Awright, Pat! Boy am I glad to read your review of "Ecotopia." That commie bastard, Callenbach! Thank God our great leader George W. Bush would surely nuke those damn blue states as let them sissies secede.

No cars?! Why cars are what made this country great. Who wouldn't want their own car? Life without a Hummer is ... well, kinda humdrum, don't ya think?

But seriously, Pat ... aside from the fact that everything about "Ecotopia" sucks, how was the book?

If nothing else, Callenbach gets a little credit for at least imagining an alternative to "The Apprentice" and life with Ann Coulter? Whatever it lacks as literature -- and it's not as bad as you portray -- it has been one among very few contemporary attempts at a fictional imagining of a life beyond the hell of post modern consumer culture fascism. Sometimes people need more than just good literature -- or perhaps you'd prefer a well wrought novel of upper-middle-class adultery.

I suspect that people will still be inspired by Callenbach's shaggy dog of a novel long after they've forgotten your review.

I think one that Pat give its due is the counterpart prequel to Ecotopia... Ecotopia Emerging. I read this book first and found it better written, and more engaging than the original. It really gives you a sense of how all those 'collective values' one sees in Ecotopia came to be - not by some sort of authoritarian hippie eco-mafia, but rather through traits which (albeit idealistically) worked in the lives of many different people, who all made the revolution possible.

I agree with rikeym that Callenbach does deserve for at least positing a future without the mental climate which we now find ourselves in. Certainly it has flaws, but I find great value in it anyway, if only to keep in the back of my mind as a model for a just and sustainable society.

if the ruthless, violent suppression of political dissent doesn't bother you, it's a veritable Shagri-La.

Oy.  As a sufferer of misunderstood sarcasm, you'd think I would be quicker to perceive it.  Next time I'll click the link!

Anyone interested in how communist societies work, or don't work, should read about about the Iseali kibbutz system. It worked without political oppression, but certainly not witout some strain.

Biodiversivist's comments are so fundamentally full of it that I won't bother to comment on everything wrong, just a few major points.

First, no one in brainwashed America ever mentions how badly most people in capitalist Cuba were doing before the revolution.  They are far better off now, despite their currnent abject poverty.  At least now they are guaranteed food, shelter, and medical care, which the vast majority of Cubans were sorely lacking or completely without under capitalism.

Second, Capitalism is not at one end of the spectrum, fascism is.  The fundamental aspect of fascism is big business or corporations running the government, which means that the U.S. is arguably fascist.  Capitalism is the next step.

Moreover, capitalism was not practiced by the "Greeks, Romans, Mayans, and most everyone else ... throughout human history."  Capitalism has only been around for at most a few hundred years, and back then it was not truly capitalism.  I learned this in a basic economics course, and I suggest people who want to make comments about economics at least do some studying on the matter!

As to Dave's comment about ruthless repression, this issue is far more complicated than you give it credit for.  What Castro seeks to repress is capitalist propaganda that he fears would tempt Cubans to turn to capitalism by appealing to their selfish instincts.  I fully agree with what Castro seeks to prevent, but I don't think repression is an effective way to do it, and there are clearly moral problems with repression as well.  Education and attempting to raise Cubans' level of consciousness would be a much better way of accomplishing Castro's goals, though I'm sure he already does some of this with his long speeches.

Last but not least, a society "where most food is grown locally and organically in small collective farms, a land of very few cars where people walk, ride bikes, or take buses if they must travel far [and where] [t]hey waste little energy heating or cooling their modest homes and have not made war" is a society environmentalists should all support and aspire to, not one to be ridiculed because it doesn't live up to your capitalist American standards.

This book reeked of a young, horny, and stoned young man when I read it at age 23, and it is no different now, literally months later.

I thought the gratuitous sex with horny women and gratuitous violence with tough men, as well as the overt racism and stupid ideas on house building (what was it? some sort of fiberglass foam stuff that you could break off easily and with great joy when bored? huh? can somebody say "strawbale", "adobe" or "rammed earth"?), plus the reality that it wasn't a book you could call "written well with great forethought" pretty much ruined it for me.

No, it's not just a passably good representation of a possible utopian society, it's an insult to my intelligence and idealism as well as a book that makes all deep eco-freaks look like idiots and cult followers. And this is coming from a self-styled deep ecologist who doesn't own a car, likes to eats organic vegetables, and thinks sex is great.

Like the author of the reivew hinted at, go read Abbey instead. Or better yet, do something outside.