Rama series by Arthur C Clarke

[Mr Edd]

Well I have just re-read it again (see above) and I am amazed at how big Rama is compared to my memories of it in the first reading many years ago.

I think it may have been that I could not visualise Kilometres back then. My memories were of a much smaller tube so it was quite refreshing seeing it all again with educated eyes. It still stands up as a fantastic story and being left with so many unanswered questions. I now feel I have to continue reading the rest of the books again.

Loved it even more the second time around.

Edd

 

[AE35Unit]

Yes time for a re-read this year I think-I just wish they hadn't done sequels cos you feel compelled to read them!

 

[Rodders]

I didn't have problem with the sequals, although it was just more of the same.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

I discovered 'Rendezvous' a few years ago. Loved it.

 

[AE35Unit]

I didn't have problem with the sequals, although it was just more of the same.

Oh no theyre definitely different! Rama II is closer to the original but after that they diverge strongly, and become first a story about a family then later theyre concerned with a whole community living in space; things get a bit boring! The only redeeming features of the later books are the Octospiders and other alien beings.

 

[Dale_M]

On the whole I don't have much problem with the whole series; each installment expanding on the previous one and introducing new mysteries (except the last, of course). The only quibble I have is why did the sequels have to be so much bigger than the original? If they had kept the same basic format and efficiency of writing, it would have been a much nicer collection.

It is probably a discussion for another thread, but do other readers feel the current vogue for big books is giving us lower over-all value for money? (I presume they do it because then the cover price is higher and sales reap bigger eventual rewards for the authors?)

 

[AE35Unit]

The only quibble I have is why did the sequels have to be so much bigger than the original? If they had kept the same basic format and efficiency of writing, it would have been a much nicer collection.

You can blame Gentry 'I-Need-Money' Lee for that!

 

[Anthony G Williams]

It is probably a discussion for another thread, but do other readers feel the current vogue for big books is giving us lower over-all value for money? (I presume they do it because then the cover price is higher and sales reap bigger eventual rewards for the authors?)

I wrote an article complaining about the length of modern SF novels by comparison with the old classics a few years ago. It's here: The Length of SF Novels

 

[Dale_M]

I wrote an article complaining about the length of modern SF novels by comparison with the old classics a few years ago. It's here: The Length of SF Novels

Not really sure I like that essay, Anthony. I think it is bad form to draw parallels between books and films. The last thing I want is to read screenplays. Your mileage obviously differs to mine, and it takes me about twenty sittings and two weeks to read a 200 page novel, for various reasons (I'm slow, don't have that much reading time, and like to read carefully). To me comparing books and films is like comparing apples with lumps of coal -- totally different exercise, totally different returns. Your review of long and short works is interesting, but kind of dilutes the argument.

The bottom line for me is that words for words' sake is what makes books boring, and the modern tendency now that words are really cheap is to provide just that. We want to get back to words being there for a more substantive reason.

Just my tuppence.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

My comment about a film comparison was a throw-away remark using up three lines, less than 5% of the article, so it seems a bit odd to me for you to focus your attention on that. Ignore it by all means, as it not what the article is all about.

 

[Dale_M]

Yeah, I guess you're right. The remark does come at the end though, and leaves an impression.