Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke [1953]
Ballantine / Del Rey
212 pages
Reader Response by Matt H. [v 1.5] from
Reading Odyssey
Rating: Has good points but not entirely recommended
Story Summary
An alien race known as the “Overlords” appear suddenly in enormous spaceships hovering over Earth’s major cities. They have intervened at a critical moment, preventing war, strife and possible nuclear destruction. Of vastly superior intelligence, it seems they bring peace to humankind. The Overlords help humanity to stabilize and improve civilization through advanced science and occasional benign political interference. They have a unifying and pacifying effect on humanity, and quickly create a kind of utopia. A few humans oppose the Overlords and form resistance movements. However Earth’s new shepherds prove patient and tolerant as well as unassailable.
A milestone in the story is when the Overlords reveal themselves physically. Their appearance is very unexpected, but the human race has evolved psychologically and is able to accept it. Slowly, and by stages the shocking nature of the Overlords true mission on earth is revealed. When the climax arrives, there are unimaginable physical, psychological and metaphysical cataclysms.
Critical Reader Response
This is a book with a daring and original underlying plot-twist. On the bright side are sections of engaging writing and intriguing ideas, however, considered together these section don’t quite add up to a pleasing whole. Aspects of this book are certainly worthwhile and enjoyable to read, but a larger proportion was, for me, fragmented and indistinct. Unfortunately the “good ending” didn’t quite compensate for the treatment I received getting there.
With each major time break in the narrative a new set of characters are introduced. There are quite a few, but there is a lack of distinctiveness to them. The introduction of each new setting also makes the plot choppy, and the story more of a chore to follow. The changing characters are pretty shallowly drawn and don’t help to anchor things. An example is “George”, a fairly major figure. However I couldn’t really tell you a thing about him, least of all anything about his feelings or motivation. The rest of the cast is similarly flat. They are mostly props for the plot with little life of their own. The writer’s sense of humor is rarely a good thing in the mouths of the characters, doing more to spoil the illusion that to give depth or sympathy. Suffering most is the characterization of the Overlords. By their dialog they seem incongruously human, even mundane at times which doesn’t work well for supposedly majestic aliens.
Control of the narrative tone is occasionally a problem. Eventually the jumps between third-person point of view and cosmic omniscience add to the disorderly feeling.
A raw declarativeness about the nature of humankind is bold in places, but is generally ridden too far into interesting but possibly disposable digression. At times the story seems to become a vehicle for various loosely-related, discursively presented observations. Many have little ultimate relation to the story. Others are ill-fittingly frivolous, glib, or logically wacky. There are a few real “wincers” in there too. A desire to predict the progressive wonders of the future is evident. Admittedly there are some impressive hits, but plenty of impressive misses too. A belief seems supported (to me erroneous and creepy) that strict scientific planning, social mathematics and social engineering are the rightful tools that the ruling elite must wield on individuals to create a utopia or to address problems here and now. Within the story both the Overlords and the humans have this view and act upon it. Once more the promulgative urge eventually lessens the focus and impact of the novel and this is even more germane than it being dated or questionable in content.
The narrator’s assertions also run contrary to the final overall message delivered by the plot. But even within the narrator’s statements it’s a little confusing. Utopia’s nemesis is stagnation and boredom which is reasonable. And it’s proposed that scratching and clawing is mankind’s healthy and natural state (one almost hears James T. Kirk here). However it’s also asserted that “the stars are not for man.” The universe is too vast and terrible for our tiny minds. Why exactly? As the supernatural is introduced, we learn surprisingly that the powers of mystics are real, they’re just really bad at explaining them. If telepathy exists, so do poltergeists and leprechauns. It’s all the same stuff!
Normally when a story stops, dwells and dilates on something, describing it in colorful detail or soaring language, the reader can be assured that it has major significance in the plot. That assumption would be wrong in this case. Several major side-themes, sections and scenes of the book never satisfyingly became integral parts of the plot. One example, in light of the ending, what was the point of the island colony? Nothing was proved or disproved. The radical nature of the final twist negates or at least sits in-harmoniously with the other major question. Who is right about the correct path to happiness, Overlords or humans? Much of the book is dedicated to that irrelevant-rendered question.
As I hope I conveyed, it was not all bad by any means. The physical appearance of the Overlords was a stroke of brilliance. The way in which the occult was introduced was also genius, though suffered flaws as I mentioned. But most of all, the payload delivered at the end was effectively terrifying and daringly unhappy.
Nevertheless for me the wandering, indistinct and at times unpracticed parts of the book dominated my overall impression. One can image a far more disciplined and streamlined implementations of this story’s basic concept. That, I believe could be a truly great book.
), and by underplaying big elements actually emphasises those when you think about it. But its not for everyone.
