Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Books Media Book Reviews

Childhood's End 83

Posted by Hemos from the not-his-best dept.
Duncan Lawie, our in-house science fiction book reviewer has returned from Christmas, this time with a look at Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. With the recent appearances of Clarke in AfterY2k, I'm almost afraid to put anything up by him *grin*. Nonetheless, click below to read more about this somewhat flawed novel.
Childhood's End
author Arthur C. Clarke
pages 200
publisher Pan, 1953/1990
rating 7/10
reviewer Duncan Lawie
ISBN 0345347951
summary Alien visitation leads to transformation of the human race in a novel.
Arthur C. Clarke has become an "elder figure" in this age of the Western World: each pronouncement he makes on the future is widely reported; he is generally credited with the invention of the communications satellite; he was knighted in 1998; there is a British science fiction award named after him. His career in science fiction has lasted 50 years and many of his novels are considered classics of the field. His early work has a distinctly different flavour to that of his American contemporaries whilst 2001:A Space Odyssey propelled his career to a whole new level.

Childhood's End was Clarke's fourth novel and is one of the books on which his career is founded. It was originally published in 1953 and republished with an introduction and a radically altered first chapter in 1990. It is a novel of visitation by aliens and the vast changes in humanity which result. Of course, many science fiction stories of every vintage could be summarised identically. Clarke displays his awareness of this early in the book when he outlines many of the alternative paths the novel could take and dismisses these possibilities. The story told is profound in comparison with much of the science fiction which had come before. However, the preconceptions which the modern reader is likely to have of this author will jar with the tale told. The original edition states that "the opinions expressed in this book are not those of the author". From reading his new introduction, it would appear that Clarke's subsequent development has distanced him from an even larger proportion of those opinions.

The first chapter discusses the coming of the aliens. The original version posits a space race between the Soviets and America entering the final stages of take off for the moon when alien spaceships appear in the sky. At the time of publication, the setting is clearly twenty years in the future. Because it is also clearly now in our past, Clarke has updated this with a prelude involving Russian and American co-operation for a Mars mission. The subsequent story is unchanged. Having read the original version, I feel that the new-grafted root might make the story even more dated in it's handling of emotion and interrelation between the sexes. However, perhaps these simply form part of the story environment for a reader unfettered by knowledge of the book's antiquity.

After the scene-setting arrival, events skip forward several years to describe the consolidation of the new order. The alien Overlords put backbone into the United Nations and bring about a genuine world government with widespread peace and prosperity despite fears regarding the nature of the aliens, who refuse to reveal themselves. This is followed by a time where humanity, under guidance, transforms the planet into a utopia. The populace of this new era is faced with the question of what to do next. The answers offered by the Overlords are as unpalatable as the physical form of the aliens would have been at the time of their arrival.

The structure of the novel reaches this point without faltering greatly. However, the requirement for continued human narrative is fractured by Einsteinian physics and by the paranormal. The author's desire to escape from the confines of Earth and offer a greater perspective complicate the story but offer intimations of the future awaiting the human race. This future is developed through paranormal mechanisms and disappears into realms undescribable, providing a lyricism at odds with much of the rest of the novel. The characters are often stilted and rather formal. Even in the worst extreme, their emotional life is considerably less interesting than their intellectual activity. The book almost overflows with ideas, making it "archealogically" interesting: it's influence can be sifted from much work of subsequent generations, from 'V' to The X Files. . This contributes to the reading experience but it is not a gripping book. Childhood's End will be worthwhile principally to those interested in the history of science fiction and the development of one of it's leading authors.

Unofficial Arthur C. Clarke homepage: http://www.lsi.usp.br/~bianchi/clarke/

You can purchase this book at fatbrain.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Childhood's End More

Childhood's End

Comments Filter:
  • Like all his other great book this is a must read. Its very much relevant now except for some details. the major point in this book is the evolution of a new species from humans which makes us irrelevant in the grand order. Today with advancement in genetic engineering its a possibility even though its remote.

  • Altered first chapter (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It annoys me when authors feel the need to change fiction to take account of real world progress. Why not leave the book as it was, as an artifact of it's time? That would fit better with the tone of the rest of the book anyway.

    It's almost as bad as TV and movie adaptations of, say, Sherlock Holmes stories, when they place them in the present.
  • This was one of the first "real" sci-fi books I read. (Up until I read it at age 12, I was 100% pure fantasy) It was and continues to be one of the major factors in my love of sci-fi!
  • Childhood's End is my favorite Clarke's novel, and that's not a small thing. I fear the reviewer simply read the book with the wrong perspective. To his criticisms, I offer one simple answer: that's not what the book is about.
  • > The characters are often stilted and rather formal. Even in the worst extreme, their emotional
    life is considerably less interesting than their intellectual activity.

