The byline on this novel lists both Asimov and Silverberg. I'd be very, very interested to know who did what. I've read a lot of Silverberg's stuff, and this doesn't read like his style, nor is the plot anything like one of his. And by "not his style," I mean clunky, anachronistic, and at times flat out godawful. The concept is interesting enough, but the sub-par writing really spoils the execution. Frankly, this is an excellent example of the big name effect in publishing - I strongly suspect that if this work had been submitted by an unknown author, it would have never made it out of the slush pile. The novel was published in 1993, apparently, but the style would have been woefully dated even by then. Whoever wrote the dialogue, they clearly never bothered to read any of it out loud, because most of the time, the characters are talking in a way that no normal human ever would. Someone needs to inform Asimov - he's known for bad dialogue, so I suspect it's on him - that normal people don't usually go around speaking in nested subordinate clauses. Then there's the notable habit of completely deflating any dramatic tension in the plot before it even gets off the ground. Time and time again, we're told that Andrew is going to face this or that legal battle that promises conflict and tension and high stakes, only to have the actual battle part either completely skipped over, or neatly summarized in a few paragraphs of exposition. Someone really needs to sit whoever did this (again, I suspect Asimov) down and have a chat with them about showing, and not telling. It's a basic writing mistake. And speaking of basic writing mistakes, the prose is littered with them. Characters don't simply say, they exclaim or mutter darkly. I caught at least two instances of the dreaded "as you know." And then there's the profligate use of what I like to call "The Fairytale For:""The Martin estate - for that was what it was, nothing less...""...for he didn't know any other term for what he felt...""...for Sir had bought her an intricate pendant of pink ivorite...""...for Elliott Smythe was a slender, towering, athletic-looking man...""...for her father's promises to her were inviolable contracts...""...for it was still anyone's right to have his day in court...."On and on like that, every few pages. You can get away with that in a children's fairtyale, but for anything aimed at adults, it's just lazy and annoying. Finally, having read the whole thing, I'd really like to know: who is the antagonist? Because it doesn't seem like one ever bothered to show up. Was it supposed to be US Robots and Mechanical Men? Or ignorant humans in general? Sure, they resisted Andrew's desires, but they don't really seem like antagonists. Without an antagonist, you end up with a story that just kind of muddles along and gives us info dump after info dump about the internal state of a robot who wants to be a human. Interesting for a little while, but not much of a novel. When are sci-fi writers (and readers, for that matter) going to learn that ideas are worthless if your story and your writing is crap? When are we going to learn that just because you've had a couple of interesting thoughts, doesn't mean you can dispense with characterization and dramatic tension? If you're a fan of the genre it might be worth your time, since it's considered a big deal for some reason, but otherwise, you're probably better off looking for something more entertaining.
Post Listen Review: I love how Isaac Asimov came up with the classic three laws of robotics and then spent so much of his writing figuring out ways to bend those laws or to make things fit into them in surprising ways. This is a beautiful story of a robot who becomes a man. It sounds silly on the surface but it brings up large questions on what life means. Not only that, it is kind of astounding how many things mentioned in this book would have seemed extremely far off in the future at the time of writing but that we now have. We actually have robots doing work we don't want to do, from roombas to I.E.D. detecting devices to mechanical arms in factories. We have centralized computer devices completing complex tasks for us (regulating stop lights and traffic patterns) that reach out to tell other machines what to do. We have phones that are more intelligent than we are. We have robotic prosthetic limbs and organs. We may not have a moon colony but we have noted politicians actually talking about one like it is a certainty. (Even if that politician is a bit whacky) About the only thing we are truly missing is the positronic brain. I feel like that is just a matter of time. For those reasons, I don't find the idea that we might have mechanical men doing our needed work, interacting with us and even gaining a soul all that far fetched. I found the story of Andrew Martin to be engaging and exciting and just a great science fiction classic. One that might move away from being fiction at any time.Pre-Listen Guess: I remember reading this and really enjoying it in High School. I am sure this will be good.
