SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Songs of Distant Earth
Group Reads Discussions 2022
>
"Songs of Distant Earth" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I read the novel over Memorial Day, having previously several Clarke novels but nothing this late in his career.I’m struck by how much Clarke seems to care about the future of humanity and how that comes out in his novels, including this one. His novels aren’t “thought experiments,” but more like he’s saying “ok if we really have to do this to survive/advance, here’s what we need to do.” Loved the preface where he says he wrote Songs as a reaction to the fantasy of Star Wars, Star Trek. There’s always a future for humanity but it’s not that campy escapism you see in the movies. Moses Kaldor as the wise old spiritual leader/teacher seems like a stand-in for Clarke.
Also we are post-New Wave so the characters have sex and sexuality, including bisexuality being accepted/normalized in this future culture! But… Clarke handles the female characters so poorly, and it took me out of the story at points. Between the mayor who only thinks about her unrequited crushes, and Mirissa, whose main activity is plotting to get pregnant or sitting childlike at the knee of a wise old man, oof. One chapter ends with Mirissa determined that she’d get pregnant by Loren for her first child then go back to Brant to father her second. I read that out loud to my spouse and couldn’t do it without laughing.
Finished. Overall, I enjoyed the book, a story of humanity going interstellar, forced to do so by the sun going nova. Clarke employs a spare, sometimes elegiac, prose. He tells the story to the reader, rather than allowing the reader to see it unfold through the eyes of one or more characters. This is a less common style today and it imposes an emotional distance between the reader and the characters and their story. It serves a purpose but may not be to everyone's taste.I found this to be a "feel-good" story. There are no real bad guys. Conflict is minimized, almost non-existent. The characters get (mostly) what they want at the end or, at least, achieve closure.
There are real downsides to this storytelling approach. The characters come across more as devices to move the plot where it needs to go than as real people. This shows in motivations that feel necessary to the plot but not very believable. Setups for real conflict are provided but then ignored or too easily solved. Owen Fletcher's mutiny scheme was so easily squelched it hardly caused a ripple. It seemed that, with the discovery of the scorps' intelligence, there was the opportunity for real dispute between the Magellan crew, given their extreme non-interference doctrine, and the Lassans, who lived on the planet. So much could have been done with this, both in action and philosophy. Yet, nothing happened. The issue of non-interference with the scorps was never even raised. It was left as a loose thread, along with Owen Fletcher's presidency - a brief, late chapter that did not make much sense.
This story is definitely hard sf. Clarke's note indicates it was a reaction against the fantasy of Star Wars and Star Trek. I think he largely succeeded. The approach to interstellar travel, both technically and the implications of the time lags, works well and stays within the bounds of potential relativistic travel. What did irk me was that, in contrast to the careful attention to physics, the biological implications of centuries-long hibernation were handled with handwaving. Okay, there is no known law of biology that says it is impossible, and maybe by 3500 we would know how, but the book trivializes that issue. Rant over.
As noted at the top, I liked it overall. I would recommend it strongly to fans of hard sf and classical sf.
I'm late to the party. Just got this on my Kindle.
Colin wrote: "Finished. Overall, I enjoyed the book, a story of humanity going interstellar, forced to do so by the sun going nova. Clarke employs a spare, sometimes elegiac, prose. He tells the story to the rea..."Colin, you've read my mind completely! The only other concrete detail I'd add is that there was a brief hint of gender or sex fluidity that also went nowhere. This made me wistful for The Left Hand of Darkness. Also his handling of sex was weird - romantic and corny, with the occasional TMI corny. Almost like bad YA romance. The most outrageous departure from scientific reality was about Kumar -(view spoiler)
While there's so much creativity to the story as a whole, so many threads left undeveloped, fairly one-dimensional characters (the exception for me being Kaldor) and writing that is workmanlike but not much more made this book barely 3 stars for me. What definitely worked in its favor was being short and very readable.
I've only read one other Clarke - The City and the Stars, which I liked better, but had the same feel. Maybe you don't read Clarke for the writing or depth of characterization? Is Rendezvous with Rama a better choice?
Nadine in California wrote: "Colin wrote: "Finished. Overall, I enjoyed the book, a story of humanity going interstellar, forced to do so by the sun going nova. Clarke employs a spare, sometimes elegiac, prose. He tells the st..."I pretty much agree with everything both of you wrote. I liked the worldbuilding and story, but without any real conflict, it felt more like a lore document than an actual story. All it would have taken would have been to turn up the sabotage angle a few degrees. I liked it, but at the end of the day it didn't really feel like anything happened.
