Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: 'Against the fall of night', and 'City and the Stars' were one of the best stories ACC wrote.It is a pity that Mr Benson didn't read either of them. 'Beyond the fall of night' takes some of the characters of ACC's book and reduces them. In fact, he appears to change so much of the original story that it is virtually unrecognisable. I find it difficult to believe that this is an 'authorised' sequel, since it contradicts much of what is written in the first book. The packaging of the book (putting the original in with the sequel) means that the contradictions are glaring (how come the moon was restored to completeness when it was destroyed by the weapon at Shalmarine?). The magnificence of the original novel has been lost in a hodgepodge of characters, ferris wheels and a pineapple spaceship. What? Not recommended for anyone who has read the original. I think it was a mistake for Mr Benson to write this novel, and a mistake for Mr Clarke to let him.
Rating:
Summary: Failed attempt to improve on a historic gem
Review: Arthur C Clarke is undoubtedly one of the seminal science fiction authors of the last century, and "The City and the Stars" was his finest work. To produce "The City and the Stars" Clarke endured a couple of decades of gestation before releasing the quintessential "far future" novel. No one has done it better or as well since.In a few pages TCAS encapsulated or spawned some many science fiction themes that it has kept Clarke's imitators employed for generations. Unfortunately "Beyond the Fall of Night" has one obvious observation, that, given the vast amount of time that elapsed in the first novel life would move on. Whilst true as an axiom, the underpinings of the second novel utterly dimish the grandeur and depth of TCAS. TCAS was all about invoking a sense of wonder at the future and a sense of melancholy at the decline in our species. TCAS didn't rely on aliens, it was a book about us as a species and about humanity making hard choices and living a productive future with a vision. The simple beautiful language of the original is spurned by the blunter prose of the sequel. Unfortunately as Arthur C ages, his colloborative works become more evidently the product mostly of his co-workers. Witness the "Rama" series, the first work, written solely by Clarke, was superb yet the subsequent novels are derivative and soul less swollen tomes produced mostly by Mr G Lee. The sure indicators of a "fake" colloborative effort (ie where Clarke has little to do with the actual writing) is the length of the work, the presence of sex or religious overtones and a coy "modernness". Most of science fiction's writers when they reach their twilight years end up relentlessly mining, and milking, their earlier inspirations - witness Asimov's and Heinlein's essentially unproductive last twenty years but Clarke has shown he continues to have his genius. "How the World was Won", "The Ghost of the Grand Banks" etc all show that Clarke remained at the time "Beyond" was written a major creative force. Dr Benford has had a collection of uneven novels behind him, although mostly in his earlier works such as "Artifact" "Across the Sea of Suns", and "If the Stars are Gods", before hitting his stride in the excellent "Great Sky River" novels, so you would expect something better. Benford and Clarke share some many persceptives, especially their belief in hard science, that the reader would have expected something better from two such talents.
Rating: 
Summary: Clarke's half = 4 stars, Benford's half = 0 stars
Review: Arthur C. Clarke was the man who popularised the term "the technology of an advanced culture will be indistinguishable from magic." The best science fantasy writers know this - George Lucas and Asimov make no attempt to explain lightsabres or positronic brains. And Clarke, of course, makes no attempt to explain the technology of an isolated Earth city 2 billion (or thereabouts) years into the future. Instead, the first half of this book gives us an entertaining and light voyage through a society stagnated by immortality and robot-assisted ease. When Alvin, the first child born in thousands of years, rebels against this society, we are taken along for the ride. He learns that his city of Diaspar is not the only community left on the planet, and he makes further discoveries that are fun to read about. This part of the book is a reprint of Clarke's Against the Fall of Night, which was written early in his career and shows it. It is fast paced (perhaps to a fault), and we're surprised at the naivete of all the characters at one time or another. However, it's fun for a light read and recommended. The second half, written by Benford, is supposed to be a sequel, but bears absolutely no resemblance to Clarke's work. There are a number problems. Firstly, only 2 characters from Clarke's work survive, and they are relegated to supporting roles. Secondly, Benford makes the mistake of focussing on technology that is built 2 billion years in the future. This technology is used to fight the superbeing known as the Mad Mind, an energy-based species without physical form, but it's inherently silly to pit airplanes against a mental force. Finally, the "good" mentalic creature, Vanamonde, is ignored, even though its purpose from the first story is to fight the Mad Mind. Thus, as a sequel, Benford's work is a disaster. Unfortunately, read on its own merits, it is no better. The main character is chased around and exposed to situations she doesn't understand, and she grows angry and frustrated at her experiences. We, as readers, share her anger and frustration. In the end, all that happens to her is a tour through the solar system. It's a whirlwind tour, however, so we are simply bombarded with images and it becomes boring. I can generally rate books based on how long it takes to read them. The first half took a few days. The second half took a few weeks. Even television was more interesting! Therefore, the only reason to buy this book is if you can't find Against the Fall of Night by itself. If that's the case, I implore you - stop at the end of part 1!
