Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
This was a very interesting premise and so I'm sad to not want to keep reading it: waaay too much description/detail in the wrong places that bogged down the pacing of the potentially exciting plot. Also, I did not see why the author chose to alternate between Theo's journal entries and a regular 3rd-person perspective that sounded very similar except for the pronouns. I've got my sights set on watching the movie to find out what happens in the story!
I was disappointed to discover that the premise—universal infertility—only serves as the stage for yet another miraculous birth. As a stage, it is elaborate. But the story of infertility, once again, proves a story not worth telling. So sad. So disempowering to the childless-not-by-choice community. As a CNBC woman, I once again feel silenced.
There is nothing wrong with this novel; it’s just not what I expected. It’s not objectionable, not offensive; but, it is not for us.
There is nothing wrong with this novel; it’s just not what I expected. It’s not objectionable, not offensive; but, it is not for us.
A taut, provocative thriller. This is sci-fi/dystopia for grown ups, full of enduring themes and a banal plausibility that makes it the more chilling.
James wrote this in 1992, near the height of the 20th century crime wave and the peak years of the abortion industry, so some of the story's sociological punch has faded (her "future" setting for the action is now just 6 years away). Still, it touches on the some of the core fears of humanity and does so with deep religious sensibility, often explicitly Christian--James, a lifelong Anglican, peppers the novel with quotes from Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer.
The story moves along briskly, almost too quickly for robust character development, but the themes carry the day.
James wrote this in 1992, near the height of the 20th century crime wave and the peak years of the abortion industry, so some of the story's sociological punch has faded (her "future" setting for the action is now just 6 years away). Still, it touches on the some of the core fears of humanity and does so with deep religious sensibility, often explicitly Christian--James, a lifelong Anglican, peppers the novel with quotes from Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer.
The story moves along briskly, almost too quickly for robust character development, but the themes carry the day.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I really enjoyed this book. Given the basic premise, I expected it to be depressing throughout, but I find myself laughing right from the start. At first, the MC's apathy bothered me, but his wit kept me engaged as he was reluctantly drawn into the conspiracy.
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Good book, I didn’t really like the main character that much but maybe that was the point. But definitely interesting and seems a real possibility.
I didn't really get into the first 3/4 but this book had a good ending.
Children of Men, PD James (with Spoilers)
PD James… cant say i am a fan.. i have read one or two of her novels, and they are all very interesting, but not a style i enjoy reading. In her mystery novels, investigator Adam Dalgliesh is an excellent character, and the plot lines are excellent, but i find her writing style tiresome and very “unexcellent”. typically, getting 50 pages into one of her novels is a challenge for me. by page 50 i have enough of the plot in view that i can slog through the rest of it. as a result of these past experiences, i put off reading this a great number of times.
The Children of Men was greatly different. Throughout the initial 50 pages, I was accosted by over abundance of internal monologue and ultra descriptive scenery that i had virtually no interest in. right around page 50, characters start intermingling and talking. as soon as James starts mixing in dialogue, children of men blossoms as a novel.
I really hate comparing books to movies.. i think it is unfair to the author, the story, and the experience in general. I cant help it in this instance. Both the movie and the book moved me for starkly different reasons. the movie was only loosely based on the novel. there are stolen aspects which translate over well.
When i compare the two, here are the things i liked more about the movie than i did the 1995 book.
1. King Crimson on a soundtrack?? AWESOME!, thank you for being only the second movie to ever do that. it was a pleasant and welcome surprise.
yup, that’s right, only one item made the movie list and it was not even related to the book. The reality is that they are two completely different beasts. just because you liked the one, doesn’t mean the other falls directly in line. the core detail of the plot is the same. Man kind can no longer procreate, no one knows why. some of the characters are definitely designed after those in the book, but past that the comparison should end.
things i liked more about the book than i did the 2006 movie.
1. Men are sterile, as opposed to women in the movie. there is no need for the insertion of a virgin mary construct. i found the emasculation of the world to be quite a nice change. Why does infertility always need to be woman-centric in films?
2. Big brother was actually a fairly good guy, though a bit of a dick. sure, Xan’s plans were not always the most ethical, the methods were not always the best choices, individuals often reflected badly on the whole system. in the end though, Xan and the Council’s intent was distraction in the face of a world ending epidemic. the intent was to please the majority and keep them safe. people fell by the wayside, bad things occurred, but i cant throw blame on any one character, more on the society that drove his decisions.one man with power wanting more power, but ultimately, not a bad fellow. I was reminded of Castro, good ideas and intent, taken too far.When reading, pay special attention to the conversation about power between Rolf (leader of the dissidents) and Theo
3. Theo is a fucking dick, must be in the blood. he is a selfish and a hermit. the death of his child is caused by an accident at his hand, not a random roadside event. he has fault and has to carry it with him. the blame is part of what makes his character believable.