Nadine: I agree about the romance aspect, it was discontinuous with the rest of the story in many places, and added absolutely nothing. The Marissa-Loren relationship was... fine? But it certainly didn't hook me, and none of the other relationships felt like anything at all.
Ben wrote: "Nadine: I agree about the romance aspect, it was discontinuous with the rest of the story in many places, and added absolutely nothing. The Marissa-Loren relationship was... fine? But it certainly didn't hook me, and none of the other relationships felt like anything at all.."I felt like the only reason for the relationship was as the necessary set up for what was really interesting to Clarke - Loren having to leave his son behind, knowing that the boy will be dust by the time he wakes on Sagan II as a relatively young man.
Nadine in California wrote: "Ben wrote: "Nadine: I agree about the romance aspect, it was discontinuous with the rest of the story in many places, and added absolutely nothing. The Marissa-Loren relationship was... fine? But i..."I agree with both you and Ben around the handling of romance and sex in the book. I have read some of his other works - far from a comprehensive overview - and have the impression that he is a "Big Picture" storyteller. Characters are details that need to serve the overarching tale.
I have read The City and the Stars, both his original and then his somewhat enlarged and modified one. I agree that it has a similar feel. I have Beyond The Fall Of Night
on my TBR that the cover says is "based on the novella" and "expanded and continued" by Gregory Benford. Now I'm really curious to see how that reads, so I'm going to have to pull it off the shelf and find out.
I'm about 40% through at the moment. This is the first time I've read ACC, it's pretty enjoyable. I wish I hadn't read the introduction by him about writing a "realistic" scifi novel. Every time the text goes into any kind of explanation I feel like it's trying way too hard. (Not sure I would have noticed except for his introduction.)I can't tell if the Mayor is supposed to be a serious character or not.
I do like that members of government are chosen by lottery, that really puts the onus on the general population to care about what happens if they are going to put in charge of something.
I have no idea where the story is going, I'm definitely waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Actually, I liked this a lot. I know one of you mentioned that it's a partial rebuttal to Star Trek, but I still liked the book's relatively sunny attitude to extraterrestrial colonization. Partly because of the setting on an idyllic ocean planet, it felt like a trip to Hawaii. I'm glad the world building was interesting because the characterizations weren't very deep. Colin is right about the minimized conflict here. Maybe these characters should act in more selfish mean ways. I also agree with Matt's point about the female characters, too. Why did they all seem to be silly high school girls crushing hard?
Mod
I just finished and have to agree with much that has been said about the somewhat frustrating characterisations and the storytelling itself.Clarke's science has always been pretty rigorous. I think the strength of this book is in the bigger philosophical concepts that he brings up. It feels like an amalgam of snippets of many of Clarke’s ideas, ideas about pretty much everything, all thrown together into a pretty short book and never completely resolved or concluded.
Some of the many things I found interesting:
–Clarke identified himself as a “logical positivist.” We see this in the section where he uses science to deconstruct God and religion and in doing so, give us his strongly held views about the dangers of religion to morality.
–How the two different cultures, the crew of the Magellan and the Thalassans, meet and blend. We see that there is really no such thing as “non-interference” when two cultures meet, as they will both invariably influence each other. There is also some pretty heavy and self-acknowledged referencing of Mutiny on the Bounty, specifically Fletcher Christian.
–This book was written later in Clarke’s career, after he had moved to Sri Lanka and had taken up scuba diving. Hmm………….
–And what about Capt. Bey and that gun?
Edwin wrote: I think the strength of this book is in the bigger philosophical concepts that he brings up. This felt to me like a weakness - most of them were tangential to the plot, and/or went in directions I find unbelievable. Religions dying out because of statistical analyses? Really?
Edwin wrote: –And what about Capt. Bey and that gun?
The gun was perhaps a bit anachronistic, but it felt to me to be a reasonable speculation: a quick death for Fletcher could nip a potentially large problem in the bud.
My review: 2.5 stars. The hard SF ideas were fleshed out reasonably well, but these ideas were not quite up to the standard of other Clarke novels. The characters were not very well-developed, and there were several odd, out-of-place philosophical ruminations that made the book longer than it needed to be. The setting, at least, was interesting, and made for some cool sociological situations.
I enjoyed the book as better-than-expected late Clarke. I like Clarke but I hadn’t read anything later than The Fountains of Paradise (which I liked). For me this was an engaging, easygoing read, some decent storytelling and science fictional ideas, nothing too intense. I do find the whole idea of the Lassan society being produced by a “seed ship” incredible. I’m skeptical that anything like that could work.
