachel, a couple planning to have a baby assisted by their gay friend Hal. At the start of the book Rachel says that she believes that an ant has entered her head through her eye. She is diagnosed with cancer, but survives long enough have a child, Arthur, who grows up to become an astronaut. One chapter is narrated by an ant, another by an artificial intelligence program. The ant was not just in Rachel’s head, it was in her own. And whoever else knows, she thought, the ant will be with them too. I only have to tell this story and the ant will always be in their head.”

In Chapter 8, "New to Myself," Rachel heads to the hospital to visit Arthur. Because the doctors said he was disoriented, she fears he might not recognize her. On her way there, Rachel thinks about her first love, Eliza, wondering what might have happened if they had stayed together. When she finally sees Arthur, she becomes confused and frightened. Though Arthur looks like Arthur, she knows he is not her son. In another iteration, a different Arthur lands in a different world. He exits the hospital in search of Rachel, only to find Eliza. Also, while I am not familiar with most experimental philosophy and it was interesting to learn about many ideas through this novel, there was one thought experiment drawn from game theory that I was familiar with, The Prisoner’s Dilemma (ch. 2), often used in social sciences. It was rather incorrectly “applied”, starting with the conflation between strategies (cooperation or defection) and outcomes (defeat) in presenting 3 scenarios. More egregiously, it focuses only on one person (Ali) while the preferences and motivations of the second person (Damon) were only tangential whereas the very nature of the game is that it is interdependent, i.e., dependent on the choices and motivations of both sides. The scenario of mutual cooperation is also presented as the best scenario when in fact it’s the second best outcome for each person in the Prisoner’s Dilemma (sorry if this sounds too technical: the entire paradox of the PD game is that this is a Pareto optimal outcome but not a Nash equilibrium, that is, there is the tension between collective and individual rationality), etc. That said, the chapter itself was interesting in presenting different consequences of one boy’s dilemmas in general, which will be weaved seamlessly into later chapters. What? What do you want to talk about? An ant?’ Streamers and crisps scattered between Eliza’s feet. ‘I did everything, Rachel. I believed you. I changed it all for you. We have a life. If you keep going on about the ant... people will think you’re crazy.’ While the plotting was unusual, the writing, by contrast, felt very dry. Not dry in an Ali Smith meets Deborah Levy kind of way. But dry in a numb and detached sort of way. I missed lyricism, rhythm, nuance, artistry. The metaphors, when applied, did not work for me:Fine! You want to be a thought experiment? You can be a zombie! No, no, I’ve got it. You would be, yes, Hume’s Missing Shade of Blue. The colour he has never seen but can still visualise. Happy?’

There is so much more I could say about this both innovative and very enjoyable book – and it is definitely one that will I think repay a re-read. I thought this was particularly realistic and well written. Also, knowing what you know at the end of the book makes this conversation take on a whole different significance. On one level Love and Other Thought Experiments is an understated, contemporary novel about love, loss, unconventional families and the consequences of choice. On another, it’s a sandbox of philosophical ideas ranging from free will and the nature of consciousness, to the limits of human experience. Something bit me. In my dream, we were in a field and the sun was shining and there was grass. You said, “Stay still” and I tried but...” Rachel lifted her pillow. ‘It bit me.’In general, I found the situations in the stories only superficially related to the philosophic statements they were supposed to illustrate. Those statements are well known in the popular culture like Pascal wager or Prisoner's dilemma. So instead of profound it comes across as a banal sophistry. What on earth has that got to do with it?’ Elizabeth asked. ‘And why do you want the

She was so sure. Eliza watched as Rachel stroked her eye along the lash line in a delicate sweep, as if not to disturb her visitor. We have a range of narrators in two different senses: some are not human, others are the “same person” but in a different “realization”. We also have a range not only of times but of planets and even realities. The beautiful marriage relationship between central characters (Rachel and Eliza), and indeed the different versions of their selves, is so sensitively rendered. Including some stunning passages in which it is mediated by an Ant. Yes, an Ant! I shall say no more about the Ant so as to avoid spoliers, but this nonhuman consciousness is fascinating and in terms of imagery and metaphor creates a very deep and sophisticated meditation on the nature of life and our connection with that which is other to humanity (and asks is it indeed other to humanity). On this I concur with the Guardian review by Stevie Davies that notes: "Reading Love and Other Thought Experiments, not least the virtuoso chapter in which the narrator impersonates the ant’s thought processes, I couldn’t help recalling George Eliot’s squirrel in Middlemarch. “If we had a keen vision and feeling of all ordinary human life, it would be like hearing ... the squirrel’s heart beat, and we should die of that roar which lies on the other side of silence.” I also immediately thought of Eliot's famous squirrel passage when reading Ward's "Ant chapter".Dr Marshall’s front door was on the side of the house, facing away from the street. A gravel path led from the gate to the neat porch where a pair of doorbells were marked ‘House’ and ‘Dr Marshall’. It’s rare for me to fall for a novel that could be called ‘experimental’ but this genuinely blew my mind.” —The Literary Sofa