Nightfall - Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg

"Nightfall" was originally a short story Asimov wrote about a world with six suns, at least one of which was always in the sky. Until the day that the one was eclipsed by another world and Kalgash fell into darkness, physical and mental.

Nightfall the book takes that framework and runs it out in both directions. It looks at the lead-up to the eclipse, the gradual collection of information from various sources that suggest something is coming, the arguments people go through about it. And then, after the eclipse ends, it extends into the aftermath of a society that has collapsed. On a world completely unaccustomed to Darkness, but more importantly, unaware of the true scale of the universe they inhabit, the eclipse shatters the minds of a good portion of the populace. But soon enough, people are starting to try and group together again, and people are trying to grab power for themselves.

I don't know how much of this was Asimov and how much was Silverberg. It had an easy, readable flow to it that I associate with Asimov's writing. I've always found that it's easy to keep going with his books. There's always an interesting conversation or some new development, so that "Just one more chapter," is the natural response. Maybe Silverberg has that knack as well. I did notice more of a focus on a relationship between the archaeologist Siferra and the journalist Theremon than I normally associate with Asimov*. Romance rarely gets the spotlight in his writing.

There was one moment in the book, pre-Nightfall, where Siferra mentally dismisses Theremon because he's a reporter, which seemed curious to me. She's an archaeologist, someone trying to piece together the culture and history of past people's through whatever remains or records survive. Theremon is a journalist, someone whose writings would, in theory, be a kind of record of what things were going on in society at the time. I'm not saying hail him as a great mind, but I was surprised at the attitude towards his whole profession. But I don't know a lot of archaeologists personally.

I expected the book would spend more time on the run-up to the actual event. The uneasy cooperation between the scientists and the Apostles of Flame, religious fanatics proclaiming impending punishment from above. Or the difficulties getting the gears of government to grind in a useful manner. The book basically skims over that in a brief recap that focuses more on why the University folk are pissed at Theremon, who had decided to downplay and mock their claims, because he couldn't believe them and felt they were causing a panic. Might also have something to do with Siferra's less-than-glowing opinion of journalists. It probably would have been pretty boring, although I wouldn't bet against Asimov to make the intractability of bureaucracy engaging. Or at least an opportunity to get good and indignant.

I wasn't enamored of the ending. I understand the argument behind the decision the characters make, but I think it's some faulty, dangerous logic that is going to get a lot of people (other people, naturally) killed or harmed in the name of preserving some idea of civilization. Relying on one's ability to skillfully manipulate a theocratic dictatorship to not be entirely repressive from within seems a pretty dodgy strategy. Though I've always figured that were I in a post-apocalyptic scenario, I'd go find someplace to live by myself until I either starved or was killed by some roving band of thugs. Not much of a joiner, so perhaps not the best judge.

'Well,' Harrim said. 'It was -' He paused. 'I was never in Darkness ever, you know. Not even a dark room. Not ever. It wasn't something that interested me. We always had a godlight in my bedroom when I was growing up, and when I got married and had my own house I just naturally had one there too. My wife feels the same way. Darkness, it isn't natural. It isn't anything that was meant to be.'