Read Total Eclipse by John Brunner Online


In 2020, an international space team, exploring Sigma Draconis, 19 light years from earth, discovers the remains of a highly advanced society that has left behind its most spectacular artifact; the largest telescope imaginable, carved & polished from a natural moon crater. Successive space crews determine that the native culture evolved & disappeared mysteriously aIn 2020, an international space team, exploring Sigma Draconis, 19 light years from earth, discovers the remains of a highly advanced society that has left behind its most spectacular artifact; the largest telescope imaginable, carved & polished from a natural moon crater. Successive space crews determine that the native culture evolved & disappeared mysteriously after a mere 3000 years of existence. It's now 2028. Another mission reaches the planet with just one goal--to discover why the civilization disappeared--& with just one hope--that this knowledge will prevent the same thing from happening on earth. Exhibiting that rare sense of sf mystery that distinguished Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, John Brunner weaves a haunting tale of how 30 people attack the nearly insuperable task of unriddling the mysteries of a long-buried culture. Was it a fatal virus, an internecine war, a religion of lunatic brutality or a deleterious mutation that destroyed an entire civilization? All remains hypothesis until Ian Macauley unravels the riddle. But does it provide a solution to human problems & will the answer reach earth in time?...

Title : Total Eclipse
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780879979119
Format Type : Mass Market Paperback
Number of Pages : 206 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Total Eclipse Reviews

  • Zantaeus Glom
    2019-03-24 08:31

    Mr. Brunner has a tremendously agile imagination, and while I found much to admire about this absorbing, albeit talky, archaeological mystery on Sigma Draconis, I was a little alienated by the ending; while coolly logical, it was not only extraordinarily bleak, but somehow it also felt rather rushed. And after the glorious Epiphany in the final act, the tale ends somewhat abruptly; and, frankly, as I enjoyed spending time with these obsessive eggheads, it left me on a major bummer; which in all likelihood might well be Brunner's intention! It was interesting to note how much of this read like an Asimov robot story; a human with a Promethean scientific mind is posed with a seemingly impossible alien conundrum, and yet the socially awkward, stoic logician solves said anomaly with applied scads of vertiginous genius and dogged, deductive reasoning. I also feel that 'Total Eclipse' might either have benefited from being shorter, or, conversely, by Brunner's embellishing it into a decidedly weightier tome; yes, the more I think about it, the final act really needed to be considerably more layered and; all the filigree detail during the unfolding is completely absent at the end; blunt verse; blunter ending!...still a bit narked, really! (Grrrr! it's always dashed annoying when one really digs on 2 thirds of a book, since everything you did genuinely enjoy about the work is tainted by the little that you didn't!) Also, what gives about the massive telescope, man??? I was eagerly awaiting a brain-freezing 'Monolith' reveal, and...nada, butkiss! THE TELESCOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As they say, one should never judge a book by the size of the telescope on the cover. To whit, in future, I will remain wholly oblivious to all the demonstratively sized hardware emblazoned on crusty old 70's SF novels. "They, whoever, whatever they were, came to their moon and smoothed and rounded and polished a whole vast crater and made it into the largest telescope imaginable. And they're dead"Dude?????????

  • Fredösphere
    2019-04-13 15:08

    The characterization is slight and, after the improbable Spanish aristocrat departs in a cloud of space ship exhaust, the conflict drains out of the story. In short, Total Eclipse is a HAITE story (Here's An Idea. The End.) But what HAITE! The idea is pretty good, and Brunner strings it out. Even though the final reveal is presented in an uninteresting way (the scientist simply wakes up and realizes he's solved the puzzle) you still enjoy the explanation. It's all about the sudden decline and fall of an advanced civilization.The other big idea (regarding the lengths to which someone might go to understand the psychology of an alien race) is pretty cool too. So, in all, a recommended read. Just don't expect the usual novelistic good stuff, such as interesting characters or well-paced plot.

  • João Sousa
    2019-03-23 09:33

    I found "Total Eclipse" a well structured and enjoyable book. There is, although, a lack of character development and some flatness in the way that everyone (besides main character) is presented, but still plot is fluid enough to balance some other weak elements.There are some missing strings here and there, but as with all archaeological work (a main theme of this book) many times we have to rely on our own imagination to reconstruct a reality that does not exist anymore.