    Much the same could be said for all of Clarke's fiction, no one would compare him with Heinlein in style. If anything, "Childhood's End" was Clarke at his most readable, in other work one almost forgets that there *are* any characters. This book also prefigures an idea that would recur in "2001", that humanity might be responsible to a destiny not of its own making (and this from an atheist! :-) ).

    One of my favorites.

    ---------------------
  • AC always has problems expressing his visions.

    This is one of the better books by Arthur C. Clarke. The reson being that it does not have a second and a third part ;-)

    There is a good joke running around about him. In one of his rama books he sais that the creators of rama have done everything three times. Well so does he ;-). If he manages to express one of his visions well and write a really good book, that book always has a second and a third to followup until it is completely dry. 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001... Yeah right ;-)

    Overall, though definitely a visionary and definitely a remarcable sci-fi figure, he has never had the brilliance of Bradbury, Simak and from the newer ones P. Hamilton and Iain M. Banks.

    I can think of only one of his books that falls out of this rule of thumb. This is the now well forgotten Fountains of Paradise. It is brilliant, has an idea and does not have a Fountains II, Fountains III (The retrun of Fountains) and Fountains 3001 - The final flow ;-)

    Well, opinion on books are personal so

    #include

  • Generally in HS lit classes, you don't walk away having learned something, or having been profoundly affected.

    Thankfully, I took the sci-fi class that was offered, and read the following literary gems:
    1. childhoods end
    2. fahrenheit 451
    3. brave new world
    4. 1984 (optional extra credit)

    it should have been a class in politics! I learned more from those books about societal skepticism, and conformity than in my US gov't class.
    childhood's end also had me reading more Clarke books later on, with the Rama series now being my favorite...

    highly suggested reading!
  • I must agree. I read this book several years ago. It's one of the few books I'd ever consider reading again. Another would have to be The Dream-Quest Of Unknown Kadath by HP Lovecraft.

  • Dated, but in a good way. (Score:3)

    by belgin ( 111046 ) on Friday January 14, 2000 @05:23AM (#1373130) Homepage
    Disclaimer: It has been close to eight years since I glanced at Chilhood's End, and I read the original version.

    I would have to say that this book was definately a product of the fifties. Many aspects of the book played upon the fears and oddities of American culture in that era. There was the beginnings of many movements that have gained more momentum or died out referenced in the book. For instance, the very beginning of the book included a scene wherein viewers of a bullfight felt the wounds inflicted upon a bull. This references animal rights movements that were becoming more mainstream in this time period. There are a lot of other political references in this book.

    One thing I would like to say, is that I don't think it is a good idea to try to move this book into the future with a new opening chapter. It is better viewed as a piece of science fiction in the time period for which it was written. The concepts built into it reflect a great deal on cold war mentalities, and the social structures of the time. In particular, it shows that our beliefs, irrational fears, and "The bad guys" are very much products of our society and media. There is nothing like the demonic appearance of the overlords and the strong Communist impression given of the Overmind to show that Clarke was trying to show people that good and bad are very relative. I am not sure if Clarke was a Communist, or was just trying to tick off that psychopath McCarthy.

    When you try to take this book out of the fifties, it quickly ceases to make as much sense. The book was designed to shock people in a time of prosperity and mild close-mindedness into thinking a bit more about their predjudices and beliefs.

    B. Elgin

  • This book inspired the beginning scene of Independence Day, Alien Nation and V. It goes something like "Blotting out the light of the very stars they came from". I can't exactly remember because I read it ages ago, but the story is still strongly embedded in my mind.

    This book has pretty good twist regarding the appearance of the aliens. I am not going to tell you, because I think you should find out yourself. If you liked Sixth Sense twist, you'd definitely love this.

    The other really insightful book by Arthur C. Clarke is City and the Stars.

    If you like Sri Lanka ( as I do ), and would like to read a book based on Sri Lanka, try Fountains Of Paradise. I don't know how scientifically viable space elevators are, but it is a good read.

  • My favorite is still his very first professional story published in 1946, Rescue Party. If you haven't read it, find it in one of his anthologies. It's great!

    I won't spoil the surprise, but I remember his introduction to the story saying something like "Many have commented about the human-chauvinist thrill that many get from reading this story. This perhaps tells more about the human race than we want to know.

    Another (paraphrased) quote was, "Many have commented that this is their favorite story of mine. This is getting a cooler and cooler reception as the years go by." :)


    ---

  • Good book (Score:2)

    by Gleef ( 86 )
    I really enjoyed Childhoods End [barnesandnoble.com]. It's not the "perfect" novel, but I found it an enjoyable read, and a book that had some interesting points to make. I'd give it an 8/10.

