Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by pinenoodle
The Stars, Like Dust by Isaac Asimov
5.0
I love Isaac Asimov.
I've always enjoyed his novels and other fiction, but this is one of the best. And it's only his second published novel--a fact I found out after hearing the word spacionautics instead of astronautics. That, really, is my one criticism--I appreciate that Asimov coined the word 'robotics' but I'm glad spacionautics didn't stick around (I don't know if that was Asimov's word or if he borrowed it, but it's a jarring mix of modern English and Greek roots. Jarring for me, at least.
Other than that, I love the way that Asimov is playing with tropes, undermining tropes--some of which probably didn't exist yet. I especially noticed one about royalty. Modern fantasy, especially, has a tendency towards desportism; here's a frequent storyline. (Good) king is killed, or at least has his power usurped by -- relative, outsider, whoever. The good prince(ss) or maybe the former monarch themself, does everything in the power, gaining the help of new friends along the way, to restore their (benevolent) despotism. Yay monarch, boo democracy.
The Stars Like Dust is set up to do that, but, well, manages to suggest a very different ending (though perhaps the characters aren't convincing in this, but I didn't care)
He also shows, masterfully, how to insert sudden twists that, on review, make complete sense. He does it quite a few times. In fact the only twist that I caught before hand (and I caught it long before hand) was SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT the document that the main characters father had been looking for and that is brought out at the end. The document that would destroy the khans, but also themselves Ok, that's a minor lie, I thought it was going to be the US Declaration of Independence. It turned out to be the Constitution.
This almost strikes me as overly jingoistic (he is writing in the 50s), and tainted by the idea of spreading 'democracy' at any, undemocratic, price. This is at the beginning of the cold war.
On the other hand, this is the early fifties, an era of decolonization when countries that had been under the thumb of US allies like Britain and France (and in some cases the US themselves), were being given the chance set up democracy for themselves. I don't know if that's what Asimov was thinking, but it fits for me.
I've always enjoyed his novels and other fiction, but this is one of the best. And it's only his second published novel--a fact I found out after hearing the word spacionautics instead of astronautics. That, really, is my one criticism--I appreciate that Asimov coined the word 'robotics' but I'm glad spacionautics didn't stick around (I don't know if that was Asimov's word or if he borrowed it, but it's a jarring mix of modern English and Greek roots. Jarring for me, at least.
Other than that, I love the way that Asimov is playing with tropes, undermining tropes--some of which probably didn't exist yet. I especially noticed one about royalty. Modern fantasy, especially, has a tendency towards desportism; here's a frequent storyline. (Good) king is killed, or at least has his power usurped by -- relative, outsider, whoever. The good prince(ss) or maybe the former monarch themself, does everything in the power, gaining the help of new friends along the way, to restore their (benevolent) despotism. Yay monarch, boo democracy.
The Stars Like Dust is set up to do that, but, well, manages to suggest a very different ending (though perhaps the characters aren't convincing in this, but I didn't care)
He also shows, masterfully, how to insert sudden twists that, on review, make complete sense. He does it quite a few times. In fact the only twist that I caught before hand (and I caught it long before hand) was SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT the document that the main characters father had been looking for and that is brought out at the end. The document that would destroy the khans, but also themselves Ok, that's a minor lie, I thought it was going to be the US Declaration of Independence. It turned out to be the Constitution.
This almost strikes me as overly jingoistic (he is writing in the 50s), and tainted by the idea of spreading 'democracy' at any, undemocratic, price. This is at the beginning of the cold war.
On the other hand, this is the early fifties, an era of decolonization when countries that had been under the thumb of US allies like Britain and France (and in some cases the US themselves), were being given the chance set up democracy for themselves. I don't know if that's what Asimov was thinking, but it fits for me.