The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

This thread is for discussion about the book Childhood's End by Arthur C Clarke which was chosen as April's group read. Whether you have read the book already or plan to read in April please feel free to discuss.

I've recently started reading this. I have read a couple of Clarke's books before Rendez-vous with Rama, 2001 and 2010. I started this one without knowing anything about it. In fact it's turning out to be an interesting book, it started off with the building of space ships and I really though it was going to be about space exploration but so far not. It's a really interesting book about how humans deal with a superior power who are so far benevolent. I'm not quite half way through so this may yet change! What strikes me so far is although this was written in the 50's it really doesn't seem to have dated. Some of the ideas like the abolition of appartheid and the banning of hunting were way ahead of their time. Really enjoying it so far...

It's on my library list. I plan to borrow it when I've finished the ones I've got checked out now. I'll be joining you later.

I've just finished this today but I have to say I was really surprised by the ending. Really wasn't something I would have expected from Arthur C Clarke. I enjoyed reading it but I don't think it will become one of my all time favourite books.

I'm about a third of the way through Childhood's End.

So far, there are a couple of things that affect the book's plausibility. The overlords are accepted, seemingly almost from the first. Karellen disliked the term overlord, but it was applied by the people over whom he lorded. It isn't a term of endearment. Americans are fiercely independent. Some Americans are extremely fierce about it. It's hard to buy that most people would accept domination, even benevolent domination, ungrudgingly.

I also can't accept that religion would vanish in less than a lifetime. Faith is blind. Mere facts are not going to convince the faithful to abandon everything they've lived for their entire lives, their sole source of knowledge of right and wrong, their very purpose for existing. Regardless of faith, there are too many people whose power derives from religion. They wouldn't walk away from that. There are cultures in which the collapse of religion would be tantamount to the collapse of civilization. When Kelleren finally made his appearance, it just seems so improbable that there was not widespread abhorrence, revulsion, and outright rebellion when the people saw that he looked like the devil himself. Presumably, Clarke included Karellen's description as a demonstration of the utter collapse of religious belief.

Good science fiction relies on the suspension of disbelief, but this is just too much. For the sake of the story, I'll guess I'll have to take it on faith that faith would have collapsed.

Good points, Buck. I don't recall having an issue with them when I first read this as a teen, but do now. I wonder if that is more of a factor of my age or the critical thinking of the times? I've needed more stringent logic in books as the years have gone on, but I'm not sure if it's just me or not.

I'm listening to Hidden Empire by Orson Scott Card right now. He starts each chapter with a paragraph or so of thoughts by the president. I found this one interesting to think about & think it's appropriate here.

People know many things and half of them are wrong. If only we knew which half, we'd have reason to be proud of our intelligence.

What is knowledge? A belief that is shared by all the respectable people in the community whether there is any real evidence for it or not.

What is faith? A belief that we hold so strongly that we act as if it is true even though we know there are many who do not believe it.

What is opinion? A belief that we expect other people to argue with.

What is scientific fact? An oxymoron. Science does not deal in facts, it deals in hypothesis which are never fully & finally correct.

Those quotes have truthiness. It's a fictional president, of course.

Yes, fictional president of a world similar to ours. "Truthiness" is a good way to put it.

I was amused at Clarke's reference to the 'giant computing machines' being able to perform in seconds the work of a thousand men with calculators.

The ending is an unexpected twist. Metaphysical, philosophical, as much as science fiction

The idea of the demise of religion is reiterated near the end of the book. Religion was declining even before the arrival of the overlords - being supplanted by science. Baloney! Religion may have seemed to Clarke to have been in a downturn in the mid-twentieth century, but if so, it was just a cyclical fluctuation. Religion is stronger than ever today, despite scientific advances. Science depends on reason; Religion depends on faith. The two are mutually exclusive.

After all the children became one with the over-mind, their parents, the surviving human race, just gave up - apparently all agreed that life wasn't worth living and committed mass suicide. I don't buy that. It's against human nature.

The middle of the book: Rupert's party and the development of the island artist's colony New Athens, seem somewhat superfluous. It wasn't particularly germane to the story. Clarke spent way to much time on these aspects.

Bottom line: For me the book is just so-so - not bad, but not great.

This is one of my favorite books of classic SF genre. Clarke's tale of nations bowing down to aliens, mothers losing their babies, and the end of the world is very emotional and surprisingly apocalyptic. It certainly left a mark on me. Clarke was brilliant. May he soar thru the solar system.

Buck wrote: "The ending is an unexpected twist. Metaphysical, philosophical, as much as science fiction

The idea of the demise of religion is reiterated near the end of the book. Religion was declining even be..."

You make a pretty strong argument against one of my favorite books. As you said further up the thread, sci fi calls for suspension of disbelief, and I think everyone has to pick the things they're willing to suspend. Personally, I was outraged by the economics of The Hunger Games, but had no real problem with this. Clarke was writing about the transformation of the human race. I took it as kind of a parable/wishful thinking story and went with it. The time scale bugged me a little, but I just kind of mentally threw a few extra generations in there to give it a more plausible timeframe.

Here's a thread in which I put way more thought into the setting of the Hunger Games than anyone should: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... Everyone gets to have their own pet peeve, and illogical dystopias is mine.