    2019-04-01 08:16

    review of John Brunner's Total Eclipse by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - October 30, 2013 Whenever I read Brunner & I'm reminded of another writer it's always someone whose work I respect - J. G. Ballard, eg. In this case, I made a note to myself as soon as I started reading this that I was reminded of Arthur C. Clarke & Ursula K. LeGuin - again, 2 writers that I respect - but ones that don't quite fit into my personal canon as much as Ballard does (well, actually, LeGuin is probably in there but Clarke's a little too drily 'hard science' for it - altho it's mainly b/c I haven't read anything by him for 40+ yrs). Why Clarke? I was probably just thinking of the monolith in 2001 in comparison to the giant telescope on a moon in Total Eclipse. The basic story is that humanity finds traces of a sophisticated civilization that blossomed & died at an unusually quick rate. The explorer's job is to try & figure out what happened to them? Did they really die off? If so, why? How? "He had sometimes mentioned to close friends a dream that haunted him concerning the disappearance of the Draconians: the possibility that they had been less lucky than mankind when they made their first experiments with hyperdrive." (p 9) The "Draconians" are so-called b/c their planet is "Sigma Draconis III". Nonetheless, I still wonder about the oddity of the 'inevitable' association w/ the legal meaning of the word "Draconian" - a harsh punishment. Complicating this is that the socio-political situation back on Earth, many light yrs away, is getting worse & worse. The scientist astronauts are depending on support from Earth in order to keep their research going. & the problems on Earth & their associated bigotries are a threat to the research. A 1st hint of this is in something like this: "And because Irene was both female and black, the choice was more likely to fall on Lieutenant Gyorgy Somogyi. "Who's less well qualified and far less quick-thinking. High on the list of possible explanations for the extinction of the Draconians, so they tell me, is the idea that it was due to some fatal flaw in their nature. All too easily some stupid irrational prejudice could get rid of us, too, couldn't it?" - pp 11-12 As I read more & more by Brunner, this is the 23rd story I've read by him so far, the more respect I have for his various takes on the psychological affects of setting up humanity on another planet. There's Castaway's World ( ), Bedlam Planet ( ), & now this. Brunner, ever the political realist, portrays the problems on Earth: "There had been famine in half a dozen densely populated countries, all of whose governments were controlled by greedy, short-sighted, thoughtless med whose first reaction when the starving mobs came battering at their gates was to accuse a scapegoat. The Starflight Fund was an obvious target. Rumours took their rise: here's another way the rich are cheating the poor, for if you hadn't had to subsidize the fund, there'd be another million in the treasury to spend on food! "No mention, of course, of the fact that the Prime Minister had made his fortune by hoarding rice during the previous famine, or that the President's brother owned the nation's largest pharmaceutical factory and was taking a profit of 1700 per cent on every ampul of niacin, ascorbic acid and B12. That news was stale." - p 17 B/c of this situation & paranoias associated w/ it, a general has been sent from Earth to investigate the Sigma Draconis III base "and that was why General Ordoñez-Vico had been given power to order the abandonment of the Draco base, and the abolition of the Starflight Fund, if any hint, clue, trifling suspicion, triggered his all too obvious latent paranoia." (p 18) Under pressure from the paranoid general, one of the less self-controlled of the scientists has an outburst in an attempt to explain the reality of the scientist's situation: ""There's a landslide somewhere. A concrete wall collapses, opens a whole building to the weather. There's a temblor, and a hundred buildings fall. All that can happen in one hundred years, and it's only the beginning. La Paz after a century, tumbledown, covered with creepers, the home of wild animals and snakes and butterflies and birds—how much could you tell about the way of life of a human family by burrowing into the rubble and rotting leaf mold, hm—if you were from another planet and had never seen a live human being? Ask yourself that! Here's a piano frame—but you have no ears, you never imagined music! Here's a tableknife—but you don't eat, you only drank liquids! Here's a sewing machine—but you have fur and don't wear clothes! After one century, how much sense would you make of what remained? And we're not talking about a hundred years here. We're talking about a hundred thousand! Ignorance? Don't make me laugh! It's taken genius for the people here to find out what they do know, and it's small thanks to the shortsighted fools who picked on you to come and pester them!" - p 63 Short-sightedness is a key idea here. Brunner explores the short-sightedness of polluters brilliantly in his ecological masterpiece