(listen to episode on Spotify)
(music: fluttery electronic voices and telegraph)
non-spoiler discussion
JM:
Hello everyone, welcome to Chrononauts, a science fiction literature history podcast. It's J.M., Gretchen and Nate here, and we are now going to talk about Isaac Asimov and his story "Nightfall". We've been covering apocalypses this month, and we have a few episodes previous. We recommend that you listen to the previous episode on W.E.B Du Bois' "The Comet". We also did "Under the Comet", a Russian story by S. Belsky, and we have another one coming up, Philip K. Dick's "The Last of the Masters", and yeah, it's been a really fruitful few episodes.
Now I'm quite happy to be talking about the writer who was probably the biggest influence on my, I guess, adolescent development as a reader and a science fiction fan, and somebody interested in problem solving, I guess, and it's fortunate that it was Isaac Asimov in a way, because Isaac Asimov is a real kind of polymath person who was into a variety of different things and didn't just write science fiction. In fact, the bulk of his 400 plus published books are not science fiction, even though he's mostly known as a science fiction writer. I did read a lot of his non-fiction work, and his guides to Shakespeare really helped me out a lot in high school, that's for sure,
We're talking about here one of his most famous stories, "Nightfall".
Nate:
The greatest science fiction story of all time, supposedly.
JM:
Yeah, well, we'll get to that, but yeah. So our direct inspiration was suggested by John W. Campbell, and it's a quote that adorns the beginning of the story. So this is our second Ralph Waldo Emerson quote, I believe, inspiring a story and Astounding, the first being "When the Half-Gods Go", by Amelia Reynolds Long. So I don't know if Campbell suggested that one to her, I doubt it, because she wasn't one of his "reliables," as Asimov put it. But in this case, it's definitely a direct suggestion, and Asimov talks about this extensively.
By this time, Asimov had published a total of 15 stories, four of which were in astounding, including two robot stories that would later show up in the "I, Robot" collection. In March of 1941, Asimov showed up to Campbell's office, and Campbell rejected the story he'd brought in previously, but he wanted him to write this one instead. And he gave him the quote from the Emerson essay, "Nature," and it goes, "If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe, and so adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God, which had been shown?"
Asimov says, "Campbell asked me what I thought would happen if the stars would only appear at very long intervals. I had nothing intelligent to suggest. I think men would go mad, he said thoughtfully. We talked of a notion for quite a while, and I went home to write a story on the subject, one which we both immediately agreed would be called 'Nightfall'."
Asimov said he hadn't read the essay by Emerson because at the time he couldn't find it, but "Nature" was its name, and it was one of Emerson's early works. Asimov says, maybe this was his first, "outstanding work," but he himself doesn't think too highly of the story, feeling he has written better ones, and calling the claims that it's the best piece of magazine science fiction anyone wrote, "utterly ridiculous." He even cites Alfred Bester's story "Adam and No Eve", which was in the same issue it was downing as a better story. He says that SF historian Alexei Panshin believes Campbell had specifically signaled him out to write this story, but Asimov himself doesn't think so. He believes that Campbell was just waiting for any of his, "reliables" to drop in. That's kind of an interesting supposition to think about, you know, or what if the story had been written by Theodore Sturgeon or de Sprague or something, instead of Asimov, how things would be different.
Nate:
Yeah, it was interesting watching "Far beyond the Stars" for this block because it definitely did feel very much like the Astounding office with, I forget Odo's science fiction manager name in the episode, but he very much felt like a stand-in for a John Campbell type figure.
JM:
Yeah, yeah, and Campbell definitely had a very, you know, we talked about this when we talked about Astounding in the late thirties and forties and the Golden Age period. When people say Golden Age, people misconstrue that. They think that when people say Golden Age, it's a bunch of old-timers saying it was the best period of science fiction ever. What they really mean is John Campbell's golden age because that was the time when he was really in control and actually arguably exerting a positive influence on the genre in the 1940s. And by the 1950s, by the time of when "Far beyond the Stars" is set, Campbell's influence on the genre maybe had arguably waned a little bit and wasn't really what it had been in the previous decade. So when they talk about the 1940s being the Golden Age of science fiction, they really mean it's Campbell's Golden Age. And that's an important time. Absolutely. But is it really the best period of science fiction? Well, that's debatable, right? I mean, it could be said that people like Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov did their most important work during this period, though.
Even now, there's this unfortunate tendency, and I say unfortunate even though we're going to be covering stuff from all three in the podcast, but there's an unfortunate tendency to say, well, basically back then it was Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein, and a bunch of other guys that most of us don't remember. I always thought that was a little unfortunate. I personally think that it's worthwhile to try and unearth some of the other authors that might have been really good at that time. And they did exist. I mean, Theodore Sturgeon was arguably way more forward thinking in certain aspects than some of these writers. And, you know, talk about people like, I don't know, Alfred Bester, for example, who got his start around the same time. And certainly Nate, you talked about "The Stars my Destination" recently.
Nate:
Yeah, I did.
JM:
And, you know, he's written some stuff like that and "The Demolished Man" that just deserves a lot of attention and some stories in the 40s that are really, really awesome. So I think that there's a certain narrow vision of what the Golden Age so-called was.
Nate:
Yeah, just in doing this podcast when we've taken a look at the evolution of Astounding through when it first launched in the very, very early 30s, I think in 1930, doing those like Captain Meek monster detective stories or whatever to getting some really thought provoking stuff by the time, even before Campbell started taking over the editorship. But certainly when it takes over, you get a lot more of these coming into the magazine. And a lot of these second tier, second tier and popularity that is not necessarily second tier and quality authors have some really cool stuff that are maybe not full length novels, but are good short pieces that are really effective science fiction stories.
JM:
It's selling some of the other people short for sure. Yeah, because they were a lot of them.
Nate:
I mean, we can definitely see a "Golden Age" in this period of Astounding when it really does become institutionalized of Campbell handing down directions from the top down to the author saying, all right, this month you're going to write this story, this month we're going to write this story, this month Paul is this crazy cover and I need one of you guys to like write a story to match it. Like that kind of stuff versus early on when, I don't know Hugo Gernsback was just I think stitching random pieces from wherever he could pull them from with the large amount of reprints on the early Amazing issues and him having trouble holding on to authors just because, you know, authors like to get paid and he wasn't really a big fan of doing that.
So it is interesting how the genre does develop from a publishing standpoint and I think you could really see by this point why it is called the Golden Age for that reason. The stuff is really coming out at a pretty high frequency of good quality stories that are well polished and well packaged and this is, I don't know, we're going to consider it the best science fiction story ever, but it's definitely a very, very good science fiction story. And I don't think it would be a real rarity for Astounding during this time. Asimov said he did like the Bester story in this issue better than his own.
JM:
Yeah. So Campbell was so impressed by the story that Asimov submitted and gave him a bonus of a quarter cent for a word. So instead of being paid a penny, it was a penny and a quarter. And Willie Ley really liked the story and he was one of the early readers as he showed up to Campbell's house and Campbell gave it to him to read. The story was a cover story in a September 1941 issue astounding. And Asimov did occasionally express some annoyance that this was so often cited as his best story since it implied he hadn't learned anything in the next five decades of writing.
I think this story is similar to "Trends" in some ways that we covered last year. It only looks at things from a somewhat different angle. And it's science of this versus superstition, basically.
Nate:
But it's interesting because he does approach it from that different angle while covering the same dichotomy between science and religion. But what I do like about this one is that the religious group does hold some truths to their actions and what they believe regarding the nature of the universe. It's perhaps viewing it from a different perspective than the scientists at the observatory, which I think is a really interesting thing to include in here. I mean, he could have just made them total fanatics who are prone to violence and in the end, we do kind of get some of that. But there is an underlying truth to, I guess, the cult and their religious teachings.
