| Article: 448
From: Erich=Hurst%Mfg=Sys%[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.reviews
Subject: Review of NIGHTFALL, by Asimov and Silverberg
Date: 01 Dec 93 01:25:19 GMT
[This is going to be a pretty long review for a book that has already been
out three years. I haven't written a real book review in a very long
time. Even the reviews I've written so far for the Internet have been
real quick-and-dirty don't-waste-my-time-with-details type reviews. So,
this was mostly an exercise for me to see if I could do it, and how well I
could do it. I'm trolling for compliments here, so if you read this
review, I would appreciate any criticism or comments you may have, either
on the review itself, or on the subject matter of the review.]
[Spoiler note: No real significant spoilers in this review, although there
is a general tendency to assume that you have read the short story
"Nightfall", by Isaac Asimov.]
_NIGHTFALL_
by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg
Review by Erich Hurst
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would
men believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the
remembrance of the city of God!"
This quotation by Ralph Waldo Emerson is used to introduce one of the best
science fiction stories of all time, "Nightfall", by Isaac Asimov.
That claim is not one of conceit on my part. It is one of admission by
the Science Fiction Writers of America, thirty years after the story was
written. The sci-fi public seems to agree. "Nightfall" is a true classic
of the genre. It is a standard that sci-fi fans go back to time and time
again, generation after generation. And even though Asimov himself
disagreed that it was the "best science fiction story ever written", it
was definitely a turning point in his career, as he tells us in his
autobiography, _In Memory Yet Green_: "...after 'Nightfall' appeared [in
the September 1941 issue of 'Astounding'], I was no longer a minor writer,
hovering about the fringes of science-fiction fame. Finally, after three
years of trying, I was accepted as a major figure in the field...."
"Other world! There is no other world! Here or nowhere is the whole
fact."
This quotation, also by Emerson, was added to the first and used to
introduce _Nightfall_, by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, the novel
based on "the best science fiction story ever written".
Is it "the best novel ever written"? No. It is easily argued that each
of these authors have written more significant and more entertaining
novels than this one.
So why write it? "Nightfall" was a "perfect" short story. "A jewel of a
story", as a friend of mine put it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it,
right? Why risk putting a flaw in that perfect jewel?
I am not the person to answer that question. You would have to ask
publishers, editors, and/or authors that question. What questions I can
answer, though, are: is it any good? Did I enjoy it? Is it as good as
the short story? Does it ruin the short story? (This last question
undoubtedly is asked by those who are aware of the horrible movie that was
made, based on the short story. "We've been burned once already.")
"NIGHTFALL" VERSUS _NIGHTFALL_
Given the fame of its source material, it would be impossible to review
_Nightfall_ without comparing it to "Nightfall". Therefore, I won't even
try. Besides, comparing it to the original is probably what you are most
interested in hearing about, anyway.
First of all, I can tell you, if you are worried that _Nightfall_ damages
"Nightfall", then lay your fears to rest. _Nightfall_ makes, in my
opinion, very little changes in the short story. And before you say,
"Aha! I KNEW it would change the story," let me explain what those
"little changes" are.
The smallest changes are in some names. The planet Lagash is now Kalgash.
The six suns are no longer Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc., but Onos, Dovim,
Trey, Patru, Tano and Sitha. The Hideout is now called the Sanctuary.
The Cultists are now the Apostles of Flame. Aton 77, the Director of Saro
University, is now Athor 77, head of the Observatory at Saro University.
Athor's name bothered me a bit, but the suns' new names actually sound
better than just "Alpha", "Beta", etc. The rest I was completely
ambivalent about.
All of the main characters from "Nightfall" are here. Theremon, the
newspaper columnist; Aton/Athor, the Observatory Director; Beenay, an
astronomist and co-worker of Athor; and Sheerin, the psychologist. Even
Faro and Yimot, the two grad students who unsuccessfully tried to simulate
the Stars with a make-shift planetarium. But, there are some additional
characters. Siferra, a female archaeologist, is the most notable
addition. She plays a key role in the discoveries that reveal the coming
crisis on Kalgash. Another major addition is Folimun, a top aide to the
High Apostle Mondior, head of the Apostles of Flame. The Apostles play an
important role in this novel, a much bigger role than the Cultists in the
short story. Folimun is the key to their role.
Not all of the events in "Nightfall" are handled the same way in
_Nightfall_. Some events occur sooner than in "Nightfall", some later.