What do You think about The Positronic Man (1994)?
Straight up scifi isn’t a genre I usually read but I came across a copy of this book on audio and figured what the heck? I’m in a bit of a slump so maybe this will kick me out of it.So far, so good. It's set in the future where helpful robots are a reality. Model NDR113, or Andrew as his family names him, is contemplating a risky surgery when the book begins but we don't know what it is. It then flips back to the past a bit and we meet him just as he's settling in with his family. He seems to be part housekeeper and part babysitter and a trusted member of the family. Someone tell me where I can sign up for an Andrew.Anyway, being a robot and all, Andrew must obey all commands and is constantly torn between Dad's orders and those of the little girls who he calls Miss and Little Miss. The girls have ways of overriding Dad's commands and Andrew's programming often doesn't know what to do and the girls get their way. And that's as far as I've read. I'm surprised just how enjoyable this is because I'm not a straight up scifi lover.Ok, almost finished. This book, even though not my genre of choice, really surprised me. I didn’t find myself dozing off and it wasn’t overly technical as I’d mistakenly assumed. It focused on Andrew the robot’s struggles with being owned. He seems to have some sort of a glitch that allows him to think less like a machine and more like a human. He has no rights and no free will but fortunately he has “Little Miss” and a whole lot of money and she forces her dad to fight to make Andrew a free robot. Andrew now faces more problems from a society fearful and prejudiced against robots and as he outlives his family he feels things no robot should. My attention began to wane a bit during the last part of the book which spent a lot of time on the scifi aspects and legal battles of Andrew but overall it was a very engaging and thought provoking book that even made me tear up near the end. I’m glad I gave it a listen.
—Bark's Book Nonsense
Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg wrote this book based on Asimov's short story "The Bicentennial Man." The book is told from the point of view of Andrew, an unusual robot who wants to become more like a human. I find the ethics of the situation monstrous, as usual with Asimov's robots, but unlike in other books it interfered with my enjoyment of the story a little, because here it gets kind of cheesy too. The reasons for Andrew's quasi-humanity never get explained very clearly, which tempted me to read my own interpretations into the book. There is a surprise ending, though unfortunately I already knew about it - I'm not sure how I learned it, but it was years ago. Up til then, the real pleasure of the book is tracking the stages of Andrew's gradual development.
—Silvio Curtis
The Positronic Man was the inspiration for the movie Bicentennial Man, starring Robin Williams. While the two have many parallels, the differences divide the works with two individual stories and meanings.The Positronic Man is at its root the story of life. Repeatedly the process of growing, learning, chasing dreams, and eventually settling down into a tired resolution at the end of your days is shown. The main character, Andrew, even goes through this process as he gradually develops from a curious robot to a man chasing his dreams and finally settles into a resolve of trying to button down his final goals before his end.Underlying the core story is his fight for rights and freedoms in a world in which robots are property and often feared by humanity. This is where the book's realism seems a bit stretched. Not in the realm of science fiction or the quality of human fear, but in the strange duality that humanity seems to possess. Humans are terrified at the idea of giving rights to a robot and fight vehemently for the duration of Andrew's existence to prevent him from obtaining these rights. At the same time the world has settled into a sort of happy contentedness and the Earth is a sleepy sort of place. The real issue centralizes around the point that Andrew is the only one of his kind. All other robots quickly become more hard-lined into a dumb sort of mechanically simple capability to learn. Leaving him the only robot that even functions the way he does, yet the bulk of humanity is keenly aware of the threat of robots and is worried that other robots will desire rights at every turn. This doesn't really make sense as the other robots are all basically mobile toasters and vacuum cleaners at that point.Aside from this the story is well written and a pleasant adventure. Central are the Three Rules. The story of life and aging. Growing old and dieing. It is touching and rewarding in ways that will leave you thinking about your own life.
—J
