The Children of Men (P.D. James)

[Ray McCarthy]

She died recently and I never yet read any of her crime fiction. So today decided to grab one in a Charity shop.

Blurb

The year is 2021. No Child has been born for
twenty-five years. The human race faces extinction.
Under the despotic rule of Xan Lyppiatt, the ...

Hmm... doesn't sound like crime fiction. Should I be pleased or worried?!

 

[Extollager]

I read this back in April 1993 and I'm pretty sure it seemed worth the time. It might be another instance of that phenomenon whereby, every so often, someone not usually thought of as writing sf comes along and writes indisputable sf that is better than much by the writers known for sf, as with Ishiguro's Never Le Me Go, Lewis's trilogy, 1984, etc.

 

[farntfar]

It's some time since I read it, (similarly found in a charity shop, but after I'd read some of her other stuff.) and I too was surprised by it.
But it's well worth reading, with some very interesting ideas and questions about life, so keep reading.

It's also got very little to do with the film, which took the first chapter as a basis and then rewrote the rest as a bog standard Hollywood adventure story, which this book is not.
Enjoy!

 

[farntfar]

Funny you should mention Never let me go, Extollager. I had much the same thought.

 

[soulsinging]

She died recently and I never yet read any of her crime fiction. So today decided to grab one in a Charity shop.

Blurb


Hmm... doesn't sound like crime fiction. Should I be pleased or worried?!

It's definitely not a crime novel, it's Sci-Fi. Supposed to be excellent. There was a movie made of it a few years back with Clive Owen that I consider one of the best sci-fi movies since Blade Runner. Apparently the poster above disagrees on that though, haha.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I thought, rather the suggestion was that the book is better than the film and they are not really the same. This would be normal, and expect for excellent films as the mediums are different, hence my comment recently about avoiding film/tv techniques in a novel that are only well suited to visual rather than written media.

 

[farntfar]

You are right, Ray. My objection was to the differences between the film and the book, which I felt lost some of it's messages.
It's quite possible that I would have enjoyed the film more otherwise, and maybe I'll give it another go if I get the chance.
But I won't say more to avoid spoilers.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I pretty much always prefer books to the films.

P.S. Of course I'm right, I'm from Norn Iron. We are always right. That's why UK hates N.I. Politicians

 

[Hex]

I'd agree that the film was very good but I thought the book was much better. She's an excellent writer and I like her crime stuff too, but Children of Men was a fabulous sff novel. Gentle and tragic and true-feeling (fewer guns and explosions than the film version, at least that's the way I remember it)

 

[wam]

The real question about it being SF was always the lack of science. I get the feeling that the film was a cash-in on the success of "The Handmaid's Tale" (or maybe it's budget). Around the same time a Spanish/Portuguese company made "Low Flying Aircraft" (from the Ballard story) which used the same idea.

 

[soulsinging]

I'd agree that the film was very good but I thought the book was much better. She's an excellent writer and I like her crime stuff too, but Children of Men was a fabulous sff novel. Gentle and tragic and true-feeling (fewer guns and explosions than the film version, at least that's the way I remember it)

I believe it, yet strangely I remember the film so well because it had fewer guns and explosions than most SF movies lately.