You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
littlestcabbage 's review for:
The Children of Men
by P.D. James
Another book club title. It's a cheat to have Clive Owens on the cover of recent editions of this book, because this is VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE MOVIE. Ye be warned. Personally, I loved that. The movie is good, and now you get a different version of a similar story in the world (with a lot more backstory).
What I said at our meeting is that one of the dangers of dystopian fiction is the short-sighted nature of the world building. What is happening beyond the perspective of the main character? How did things get this way? How does society function now? WHY are these changes accepted? How does basic life work? If you're Margaret Atwood, you can give a big middle finger to those questions and it feels artful. If you're a lesser writer, you just hope no one asks the questions at all because you didn't bother to sort it out. Here, James gives us a lot of meat to chew on. The book is set in a near future sprung from events that happened in the alternate near-past. For reasons unknown, no one can have babies anymore starting in 1995. The way that plays out, in James's imagination is just fascinating. How do people cope with the loss of young humans? How do people's erotic lives change? What do people consider to be the purpose of life now? What does the government do? What is happening in other countries? All of that is addressed, to some degree, and thank heavens.
The story follows a scholar who becomes wrapped up in the rebellious actions of a very small group of revolutionaries who are upset with the governmental status quo in England. At first, the novel is told through his diary entries, but then we eventually flit back and forth between an omniscient third-person narrator and the journal pages. Honestly, while reading this I kept thinking how great this book would be to study for a writing class. A number of the choices James made were worthy of consideration (like, why that perspective switch -- how's it serve the story?). The story definitely builds to a number of tense peaks, and the ending left a few of our book club members unsatisfied in its ambiguity. Me, I dug the heck out of it.
What I said at our meeting is that one of the dangers of dystopian fiction is the short-sighted nature of the world building. What is happening beyond the perspective of the main character? How did things get this way? How does society function now? WHY are these changes accepted? How does basic life work? If you're Margaret Atwood, you can give a big middle finger to those questions and it feels artful. If you're a lesser writer, you just hope no one asks the questions at all because you didn't bother to sort it out. Here, James gives us a lot of meat to chew on. The book is set in a near future sprung from events that happened in the alternate near-past. For reasons unknown, no one can have babies anymore starting in 1995. The way that plays out, in James's imagination is just fascinating. How do people cope with the loss of young humans? How do people's erotic lives change? What do people consider to be the purpose of life now? What does the government do? What is happening in other countries? All of that is addressed, to some degree, and thank heavens.
The story follows a scholar who becomes wrapped up in the rebellious actions of a very small group of revolutionaries who are upset with the governmental status quo in England. At first, the novel is told through his diary entries, but then we eventually flit back and forth between an omniscient third-person narrator and the journal pages. Honestly, while reading this I kept thinking how great this book would be to study for a writing class. A number of the choices James made were worthy of consideration (like, why that perspective switch -- how's it serve the story?). The story definitely builds to a number of tense peaks, and the ending left a few of our book club members unsatisfied in its ambiguity. Me, I dug the heck out of it.