1. There are three things that try to be central here: the murder investigation, the study of robotics, and earth's future—in the sense of medievalism versus colonization of new worlds. I find the study of robotics interesting in its deep examination of examples of the three laws of robotics in action, as well as the differences between creator and created. I find the future similarly interesting—not being up to date with ecological research is jarring, but nobody can fault him for writing when he did. This future third path between the stability of spacers' regimented culture and the barely controlled chaos of earth cities comes off like humans walking: a cultural controlled fall. Which is good. The murder investigation is a letdown though. The first two chapters make it seem like the whole novel will circle around that, so the coming of the other two elements initially feel like overly long rabbit trails, then startlingly long ones, then complete shifts in what the novel is dealing with. He ties all three off neatly at the end, but disappointingly because they never quite achieve symbiosis, they never work together well enough to really support the novel, or seem like they must be together. I find Asimov fails to fit them together legibly. In each examination of these elements he focuses too sharply so the other two elements are forgotten and the switches in focus are jarring and make the novel seem like it meanders. Also, how many science fiction story start off with a murder? Too many.
2. Partly that failure is the fault of the implausibility of the investigation—basic police questions are ignored until the end, three days into the investigation. The detective does not even view the site of the crime until then. But mostly it is the main character not being well written or interesting. He comes off like a caricature of a detective, while continually assuring himself that his partner is the character, not him. He is a puppet and Asimov jerks the strings this way and that in a logical pattern, but not a human one—Elijah's never quite believable. There's too much telling about him and not enough showing. Or maybe the telling is just poorly done. He is two dimensional and uninterestingly typical without enough uniqueness or individuality or various interactions to really support the narrative weight Asimov attempts to make him bear.
3. The plot is too concise. There is no minor character or action that does not come back to inform the plot later in a pat way. It's all tied together too neatly and is not allowed to breathe at all. It doesn't allow the reader any paths of mental exploration because it's all there, clearly stated and obvious. It is clever, sure, but it feels shoehorned, corseted, sewed up too tightly to be really engaging or to leave the reader any leeway. By trying to make everything important, it makes nothing important. I was bored by the continual attempt at equal importance.
4. But the story is good. I found it interesting and kept reading. I think it could've been better. For instance, Elijah tells the reader of his past success running through the moving walkways as a child. He also tells us of catching his son doing the same. Both tellings lack relatability to the reader because he shows us what running the walkways is only after he tells us those two anecdotes of running them. Where as, if Asimov showed Bentley running and then being caught on scene, then Elijah chewing him out, then Elijah reminiscing over past experiences doing the same as a kid, this could've been much more engaging. It also could have showed an effect of this investigation on his family life. This structure would've seemed more drawn from human life and natural reactions. It was interesting still, how he did do it, it was fine. But it could've been done better.
5. The writing is clear and lifeless. Like the characters are caricatures, so the writing relies on stock, tired phrases. It's never terrible, but it's never great either. The worst it got was using the title three or four times in the novel itself—once would've been enough here, if necessary. I get it: cities are like caves made out of steel.
6. I enjoyed the book despite all this. The ideas were engaging, the action was well paced, and the examination of future politics, New York City, social issues, and views on our times were well thought out and clear. It leaves little room for speculation and should've perhaps been three novellas, but it was not terrible at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment