The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Our August 2020 BotM is Nightfall by Isaac Asimov & Robert Silverberg. This 1990 novel is expanded from the original novella that Asimov wrote in 1941.

Given I nominated it, I will be reading it, but I'll will probably start in the next few days !

I remember reading this many years ago, but I have only the most vague recollection of the details. indeed at this point I'm not even sure if I read the novel or the short story!! I'm looking forward to reading (or rereading) this book.

Funny how this looks like last month's read. Another place, another 'catastrophe', but the same build up and themes in the books: before and after, believers and non-believers, humans and savages, the roles religion can play, how people manage the new circumstances.

So I've just finished this, and will be putting pen to paper soon for my review, but ....
I am a real Asimov fan, I started reading Lucky Starr nearly 50 years ago in my early teens, and I have never stopped loving his books ever since, especially The Foundation series (yes even the later ones), but this wa to me rather strange.
There were Asimov moments in the book, and then there were things / episodes you wouldn't find in Asimov that were very non sequitur (view spoiler)[ the most obvious to me was the strip scene at the sanctuary , it served no purpose and went nowhere (hide spoiler)].
All in all, I enjoyed it, but it wasn't as good as it could've been. Maybe if it was an Asimov novel, or indeed if it was a Silverberg novel it wold been better, but it was almost like your write a few pages, then I will, so the story almost kept changing.
Enjoyable but ...

Well, let's say that since we are Asimov fans we clearly get when something is not "Asimovian", if you let me say it.

Same feeling I had reading this book, but I really enjoyed it because of the fact that was different.

Most of all I loved its 360 perspective. Science, theology and philosophical issues. It reminded me of his foundation series. I would consider this book once of a kind, a masterpiece that still connects to us as mankind. Our teeny tiny issues of the daily life, our habits, how evolution has shaped us towards a specific mindset.

Can you imagine what would happen to us if after thousands of years, suddenly our sky would become dark? How would we react to that?

Anyway, I appreciated your comment, its a very insightful one. I just want to add that I read the 1941 nightfall by I.A. alone and this one with Silverberg.

I've finished it just now. I think the third part (daybreak) kind of dragged on too much. I also found the scene Adrian mentioned kind of odd.

The real disappointment for me was lack of strangeness of Kalgash and its occupants. I didn't expect something like The Gods Themselves and in the preface its mentioned they didn't want to use too much made up words; But nearly everything about Kalgashians sounds like humans, even down to customs such as marriage and other stuff. I'd like to see more imagination put into making their habits and customs.

On the stronger note, I liked that the cast of characters included people from different fields and interests and each looked through the problem from their own lenses. Astronomy, archaeology, psychology, public reaction etc.

Leonida wrote: "... Can you imagine what would happen to us if after thousands of years, suddenly our sky would become dark? How would we react to that? ..."

I think there is a novel about that. Aliens build a spherical wall around us. Can't remember what it is called.

Ed wrote: "think there is a novel about that. Aliens build a spherical wall around us. Can't remember what it is called."

Maybe Spin by Robert Charles Wilson ?

That sounds likely. I haven't actually read it.

Wondering if the world depicted in this novel is possible? Read this related article :)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/14...

Antoine wrote: "Wondering if the world depicted in this novel is possible? Read this related article :)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/14..."

Interesting, but it would have been nice if they had a firmer conclusion.

I got a late start on this one. I just finished the prequel section and I think Silverberg did a great job of sticking to Asimov's 1941 style of the original story. I read a little of the middle section that was basically the original story. There was an extra chapter at the start and some minor changes to make a bridge to Silverberg's prequel section. The only thing that puzzles me so far is why Silverberg changed Aton's name to Athor!?!?!? I'll get a better feel for how the preceding section by Silverberg blends with the original story as I get a little further along and refresh my memory.

I just got a copy from the library, so will be starting this one next week.

