One should cherish one's own internal visualizations formed from reading the text; one should be cautious in viewing other artists' conceptions of the same material, lest your own model of the book's setting be tainted by unfaithful representations. When the imagery is this bad, it's a disservice to the book's legacy.
His books are more plot driven and the characters are pretty flat, but it's so damn fun to read through!
Morgan Freeman has been trying to get the movie adaptation made since early 2000s and wants to play Commander Norton. I had read that Denis Villenueve (the same director from the new Dune movies) was attached to direct the adaptation, but it seems like his schedule is really busy. He recently finished filming Dune Messiah and then he's got the next James Bond movie to deliver.
Other books with a similar plot structure and deeply alien vibe:
- Shroud by Adrian Tchaikovsky (recommended elsewhere in this thread)
- Pushing Ice by Alastair Reynolds
I know there's one I'm forgetting.
One of the few cases where they actively ruin the first book, to the extent you take them as true sequels. Clarke basically licensed his name and plot to Gentry Lee, who proceeded to ruin the sense of wonder by explaining everything, often in deeply unsatisfactory ways. They would have been reasonable scifi books (for their time) if they hadn't attempted to follow up the classics.
Star Wars prequel/sequel situation.
The same could be said of 2001.
Always was thinking about writting some simulation for it, but it was always "someday" ;-)
Let's hope it happens soon... finally.
Inverted World by Christopher Priest
Only thing that my hangry self took issue with -
"When I first read this as a teenager, I came away with a huge sense of wonder... When I re-read it many years later as an adult, I didn’t quite get that same sense of wonder, but maybe that’s because I’m more jaded now.
Wonder seems to have fallen out of favor with sci-fi writers."
Has it? Approaching it de novo, it sounds much more likely that you are immune to wonder - i.e. apply Occam's Razor to: A) I don't get wonder from this book that used to give me wonder B) I don't get wonder from recent SciFi books.
Then there's the second thing, ignoring Occam's Razor: "Recent SciFi books don't have wonder" doesn't follow from A and/or B, it's another premise that could justify B.
FWIW I feel the same way re: wonder getting older. My excuse is we've just seen too much training data, i.e. some things don't have an explanation and that's fine and there's nowhere to go with it.
I eagerly read the sequel, hoping it would unveil the mysteries, but it felt like it was not written by Clarke at all (I suspect Lee wrote it all). Instead of wonder, sci-fi and reveal, it was more about the human relationships of the astronauts and less about the sci-fi.
Rama may turn out unrecognizable after the Hollywood script jockeys have been through with it, as happened to Foundation. (I actually like the Apple TV version, but it’s definitely its own thing.)
For sci-fi takes on truly alien first contacts, Lem’s “Solaris” still holds its own, and the Tarkovsky movie is its own standalone classic (again something very different from the book).
> Clarke wrote the movie screenplay with Kubrick
I don’t think this is true? I thought the two of them sat together and worked out the plot, and then Kubrick went off and wrote the screenplay and Clarke went off and wrote the novel. So neither is really “based on” the other.
Anyway though, Rama is great, yes. I’m skeptical of the idea of a movie adaptation but Denis Villeneuve is probably the right one to try to pull it off.
I remember having fun doing it, which might not be something I could amuse myself with 20 years later since it's hard to hold on to that kind of childlike wonder unless you're on a hallucinogen.
Maybe it no longer needs to be said in this day and age, but Clarke was accused, credibly, of being a pedophile (or, to diminish it with a technicality, hebephile).
It is not quite as abhorrent/chilling as the also credible accusations against Marion Zimmer Bradley--but only because she was teamed up with a Jeffrey Epstein like character.
Shroud is great, easy recommendation. Another of Tchaikovsky, Alien Clay, also great, also very alien.
I think Kubrick was very much the dominant force in the partnership, but they did work quite closely together.
The scale of it was... well... astronomical.
Genuinely curious, where does the credibility come from? As far as I can remember it turned out to be an outright slander by a tabloid paper.
SPOILER WARNING
My interruption is that Area X/The Crawler is a probe built to study and build a bridge back to its creator. Area X is expanding because it's the inside of a wormhole. But whatever is on the other side is long dead, and the probe is acting on instinct.
I agree with everything except this. The sequels are by far the worst books I've read this decade. The memories of reading them actively causes me psychic damage. I wish I could Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind myself just to extract the distaste from my brain
I didn't go in with the expectation that they'd be just like Rendezvous with Rama.
I do, too, but I had to accept that the books basically gave us names; and that's about it.
The books would have been a complete snooze-fest, if they had been accurately rendered.