    My favorite book by Arthur C. Clarke would have to be a more recent (and fairly unsung) work of his, The Songs of Distant Earth [barnesandnoble.com]. I strongly recommend it.

    ----
  • Arthur C. Clarke is a really good author. I've read just about everything he've done, and most of it is just excellent. If you'd ask me he had his best days in the late 60's through to the early 70ies when he published 2001 (read the book to understand the film!) and Rendezvouz with Rama.

    Arthur C. Clarke is also a rather cool person. He were using global computer communication long before WWW and such. Add to all this that he really knows what he's writing about, as he has some sort of Ph.D (not sure in what, but he was one was involved in the early development of the Radar).

    // Simon
  • Songs of distant earth sure is a good book. One of the more interesting ones politically too...

    Clarke and Asimov describe society in a way i'd want to have it. Equal, free and enlighted..

    // Simon

  • Childhood's End - true SciFi (Score:4)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Friday January 14, 2000 @05:49AM (#1373137) Homepage
    I would caution everyone reading this review to consider the meaning of good sci-fi versus books written for entertainment. True sci-fi is deeper, and the world it presents is there to make a point, not to 'wow' you into buying a sequel.

    Childhood's End is a gem, in the true sci-fi genre. As is Wells' Time Machine. TM is laughable by modern entertainment standards, but the subject matter is arguably more true now than when it was first written.

    TM was written in the social context of the industrial revolution, and it's a cautionary tale which speculates on what may be is the industrial-age haves and have-nots continue on their then-existing paths. We have a similar have/have-not situation now, in the industrial age. Most of us 'haves' map well to the Wellesian Morlocks. Think about it.

    Childhood's End was written at a time of high tension between the US and the USSR. We were trying to out do one another, and the race to the moon was a good way to posture superiority. The fact was, we were itching for a fight, but couldn't afford one considering the nuclear repercussions.

    The arrival of the Overlords, their power and complete subjugation of the world's authority over it's percieved/chosen destiny was a crushing blow to mankind as portrayed in the book. This is where the formality of interactions comes from. We were afraid of being controlled, we couldn't fight back, we had to behave 'well'.

    All the while we were treated well, all our problems were taken care of, and we had time for leisure. Consider Maslow's pyramid of needs... Kerellian (Care Alien) and the Overlords created conditions ripe for our spontaneous maturation. By solving our problems for us, they allowed us to make our transcendence into Adulthood.

    The story is brilliant. The bitter irony of the alien's true form, and mission. Their role in the elevation of humanity out of Childhood. Knowing our fate and knowing that they were charged with our fruition. Knowing their own full potential.

    Read the original book, not the revision. Clarke foresaw a great number of modern day items. (somehow he missed the personal computer though)

    Also, keep in mind religion, and Shelly's Mont Blanc.

    I tried to not give anything away. Really, I did.
  • I have to disagree with this review of Childhood's End. It has been a couple years since I last read it (maybe this review will spur me on to do so again :), but I think the book deserves more credit than the reviewer gives it. Although the science is not in any way accurate, I don't feel Childhood's End is meant to be Hard SF. Rather, it is 'people' SF, dealing with how changes we cannot grasp affect our society, how each generation changes, and an interesting look at the end of 'humanity,' but not the human race.

    I am somewhat disturbed to learn of the alteration of the story, however. I have always respected my all time favorite SF author, Ray Bradbury, for consistently refusing to alter his works, even as elements within them become dated.

  • Right, but not all right (Score:3)

    by YU Nicks NE Way ( 129084 ) on Friday January 14, 2000 @05:58AM (#1373140)
    I first read Childhoood's End immediately after the first moon landing, so perhaps my opinions are as dated as Clarke's. I think that anyone who reads it today needs to understand how jarring and rvolutionary it was when it was published.


    It's a book about aliens landing, a literary tradition going back to The War of the Worlds. It's unique in that the aliens just don't care. They neither love us nor hate us; at best, they feel a certain distant benevolence. Humanity doesn't matter very much; at best, it's just another one of many races that will evolve to the next stage, and at worst, it's a cancer to be expunged.


    This is actually a frequent theme of Clarke's work, and it may be his greatest single contribution to speculative fiction. Most authors write about humanity as if it matters; Clarke repeatedly rubs our face in the fact that we don't matter on a universal scale. We only matter to ourselves.


    There's actually an interesting historical note here. I'd wager that almost nobody reading this would admit to having ever read any significant body of work directly influenced by Existentialism. That's not true: the conflict in Childhood's End, and, more importantly, in Sentinel and 2001 is exactly the Existentialist dilemma: how can one act well in a world where one does not matter.


    And the next time somebody sneers at you for your taste in literature, point that out to them. Eat you heart out, Jean-Paul Sartre!