Gretchen:
Yeah. Kind of reminiscent to go back to Star Trek, to go back to DS9. How in DS9, like there is truth to what the Bajorans believe compared to like in the kind of religion-free like TOS and TNG.
Nate:
Yeah, exactly. And I think it's definitely possible to have a much more productive view of religion like that as opposed to having it in direct opposition to science. I think trying to nitpick factual accuracies of scripture that was written thousands of years ago really misses the point. And I think it's more useful to look at them as kind of the lens that people viewed the world and society and their lineage at the time. And they may contain some truths and some things that we don't necessarily view in accordance with our modern understanding of the universe.
JM:
Right.
Nate:
We encounter a lot of these perceptions of the world and non-religious texts from the ancient world. Like if you read authors like Pliny or Aristotle, you'll find a lot of stuff that's pretty out there for sure.
JM:
And this is something that Asimov himself was interested in because even though he was pretty much a self-avowed atheist, he was interested in the Bible. And one of his books is actually a historical guide into the Bible where he talks about, he references it basically book by book and talks about what is known about the historical period of the time and what was written in the books and what might or might not be contradictions and stuff like that. And it's obviously of great interest to him. So he's not like condemning outright. So it's like, obviously he's coming at this from more of a perspective of the enlightened scientists, but he has a nuanced view on this subject. Even though the cultists in the story are clearly in the wrong in some aspects, they've actually been the only ones to really maintain some kind of record of what's actually been happening. In some senses, their presence is even useful in the story because without them, even the main lead scientist kind of admits, we wouldn't have the knowledge of what happened before or not for them. It's maybe distorted through the lens of revelation, but it's important.
I think this story does something that Asimov does really well. And that's like, one thing that I noticed even when I was really, really young reading Asimov, as opposed to some other writers, is that Asimov was like good at the popular science thing. So he would be able to explain really complex concepts to someone that didn't really know a lot about science and be able to explain them in a way that made sense and that he weren't bewildered and just baffled to the point of unintelligibility, like you would understand. And he was very good and patient with that and explained it in a way that didn't seem like he was talking down to you and, yeah, was very clear and concise. And that was really, really good for somebody like myself to read at a certain age, right? Because this is like somebody who doesn't really understand math very well, even though now I kind of have this like, worshipful attitude toward mathematics that's kind of silly. But I didn't really understand, I don't know, you know, it's like some people, when they think they're explaining something, they just seem to be muddying the waters. And Asimov was really good at it.
There's a lot of things in this story that are difficult to comprehend that face value, like a world with six suns, for example. He does it in a way that, yeah, he kind of makes sense. You can kind of make sense of it. It doesn't seem improbable or weird. And you don't have to, I mean, I personally have to stretch my belief a little bit to encompass this story. But it's fine. Like, I don't mind that necessarily. It is a thing. And we'll get to it.
Nate:
Yeah, I think there does have to be some suspension of disbelief for a bit of the story. But I mean, not too much more than the other genre fiction we've seen at the time.
Gretchen:
Yeah, I think it's like very similar to the other stories that would be around this time where I'm willing to not take every single logistical error into account so that I can engage in this thought experiment. I think that's fine.
Nate:
And it's just a cool setting. I mean, six suns, that's just cool.
Gretchen:
Yeah.
JM:
Yeah. What's interesting to me, too, is that this is a very, like, I don't know, it could be the way Asimov wrote, but it could also be Campbell's thing, where he's kind of asserting the primacy of man or humanity, basically. But even though the people on this planet are aliens, they're portrayed in a way that just makes them seem like normal, everyday guys, basically. They're like scientists and stuff. But they're like, it just seems like the conversations they're having are relatable and they're like very human.
90% of it is dialogue. Only at the end is there some kind of powerful description of what's happening. And the end is really powerful, actually. Again, I'm going to read something and when we get to it where it's like the end of the story is just very memorable. But Asimov was not a very descriptive writer. He didn't really put a lot of effort into, again, so much of what he wrote is dialogue and is just people talking about stuff. This has been used as a criticism of Golden Age science fiction, especially towards somebody like Heinlein, who tended to use his characters as mouthpieces for his own political agendas and so on.
But Asimov, I don't know, I mean, people criticize him for lack of character writing and so on. But I think he makes his people, like you can actually mostly, I think, picture people having these conversations. And I think it's pretty effective.
Nate:
Yeah, it works for the story. And I think it works for this format and length. I mean, if this was 400 pages long, I don't really know if he'd be able to...
JM:
So there is a novel version of this, which I'll talk about later at the end, but it was written mostly by Robert Silverberg and not Asimov. But yeah, it's not 400 pages, but it's still longer than this. And maybe not as good as this, even though Silverberg is probably a better stylist than Asimov is.
Nate:
Yeah, there's just something about the effectiveness of the simplicity of the story that I think works really well in his favor. It doesn't have to be super chatty in his dialogue. It doesn't have to be really descriptive and poetic in his prose style. It propels along really, really nicely. And I think he's good at these kind of quick-paced stories with a little punch at the end. It feels like he almost could have done a lot of really good TV writing. Like this has been adapted in several ways, which we'll talk about at the end of the episode. I think if this was a Twilight Zone episode or something like that. It would be almost perfect for the format.
Gretchen:
Right. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. One of the anthology series of the 60s, like this feels like it would be right in place with that.
JM:
Absolutely.
Nate:
Even Star Trek Next Generation would be perfect. You could picture the enterprise showing up to a planet and like all this is happening and the Enterprise crew is like, oh, should we violate the Prime Directive or not while they go to the planet incognito.
JM:
Yeah. It's like, should we let them go mad or should we intervene and be like, hey guys, everything's fine. It'll be over in a couple of hours and you'll be good.
Nate:
Yeah, I'm sure you can all picture that episode.
JM:
Yeah. You guys listened to the radio play?
Nate:
I did. Yeah, I listened to the X Minus One episode. I'm assuming that's what you mean.
JM:
So yeah, the radio play is very faithful to the story. It's like almost word for word. And it's very easy to do because it's all dialogue, right? Pretty much. And, you know, I mean, honestly, people use that as a fault against Asimov, but I don't think it's true. I mean, all right, like I'm not I'm not in any way saying that Asimov is as good a literary stylist, but like you compare it to somebody like when you talk about like Dostoevsky, right? A lot of his stuff is just dialogue. You know, his dialogue, people talking about stuff like why use that as a negative comment against somebody's work. It's like just a conscious choice to make it like that and make it like people talking to each other.
Gretchen:
I think it all depends on if the style in the form fits the idea, then it works. And I think it does work here.
JM:
Yeah. And the funny thing is like when I first heard this story, like this story, it was actually an audio version. I remember, you know, it's so uncanny sometimes when I the way I remember this kind of stuff. But I remember where I was. It was early 1992. And I was listening to this story for the first time. And it was read by this guy called Roy Avers. And I met him later on in my 20s. He's American guy, I can't remember where he was from. But he did a lot of talking book kind of narrations for the American Printing House from Blind and all these like he did tons and tons of books, everything from like Dean Koontz to... crap, what was that book that they got made into a movie, "Toy Soldiers". I forget the writer of the book, but it was like a thriller from the 80s.
Nate:
Is that where the Colombian terrorist take over of the high school and Wil Wheaton is one of the guys that has to fight them back?
JM:
Yeah, that's the one.
Nate:
Yeah, that one's pretty cool.
JM:
It was a book first, right?
Nate:
Yeah, I had no idea.
