Works of science fiction, more so than in other literature genres, can succeed through the ideas presented instead of the way in which those ideas are presented. Many of the classic writers of the genre, including Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, became classic because of their ideas, even though they weren't impressive prose stylists. Thus, because of the relevance of ideas in the genre, the premise of a science fiction book can be of inflated importance. Sometimes a great premise alone can make for an excellent work of science fiction, even with writing that never rises above "functional." An example of this is Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers. Only rarely have I found that great writing elevated a mediocre premise. I put Never Let Me Go by Ishiguro into this category, and as such I'm not surprised that many genre fans don't love that book - I suspect that most fans of science fiction are more interested in the ideas presented, and Never Let Me Go only ever engages with its science fiction elements lightly. All of what I just wrote is buildup to me saying that Dying Inside's premise is not a great one. It could, however, have been a very good book despite this if Silverberg was able to imbue the story with poignance through his writing, but unfortunately Silverberg isn't the author for such a job.
David, the book's protagonist and narrator, is a past-his-prime New Yorker that has had the ability to read people's minds from the day he was born. Not just the surface level, either, but the depths of a person's soul is presented to David on a good day. The good days are getting rarer and rarer though. Despite having this power, or perhaps because of it (and it's really a bit of both), David has become a bitter man, unsuccessful, and unable to build lasting connections and relationships with other people. How will David handle gradually losing his powers, and how will he function without them? This is the premise of the book, which is further fleshed out by David recounting his life story, from his childhood through all the significant events that have happened to him in his life.
Here's what prevents Silverberg with doing anything impressive with this premise, in my opinion: he absolutely fails to give characters besides David any depth. Lacking any other characters with depth not only makes the book boring, it undercuts everything potentially interesting you could do with this premise, since what interest is there in mind reading when the only people to mind read are one-dimensional? Within the first five pages of the book David reads the mind of one of his many Puerto Rican neighbors and declares "she looks just like all the others who live in this project, and even her cerebral output is standard stuff, unindividuated, indistinguishable: vague thoughts of plantains and rice, this week’s lottery results, and tonight’s television highlights." Later on he meets a black college student who "wears his midnight mass of kinky hair in a vast aggressive Afro halo a foot in diameter or more, fastidiously trimmed. I would not have been surprised by scarified cheeks, a bone through the nostrils." The black student is a seething ball of rage against white people, David finds when he looks into the guy's soul. I'm not quoting these examples to show that Silverberg was racist, though it really was a surprise to see this stuff in a book published in 1972, it's to show that the other characters David interacts with are mere stereotypes, even the non-minorities. David looks into people's minds and finds the horny teenager that thinks only of sex, the farmer in harmony with the earth, the suave humanities professor that throws parties and tries to sleep with everything that moves, the kind and helpless wealthy widows, even the character that the book spends the most amount of time with, besides David, is the slutty sister that once hated her brother but is now trying to reconcile. She has more than one characteristic, to be sure, but that's not the same thing as depth. There are no characters besides David with depth. Thus, when David looks into another person's mind and soul, Silverberg never has him find anything interesting there.
This, of course, undercuts the importance the reader feels concerning David losing his power, since why should the reader care if all that David is losing is his ability to read very boring thoughts, but more importantly it prevents this story from saying anything interesting about relationships, communication, social interaction, or many other potentially fascinating topics that this premise could touch on. We're left with David's internal struggle concerning the loss of his powers as the main, and perhaps sole, topic explored fulsomely by the book. David worries, understandably, about losing a part of himself that he's had since birth, that he feels has defined his life, that is what he fears is his only connection to the rest of humanity. Thus, because it's the cornerstone of the book, Silverberg's has to make David's struggle poignant, affecting, or at the very least interesting in order to make this story worthwhile.