It still feels completely natural, though. In fact, with more room to
work with in the novel, the sequence of events in _Nightfall_ feels more
natural than the ones in "Nightfall". The short story had to cover a lot
of background material quickly, to establish the crisis. The novel takes
a more leisurely approach. But perhaps the most important point for the
nitpicker is that all the major events in "Nightfall" do occur in
_Nightfall_. Nothing is left out.
Finally, Silverberg does bring the language and dialogues of _Nightfall_
up-to-date. Compare these two passages, the first from the short story:
Aton stared in consternation and said peevishly, "Now what the
devil are you doing here, Sheerin? I thought you were going to stay
behind in the Hideout."
Sheerin laughed and dropped his stubby figure into a chair.
"Hideout be blowed!"
And the second, from the novel:
Athor stared in consternation and said peevishly, "Yes, what *are*
you doing here, Sheerin? I thought you were going to stay behind in
the Sanctuary."
Sheerin laughed and dropped his tubby figure into a chair.
"Sanctuary be damned!"
Minor changes, yes, but it does give the dialogue a more modern feel to it.
So, like I said, some minor liberties were taken with the short story.
But not enough to destroy or damage it. That was a very comforting factor
to me, knowing how easily it would be to damage it.
PLOT AND CHARACTERS
"Alright," says the sceptic, "so maybe _Nightfall_ doesn't damage
'Nightfall'. So what? That doesn't make _Nightfall_ a good book. It
just keeps it from being a HORRIBLE book."
But, I reply to the sceptic, _Nightfall_ IS a good book. Silverberg does
manage to improve this "perfect" story. And he manages to improve it by
using the two advantages a novel has over a short story: character
development, and plot development. This isn't any profound discovery,
just an observation based on the fact that novels have more opportunities
(i.e., words) to develop characters and plot.
You can probably guess pretty easily how the plot is developed beyond the
one in "Nightfall". The book is divided into three parts: "Twilight",
"Nightfall", and "Daybreak". The second part is basically the short story
re-told, modified to keep the continuity with the rest of the book. The
first and third parts relate the events preceding and succeeding
"Nightfall", respectively. The majority of "original" effort in this book
is concentrated in the first and third parts -- which again shows how the
original short story is "protected" in the novel.
"Twilight" establishes the three discoveries that lead to the crisis in
the novel. Sheerin investigates the psychological effects that the Tunnel
of Mystery at the Jonglor Centennial Exposition has had on people that
rode it. Siferra makes a tremendous archaeological discovery -- a human
city that has been burned down and rebuilt on the same site nine times, at
an interval of roughly two thousand and fifty years between each burning.
This is a breakthrough discovery because common knowledge said that human
history was only two thousand years old. Beenay discovers that Kalgash's
orbit around and through the six suns does not obey Athor's relatively new
Theory of Universal Gravitation. When confronted with this, Athor leads a
search for the "missing factor", and discovers Kalgash Two.
Those of you who've read the short story will remember that all of these
discoveries were made sporadically years or decades before the events in
"Nightfall". In the novel, though, all of these discoveries occur almost
concurrently, a year or two before the eclipse. It is a less-than-perfect
contrivance, I admit. But overall, it is still a minor point.
The second part of the novel, (also called "Nightfall", which might make
this discussion even more confusing than it already is!), as I said above,
basically re-tells the original short story. (Some of it verbatim!) It
is exciting reading it, though, after the "Twilight" section. The feeling
I had as I was reading it was similar to the feeling you get watching a
favorite movie after you've seen the "Behind the Scenes" special.
"Daybreak", the third part of the novel, unfortunately does not carry this
momentum that has built up in "Nightfall". Part of that is due to the
very nature of what this section must tell -- the morning after.
If you have read Stephen King's _The Stand_, or Frank Herbert's _The White
Plague_, or any other post-apocalyptic anarchy-run-amok story, then
"Daybreak" is not going to interest you very much. The problem is, we've
seen this kind of stuff before. Whereas King and Herbert used biological
viruses that wipe out entire civilizations, Silverberg uses the
psychological disease, "madness". The end result is the same. Anarchy.
Rampant violence. Barbarism. Society and all forms of government
completely wiped out. It is left to the survivors to sort it out and
bring a new order to the chaos.