JM:
Yeah. Anyway, this guy Roy Avers was a really good narrator. And he did this the entire book "Nightfall and Other Stories" by Asimov, which certainly wasn't the first Asimov book I read. But you understand, like between 1991, roughly, 1991 and 1994, I read as much Asimov as I could possibly get my hands on. So lots and lots of books. And he was like my favorite writer at that time, very quite young. At that time, I guess it would have been considered, I thought I was years ahead of like grade and so on reading all this stuff. And yeah, now I see like, yeah, it's perfect, right? Like what they say, the golden age of science fiction is 12 and all that shit.
Nate:
Yeah.
JM:
Like this makes sense, right? But I can't really think of anybody more suitable to kind of like shake your hand and introduce you to all these cool concepts than Asimov. And I really think that he gets short shrift nowadays because all people want to talk about is the major works like "Foundation", which is good. Yeah, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed these, especially the parts that make up "Foundation and Empire". But I think just general the standalone short stories by Asimov, which are not even all science fiction, he did write some pretty cool mystery stories as well. To me, they really stand up. And they really stand up well now because you say like, yes, the faults of the Golden Age maybe are the tendency to adhere too closely to Campbell's particular maxims, because that's what he was pushing, right? But Asimov managed to break out of that. And by the 1950s, he was not writing for Campbell as much. And in the 60s, he spent most of his time writing nonfiction work. But he would occasionally write short stories for other magazines, including mainstream magazines, right? Like that were not specifically devoted to science fiction. And he would publish stories in places like Galaxy.
Maybe Astounding was really important for him getting his start. And he talks about Campbell a lot, because Campbell really inspired him and influenced him. He's aware of Campbell's some of his faults. And he had an oppositional mindset to Campbell's in a lot of ways, because we talked about how much of a right wing guy Campbell was. And Asimov, he thought of himself at least as being a lot more progressive. And then we're talking about the Civil Rights Movement last episode. And Campbell would, you know, complain about something like that. And Asimov said to him, well, I would have been marching right there with them. Right? And I mean, yes, Asimov wasn't perfect. He had his faults too, as everyone does. But I will always go to bat for him in certain aspects.
Part of it might be nostalgia. But I really like, I like the fact that he was doing this stuff, but he also wasn't dry, right? Like he's also funny at times. And maybe you don't see it in this story, but like he's known as a humorist as well. And yeah, like sometimes he was a fan of things like bad puns and stuff like that. But like, it's fun and it's fun to read. It's always witty and intelligent. And yeah, I don't know if this is the best science fiction story. I don't think so. But at the same time, it's interesting to see how much of an impact it made.
One thing that I think is really interesting is that while this story is considered by science fiction fans and fans of the Golden Age of science fiction as being one of the best science fiction stories ever written, outside of that narrow fan base, this story is not known very much.
Nate:
No, it's not. And I think that speaks to what you were saying earlier about how when people think of Asimov today, a lot of that discussion around reading and science fiction literature in general is around "Foundation". Because when people think of reading, a lot of people think of reading as books. And for a lot of people, books are the novels.
JM:
Yeah.
Nate:
And a lot of these short stories can kind of fall through the cracks and not get as recognized or discussed.
JM:
Yeah. And there's definitely a tendency among readers to see short stories as lessons.
Nate:
Yeah, I mean, magazines are no longer the dominant format of genre fiction and really haven't been in quite some time. And that's one thing I do want to cover on Chrononauts later is that industry transition from short stories in magazines to paperback novels, as magazines like Astounding, Galaxy and Amazing were really leading the way for several decades, whereas now it seems like the opposite is true. And the magazine's prominence in the genre is far, far less. And it's really the book length novel that gets viewed as the main format for genre fiction.
JM:
Right. It's even worse than that. It's like, if you don't have a 12 book series, what are you doing with you?
Nate:
That is an issue with a lot of modern science fiction. But I think a lot of the standalone novels do get recognized pretty well.
Gretchen:
I feel like sci fi, in particular, is a little more, I think the series thing, now he feels more of like a fantasy thing, more than a sci fi thing. At least that's what I felt.
Nate:
Yeah, I mean, there's definitely examples of both. But those fantasy series are really prone to the sprawling series where each entry is like 1000 pages long.
JM:
Sure. I've recently basically quit Facebook because, you know, it's become just unbearable. And then the interface is not good and all that. And like, but there was a group that I was a part of the Fantasy Faction group. And they just started a discord server. And everybody there is obsessed with reading series, right? When I see somebody actually wanting to talk about short work and short stories and stuff, I like kind of get excited now, because it's like, it just seems so rare, right? It's like, you actually, you actually read short stories. Wow. Good.
You know, to me, it's like such an essential part of genre fiction, but not even just genre fiction, like fiction as a whole, you know, like I've talked before about how I might not consider reading in a long epic work by a certain author, but at first, but if they have certain shorter work that I can just delve into.
Nate:
And yeah, I think overall, as far as like non genre literature goes, Chekhov is by far the master of short fiction.
JM:
Yeah. Amazing short stories. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And it's, I definitely think that thinking of it as a necessarily lesser form is unfortunate. I mean, yeah, there's some short stories where I kind of think, oh, wow, it would be nice if it were longer, maybe. But then again, the feeling of leaving you wanting more is actually a really good thing, right?
Somebody said that that was the difference between US and UK television is that US television always gives you more. UK television leaves you wanting more. And the latter is a good thing. Like it sounds like some people feel, see, this is a frustration because they're not given enough. But on the other hand, to me, it's like, well, that makes your imagination work, right? It makes you kind of think more about the story because you want to see which way it'll go after it ends. And you don't have to have the TV tell you how it's going to end.
It's just so in the early 90s, Robert Silverberg actually adapted three Asimov short stories into novels. And they were "Nightfall", "The Ugly Little Boy", and "Bicentennial Man", which he changed the name of forgot to write it down. And that's the one I don't have, actually. I know that's the one it seems most unnecessary to because "Bicentennial Man" is not that short. And it doesn't seem like it really needs to be expanded.
But I read the other two, I have them actually in hardcover. And they were given to me by the mother of the person that was my best friend in like, middle school. She worked for Doubleday, which was Asimov's publishing company. And she had like met him a few times and stuff like that. And she gave me a bunch of hardcovers for my birthday. She knew I was a fan and she gave me like three or four awesome Asimov hardcovers. And they were stuff that was published in the 90s and some of them it was posthumous. So I'm not really sure how much Asimov actually had to do with the novel version of "Nightfall". I think that it was mostly Silverberg beyond the initial short story, which is in the book. But then it goes on to basically describe what happens after.
And to me, it's, yeah, Silverberg is a really, really good writer. And I like to cover him in the podcast someday. He's a little like a lot stranger than Asimov, a lot more baroque. You can tell he has a story in "The Songs of the Dying Earth" anthology, which is a tribute to Jack Vance's dying earth universe. And he copies Vance's style really, really well. So you can do this like really florid, expansive prose and real strangeness. And he's part of a new wave in the 60s and 70s, right? So he got to start earlier, but he was definitely full on embracing that.
He brought some of those characteristics to the Nightfall novel. But I just don't think that, again, like there's been a couple of attempts to expand the story, which we won't get into. But I just don't think it needs it. It's just really good the way it is.
Nate:
Some stories not only is there not enough to support a novel, but some stories are just good with the punch that it leaves you. And this is definitely one of those stories. I don't really think we need to know like what happens afterwards. I didn't read the novel, so I'm not exactly sure how he expands it. But I mean, if it's just like the Nightfall story Asimov wrote plus more stuff afterwards, I mean, that's just like...
Gretchen:
Yeah, I didn't read the novel either. I just read the story. I just feel like this is so well paced. I can't really imagine adding more to it.
JM:
Yeah. This is like the ending is so effective, right? Like, why do you need to build from that when the ending is already perfect?
Gretchen:
Yes.
