The author’s purpose for writing Nemesis was to entertain the reader by creating a fascinating, futuristic, and astronomical setting that evokes the imaginations of its readers. The story is told in third person omniscient, which allows the reader to engage in the thoughts of several characters, instead of just the protagonist. For example, “Genarr knew that Erythro was geologically alive and knew also that what geological studies had been made of the world indicated that there had been periods in its history when it had been mountainous” (Asimov 199). This quote shows how the author allowed the reader to view the thoughts of multiple characters. Genarr, in this case, is a secondary character, yet the reader is able to view what he is thinking. In addition, the novel contains many theoretical ideas and themes that may go over the heads of younger readers. For instance, “ It may be all there is. It wasn’t long ago when we thought that even that much was impossible and to go further yet- Still, we can at least dream of true hyper-spatial flight and true superluminal velocities (Asimov 138). This is just one of the many examples that include theoretical ideas, which serve a huge purpose to the plot of the story. Because of the complexity of the story, the novel is meant for young adults to adults. The author’s inclusion of intricate ideas elicits the imagination of its readers, which allows him to complete his purpose for writing Nemesis. The theme of the novel is the importance of collective intelligence, as supported by evidence in the text. The characters are faced by a problem that could result in the destruction of Earth, and throughout the novel, they have to work together to solve this issue. For example, “‘Chao-Li Wu had the answer. He had it all along. He told me. I remember him telling me. Months ago. Maybe a year ago. I dismissed it. I didn't even listen, really’”(Asimov 287). The quote showcases one of many instance where the characters have to put their minds together to solve the issues at hand. Because the author created a dire conflict, the theme becomes well understood by both his characters and the readers themselves. The style of Nemesis is a narration. The novel includes several narrative elements, like plot, conflict, and resolution. These elements, along with many others, combine to tell a detailed story. The novel also includes flashbacks, which aid to the idea of the novel being a narrative. For example, Asimov states, “Insignia was still a graduate student in astronomy at the time, completing her stint on Earth, looking forward to returning to Rotor so that she could qualify for work on the Far Probe” (29). In this quote the author is recalling past events, and is only one out of the many times flashbacks occur in the novel. The effectiveness of the style, however, is debatable. Overall, the style resulted in a complete story, but often leaves the reader confused and bored. Poorly placed flashbacks are often the reason for this because they repeated information previously stated and occurred in the middle of several events. However, in the end, the style resulted in a complete story that engages the reader, which in turn, makes the style effective, but not without several issues. Overall, I liked the novel. The novel’s inclusion of futuristic and fascinating details evoked my imagination and kept me reading. However, there were several things I did not like at all. The first is the novel felt anticlimactic. The conflict reaches a resolution, but in a very disappointing way. The next thing I did not like was the character development. In the beginning of the novel, characteristics of each individual were introduced. However, these same characteristics were repeated many times throughout the book, and few new characteristics were introduced. The third, and final thing I did not like was the novel was boring at times. Long sections of repeated dialogue plagued the novel, and left little room for enjoyment. If I could change the novel, I would make the climax more exciting. As I previously stated, the novel was very anticlimactic and left me wanting more out of the book. Also, I would add more details about the characters. There was very little development of the characters throughout the novel. The book is very individualistic in my opinion, as it is nothing like anything I have ever read. The plot and characters are very unique, and set themselves apart compared to other stories. Asimov is renowned for his work in the science fiction genre, and this book is an excellent example of his strengths, but also his weaknesses.