  • Clarke's big theme in his writing was the transformation of humanity and the dawn of higher states of being. Childhood's end is one of the earlier of his books to explore the theme. He also did the first story about the global communications network becoming sentient one it has a certain number of switches acting like neurons.

    One warning about Clarke: his novels sometimes drag, as they are written around ideas, not people. For this reason, I recommend trying some of his collections of short stories instead. Expedition to Earth , Tales from the White Hart , and Reach for Tomorrow are all great books. If you can find it, Out of the Sun is another nice collection of cold war stories, but I think it's out of print.

    Jon
  • Sir Clarke was pestered by his publishers to write 2061 and 3001, and IIRC he sold both of those books for only one dollar. In any case, he's not nearly as bad as many other sci-fi authors, many of whom take a single idea and turn them into an endless stream of books. Hamilton, in particular, irritates me in this way.

    _Childhood's End_ is an important book in the history of science fiction as it introduced the concepts of Graduation and Exodus -- that humanity may change into something now unimaginable, and head for the stars. That this vision was generated during the cold war, when it looked very likely that humanity might suicide with nuclear weapons, gives the book even greater impact for its time.

  • Rama (Score:1)

    by jmoo ( 67040 )
    Rendezvous with Rama - definitely my favorite of Clarke's. Really captured the mystery & adventure of exploring an alien starship.

    To bad the sequels were so bad...Never write any thing with Gently Lee again
  • I agree that it could be a great movie.

    Too bad The Man (tm), represented by the major studios, would never make such a movie without ripping its heart out, stomping on it, and shoving it down the throat of Arthur Clark.

    It would have to be an indie film.

  • I read a lot of science fiction, and I read Childhood's End a couple of years ago. I honestly can't remember anything about the book except the basic plot.

    Clarke is overrated as an author. He's an IDEA man, not a writer.
  • I just want to say Childhood's End is one of my two favorite books (up there with Atlas Shrugged), the only book I read 14 times so far, and also the only book ever assigned to me in highschool that I actually liked!

    A while back I was searching the net for stuff on Childhood's End (like lost chapters, commentary from Sir Arthur C. Clark, etc...) In my travels, I found a few rumors of movie plans! Now *that* would be amazing.


  • My English teacher said it was one of her favorite books, I read it, and I hated it. Science fiction isn't made great by the LSD-trip imagery or how removed from reality it can be, and Childhood's End is sure pretty unrealistic. No characters behave humanly, and the premises the book is based on are in no way a metaphor for anything in the real world. At least I couldn't see anything. Read Asimov instead, he had a bigger ego but he wrote better books.

    Just my angry 2 cents.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • When you try to take this book out of the fifties, it quickly ceases to make as much sense. The book was designed to shock people in a time of prosperity and mild close-mindedness into thinking a bit more about their predjudices and beliefs.

    Sounds a bit like today, doesn't it? Granted, it may not be that communism is the "great enemy" now, but one could definitely say that this still fits our society, more so than ever in the last 30 years or so. And I'd venture to say that a number of those issues are still hot-button issues for a lot of people today.
  • I have read all of those, except for 1984. I think they're pretty great books. Rama is also a great series too, i've only read Rama, and Return to Rama. There's quite a bunch more, Garden of Rama, or something.
  • I agree that the original material should stand. Science Fiction teaches us about ourselves above all, our motivations, our prejudices, and it provides us with a mirror to ourselves that can sometimes be uncomfortable. As another reply states, it is interesting to see a "snapshot" of the thinking of the time. It's been a long time since I read "Childhood's End" but I think I'll go back and read it again. I have a pre-1990 copy, so I'll enjoy reading the original version!
  • Fountains of Paradise is by far one of ACC's greatest works. Butpeople are far to eager to lable Clark as a 'science' fiction writer. Clark has always commented on the human condition, and often does use future settings, but that takes away from the real point of his writing.

    A beautiful example of this is The Songs of Distant Earth, a real gem, that while set in far future, deals more with humanity and its interaction with other life rather than other fiction (first thing that comes to mind is some of the new Star Wars books). Don't ignore the social comentary just because it happens to be set in a fictional world.

    And as for another great writer who tends to get lumped into the sci-fi (bad word) genre, don't forget Robert Heinlein.

    otoPICO
  • I strongly disagree with the above review of _Childhood's End_.

    I read _Childhood's End_ while I was flying to the US for the first time having left India to attend graduate school here in the US. I was and am still blown away by _Childhood's End_. While I can't speak for others, to me it is a classic.

    One of the reasons why some people may dislike _Childhood's End_ is due to the left turn taken by the book toward mysticism. However, Clarke is simply exploring the consequences of an evolutionary leap from present-day rational human beings to psychic posthumans. I think he does a great job of depicting this evolutionary transformation. Also, his explanation of the devil is IMHO a masterpiece.