JM:
I want to discuss later some of my personal doublethink about this story, because I do have it. And it is like, always a thing that I've had to face with this story where it's like seems kind of incredible to me that people can't stand darkness like it just, I don't know. But then again, I lived with a person for a while who could not sleep without lights being on. So I don't know. I mean, I guess it's a thing, right? I was just interesting to get into.
As I was saying before, this one is similar to "Тrends", but it comes at a different angle. And yeah, it's the science versus superstition. But the initial conflict is between a scientist, viewed as a crank, and a wily reporter who is in the habit of exposing those types of cranks. And we often would be on the side of a reporter guy like this, indeed. And he's not really shown to be in a negative light, even though the scientist is actually right, of course.
Gretchen:
Thinking back to even the cultists versus the scientists, it really doesn't feel like there's any faction that's like villainized in any way. Like no one really feels like they're entirely wrong or like entirely evil or anything.
JM:
Yeah, yeah, it's really incredible the way he works all that out. Because like, these people end up mostly getting on okay in the end, I guess it's mostly like a cultist guy who's sort of like this villain in the work. But even by the end, his brief attempt at sabotage doesn't really come to anything, and then he's just like kind of one of the guys almost like enduring the darkness. And it's interesting the way that's done.
But yeah, let's take a very short break, and then we'll just talk about what happens in the story so we can bring up a few other points that I have in the end, because I do want to talk about some of my personal conflicted feelings about how the story plays out. And it'll be very interesting, because I guess I might have a unique perspective on this. So yeah, we'll get to it.
Nate:
Before we break, do we want to talk about initial publication and republication or anything like that?
JM:
Yeah, well, it's originally the 1941 September Astounding issue. It's been anthologized a lot. It's in the "Science Fiction Omnibus" edited by Brian Aldiss, which is a huge science fiction anthology, not as big as "The Big Book of Science Fiction", but it's pretty all encompassing. It's also in Asimov's book, "Nightfall and Other Stories". I don't think it actually made it into "The Best of Isaac Asimov", which he himself edited, because yeah, he doesn't actually think this is one of his best stories.
So yeah, a lot of love, the best science fiction story ever written. But it's appeared in a lot of places, you can't miss this story. You can find it in "The Complete Asimov, volume one" as well, which is there's supposed to be a series of complete Asimov volumes, but all his short fiction don't think they got beyond volume two. It could be wrong. So there's this actually still a lot of disparate Asimov anthologies that have yet to be sort of assembled into a whole but yeah, I like it a lot. I should say collections whenever referring to Asimov's own stuff. Anthologies, yeah, definitely. You can find this in a lot of places and it's not in "The Big Book of Science Fiction. His story, "The Last Question" is, which actually I think he does think is one of his best science fiction short stories. \
But yeah, in the "Science Fiction Omnibus", Brian Aldiss, who is notoriously not a fan of Isaac Asimov and is very amusingly British English in his way of denigrating Asimov, did deign to include that story in his collection.
Nate:
Yeah, a lot of places to check this out. I think we all like this one, at least certainly I did. So yeah, give it a go. The anthology I read it in is "Nightfall and Other Stories" and Asimov is always chatty about his own work, which is definitely a lot of fun to read.
JM:
That's a really good anthology. It does include some really good stories by Asimov and my friend Star is actually reading that anthology now and really enjoying it. And yeah, I pretty much devoured that anthology when I got it in early 1992. Yeah, and it does feature a lot of stories from like the 40s through to the 60s, I think, pretty much.
Gretchen:
Yeah. I definitely enjoyed this one as well and recommend people reading it themselves. I also read it in "Science Fiction Hall of Fame volume one", which is edited by Silverbеrg.
JM:
Yeah, that's cool. I'm glad that we all like this. I mean, it's like, I guess it's a kind of like a longish short story, because I think in part because it's mostly dialogue, it goes by really quickly and you can really identify it with a lot of the concepts. And again, he does a surprisingly good job of basically saying, hey, here's a planet with a really different situation than ours and let you consider how things might have developed on this planet. And he does it in such a way where you don't think about it at first. And if you think about it in certain ways like, oh, wait, these people actually never had a need for electric light. They never needed to make it, right? Because they have these tortures at the end of a story that are like new. And they're like, you know, we ate these because we knew it's going to be dark, right? And they smell bad and they're like unreliable and they fall over and stuff. And it's just like, wow, this is actually like, it's a pretty advanced culture in a lot of ways comparable to 1940s America. But at the same time, it's very different that he does a really good job of making those differences pretty clear if you want to think about them. But like not so apparent that they stand out. So they only become apparent to you when you think about them. And you're like, Oh, yeah, they wouldn't have done that because of this, right? Because it's literally always light on this planet. It's never dark.
So yeah, this is really interesting, I think. And he's so good at actually making these concepts work and making them be convincing. I don't think he was quite as meticulous as Arthur C. Clarke, who is known to write pages and pages worth of calculations just to prove that his stories could work. But I think Asimov has an intuitive understanding of these things and is able to convey that to his audience, which is really, really cool.
But yeah, let's get into it.
(music: arpeggiated driving synth)
spoiler summary
JM:
So the naming conventions of the story are basically, they're kind of weird. The characters have names with a number assigned to them, which I guess has to do somehow with their lineage. It's not really gone into but I just pretty much ignored that because it's not really important. So this is they have names like Theremon-72 and Aton-28 to know that. It's a little weird. So I don't know, it just doesn't matter.
Nate:
Science fiction!
JM:
I'm just going to call them by their the proper names that are assigned to them.
Lagash is a planet with six suns. And it has a very human culture. And Asimov clearly wants us to imagine Earth type humans living there, even though no description is given. And there doesn't seem to be any colonization as such mentioned. So they are what's the equivalent of our 20th century, although perhaps lagging behind somewhat in certain scientific matters with the theory of gravity being quite a recent proposition. It also seems perhaps like they still kind of have this, I guess we would term pre-Copernican model of universe because they've never really seen, they're not consciously aware that there's actually thousands of stars around them. And that becomes very important to what happens later.
They even have a Book of Revelations that preaches about end times prophecies and such. But not many believe this stuff nowadays, except for some crazy cultists. And it's never dark on Lagash. The suns are always shining. But things are about to change. So Aton, head of a university's astronomy department and observatory, is being interviewed by Theremon, the newspaper man. And Aton is initially angry, but agrees to explain the situation as he sees it.
Aton is absolutely certain that just in a few hours, civilization as it has been known on Lagash for centuries will come to an end. And he's been saying this will happen for quite some time. Theremon has been covering it with his columns and has shown up at the observatory for what Aton insists will be the final moments. And he says, that is, Theremon, the reporter says that he's a friendly observer and not here to antagonize anybody. But he still doubts anything will happen.
Aton asks Theremon to look in the sky, where the sun called Beta is visible, only that is, it's only in the aphelion. And it's tiny. So Lagash actually orbits the sun called Alpha, which is the primary. And Beta is its companion, a red dwarf. And it's really cool outside now. And soon Beta will receive and Aton maintains this. And the cult has been saying something similar to Aton's observations, only of course, more couched in mysticism and without the scientific basis.
So just like the astronomers, the cult knows about the stars, though without actually knowing what they are. And they have been written about in the texts, but no one living on Lagash has ever seen any one and they will utterly dominate the sky. But because Aton has tried to explain what is happening with science, the cult really hates the astronomers, even though they're sort of saying the same thing for different reasons.
The scientific and the civilized world predictions have been just strong enough to affect the economic world too, even though business and the public won't readily admit it.
Theremon's "friendliness", Aton finds dubious. And Theremon jokes that if he can make the public laugh at Aton and his crew, when nothing happens, the fallout might not be too bad for them. Naturally, Aton is furious all over again, definitely not amused by this. But the rest of the staff are not as sure as he is and think they should prepare for the best to last worst case scenario.