The other disappointment in "Daybreak" also could not have been avoided,
and that is the reader's inclination to view all of "Daybreak" as
denouement. The short story climaxed right there at the very end, with
Nightfall itself and the revealing of the Stars. That same climax exists
in the novel, at the end of the second part. But the novel goes on -- to
"Daybreak." The reader keeps waiting for "Daybreak" to just stop and say
"okay guys, that's a wrap." But it can't. It tries to build up to a
climax itself, and although it does have a climax, it can't compare to the
climax in "Nightfall." It is literally a let down.
Okay, that's the bad news. The good news is that "Daybreak" is still full
of action, excitement, and new ideas. The characters which we've come to
know and identify with in the first two parts now must face the horror
that could not be avoided. The characters are not free from the anarchy
and barbarism that results from Nightfall, they actually PARTICIPATE in
it. They are fighting for their survival -- not just physically, but
mentally.
"Daybreak" does build up to a satisfying conclusion -- to me. It simply
is not as exciting a conclusion as "Nightfall". I don't think everyone is
going to be satisfied with this ending in "Daybreak", but the nature of
the ending is such that that would be expected. I can't tell you why,
because I don't want to spoil it THAT much. Suffice it to say, a decision
has to be made at the end by the main characters, and while some or most
won't like the decision that is made, (and "making a decision", as an
ending, is nowhere near as exciting as a whole planet going mad) it is the
right decision to make.
The "Daybreak" section provides one other advantage. It brings home
exactly what is so horrible about Nightfall to this society. With the
short story, you basically have to take everyone's word for it that
Kalgash/Lagash society will crumble. The horror of their society
collapsing is an academic, impersonal event to the reader. In the novel,
you are shown what will happen. It is made real and personal to you. You
are there while Theremon, Sheerin, Beenay and the rest fight for their
lives in the aftermath of this catastrophe. It's effective.
Through the whole long episode of the coming of the Darkness, from
the first moment that he had heard from Beenay and Athor that such a
thing was likely, Sheerin had bounced around from one end of the
psychological spectrum to the other, from pessimism to optimism and
back again, from hope to despair to hope. His intelligence and
experience told him one thing, his naturally resilient personality
told him another.
Perhaps Beenay and Athor were wrong and the astronomical cataclysm
wouldn't happen at all.
*No, the cataclysm will definitely happen.*
Darkness, despite his own disturbing experiences with it at the
Tunnel of Mystery two years before, would turn out not to be such a
troublesome thing after all, if indeed it did come.
*Wrong. Darkness will cause universal madness.*
The madness would be only temporary, a brief period of disorientation.
*The madness will be permanent, in most people.*
The world would be disrupted for a few hours and then go back to
normal.
*The world will be destroyed in the chaos following the eclipse.*
BOTTOM LINE
I like reviews with a Bottom Line, and if I were to give one for
_Nightfall_, I would say that it is a good book, and a worthy successor to
the short story.
But, if you haven't read the short story, you really should, whether you
go on to read this novel or not. "Nightfall", the short story, really is
one of the best examples of science fiction out there, by Asimov or anyone
else. It is a very easy story to find, since it has been reprinted many,
many times in the last 52 years. Try finding a copy of the book
_Nightfall and Other Stories_ in a used book store. Better yet, get a
copy of Asimov's _Complete Stories, Vol. 1_.
Do you HAVE to read "Nightfall" before _Nightfall_? No, I don't think so,
since _Nightfall_ contains "Nightfall" more or less intact. But I
definitely would discourage anyone from reading the novel before the short
story, because there is so much more to the novel. If you do read the
novel first, the short story will have nothing exciting and new to offer you.
Other than that caveat, if you have read "Nightfall" and are bound and
determined that nobody could improve "Nightfall", and you resent
Silverberg even trying, (I just know that there are some of you out there)
then just give up now and ignore this book. You won't like it, because it
IS different from the short story. And it does not propose any radically
new ideas that you will benefit from. But if you are less than a 100%
Purist, like me, give _Nightfall_ a try. Believe me, I am a HUGE fan of
Asimov's science fiction and particularly of "Nightfall", and this book is
GOOD.
%A Asimov, Isaac
%A Silverberg, Robert
%T Nightfall
%I Doubleday
%C New York
%D November 1990
%G ISBN 0-385-26341-4
%P 339 pp.
%O hardback, $19.95
%O also available in paperback
%O based on the short story, "Nightfall", by Isaac Asimov.
Erich Hurst
Compaq Computer Corp.
Houston, Texas
Erich=Hurst%Mfg=Sys%[email protected]
|