Here are a couple more reviews of the Hugo nominated short story “An Unimaginable Light” by John C. Wright. These reviews are not positive, but since they appear to be detailed enough as to indicate the reviewer did indeed give the story a fair reading, I will present them with no response.
First, from Strange at Escobar. The relevant section:
Loads the dice in the direction we expect, then pulls an unconvincing twist at the end. It is interesting in exploring deep ideas, but I think kind of fumbles this. It also depends overmuch on the context of the rest of the closely linked anthology it appeared in — but I’m voting for “Best Short Story” here, not “best part of a linked narrative”.
I know I sound as if I’m contradicting myself here somewhat since I’ve repeatedly mentioned that Josh Young’s “Felix Culpa” provides some context to the ending (and it does), but I will note that the story was originally submitted to stand on its own. I suppose this doesn’t affect the review, but it is worth mentioning.
Second, from books.zennaro.net. The relevant section:
Unfortunately it is the worse of the Hugo nominees in this category, trying and failing miserably to derive theological creationist axioms through logic that is so flawed to be laughable. I also did not think that the sexual sadistic elements of the plot really worked as intended. Conclusion: more a religion-fiction story, than a sci-fi one, and quite a bad one.
I will not respond directly, but I will ask those who have read the story this: Is the logic really so flawed as to be laughable? Is it more flawed than, say, the AI in “Cat Pictures, Please” claiming that God does not exist because it knows who its creators are (the logic of that AI, it is to be noted, was not mentioned in the reviewer’s early commentary on that work)?
Just something to chew on.