The Sheep Look Up ( ). People w/o vision of expansive future possibilities inhibit the imagination & the pursuit of knowledge. Brunner explores the possibility of trying to figure out whether the Draconians even had multiple languages, as we wd expect given our own Earthly experience: ""Well, Igor's insight suggested that they may not have had languages, plural, but at worst the equivalent of dialects . . . which would be a logical starting point anywhere in the universe, come to think of it. It's been shown that all human languages have a fundamentally identical structure—" [..] "["]You surely must have been told that baby talk in every known human language is grammatically consistent?"" - p 86 This is a subject that I will, 'no doubt', return to again & again for the rest of my life. One can read my essay about my relevant feature-length movie entitled Story of a Fructiferous Society here: . & this justifies my reprinting a relevant part of an interview that I conducted under the name of "Party Teen on Couch #2" w/ someone calling himself "Party Teen on Couch #3": *************************************3: Adamitic language..2: Adamitic? I think that the idea of an Adamitic language is interesting but I’m wondering, you would know much more about this than I do because I know nothing about it since I know nothing about everything & everything about nothing, etc, etc.. - but, is there any sort of theory amongst linguists, or whatever the appropriate field of study would be, that you know of that tends to trace language back to common roots of any sort? 3: Yeah, there is, um, for example in Chomsky & linguistics you have this idea that you have something like semantics & patterns in a language which are common to all languages. 2: Does he develop this theory in great detail? In other words does he have a technical description of it? 3: Yeah, it’s called [unintelligible] schematic transformational grammar. 2: Could you say that again, please? 3: Generative transformational grammar. 2: Ok. 3: But actually I’m not that familiar with this kind of linguistics because linguistics in this century has very much split into various fields. You could say, from something like literary linguistics, which is mainly from the structuralist tradition; from Ferdinand de Saussure over Roman Jakobson to post-structuralism, deconstructionist approach as well as Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco - but, on the other hand, you have this kind of technical linguistics, Chomsky, for example, which is, actually, more the kind of linguistics which you study if you study linguistics properly, which is, for example, also important for computer linguistics if you generate speech recognition or speech systems & then you, mostly [unintelligible] to this kind of scientific linguistics - & then you also have philosophical linguistics like, uh, for example, speech act theory by Austin & Searle.. 2: Which is what? 3: Well, uh, this is actually something where you could say that modern linguistics have an approach which is closer to the idea of Adamitic language because, well, the primary assumption of modern linguistics is that language is arbitrary - that a linguistic sign has no absolutely whatever organic relation to the thing which we represent. 2: So no onomatopoiea? or whatever? 3: Yes, that would be, actually this is a different [unintelligible] which has been introduced by Charles Saunders Peirce who differentiated between the iconic, the indexical, & the symbolic sign where you actually have these possibilities of the onomatopetic relationships but, um, no, the question’s rather, to quote Austin, how to do things with words. There is 1 problem - if you have arbitrary language, it just means that, for example, if I say the word "cassette” or if I write it down then it has no relationship whatsoever to a cassette & by saying the word "cassette” I’m not manipulating the matter of the cassette in a way. So, it’s a purely arbitrary relationship.. 2: So that’s.. 3: Somebody has just decided just to call this piece a cassette. 2: Which is opposite to Adamitic language. 3: Which is opposite to Adamitic language because in Adamitic language you will have an organic relationship between the word & the thing so that by uttering the word you would, for example, invoke or manipulate the thing so like the classical example is of the Genesis where god says, uh "It shall be light” & then it’s light. This is Adamitic language. & the theory, the theory of Adamitic language as it’s notably present in the Kabala & in Jewish mysticism is that in the paradise, before the expulsion from the paradise Adam actually possessed a language which was similar to that of the divine language - where he was capable, for example, of naming animals. & that this original language where you could invoke & manipulate things with was lost when humanity was expelled from the Garden of Eden. So, um, the whole, um, occupation of Kabalism, or also you could say magic in general, is to, sortof, regain command over things by the means of language. & you could say that, in a way you could use it as a critique against modern linguistics