    This sort of evolutionary transformation taken by humanity is standard fare in mysticism. It was popularized by Teilhard de Chardin and by Aurobindo. In fact Aurobindo's sequence of evolutionary stages---rational, intuitive, psychic, overmind, supermind---may have influenced Clarke since Clarke uses the term overmind to describe the forces controlling the overlord aliens. For a more recent update on these ideas, check out Ken Wilber's _Sex, Ecology and Spirituality; The Spirit of Evolution_.

  • You are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence. Two words : Reading Comprehension. It will serve you either as a Christian or as a Christian-basher executing a poorly done parody of a Christian.

    My sigs generate more comments than my comments. Am I the only one?

    ---------------------
  • Really, they're just about the same book, at least thematically. Punctuated evolution. In Clarke's case, the step was much larger, and he had extraterrestrial midwives. In Bear's case, the step was much more moderate, and the drama of the story was driven by the lack of those midwives.

    Another excellent "Evolutionary Step" book is "The Harvest" by Robert Charles Wilson. In this case, however, the step is a sort of evolution by nano-tech absorption. Then this idea leads you back to Greg Bear, with "Blood Music".
  • The real book you should have reviewed was 2010. I know... I know... a sequel. Contrary to what some are saying about Clarke some his sequels are better than the original. But Childhood's End is just a short story.

    Try "The City and the Stars" or "Rendezvous With Rama", that was some great storytelling. He also just wrote one called "The Trigger" that looks interesting.

    I think maybe a lot of people who read Sci-Fi expect to read a book version of a Sci-Fi movie (ugh), complete with explosions.
    Hint:Good Sci-Fi is not about happy endings like "Independence Day"! It's all about Ideas!
  • Many people have pointed out that Clarke isn't very good at characterization--he's an idea man. Well, that may be true, but the same can be said about Jules Verne.

    The thing I like about Childhood's End is the really clever ideas in it. The people in the book give up on religion and anything not "reasonable", and go over to rationality and "science" only. And that is their undoing. Clarke is pointing out that True science doesn't condemn religion or the paranormal (though it may discount it); it condemns what is proven false.

    Clarke is also a very good futurist. Right after WWII he kept petitioning congress to put orbitting radios in space (communications satellites). He was consistently laughed down. So he wrote a story in which the Russians listened to him, and through very subtle propaganda would be able to win the US over. (This story is a short, and is in the anthology Nine Billion Names of God)

    Anyways, the comparison to Bradbury and Heinlein is ridiculous. Bradbury was always too much in love with writers and writing (like JonKatz with technology :-) ). Heinlein was usually very preachy about his moral ideas, and didn't let the story flow freely (although I do like a few of his stories). And Asimov was always caught up in the game of Logic. So though Clarke is flawed, so are all the others.

  • I have to agree on Kadath, one of the finest plain-ol-fiction stories I can recall. Vibrant imagery, and none of the 'formula' of modern-day fiction.

    I highly recommend Lovecraft's At The Mountains of Madness too.

    I was not all that crazy about Childhood's End when I last read it. It was ok, but not all of Clarke's stuff really fires my rocket. Likewise 2061 (the sequel to 2001 and 2010) left me cold. Rama was incredible.
  • This (along with many Clarke books) is a favorite of mine. The question I have has something to do with one of the last lines in (the original) book.

    When the alien overlord finally reveals himself, the book says that he was a figure out of earth's past and mythology. I got the general impression that he was supposed to be the basis for the talse of dragons. Is this impression correct, or did I miss something? (and if so, what ;) )


    Who am I?
    Why am here?
    Where is the chocolate?
  • I wonder how many other people thought of "Childhood's End" when they first saw the movie Independence Day? ID4 had an almost perfect visualization of the image in my mind of the huge alien starship appearing over New York City. I got shivers during the trailer.


    Read a good book lately?
  • In particular, his construction of a synthetic diamond tower into LEO. In recent years he has observed that fullerene tubules would likely be a better building material than diamond filament.

    I wonder if it was this concept (in particular, the test of unspooling the filament from a spacecraft in LEO) that caused NASA to attempt the same sort of test a few years ago. (Don't remember when, or what the filamentthey used was, sorry)


    Who am I?
    Why am here?
    Where is the chocolate?
  • This is truly a classic. It's not particularly science fiction. It's more in the line of "What can fact and science be used for in the construction of a tale?" The character of Purvis is perfectly suited for this, since you never quite know if he's pulling your leg, and then one day he disappears under odd circumstances. The best part is the story about the UFO-ologist who finds the White Heart--and gives Purvis his due :)