I just finished chapter 21 and I realize that Silverberg actually made many changes to the original 1941 short story. My original impression was that the original short story remained basically intact as the middle section but that was incorrect. Silverberg moved some details into the first section but the main change was the introduction of a strong female character, Siferra, and a relationship between her and the reporter Theremon. Asimov was criticized for a lack of strong female characters in his early work and I guess Silverberg thought that a strong female character and some mild romance would be a good addition.

So far I'm enjoying the expanded novel although it doesn't have that immediate jolt that the short story had when I read it many, many years ago. For my own curiosity I have been comparing the original story with The middle section of the Silverberg collaboration. If you are interested in doing the same you can find the original here - http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/A...

In comparing the two it looks like Silverberg tried to smooth out Asimov's more abrupt prose style and some pulpishness from 1941 when he was only 21 years old and only been publishing short SF stories for 2 years. It's a shame that Asimov and Silverberg didn't decide to do this in the late 60's when Silverberg had polished his skills as a writer. I think many people like me who weren't crazy about the influx of New Wave SF would have really appreciated a novelization of a classic short story.

I have heard some negative comments about the ending of the novelization so I am a little nervous about finally getting to the third section.

Shant wrote: "I've finished it just now. I think the third part (daybreak) kind of dragged on too much. I also found the scene Adrian mentioned kind of odd.

The real disappointment for me was lack of strangene..."

I think that Silverberg deliberately followed Asimov's lead of not adding to much uniqueness to the background. I think that Asimov did this because in a short story format you don't want to have too many new details to take away from the main plot. It's possible that if Asimov had written this as a novel to begin with he might have established a more unique culture for Kalgash. Silverberg couldn't do that because he needed the have the new sections mesh with the original story.

My original reason for reading this was to see what a novelization would do with one of my all time favorite short stories. In general I don't think there was any improvement although the novel is still worth reading.

One thing that I have to disagree with is the general opinion that the center section only has minor changes from Asimov's short story. I compared the two and the original story is almost totally dialogue driven. Silverberg add many background details that were carried forward from his prequel section. He also added a female character, Siferra, an archeologist, and made her an integral part of the overall story.

The 1941 original was a fast paced short story that quickly led to an ending portraying a terrible apocalyptic event. Silverberg’s novel is more languid in laying out of how the history of the event was uncovered, the doomed to failure efforts of a small group of scientists to deal with the event, the event itself and then the aftermath. The aftermath in the 3rd section turns it into more a a post apocalypse dealing with the event with a possible positive outcome for the future.

I have read the short story several times over the 50+ years and gave it 5 stars for it's impact, especially in the context of being written in 1941. The novel is OK but I can only give it 3 stars.

Unlike many of the SF authors of the 1940's whose only outlet was the short story magazine market, Asimov didn't, at least to my knowledge, attempt to expand any of his short stories into novels when that market opened in the 50's. I wonder what a novelization of this story would have been like if Asimov did it himself in the late 50's?

I've just finished the novel and found that Part 3 just dragged on too long. I thought part 2 was the best and would have given the novel at least a four star rating until I finished part 3.
I did enjoy the book overall and rated it 3 stars.

Now I really need to read the short story.

Jim wrote: "The 1941 original was a fast paced short story that quickly led to an ending portraying a terrible apocalyptic event. Silverberg’s novel is more languid in laying out of how the history of the event was uncovered, ..."

Interesting critique Jim. I haven't read anything about how the novel was written, but it sounds from your messages that it was just Silverberg who took Asimov's short story and made the novel from there, without any input from Asimov himself.
If that is the case it would explain my thoughts that some bits were very Asimov, and then some bits definitely weren't, rather than a collaboration on the extension of the short story.

Jim wrote: "I think that Silverberg deliberately followed Asimov's lead of not adding to much uniqueness to the background. I think that Asimov did..."

Yeah I think you're right. It's completely logical for Asimov to not want to make a short story too obscure. And if Silverberg wanted to follow that route and didn't want to add too much new stuff.

I didn't know about the history of how the novel has developed. reading the comments here it seems Silverberg wrote most of it himself based on the story and its not really a collaboration between the two.