Review of NIGHTFALL, by Asimov and Silverberg
Dani Zweig
>First of all, I can tell you, if you are worried that _Nightfall_ damages
>"Nightfall", then lay your fears to rest. _Nightfall_ makes, in my
>opinion, very little changes in the short story. And before you say,
>"Aha! I KNEW it would change the story,"...
That the novel remain true to the story seems uncommonly important to
you, and probably reflects your attachment to the story. I've always
thought of the short story as good-but-overrated, so the idea that it's
been tampered with wouldn't bother me. In fact, the review seems to
make a good case that more tampering could have made for a better novel.
>The smallest changes are in some names. The planet Lagash is now Kalgash.
>The six suns are no longer Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc., but Onos, Dovim,
>Trey, Patru, Tano and Sitha. The Hideout is now called the Sanctuary.
>The Cultists are now the Apostles of Flame. Aton 77, the Director of Saro
>University, is now Athor 77, head of the Observatory at Saro University.
Reasonable changes. The short story has to convey a great deal in a
hurry, and the simpler naming eases the load on the reader. Changing
Aton to Athor is perhaps less promising, as we lose the mild sun
symbolism without gaining anything in exchange.
>The other disappointment in "Daybreak" also could not have been avoided,
>and that is the reader's inclination to view all of "Daybreak" as
>denouement. The short story climaxed right there at the very end, with
>Nightfall itself and the revealing of the Stars. That same climax exists
>in the novel, at the end of the second part. But the novel goes on...
In other words, the price you pay for being true to the short story is
that the novel is poorly structured. The story is superior "punchline"
fiction, with everything leading up to -- and validated by -- the last line.
(Inferior punchline stories tend to be shaggy dog stories.) In terms of
the structure of the novel, the only way to be true to the story is to
tell the punchline too soon.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
'T is with our judgements as our watches, none
Go alike, yet each believes his own
--Alexander Pope
Bo Lindbergh
> Erich=Hurst%Mfg=Sys%IM=H...@bangate.compaq.com:
> >The smallest changes are in some names. The planet Lagash is now Kalgash.
> >The six suns are no longer Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc., but Onos, Dovim,
> >Trey, Patru, Tano and Sitha. The Hideout is now called the Sanctuary.
> >The Cultists are now the Apostles of Flame. Aton 77, the Director of Saro
> >University, is now Athor 77, head of the Observatory at Saro University.
>
> Reasonable changes. The short story has to convey a great deal in a
> hurry, and the simpler naming eases the load on the reader. Changing
> Aton to Athor is perhaps less promising, as we lose the mild sun
> symbolism without gaining anything in exchange.
Perhaps Silverberg thought the Piers Anthony reference was in bad taste?
:-) :-) :-)
/Bo Lindbergh
Ojvind Bernander
>First of all, I can tell you, if you are worried that _Nightfall_ damages
>"Nightfall", then lay your fears to rest. _Nightfall_ makes, in my
>opinion, very little changes in the short story. And before you say,
>"Aha! I KNEW it would change the story,"...
I was very disappointed in the novel. I saw two main flaws. The first
is that the original length of the story suits it fine--about 40 pages.
The middle section of the book corresponds fairly well to the short story,
but then a long prelude and a long and pointless postlude were slapped on.
Especially the postlude that dealt with people going crazy added very little
to the story and the madness of the people was not very convincing, IMHO.
The second problem is that the Silverberg's effort to write in an Asimovesque
style succeeded too well in the negative aspects: long monologues,
unconvincing narrowmindedness of characters and general lack of depth and
subtlety--something Silverberg is usually good at. On the other hand,
Asimov's top quality, suspense and pacing, were lacking due to the stretching
of a short story into a novel.
Matthew P Wiener
>The middle section of the book corresponds fairly well to the short story,
>but then a long prelude and a long and pointless postlude were slapped on.
The long prelude wasn't so bad, by the way. If you don't know the story,
it's an OK showing of various scientific/archaelogical/psychological leads
building up to the climax. If you do know the story, it was a waste.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)