tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post3664431819767294762..comments2023-06-09T15:16:38.867+01:00Comments on It Doesn't Have To Be Right...: 2009 Reading Challenge #2 - Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C ClarkeIan Saleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15375389971610069381noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-41743435106296510762022-07-05T17:13:04.745+01:002022-07-05T17:13:04.745+01:00As rama has an inertialess drive, moving everythin...As rama has an inertialess drive, moving everything together, (endeavor is cought up in its peripheral force after casting off) would there be any need for the circular sea to be enclosed by cliffs? There could be gently sloping beaches either side, and a raman going home from the pub late at night wouldn't fall into the sea, just get his feet wet!!!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-11009128015132304882011-08-26T01:11:22.327+01:002011-08-26T01:11:22.327+01:00I find this a good book. It should have a bit more...I find this a good book. It should have a bit more exploring of alien structures, it shouldn't have the alien spacesuit which adds nothing to the story (besides the intriguing idea of 3-limbed creatures which had been more than hammered in already) and ruins the mystery, but otherwise I find it well written apart from minor flaws. Yes, there's some coincidence - or isn't it? - but the story doesn't rely on it, it could just as well have been done a dozen other ways.<br /><br />I just don't get the fixation people have with 'character development'. If anything, I wish the bits about the Skipper's families were shortened and the episode with Dr Stern ommitted, but those were probably mandatory at the time.<br /><br />I don't find that it's aged at all. Quite the contrary. It is the perfect 'hard sf' (a concept I generally despise) story: the situations the characters find themselves in have scientifical explanations and their reactions are scientific. Scientific as in it doesn't happen at random, while avoiding the 'scientific' 'let's plug in some tech I've heard about last week' misery that plagues the genre. <br /><br />Oh, and those who work in Computer Science or Physics know quite well that 'computer time' will never be a commodity; while the current DVD player may have more processing power than all the mainframes of the '60s combined, scientific problems really grow fundamentally complex faster than computing power.<br /><br />I'm not at all part of the cult of Clarke, but it is my opinion that he was one of the most captivating writers ever. There is not one single spurious word in RVwR, if you ask me. That's not to say the book is perfect - it achieves little in the grand scheme of things and the contents or ideas aren't worth debate or speculation over - but it reads very nicely. Many speak of unputdownable books; that's wrong, every book is putdownable. The real challenge is being instantlypickupagainable, and in that regard Clarke excels: you can (and do) pick up his books to continue reading even if you've only got half a minute to spare. That's a rare feat.Antonio Marquesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-89958999521086844532009-05-13T03:25:00.000+01:002009-05-13T03:25:00.000+01:00I reread this book just last year and it is pretty...I reread this book just last year and it is pretty bad. Back when I was 15 years old it was great and my unsophisticated mind enjoyed the simplicity. But the truth is almost nothing happens in this story. There is no tension or character development. <br /><br />Doug Green<br />Sugar Land, TexasDoug Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217428674137364784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-33944252662145882752009-03-05T19:56:00.000+00:002009-03-05T19:56:00.000+00:00I read this when it first came out and loved it. ...I read this when it first came out and loved it. Unfortunately, I have not read it since. It is on my list of books to re-read. I'll be curious to see if I am as disappointed as you were.<BR/><BR/>Of the recent books I read that feature an unexplained object, I would recommend The Chronoliths by Robert Charles Wilson. I thought the characterization was excellent.Jim Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16768774128257259384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-36200019418231606452009-02-12T18:41:00.000+00:002009-02-12T18:41:00.000+00:00Haven't SF fans always preferred the idea over the...Haven't SF fans always preferred the idea over the telling? Not to mention the new rather than an exploration of the old in a way that illuminates the human condition. <BR/>And as for characterisation? Pah!<BR/>I exaggerate a bit here of course.<BR/><BR/>As to dating; Clarke's The Sands Of Mars has a journalist take his typewriter to the Red Planet.<BR/><BR/>We must now expect 50s and 60s novels to be dated. 90s and 00s novels will be dated one day (if they aren't already.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-81418073250695008762009-02-12T15:38:00.000+00:002009-02-12T15:38:00.000+00:00Read it when I was fourteen and loved it. Re-read ...Read it when I was fourteen and loved it. Re-read it in about 2001 and couldn't stand it. Couldn't. Stand. It. Great idea, frankly shit execution. I mean, sorry for the lack of in-depth analysis, but, really. I loved the inexplicable element (as a kid), but I've seen sharper characterisation in kid's colouring book characters. Don't get me wrong, I still rate some (emphasis on <I>some</I>) of Clarke's writing. He was undoubtedly one of our ideas men. But 'Rendezvous' is a prime example of why a great idea doesn't necessarily make a great novel.Gary Gibson, science fiction writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16479905286212513002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-65594769887432206062009-02-12T14:09:00.000+00:002009-02-12T14:09:00.000+00:00The aliens were slightly spoiled for me by the "il...The aliens were slightly spoiled for me by the "illustrated catalogue" room. The book was doing so well up to that point - there seemed to be no plausible <I>human</I> explanation for anything they'd found... until then.<BR/><BR/>I also felt the plot relied too much on coincidence. Pak flies to the South Pole and, coincidentally, there's an energy discharge from Big Horn. Rodrigo goes to disarm the Hermian bomb and, coincidentally, it starts to move towards Rama...Ian Saleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375389971610069381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3369127277021590195.post-26437156866015976332009-02-12T12:59:00.000+00:002009-02-12T12:59:00.000+00:00The most interesting thing about Rama is not the o...The most interesting thing about <I>Rama</I> is not the object but the aliens who created it. Aliens who remain alien, inexplicable, incomprehensible, because they are never there. <BR/><BR/>There was a vogue around that time (Fred Pohl's <I>Gateway</I> is another example) for writing about the alienness of the alien by showing only their effects and never the cause. Given the ways that aliens had been presented before this, Clarke's work was both subtle and intellectually challenging.<BR/><BR/>And in the case of both Clarke and Pohl, any good that was achieved by these novels was almost immediately vitiated by endless sequels that made the mysterious only too blatantly obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com