It’s like someone telling you a story and you ask, “and then what happened,” and they reply, “nothing; that’s the end of the story.” No one appreciates that, but people rave about authors who leave “open-ended interpretations!”
I tried to rationalise those humans were from a world very different from my own, but not even that worked. It was like watching a reality show with uninteresting people.
Sounds like Tolstoy…
But yeah, they're awful. I read them when I was 12-13 and it was one of my first introductions to the idea that sequels to great books could be so bad (and then for some reason I went on to read the Brian Herbert Dune prequels, which are even worse). Read the first one, and pretend it stopped there.
Although it seemed implausible in the setting that humanity wasn't immortal given some of the technology.
What it needs, fundamentally, is the Blade Runner treatment: Kill the expository voiceover, tighten up the edit, make the ending less sentimental and more mysterious.
2010 is a good follow on to the 2001 book, and answers some of the questions the first book left while expanding the mysteries and the sense of wonder.
My wife and I still quote it when answering questions such as what's for dinner.
"Something wonderful".
8<-------------------
"You said that all the old religions have been discredited. So what do people believe nowadays?"
"As little as possible. We’re all either Deists or Theists."
"You’ve lost me. Definitions, please."
"They were slightly different in your time, but here are the latest versions. Theists believe there’s not more than one God; Deists that there is not less than one God."
"I’m afraid the distinction’s too subtle for me."
"Not for everyone; you’d be amazed at the bitter controversies it’s aroused. Five centuries ago, someone used what’s known as surreal mathematics to prove there’s an infinite number of grades between Theists and Deists. Of course, like most dabblers with infinity, he went insane."
The first book was an exploration of humanity in the stars. While there was contact, it had more the traditional science fiction footing that we're familiar with.
The second book was getting into the exploration of the mind and other minds. While the first book touched on the mind - with spiders being more relatable to how we think... the 2nd book presented us with something more alien in how the octopus thinks... and something even more alien.
The third book was downright confusing until the end and was more of a philosophy book about the mind. Can one mind be in two bodies? What entails thought? What is identity? ... and for that matter, what is reality?
The 2nd and 3rd books are good (and interesting) science fiction, but they go much deeper into exploring philosophy than many other science fiction books and use the scaffold of the universe to explore the mind rather than technological advancement. The upgrade of technology and how that changes things isn't the focus of the story - as one would expect in more traditional science fiction, but rather an exploration of a new mind. That change in the expectation from the first to the second (and third) book has some wish for more of that first book with the challenges of humans (as we can understand them).
Book 1 is a first contact story with survival. Book 2 is a psychological mystery about alien cognition (and a bit of horror to it too - "we're going on an adventure" gives me shivers). Book 3 is much more of a puzzle around unreliable narration and reality.
For me, I enjoyed the first book. I was confused by the 2nd book because of the change in the "it's not about the technology and survival anymore...". The 3rd book confused me on the first pass through it. The second time going through it and understanding where things were leading and being able to pick out the changes made more sense... even though I was expecting a book about the mind rather than science (the first pass through I thought it was more about the crow's minds).
Don’t normally buy a hard cover or kindle (I like the paperback) but I may do that for book 4 “Children of Strife”
I saw some news about a possible movie adaptation of “Rendezvous with Rama” and it set me thinking again about the book and what I thought about it. There’s quite a lot here, so I thought it would be worth sharing in a blog post. Let’s start with some history.
Clarke (born 1917) was the pre-eminent British science fiction writer in the mid part of the 20th century with a prodigious output of novels and short stories. Globally, he was considered one of the “big three” of science fiction and he sold well in the English-speaking world and beyond.
Famously, “2001: A Space Odyssey” was based on his 1948 short story (The Sentinel) and Clarke wrote the movie screenplay with Kubrick. The movie's psychotic HAL 9000 computer was an example of his fascination with new field of AI, though he would have been aware of the real-world “AI Winter” that came in the early 1970s.
I think it’s fair to say that much of Clarke’s fiction was driven by story rather than serious character development; many, but not all, of his characters seem a little one-dimensional and the dialog is sometimes flat. Unfortunately, some of the misogynistic and class-based attitudes of the time leak into some of his writing. In some respects, this is surprising because Clarke himself was gay, but perhaps none of us can fully escape the attitudes of our times.
Clarke emigrated to Sri Lanka in 1956, where he lived until his death in 2008.
In the year 2131, Spaceguard detects a large object entering the solar system which it later names “Rama”. A probe detects that it’s a 20 x 50km cylinder, obviously constructed by aliens. Because of its trajectory, the only crewed space vessel that can intercept it is the space freighter Endeavour. Endeavour’s crew aren’t explorers, they’re just a well-trained freighter crew who happen to be in the right place at the right time. The crew intercept Rama and board it.
