Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
hopeful
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
emotional
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Silverberg clearly intended this novel as a kind of eulogy to Asimov. It carefully retains the style and thematic approaches that Asimov used. A book of dialog, a measured pace, minimal action, maximum reasoning and logic. As a result, the novel (this is a big 'IMO') both succeeds AND fails because of its achievement of these elements. The novel succeeds in expanding Asimov's short story in exactly the same way Asimov would have likely novelized the short story, 50 years ago. That makes the novel a 50-year-old object, as if it were found in a time capsule. Concurrently, the novel fails because it does not tackle some of the improvements in more recent SF: There was no attempt to update with new technology, or more detailed scientific background ('hard' SF has improved in that regard, over SF from the 1950s). The logic and moral reasoning, and characterization, could have been more meaningfully complex. The pacing of the plot might be too slow for many readers not from that age (which are almost all readers now). The edginess of the best modern SF is missing.
It would be interesting to see an anthology of novellas from original short story: 'the ugly little boy', written by authors not wanting to emulate Asimov, but to take their world-views and literary skills and apply it to the story's concepts. Simmons, Bacigalupi, Doctorow, Willis....Eulogize Asimov with a modern-day regeneration and interpretation of 'the ugly little boy'.
It would be interesting to see an anthology of novellas from original short story: 'the ugly little boy', written by authors not wanting to emulate Asimov, but to take their world-views and literary skills and apply it to the story's concepts. Simmons, Bacigalupi, Doctorow, Willis....Eulogize Asimov with a modern-day regeneration and interpretation of 'the ugly little boy'.
This book is one with a fascinating core idea that just ends up missing the mark for me. "What if we bring a Neanderthal child to the future to study it, but due to the limits of our time-travel tech it can't leave the dedicated room we have set up?" is a heck of a question, and in some ways Asimov and Silverberg raise interesting questions.
But then, at the same time, there's so much that could have been done differently. The child's caretaker is a woman who is a childless matronly spinster (and was the Goldilocks pick), the scientists who did all this without a care about the effect they were having on the child are painted as perfectly reasonable, very intelligent men who kno what they're doing, and the only character who appears to ever try and argue that this is child abuse is painted as a self-obsessed glory-seeking crackpot, who is being pushed into going after the scientists by a ladder-climbing woman who's mad she didn't get the caretaker job.
At its core, the story of a small child who gets yanked through time just to be studied has a lot that can be done, and some of it is here, but so much of it just doesn't quite make it. Possibly a product of its time, possibly a product of its writers. Not a bad book, but not one I'll be revisiting.
But then, at the same time, there's so much that could have been done differently. The child's caretaker is a woman who is a childless matronly spinster (and was the Goldilocks pick), the scientists who did all this without a care about the effect they were having on the child are painted as perfectly reasonable, very intelligent men who kno what they're doing, and the only character who appears to ever try and argue that this is child abuse is painted as a self-obsessed glory-seeking crackpot, who is being pushed into going after the scientists by a ladder-climbing woman who's mad she didn't get the caretaker job.
At its core, the story of a small child who gets yanked through time just to be studied has a lot that can be done, and some of it is here, but so much of it just doesn't quite make it. Possibly a product of its time, possibly a product of its writers. Not a bad book, but not one I'll be revisiting.
One of my favorite books as a youth. It holds up well. It's just... sweet.
So good. Syfy mixed racism with pulling a kid out of the past.
Excellent collaboration, The story fleshed out is a great moral lesson
adventurous
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This was a surprisingly good read. I was expecting it to be pretty dated, based on an Asimov story and expanded by Robert Silverberg, but it delves into a lot of assumptions about what makes us human, and does fairly well in representing male and female characters. The ending is a little abrupt, and I would have preferred another chapter or so to resolve things, but overall very enjoyable.
This is actually a short story, later expanded into a novel with the co-writing of Robert Silverberg, and there's oodles of Asimov to read and enjoy. I loved the whole mind-bending of the story, of scientists who find a way to bring forward people from an earlier time, but only in a small enclosure, and for a limited period of time. They want to talk to them, take tissue samples, study how they move and behave. After scoring with a peasant from the Renaissance, they manage to bring forward a small Neanderthal boy. If this story doesn't make you cry you have no heart. And afterwards, it'll make you think.