Of course, they don't actually want to be right as such. Sheerin, a psychologist from the university, shows up at the observatory. And he's kind of the smart bubbly fellow of the group. He's a really amusing character. I like him a lot. It was kind of too bad when he went a little crazy at the end. But he reveals to the colonists that the university has a hideout of sorts in which families of the observatory staff and various other faculty related people are all taking shelter from what's to come. But Sheerin doesn't believe he has any purpose in being there and would rather be out where the action is.
In the hideout, they also have scientific records, which Aton considers of prime importance. So the records must survive. So ultimately, this story is about the cyclical nature of history, which again, seems to be something which Campbell was really, really big on. And again, I don't know. I mean, this is definitely a prevalent philosophy at the time.
Nate:
Yeah, I mean, it's basically what Joyce was all about with "Finnegans Wake", Giambattista Vico and all that.
JM:
Yeah, yeah. And all this stuff about like cycle history and stuff which underpins the "Foundation" trilogy. A lot of this stuff comes from Campbell. So the cyclical history stuff, maybe not so much, but like this whole idea that you can predict what happens in the future based on a scientific perspective of history, not really taking into account like chaos theory and all these different things about, you know, how history is actually quite chaotic, and you can't really explain it this way. I think even Asimov himself was a little skeptical of this, but that's just the way things were at the time. And that was, there was the audience he was writing for and Campbell, this is really big on this.
So this story, "Nightfall", is ultimately about that. And when none of the Lagash songs are visible, Nightfall has happened before, and each time civilization has plunged into a new dark age. Some things are preserved from the past, but not many progress is very slow indeed, given these constant interruptions.
Aton wants this age to do a little better than the previous ones and wants the records to assist the next cycle. So Sheerin turns out to be a fan of Theremon and his columns and two sort of get on well. Three central characters, Aton, Sheerin, and Theremon go into another room away from the other staff to talk. And Aton is brusque, saying they have an hour and a quarter before they have to go upstairs to observe the coming night.
So we get the scientific explanation that we, Asimov, and John W. Campbell have all been waiting for about how a planet with six suns can suddenly go dark and how civilization will go utterly nuts as a result. Since Aton is pretty scholarly and will apparently give the whole book of graphs and figures, Sheerin does most of the talking here, with Aton eventually leaving the room and Sheerin happily pulling a hidden liquor flask out from under a window.
And we learn a little more about archaeological evidence of previous civilizations. Quite a lot of them, in fact. It's kind of reminded me of stuff like the excavations at Troy, where it's like, you know, there's like a city under another city under another city, and it's not linear, you know, it's like, you have to kind of go into like the each strata represents a different period of time, right? Because it's pretty cool to think about.
But each one is seemingly destroyed at the height of its culture. And I'm a little curious about this on a global scale, we only see how it is in this one area. And there's not really talk about, like, what things are like on other parts of the planet. It's kind of like this typical, I guess, science fiction premise where it seems like the whole planet is represented by one culture, right? Like, we don't really know how other races on the planet lived, or if they all believed in the same thing, or like, maybe on the other side of the world, there's a civilization that's totally prepared for Nightfall. And that was exactly what to do, and everything will be fine. I don't know, right?
Nate:
I mean, it's also possible the eclipse only affects a small part of the planet anyway.
JM:
Yeah.
Nate:
It's not like a eclipse on Earth covers the entire planet when it shades it out. So I guess maybe if whatever body was blocking the suns was like massively huge, maybe?
JM:
Right, and you know, I mean, they do seem to be able to like communicate pretty effectively. They have they have like, presumably, the way it's described anyway, like it does feel a lot like early 20th century America, right? So it's even seem like they have access to a lot of resources and can probably travel the world and stuff like that. So again, like, I can see why somebody might have wanted to expand this into a novel, but it is what it is.
But anyway, the cultists say that every 2000 years or so, Lagash enters a kind of cave where the suns are blocked out. And I guess the stars are in the cave with them. So the stars steal the souls of men and turn them into maniacs. And there are different theories about the end times and why they come. It just happens the cultists and the astronomers coincide somewhat.
So we hear the formula of universal gravity forced between two objects, proportionate to product mass divided by square distance. And it's only very recently that it's been demonstrated that the law of gravitational motion acts actually accounts for the complex interaction of the six suns.
Except for Lagash's orbit around Alpha. Something strange about that too, but there must be an unknown factor and that's what Aton has figured out. There is a non-luminous hidden body, a moon, most likely, that is completely obscured by the light of the suns. And that means they can't see it at all, but it's there and it accounts for the weirdness in Lagash's Alpha orbit.
So this body itself orbits Lagash and in just a few hours it will occlude Beta from the visible sky in a sort of eclipse. So the eclipse happens once every 2049 years and lasts for only half a day. And the observers plan to photograph it, keep the records and start the next cycle knowing all that's necessary and hopefully that'll be enough to help prepare for next time. So it's a long game indeed and Theremon can conceive of darkness, but he's never really experienced it. Nobody on Lagash seems to like to go into caves, although they're of course a thing.
Sheerin talks of an experience where he recently tried to go into a cave and it was so dark he got terrified and ran out as fast as he could. Theremon scoffs and says he would have bourne it fine, but Sheerin dares him to draw the window curtains and put the room and them into darkness. The experience of not being able to see anything is obviously very unpleasant for Theremon. There was a horror ride at an exhibition a couple years before and the tunnel of mystery riding in a car down a tunnel for 15 minutes and that was it. Just darkness for 15 minutes. A few weak hearts died but the psychological effects were harder to pinpoint and more profound. Intense everlasting claustrophobia basically. Here associated with not just enclosed spaces but lack of light.
When the eclipse comes the people will instinctively want light and they will, like their distant ancestors, set fire to the cities around them. In each level of ruined civilisation, always noted the prominence of fire.
Now two latecomers show up at the observatory, Yimot and Faro and they do a little experiment on their own, rigging up a building with velvet and putting holes in the roof with caps on them and they sit in darkness for a while and throw a switch and the caps come off revealing little pinpricks of light that are supposed to be like stars but it doesn't work. They were fine and Theremon is about to be triumphant when there's some noise from upstairs and it's a cultist.
So the cultists they like thick curly beards apparently so that's cool and he smashed up the photographic plates. He was really after the cameras though and he's a high-ranking cult member, adjacent to his serenity, Sor 5. And Aton had made a bargain with the cult to obtain certain data the cult possessed and he would then use that to prove the truth of their creed but when he did the cult leaders didn't really like it. It was too scientific I guess, non-mystical, blasphemous, natural. The infernal instruments must be destroyed so Sheerin proposes to lock the cultists in a closet so he won't see the stars and thus his immortal soul will be damned unless he gives his word of honor not to interfere.
While this has been going on first contact happens that is, they miss it. Beta has a chip of blackness on one side everyone rushes into activity. The cultist Latimer recites from the book of Revelation and it sounds a lot like what they're experiencing now. Beta is in the sky for longer and longer periods and then eclipsed in the cave of darkness. The stars are visible men must repent.
So how does the book survive would be I don't know, young children perhaps? Of course the blind don't count because they're probably all drunk. Then they're not really witnesses I guess.
So finally the insensitive minds.. so yeah there's real snobbishness here/ That's okay but the people in the hideout are sealed in and safe. But the city is in chaos, and the cult is gaining members by the thousands and they're going to storm the observatory. Aton gets warned. What will come first, the mob or totality that is total darkness. The mob may be ineffective as a concerted force when faced with the madness of night.
I guess that what they are hoping and that the learning men can hold out, but it's not going to be long after all and the men speculate to keep their minds off the encroaching darkness. It's very cool and maybe the stars don't really exist and they don't need to take the book, so literally.
