Is the book an acceptance, or a rejection, of Darwin's theory of evolution? It's difficult to say. Ulysse reverently mentions God at a few points. The Atlantic Monthly review quoted on the back cover concludes that, "This novel is respectfully descended from Swift on one side, and Verne on the other." Boulle puts Ulysse through quite an ordeal; he is instantly a character to whom we relate and for whom we root...but there is a pervasive sense that Boulle is winking at every turn.

The sexuality of the novel is also interesting; Ulysse is quickly attached to a human woman whom he names Nova. There is no real communication between them; she lacks the capacity. In captivity, they are caged together and, in an act as much of resignation as desire--and shame--they copulate. The real tension lies between Ulysse and his chimpanzee observer, Zira. The interspecies attraction adds a tension beyond that of whether or not Ulysse will ever be more than a lab specimen, and I found myself confused; should I want to see man and she-ape unite? I'm still unsure. The novel wasn't the spectacle that the film was (certain iconic moments often referenced and parodied, for instance, were nowhere to be found). Its relative simplicity actually made it more compelling; the scale was more plausible and therefore more identifiable to me as a reader.

I wish I'd kept up with my studies of French so I could read Boulle's original version without the filter of translation. I found Planet of the Apes less simplistic than I found Bridge over the River Kwai, but it's difficult to say how much of the difference is due to the evolution of Boulle's craft and how much is due to the different translations.