Unfortunately, David's struggle is not made profound by Silverberg's writing. The prose is fine, sometimes a bit heavy on the adjectives but not off-putting. It's not great though, with the high points being David describing aspects of living in New York and living through the history of New York and the USA during the fifties and sixties. Reading these segments I immediately knew that Silverberg had grown up in New York at the same time period since these observations were presented so much more smoothly and naturally than the rest of the book. Sure enough, Silverberg grew up in Brooklyn. On a related note, for a while I was struggling to understand why David worked ghostwriting papers for college students: it doesn't really take advantage of David's mind reading power as much as dozens of other jobs would, is he trying to get away from relying on his telepathy? But he does use his power to look at the minds of the students and glimpse their writing style, so it isn't a job completely divorced from his power either, and there would surely be many physical labor jobs if he wanted to stop using the power entirely. Then I kept reading and noticed the more detailed descriptions of Columbia compared to the descriptions of the rest of the setting: sure enough, Silverberg went to Columbia. David's job is a way for him to be on campus, a setting that Silverberg is familiar with and can write more easily and successfully. Who cares if it doesn't really make sense for the character.
Beyond the usually unimpressive descriptions, Silverberg is fond of having David drop literary references into the story, but with no deeper significance than surface level. David Selig quotes the witches from Macbeth to insultingly call his sister is a witch, not to compare her to the role of the witches in Macbeth or to suggest any parallel between David and Macbeth. Selig compares the meaningless sound he hears when his powers are weak to the overwhelming sound heard by Mrs. Moore in the caves in A Passage to India, but just so as to call it an overwhelming sound, not to suggest that it had the same psychologically unsettling effect and potentially mystical source as the caves in that work do. David writes a paper on Kafka, but his situation in many way seems diametrically opposed to Kafka’s protagonists: David’s powers allow him to cut through the “bureaucracy” of dealing with other people and get at the truth of what they are really thinking, in contrast to Kafka’s protagonists that are constantly at the mercy of that same bureaucracy. You can compare David’s situation to the inexplicable circumstances and inevitable failure that Kafka’s protagonists face, but even that I suspect was not an intentional parallel by Silverberg. In any event, the literary references add little to the book.
With the structure of the book, Silverberg experiments a bit, which adds a bit of interest (if for no other reason than variety), but the experimenting ends in failure just as often as it does in success. An early chapter is David's ghostwritten paper on Kafka, as mentioned above. It's a mediocre paper that says nothing interesting about Kafka, but that's intentional, as it's supposed to be a college student's B+ paper. Personally, however, I find that an author has made a mistake when they box themselves into having to write something mediocre: at best it’s a suboptimal route to take, at worst it’s a crutch because the author can’t actually write any better. By experimenting with structure Silverberg forced me to read an dull paper on Kafka, and I can't exactly thank him for that. Other experimental style chapters fare better, but none stand out as that impressive.
What is David's struggle supposed to represent? The most obvious parallel, mentioned explicitly in the story multiple times, is sexual impotence. There's clearly an element of that at play here, magnified by the fact that sex is a constant topic throughout the book. But it's suggested that the loss of telepathy isn't a direct comparison to sexual impotence, rather it's about loss of connection to others in general, and the way in which you overcome losing something that is part of how you define yourself. The ending suggests that after such a loss you may survive in body even though you've died in spirit, and while it's possible you'll regain some internal spark in the future, it's also very possible you won't. David's life without powers is certainly presented as a new chapter, but since he's dead inside it may not be a chapter worth reading. Does this conclusion, and the segments leading up to it, make David's struggle or its aftermath poignant, affecting, or at the very least interesting? No, no, and not that much.
So what are we left with? A premise that is at best mildly interesting on its own. Silverberg cuts out many of what I consider the most interesting topics to explore with this premise by not giving any other character besides the protagonist any depth. This also undercuts the sense of importance of the story's main subject. The writing does not elevate this subject either, with Silverberg seemingly having inserted some aspects of the story to make it easier for him to write, rather than because those aspects make sense. The literary references add nothing. The experiment with style was welcome, though there are as many misses as hits on that count. In the end, the central struggle just isn't that interesting, and that's really all this book has to offer. The book is somewhere in between two and three stars, and I feel like the right decision is to round down.