Meanwhile, one of the assistants, Beenay, speculates that they're the stars, that is our other suns, as much as four light-years away. Interestingly, they can measure this. Though Beenay seems pretty close, I think he's vastly underestimating the size of the thing. And of course there will be literally hundreds of stars visible in a moment. Here we get interesting speculation about what a world with one sun like Earth would be like and they kind of think that that's impossible. That's funny.
So yeah, what if there was an inhabited world where there was a single sun? Yeah, the orbit would be a perfect ellipse and gravitation would be evident. It seems these people were really late in coming to some of our realizations from centuries ago, but just as advanced in other areas. So would the planet with one sun get enough heat and light to support life? Sheerin says no. Someone brings out some torches and they provide a comforting yellow light and everyone feels a little bit better, but in a moment of silence they hear the sound from outside. It's the mob. The place is well built, but let's worry about the back door.
The men scurry around and set up cameras, even the torches. With torches it's kind of hard to see. Then everything happens at once. The last thread of sunlight fades. Latimer the Cultist tries to rush Beenay and everything goes weird as the stars become visible.
So I'm going to read this part. There's a famous last part of the story that if you read the story, which I hope you have, you might already know.
"With the slow fascination of fear, he lifted himself on one arm and turned his eyes toward the blood-curdling blackness of the window.
"Through it shone the Stars!
Not Earth's feeble thirty-six hundred Stars visible to the eye; Lagash was in the center of a giant cluster. Thirty thousand mighty suns shone down in a soul-searing splendor that was more frighteningly cold in its awful indifference than the bitter wind that shivered across the cold, horribly bleak world.
"Theremon staggered to his feet, his throat, constricting him to breathlessness, all the muscles of his body writhing in an intensity of terror and sheer fear beyond bearing. He was going mad and knew it, and somewhere deep inside a bit of sanity was screaming, struggling to fight off the hopeless flood of black terror. It was very horrible to go mad and know that you were going mad -- to know that in a little minute you would be here physically and yet all the real essence would be dead and drowned in the black madness. For this was the Dark -- the Dark and the Cold and the Doom. The bright walls of the universe were shattered and their awful black fragments were falling down to crush and squeeze and obliterate him.
"He jostled someone crawling on hands and knees, but stumbled somehow over him. Hands groping at his tortured throat, he limped toward the flame of the torches that filled all his mad vision.
"'Light!' he screamed.
"Aton, somewhere, was crying, whimpering horribly like a terribly frightened child. 'Stars -- all the Stars -- we didn't know at all. We didn't know anything. We thought six stars in a universe is something the Stars didn't notice is Darkness forever and ever and ever and the walls are breaking in and we didn't know we couldn't know and anything --'
"Someone clawed at the torch, and it fell and snuffed out. In the instant, the awful splendor of the indifferent Stars leaped nearer to them.
"On the horizon outside the window, in the direction of Saro City, a crimson glow began growing, strengthening in brightness, that was not the glow of a sun.
"The long night had come again."
(music: swirling electric fire)
spoiler discussion and film adaptations
Nate:
Yeah, I was about to say, for all the talk about Lovecraft being cosmic horror, where there's interdimensional beings from star systems far away influencing people's minds and whatnot, this uses natural astral bodies for its horror and its cosmic significance.
JM:
In this case, there's no beings. It's like the emptiness, right? And they don't actually realize how big the universe is because they've actually been this idea of being inside the cave, right? It's like, it's not quite true, but it's like, yes, they have been inside a cave because they've had six suns covering the sky and brightness this entire time, so they have no conception of how large the universe actually is. And that's ultimately what drives everybody crazy is not so much the darkness, but realizing that there's so much else out there that they didn't know about.
Gretchen:
It's like, it's not the darkness, but the light, the immense amount of light that's still out there that they just didn't know about.
JM:
Yeah, right.
Nate:
Yeah, just totally shattering their worldview in a second at, as I guess, too much for them to handle.
Gretchen:
Yeah.
JM:
Yeah. And that ultimately is what makes the story work for me because, you know, I mean, as a person who doesn't see light anyway, it's just kind of like, yeah, like what's, I don't know, I mean, like, it's just going to last a few hours, get over it. It's like, but at the same time, it's like, this is the whole conception of the universe is based on this. And it's like, you consider, yeah, I mean, a civilization could develop up to almost our present point without actually realizing that the universe is, well, quite vast and multifaceted with billions of stars and galaxies and so on.
Nate:
Yeah, the universe is just so absolutely enormous. And humans have trouble thinking of the scale, even of distance involved from the sun to our nearest star. It's just a huge, huge amount of distance. I mean, never mind all the stuff that is out there beyond that.
Gretchen:
Yeah.
Nate:
The early conceptions of the universe from the ancient world up to the Middle Ages, thinking in particular here about Dante's construction of paradise and all that is very, very, very small in comparison to even what Copernicus and, I guess, the Lagash people are able to observe. Earth being the center of the universe doesn't really lead to the true scale of enormity. And I think if you expose the Renaissance mind to some pictures from the Hubble telescope or some other deep space imagery from whatever radio astronomy techniques we can do now, it would similarly blow their mind and they wouldn't be able to just process that information.
Gretchen:
And that's something that to paraphrase, I can't remember the exact line, but Asimov saying in the story, there's that line that's like scientific discovery isn't just some random revelation or, you know, it isn't, obviously they're talking at that moment about gravity and everyone always associates that with, oh, the apple, the apple that falls on Newton's head, like then it's like the Eureka moment. That's not actually the case. It's built on years and years and years of scientific discovery beforehand. So that instant of all the stars coming in to focus and being able to see that, that's, yeah, it would be mind blowing.
Nate:
And especially in the case of something like astronomy where it really was years and years and decades and lifetimes even of constant observation that just had to be tedious night after night watching the sky change in these very minute positions. Yeah, I mean, the discoveries that made were fascinating, but they had no idea where it would lead. And it's not something that is going to be instantly rewarding or profitable, like modern discoveries in physics or chemistry where you're actively trying to build towards something. And the application can maybe pay off in a couple years. But I mean, astronomical observations during the Renaissance and Middle Ages were like lifetimes worth of work. That was too much for even one person to conduct. I mean, just think of the amount of work passed between Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler.
JM:
Yeah, yeah, it's just really interesting to think like, oh, it takes us a few hours for all so much of that to die out. Do you think like maybe the things are advancing like very slowly? And now we're at the point where like, okay, maybe some records will be kept and not destroyed.
Nate:
Yeah, that is the glimmer of hope at the end of the story. I guess the seed bank thing that he's built that contains all their records or whatever is going to survive the craziness that comes and preserve whatever they're able to stuff in there. And maybe the survivors will find it and they're going to take action on how to prevent it in the future.
JM:
And there's people in the hideout that will just hang out there for another six hours or whatever and then come out. But like, well, you know, what's the world going to be like when they emerge? So that again, is the novel version of this. I think it does kind of explore some of that. But it's pretty telling that even though like, yeah, I only read it once back in the 90s. And I don't remember much about it, except yeah, it was pretty mad and crazy. And there was some additional characters, including some female characters and stuff like that. And it's like, I don't remember if it ends on a positive note where they're like, yeah, we have our records and everything will be fine. They're like, I don't think so. Right. It's cool. Silverberg is again, he's a pretty good stylist and stuff. So maybe he makes it kind of good in its way. But I don't know. Yeah, it's just, just to end it there on that cosmic horror, right? But also related to science and how like, he's so good at imagining how this world work, right?
Nate:
Yeah, totally.
JM:
This world building in very short space of time, where yeah, we have a lot of questions about like, Ash and how things might actually be. But at the same time, he does a good job of portraying this like, very earth like society in the people in 1941 America would certainly be able to relate to. It's got its economics and its reporters and its city states and its trains and other things that everybody's familiar with. And yet, they sort of still have this like pre-Copernican model of the universe that's about to get permanently shattered.
And yeah, it's good stuff. I mean, I again, there's always that thing that I'm thinking about, like why are they struggling to deal with darkness? But again, it's just like, yeah, okay, they've had it their entire lives. They've never been exposed to it. I guess there's people on Lagash who can't see, but like, we'll cover that. You're gonna, Nate I think you have some things to say about the movie adaptation. I know there's a prophet in that movie.
Nate:
Yeah, they're both really bad. But before we get into that, we could kind of explain away how the survivors and the blind people who don't really get affected by it in that it deals with some of the things that we've talked about. And some of the other stories we've done on the podcast previously like that Poul Anderson story, where you get instantly transported into a civilization where all technology's gone and you've been used to technology your entire life. Well, what are you going to do now? Yeah, it's just totally disruptive. And you might not even be able to do basic things. You have to relearn how to do like literally everything.
JM:
Yeah, sure.
Nate:
Even in a post industrial revolution type society, it's described here as everything being on fire. So presumably all the libraries and repositories of knowledge that this world has have been inadvertently destroyed by the chaos. And I mean, even while there is going to be a small population of survivors and unaffected people, when all your infrastructure and your knowledge collapses, well, what does that give the survivor?
JM:
Yeah, this is so frustrating. Like if they want to set fire, they're going to set fire to everything just because they need light, like right now, just like, just don't don't set the fires. I just go go hide somewhere, and just wait a few hours, right? But they just panic, right? It's total panic. And everybody's just like, we need light, we need light, we need light. That's all they can think about. So they're going to set the whole city on fire and destroy everything.
Nate:
But yeah, there are some adaptations of this. Like we had mentioned earlier, the X Minus One radio adaptation is pretty good, I thought.
JM:
Yeah, they actually do really faithful adaptations of Galaxy and Astounding stories.
Nate:
Yeah, I thought it'd be cool maybe in the future to do an X Minus One episode where we read the story and then listen to the adaptation. The acting is definitely very 50s radio/TV and kind of silly in that way.
JM:
It's typical for radio productions.
Nate:
Yeah, I mean, it's fun. I mean, it's not Shakespeare, but it doesn't try to be. But it is very, very faithful to the story.
JM:
It is. It's pretty much word for word, right? And the thing that X Minus One, I think, was really good at introducing people to some of these stories, right? And even though, you know, I read some stories from the magazine era and anthologies and collections and stuff, but like there was a radio station here in the early 90s that broadcast X Minus One sometimes on Sunday nights. And it's just sort of a testament to some of the long lasting power of this stuff that like in the 90s they were still, yeah, like they were broadcasting this show from the early 50s and that brought to life some of these stories dramatically. Yeah, I would agree that none of the adaptations really stand out as being experimental or like special or great. Like I think that especially American old time radio had certain limitations because like they barely did any serials, right? Like it was basically all, well, this has to fit into a 25 minute radio format, right? And everything is self contained.
So the British got around this with their radio series, like the journey into space by basically making serials. So like a radio series could be 15 parts long or something and just continue the story for that length. But it seems for the most part, like the American series didn't bother with that and they were just like self contained. So, you know, if they were going to tell a short story, they'd better squeeze it into 25 minutes or else.
Nate:
Yeah, and they definitely do a good job with the Asimov. It's extremely faithful. It pretty much uses Asimov's exact prose. I think the ending is slightly less hard hitting in the X Minus One version than the story. But I mean, that's just because they probably trim some stuff out. It just feels bigger in the story than the radio adaptation. But I think overall the radio adaptation is really, really good.
JM:
It's certainly the closest to the actual story.
Nate:
Oh, yeah.
JM:
I think that's just really interesting that this is considered by so many to be "the best science fiction story ever written". And yet it's so unknown outside the community because any attempt to adapt it is not. Yeah, it's just hasn't worked out, right?
Nate:
Yeah, to say the least, yeah. So there's been two movies of this.
JM:
Right. I've seen the first one.
Nate:
Yeah, the 1988 one, which is awful. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. There's two kinds of bad movies, the bad movies that are like fun to watch, and that are fun to make fun of like all the ridiculous special effects and the bad dialogue. This is not fun. This is just absolutely tedious in every way. Despite the fact that "Nightfall" is really not a complicated story, I had like no idea what the hell was going on through most of this movie is basically lost the entire time. The costumes looks like they raided some sword and sorcery set. I don't know, Roger Corman was tangentially involved. So possibly it came from one of his other movies. There's lots of crystal knives and swords and stuff. The cult in this one is like a blind cult that pecks out people's eyes with birds. So you get some added gore on top of everything. But there's also a lot of really awkward and weird sex scenes, like they were almost going for the late night Cinemax cable market with this one.
JM:
Yeah, so I saw this movie in the early 90s as well. It was like hanging out at the local video store a lot where my dad lived. And like I do the story and I'm finally like, yeah, I'll get this movie and watch it. Right. And yeah, I basically mostly remember bad synth score and like, yeah, weird sex scenes. I don't know. Yeah, it didn't really have a lot to do with Asimov's story.
Nate:
No, I mean, you can tell it's like set on the planet. And like, there's the dichotomy between the scientist and the cult and nightfall does happen and the world burns. But aside from that, the plot is just like totally incomprehensible. Like I'm not exaggerating where I literally do not know what happens in this movie. I don't know. The apocalypse happens and the Aton character has this like ridiculous sword fight with a crystal sword and it's just really absurd. And I don't know, it's just...
JM:
Yeah, the stars come out and they're just like, oh, stars pretty, cool.
Nate:
Yeah, there's a bunch of shots of the moon in the nighttime sky, which I thought was also odd too because of like how physics works and stuff. It would provide a lot of natural illumination and light making all this just like not a problem at all. But I don't know, it feels like a very odd error and I certainly cannot recommend this movie at all.
JM:
It's really striking to me, though, that nobody talks about this movie, like not even fans of bad movies.
Nate:
I mean, like I said, fans of bad movies want something to watch that's fun and entertaining like Neil Breen movies or whatever are ridiculous and Godfrey Ho movies are totally absurd. Yeah. Troma movies, they know that their tongue in cheek and they make stuff that deliberately plays up to that. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But this is, yeah, just totally tedious. One of those movies that makes an hour and a half be like four hours. Incomprehensible and just not fun at all.
JM:
So you said they used the phrase "the best science fiction story ever written" on the poster for the movie to entice you to watch the movie, I guess.
Nate:
So I'm sure there's a non zero number of people who were in the video store one day and just got turned off to the entire genre of science fiction because they're like, I'm going to watch the best one.
JM:
Yeah. Well, they said this was the best science fiction ever written that I watched the movie and it was so terrible. So I never read any science fiction after that, but watched any science fiction because they said this was the best one.
Gretchen:
Is this what all the fuss is about? Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't blame that all because it is a really bad movie.
Nate:
The other one, the one from 2000 is also not a good movie, but this one is definitely a lot more fun than the 80s one. So this one was shot in India and it uses real world temples for the locations, which I thought was pretty cool. I mean, they're like well designed buildings and they have cool architecture. So it did give it a bit of atmosphere.
JM:
That's cool.
Nate:
Even though the rest of the film just has people walking around in modern clothing and it is very, very low budget. Kind of reminded me of the "Aniara" movie in the way that yeah, everybody's just like wearing their normal clothes. So there's pretty much no effort put into the set in the costuming. They just shot it in India and like, that's their alien planet. So again, very, very low budget. David Carradine has top billing, even though it's one of those deals where it's more or less a glorified cameo. Like he does have a couple scenes and speaks a couple lines, but he's certainly not the main character. The main character rather is his daughter and she gets into this like, I don't know, almost Indiana Jones type adventure. The acting is really, really bad and it's really, really dumb. But at least there's like a plot you can follow, which I mean, compared to the 80s movie is a major, major improvement. It definitely feels very Hercules and Xena era of genre film and TV like this came out right around the time the Phantom Menace did. And this one guy has some Star Wars force type powers.
