This was a much better dystopia than I expected—dark and gritty, just the way I like them. It is dated and not just in that it takes place in the far future of twenty years ago. Despite having some attitudes that were radical for its time, it is full of gender stereotypes as well as sprinkled with some racist terms for the Chinese that I'd just as soon neither read nor remember.

Despite its flaws, I find it interesting that the book addresses that which we have still failed to fully grasp: the single most effective thing we can do to reduce our carbon footprint is to reduce our reproduction. Make less babies. Despite everything, access to birth control is still denied, often quite deliberately, to women. In some places, it is entirely unavailable, and even in those places where women are freer, we still must fight to maintain our access. Reproduction is still viewed so strongly as a sacred right that one cannot even discuss the concept of incentivizing people to have less children without responses of horror and approbation.

Of additional note, this is a loose book-to-film adaptation. Even if you've never seen Soylent Green, there's one thing you know about it, and that isn't even in the story. Don't come into this book expecting the movie. Furthermore, this isn't scifi in the technology sense. It's byline is in fact "A Realistic Novel of Life in 1999", so it was never even intended to be. Dystopia is generally considered a subgenre of science fiction, much like alternative history is, but don't come here expecting robots, spaceships, and other such tech either. ( )

In spite of its reputation as the source for the film Soylent Green this is a very boring book. ( )

The book had some great concepts of the future and a real message to be considered but the writing doesn’t live up to it’s potential . More of a noir detective story with a touch of romance than real science fiction. The book was the inspiration for the classic movie “Soylent Gree” - spoiler alerts - however the main plot between the two are very different . The book and film both have the same main characters and set in the near future with an overpopulated world but the book deals with disappointments set in the sad realities of life in that future world and the message that the world needs to address birth control before it’s too late while the film is driven by a horrible truth not covered in the book. ( )

A combination of a noir detective story and a polemic for widely available (and used) birth control, written in 1966 and set in 1999.

The writing is just ordinary, and it didn’t hold my attention until the last third of the book, when the pace picked up considerably. The female characters are stereotypical (call girl with a good heart; stupid, slovenly, lazy mother of far too many children).
I know this book is popular, but it didn’t work for me. It’s very different from the movie, but neither hurts nor helps the reading experience. ( )

I have classified this book as science fiction, but it does not fall into this category. Harry Harrison wrote the book in 1967 or thereabouts, and it paints a very scary, very plausible view of our future. In New York, 1999, the good cop, Andy, is called in to investigate a murder. He has a brief affair with the victim's mistress, who finally leaves him for a better life.

The nub lies here. A small elite lives a fabulous life of luxury. The rest, in crowded tenements, live on food scraps, struggling to survive. There is no escape, and in the end, Andy sees his ex-girlfriend get into a taxi - the mistress of a rich man.

There is no escape from this dystopian, Malthusian future. What makes the book scary is that the picture he painted is plausible and closer than we think.

The movie, 'Soylent Green', is based on this book - and is even bleaker.

Read this book along with '1984,' 'Animal Farm,' and 'Brave New World.' ( )