Rating:
Summary: Clarke's half = 4 stars, Benford's half = 0 stars
Review: Arthur C. Clarke was the man who popularised the term "the technology of an advanced culture will be indistinguishable from magic." The best science fantasy writers know this - George Lucas and Asimov make no attempt to explain lightsabres or positronic brains. And Clarke, of course, makes no attempt to explain the technology of an isolated Earth city 2 billion (or thereabouts) years into the future. Instead, the first half of this book gives us an entertaining and light voyage through a society stagnated by immortality and robot-assisted ease. When Alvin, the first child born in thousands of years, rebels against this society, we are taken along for the ride. He learns that his city of Diaspar is not the only community left on the planet, and he makes further discoveries that are fun to read about. This part of the book is a reprint of Clarke's Against the Fall of Night, which was written early in his career and shows it. It is fast paced (perhaps to a fault), and we're surprised at the naivete of all the characters at one time or another. However, it's fun for a light read and recommended. The second half, written by Benford, is supposed to be a sequel, but bears absolutely no resemblance to Clarke's work. There are a number problems. Firstly, only 2 characters from Clarke's work survive, and they are relegated to supporting roles. Secondly, Benford makes the mistake of focussing on technology that is built 2 billion years in the future. This technology is used to fight the superbeing known as the Mad Mind, an energy-based species without physical form, but it's inherently silly to pit airplanes against a mental force. Finally, the "good" mentalic creature, Vanamonde, is ignored, even though its purpose from the first story is to fight the Mad Mind. Thus, as a sequel, Benford's work is a disaster. Unfortunately, read on its own merits, it is no better. The main character is chased around and exposed to situations she doesn't understand, and she grows angry and frustrated at her experiences. We, as readers, share her anger and frustration. In the end, all that happens to her is a tour through the solar system. It's a whirlwind tour, however, so we are simply bombarded with images and it becomes boring. I can generally rate books based on how long it takes to read them. The first half took a few days. The second half took a few weeks. Even television was more interesting! Therefore, the only reason to buy this book is if you can't find Against the Fall of Night by itself. If that's the case, I implore you - stop at the end of part 1!
Rating: 
Summary: A great classic is brought down to earth.
Review: Benford has written a nice sequel to "Against the Fall of Night." But in doing so, he has taken something away from one of the great classics. And the strange part is, it's the high quality of the sequel that does the most damage. Arthur Clarke's "Against the Fall of Night" was a classic. Spare and elgant, it managed to convey (by stimulating our imaginations) a wonderfully rich sense of the truly distant future. It's an empty universe---although signs of a galaxy-spanning empire abound, all that remains is one peopled city on a desert Earth. And it really is peopled: despite the billions of elapsed years, the inhabitants are almost indisitnguishable from us. They act like we do and wonder about the same things. So it's easy for us to get caught up in their story. Alvin's sense of abandonment by history, his curiosity about where everything went, and his sense of wonder as he discovered some of the answers, became mine as well. And though he was only one man, his actions, though never particularly "heroic," (indeed, the bulk of the book simply has Alvin travelling from place to place and seeing things) seemed somehow to matter in the overall scheme of things. I found this wonderfully uplifting.
Since that book was written, science fiction has become sophisticated. We realize that people won't be anything like us in a billion years, and that one person is unlikely to have a significant impact on the universe. We consider it silly that Alvin had no virtual reality, no nanotech, no bioengineering, no group mind. We find it unfortunate that Alvin's character is "flat", without nuance, without internal conflict. If "Against the Fall" were written today, it would likely be panned.
