<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Quite good.
Review: All the stories in here are good, but I'd like to talk most about "Genesis" & "Historical Crisis". "Genesis" is as good a story as Poul Anderson has ever written. Considering his career is about 50 years old that says a lot. At his best he is one of the best sf authors. Of course, he has written some really dreadful stuff too, so this recommendation comes from someone who is a critic as well as a fan. Kingsbury's parody & refutation of the ideas in the Foundation Trilogy is also fun. However in End of Eternity & Foundation's Edge Asimov himself criticized & refuted those ideas. End of Eternity isn't in the Foundation series but it ,by implication, said the ideas in the Foundation Trilogy were psychotic. Anyway I liked Kingsbury's story because it added humour to such refutations.
Rating:
Summary: Quite good.
Review: All the stories in here are good, but I'd like to talk most about "Genesis" & "Historical Crisis". "Genesis" is as good a story as Poul Anderson has ever written. Considering his career is about 50 years old that says a lot. At his best he is one of the best sf authors. Of course, he has written some really dreadful stuff too, so this recommendation comes from someone who is a critic as well as a fan. Kingsbury's parody & refutation of the ideas in the Foundation Trilogy is also fun. However in End of Eternity & Foundation's Edge Asimov himself criticized & refuted those ideas. End of Eternity isn't in the Foundation series but it ,by implication, said the ideas in the Foundation Trilogy were psychotic. Anyway I liked Kingsbury's story because it added humour to such refutations.
Rating:
Summary: Quite good.
Review: I'm beginning to suspect that the Kirkus review service pays its people by the mudball. Two of the stories in this book, Anderson's and Haldeman's, ended up in Dozois' "Best SF of the Year" anthology. Hardly a downcheck for the writing. For myself, I enjoyed the Anderson and Sheffield stories muchly for their breadth of scope and sense of the immense reaches of time that stretch before us. Most of all, however, Kingsbury's contribution is a dazzling, awesome, pyrotechnic refutation of the ironfisted tyranny that has always lain within the velvet glove of Asimov's ostensibly gentle "psychohistory." The book is worth its entire weight from this story alone. In addition, Haldeman's "White Hill" contributes tragedy of cosmically moving proportions. I purchased this volume in hardcover *after* reading it from my local library. That's not something I often do
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best anthologies ever published
Review: I'm beginning to suspect that the Kirkus review service pays its people by the mudball. Two of the stories in this book, Anderson's and Haldeman's, ended up in Dozois' "Best SF of the Year" anthology. Hardly a downcheck for the writing. For myself, I enjoyed the Anderson and Sheffield stories muchly for their breadth of scope and sense of the immense reaches of time that stretch before us. Most of all, however, Kingsbury's contribution is a dazzling, awesome, pyrotechnic refutation of the ironfisted tyranny that has always lain within the velvet glove of Asimov's ostensibly gentle "psychohistory." The book is worth its entire weight from this story alone. In addition, Haldeman's "White Hill" contributes tragedy of cosmically moving proportions. I purchased this volume in hardcover *after* reading it from my local library. That's not something I often do
Rating:
Summary: One of the best anthologies ever published
Review: I'm beginning to suspect that the Kirkus review service pays its people by the mudball. Two of the stories in this book, Anderson's and Haldeman's, ended up in Dozois' "Best SF of the Year" anthology. Hardly a downcheck for the writing. For myself, I enjoyed the Anderson and Sheffield stories muchly for their breadth of scope and sense of the immense reaches of time that stretch before us. Most of all, however, Kingsbury's contribution is a dazzling, awesome, pyrotechnic refutation of the ironfisted tyranny that has always lain within the velvet glove of Asimov's ostensibly gentle "psychohistory." The book is worth its entire weight from this story alone. In addition, Haldeman's "White Hill" contributes tragedy of cosmically moving proportions. I purchased this volume in hardcover *after* reading it from my local library. That's not something I often do
Rating:
Summary: Grappling with the Ungraspable
Review: Science fiction abounds with stories dealing with the great questions of how the known universe began and why we came to be. There is a growing body of cosmological theory and evidence as well as religious belief upon which to base such stories. Far Futures, though, deals with another set of great questions: humanity's ultimate destiny, and how it will all end. These are not tackled nearly as often.Benford has pulled together five novellas, all by first-rate science fiction writers, to provide different views. Since this is truly the unknown, these are speculations of the highest order. They must be read as much for their broad concepts as for their scientific, entertainment or literary value. Their concepts are fascinating, to be sure, in particular Greg Bear's and Charles Sheffield's. But by its very nature, this subject is beyond competent conjecture. Nonetheless, this is a good read that gets one to thinking about the (as yet, at least) unknowable.
Rating:
Summary: Grappling with the Ungraspable
Review: Science fiction abounds with stories dealing with the great questions of how the known universe began and why we came to be. There is a growing body of cosmological theory and evidence as well as religious belief upon which to base such stories. Far Futures, though, deals with another set of great questions: humanity's ultimate destiny, and how it will all end. These are not tackled nearly as often. Benford has pulled together five novellas, all by first-rate science fiction writers, to provide different views. Since this is truly the unknown, these are speculations of the highest order. They must be read as much for their broad concepts as for their scientific, entertainment or literary value. Their concepts are fascinating, to be sure, in particular Greg Bear's and Charles Sheffield's. But by its very nature, this subject is beyond competent conjecture. Nonetheless, this is a good read that gets one to thinking about the (as yet, at least) unknowable.
<< 1 >>
|
