Robots and Empire (SF) - Isaac Asimov ****

In the last of his six robot books (though at least one character from here would appear in the late additions to the Foundation series), Isaac Asimov gives us a far more substantial threat than the roboticide central to his other late robot title The Robots of Dawn.There's a double menace with both the need to uncover a plot against Earth and the mysterious disappearance of the inhabitants of Solaria (though the latter will be left to a later book to sort out).

Because of this, Robots and Empire reads better than Robots of Dawn, though it suffers from the same problem of spending far too long over conversations with logical arguments dragged out for page after page, and ludicrously verbose explanations. Here, a character will say they know what has happened (or whatever) and then take five pages before they reveal what they think. It feels like famous author syndrome in action - Asimov’s editor should have been far firmer.

Although the book follows on from the three books featuring Elijah Baley and Daneel Olivaw as an unlikely detective duo, Baley is long dead, so the human continuity comes in via Gladia, who Baley first met on Solaria, and a distant descendent of Baley from one of the frontier worlds settled from Earth (subtly called Baleyworld).

There is no doubt that the two robot novels from the 50s work much better than those from the 80s, but because more happens here, and there is more of a high concept threat, this book still pulls together the robot series relatively well - the later novels would be more focused on the developments from the Foundation series with less significance given to the robot thread (and, sadly, no crime fiction crossover).

Paperback:

Kindle:

Six book package:

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question. Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on

Search This Blog