Arthur Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama

[a425couple]

Seems quiet around here lately, perhaps someone
is interested in my thoughts and wants to discuss this.
We went on a vacation to the Caribbean recently.
I took 3 Science Fiction books (plus some WEB Griffin).

"Rendezvous with Rama" is IMHO definitely top notch.
I strongly suggest it to anyone open to Sci-Fi.
I can understand why Morgan Freeman for years
wanted to do a movie of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_%28spacecraft%29
"Rendezvous with Rama is a hard science fiction novel by Arthur C.
Clarke first published in 1973. Set in the 2130s, the story involves
a 50-kilometre (31 mi) cylindrical alien starship that enters Earth's
solar system. The story is told from the point of view of a group
of human explorers who intercept the ship in an attempt to unlock
its mysteries."

It was very good, but the following ones seem to be fairly
different. Not sure I'll go for them.


Recent reading Sci-Fi Scorecard

Rendezvous With Rama Top Notch, enjoyable & engaging.
2001 a Space Odyssey = overall Very good
Part one - the apes = top notch
Part two - the monolith burried in the moon =fine
Part three - Discovery = top notch
Part four - Bowman becomes a space child = not my cup of tea.
2010 Odyssey two = overall quite good
Parts were very good, the Bowman 'space fetus' was not my favorite.
"2010" stands on it's own just fine, it is not a direct sequel.
2061 Odyssey three = fine, but not as good IMHO as first two.
It was the 3rd Sci-Fi on this trip. I read it before Rama.
"Starman Jones" = tolerable.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:51:45 -0700, a425couple
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote
in<news:mhk4p...@news6.newsguy.com> in
alt.books.arthur-clarke,alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> "Rendezvous with Rama" is

... boring as hell.

> IMHO definitely top notch. [...]

[...]

> "Starman Jones" = tolerable.

Far more enjoyable than the Clarke; somewhere in the
mid-range amongst the Heinlein juveniles as far as quality
goes.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[MajorOz]

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 9:03:18 PM UTC-5, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:51:45 -0700, a425couple
> <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in<news:mhk4p...@news6.newsguy.com> in
> alt.books.arthur-clarke,alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > "Rendezvous with Rama" is
>
> ... boring as hell.

Agreed. I expected more, as the premise was GRRRREAT.

The follow on (yes, I tried them anyhow) were typical Clarke: "I am the king of the world of authors, and mysticism, and everything I say is profound, has great meaning, and superior to whatever you or another author might say"

In sum, pretentiously boring.

[a425couple]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message...
> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote
> alt.books.arthur-clarke,alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:

>> "Rendezvous with Rama" is
>
> ... boring as hell.
>
>> IMHO definitely top notch. [...]
>

>> "Starman Jones" = tolerable.
>
> Far more enjoyable than the Clarke; somewhere in the
> mid-range amongst the Heinlein juveniles as far as quality
> goes.

Guess this is another example of counting our blessings
that in the free market, no one person decides what we each read.
We can celabrate our differences!

[Greg Goss]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:51:45 -0700, a425couple
><a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote
>in<news:mhk4p...@news6.newsguy.com> in
>alt.books.arthur-clarke,alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>[...]
>
>> "Rendezvous with Rama" is
>
>... boring as hell.

I class it as an odyssey. People go strange places and see strange
things. It's odd, considering how often I say that I read SF to see
well formed societies, how boring I find the entire category of
odysseys. Ringworld, 2001, Rama, the original Odyssey. All pretty
boring.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Yisroel Markov]

Yes, different strokes for different folks. I can read Clarke and
Azimov, but their characters feel like cardboard cutouts to me.
Sometimes a cool idea behind the book makes up for it, sometimes not -
e.g., finishing the Foundation books was a bit of a struggle. Not
enough characterization. But the worst-made Heinlein character feels
alive to me.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Brenda]

And why is that? It is because the story mainly revolves around
exploring the setting. There's not much conflkict; the characters are
unmemorable. Setting carries the entire thing.

Brenda

[JRStern]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:42:49 -0400, Brenda <brenda...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I agree with the "odyssey" description, but I have nothing against
them generally. I enjoyed RwR mildly, though I wish they had resolved
many more things, and the action McGuffin didn't help at all. And of
course I defend "Ringworld" much more enthusiastically, as if it
needed any defense. On a rainy afternoon I might watch some tv
travelogue, or watch "The Amazing Race" and wish they'd spend more
time on the scenery.

J.

[Michael Black]

But a lot of Clarke's books are minimalist. "The Sands of Mars" doesn't
bother talking about getting to Mars or anything about life on earth in
the future, it's just about Mars. Rendezvous with Rama has the same sort
of minimalist setup. A thing appears, they explore, they see it come to
life, then it shuts down and they rush off. I read it when I was around
14, I thought there was something very appealing about it.

I've read one or more of the sequels, I've lost track, and they don't
really add anything to the first book.

Michael

[Robert Bannister]

I think that is so. It a particular problem with an infinitely large
setting as you get with parallel worlds or matter transmission or with
some kinds of time travel: the author runs the danger of trying to fill
all this potential space with story. HG Wells's "Time Machine" and
Niven's "Ringworld" stories are a bit like this and at times are mere
travelogues. Stross's "Merchant Princes" was heading that way too, but
fortunately he put a limit on it before it got out of hand.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-04-27, a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Guess this is another example of counting our blessings
> that in the free market, no one person decides what we each read.

Yay!

> We can celabrate our differences!

Celebrate? Calibrate? Collaborate?

Dave, keloid-brain-ate?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[a425couple]

"MajorOz" <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> alt.books.arthur-clarke,alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:

>> > "Rendezvous with Rama" is
>>
>> ... boring as hell.
>
> Agreed. I expected more, as the premise was GRRRREAT.
>
> The follow on (yes, I tried them anyhow) were typical Clarke:

- "I am the king of the world of authors, and mysticism, and everything
- I say is profound, has great meaning, and superior to whatever you or
- another author might say"
> In sum, pretentiously boring.

Did both of you also dislike 2001 a space Odyssey &
2010 Odyssey two?

[MajorOz]

_The Sentinel_ was a so-so short story. The movie was an equivalent story, but the FX were so hugely wonderful that it didn't matter. Can never hear The Blue Danube without visualizing "the dance".

_2010_, book and movie, was stretching a premise, but somewhat better story than the original.

[Chris Zakes]

2001 the book was interesting, if kind of weird. 2010 was good, basic
science fiction. 2061 was garbage, and I never bothered with the
further sequels.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

GNU Terry Pratchett