(Rama as imagined by Nano Banana)
Inside Rama, they find several city-sized clusters of objects and a central cylindrical sea, but no life and no controlling AI. As Rama gets closer to the sun, it warms up and comes to life, meaning strange robotic life forms start appearing and doing things the crew don't understand. One of the crew explores deeper into the interior (in a very contrived way!) and has to be rescued, which brings some elements of danger into the novel (which up to this point has been a “space procedural”). The rescue is against the clock as the crew know their time on Rama is limited because of its flight path.
(The inside of Rama, as imagined by Nano Banana.)
Unfortunately, Rama is seen by a threat by some human groups, and the whole object is in danger, requiring the crew on the Endeavour to carefully defend Rama.
After the crew save Rama, and themselves, they leave Rama as it gets closer to the Sun. Rama then heads off towards the Magellan cloud, leaving a lot of unanswered questions.
The book was published in 1973.
Let’s turn to some of the themes in the book.
In movies like Alien, ships' crews are portrayed as space “truckers”: rude, crude, and rebellious. They have some level of training, but they’re not experts by any means. They have problems following orders and working as a team.
The crew of the Endeavour are very different; they’re highly trained, they work as a team, and they can follow orders. There’s a pointed discussion early on about avoiding heroics and working together; the ethic of quiet competence permeates the book. I’ve heard the book described as competency porn, and I agree. This isn’t a crew of space truckers, it’s like the crew of a supertanker or some other ocean-going vessel, which feels both more likely and more realistic to me.
A big part of the crew are the chimpanzees engineered to have a higher IQ that enables them to do some jobs that would otherwise be done by humans. Notably, these simps stay on the Endeavour and I think they're an underused part of the story. I also get the sense that the simps are a replacement for the AIs that would otherwise run things.
(Nano Banana.)
Clarke talked a lot about AI, but in this novel, AI is conspicuous by its absence. There are no self-aware AIs in Endeavour or in Rama. I’m speculating, but I think Clarke would have seen AI go “off the boil” in the early 1970s. Perhaps he felt that after HAL in 2001, there was nowhere new to go with AI stories. Of course, by not having an AI in Rama, Clarke can keep the mystery – there’s no sentient AI that tells the humans everything they want to know.
This was my second big take-away from the novel. Rama feels very alien, from the cylinder to the biots, to the way it works. Rama makes no attempt to explain itself to the crew of the Endeavour and there are no clues explaining “why”. I very much get the sense that something non-human built and operated this thing for its own purposes. The crew leave Rama with many more questions than answers.
When I first read this as a teenager, I came away with a huge sense of wonder. What is this thing? Who sent it? Why did they send it? When I re-read it many years later as an adult, I didn’t quite get that same sense of wonder, but maybe that’s because I’m more jaded now.
Wonder seems to have fallen out of favor with sci-fi writers. I can't remember reading a recent book that gave me a sense of awe or grandeur. On the other hand, characterization and dialog are very much in favor (which is a good thing), I've read a lot of recent books with vivid characters and dialog.
With the death of wonder, I can't help feel we've lost part of what made the genre a bit different.
There are some sequel novels written by Gentry Lee. My advice: don’t read them.
Rama isn’t an action-adventure book, but it does have some adventure themes and it does ask some though provoking questions. It would plainly have to be a big-budget sci-fi movie.
(Nano Banana)
Morgan Freeman has spent decades trying to bring the book to the screen without success. However, as of 2021, the film is in “development” with Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival”, “Dune”) writing the script and set to direct it. Sadly, Villeneuve will work on the new James Bond movie and other projects first, so a Rama movie is still a few years in the future at best.
It’s true that you can never go back. On re-reading the book as an adult, I saw all the flaws I didn’t see as a child, and I saw little of the wonder and excitement I felt back then. The characterization is a bit flat as is the dialog. Some of the scenarios the crew find themselves in on Rama feel a bit contrived. The politics feel off.
But….
The book offers a more intelligent view of what a first contact might be. Nothing is trying to eat you or conquer you, and nothing is trying to be your friend or show you the galaxy. The aliens just don’t care and are doing alien things.
The humans in the book aren’t super men and women, but neither are they cynical individualists. They’re just competent people working together as a team.
These ideas of alien aliens and competent humans makes the book different and noteworthy.
Is the book flawed? Yes. Is it worth reading? Yes. Will I be in line to see the movie? Hell yes.
Clarke was so much of a better writer than the [2010|Rama] sequels indicate. He would not be able to screw it up so thoroughly without extensive "help".
Clarke also made some good partnerships - Richter 10 is a very good book. Sadly, the partner died and never worked with Clarke again. Gentry Lee would be my main suspect.