What do you think?
Rate this book
The Return
Out of contact with Earth for years, the seven-man crew believed their aborted space flight had lasted for six decades; they were resigned to the fact that their wives and children would be long dead, yet they were eager to set foot on familiar ground, to fit back into the world they had left behind. But what awaited them on their fateful return was far from familiar. The once-glorious planet was a dilapidated shadow of its former self. Great cities lay in neglect and ruin, and the land's inhabitants were oddly dangerously primitive. Stranded on a planet that was no longer theirs, the determined crew would battle nature, hunger and savage hunting tribes in their fight for survival, all the while hoping to discover the cause of the devastating calamity.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
2 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 20, 2023
Richard Maynard’s post-apocalyptic novel, The Return (alternatively known as The Quiet Place), follows a group of British astronauts after they got lost on a mission and are only now returning to Earth under the assumption that hundreds of years may have passed in their absence. When they reach Earth, they find that society has been destroyed and humanity reduced to its most primitive form, as all survivors are essentially living in the stone age.
This is the first time I’ve had such a thoroughly conflicted opinion about a book. While I did enjoy the ideas and most of the second half of the book, I was thoroughly unimpressed by the first 3-ish chapters (~50 pages), to the extent that trudging through them actually put me in a bad mood. This was for three main reasons:
1. Character, and lack thereof. Perhaps it is partially because my writing style is so unlike Maynard’s, but I could not fathom having 50 pages in which only the briefest and most shallow form of characterization has been established.
All of the character’s full names are revealed in the first chapter very unnaturally, aside from a character named John who simply remains “John” until page 162, when we finally learn, after he has been dead for more than 90 pages, that his full name is John Clarke. For the first 50 pages, their characterization is very minimal: Jeff is the protagonist and leader (also he had kids prior to their expedition, a fact that is easily missed as I don’t think there was confirmation of this until over halfway through the book, and even then, his feelings about their deaths are barely explored), Paul St Dennis is a quiet doctor, Bartholomew Mann—Barry—is a well-liked physicist with a penchant for speaking as if he is giving a lecture, Philip Quincey-Jones—Pip—is also a scientist and the main jokester of the crew, Luciano Cragnolini—Lucky—gets a bit of intro only because he will die next chapter, and John and Terry Waters work as the service crew on the space ship.
2. Constant references are made to future events, and information is included that will only be known to the characters later, which changes nothing about how they act and behave currently.
Maynard has illuminated a pet peeve that I did not even know that I had: the protagonist, Jeff, constantly references events that will happen in the future, often to the detriment of the story. Any tension is undermined as we are reminded that our main character is in no serious danger, and there is a focus on future information, sacrificing much of what could otherwise be gained (like emotions and other character work) by focusing on the current events being relayed (e.g. Jeff describes the first tribe of people they encountered, and rather than giving his first impression and how the characters felt seeing the group, he describes the tribe with knowledge he acquired later). Knowing information like that has no impact on the reader, so why are we hearing about it? Non-linear stories can work, and sometimes extremely well, but when you break convention like that, there needs to be a reason. There is no reason in this book, except to remind you that the character writing it is reflecting on these events, but that doesn’t really work, since Jeff does not draw lessons or often does not express his character based on what he elaborates on or chooses to skip over. He just says things that sound vaguely suspenseful, but when put together, just works to undermine the importance of the events being described.
It almost reads as if Maynard is self-conscious about his writing, worried that the reader will drop the book if he doesn’t hint at “interesting” things to follow. Well, Maynard, the beginning of your book is bad, and that’s part of the reason why. Or he just doesn’t trust readers to remember that the text is written as a retrospective. Neither option is good. This becomes less of an issue later on, but in early chapters, it is very heavy-handed. The annoying stylistic choices could also have been intentional if Maynard was considering Jeff’s writing style and how it could have evolved over the time he took to write his story, but I doubt that. Even if it was, that does not make it any less annoying or arduous to read.
3. Descriptions are quite vague; this is more my personal gripe with Maynard’s writing style, as he will often describe things without going into deep detail about anything, which is just a bit boring sometimes.