JM:
That's random.
Nate:
But I think for the rest of it, it definitely feels more in tone like Hercules and Xena than Star Wars.
JM:
Wow, okay. What's that got to do with "Nightfall"?
Nate:
Yeah, it's definitely not a good movie, but at least it's like fun to watch and kind of engaging.
JM:
Coherent.
Nate:
But yeah, it's certainly not Nightfall the way that Asimov wrote it.
Gretchen:
It is really sad because like we were saying, it just what the actual plot is would make a really interesting 45 minute episode of some sort of anthology series. So it's just like, it feels like such a missed opportunity to not have it be the actual plot.
Nate:
Yeah, and I'm kind of curious as to why there really haven't been in recent times those kinds of anthologies where they do take a look at these classic stories from the Golden Age.
JM:
Yeah, I did forget to mention that this story is also in the "Science Fiction Hall of Fame" anthology when we're talking about anthology appearances. And I guess that's significant because that is actually the anthologies created by the Science Fiction Writers Association of America that basically accounted for a lot of the pre-Nebula award stuff. So we get a lot of stories from starting from basically the period of H.G. Wells up to 1959, the mid 50s maybe or something.
Gretchen:
That's the anthology I read it from.
JM:
Yeah.
Gretchen:
And it interesting that it is edited by Silverberg since he ended up expanding it into the novel.
JM:
Yeah, it's interesting because this story actually didn't get voted more than almost any other story. So that means that I guess the people that were reading back then, like the writers especially voted this story very highly. So Asimov himself maybe was part of this and maybe he didn't vote for the story because he didn't think that it was one of his best stories. But he appeared there with distinction, I guess, because yeah, it was considered to be a very important story. And one thing I find very interesting is that yeah, a lot of these classic Golden Age stories and not just the Golden Age, but maybe going ahead as far as the 60s, like when you look at "Dune", for example, so I'm thinking of for specifically stuff like this "Nightfall", "Foundation", "Dune", they've had a history of having problematic adaptations where it just hasn't really been, even though they're considered some of the best American science fiction ever written. It seems like there's been a lot of trouble trying to adapt them in a form that is popularly successful and both that and like respectful enough to the original where the fans of the stories are not like put out.
Nate:
Yeah, so I haven't seen the "Foundation" TV series, it would be a hard one to adapt as-is just because I mean, they are all fix-up novels and the stories take place like sometimes thousands of years apart from one another. So it's not like you could just have a set of recurring characters that would appear in every episode as you would need to change the cast every couple episodes that would make possibly the logistics of how you cast TV shows and put these things together a lot more difficult. But yeah, the "Dune" films have all had their own issues, but I do like the Lynch and the new ones fair amount, neither of them I think are the perfect adaptation of that story.
JM:
Yeah, it seems like the best format for this would be like you said, maybe a "Twilight Zone" episode or something like that.
Nate:
Yeah, and I just wish there was kind of more like genre science fiction anthology stuff on TV like that nowadays. I mean, the 60s you had the "Twilight Zone" and "Outer Limits" running concurrently with one another for like a year. Nowadays, you do have Black "Mirror on".
JM:
Or there was a British anthology "Out of the Unknown" or "Into the Unknown" or something like that. And most of it's lost now, there's only a few episodes left, but they actually didn't adapt a lot of classic American science fiction stories in the early 60s. And it seems like this would have been perfect for that. It's really too bad that most of that series doesn't exist because it seems like it was actually a really cool effort to bring that kind of science fiction to the television screens of the time. And it's just kind of this interesting thing where in Britain, it seems like science fiction was actually in some ways anyway, because it was published by major publishers from authors who were reasonably respected at that time in Britain. But also, there was like that study done by Kingsley Amis, "The New Maps of Hell", which basically was a study that he did of American science fiction, especially around the Golden Age period, where he basically read tons and tons of pulp magazines and analyzed the entire field for the public. Basically, it seems like the attitude towards science fiction was a little different than it was in the USA. They took it a little more seriously, even though things like having a professional British SF magazine was like not really in the cards. I think nobody really wanted to put the money for it, I guess. We talked about that during our fandom episode and how some of the British fans were trying to get that to happen and so on. But it seemed like some of these stories and some of these, this whole milieu that was coming out of the US, but also the fact that British authors like John Wyndham and so on were actually getting respectable publication and so on contributed to the idea that yeah, maybe in Britain, science fiction was treated a little differently, even though like it made me still got short shrift. It was taken a little more seriously in certain quarters, maybe.
I'm sorry, I got the name wrong. I think it's "Out of the Unknown" where they actually, I think it was the BBC actually produced what seems like a pretty cool series based on mostly old American SF short stories. And I think they changed by the third season apparently and became more of like a suspense oriented series.
Nate:
Yeah, I know there's a whole bunch of stuff from that era of British television that's lost. There is some really cool sounding genre adjacent stuff that I've read about, but yeah, it's a shame that their archiving policy wasn't better and they really weren't thinking of people watching this in the future.
Gretchen:
Yeah.
JM:
So yeah, this "Nightfall". Very cool story, I think. And yeah, I mean, I'm not sure what Asimov will be covering in the future on the podcast. I know we'll probably return to him someday. I'm actually gunning for the novel "The End of Eternity" at some point, but yeah, that might be pretty far in the future. This may be the last year here of Asimov for some time, but I'm glad that we covered this. I mean, we could have done some of the robot stories. We could have done "The Mule" from "Foundation and Empire", which I think is something we would be cool to look at for a number of reasons, including it being a Hugo winner and so on. But yeah, this is a really cool story to revisit and I'm happy that you guys both enjoyed it as well.
Nate:
Yep, definitely a lot of fun and certainly looking forward to coming back to Asimov whenever we do. Even if we don't cover his stories for a while, I'm sure his name will be coming up in passing as he's just such a big figure in the US and a big figure abroad. As I have been working on some of those translations of Latin American magazine stories, well "Caves of Steel" appeared in the Argentinian magazine Mas Alla in the three issues between May and July of 1954, which isn't that far off from its original publication in English. So he's definitely been getting out there in the rest of the world and not just America in the UK, which is pretty cool.
Gretchen:
Yeah, I definitely would enjoy returning to him. If not soon at some point again in the podcast, I definitely really enjoyed this story.
JM:
This really brings me back to reading all these Asimov shorts back in the day and just being so excited back in the early 90s, just kind of like thinking like what's coming next, you know, what, what problem is he going to give me? What interesting dilemma am I going to be faced with when I read a story and how is it going to engage my brain? That's just such a cool, cool thing to think about. And it makes me want to revisit some Asimov short stories right now, actually, and remember what they were like. And maybe yeah, I'll reread the "Nightfall and other Stories" anthology because I know it was a really special anthology at that time for me going back.
But we actually have another very special science fiction author to talk about next. And that is a first time visit on the podcast, Mr. Philip K. Dick. And we'll be talking next about his story, "The Last of the Masters", not to be confused with "Farewell to the Master", which I keep wanting to call it for some reason. But yeah, that's that's by Harry Bates and we talked about him before. But yeah, so we'll be talking about that next time on Chrononauts.
In the meantime, make sure you have your torches handy for the coming darkness. And don't worry about the stars. They're just part of the night sky. And they're all around us. We've really enjoyed spending time with you and these stories. We'll be around next time. We are Chrononauts. Good night.
No comments:
Post a Comment