interesting if slow read but then the "end" seems to not be an end - and the audible transition of this is only part of the book is given at the end of the second part of a presumably two part book - so what gives!!! somewhere there is a mistake - either on audibles side by putting a transition tape at the end of a book or there is a third part, which seems more likely given where it "ended", and that part is missing from audibles library - in any case until the mistake is sorted out (get rid of the transition or add the third part) do not buy
are you kidding - yes if that is in fact the end that is there - but then even the folks at audible found it very confusing by putting a transistion statement at the end of a book to what?????
I love Jack McDevitt, so when I saw this I jumped after it. I'm a pretty big McDevitt fan, and have read almost everything else he's written. Unfortunately, this book is just awful. Poorly paced, and just poorly written. I hope it's the influence of Mike Resnick, whom I've never heard of, and not a new trend for McDevitt.
I liked the conspiracy aspect of the story. What I liked most about the original short story, however, was the reason why the conspiracy persisted. The reason for it in the novel has slightly changed, and I think the epiphany of that reason diminishes the impact of the message which was suppressed. I also didn't much care for a lot of the additional plot items they added. They didn't seem to add to or take from the original.
I already read the short story, so I had a good idea of the ending. The ending of the short story is much more satisfying, I think. The ending to the novel is similar, but it doesn't accentuate the message quite as well.
He was very talented. I will look for other audiobooks he narrates.
Neutral. If one has already read the orinal short story, then I am not so sure it's worth the time. If not, then it might be worth a person's time. It's not a bad novel anyway.
I liked the concept and enjoyed the plot, when you got to it, but it seemed way too long. There were endless dialogues between characters, going over the same ground, it seemed. But I wanted to hang on until the end and I'm very glad I did. For me, it easily could have been half the length and accomplished as much. I found I could half listen to the dialogue in case anything new actually came up. I'm not sure I'd read another by this author. Maybe 'abridged' is the way to go with this one.
The story was so slow to unravel that it was painful.
That was fine
It could have been a good story. The concept is good.
Better science, realistic law, opposite ending.
No, but the voices were good.
I was disappointed with the lack of understanding of how to get mass into space, the belief that the US wouldn't stop someone launching into space just because they owned the land they took of from, an worst the complete disowning of truth at the end.
Glad I got it on sale.
I was looking forward to this book, and kept listening to the very end to find out the big secret. Very disappointing ending--flat and unimaginative.
Social Scientist and Researcher; mostly retired but conducting longitudinal research into social issues especially the media and social networking. Avid SF and alternative history fan; enjoy a good crime yarn and have become something of an addict for audiobooks.
The authors are usually excellent and have a fine history of writing behind them. The plot line in this book, namely that US astronauts landed on the moon before Neil Armstrong but it was hushed up because of what was found had so much potential. I was disappointed that it wasn't developed further because while it's a rattling good read and having corresponded with both authors a few years ago, I was left with the feeling of wanting more. In terms of quality the book is one of the best "nuts and bolts" style of science fiction but I would have loved to have sat down with Jack and Mike to discuss other ways of fleshing out the story, perhaps even a hook for an encore. The politics of the times were accurately depicted and although every story needs a victim, it was all too easy to blame Richard Nixon, whom I think will be more fairly treated by history than by current commentators.