    Who am I?
    Why am here?
    Where is the chocolate?
  • Hmm. Perhaps you are deliberately meant to interpret your own bogeyman into the role. I always inferred that it was supposed to Satan or some other devilish entity.
  • Initially I planned to stay out of this discussion as I do with most Slashdot threads. I read the review and thought to myself "This person just doesn't get it." Which isn't a big deal. A lot of people don't get Clarke. It's nothing against them, it's just his style. Then I read a lot of the comments mirroring my feelings on the book. (I loved it, by the way. I've read it two or three times now and I've been thinking lately it's time to read it again.) So I was reassured that my comments were unnecessary. But then I read some comments like this and I really can't pass up the opportunity to converse with someone who really does seem to "get it". This is what I got out of it, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject. First, I would suggest that the book is more of a tragedy than sci-fi. To back this up I would also suggest that the main characters in the book are the Overlords, not the humans (which is why I feel they come off so flat sometimes.) This isn't such a stretch when you think about Clarke's other books, like 2001, where the protagonist is clearly the computer. It is the only fully emotionally-developed character in that book. But that's off the point. My biggest problem with the review is that somehow the reviewer seems to have gotten the cause and effect relationship regarding the arrival of the Overlords exactly backwards. That's not all that hard to believe since the denoument is only touched on briefly and near then end of the book when a lot of other things are happening all at once. Anyway, let me be perfectly clear on this point. The Overlords arrive because humanity was nearing the next (final?) evolutionary step. (He is also suggesting, in a back-handed manner, that evolution is a stepped process, a theory that is still debated if I'm not mistaken.) So how do I say this is a tragedy? The Overlords have become something of caretakers or custodians of our plane of existence. They have slipped into an evolutionary cul-de-sac and in an attempt to discover how to get back on the path, they are overseeing each race's final moments on this plane in hopes that it will reveal something about how they too can evolve. Clarke gives some small hope for the future of their race, but he doesn't leave you with a lot of confidence in them. Anyway, that's my take on it.
  • I liked At The Mountains of Madness. I also thought that Through The Gate(s?) of the Silver Key and the attached stores tied the whole Randolph Carter line together. The idea of the universe being one nameless entity and all of our experiences being nothing more than a particular cross-section of that entity fascinates me.

    Try reading 3001. They actually bring back someone from 2001! It's fairly r33t.

  • The review somehow misses the two things which made Childhood's End a book I regard more highly than the 90+% of pulp sci-fi which I don't remember much of 5-10 years later.

    The most satisfying part of the book is reading the "denouement" that comes not at the end, but in the middle of the book when the aliens' physical appearance is revealed after decades of concealment. The reason for the concealment (which I don't want to give away here) is quite clever, thought provoking and original. Like a good mystery, there's growing suspense and anticipation, yet once the secret is revealed, all the previous comments fit into
    place.

    The book is a little unusual for standard sci-fi in its tribute to a previous literary-philosophical strand of thought developed by a popular American author in the 1800s, Ralph Waldo Emerson. The end of the book is not primarily about "paranormal" themes as the reviewer states, its really a sci-fi exploration of trancendentalist themes, the joint-consciousness of the "overmind". Few sci-fi books provide interesting, original depictions of religious concepts, and this is one of them.

    --LP

  • Did Clarke even write 3001? I was under the impression that Gentry Lee had done that work under Clarke's name. I could easily be wrong; this post is a question, not a statement.
  • Actually, there have been rumors.. but I haven't heard anything lately.
    "Childhood's End (Universal Studios)" was listed under "Optioned" in a list of future projects.. recieved from Mr. Clarke after my dad wrote him a letter.. check it out:
    http://pez9000.virtualave.net/scifi.html [virtualave.net]

    pez9000
  • One of my favorite episodes actually. To Serve Man was the title. As for a parallel to Childhood's End it would be my guess that whoever wrote the episode had just read the book and decided it needed a bit of 'artistic expression' in order to be show on TV. Very good and disturbing twist to the theme though. =) I like both stories, but for seperate reasons of course.
  • It was one of the few science fiction books in my high school library so I picked it up and tried to read it. I fell asleep. Coincidinkly, I just saw the book again - while cleaning up my basement! Library police? (Seinfeld)
  • It annoys me when authors feel the need to change fiction to take account of real world progress


    I agree. Heinlein repackaged his future histories as alternative histories. A better approach, I think. Plus, I believe "The Past Through Tomorrow" still sells well - when it's in print.
  • All three favorites of mine too. I got my start in SF on Arthur Clarke books (it didn't hurt he had the same first name as me - I was only about 8 or 10 when I started reading them!) and he's still my favorite author. A lot of people know him through 2001 - I didn't see or read that until much, much later. I think The City and the Stars is still my favorite of his; both it and Childhood's End were the kind of book that afterwards I put down and just sat, thinking, for quite some time. Profound.

