Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.42 AVERAGE
3.42 AVERAGE
adventurous
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
As a big fan of sci-fi, I'll say the book is very interesting when it comes to the science and space talk. Even the politics were interesting.
The characters seemed very one dimensional, like they each had one to three traits and that's it. I liked one part where instead of a guy taking off his glasses in the middle of an interigation, he just takes out his contact lenses.
But worst of all was the only female character. Of course taking into account that it's a book written by a man in 1950 or so, it makes sense and is even expected. But this was really bad. The sexism and alienation of woman is vary prominent. The main female character is written as nothing more than an object that falls in love with the main male lead. And just continues on repeating it to him. And even though they call her brave, rebellious or something like that, she's certainly not. She's written as the perfect male fantasy of a woman - gullible, stupid, fallows every man and their command and thinks only of them or her own looks. It's quite hard to read.
SPOILER: the most disappointing fact was the ending where this VERY important document, cited as the ultimate weapon capable of taking down the intergalactic government, the one they've been talking/thinking about the whole book turns out to be the American declaration of independence. The same one that's not working and hasn't been for quite a while.
If this book had been just the science and talk about space, galaxies and stars, it would have been great.
The characters seemed very one dimensional, like they each had one to three traits and that's it. I liked one part where instead of a guy taking off his glasses in the middle of an interigation, he just takes out his contact lenses.
But worst of all was the only female character. Of course taking into account that it's a book written by a man in 1950 or so, it makes sense and is even expected. But this was really bad. The sexism and alienation of woman is vary prominent. The main female character is written as nothing more than an object that falls in love with the main male lead. And just continues on repeating it to him. And even though they call her brave, rebellious or something like that, she's certainly not. She's written as the perfect male fantasy of a woman - gullible, stupid, fallows every man and their command and thinks only of them or her own looks. It's quite hard to read.
If this book had been just the science and talk about space, galaxies and stars, it would have been great.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Misogyny, Sexism, Murder
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This book was fine, it was a little boring for an Asimov book. All the characters felt flat and too similar. No one really stood out as a character and it felt like everything was disconnected in a weird way. I just couldn’t find myself caring about the plot at all.
This is definitely not one of my favorites of Asimov. Asimov was one of those male authors who should have left any element of romance out of his works because most of the time - like in this book - it ended up cringe-worthy. I mean, I'm pretty sure was cringey in the '50s when it was written (it was definitely already cringey in the '80s when I first read it), so you can imagine it didn't age well at all.
That said, it's still a decent sci-fi if you leave out the so-called romance. It's got a few mild twists and redirects to leave you guessing.
That said, it's still a decent sci-fi if you leave out the so-called romance. It's got a few mild twists and redirects to leave you guessing.
My copy of this book concludes with the following Afterword:
"The Stars, Like Dust was written and first published in 1950. At that time, we did not know as much about planetary atmospheres as we do now. In Chapter 17, I speak of a lifeless world as possessing nitrogen and oxygen, but no carbon dioxide. It seems now quite certain, that a lifeless 'E-type' world (a small and rocky one, like Earth, that is relatively close to its star) would, if it possessed an atmosphere, have one that was made up of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, but no oxygen. I can't change Chapter 17 appropriately without having to rewrite a great deal of the book, so I will ask you to suspend your disbelief in this respect and enjoy the book (assuming you do) on its own terms."
I find it difficult to picture the sci-fi fan for whom this incredibly minor detail would ruin the whole story, but the Afterword ought to read something like:
"At that time, we did not know as much about women as fully-developed human beings with multidimensional personalities as we do now. It seems now quite certain, that a woman like Artemisia would, if she possessed a mind, have one that functioned in normal, adult ways, capable of thoughts about matters besides make-up and clothing and the size of her cabin. I can't change her character appropriately without having to rewrite a great deal of the book, so I will ask you to suspend your disbelief in this respect and enjoy the book (assuming you do) as a relic of its time."
Fancy having enough imagination to conjure a tale thousands of years in the future in a galaxy colonized by humanity armed with hyperdrive-powered starships . . . and still not being able to imagine a woman who doesn't act like a transplant from bourgeois mid-century America. Though, to be entirely fair, there isn't a well-written character anywhere in the story, with the protagonist the least likable of all. Artemisia, if nothing else, is saddled with problems that are easy to overlook because they so obviously originate from the author's own silliness.
Now, it's been several years since I read an Asimov novel, but if memory serves, characters were never particularly his strong suit. His specialties are story beats and big ideas, and both are reasonably well-served here. This is a quick read, with several interesting twists . . . but it ends on such a ridiculous Cold-War-era rah-rah-American-exceptionalism groaner, that just flies in completely out of left field and spoils the conclusion. Not a bad read, but far from the best of Asimov's work.
"The Stars, Like Dust was written and first published in 1950. At that time, we did not know as much about planetary atmospheres as we do now. In Chapter 17, I speak of a lifeless world as possessing nitrogen and oxygen, but no carbon dioxide. It seems now quite certain, that a lifeless 'E-type' world (a small and rocky one, like Earth, that is relatively close to its star) would, if it possessed an atmosphere, have one that was made up of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, but no oxygen. I can't change Chapter 17 appropriately without having to rewrite a great deal of the book, so I will ask you to suspend your disbelief in this respect and enjoy the book (assuming you do) on its own terms."
I find it difficult to picture the sci-fi fan for whom this incredibly minor detail would ruin the whole story, but the Afterword ought to read something like:
"At that time, we did not know as much about women as fully-developed human beings with multidimensional personalities as we do now. It seems now quite certain, that a woman like Artemisia would, if she possessed a mind, have one that functioned in normal, adult ways, capable of thoughts about matters besides make-up and clothing and the size of her cabin. I can't change her character appropriately without having to rewrite a great deal of the book, so I will ask you to suspend your disbelief in this respect and enjoy the book (assuming you do) as a relic of its time."
Fancy having enough imagination to conjure a tale thousands of years in the future in a galaxy colonized by humanity armed with hyperdrive-powered starships . . . and still not being able to imagine a woman who doesn't act like a transplant from bourgeois mid-century America. Though, to be entirely fair, there isn't a well-written character anywhere in the story, with the protagonist the least likable of all. Artemisia, if nothing else, is saddled with problems that are easy to overlook because they so obviously originate from the author's own silliness.
Now, it's been several years since I read an Asimov novel, but if memory serves, characters were never particularly his strong suit. His specialties are story beats and big ideas, and both are reasonably well-served here. This is a quick read, with several interesting twists . . . but it ends on such a ridiculous Cold-War-era rah-rah-American-exceptionalism groaner, that just flies in completely out of left field and spoils the conclusion. Not a bad read, but far from the best of Asimov's work.
informative
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This is the first book I've read by Asimov and I found it pretty mediocre. Not much actually happens - it's almost exclusively conversations between characters interspersed between world-building descriptions. I found most of the characters to be fairly one-dimensional and not especially likeable.
With all of that said, it's a fairly quick read and it seems like it could set some ground work for a more interesting story. Asimov also has an interesting way of shifting perspectives between characters and does an okay job of expressing what personality they do have when the perspective is on them.
With all of that said, it's a fairly quick read and it seems like it could set some ground work for a more interesting story. Asimov also has an interesting way of shifting perspectives between characters and does an okay job of expressing what personality they do have when the perspective is on them.
It’s got all the elements of a good Asimov story, but they just don’t quite click together.
Not gripping. Biron has not been well introduced to the readers, which makes you less likely to root for him in the way that you would for other Asimov characters, such as Elijah Baley or Hari Seldon. The storyline couldn't sustain itself and I stopped reading after ~40%