4. Omegas, the final generation of humans. given special rights and privileges, they are both impressive and sad. carrying out life like the bastard children of Olympic gods and lepers, both revered and feared, their world is one of hopelessness. they pretend that this is not the case, though in some places, the truth leaks out during the plot.
Things i didnt like?
1. The quietus is a repeating mass suicide that is not discussed in the film. they only lightly touch on the topic of suicide. i think it is too touchy a subject for the general populace to be able to deal with (in the film). My opinion is that James was entirely too heavy handed when she brought a known character into the quietus. it was okay to reference it against a character, but to bring one into the plot? c’mon… that aspect of the story made suspension of disbelief difficult.
in closing, a great book, and a great film.. dont try to make any comparison.. just enjoy them both for what they are. 99% different from beginning to end, and enjoyable, with the exception of a standardized 50 page ramp up time :)
--
xpost RawBlurb.com
PD James… cant say i am a fan.. i have read one or two of her novels, and they are all very interesting, but not a style i enjoy reading. In her mystery novels, investigator Adam Dalgliesh is an excellent character, and the plot lines are excellent, but i find her writing style tiresome and very “unexcellent”. typically, getting 50 pages into one of her novels is a challenge for me. by page 50 i have enough of the plot in view that i can slog through the rest of it. as a result of these past experiences, i put off reading this a great number of times.
The Children of Men was greatly different. Throughout the initial 50 pages, I was accosted by over abundance of internal monologue and ultra descriptive scenery that i had virtually no interest in. right around page 50, characters start intermingling and talking. as soon as James starts mixing in dialogue, children of men blossoms as a novel.
I really hate comparing books to movies.. i think it is unfair to the author, the story, and the experience in general. I cant help it in this instance. Both the movie and the book moved me for starkly different reasons. the movie was only loosely based on the novel. there are stolen aspects which translate over well.
When i compare the two, here are the things i liked more about the movie than i did the 1995 book.
1. King Crimson on a soundtrack?? AWESOME!, thank you for being only the second movie to ever do that. it was a pleasant and welcome surprise.
yup, that’s right, only one item made the movie list and it was not even related to the book. The reality is that they are two completely different beasts. just because you liked the one, doesn’t mean the other falls directly in line. the core detail of the plot is the same. Man kind can no longer procreate, no one knows why. some of the characters are definitely designed after those in the book, but past that the comparison should end.
things i liked more about the book than i did the 2006 movie.
1. Men are sterile, as opposed to women in the movie. there is no need for the insertion of a virgin mary construct. i found the emasculation of the world to be quite a nice change. Why does infertility always need to be woman-centric in films?
2. Big brother was actually a fairly good guy, though a bit of a dick. sure, Xan’s plans were not always the most ethical, the methods were not always the best choices, individuals often reflected badly on the whole system. in the end though, Xan and the Council’s intent was distraction in the face of a world ending epidemic. the intent was to please the majority and keep them safe. people fell by the wayside, bad things occurred, but i cant throw blame on any one character, more on the society that drove his decisions.one man with power wanting more power, but ultimately, not a bad fellow. I was reminded of Castro, good ideas and intent, taken too far.When reading, pay special attention to the conversation about power between Rolf (leader of the dissidents) and Theo
3. Theo is a fucking dick, must be in the blood. he is a selfish and a hermit. the death of his child is caused by an accident at his hand, not a random roadside event. he has fault and has to carry it with him. the blame is part of what makes his character believable.
4. Omegas, the final generation of humans. given special rights and privileges, they are both impressive and sad. carrying out life like the bastard children of Olympic gods and lepers, both revered and feared, their world is one of hopelessness. they pretend that this is not the case, though in some places, the truth leaks out during the plot.
Things i didnt like?
1. The quietus is a repeating mass suicide that is not discussed in the film. they only lightly touch on the topic of suicide. i think it is too touchy a subject for the general populace to be able to deal with (in the film). My opinion is that James was entirely too heavy handed when she brought a known character into the quietus. it was okay to reference it against a character, but to bring one into the plot? c’mon… that aspect of the story made suspension of disbelief difficult.
in closing, a great book, and a great film.. dont try to make any comparison.. just enjoy them both for what they are. 99% different from beginning to end, and enjoyable, with the exception of a standardized 50 page ramp up time :)
--
xpost RawBlurb.com
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes