Scan barcode
skylar2's review against another edition
2.0
I really want to rate this higher, and I would if it were published separately. Unfortunately, while the actual Beyond the Fall of Night plot is quite interesting and engaging (Benford clearly let his creative imagination and humor run wild), there are some critical flaws:
First, the synopsis implies this was a collaboration between Clarke and Benford. As far as I can tell, it's not; rather, it's a re-publishing of Against the Fall of Night (Clarke) coupled with Beyond the Fall of Night (Benford).
Second, the inconsistencies between the Against and Beyond make the latter come off more like fan fiction than a sequel. According to legend in Against, the moon was destroyed long ago by the Invaders, yet it's intact (without explanation) in Beyond, and plays a pivotal part in the plot. In other legend in Against, the Mad Mind was trapped in a "black sun" at the edge of the galaxy, but that was rewritten (with barely more explanation than the moon's existence) to be in the center of the galaxy.
I was certainly entertained by Beyond, but simply can't get beyond the flaws in Benford's plot.
First, the synopsis implies this was a collaboration between Clarke and Benford. As far as I can tell, it's not; rather, it's a re-publishing of Against the Fall of Night (Clarke) coupled with Beyond the Fall of Night (Benford).
Spoiler
Second, the inconsistencies between the Against and Beyond make the latter come off more like fan fiction than a sequel. According to legend in Against, the moon was destroyed long ago by the Invaders, yet it's intact (without explanation) in Beyond, and plays a pivotal part in the plot. In other legend in Against, the Mad Mind was trapped in a "black sun" at the edge of the galaxy, but that was rewritten (with barely more explanation than the moon's existence) to be in the center of the galaxy.
I was certainly entertained by Beyond, but simply can't get beyond the flaws in Benford's plot.
paracyclops's review against another edition
3.0
This book consists of Arthur C. Clarke's 1948 novella 'Against the fall of night', followed by Gregory Benford's 1990 sequel. Clarke's original, his first book, seems like more of a sketch than a finished story, with very little texture or detail. It tells a story of the unimaginably distant future, in which humans have retreated to life in a single hight-tech city, remembering their glorious history of galactic domination, but not wishing to revisit it. The whole thing is imagined with such a mechanistic understanding of psychology, sociology, history, and evolution, that I found it difficult to buy into it at all, and the characters have very little depth.
Benford's sequel picks up pretty seamlessly, but quite quickly begins to accumulate detail and texture. The worldbuilding is not just a collection of ideas, as in the Clarke original, but a genuine attempt to imagine what it would be like to live them. It's not entirely successful, and the main character feels like something of a cypher (the defining tragedy of her life barely seems to affect her), but its such an improvement on the original that it's hard to imagine why he felt moved to write a sequel to it! As the second half of the book proceeds, the writing gets better and better. Benford gets some big ideas across in a small number of words—the power of biological complexity, the limits of reason, the significance of the individual organism measured against the vast scale of the cosmos…
It's only in the last few chapters that it becomes apparent how excellent a writer Benford is, and Clarke's contribution is really an apprentice piece, from which few readers would have guessed what a storied career lay before him, so this is overall not an aboslute classic, but it's a rewarding read.
Benford's sequel picks up pretty seamlessly, but quite quickly begins to accumulate detail and texture. The worldbuilding is not just a collection of ideas, as in the Clarke original, but a genuine attempt to imagine what it would be like to live them. It's not entirely successful, and the main character feels like something of a cypher (the defining tragedy of her life barely seems to affect her), but its such an improvement on the original that it's hard to imagine why he felt moved to write a sequel to it! As the second half of the book proceeds, the writing gets better and better. Benford gets some big ideas across in a small number of words—the power of biological complexity, the limits of reason, the significance of the individual organism measured against the vast scale of the cosmos…
It's only in the last few chapters that it becomes apparent how excellent a writer Benford is, and Clarke's contribution is really an apprentice piece, from which few readers would have guessed what a storied career lay before him, so this is overall not an aboslute classic, but it's a rewarding read.
taetris's review against another edition
2.0
Beyond the Fall of Night consists of two parts, a novella by Arthur C. Clarke called Against the Fall of Night and a continuation of this novella by Gregory Benford. The first I found interesting and unique, the second too abstract and rambling.
The original novella was unique and interesting, as it was set billions of years in the future and it was about earth, but so different that it was not recognisable. In this setting, today's time were the Dawn Ages, a very ancient past. This was an interesting perspective. The story itself was ok and just really follows the discovery of different aspects of the world. For instance, the novella describes a machine that operates a lot like a google search, albeit with a waiting period and having the answers printed out on a slip of paper.
The continuation by Benford is set a few centuries after the original novella. It focuses heavily on the biological aspect of the world and universe. Toward the end, the story's climax occured, but it was so abstract and "up in the air" that it didn't really feel like it resolved any of the conflict. The conflict itself was very abstract and ex machina was a recurring theme.
The original novella was unique and interesting, as it was set billions of years in the future and it was about earth, but so different that it was not recognisable. In this setting, today's time were the Dawn Ages, a very ancient past. This was an interesting perspective. The story itself was ok and just really follows the discovery of different aspects of the world. For instance, the novella describes a machine that operates a lot like a google search, albeit with a waiting period and having the answers printed out on a slip of paper.
The continuation by Benford is set a few centuries after the original novella. It focuses heavily on the biological aspect of the world and universe. Toward the end, the story's climax occured, but it was so abstract and "up in the air" that it didn't really feel like it resolved any of the conflict. The conflict itself was very abstract and ex machina was a recurring theme.
thogek's review against another edition
3.0
Fascinating 1953 Arthur Clarke novella with an odd 1990 Greg Benford sequel.
Clark's original Against the Fall of Night novella: 4 stars.
Benford's sequel "Part 2" story: 2.5 stars.
Clark's original Against the Fall of Night novella: 4 stars.
Benford's sequel "Part 2" story: 2.5 stars.
tdeshler's review
3.0
The Clarke novella was interesting and set the groundwork for an interesting followup. Unfortunately, what we got seemed to bear no resemblance to the first story, except for the main character Alvin. It's as if many volumes in between were skipped in impatience to get to the end. Big ideas were explored in that story, but it felt insufficiently grounded in anything I could relate to.
jameseckman's review
2.0
Nowadays when I see Gregory Benford's name on the cover, I give it a pass unless someone I trust has given it a good review. The original is one of my favorite classics.
More...