    People criticize Clarke's characters - but I think like a lot of good SF, the plot ideas take the place of the human characters in carrying the story forward, and I really don't have a problem with that. The later Rama books were pretty horrible though...

  • I find it sort of sad that Slaughterhouse Five was left out of your curriculum. What could you possibly learn without Vonnegut.

    Ironically, Vonnegut regards Childhood's End as [paraphrase] 'the finest science fiction novel he didn't write.' I read Clarke before, including the excellent Rendezvous with Rama, and the obvious 2001, but I would not have read CE without Vonnegut's recommendation.

    It is also interesting to note that Clarke introduces the concept of 'Total Identification' or something like it in CE, which equates in many ways to the as yet still unrealized concept of virtual reality.

    Clarke also pointed out the Y2K glitch in 1986, in the seemingly half finished but still interesting Ghost of the Grand Banks

    The guy is a genuine genius. One of the things that troubles me most about him and Asimov, though, is that all their books have characters using papers, reading books and newspapers, checking files, etc. Funny that electronic data escaped them.

  • Clarks Vision (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This book was interesting, not terribly gripping as a storyteller, but thoughtprovoking. After I read this book (I had already read 2001 series), it seemed like there was no point in reading more of Clarkes stories -- the theme is essentially always the same. Clark sees humans fading away - he is fascinated by the idea that a whole new level of intelligence can exist that is as far beyond us as we (presumably) are to rats. 2001 is essentially the same, but more obfuscated and therefore more effective -> the media (confusion of the reader) is the message (hopeless confusion of people in general w.r.t the "new intelligence"). (Also to keep the reader in awe -- he tries to prevent you from thinking about the details, on the grounds that you would not understand them. This limits exploration of this theme, however.)
  • I wonder if it was this concept (in particular, the test of unspooling the filament from a spacecraft in LEO)

    Hmm, it's been a few years, but about the time Fountains came out, there was a lot of discussion in the L5 group about using similar fibers as a means to get to orbit. I suspect that both ACC and NASA got the idea from the same sources...
  • The guy is a genuine genius. One of the things that troubles me most about him and Asimov, though, is that all their books have characters using papers, reading books and newspapers, checking files, etc. Funny that electronic data escaped them.

    I think that 2001 did a good job, considering the technology of when it was written. As best as I can recall, 2001 came out in 1968, simultaneously with the movie. Back then, my high school was just getting to replacing a Burroughs computer with 4 tape drives and 8K worth of RAM for a newer machine with 98K worth of RAM and two 5M hard disks. Each machine would fill a large living room. The 'newspad' on the space craft was a pretty fair approximation of a notebook.

    Both ACC and Isaac Asimov did a lot of their work when Moore's law had not been conceived, more likely, the observations it was based on could not have been made, much less stated. When Childhood's End was written, the transistor was 4 to 5 years old, and the first pocket transistor radio had not been invented. Trying to extrapolate a future is pretty tough.

    In one of Heinlein's books, he has an essay on the nature of progress. He makes the point (mostly valid, IMHO) that technological progress is largely exponential. (The model seems to fall down when politics/government come into play.) Given that thesis, it's easy to see why novels written about the year 2000 from several years back seem horribly dated. Still, when they get it right, it's a lot of fun.

    My favorite example of prediction is also one of Heinlein's, The Door into Summer I think it dates back to 1956, but is set briefly in both 1970 and 2000. I first read it in the late '60s, and it was clear that the inventions the hero had done were well beyond the state of the art for 1970. Interestingly enough, I think Heinlein got 2000 down a lot better, at least technically. (His concept of a largely electromechanical drafting machine is pretty dated, but the robots universally present in industry was pretty solid.)

    BTW, in college, we read Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. Slaughterhouse Five was on my own time.
  • I never particularly admired Clarke's long works. However his short stories including Tales From the White Hart and of course the famous Sentinel are terrific.

    If you want a really good classic sci-fi novel of the same era you should read Clifford Simak's City. It is far more worthy than Childhood's End.

  • in childhood's end, a.c.clarke came really close to depicting the aliens as i had always imagined them: detached entities. i wish he had kept them disembodied until the end of the book instead of revealing their physical properties to us. we -- humans, i think, are excessively concerned with the physical, the body. the u.f.o. enthusiasts are impatiently awaiting the arrival of the silvery space ship fleet over the manhattan sky-line. in giving the aliens physical attributes, a.c.clarke falls into the pitfall..
  • The whole point of giving the aliens faces is to bring in his own view of prejudgement of what we encounter. The aliens came to prepare the transition of a new race, they were not evil... as a reader, one might see the children who absorbed the world as evil.
  • I apologize if I give anything away.

