I can think of no book that better illustrates the contradictions of classic science fiction literature than this one: A book about insidious aliens cI can think of no book that better illustrates the contradictions of classic science fiction literature than this one: A book about insidious aliens colonizing the planet Earth that simultaneously seems to have a stubborn affection for British imperialism. The contact ends in genocide, in all of humanity being wiped out for the benefit of the aliens, so you can't quite call it pro-colonialist. And yet, Clarke's asides about real-world minority groups who were oppressed by the British paint a slightly different picture:
They felt, with good reason, much as a cultured Indian of the nineteenth century must have done as he contemplated the British Raj. The invaders had brought peace and prosperity to Earth-but who knew what the cost might be?
You could hardly call the occupation of Inidia by the British a time of "peace and prosperity," which might be why Clarke doesn't explain why he said that. There's another brief aside about the black population in South Africa being forced by the aliens to restore the rights to the white minority that is similarly tasteless, particularly since this book was written while South Africa was still under apartheid.
Then again, Clarke doesn't seem to be on the side of the (alien) invaders. The Overlords ostensibly improve the lives of mankind, but it's never explained what, exactly, they do, and as stated previously it's clear that ultimately only the Overlords ended up benefiting from the relationship. It feels like Clarke was either unable or unwilling to take his ideas to their logical conclusion, or apply them backwards in time. We don't get the perspectives of people from colonized countries on the Overlords, other than when they're being described as "easterners." The book frequently illustrates its narrative in too-broad strokes, but at least some European nations have named characters to represent them. They're not especially interesting, however. Stormgren and Karellen are the only characters who really makes an impact.
It moves quickly enough, and the ideas are interesting even if Clarke is unable to fully realize them. It's not an awful book, but it is a deeply confused one, somewhat uncomfortable to read without the clarity of vision needed to be disturbing. Between this and the novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I'm just not impressed with Clarke as a writer or a thinker, and I understand why Kubrick removed much of Clarke's voice from the movie....more
It's fine. Its gross moments clash with its more humerous elements, but it's an okay buddy cop story when it isn't taking a detour. It just lacks the It's fine. Its gross moments clash with its more humerous elements, but it's an okay buddy cop story when it isn't taking a detour. It just lacks the distinct touch needed to make a somewhat played-out story feel new, though the telepath angle puts a slight twist on proceedings....more
Repetitive and grating. I get that the two main characters actively hate each other, but their arguments don't evolve or change, and the banter is tooRepetitive and grating. I get that the two main characters actively hate each other, but their arguments don't evolve or change, and the banter is too bitter and one-note to be funny for any extended period of time. It's just aimless bickering, which gets annoying very quickly. It also slows down the pace, which is its own issue.
I appreciate that it lacks the fetishistic elements that tend to pop up in fantasy books written by men, but I don't find the substitutes here much more enjoyable. Female fantasy characters tend to have very vivid descriptions, while male fantasy heroes are amorphous blobs. Muir decided to give all her characters pointlessly detailed descriptions, which is certainly more balanced, but I think the bigger issue is that it was never necessary to describe anyone with that level of detail.
It just didn't stick out to me, and the tedium of the thing in conjunction with its unremarkability and its subpar writing ("said smilingly" was used three times by the midway point) wore me down such that I gave up at the halfway point....more
Not as good as the 1933 movie, I'm afraid. The pacing is more than a little off, with some unnecessary scenes and characters that were notably changedNot as good as the 1933 movie, I'm afraid. The pacing is more than a little off, with some unnecessary scenes and characters that were notably changed for the film version or cut altogether. Griffin himself is a flat character in all versions of the story, but at least the 1933 version emphasizes the story's pulpy core to create something enjoyable out of him (I almost wonder if Finger, Kane and Robinson watched the movie before creating the Joker). Even the 2020 version seemed to have a better idea of what to do with the character, reframing him as an abusive, controlling ex.
I don't think Wells quite understood his own monster, which is why the story never comes together as it did under James Whale's directing. For all that, Wells' writing is fine and it's a passable pulp story that goes by quickly. I'd even say that it's better than the 2020 version due to stronger characterization, but it still left me wanting as a whole....more
Loading...