Finished it last night. It was pretty enjoyable. It felt a lot more modern than what I expected. Clarke is definitely my favorite of the old school SF writers.
I agree with virtually all of the comments made so far. I found this a very shallow, but still readable story. Almost like an episodic young adult picture comic book tale. The main characters are all likeable as far as they go, but there is no real substance or emotion, no real suggestion of hidden agendas or conflict. This applies both internally, with regard to individual relationships or externally between the two Thalassan communities (north and south islands), and the colonists. Even the mutineers seem not to wish to upset anyone and are careful not to antagonize.
I don't feel that Clarke makes up for this weakness when addressing the wider sociological issues, such as the disappearance of religion, and the exclusion of certain publications considered 'unsound' such as religious texts, from the records saved from Earth.
Edwin wrote: – Clarke identified himself as a “logical positivist.” We see this in the section where he uses science to deconstruct God and religion and in doing so, give us his strongly held views about the dangers of religion to morality
I agree with this point, but Clarke gives no strong impression that this is his view of religion. He merely states the case and tells the reader that future society has accepted it. He doesn't make any active attempt to fight his case through the story.
Rather than a tale of deep sociological considerations, this is written as a science fiction romantic adventure, with virtually no adventure and the romance only mentioned in passing.
A few comments/questions.I was amused by Clarke's statement that the invention of sound recording froze phoneme progression in language, making it so that centuries or millennia could pass and a language would still be understandable by disparate speakers. Clarke espoused the same idea in The City and The Stars and it sounds just as implausible the second time. It's a little too soon to tell if he was right, but I sincerely doubt it: old movies already have accents that, while understandable, are dated.
What was the significance of Kilimanjaro? It was vaguely explained but I didn't get it.
In Chapter 51, Loren tells Mirissa that the Magellan has a casket that contains a tooth "of one of the greatest men who ever lived; he founded the only faith that never became stained with blood." This is a reference to Buddha, right?
In Chapter 52, what is the point of the extended commentary on the music by Sergei Di Pietro?
In Chapter 54, I presume it is Kaldor who is narrating - his lost love is Evelyn, right? He says he has spent a lot of time with Mirissa, which I don't recall - wasn't she with Brant or Loren most of the time?
Kaldor explains the Kilimanjaro thing in chapter 39 in one of the passages addressed to Evelyn. He thinks his Kilimanjaro dream was his subconscious reminding him of a story of a frozen leopard found high up the mountain, far from its usual habitat. He connects this to incidents of scorps found far from home, close to human activity. He believes his intuition is telling him this is important for the Thalassans. At the end of the book there’s the reference to the scorps attempting to emerge on land during Fletcher’s presidency, which I guess indicates Kaldor was right.
I think the music as described effectively dramatizes the end of Earth and the subsequent colonization of other star systems, i.e. the context of the story told in the novel. The Thalassans who’ve never heard the music find it powerfully moving, as I recall. It seems to me Clarke may be reminding readers that the story he’s telling, with its generally decent characters and the absence of disaster or horror (except maybe the death of Kumar), does or should have an epic quality nevertheless. Not sure whether or how well this works.
Thanks for the explanations, both make sense.
I also wondered about the tooth relic, and just now I did a little internet research. It clearly is meant to be the Buddha’s tooth, a holy relic that is now enshrined in Sri Lanka, where Clarke spent the latter part of his life. There are details in the Wikipedia entry for “Temple of the Tooth” (e.g. seven golden caskets) that make this unmistakable.
I finished today and give 4 stars. I've held off reading the comments till now to avoid spoilers. The storyline drew me in more and more as I read on, and the second half was quite suspenseful for me. Was there going to be some kind of sabotage of the mother ship at the last minute???? Was the volcano going to blow????
Ultimately I was satisfied by the ending. I felt the last few chapters were well-written and quite lyrical and elegiac.
For me the characterisations were the weakest part of the book. The characters generally felt two-dimensional, although I guess in a relatively short book with an ensemble cast, it's not that easy to develop the characters fully.
In the end, it was a book carried by its big ideas. I enjoyed the imagination and the concepts. The science was believable (as expected with Clarke of course), but the putting together of the big picture story with humanity's history and hopes drew me in.
