What do you think?
Rate this book
Birthright
A novel about the effect on the household of an American anthropologist of a 12-year-old boy brought back from the Soviet Caucasus. The boy becomes subject to cruel experiments and is rescued by a friend of the family.
- GenresFiction
Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
3 people are currently reading
37 people want to read
About the author
Michael Stewart
11 books11 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Born in June, 1945.
Born in June, 1945.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 11, 2022
Stewart's Birthright had some interesting elements, but as a whole? While not a complete fail, it comes pretty close. The gist of the story is a noted Harvard anthropologist (Sam) gets a line on some 'wild mountain people' living in a remote area of southern Asia and indeed finds them-- neanderthals! He manages to get a boy (long story) and drive into Turkey before he crashes the jeep and dies, but the boy lives. His wife, Julia, flies to Turkey only to find out her husband is dead, but notices the boy at the hospital as well.
Now, it seems there was some high level cloak and dagger action going on in that Sam was working for some spooky agency that was trying to determine if violence and other ills of modern society are a product of our genes or our culture; basically, the old nature versus nurture debate. The secret agency, however, seems to side on the genes/nature aspect and are working toward a solution to modern ills via some crazy gene therapy. Genetics were all the rage when this was published (1990) and Steward really did his homework on that aspect.
The agency knows the boy (age 12 or so) is actually a neanderthal but the higher ups involved are split-- should they keep the kid as a lab rat or watch him develop in a more normal setting. The later won the debate and Julia, Sam's ex, decides to adopt him (kinda due to memory of Sam). The kid (they call Adam) is basically your typical savage and then there is a language barrier as well. Nonetheless, Julia (and her daughter Sarah) commit to tying to 'civilize' Adam, but it is a long row to hoe...
The interesting bits of the novel concern the nature/nurture debate and how much do our genes play a role in our behavior. The rationale for the focus on Adam concerns what an 'unspoiled', e.g., uncivilized, human would be like. After all, the genes that make up humans and neanderthals are really almost exactly alike. Steward adds in lots of cloak and dagger stuff and a wildcard named Max who was Sam's mistress who 'befriends' Julia and Adam. Nonetheless, this is a slow burn without much of a payoff. I was tempted to DNF a few times, but plugged away hoping it may have a killer ending at least. Not really. 2 lackluster stars
Now, it seems there was some high level cloak and dagger action going on in that Sam was working for some spooky agency that was trying to determine if violence and other ills of modern society are a product of our genes or our culture; basically, the old nature versus nurture debate. The secret agency, however, seems to side on the genes/nature aspect and are working toward a solution to modern ills via some crazy gene therapy. Genetics were all the rage when this was published (1990) and Steward really did his homework on that aspect.
The agency knows the boy (age 12 or so) is actually a neanderthal but the higher ups involved are split-- should they keep the kid as a lab rat or watch him develop in a more normal setting. The later won the debate and Julia, Sam's ex, decides to adopt him (kinda due to memory of Sam). The kid (they call Adam) is basically your typical savage and then there is a language barrier as well. Nonetheless, Julia (and her daughter Sarah) commit to tying to 'civilize' Adam, but it is a long row to hoe...
The interesting bits of the novel concern the nature/nurture debate and how much do our genes play a role in our behavior. The rationale for the focus on Adam concerns what an 'unspoiled', e.g., uncivilized, human would be like. After all, the genes that make up humans and neanderthals are really almost exactly alike. Steward adds in lots of cloak and dagger stuff and a wildcard named Max who was Sam's mistress who 'befriends' Julia and Adam. Nonetheless, this is a slow burn without much of a payoff. I was tempted to DNF a few times, but plugged away hoping it may have a killer ending at least. Not really. 2 lackluster stars
October 19, 2025
I reread this book before donating it to a library sale. It was published in 1990 and I first read it sometime in the early 90s. I liked the idea that a Neanderthal boy was discovered still living somewhere in Asia. Then he is brought to America to be raised among Homo sapiens...
This is a spoiler-- but a very expected one--things don't end well for the boy.
At 449 pages, I thought the story was too long and drawn out--I thought this the first time I read it. i skipped through a lot of the book while rereading it.
3 stars.
This is a spoiler-- but a very expected one--things don't end well for the boy.
At 449 pages, I thought the story was too long and drawn out--I thought this the first time I read it. i skipped through a lot of the book while rereading it.
3 stars.
October 1, 2012
Loved it. The author did a lot of research on genes. The book also raises the question on what is ethical? What we think is ethical may not be. I did not study science but this book clarified the dilemma of scientific research for me.
Genetic manipulation could also be scary, yet productive.
Great job, Stewart. I picked this book randomly from a bookshelf at the public library.
Genetic manipulation could also be scary, yet productive.
Great job, Stewart. I picked this book randomly from a bookshelf at the public library.