because, for example, if Bill Clinton, today, says, uh, "Drop the atom bomb over Moscow” then the atom bomb would actually be dropped because he has the power & the possibility to do so. & just by saying this & by, maybe, having a few codes, or whatever, this would be made to happen today. So you could say that modern linguistics in defining language as arbitrary is actually missing some aspects. It cannot answer the question of how language is actually capable of directly invoking things or making things happen. & this is, for example, a matter which has been discussed by speech act theory - that’s exactly the question of speech act theory, how you.. 2: Speech act? 3: Speech act theory, yes, by, notably by Austin & um.. 2: Austin’s spelled A,u,s,t,i,n? 3: Exactly, yeah. He was an Oxford linguist, I think in the 1930s. 2: So is the concept of Adamitic language mainly supposedly originating from Kabalists or from who? 3: I would say it’s probably related in all kinds of magical or even metaphysical notions of language. I have thought about, for example, what, how 1 could locate multiple names as they are used in Neoism - in, uh, in either Adamitic or arbitrary language. I think this is extremely interesting because my theory is that they are both - or neither of them, in a way - because, when you say, you have a multiple name, an open situation, everybody can use that name & share this identity there was an extreme case of an arbitrary name - because the name is not naturally given to you - you know, it’s not like somebody’s born & he has, uh, he gets a name & the name is stamped on the passport but, it’s, it’s, it’s a name, say, Monty Cantsin, Luther Blissett, Karen Eliot. &, um, uh, as you wrote, the name is fixed, but the people using it aren’t. So this would be like the classical definition of arbitrary language in a way - the same way as I say, for example, if I take beer, then the notion, the word beer, b, double e, r, is fixed, but, for example, the meaning may change over the centuries - something like this.. 2: Let’s make a projection right now. Am I interupting your train of thought too much? 3: A little bit. Ok, so 1 could say, on the 1 hand, the use of multiple names is a use of language as extremely arbitrary - where you’ve got an extremely flexible signifier-and-signified or sign-and-thing relationship. It’s the highest possible flexibilization of the sign-and-thing relation. On the other hand, as soon as you participate in that multiple name, you are immediately, since there is no fixed referent, say there is no fixed referent for Luther Blissett because there is no person Luther Blissett - or, also, Monty Cantsin - it’s a fiction, it’s a fiction created by those using the name. So, you could say that by sharing this identity, by adopting this arbitrary name, you, you get the immediate power to, to change it. Yeah? Which is like Adamitic language. Because you are now able to do something in the name of Monty Cantsin, Karen Eliot, Luther Blissett, & so on & actively participate in the shaping of the identity & you can, sortof, directly invoke the character of Monty Cantsin by using the name. So that would be an extreme example of Adamitic language. So, so that, that’s, uh, that multiple names, sortof, a kindof flip-flop thing, you know? where you.. 2: What d’ya think about the idea of extending that type of thinking so that, for example, beer, the word beer, would be an open concept that could refer to any object? etc, I mean, this obviously refers back to my interest that anything is anything or anything as anything, etc, etc.. Or just taking all words & making them open contexts which can be used freely by the people who choose to use those words in this manner. So, for example, I might say to you "Pass the beer” but I could mean anything by that & you could respond in whatever way you felt appropriate. 3: Yeah, this would actually be the, exactly match post-structuralist or contemporary linguistics. That you say there is no fixed meaning for any word & the meaning actually.. the, the - this is justified by the use or by the difference - that you say "beer is not wine”, for example. Yeah, that you have a purely relational definition & usage but there is no actual referent to the word. ************************************* Ok, that was a long tangent but wasn't it great?! After all, ""There's an old saying: The genius sees what happens, but the plodder sees what he expects to happen.["]" (p 88) Brunner's political group experience shows: ""Does anybody disagree violently?" Rorschach inquired, and when nobody else spoke up continued, "So resolved, then.["]" (p 126) A theme explored in Bedlam Planet of how astronaut colonists become natives is here too: "Nobody wanted to settle permanently on Sigma Draconis III, because they hadn't come here as colonists, but as investigators." (p 175) In summary, an important political question relevant to the afore-mentioned short-sightedness appears: "How often have human beings acted against their own best interests, and particularly on behalf of some small group rather than in favor of the race as a whole?" (p 186) Indeed.