Most of the above criticisms apply less from around the 60-page mark and onwards. Dialogue is still awkward and unnatural, and description is often lacking, but the device of referencing future events is used in more fitting ways, like introducing something to come that will be explained in the following chapter, rather than some nebulous statement that the audience gets no value from knowing.
General criticisms:
- Some grammar mistakes (e.g. “an hotel”).
- The dialogue is awkward and flat; every character speaks the same, and much of the language used is sophisticated, which makes it sound even less real—this issue is present throughout the book, but one instance that really stood out to me was when a character was recalling an event and stated that they “observed” their captors doing things—“observed” rather than “saw”, or something else similarly casual.
- The perspective of the book is slightly strange, since it is written as if Jeff is looking back at these events, but occasionally it will jump to descriptions of events that he was not present for. It isn’t awful or anything, it’s just a bit odd.
- I don’t believe that children wouldn’t have had any knowledge of technology or advancement to such a degree that even knowledge of metalwork and art would be lost to time. I can suspend my disbelief, but it is a very tough ask.
- The book is quite repetitive, with Maynard repeating certain passages and phrases multiple times, almost word for word.
Things I liked:
- Lots of interesting ideas about advancement.
- Some scenes that Maynard described very vividly, I especially enjoyed reading about the conflicts between tribes and the interpersonal conflicts between the astronauts (specifically I think of Barry's confrontation with Pip, and Paul choosing to save Wani over Lian).
- Some pretty impressive writing.
This is the first time I’ve had such a thoroughly conflicted opinion about a book. While I did enjoy the ideas and most of the second half of the book, I was thoroughly unimpressed by the first 3-ish chapters (~50 pages), to the extent that trudging through them actually put me in a bad mood. This was for three main reasons:
1. Character, and lack thereof. Perhaps it is partially because my writing style is so unlike Maynard’s, but I could not fathom having 50 pages in which only the briefest and most shallow form of characterization has been established.
All of the character’s full names are revealed in the first chapter very unnaturally, aside from a character named John who simply remains “John” until page 162, when we finally learn, after he has been dead for more than 90 pages, that his full name is John Clarke. For the first 50 pages, their characterization is very minimal: Jeff is the protagonist and leader (also he had kids prior to their expedition, a fact that is easily missed as I don’t think there was confirmation of this until over halfway through the book, and even then, his feelings about their deaths are barely explored), Paul St Dennis is a quiet doctor, Bartholomew Mann—Barry—is a well-liked physicist with a penchant for speaking as if he is giving a lecture, Philip Quincey-Jones—Pip—is also a scientist and the main jokester of the crew, Luciano Cragnolini—Lucky—gets a bit of intro only because he will die next chapter, and John and Terry Waters work as the service crew on the space ship.
2. Constant references are made to future events, and information is included that will only be known to the characters later, which changes nothing about how they act and behave currently.
Maynard has illuminated a pet peeve that I did not even know that I had: the protagonist, Jeff, constantly references events that will happen in the future, often to the detriment of the story. Any tension is undermined as we are reminded that our main character is in no serious danger, and there is a focus on future information, sacrificing much of what could otherwise be gained (like emotions and other character work) by focusing on the current events being relayed (e.g. Jeff describes the first tribe of people they encountered, and rather than giving his first impression and how the characters felt seeing the group, he describes the tribe with knowledge he acquired later). Knowing information like that has no impact on the reader, so why are we hearing about it? Non-linear stories can work, and sometimes extremely well, but when you break convention like that, there needs to be a reason. There is no reason in this book, except to remind you that the character writing it is reflecting on these events, but that doesn’t really work, since Jeff does not draw lessons or often does not express his character based on what he elaborates on or chooses to skip over. He just says things that sound vaguely suspenseful, but when put together, just works to undermine the importance of the events being described.
It almost reads as if Maynard is self-conscious about his writing, worried that the reader will drop the book if he doesn’t hint at “interesting” things to follow. Well, Maynard, the beginning of your book is bad, and that’s part of the reason why. Or he just doesn’t trust readers to remember that the text is written as a retrospective. Neither option is good. This becomes less of an issue later on, but in early chapters, it is very heavy-handed. The annoying stylistic choices could also have been intentional if Maynard was considering Jeff’s writing style and how it could have evolved over the time he took to write his story, but I doubt that. Even if it was, that does not make it any less annoying or arduous to read.
