You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
I wanted more from this. It felt like, in the end, it promised more than it fulfilled. Well written and engaging characters, but it didn't go far enough.
Started this last night, and put me right to sleep. I see there's a movie, think I'll get that instead.
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
It was really a bittersweet ending as Theo in the final pages seems inticed by power of being the Warden.
I had been greatly looking forward to reading Children of Men before I finally borrowed it. My view of it may be affected by a couple of things: Just before, I finished the Hunger Games trilogy with Mockingjay, another distopic vision of the future. I've not seen the CoM film, only a second or two, so I had an idea, I thought, of what the book would look like (I now know the film is very different from the book).
Given all that, I found James' book not disappointing so much as puzzling in its vision of a 2021 with no one under the age of 25. The world - or England at least, because the book barely leaves this country - appears one large middle England suburbia full of the elderly. It's a 20th century world still. Perhaps I'm being unfair to James, reading in 2014 and expecting something of our society and culture to be reflected in her 1992 perspective.
There's a few elements of the culture that are strange. The only media we see people engaged with are radio news and TV reruns of Neighbours! Its just such a small scope. The possibilities for imagining a dying world - yet one with at least 50 years (when the youngsters will be mid 70s) to go at a minimum - are huge, but the scope is just not there in this book.
We are told that after Omega (1995, when the last children were born) people descended into depression and lethargy, as though there were no longer a point to living; OK, so by 2021 they are through it and the country is functioning, but how that happens we don't see. Small mentions are made to farmers harvesting the fields, market stalls selling imported fruit, but aside from that no one in the book seems to work, it's one long time of leisure and retirement. The main character, Theo, an Oxford history professor, appears to teach only evening classes to interested middle aged people. Without undergraduates, it feels Oxford is humouring him with a job. (Quite possible of course). But he's only 50 yet has one foot in retirement already. The world of the elderly is vividly created - they stockpile food, they join mass suicides when they think its all too much for them or there's no one to look after them. Small towns are beginning to be shut down as the government anticipates moving everyone into cities, easier to look after them. But as I said, the youngest people are 25, there's probably 30 years in which people are going to be healthy and fit enough to maintain society. After all, James has told us that the world has got good at prolonging life into old age. Why pack up the country now? Is it just good planning? To me, it contributes to this retirement vision of England. There are characters in the book in their 30s and 40s - what are their hopes or worries for the future?
The only idea we get of this is the dissident group called The Five Fishes that we follow for part of the book, a ragtag group with noble aims for social justice alongside a desire to overthrow the dictatorial Warden (now in place of a democratically elected government) ... to replace him with another dictator. It's just hard to get behind them.
What of technological advances? We hear nothing except one prediction of "modern high-definition [television] sets" - a grating phrase itself which is a reminder that the author was truly fixed in her 90s world. Even Back to the Future II could imagine a 21st century with time saving gadgets, domestic aides, all the things an ageing population (even tho the CoM population is really not yet ageing in the sense of being elderly) would need. The only idea I have for why it would be as James describes it is this depression and sense of giving up that society now has: no one bothers to work in communication and tech industries because there's no point. This would make sense, except we know that other industries are alive and well: there are petrol cars so there must be a petrol industry (imported); there are oranges and bananas at the market (also imported); there is some notion of fashion trends and obviously a clothing industry to support the creation of new styles. In our current corporatocracy it is difficult to understand how big business has not got a hold of government or creates panic buying for the eventualities. It must be that the Warden has created the right balance amongst the population of fear (of state police and roaming gangs of young people who capture travellers, kill them and burn their car) and comfort, but we are told rather than shown this. Often, you have to guess at why the world is as it is.
So, to the ending. Just really odd. All through the book, knowing that at some point there would be the first baby in 25 years (because the blurb on the back cover says so), I anticipated it and what changes to society it would bring. Basically, none. Theo kills the Warden and puts on his own finger the stolen coronation ring and in some Lord of the Rings style suddenly feels powerful and a need to be the next dictator, was my impression. The four members of the Warden's Council, who previously showed animosity to Theo, suddenly do as he says. And that's the book done. The baby changes everything yet he changes nothing.
If I truly disliked this book I would have stopped reading. It was engaging, and the last 100 pages very suspenseful. I read the whole thing in 4 days. My issue is that as a near future distopic vision the book has limited scope in envisioning 2021, and a bizarre ending. As a previous reviewer says, great idea, lacking in execution.
