Plot: 4/9. Worthington clearly knew how to write a good story.

After weeding beans, the narrator brought his little son home. His wife, Sue, told him that his elder son Chris took his bow and sleeping bag for hunting. After he took Chris to the City, he never spoke to him and so did his Buddhist neighbor Sato since the narrator had killed human there:

He took Chris to the now dilapidated City where people inside the nutritive sphere inserted tubes and wires into their bodies for ecstasy and pleasure. One of them found their invasion and commanded the robot to sic them. So he had to annihilate people in the sac despite his son’s objection.

In the end, Chris came back on Sato’s travois carrying his buck. Sato said he found this boy pooped out in a pasture and therefore brought him home.

Two families had a dinner together eventually.

Core: 5/9. Worthington impressed me with his discussion on the dignity or the lifestyle:

If there is dignity in grubbing weeds and planting beans, those pursuits must be more dignified than something, because, like all words, it’s a meaningless wisp of lint once removed from its relativistic fabric. The word does not exist until he invents himself.

Character: 3/9. At least it rendered a family and good neighbor caring for each other. But why didn’t the narrator feel bad conscience?

World and Others: 1/9. So why was the city abandoned? Why did most of those people die in their sacs? Why did the civilization disappear? Why could them violate others’ land and kill the master without scruple? Why didn’t the survivor try to resuscitate the city or the civilisation? For example, the survivor could provide the robot to release the narrator’s heavy work for whatever they needed.

Overall: 3/9. Worthington was not my cup of tea.