Plot: 4/9. The plot was predictable and uninteresting, probably because its plain narrative style reminiscent of the scripts of childish superhero comics such as intermediate transitions between scenes, thorough depictions on the sides of both evil and good, excessively dramatic actions, and shallow characteristics, which was clearly influenced by Bester’s job at DC Comics from 1942. From my perspective, a good science-fictionist should be able to tirelessly tease readers’ anticipation and constantly manipulate readers’ emotions throughout the storyline, but Bester failed from the beginning with this kind of writing style.

The antagonist always suffered from unsolvable nightmares concerning a man without face. Finally he decided to kill D’Courtney, because this business rival refused his proposal for merger.

He hired an Esper called Tate to run interference for him and scout the best killing opportunity by reading another Esper.
He bought an antique handgun from a pawn shop run by Church.
He hinted to the hostess that she should play a party game that could provide him with ample crime time decently.

However, Barbara—D’Courtney’s daughter—came across his murder scene, grabbed his gun, and ran away. Worse, after the antagonist came back to the party, D’Courtney’s blood dripped from the upper floor and the protagonist—a telepathic police detective—immediately suspected the antagonist:

The protagonist interrogated the hostess and learned the antagonist’s manipulating trick.
He found Barbara who was too mentally unresponsive stuck in a state of shock to provide any useful information.
He investigated his accessories, Church and Tate. The antagonist’s futile attempt to kill the protagonist involved Church unintentionally and therefore led Church to turn witness.
He found the antagonist’s previous records of communication with D’Courtney’s company.
He discovered that in order to eliminate the ballistic evidence, the antagonist replaced the bullets with gelatin capsules.

Nevertheless, it turned out D’Courtney had actually accepted the merger, which made the profit motive of the antagonist no longer plausible.

The antagonist lured the protagonist to obtain the gun left by Barbara. This booby-trap was soon figured out by the protagonist believing the true cause of D’Courtney’s death was known only to the police and the antagonist. He therefore easily captured the antagonist breaking into his house, and prepared him for a simulated world to dig out the identity of the man without face and reveal the antagonist’s ulterior motive—a subconscious revenge against his biological father, D’Courtney.

In the end, the antagonist was sentenced to Demolition, and the protagonist fell in love with Barbara.

Core: 3/9. A lesson taught by this inaugural Hugo-winning work is that the technology upholding science fiction should be grounded in corroborated science or extended from credible scientific speculations, rather than some pseudoscientific foundations such as Freudian psychology.

Or otherwise it would be outdated and devalued once they were proven wrong.

Character: 3/9. The work contained sexism and characters were minimally developed.

Apart from the antique futuristic speculations, it is a bit hilarious for me to know about the setting that Espers fully capable of delving into the subconscious could be simply bamboozled by humming a song consciously.

Why didn’t others in the book do this to avoid peeping? Also, if occupying minds with unrelated things is enough to block detection, how did the subconscious peeping actually work?

Moreover, I found it unbelievable that the antagonist, a head of a big company, failed to comprehend some basic facts in his world such as the count of Espers within his company and the Esper Pledge. Bester should have transferred this kind of worldview with more delicate methods.

Core: 3/9. A lesson taught by this inaugural Hugo-winning work is that the technology upholding science fiction should be grounded in corroborated science or extended from credible scientific speculations, rather than some pseudoscientific foundations such as Freudian psychology.

Character: 3/9. The work contained sexism and characters were minimally developed.

World and Others: 3/9. Technologies in science-fiction should be formulated more precisely and convincingly, in terms of usage, scientific practicality, conditions of application, and last but not least, social influence.