text: More Than Human is one of those books that has garnered high praise from the science fiction community because of its strong prose and original ideas.
  
  The writing is often compared to that of Faulkner but I wouldn't make that connection having read a few of Faulkner's works.  Sturgeon uses many of Faulkner's narrative trademarks (i.e. streaming conscious, first person perspective of low IQ individuals, disorienting changes in first person narrative) but I didn't feel the net effect really compared to say something like As I Lay Dying.
  
  I love science fiction books and the readers in general love the genre which is why they want it to be taken seriously.  This results in undue adulation and comparisons to mainstream books.  More Than Human is slow, dated and not what I would describe as genre transcending nor would I recommend it to others.  So the idea might of been original in the 50's but topics like telekenesis, ESP, computer-brain babies, and self produced morality and ethos have all been tackled more successfully in other science fiction classics before (Asimov) and since.  This book rarely set off that wow! button in my head or kept me turning pages.  This book simply did not have enough meat in it to make it anything more than mediocre at best.
  
  In 1953 there were 5 Hugo Award nominees for best science fiction book (Determined in a retro hugo award ballot in 2004)  The Retro Hugo awards are fascinating because the voting (in this example) takes place 50 years later so the impact of the book on society can't really be ignored.  Besides More Than Human, the far superior The Caves Of Steel, Childhood's End, and Farenheit 451 were among the other entries in a banner year for classic sci-fi.  Needless to say, More Than Human did not win (Farenheit 451 did and rightfully so)
  
  Bottom Line:  I wanted to like this book and it doesn't surprise me that others give it such high praise.  These are probably people that don't read other genres enjoy congratulatory wankfests
  