© 1951 by Isaac Asimov
Like thousands – perhaps millions – of SF fans around
my age, I cut my teeth on the works of Isaac Asimov. By the time I reached the
Golden Age of Science Fiction – that’s twelve for a boy – I put away six of his
novels. Santa had brought me five in a package deal on Christmas:
The Bicentennial Man
Nine Tomorrows
The Gods Themselves
Pebble in the Sky
The Caves of Steel
and I read each and every one, one after the other, by
that summer. A sixth my mom bought me after I broke my arm the following year:
I, Robot
and I remember the agony of trying to dive into that
anthology of stories and being unable to because I could not hold the paperback
open with my injured paw. But after a day or two I was able to keep that
paperback book open (man, does that sound wimpy!) and knocked that one out.
As an adult sometime in the ’90s, in a fit of
nostalgia, I read Asimov’s novelization of the movie Fantastic Voyage. I also tried my hand at his much-praised Foundation, but only got about a quarter
in before losing interest. Curious.
Since then I’ve read a scattering of his short stories
here and there, plus I reread most of the aforementioned books. To mixed
success: The Bicentennial Man I loved;
Nine Tomorrows I just couldn’t get
back into. About a decade ago I read The Robots
of Dawn and was almost moved to tears at the revelations near the end of
the story. I think it’s reviewed somewhere on the Hopper. But then I started
its sequel and dropped it in boredom. I also gave Foundation a second try last year, and still could not take to it.
So, for me, Asimov was perhaps my number one favorite SF
author as a kid. As an adult, I find him a hit or miss proposition, probably
around 50/50.
It was with this feeling in mind that I bought The Stars, Like Dust at a used book
store a week and a half ago. Truth be told, I picked it up because it clocked
in at a manageable 231 pages, and I was a little sick of reading epic
nonfiction tome after epic nonfiction tome.
Well, did this book fall into the beloved Asimov of
old or the how’d-I-ever-read-this-guy category?
A little of both, with a slight edge, maybe 60-40,
towards the sad possibility that perhaps I’ve outgrown Asimovian fiction.
The tale starts out exciting enough, with young
college student Biron Farril awakening to a radiation bomb in his room. After
narrowly escaping, Biron is encouraged to flee the earth (a nuclear wasteland
which happens to be home of a respected university). His father, a “Rancher” –
a regent of an agricultural planet, I suppose – has been executed for treason
and the powers-that-want-to-be are convinced that Biron is next on the kill
list of the powers-that-be. What follows is a whodunit slash futuristic
political thriller that shows Biron’s growth as a man of courage and
intelligence as he solves who’s behind his attempted assassination and plays
the great game of espionage of interstellar politics with finesse.
All well and good. Not the level of a Tom Clancy or
John Le Carre, but it certainly would snare the interest of a Golden Age fan.
Me, not so much. But … why?
Perhaps I could say my reading tastes have evolved, have
become more sophisticated, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I’ve
revisited many books from my past and have enjoyed them yet again. I think the
problem I have with Asimov is that he’s a product of his time. He is eminently
readable. He deserves every accolade hoisted upon him. He was groundbreaking,
for his time, in a field that is constantly evolving because the science of science fiction constantly evolves.
But … everyone in this story talked and acted straight
out of the ’40s, as if they lived and grew up in Queens, New York. Especially
Arta, the female protagonist, a tough-minded princess who immediately falls in
love at the feet of an immature Biron. The revealed bad guy could be seen a
mile away twisting his moustache. And though there were some fine instances of
behind-the-scenes machinations I did not see coming, it was a fairly
straightforward story.
As far as the science went, I did enjoy how the ships “jumped”,
i.e. entered hyperspace to traverse vast distances of interstellar space. This
was done by comparing three coordinates found in huge books – I immediately thought
of the thick old telephone books we had as kids. I thought Uncle Gil’s device
that messed with one’s mental facilities –disorienting sights like colors never
before seen implanted in the victim’s brain – was neat. I wish the political
situation was more fleshed out, the worlds and alliances were stated and
explained, but perhaps Asimov saved that for his Foundation series, of which The
Stars, Like Dust is but a prologue of a prologue.
All in all, though, it was a quick read, better than,
say, watching the same amount of your average TV fare. And I’ll still try Foundation again in a few years.
Grade: B.
[As a side note, Asimov wrote over 500 books, roughly
split equally between fiction and nonfiction. It’s said he wrote a nonfiction
book in every category of the Dewey Decimal System except 100 – philosophy and
psychology. Anyway, I did read his excellent book on the atom, Atom (1991) and about half of his comprehensive
work on physics, Physics (1966) and
even cracked his work on Biblical study, Asimov’s
Guide to the Bible (1968). All good, readable stuff.]