I have gone only half through the book but I must write this review to vent out my frustration. I love Asimov, I love his stories and I love the Foundation series but this book is quite different. No, not in the sense that it's not a Asimov's book or has not been written in Asimov's style. Nor it's a bad story, quite contrary, actually. But the book is a horrible written novel when compared with the "normal" literature standard. There was no character development, not even a character in a true sense. Many protagonists are just dull devices to tell the store from the POV of the author, no more, no less. Take for examples Fisher, the father of Marlene, the girl with the super perception power. Who is he? What is his character? What does he like and what not? How does he will react when under pressure, when confronted with anger, despair, fear? Zero! The very same for his wife Eugenia, the Dome commander or even Pitt, the Commissioner of Rotor. One can argue that the characters are not so important for a SciFi story because the are just devices to layout the plot lines. That might be true for a short story, but for a story spans 20 years, in multiple chapters it's almost unbearable. And here we come to the second problem of the book: the dialogs.Because all characters are just devices, they all felt so flat, so vague and superficial that one can easily exchange one name with the other and nobody will ever notice. Thorough the book, the author used a lot of dialogs to explain his ideas. In fact, he has used they so much one must say of an abuse of dialogs as a stylistic device. There was almost no description, no observation, no questions, just talk, talk and talk. But because the characters are so flat, their dialogs also sound artificial and contrived. Take Fisher for examples. Through the book, Asimov put a lot of questions in the mouth of Fisher just to tell the idea behind Superluminal Travel but they are merely a "continue space holder" even a 7 years old can ask. There was no spark of common sense, intelligence or feeling behind them. Or Marlene's mother Insignia. Although she should be a first-class scientist, in all dialogs between her and the Dome's commander she could only utter nonsensical, hysterical questions. There was absolutely no shadow of logic, intelligence or general knowledge one would undoubtedly expect from a Chief-Astronomer. The dialogs are all fake to a degree it was almost unbearable for me to continue thus I must write this review to vent off my frustration.However, the biggest surprise for me was the flaw of the plot, something truly unusual for a Asimov's book. The author chose a parallel plot lines, one from the view of the Rotorian and one from the Earth dwellers. But because the author already had told about what happened in the one world (Rotor), all the speculations, all the questions in the other world were just banal space filler. Why torture the reader with overlong conversation when in the previous chapter the author had already made clear that all nonsense is? Of course it is perfectly acceptable when such contemplations had leaded to certain actions or consequences but unfortunately they did not! Thus, besides some flaws in the plot, Asimov had missed all the interesting opportunity to confront the readers with more in-depth, intellectual questions about the nature of civilization, the role of corporation and sharing in the shaping of our very own human being; in my opinion the very much essence of good science fiction stories. And for that shortage, I could only give the book 1 star.
What do You think about Nemesis (1990)?
There is a suspicious periodicity in Earth's mass extinctions: a strong argument can be made that every 26 or 27 million years (depending on the cited source) "something happens." Oh, sorry, forgot you are a conservative Republican Christian who believes that the theory of evolution is the Devil's work, the Earth is less than 6000 years old, and we could easily halt Global Warming if we would just position those pesky Groundhogs so they would see their shadow Every Day Of The Year. Anyway, pretend along with me . . .I read NEMESIS as research for a sci-fi novel of my own I was writing. Probably I am over-rating this book for sentimental reasons. Isaac Asimov is one of my science fiction heroes. (view spoiler)[Don't tell anyone, but NEMESIS is probably only a ★★★. (hide spoiler)]
—Harv Griffin
In the 23rd century, humanity has spread out from the overcrowded Earth onto orbiting colonies. One of these, having developed an early form of hyperspace flight, has left the Solar System for a distant star they call Nemesis. The story revolves around Marlene (three syllables), a smart, superhumanly intuitive fifteen year-old girl whom no one likes due to her uncanny ability to see beneath the surface of people's words and actions to what they are really thinking. Marlene has discovered that Nemesis is on the move, and in roughly five thousand years' time will enter Earth's system.In his author note, Asimov mentions his desire to write clearly rather than poetically. There is, of course, a happy medium and Asimov misses that mark. His commitment to clarity causes him to over-explain and repeat things, as if for a younger audience - but even books for young people give their readers more credit. The dialogue is so measured and formal that his characters sound like they are conducting interviews rather than having conversations. All of this drains all the passion out of what could have been a fairly exciting story. Though there are no real villains, none of the characters are particularly likeable or interesting. The book is just so calculated and technical that the touching core story of a lonely girl who finally finds her place in the universe is all but buried.
—Scott
In varie recensioni si dipinge “Nemesis” come l’ opera meno riuscita di Asimov: secondo me è uno dei migliori 3 romanzi scritti da Asimov.Mi piace la successione dei capitoli secondo punti di vista differenti: amo i libri dove si può leggere il pensiero di personaggi spesso aventi opinioni contrastanti.“Nemesis” è più lungo dei soliti romanzi di Asimov quindi si ha il tempo di affezionarsi ai personaggi. Tuttavia non è troppo lungo, ossia non vi sono punti morti nella narrazione, mai una parola di troppo. Questo non vuol dire che non ci sono riflessioni o descrizioni, ma semplicemente che Asimov sa quando fermarsi! Non è uno di quegli autori a cui piace scrivere per il solo desiderio di riempire pagine: se scrive qualcosa è perché è importante che quella cosa sia detta!I personaggi sono molto più interessanti e le loro personalità molto più approfondite di altri Asimov. Ad esempio nella tanto elogiata “La fine dell’ eternità” (a cui io stesso ho dato 5 stelle) i personaggi non mi sono affatto piaciuti: ottima storia fantascientifica, ma personaggi non interessanti. Qui invece alla trama fantascientifica (come sempre fantastica di Asimov) si accompagnano personaggi molto più interessanti.
—Francesco