Gregory Benford, one of my favorite science fiction writers, pens a modern answer to Clarke's book. He shows how Alvin missed the point, how humans are just tiny players in a universe too complicated for one of them to understand fully. He gives details, describing Alvin's differences from present day humans. He writes conflict---people struggle and grow or die. Adjectives are everywhere---nuances, careful descriptions of sight and sounds, and of how his characters feel.
Benford is great at this sort of thing. He's one of the "literary" science fiction writers whose plots, settings, and characterizations all work at a high level of quality. His books put us inside other people, and let us understand what they are thinking and why. "Ocean of Night" and its many sequels do a stupendous job of mapping out a future history of the human race while simultneously exploring the growth of fascinating characters. I've loved all of his work. And standing on its own, "Beyond the Fall" is no exception. It tells an entertaining and story full of neat ideas.
But it does something terrible to Clarke's original work. That book asked questions; Benford answers them. He shows up the foolish human-centered assumptions of that book. He destroys the sense of mystery and grandeur that the book created. Alvin, who in Clarke's work was a man who changed the world, in Benford's becomes "just a man" whose actions don't mean much in the great scheme of things. The same happens to the human race. All-in-all, a much more realistic portrayal of how things probably are.
The vast majority of the sequels-to-classics that seem to be coming out today are awful, and spread their taint to the original works. Benford's sequel is more insidious---it's plausible and nicely written. Benford is such a convincing writer that I haven't been able to get his sequel out of my head. This is a shame---"Against the Fall" just hasn't been the same for me since. Benford's is one good book I wish I'd never read.
Rating:
Summary: Beyond the Fall of NIght
Review: Both Against the Fall of Night and The City and the Stars are wonderful stories, beautifully written Gregory Benford's "sequel" is incoherent mishmash. I kept jumping paragraphs hoping the story would get clearer. It didn't. Forget this book entirely and get the original Arthur C Clarke story (Against the Fall of Night) combined with The Lion of Comarre. I've never read a Gregory Benford story before and this turned me off so much I don't plan to read another.
Rating:
Summary: Beyond the Fall of NIght
Review: Both Against the Fall of Night and The City and the Stars are wonderful stories, beautifully written Gregory Benford's "sequel" is incoherent mishmash. I kept jumping paragraphs hoping the story would get clearer. It didn't. Forget this book entirely and get the original Arthur C Clarke story (Against the Fall of Night) combined with The Lion of Comarre. I've never read a Gregory Benford story before and this turned me off so much I don't plan to read another.
Rating:
Summary: Another Clarke classic ruined
Review: Clarke is deservedly considered one of the giants of science fiction. In recent years, for some reason, he has been producing many collaborations, and in every one of them, Clarke's genius trips over the banality of his collaborators. Why anyone thought one of my favorite books, The City and the Stars, needed to be reworked, I'll never understand. How bad is the pollution of Clarke's original? At one point in BTFoN the characters travel to earth's moon. But in TCATS, we learned that the moon was destroyed millions of years ago! It was a major plot point when the protagonist discovered the reason that the moon was destroyed. Did Benford even read the original? Does Clarke not remember it? Was the editor asleep? This is quite simply a bad book.
Rating:
Summary: A botched extension of a great short novel
Review: Having read some of Gregory Benford's work, I was greatly disapointed by "Beyond the Fall Of Night." His attempt to spin an addition on Clarke's short novel was a blunder. It's astonishing that he didn't pick up on an essential point of Clarke's original story, and proceeded to write himself into the ground, like an aircraft with no Glide Path. More surprising was that Clarke allowed this to be published. I wondered if he even reviewed works like this.
Rating:
Summary: A botched extension of a great short novel
Review: Having read some of Gregory Benford's work, I was greatly disapointed by "Beyond the Fall Of Night." His attempt to spin an addition on Clarke's short novel was a blunder. It's astonishing that he didn't pick up on an essential point of Clarke's original story, and proceeded to write himself into the ground, like an aircraft with no Glide Path. More surprising was that Clarke allowed this to be published. I wondered if he even reviewed works like this.
|
