[Mithfânion]

I'd be interested in opinions on this book.

[vortexreader]

It's been a long time since I've read it...but I remember devouring it very quickly, literally couldn't put it down. It's one of 'The Greats' of the genre so you can't really go wrong.

[Hobbit]

Yup.
( WARNING - Remember that I like Clarke, and I am aware that they are not to everyone's tastes, but I like them...so there! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif )

RwR is fairly definitive of much of his stuff - brief and spartan in many details, particularly the emotions of the characters - but some of the ideas at the time (1973?) were really cool.

Clarke here was one of the first to examine BIG ALIEN OBJECTS, since used by many others (Greg Bear's Eon, Peter Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction for example) - there's a nice sense of humour through the book, though nothing really dramatic - it's not a Hollywood blockbuster type novel with Bruce Willis storming the artifact....

To give you an idea, it's better than
'Hammer of G*d', 'Ghost from the Grand Banks';

similar to 'Imperial Earth' (and written just before)and probably 'Earthlight' and a 'Fall of Moondust';

not as good as '2001', 'Fountains of Paradise', 'City and the Stars', 'Childhood's End', 'Songs of Distant Earth'.

As with many of Clarke's novels, the characterisation seems a little two-dimensional in relation to 'the big ideas' though it is a good piece of work. Better than the 'sequels', mainly ghost written by Gentry Lee from ideas written on the back of an envelope by Clarke... http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

So, probably about a 6 or 7 out of 10 on a Clarkian Scale. Would recommend if you've liked some of his stuff give it a go.

Hobbit

[Vitriol]

I read it a while ago as well, and would pretty much agree with Hobbit; it's pretty much typical Clarke (not that that's a bad thing :-). Actually, I think I prefered the sequels co-written with Gentry Lee. It's fairly heretical, but I really enjoyed a epic with Clarke's vision combined with Lee's character interaction.

[asimovian]

In case this is the book where a colossal artifact is discovered somewhere near our sun, and a team sets out to explore it, then yes, I read it too, and I must say I was pleasantly thrilled by it.
I tend, on the whole, to agree with you, Hobbit.
This book, as most if not all of Clarke's writings (I suspect) is not the kind of dramatic, wild stuff which will send your adrenaline rising.
Clarke's power to thrill lies rather in his ability to give a detailed account of a quasi-scientific search and discovery process, while at the same keep keeping his reader breathless with expectation. If you can be fascinated by accounts of how the big discoveries were made, let's say like the discovery of penicillin, or the processes which lead up the making of the atom bomb, then I think this book will seduce you.
In this respect, Clarke is very much comparable to Isaac Asimov.

[Raisuli]

I'd recommend '...Rama' too. I thoroughly enjoyed the novel. The characters are secondary to the mystery and wonder of the Rama spacecraft.

[Hobbit]

Thank you Asimovian - you said that much better than I!

I am also an Asimov fan and agree with what you're saying - it's the ideas.... http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

As another postscript, I must admit that I quite enjoyed Cradle (with Gentry Lee and ACC), but couldn't get beyond The Garden of Rama, (despite three or four tries!).
Hobbit

[Canaris]

I read all the rama books , simply because I was hooked. Did them in 4 weeks.

Excellant books, but the ending was a bit of a let down.

I liked the books because of the human interaction , the charecter buidling and the suspence. The last book was so weird, i still wonder what Clarke thought of. But then again I just finshed clarkes Trigger and was also let down by the ending. It seems to be his problem side.

[This message has been edited by Canaris (edited May 27, 2002).]