Given all that, I found James' book not disappointing so much as puzzling in its vision of a 2021 with no one under the age of 25. The world - or England at least, because the book barely leaves this country - appears one large middle England suburbia full of the elderly. It's a 20th century world still. Perhaps I'm being unfair to James, reading in 2014 and expecting something of our society and culture to be reflected in her 1992 perspective.
There's a few elements of the culture that are strange. The only media we see people engaged with are radio news and TV reruns of Neighbours! Its just such a small scope. The possibilities for imagining a dying world - yet one with at least 50 years (when the youngsters will be mid 70s) to go at a minimum - are huge, but the scope is just not there in this book.
We are told that after Omega (1995, when the last children were born) people descended into depression and lethargy, as though there were no longer a point to living; OK, so by 2021 they are through it and the country is functioning, but how that happens we don't see. Small mentions are made to farmers harvesting the fields, market stalls selling imported fruit, but aside from that no one in the book seems to work, it's one long time of leisure and retirement. The main character, Theo, an Oxford history professor, appears to teach only evening classes to interested middle aged people. Without undergraduates, it feels Oxford is humouring him with a job. (Quite possible of course). But he's only 50 yet has one foot in retirement already. The world of the elderly is vividly created - they stockpile food, they join mass suicides when they think its all too much for them or there's no one to look after them. Small towns are beginning to be shut down as the government anticipates moving everyone into cities, easier to look after them. But as I said, the youngest people are 25, there's probably 30 years in which people are going to be healthy and fit enough to maintain society. After all, James has told us that the world has got good at prolonging life into old age. Why pack up the country now? Is it just good planning? To me, it contributes to this retirement vision of England. There are characters in the book in their 30s and 40s - what are their hopes or worries for the future?
The only idea we get of this is the dissident group called The Five Fishes that we follow for part of the book, a ragtag group with noble aims for social justice alongside a desire to overthrow the dictatorial Warden (now in place of a democratically elected government) ... to replace him with another dictator. It's just hard to get behind them.
What of technological advances? We hear nothing except one prediction of "modern high-definition [television] sets" - a grating phrase itself which is a reminder that the author was truly fixed in her 90s world. Even Back to the Future II could imagine a 21st century with time saving gadgets, domestic aides, all the things an ageing population (even tho the CoM population is really not yet ageing in the sense of being elderly) would need. The only idea I have for why it would be as James describes it is this depression and sense of giving up that society now has: no one bothers to work in communication and tech industries because there's no point. This would make sense, except we know that other industries are alive and well: there are petrol cars so there must be a petrol industry (imported); there are oranges and bananas at the market (also imported); there is some notion of fashion trends and obviously a clothing industry to support the creation of new styles. In our current corporatocracy it is difficult to understand how big business has not got a hold of government or creates panic buying for the eventualities. It must be that the Warden has created the right balance amongst the population of fear (of state police and roaming gangs of young people who capture travellers, kill them and burn their car) and comfort, but we are told rather than shown this. Often, you have to guess at why the world is as it is.
So, to the ending. Just really odd. All through the book, knowing that at some point there would be the first baby in 25 years (because the blurb on the back cover says so), I anticipated it and what changes to society it would bring. Basically, none. Theo kills the Warden and puts on his own finger the stolen coronation ring and in some Lord of the Rings style suddenly feels powerful and a need to be the next dictator, was my impression. The four members of the Warden's Council, who previously showed animosity to Theo, suddenly do as he says. And that's the book done. The baby changes everything yet he changes nothing.
If I truly disliked this book I would have stopped reading. It was engaging, and the last 100 pages very suspenseful. I read the whole thing in 4 days. My issue is that as a near future distopic vision the book has limited scope in envisioning 2021, and a bizarre ending. As a previous reviewer says, great idea, lacking in execution.
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Humankind on the brink of extinction.
One man’s tale of redemption.
A brilliant dystopian story with a meaningful legacy.
One man’s tale of redemption.
A brilliant dystopian story with a meaningful legacy.
I often thought P.D. James didn't really like women or old people and it shows in this book. The premise could have made a much more interesting story.
The last 40 pages were incredibly captivating, but the 178 pages leading up to it were a complete snore.
Wonderful look at the impacts of a childless future. The ending is a little soft.