MovieChat Forums > Childhood's End (2015) Discussion > Didn't like the novel (spoiler)

Didn't like the novel (spoiler)

posted 9 years ago by Askur
20 replies | jump to latest

I don't know why this is Clarke's most popular novel. It's an extremely depressing read. Rendezvous with Rama is a lot more optimistic in tone.

First I didn't like the idea that the last generation of humanity is being absorbed by a cosmic intelligence, and I strongly dislike that the whole planet literally disappeared when that happened.

And how likely is it that all adults would commit suicide when the children became connected in a hive mind? And blowing a whole island into pieces, with animals, plants and ecosystem and all, just because you wanted to take you own life? If you want to go into the forest to kill yourself, no reason to burn down the whole forest in the process. It's like if a farmer should burn down all his fields and barn with all the animals inside if he wanted to commit suicide.

I guess this was written before the age of environmentalism.

[–] The_Real_Bathsheba 9 years ago

Humans are already destroying this planet, we are killing off entire species of animals.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] srb-3 9 years ago

Didn't like the novel (spoiler)

Neither did I.

I don't know why this is Clarke's most popular novel. It's an extremely depressing read.

Yup.

Rendezvous with Rama is a lot more optimistic in tone.

Haven't read that but so is 2001: A Space Odyssey.

First I didn't like the idea that the last generation of humanity is being absorbed by a cosmic intelligence, and I strongly dislike that the whole planet literally disappeared when that happened.

Same here.

And how likely is it that all adults would commit suicide when the children became connected in a hive mind? And blowing a whole island into pieces, with animals, plants and ecosystem and all, just because you wanted to take you own life? If you want to go into the forest to kill yourself, no reason to burn down the whole forest in the process. It's like if a farmer should burn down all his fields and barn with all the animals inside if he wanted to commit suicide.

No one defied the Overlords either. I found that bogus.

I guess this was written before the age of environmentalism.

1953.

[–] nnflegg308 9 years ago

I've read the book three or four times in the last few years and personally, i didn't find the book as much depressing as I did uplifting in the sense that the end of the book leads to humanity evolving past the need for material bodies and existing as a form of ephemeral energy floating through the void of space for eternity. It's a somewhat hopeful book, even if that hope is downplayed in the face of the destruction of the planet as the last generation of humanity "evolved". I would imagine that in the '50s, with the threat of nuclear Armageddon a constant shadow over society, people saw the idea of earth becoming a Utopian civilization was inspirational and yet, seemingly out of the realm of possibility, which would require outside intervention to be achieved.

Reading the updated intro to the book, I don't think Clarke particularly liked the book in hindsight, even going so far as to say that the novel did not reflect his own opinions as they stood in 1953. It does bring to bear a rather heavy dose of pseudo scientific elements, especially in the area of ESP and other psychic phenomenon as they were understood at the time. At the time he wrote the novel, Clarke was enamored with the supernatural and later the talents of purported psychic Yuri Geller up into the 1970s when he was exposed as a fraud.

I will agree that the whole situation with New Athens felt out of place and could have been handled better. But I think that a lot of the second half of the book is written more out of necessity to rush to get to a conclusion instead of being pre-meditated. Without New Athens blowing up, he would have had to continue going with the characters, drawing out the second act, and it was just easier to write that story line out of the novel with a bomb. In a similar vein, Jan Rodericks stowing aboard the Overlord ship felt in hindsight as just an exposition chapter as otherwise no one would have had any clue as to what was going on either in the end or before that point.

[–] johcafra-150-658402 9 years ago

You identified some of its charms, or at least what helped me remember it long after I'd first read it. And you are correct in recognizing when it was written.

Clarke didn't think much about religion...he called it "the most malevolent of all mind viruses". Still I can't help but think this novel was the closest he came to writing a tract.

If you think On the Beach a depressing film read Nevil Shute's source novel.

[–] nyarlath 9 years ago

i didn't find the book as much depressing as I did uplifting in the sense that the end of the book leads to humanity evolving past the need for material bodies and existing as a form of ephemeral energy floating through the void of space for eternity.

Unfortunately Clarke makes it very clear that nothing human survives the transition. Whatever the kids become it isn't us nor does it care about us. It would make just as much sense that the Overmind preys on growing civilizations ready for space travel, infecting their own children with something that turns them into a part of itself and then destroys the home planet to make sure the survivors or a new race do not arise to challenge its dominance of the universe or to take revenge.

[–] sparker21 9 years ago

It's interesting to me that readers seem to either identify with the humans who can't make the transition and therefore see the story as depressing, or with those who do make the transition and therefore see it as uplifting. I'm in the later camp.

[–] nyarlath 9 years ago

Just call me old fashioned. If some horny alien overlords want to turn humans into cosmic muffins they they'd better ask permission first. And after they take a batch of snotty nosed brats to do their dirty work on they should leave the rest of us to find our own destiny. I don't approve of getting chewed up, swallowed, digested, and excreted by a pack of hyperdimensional delinquents who neither know or care about humanity's artistic, musical or scientific struggles and achievements. And I think all of the other billions of living things on this planet would say the same thing if they had voices. Being et by your own kids is for spiders. If the overmind needs a world to devour they can have Venus. Hope they choke on its acid rain.

Preventing mankind from spreading to space is like caging a bunch of baby birds with a clutch of cobra eggs. Do you feed mice to your pet snake and call it uplifting?

[–] Darvell 9 years ago

When poisonous snakes and spiders injects venom into their victims, the victim becomes easier for them to digest. I feel the same thing about the overmind. The last generation of humans on earth is turned into a form that makes them easy for the overmind to digest.

The overmind probably doesn't know anything about laughter, fun or any other thing that defines humanity. Because all that is forgotten by the children when they are absorbed. It is just cruising around in space, eating all intelligent species that can be digested. The over lords obviously thinks they are serving a good cause and tries to be good disciples, but there is nothing noble about their assistance. They bring destruction to the world, not peace.

[–] sparker21 9 years ago

If I remember correctly the aliens didn't have anything to do with changing humanity. The change was going to come anyway. The Overlords were not so much assisting as observing and perhaps trying to soften the shock of transition a bit.

I don't see that any aliens were preventing mankind from spreading into space. We are totally unsuited for spreading into space, a point delved into more deeply in 2001. The transition depicted in Childhood's End is from an earth based species into a space based species. I suppose I identify with those who made the transition because, within the context of the story, I don't see our physical form as a necessary attribute of humanity.

[–] nyarlath 9 years ago

The change was going to come anyway. The Overlords were not so much assisting as observing and perhaps trying to soften the shock of transition a bit.

Well if that's what they were doing they did a pretty crappy job of it.

I think the fundamental problem is that the story was written in 1953. Things were very different. Except for a few V-2 rockets space travel was still pulp fiction, the universe was known through fuzzy telescope photos, things like micro computers, i-pods, neuroscience, DNA, biotechnology, dark energy, dark matter, the dinosaur killer, Lucy the missing link, extrasolar planets, and black holes weren't even concepts yet. It was easy to imagine all that could be known had been discovered. On a cultural level things were even more different (the red scare and no rock and roll). In such a world after two wars and a depression it would be easy to imagine us abandoning space if aliens dumped a bunch of cool consumer products out of their spaceships, beat the commies, and gave us access to all the knowledge in the universe. Today I'm not so sure. Today I think all that knowledge would be used to build starships to get as far from the Overlords as they could. And yes the aliens DO prohibit space travel.

I suppose I identify with those who made the transition because, within the context of the story, I don't see our physical form as a necessary attribute of humanity.

But you see you're not one of "those who made the transition" because only the children get to 'evolve'. If you're past puberty then you likely don't get to go. I don't remember if Clarke defined 'children' but I think it meant pre-teens. Like a cosmic pedophile the Overmind is very picky about who it wants to join with. The destiny for the rest of us is as food for the new Overmind. Munch, munch!

I agree that both psychologically and physically we are ill equipped for space. But neuroscience, cybernetics, and bioengineering may get us there. We needn't lose all of our humanity. The Singularity is assumed to be for everyone. Clark breaks the continuity of love between generations. And it isn't just physical form that the Overmind takes away, all the memories, all the feelings, all the joys and sadness that define what it really means to be human goes away too. The distinction between being devoured by a larger animal and joining a higher intelligence becomes moot.

[–] sparker21 9 years ago

I'm certainly older than any in the story that made the transition. I just remember that when I first read the book back in my 20s (I was too old then too) I identified with those who did, or perhaps more accurately with the concept of that transition itself.

You may be right about the Overmind. As I told another poster, it's been many years since I read the book, so I may not be remembering Clark's description of it properly, but I never thought of members of the Overmind as losing all of their individuality. I conceive of it as a collection of personalities with access to a single mind.

I'm very aware that even with advanced technology we will never be creatures of space. At best we'll be able to explore and travel to only an extremely tiny area near our home solar system. What excited me about Clark's story was that he envisioned a way that we could escape our physical and temporal limitations and actually live and travel in spacetime on a cosmic scale. Clark does dwell on the dissolution of our cradle which makes for a dark story. Kubrick made the story much more palatable in 2001.

[–] nyarlath 9 years ago

I suppose the destruction of the Earth is what finally ended any feelings of empathy for the Overmind. Some of us are more aware of our relationship with the earth and our responsibility to her than people were in 1953. We are beginning to realize that we are not some pinnacle of evolution but just one branch on a web of life here. The life of the earth flows through our veins and all that we are is tied to her and her life. I can excuse Clarke for ignoring that other living things on this world have rights and unique destinies too. That we do not own this world but must share it with other species as stewards. He was trying to make a point here about man's future and some of the symbolism is clearly derived from Christian concepts of the end of days and the coming of the new age. Christian paradise has no place for wild animals either. As far as physical and temporal limitations I do think we will have to develop a more hive like, more cooperative, more patient mindset to get to other stars. Colonizing the stars is a task for a species not an individual. But we should be always be cautious about giving up too much. No point in seeing a dual star sunset if you must lose the childlike joy of wonder to get there. Or the desire to share that wonder with others.

[–] sparker21 9 years ago

I remember being shocked when I first read about the mass of the earth being used to generate the power needed to finalize the transition. But I think that at the cosmic scale Clark is working on at that point in the story it doesn't really matter. At that scale the earth will be gone in a millisecond anyway, swallowed by an expanding sun if not destroyed by some other cause.

[–] nyarlath 9 years ago

Well as Pete Parker's Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

I guess the elimination of life on earth brought to mind another event in which an insignificant loss of life for a greater 1000 year cause happened. At Auschwitz 8 years earlier. Of course the 1000 year Reich didn't live up to expectations of longevity. Ultimately I've felt that, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Or as Dr. Kessler in Mars Attacks so eloquently put it, "An advanced civilization is by definition not barbaric."

Killing off a planet is a barbaric act regardless of the time scale.

Superior beings will be defined by how they deal with those weaker than them. Otherwise there is very little to distinguish from a predatory animal.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

I'm very aware that even with advanced technology we will never be creatures of space. At best we'll be able to explore and travel to only an extremely tiny area near our home solar system. What excited me about Clark's story was that he envisioned a way that we could escape our physical and temporal limitations and actually live and travel in spacetime on a cosmic scale. Clark does dwell on the dissolution of our cradle which makes for a dark story. Kubrick made the story much more palatable in 2001.

What's the attraction of floating through space for maybe a million years to reach another planet and then float around that planet... doing what?

[–] darkness_surroundz 9 years ago

very poignant: "We have not deceived you, you have deceived yourselves" regarding religion-we still want a Mother Mary and a Daddy God to watch out for us...

quote of the century!

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Unfortunately Clarke makes it very clear that nothing human survives the transition. Whatever the kids become it isn't us nor does it care about us. It would make just as much sense that the Overmind preys on growing civilizations ready for space travel, infecting their own children with something that turns them into a part of itself and then destroys the home planet to make sure the survivors or a new race do not arise to challenge its dominance of the universe or to take revenge.

Just call me old fashioned. If some horny alien overlords want to turn humans into cosmic muffins they they'd better ask permission first. And after they take a batch of snotty nosed brats to do their dirty work on they should leave the rest of us to find our own destiny. I don't approve of getting chewed up, swallowed, digested, and excreted by a pack of hyperdimensional delinquents who neither know or care about humanity's artistic, musical or scientific struggles and achievements. And I think all of the other billions of living things on this planet would say the same thing if they had voices. Being et by your own kids is for spiders. If the overmind needs a world to devour they can have Venus. Hope they choke on its acid rain.

Preventing mankind from spreading to space is like caging a bunch of baby birds with a clutch of cobra eggs. Do you feed mice to your pet snake and call it uplifting?

All very well put.

I read the book many years ago and found it to be a pretty big downer.

It was okay to read once, but I don't need to experience those kinds of things again.

And once you've read or seen one story about how aliens trick us into destroying Earth ourselves or how time-traveling to prevent Hitler actually CAUSES Hitler, etc, they don't really have much appeal any more.

Or at least that's how it goes with me.

[–] pcqgod 9 years ago

'Childhood's End' is great science fiction. The purpose of science fiction (or literature in general) isn't necessarily to entertain you and give you an ending you like. It's supposed to make you think.

I absolutely love 'Childhood's End' but I'm not entirely comfortable with the ending. You could very well view it as a utopian vision of the future, as I'm sure many do. On the other hand, wouldn't the future envisioned entail the loss of what makes us human? What makes us individual? Not to mention destroy our race's many accomplishments? If the novel made you consider the ramifications of this kind of human evolution, it did its job.

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]