3. Descriptions are quite vague; this is more my personal gripe with Maynard’s writing style, as he will often describe things without going into deep detail about anything, which is just a bit boring sometimes.
Most of the above criticisms apply less from around the 60-page mark and onwards. Dialogue is still awkward and unnatural, and description is often lacking, but the device of referencing future events is used in more fitting ways, like introducing something to come that will be explained in the following chapter, rather than some nebulous statement that the audience gets no value from knowing.
General criticisms:
- Some grammar mistakes (e.g. “an hotel”).
- The dialogue is awkward and flat; every character speaks the same, and much of the language used is sophisticated, which makes it sound even less real—this issue is present throughout the book, but one instance that really stood out to me was when a character was recalling an event and stated that they “observed” their captors doing things—“observed” rather than “saw”, or something else similarly casual.
- The perspective of the book is slightly strange, since it is written as if Jeff is looking back at these events, but occasionally it will jump to descriptions of events that he was not present for. It isn’t awful or anything, it’s just a bit odd.
- I don’t believe that children wouldn’t have had any knowledge of technology or advancement to such a degree that even knowledge of metalwork and art would be lost to time. I can suspend my disbelief, but it is a very tough ask.
- The book is quite repetitive, with Maynard repeating certain passages and phrases multiple times, almost word for word.
Things I liked:
- Lots of interesting ideas about advancement.
- Some scenes that Maynard described very vividly, I especially enjoyed reading about the conflicts between tribes and the interpersonal conflicts between the astronauts (specifically I think of Barry's confrontation with Pip, and Paul choosing to save Wani over Lian).
- Some pretty impressive writing.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 2, 2009
A bunch of astronauts return to Earth after a time-dilated voyage. In the decades that have passed back home, civilization has collapsed and the remnants of humanity are (young) savages whose lives are nasty, brutish and short.
Our appalled heroes attempt to put humanity back on its feet. They take wives, introduce weapons and other basic technology, and try to build and maintain a secure community against the attacks from other tribes. They struggle to make any impact and the futility of their efforts is the book's winning achievement. We are left with a sense of the fragility of everything that humankind has achieved: how all of it is dependent on the continutity between generations, and could collapse with a single interruption to that order.
There's a sad pessimism conveyed in the title, in the harshly beautiful cover image, and ultimately in the telling. Maynard's dialogue is wooden and in some other ways the book is a little mechanical and contrived; but its elegaic mood is a substantial saving grace. The book says something compelling, original and disturbing.
Our appalled heroes attempt to put humanity back on its feet. They take wives, introduce weapons and other basic technology, and try to build and maintain a secure community against the attacks from other tribes. They struggle to make any impact and the futility of their efforts is the book's winning achievement. We are left with a sense of the fragility of everything that humankind has achieved: how all of it is dependent on the continutity between generations, and could collapse with a single interruption to that order.
There's a sad pessimism conveyed in the title, in the harshly beautiful cover image, and ultimately in the telling. Maynard's dialogue is wooden and in some other ways the book is a little mechanical and contrived; but its elegaic mood is a substantial saving grace. The book says something compelling, original and disturbing.
January 24, 2023
It's lingered on my bookshelves for ages, really enjoyed it. An extra half point as it features a brief visit to a post apocalyptic Keston ponds, an area I know well from countless dog walks, with numerous dogs over the decades.
October 3, 2014
A group of astronauts undertake a space voyage expecting to arrive home in a few years. Due to unexpected effects involving time dilation, several hundred years have passed by the time they return, and the Earth has reverted to a second Stone Age. This reminded me a bit of the original 'Planet of the Apes' film without the simians. I can't really say much about what happens for the rest of the book, but they attempt to adjust to life in this new society while speculating about what happened.
In a sense this is a fairly typical journey-through-a-post-apocalyptic-landscape story, but the twist of having a group of characters that are aware of what's happening, and another group that has no idea, makes it interesting. The characters are well described and the style of the writing is enjoyable. The ending is slightly frustrating, following a couple of odd events, but at least there is a conclusion and a more-or-less complete answer to what happened to civilisation.