December 21, 2011
I love "neanderthal" stories. This one was just ok. The story wasn't exceptionally original, although the author did seem to do a lot of research on the subject of dna structuring, etc. The book's most compelling aspect was the philosophical argument as to what makes us civilized humans and whether we evolved from brutality or innocence. Most of the characters in the story were morally/ethically corrupt on various levels or just lacking backbone and annoying (like Julia), which detracted from the book IMO. Pacing was fairly good. The ending was poignant and appropriate. 3 stars read for me.
October 18, 2015
The writing is wooden and the storyline painfully slow. I am generally a reader who stays up late into the night when a book piques my interest. Again and again I fell asleep reading this novel. The scientific premise is ludicrous and I am not inclined to read other examples of this author's work.
June 20, 2012
I love pre-historic situations about evolution; the eternal question are we evil inside as an evolution character. I like to expand this into a real character with a mind of it's own.
June 28, 2024
If I gave you this premise and asked you to write the most boring version possible of the story, this is it. Then, the last 10% of the book blows it all up and gets crazy. All in the name of making some obscure point for the author about whether man is evil because we evolved or because of society. Just not good pacing, not good plot development, and an supremely boring version of what this could have been.
June 26, 2019
Scientist discovers a tribe of Neanderthals in Caucasus region and brings a young boy back to Massachusetts. The scientist dies mysteriously and his colleagues decide to do research on the boy, including torturing him. One scientist wants to protect the boy and injects him with genes to turn him into homo sapien, but the boy turns into a killer. Predictable results.
January 21, 2022
One of the main thrusts in this scientific-research story revolves around ethics and animal experimentation...at points, it was way too technical, as this book centers around a found Neanderthal and the science of gene sequencing and zoology.. It brings up important subjects and philosphical discussions, and I found it slow to build, but very exciting as it reached its climax.
July 8, 2024
I read this book in the 1980s I believe and enjoyed it.
I have just read a similar novel by Sebastian Faulks titled The Seventh Son and I think I enjoyed Stewart's book more.
I have just read a similar novel by Sebastian Faulks titled The Seventh Son and I think I enjoyed Stewart's book more.
June 19, 2025
forgot i had read this years earlier, and found myself getting flashbacks to it while in a houseshare from hell
July 14, 2015
3.6 stars
Reading Michael Stewart’s Birthright after Stephen King’s Revival suggests a “lightning strike” of coincidence since the Frankenstein ideas become central to both novels.
King’s Revival follows Shelley’s Frankenstein more closely with regard to the technology, consequently making it, at this present time, seemingly more fantastic.
Stewart, conversely, seeks to provide a “ground” with the science elements, making it seemingly “truer” or more factual. Hence, Michael Crichton has his “disciples” just as Poe, Dickens, Hemingway, and Joyce have their respective disciples.
And, in keeping with earlier English writers, Stewart keeps much of the questioning, philosophizing, and conflicts at the surface of the text. Thus, Americans may need to engage a mind “shift” while reading since we seem to prefer the “show and not tell” school of prose narrative.
Set mostly in Massachusetts, in the upscale towns of Lexington and Cambridge, with sojourns to Boston and Washington, D.C., Birthright juxtaposes a “primitive man-child” amongst the most elite, privileged class of homo sapiens. This allows Stewart to have the English-born Julia interestingly observe and comment on American culture and values.
With eight principal characters, Birthright raises ethical questions dealing with genetics, (epi-genetics, interestingly is not included), eugenics, torture, corrupted scientific pursuit, scientific competition, (for academic glory, recognition, and subsequent recompense), betrayal, and love. And, of course, the classic Frankenstein “could / should” question.
Given all this, then, Birthright has all the makings of a great suspense thriller. Yes? Indeed it does.
Unfortunately, this potentially wonderful novel becomes stunted by nonsensical “scars.” Pacing, logical plot holes, and odd stylistic choices become the biggest setbacks to an otherwise taut scientific thriller.
The pacing is “odd,” or rather uneven. Sometimes a section proceeds so slow, one feels like one has been reading the novel “forever.” Yet, sometimes multiple sections proceed very rapidly, slowing here and there with great asides, great “build,” and great reflection.
Woefully, of all things, logical holes exist in the plot. Having Sam not eat for two to three days represents one example. Maxine, (Max), and her multiple incidents of “good luck,” (I should say!) become other examples. Adam, “out of nowhere” pronouncing the English word “father,” when the reader never has “seen” him even hear the word, represents another major disconnect. And, there are others.
Stylistic issues become this novel’s last large setback. Mr. Stewart, it seemed, was in need of a really good, or great editor.
Americans sense a “British” voice. And, Americans do adjust. However, when a mix occurs, it becomes noticeable and “breaks” the reader from the “scenes.” Here, American spellings are used throughout; yet, the words “fortnight,” “the grounds,” and, "the civilized world" speckle the prose. So, a kind of “hybrid” reading occurs. The diction becomes oddly noticeable and seemingly unnatural, alienating the reader from the narrative.
Does the upper class English person still use the word “fortnight” on a regular basis? I honestly want to know now!.
There are more “clinks” and “clunks.” But, the good and great aspects of this novel should be mentioned, too.
All of the characters are believable. And, even to Mr. William Cray, Stewart gives doubt, desire, and inner conflict. And, the change in Maxine, as the plot progresses, is great. Needless to say, the changes in Julia, Adam, and Sandy are affecting as well.
Also, Stewart writes a very effective plot twist leading to the climax. Admittedly, I did not see it coming though some readers may anticipate it.
So, Birthright becomes one of those works which frustrates . . . frustrates because the potential for its excellence was blunted by nonsensical setbacks—“nonsensical” since almost all to all of these setbacks could have been changed.
Finally, like Percy Bysshe Shelley’s version of Mary’s original Frankenstein, Birthright is still worth the read . . . despite the frustrations.
Alas! In my humour, I failed to finish reading the novel within a fortnight!
Reading Michael Stewart’s Birthright after Stephen King’s Revival suggests a “lightning strike” of coincidence since the Frankenstein ideas become central to both novels.
King’s Revival follows Shelley’s Frankenstein more closely with regard to the technology, consequently making it, at this present time, seemingly more fantastic.
Stewart, conversely, seeks to provide a “ground” with the science elements, making it seemingly “truer” or more factual. Hence, Michael Crichton has his “disciples” just as Poe, Dickens, Hemingway, and Joyce have their respective disciples.
And, in keeping with earlier English writers, Stewart keeps much of the questioning, philosophizing, and conflicts at the surface of the text. Thus, Americans may need to engage a mind “shift” while reading since we seem to prefer the “show and not tell” school of prose narrative.
Set mostly in Massachusetts, in the upscale towns of Lexington and Cambridge, with sojourns to Boston and Washington, D.C., Birthright juxtaposes a “primitive man-child” amongst the most elite, privileged class of homo sapiens. This allows Stewart to have the English-born Julia interestingly observe and comment on American culture and values.
With eight principal characters, Birthright raises ethical questions dealing with genetics, (epi-genetics, interestingly is not included), eugenics, torture, corrupted scientific pursuit, scientific competition, (for academic glory, recognition, and subsequent recompense), betrayal, and love. And, of course, the classic Frankenstein “could / should” question.
Given all this, then, Birthright has all the makings of a great suspense thriller. Yes? Indeed it does.
Unfortunately, this potentially wonderful novel becomes stunted by nonsensical “scars.” Pacing, logical plot holes, and odd stylistic choices become the biggest setbacks to an otherwise taut scientific thriller.
The pacing is “odd,” or rather uneven. Sometimes a section proceeds so slow, one feels like one has been reading the novel “forever.” Yet, sometimes multiple sections proceed very rapidly, slowing here and there with great asides, great “build,” and great reflection.
Woefully, of all things, logical holes exist in the plot. Having Sam not eat for two to three days represents one example. Maxine, (Max), and her multiple incidents of “good luck,” (I should say!) become other examples. Adam, “out of nowhere” pronouncing the English word “father,” when the reader never has “seen” him even hear the word, represents another major disconnect. And, there are others.
Stylistic issues become this novel’s last large setback. Mr. Stewart, it seemed, was in need of a really good, or great editor.
Americans sense a “British” voice. And, Americans do adjust. However, when a mix occurs, it becomes noticeable and “breaks” the reader from the “scenes.” Here, American spellings are used throughout; yet, the words “fortnight,” “the grounds,” and, "the civilized world" speckle the prose. So, a kind of “hybrid” reading occurs. The diction becomes oddly noticeable and seemingly unnatural, alienating the reader from the narrative.
Does the upper class English person still use the word “fortnight” on a regular basis? I honestly want to know now!.
There are more “clinks” and “clunks.” But, the good and great aspects of this novel should be mentioned, too.
All of the characters are believable. And, even to Mr. William Cray, Stewart gives doubt, desire, and inner conflict. And, the change in Maxine, as the plot progresses, is great. Needless to say, the changes in Julia, Adam, and Sandy are affecting as well.
Also, Stewart writes a very effective plot twist leading to the climax. Admittedly, I did not see it coming though some readers may anticipate it.
So, Birthright becomes one of those works which frustrates . . . frustrates because the potential for its excellence was blunted by nonsensical setbacks—“nonsensical” since almost all to all of these setbacks could have been changed.
Finally, like Percy Bysshe Shelley’s version of Mary’s original Frankenstein, Birthright is still worth the read . . . despite the frustrations.
Alas! In my humour, I failed to finish reading the novel within a fortnight!
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews