Nightfall

Hey look it's another book! One of those things this blog is supposed to be about. So awkward. And what's up with the 10 days of silence? No comment. I had a productive reading break, but didn't actually do much writing...or reading for that matter. Nevertheless, school is back in, and I have a bunch of entries to do to catch up (I've been watching a lot of movies). So, let's begin.
~We're going to say this one is spoiler-ish. Major plot points ruined? No. Minor plot points? Yes~
Nightfall was initially a short story written by Isaac Asimov (of I, Robot and the Foundation Series fame), and, according to the book jacket, "ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR STORIES OF ALL TIME". Alright, Asimov did great and interesting things for Sci-fi. But of 'all time'? Yo, Asimov, Imma let you finish, but Poe did one of the best stories of all time. Is that meme too tired? #swag.

OF ALL TIME

Okay, moving on and getting down to serious business, let's discuss things. Nightfall (the novel, we'll address the short story later) tells the story of Kalgash, a planet with six suns. Because of this, there is never night on Kalgash, the Kalgashians have a crippling fear of darkness, and they have no concept of stars. All of this is entirely plausible, given the parameters we've established. Here's where the plot comes in: Kalgash is heading towards an 18 hour period of night. No suns. No light. Chaos ensues.

The book is split up into three parts; Twilight, Nightfall, and Daybreak. In Twilight, we are introduced to the concept of 'Darkness Disorders' with a psychologist investigating the "Tunnel of Mystery", an attraction in which you ride through a completely dark tunnel for 15 minutes. People died, others went insane. Next, we're introduced to an astronomer who's stumbled on a new discovery concerning Kalgash's six suns. We meet an archaeologist who, while working on the oldest known "human" settlement, discovers 8 more, older settlements, buried beneath the earth. We also meet a reporter who I didn't think was important but was actually the main character, and a bunch of other people who are relevant to the aforementioned characters but overall are not super important. There is also a cult, the Apostles of Flame, who are constantly warning everyone that "The end is nigh(t)". They are generally ignored and ridiculed by the scientific community that represents 90% of the characters in this book.

Next, we get into the Nightfall section, which is, more or less, the original short story by Asimov. The timeline established in Twilight, where we can pass by months in a matter of pages, is compressed for this short, 24ish hour period when the eclipse occurs. Finally, we have Daybreak, which is honestly the most useless section of the novel, largely because we skip over all the insanity that happens at night. Literally, we go from, "The long night had come..." to "The first thing of which Theremon became aware...was that something huge and yellow was hanging over him in the sky." Seriously. You don't get to see the actual night, just the aftermath. No keeping up with the Kalgashians for you.

Okay, I'll stop, I promise.

Overall, the novel dragged. The concept was really interesting, but the text just didn't deliver. We don't see what happens in the dark, just a bunch of crazy people wandering around afterwards. It's difficult to get connected to any of the characters, we're kept at arms distance from all of them, and honestly, none of them are sympathetic enough for a reader to want to care about. Nightfall as a section is fine, but we actually don't need the build up, or what happens after. It should have stayed a short story. 

The most frustrating part of the novel is Daybreak. Things slow to a stop, and we're met with an overwhelming sense of "who cares". The aftermath is boring. What was also weird about Daybreak is its total shift in favor of religion at the end. Throughout the ENTIRE novel, the largest organized religion on the planet (the Apostles of Flame) are ridiculed and mocked. At the end of the novel, they're embraced as the only way. It's a sudden, jarring shift, and it takes all of two pages for the Apostles of Flame to go from villains to heroes. That's sloppy. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, especially given that their leader (Folium 66) is basically a symbolic representation of Satan (you'll note that F is the 6th letter in the alphabet, and that his name in the original short story was Latimer. Like Lucifer. Get it? SO CLEVER).
I had a lot of hopes for Nightfall. It was an interesting premise, and I was interested to see what would happen to a society who had never known darkness at night. You don't really find out. Because we skip over everything that happens at night, it's difficult to suspend our disbelief for Daybreak. Really? One 18 hour period of darkness is enough to completely collapse society? Everyone goes insane? Are you sure? The characters, while flawed in their own way, aren't very relate-able, and we don't care about any of them. Don't even get me started on the sole female character, who starts as a "I am a strong independent work driven woman don't need no man" stereotype to the romantic interest of the reporter to his loving sidekick.
Not the best book I've ever read, but it only too me a few days to read, so it gets a pass for not wasting too much of my time. The short story in itself (the Nightfall segment of the book) was more than enough of the story, the rest of the novel is just exposition, and boring exposition at that.

Next time, we'll be looking at Mad Max: Fury Road, and discussing why I love it now despite being so disappointed at my first showing. I promise one day I will shift away from sci-fi. But today is not that day, nor is tomorrow. In fact, you should just make yourself comfortable.
~Sassa

Stranger in a Strange Land

Hey, look who finally read a book! I've been dutifully working on Stranger in a Strange Land since the New Year, but I only just finished it a week ago--partially owing to the fact that my copy was literally falling apart in my hands, and that makes the going tough. But at least for once, this blog will live up to its name and not feature a movie. Feel free to applaud me whenever the mood strikes.

So, let's get down to it. Stranger in a Strange Land is hailed as a science fiction classic from one of the greats, Robert A. Heinlein. I've previously read Starship Trooper, which was fantastic, so I set my hopes quite high. Heinlein's 1961 epic tells the story of Valentine Michael Smith, a human raised on Mars by martians who is brought back to Earth in adulthood. Despite being heir to quite a hefty estate, Mike knows nothing of wealth, greed, or money. He's never met a woman, and barely speaks English. With some help from his water brothers (humans he's bonded with), Mike is able to adapt to this strange land, and even goes so far as to start teaching people the ways of the Martians, and most importantly, how to grok.

There were a lot of good things about this book. There were also some not so good things. All will be addressed. But let's start with the positive. Robert A. Heinlein has a very engaging style of writing, and he punctuates the story with snippets of top stories from the news. This is a great strategy for not only introducing important concepts to us, but also world building without launching into paragraphs upon paragraphs of description. This isn't a technique that's new to Mr. Heinlein, as it also appears in Starship Trooper, but it's a great way to keep us focused on the main narrative by giving us little brain breaks and teaching us more about the world. A+.

Mr. Heinlein also does a great job of conveying naivety and innocence in Mike without coming off as forced or silly. The reader honestly believes that Mike doesn't understand shoes or social situations, but can grok wrongness in someone and act accordingly. Of course, Mike's idea of rightness and wrongness is quite primary and not bound by human laws. If someone has hurt a water brother, they are acting in wrongness. Water brothers cannot act in wrongness, but have only their water brother's best interests at heart. This childlike simplicity we read in Mike is utterly believable and not difficult for us to grok. 'Grok', in case you were wondering, is a martian word for complete understanding; so complete that you practically become the thing you are trying to understand. This will never be stated clearly in the novel.

So lets move on to the sins. First and foremost, Mr. Heinlein is quite fond of lectures, and we often see some of his more intellectual characters serve as mouthpieces for long-winded rants about social structure, economics, and morality. These rants are often one-sided and are not open for dialogue. The character of Jubal Harshaw is particularly bad for this. Not to say that these tangents aren't interesting or good food for thought, but they're not exactly good fiction either. It is easy to forget that you are reading about the fictional life of Michael Smith and are instead reading a manifesto on why the hippies were actually onto something.

Initially, we get the sense that Mr. Heinlein doesn't have a very high opinion of religion, the only one featured prominently in the first half of the book being the Fosterites who, among other things, practice ritualized suicide and indulge in sinful behaviours because they are 'eternally saved'. They seem to be set up as a parody of the modern church (or at least modern for Mr. Heinlein's day) and are ridiculed and mocked by all the characters being shown to have any sense. Now, the mocking of religion is not a sin in itself (I mean, if we want to get into technicalities, it is, but who cares?). What becomes confusing is that this view is flipped 180 degrees in the second half of the novel, where we are introduced to confusing segments that appear to be happening in heaven, along with some heavy Jesus imagery to accompany Michael. The second half of the novel sees Michael establishing his own church, the Church of All Worlds, which is more along the lines of a free love commune with seriously cult overtones. The Church of All Worlds is a front to teach people to grok, but everyone there, including the highest, inner circle, treat it like a cult. Mr. Heinlein's views on religion seem to be almost the complete opposite of what he established in the earlier part of the novel, and this is confusing on some levels, particularly the "heaven" sequences we are treated to with no explanation or grounding.

Finally, the biggest, baddest sin; his portrayal of women. Now, I know this book was published in 1961 and written in the ten years prior to that. I understand that women's rights and equality were not quite up to modern standards. However, I do still feel that it's something that needs to be addressed, because some of the lines are quite horrific. Let's start with the worst offender, a line from Gillian, Mike's #1 water brother. To note is the fact that Gillian is a nurse, and is talking to Michael:
"Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault."
Ouch. I actually had to stop reading after that line, because I was so angry about it. Stranger in a Strange Land is a largely satirical work, but we don't get the feeling that Mr. Heinlein is being sarcastic with this viewpoint. I can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that statement. Another big offender comes from the eternally enlightened Doctor Lawyer Jubal Harshaw:
"Pipe down, Anne. Close your mouth, Dorcas. This is not a time when women have the vote."
I really do understand that this book is a product of its time, and lines like this speak volumes. Generally though, I don't agree with Mr. Heinlein's portrayal of female characters. Gillian is painfully incompetent when it comes to anything outside of nursing, and there is never a time when she doesn't rely on a man to save her in a tight spot. Anne, Dorcas, and Miriam are all secretaries of Jubal, and while they are strong willed and largely independent, we are still treated to several scenes of them quietly making dinner, and then retiring to silence to let the men talk. Also, all three girls are completely interchangeable in terms of personality, all that differs in them are their names and physical descriptions. A science fiction novel? Certainly. Futuristic in all ways? Definitely not.

I understand that there are two versions of this book floating around; the originally published, cut version which purportedly cut 60,000 words, and the re-released uncut version. I'm not sure which one I read. What I do feel, overall, is that the book loses strength the further you get into it. The beginning is quite interesting and poses some interesting questions about morality and economics and how our world is run, and it continues to present questions later on, but they are questions more along the lines of "what is love?" and "why can't we all be friends?" The general atmosphere of the last half of the book is unsettling and off-putting, and though you feel that you are supposed to be sympathetic to this group of characters, you can't help but be made uncomfortable by their actions. Again, with the introduction of the surreal "afterlife" segments, we are left confused, and the ending is equally confusing. It was certainly an interesting read, but I enjoyed Starship Trooper more. Maybe my expectations were too high. It feels like Mr. Heinlein tried to tackle too many things at once, and overall lost the point he was trying to make. It is thought provoking and definitely provocative, you can understand why this book was banned off school reading lists when it was first released. Perhaps it is simply a matter of not grokking deeply enough, or perhaps Mr. Heinlein bit off more than he could chew.

Next review will be the ever awaited judgement of the Fast & Furious septology. I also just finished reading Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, so look forward to that too!

~Sassa