In a sense this is a fairly typical journey-through-a-post-apocalyptic-landscape story, but the twist of having a group of characters that are aware of what's happening, and another group that has no idea, makes it interesting. The characters are well described and the style of the writing is enjoyable. The ending is slightly frustrating, following a couple of odd events, but at least there is a conclusion and a more-or-less complete answer to what happened to civilisation.
May 30, 2020
I've had this book for many years but have never read it until now. The Return is a brilliant book and very well written. Seven astronauts return to Earth to find that it is no longer the Earth they left. Man has reverted back to the age of early man living in tribes, hunting and killing. Towns and cities are now crumbling ruins and nature has overtaken them.
For the seven men it means a battle of survival in France and then back in their own country of England.
A somewhat low and sad book but a great read nevertheless. 👍
For the seven men it means a battle of survival in France and then back in their own country of England.
A somewhat low and sad book but a great read nevertheless. 👍
February 13, 2024
3.5. The concept is interesting. However, I still find it hard to believe that all culture and technology would be lost to this extent, even in the theorized way that the world as we know it ends. And that people would be so firmly resistant to any knowledge they had to offer. I'm disappointed in how the MC continues to condescendingly describe the women and other people groups even after decades living among them. Maybe this writing style just is not for me, but it comes off as very condescending and overly self-aggrandizing with little self-reflection.
March 9, 2023
Will want to reread this at some point!
June 26, 2025
Pleasantly surprised by this! Usual 80s sexism warning though.
August 9, 2024
Hard to Be a God sans socialism, Planet of the Apes minus the monkeys, Children of Men with the religious allegory absent, I Am Legend devoid of vampires.
February 18, 2008
I really wasn't expecting anything good from this book, but was quite pleasantly surprised. The book had a very interesting concept - some scientists went into space and got lost, and due to the differences in space-time that we already know about, and a thing called "refraction" of space which (as far as I know) the author just made up so that the book would make sense - but anyway, due to these things, rather than coming back 60 years in the future (when by their time they had been gone about 15) they came back a few hundred years in the future. And to their horror and dismay, all of the buildings and landmarks of their time have fallen apart and become dliapidated. Also, they quickly ran into "savages" - humans wearing nothing but skins, throwing spears for weapons, hunting and gathering for food. And fiercely territorial.
With all the libraries and sources of print fallen into disrepair and books turned into bedding for rodents, this is the story of the scientists as told by their captain. The story of how they survived, how they became leaders of a band of humans, their trek from present-day France to present-day England (both of which are somewhat recognizable to the scientists) through the tunnel, attempting to teach some civility, art and ingineuity to the current inhabitants of the areas. All the while, trying to find clues to the reason for the human demise.
Overall, it was pretty good. As I said before, I think the science behind the "refraction" in space was made up to make the story work - also I think the explanation for the disappearance of humans is questionable - without giving away the reason, it seems to me that it would have caused some problems in the eventually-born children as well and therefore the human race just would have vanished, not been able to survive, even as dismally as it did manage to. And as my boyfriend pointed out - even kids know how to use VCRs, and in 1988 when the book was written (and the narrator never gives a year for their departure from Earth, but it's clearly "the future") there should have been some kids smart enough to pop a VHS casette into the VCR to learn some of the more important aspects of our technology.
September 7, 2009
This was rather tedious at first with lots of testosterone driven descriptions of fighting, etc. By the end it got better but never got to the re-building of civilization point which I enjoy. Instead we have a lot of discovery of what earth is now like and some philosophizing on how and why it all fell apart. A bit of a lecture on man's arrogance and disregard for nature. p.173: "the shadows lengthened...and those shadows were those of the failed aspirations of mankind, greed, and vanity, ambition and lofty ideals condensed into moving darkness..."
December 10, 2014
I loved this book and really could have kept reading it for many many more pages. I loved the main characters - they were very smart and I love the way they interacted with each other.
March 31, 2016
So I got this book because I thought I had read it and liked it... turns out, nope, I hadn't read it before and I didn't enjoy it at all...
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews