In May, the New Scientist Book Club shifted gears from Kim Stanley Robinson’s Space Wilderness to focus on Sylvia Park’s intriguing novel, bright. This fresh narrative brings a unique perspective to the science fiction genre, delving into a closer future that is both thought-provoking and imaginative.

Similar to Sierra Greer’s Anniebot, which envisions an integrated society, bright examines complex themes on various levels—emotionally, spiritually, and socially. Set in a unified Korea, the novel intertwines three captivating storylines. The first is a police procedural featuring Detective Jun on a quest to locate a missing robot girl. The second follows a group of adventurous kids, including Louisier and his friends, who discover an abandoned robot boy in a scrapyard. The third story unfolds within a dysfunctional family, highlighting Jun and his estranged sister Morgan, who grapple with the disappearance of their robot brother during their childhood.

I found bright to be a refreshing and contemplative read. Park’s narrative elegantly explores the depths of love and loss, showcasing their journey from a children’s book concept to a much darker, mature storyline. Their writing style is captivating, and I eagerly anticipate their next project, which might include themes ranging from robot consciousness to Peter Pan, as discussed in our video chat.

Our book club members expressed varied opinions about bright. TheGosia was particularly impressed by Park’s depiction of disability, stating, “I love it! The characters are compelling and relatable. The positive portrayal of bionic modifications resonated with me.” Join our thriving community on Discord. “If given the chance, I’d exchange much of my flawed human body for a bionic suit. Often, these themes are presented from a loss perspective.”

Exoi also shared his enthusiasm: “This book is filled with thought-provoking themes regarding robotics and human value. It has more depth and complexity than many authors achieve in a lifetime, and it’s both intelligent and nuanced. I’m thoroughly enjoying it so far.”

Karen Warren added, “While this is just one possible future, it made me reflect on our current societal trends. Humans have always anthropomorphized inanimate objects—naming cars, playing with teddy bears—indicating a deep desire for connection.” She quoted the author: “‘How do we define what is real? Most of us spend our lives unconscious, dreaming, or trapped in a world on a small screen. How can we say we are truly living?’ That encapsulates the essence of the book.”

Alan_P found it challenging to engage with the novel. “I just finished bright—maybe I wasn’t paying proper attention, but I’d appreciate some clarification on the ending,” he mentioned on Discord. “It’s beautifully crafted, yet I struggle to understand why the children were eager to relinquish that broken robot or why the siblings never resolved their familial issues after years of therapy.”

Matthew expressed a lukewarm reaction: “The book felt slow at times, only picking up pace two-thirds of the way in. The events felt disorganized rather than cohesive. I was surprised to discover the true identity of the robot. In comparison to Ian M. Banks’s insightful take on artificial intelligence in my December book club, bright brings up interesting anxieties that reflect in our current literature.”