  • Archebius
    2019-04-02 12:13

    I threw this book out when I was done reading it.I've never done that with a book before. There are plenty of books that I don't like that I keep around - pass them on to other people, let them sit on my shelf, accumulate dust, what have you. But something set this book apart.It had potential. And it wasted it. For the first three-fourths of the book, I was extremely interested. I read the entire thing in a day and a half, which isn't a huge deal since it's a shorter book. Then, as I drew near the end, I started to feel like the author had backed himself into a corner - there were some interesting threads that hadn't been picked back up, the story was wandering, and the characters started to freak out about something that shouldn't have been a huge deal.And then there was the reveal. And the depressing ending. I won't tell you what either one was because I'm not into the whole spoiler thing, but let me say this - the answer to the mystery sucks. It fits with the clues left like breadcrumbs through the book, but when you actually think about it, you realize that it just doesn't work. Brunner tries to draw analogies with human behavior and it falls flat.This is a shame, because the lead up is really, really interesting. There are all kinds of fascinating theories thrown around, and the characters actually feel like a bunch of intelligent experts. I liked quite a few of them. But it all goes to waste.So, two stars for potential. I think that if Brunner had spent a little more time polishing the ending, it could have been four star material. As it is, I really can only justify the two stars because it really did keep me reading, first in interest, then in horror.

  • F Craig
    2019-04-23 13:28

    Reading note, 2011.Utopia/SF project book six. Very much in the hard-science mode—and indeed, the science aspects (real or imagined) are the most successful elements here—the novel explores the fundamental unknowability of the alien (in contrast to so much mass-audience SF where the alien is a two-legged, two-eyed creature like us only with a bigger head). Set in a far future where Earth has developed an interstellar drive (2028!), a collection of scientists attempt to understand the culture and disappearance of an alien species on a planet in a distant solar system. The book is somewhat uneven—the romantic elements are especially weak, and the researchers are too prone to categorically affirm or deny hypotheses about a species that went extinct on its planet 100,000 years ago—but in the end it was an engaging read with a haunting ending (somewhat reminiscent of Asimov's groundbreaking short story "Nightfall"). I probably should have read 'Solaris' first since it deals with the same theme and there are clear references to that book here (the interstellar ship is called "Stellaris").

  • David
    2019-04-14 12:35

    I guess this deserves a bit more than 3.0 stars...I'm really not sure why the book didn't leave me with a more positive impression. It's subject would interest me and I've like other books by John Brunner.A group of scientists are investigating the ruins of an alien civilization found in the Sigma Draconis system. Evidence indicates the civilization grew quickly - from stone age to space age in 3000 years, then disappeared 100,000 years ago. The story tries to show a series of insights that help the scientists find some pieces to the puzzle. And there's a more or less unique idea of trying to get more insights by having a human put inside a replica of an alien so the human can have sensory perceptions and body mechanics similar to what they believe the aliens had. (The aliens are non-humanoid and are thought to have a different primary sensory organ - which could have had implications for their society.)That sounds like something that would appeal to me. Somehow it didn't click.

  • Sara
    2019-04-01 09:07

    Another gloriously bleak dystopian story by Brunner, set on a planet once home to a highly advanced but long-lost alien society. Teams of humans, sent from an Earth that is precariously cooperative but also prone to paranoia and teetering on the brink of internal collapse, hope to uncover the mysteries behind the fall of this technologically savvy alien race, possibly providing some insight to the troubles on their own planet. There are quite a few different characters to keep track of, especially with the existing team on the planet and the newly arrived team from earth; however, the protagonists of the novel are quickly made evident. This would be really lovely as a mini-series, although the ending is probably too unsettling for very good reviews (eg: Stargate: Universe).

  • Isabel (kittiwake)
    2019-04-23 13:26

    The story of an investigation into the only alien civilisation ever discovered, which flourished for 3000 years, disappearing 100,000 years before the star ship from earth reaches their planet.The archaeological investigation into the aliens was very interesting since they were so different from humans, and the final discovery of why the rise and fall of their civilisation happened in such a short period of time was worth the wait. However I kept thinking that I had read it before, probably because I have read other novels about a small group of scientists investigating an alien planet, so that part of it was rather unoriginal.

  • Kendra
    2019-04-05 09:37

    Ehh, It was okay. I actually found this book in my car that must've belonged to the previous owner. My pops used to read 'Icerigger' to me and other sci-fi novels to me when I was younger which is rather odd, but I don't remember disliking it. I have never been much of a Sci-fi fan, but I decided to give it a try. I got off to a good start then the book wasn't that enthralling later on. I lost interest in it pretty fast, I found myself speed reading through some of the chapters. Maybe in a couple of years my views on it will change.