    I read this book as a junior-high kid, and it had a few profound impacts on me:

    The simplicity with which the various human evils were eliminated by the Overlords sent the message that so much of our suffering is caused by irrational traditions and shallow beliefs, and

    The picture of the Overmind at the end depressed me so greatly (and, I think, was meant to -- that's why we had the astronaut's perspective?) that I have since always carried around the idea that the Christian depiction of Heaven really isn't that appealing -- a life of struggle and torment is far more appealing than "paradise", because it brings real meaning to whatever joy and discovery might be experienced.

    One last thing: if you've read Rendezvous with Rama, you must conclude that Clarke intended the second lesson in Childhood's End, as Rama is a celebration of the wonder of an accidental experience that vanishes without impact, and a warning of the danger of focusing on the destination to the exclusion of noticing the journey (after all, the aliens came all that way, and never imagined or noticed the puny Earthlings).

    Thanks for the review. This book deserves to be read and remembered.
  • Minor correction: the "head" Overlord is called Karellen.

    Incidentally, I have to say that "Childhood's End" is one of my all-time favourite sci-fi novels, because of its enormous scope, and the way that it suggests that humanity may not be fully "evolved" but still has a large (and scary) step to go. The idea of our children being somehow more (or less) than human is extremely powerful. Also, it is excellent social commentary on when it was written.

    --

  • I couldn't see this without feeling that I am obligated to agree. "Childhood's End" was one of the greatest books I've ever read, further emphasizing Sir Clarke, in my mind at least, as the master of science fiction.
    Reading this book, like some of my other favorites (mostly Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Michael Crichton's older science fiction), was an enlightening experience. It not only entertained me in the truest sense of the word, but it really made me think; I actually came to understand more of life as a whole after reading this book. You can't say that about most books.
    This is one of my most recommended reads to anyone out there, even if you don't really love science fiction. This book's truly a classic in its own time.
  • Yeah, this is pretty much the way I see it, though you can add to that the despair of the last humans, who have been denied the stars so that their children could go beyond them.

    The assertion that the Overlords are the protagonists is a reasonable one, though one I never made (I never bothered with identifying a protagonist -- the book is not about individual characters). Still, I can identify with everything you say, and it is really a shame that the Overlord's side of the story was ignored by the reviewer.
  • Agreed. And further, one of the most poignant points Clarke makes is about destiny. It tracks well with my overall philosophy.

    We are a piece of the world, and a product of nature (or something greater than ourselves in any case). As such, we do not have dominion over the Universe/Creation/Earth whatever.. It has dominion over us. It (provided you believe in a greater consciousness/higher power) may have it's own designs for us, it's own plans. The 'greater scheme of things' of which we are part, is precisely our destiny. Not what we want, but what is wanted of us. In effect, on a deep level, the book is about giving up control over the self, since what that makes possible is so much greater.

    Oddly, this intuitively clicks with the whole of the Open Source movement. :)

    It's a disturbing concept on one hand, that we are not in control of where we are going, except that to refuse is to perish. We either surrender our fate to the greater will, or we end our part in it all and remove ourselves from it's control through mass suicide. In any case, it's the end of our race.

    On the other hand however, the plans the Universe may hold for us are greater than anything we now have the capacity to imagine. By giving ourselves over to the greater will, we stand to gain everything, and lose nothing. Very Buddist/Taoist in concept, the idea of maturing into Brahman or flowing into the Universal Consciousness...
  • What we have to remember is that Clarke doesn't
    write about things where the emotional lives of
    the (human) characters are very important. So
    it's a damn good thing that he doesn't clutter
    the book with it. Herman Hesse writes about
    almost nothing _but_ the characters' emotions
    which is good too, for the same reason.
  • I agree with the other commenter that looking
    for protagonists is not very satisfying sport
    with Clarke. In 2001 I have to say HAL is NOT
    the protagonist, he might be the only fully
    developed character, but he is a sideshow. 2001
    is about apes, humans and aliens. In this way
    Bowman and Moonwatcher are the only protagonists,
    even though Bowman neither is really a developed
    character.

    As for you view of Childhoods end being about the
    Overlords, that is an good idea. Never really
    thought about it that way, but yes the book
    is a bit broader than I thought it was.
  • And don't forget Julian May's Saga Of The Exiles and (more specifically) Intervention & The Mileu Trilogy. Major Teilhard de Chardin namechecking!
  • I don't know if the thread is still active or not, but here goes. Actually, the reason why I claim that 2001 is about HAL is because of how the story is about evolution. (In this one I would say that the monoliths were initially agents of change, but the cause/effect relationship seems less important here.) My thinking is that Clarke here was suggesting that the next evolutionary step may be initiated by humans. Although in light of his subsequent books it seemed that he decided against that approach or I just mis-interpreted the whole thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close