Finished My First Clarke Novel

weirdside

Kaiser
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
54
Location
Become a citizen of Weirdside. You'll be glad you
I'm slogging my way through all the books that have won both the Hugo and Nebula, and I just finished Rendezvous with Rama. I found it enjoyable, albeit lacking conflict. The science was spot on and not too overblown like it is in most modern hard sf pieces, which was very refreshing. I just thought that the characters and plot lacked a lot of depth. I was never worried that something would go wrong. It did evoke a sense of wonder and adventure, another thing that is sorely missing from modern sf. Are the other Rama books worth reading?
 
I'm slogging my way through all the books that have won both the Hugo and Nebula, and I just finished Rendezvous with Rama. I found it enjoyable, albeit lacking conflict. The science was spot on and not too overblown like it is in most modern hard sf pieces, which was very refreshing. I just thought that the characters and plot lacked a lot of depth. I was never worried that something would go wrong. It did evoke a sense of wonder and adventure, another thing that is sorely missing from modern sf. Are the other Rama books worth reading?

In my not particularly humble – in fact sometimes totally conceited – opinion, no. I find them excellent examples of sequilitis.

And I haven't liked many of the Clarke collaborations; he seemed to work reasonably well with Baxter, but apart from that…

So, as far as I'm concerned, keep the good memories of the first book by not doing what I did and reading the later volumes.
 
I had a very similar reaction! The characters and plot did lack depth for me too, although I think in the time that it was written it was groundbreaking in terms of the science that people probably overlooked that. I always thought about reading the other Rama books after finishing it but they are co-written with Gentry Lee.

Read my post below (its about Rama, I just posted it in a Dune thread):
http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/46786-the-legends-of-dune-trilogy-by-kevin-j.html#post1169547

If you click on the links on those posts you will see why you shouldn't read the sequels.
 
Last edited:
The first one for me was superb. But as you say, you can only really do this once. I did read the others but by the time i got to Garden of Rama, i got really, really bored.
 
I've just started my first Clarke novel: "A Fall of Moondust". Good so far...
 
I do wonder if A Fall of Moondust is seen as better ACC than Songs of Distant Earth.

They are the two Clarke books i have and wonder about which to make it my first story or novel of his.
 
I do wonder if A Fall of Moondust is seen as better ACC than Songs of Distant Earth.

They are the two Clarke books i have and wonder about which to make it my first story or novel of his.

Well Fall of Moondust is pure SF action adventure,whereas Songs of Distant Earth is more like science fantasy,almost like Anne McCaffrey.
 
Science fantasy is not what you are after when you want to try reading ACC ;)

That makes my choice very simple. Really the only reason i havent read A Fall of Mondust is cause its a tiny,really old paperback.
 
Connavar said:
. Really the only reason i havent read A Fall of Mondust is cause its a tiny,really old paperback.

It is,but its a great little story. Also try Earthlight,another early novel set on the moon which has a great battle scene,made compelling because of The fact that there's no sound in space.
 
My choice of the first ACC novel to read was between "A Fall of Moondust" and "The City and the Stars". Both are in the SF Mastworks series so they should both be good. I went for the former merely because the premise grabbed me more.
 
City and the Stars is a great story too but its much grander,on a bigger scale with bigger ideas. Moondust is a much simpler,more contained story.
 
City and the Stars was such a radical departure from what we are used to seeing from Clarke. I always had the feeling he had a "Oh, what the hell." moment when he wrote it because it was pure fantasy and he wasn't as belaboured trying to tie in scientific fact.

I thought it was a really fun read.
 
City and the Stars was such a radical departure from what we are used to seeing from Clarke. I always had the feeling he had a "Oh, what the hell." moment when he wrote it because it was pure fantasy and he wasn't as belaboured trying to tie in scientific fact.

I thought it was a really fun read.

Oh i wouldn't say it was fantasy,its pure hard SF! Songs of Distant Earth is the closest he got to fantasy
 
Oh i wouldn't say it was fantasy,its pure hard SF! Songs of Distant Earth is the closest he got to fantasy

Um, well, no. There's always Tales from the "White Hart", for example... several of which are certainly fantasy of a sort -- the tall tale. Then there are scattered stories throughout his career which either border on or are fantasy outright. A good case could be made that "The Nine Billion Names of God" is fantasy, for the matter of that....
 
Compared to most of Clarke's novels, it comes damn close. Most take place somewhere like 500 years into the future. City is set a billion - there's alot of poetic licence to be had there. A machine shall have no moving parts? Eternity circuits? Manifactured star systems? That's pretty far reaching stuff right there.
 
A Fall of Moondust is a great little story and very well written. I almost started hyperventilating with claustrophobia the first time I read it.
 
Well, I enjoyed "Fall of Moondust" enough to keep on reading him.
 

Back
Top