  • KevinS
    2019-03-24 15:23

    As several other reviewers noted this book has interesting ideas and lays out a very challenging problem but uses a poor reveal of the solution (it came to me in a dream!), and a short last chapter that is as much of a downer as any book you'll ever read through to the end. I love Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar and Shockwave Rider but this aint that. Also, the cartoon martinet at the beginning drove the first couple of chapters of the story then abruptly left the plot making for a very disjointed narrative.

  • Jeannette López
    2019-03-30 13:20

    okay! La media aventura... Para ser mi primera lectura de una historia de este tipo estoy bien contenta, pero creo que todo podría haber sido mejor... creo fue todo muy apresurado y que faltó desarrollo en la historia, que por cierto está llena de información maravillosa, por eso me desilusionó el hecho de que todo pasara tan rápido.Also.... ¿qué pasó con el telescopio? lo estuve esperando durante toda la lectura y nada!!!Punto aparte para la redacción de la historia, me costó leer este libro pero creo que quizás se pueda deber a un tema de traducción así que no ahondaré mucho en eso.

  • Kyle
    2019-04-04 14:35

    I should say that I enjoyed myself reading this, even though it's hard to explain why. At times there wasn't much of a plot, but still, there's something fun and intriguing about the basic idea: if you're faced with a mystery about how an alien race went extinct, how do you deduce what happened?With that said, it still feels like the draft of a novel more than a finished novel. Brunner could have used a heavy-handed editor to help him out with a lot of things (that I don't want to go into because spoilers).

  • Andy
    2019-04-07 13:14

    I'm not sure why people aren't as keen on this as Brunner's other work! The alien archaeology angle is woefully underused in most other science-fiction novels, and the the novel's melancholy tone provides a great atmosphere. Sure, it's not as overloaded with concepts and information like his other novels, like The Sheep Look Up (which I've read) and Stand on Zanzibar (which I want to read), but the smaller scale was honestly refreshing.

  • Sérgio Azevedo
    2019-03-23 15:13

    Pela cotação do livro no Goodreads pensei que seria um livro que não valeria a pena ler, mas ainda bem que o li.Não tem eventos fantásticos ou tramas cativantes mas pede para pensar um pouco 'out-of-the-box'.O tema é uma pesquisa arqueológica num planeta em que a espécie inteligente que lá habitou se extinguiu muito antes da raça humana ter capacidade de viajar no espaço.

  • Wendy
    2019-04-07 11:34

    Hmmm. There was no eclipse in this book so I am mystified about the title. It was nice to read an adult book even if it was about space and extinct alien civilizations. I think it was written in the 60s or 70s but it was a smart book and kind of fun. I don't think there was swearing and there was only implied sex.

  • Canard Frère
    2019-04-03 10:15

    L'ambiance SF n'est finalement ici qu'une excuse pour nous montrer des archéologues à l'oeuvre sur un monde extra-terrestre, et détailler au passage l'exploration scientifique qu'ils entreprennent pour essayer de comprendre les raisons de la disparition d'une civilisation. On se passionne vite pour cette enquête, parachevée par une conclusion assez surprenante.

  • Alien
    2019-04-05 15:22

    Full of interesting ideas. But sometimes too intellectual for me. The explanation for the decline of the alien civilization was not quite convincing to me. The end is depressing and leaves a feeling of futility.

  • Octavi
    2019-03-29 13:26

    Coñazo. Quiere ser profundo y no lo es. Tampoco entretiene porque se repite más que el ajo. Lo dicho, COÑAZO.

  • Erik Graff
    2019-04-06 10:11

    As ever, Brunner presents here another well-written science fiction story with a socio-political point relevant to his contemporaries.

  • Jason
    2019-03-25 10:29

    Weirdly flat, except a surprisingly bleak ending.

  • John
    2019-04-18 10:13

    Grade A-.

  • Jonathan
    2019-03-26 08:12

    A strange and confusing book.

  • David
    2019-03-31 15:34

    I first read this book in the summer of 1995.

  • David
    2019-03-31 08:13

    This novel is about extinction, whether of an alien race or the human race. Decisions have consequences, sometimes long after they are made. On the whole a good read, although mostly melancholy.

  • Miki
    2019-04-15 10:28

    The most believable sci-fi I have ever read.

  • Kevin K
    2019-03-24 14:17

    An excellent short novel! The characters are a bit thin, but it isn't a very character driven story.