I enjoyed the details, such as the Sherlock Holmes first edition, Buddha's tooth, Tutankhamen's mask, the dramatic death on the space elevator (eek!) I also enjoyed Clarke's wry little inserts or asides, such as the audience member at a meeting who scoffed at science fiction, or comments on religion, democracy etc. The way the mayor was elected, for example. LOL. I couldn't decide whether Clarke was being serious or tongue-in-cheek. Then the election (for an unprecedented second term!!) of President Owen Fletcher, just as the Scorps emerged from the deep...... eek!
Overall I really enjoyed this. Had forgotten most of it since my first read years ago as a teen. I'm glad it was a BOTM as otherwise I probably wouldn't have dusted it off to reread. Well worth the read.
Pat wrote: "I'm about 40% through at the moment. This is the first time I've read ACC, it's pretty enjoyable. I wish I hadn't read the introduction by him about writing a "realistic" scifi novel."My first time too and at a similar stage. I didn't read the intro. :)
I do find his "big ideas" interesting and as others have said, the story a little light on real conflict, but overall I'm enjoying the read.
I had read this book maybe 15 years ago but forgot I'd read it until I got a few chapters in. Shows the (lack of) impact it had on me. This is not one of Clarke's best. I still enjoy the Space Odyssey books and Rendezvous with Rama because they have a creepiness that makes them feel alien. The scorps are bland by comparison.
I rate this book a three stars. I like that the conflict was NOT about invasion or conquest. I was hoping that the scorp discovery would go somewhere. The munity didn't seem to be that much of a threat except to the captains ego. But maybe that is my modern sensibilities. I'm all for a good character death but I'm not sure Kumar's was the sacrifice this book needed. The whole bit about editing/abridging history was disturbing. I of course thought of 1984. I wondered if Lorensen was "plagued" with thoughts on God because he had the knowledge of world religions from the before times. (This only proves their point if that is the case.) While I get that they felt editing out certain aspects of culture would be better for society I don't like taking the option away from people to decide for themselves.
I really want to know what the lasting impact the visitors and the exiled had on Thalassa.
Douglas wrote: "I had read this book maybe 15 years ago but forgot I'd read it until I got a few chapters in. Shows the (lack of) impact it had on me. This is not one of Clarke's best. I still enjoy the Space Odys..."I'll take those as recommendations. I'm enjoying the book, though it has its slow moments and the relationship seems forced.
Mod
I am here to learn about science fiction as a genre. I am gkad to be reading a hard science fiction selection. . . Is this novel a space opera? Again just learning.
Space opera is typically more set in space and/or on multiple planets. It also tends to have more adventure or military action. I would not categorize this book as a space opera.
Thank you Ryan. That is clear answer.
This was my second reading of this Clarke novel, coming about a year after my first. I liked it a lot the first time, but then I thought about it often over the next year. I've bumped it from 4 stars to 5 and it is on my SF favorites shelf. I have many still unread on my shelf but, other than a short story, Childhood's End is the only other Clarke I've read. It's mostly the mood that gets me with Songs of Distant Earth. I just love the quiet utopia of it all. It has a real slice-of-life feeling to it, for me at least, though there are big "events" happening as the two societies meet. I can see how some people would find it boring to a degree, but it kept me glued to my kindle until I was done both times I've read it.
This really solidified in my mind a genre I'm searching for more of. Pastoral science fiction (especially if set on a colony world). The bucolic. The quiet and calm and nice.
I've felt it in places before - Farmer in the Sky had a touch, parts of the 3rd and 4th Old Man's War books. Remnant Population. Much of Anathem. Calculating God had a similar mood of ideas in lieu of action, though the trappings were totally different. Chambers has the nice bit covered, and I need to read the 3rd and 4th Wayfarers. (Please let me know of any "villagers-in-space" tales that my fit my bucolic, pastoral sf need!)
I'm glad that folks have, overall, enjoyed this. I look forward to reading more Clarke and wonder how much of it I'll enjoy as much as I did this one. My guess is a lot - Clarke seems like he could wind up one of my favorites.
I am returning today to the novel. I've been reminded of the cyclic nature of life. A couple of years ago at another GR group we read The Epic of Gilgamesh the Sumerian epic poem which tells of people from another planet coming to strip Earth of some of Her Resources. I thought:
* how cyclic is life.
* how soon-to-be current elsewhere.
* how good time for me to learn something about SF.
Colin wrote: "Finished. Overall, I enjoyed the book, a story of humanity going interstellar, forced to do so by the sun going nova. Clarke employs a spare, sometimes elegiac, prose. He tells the story to the rea..."Great review. Love the term 'Pastoral science fiction.' I will be using that more. My biggest problem with the novel was that I wished Clarke would have developed the undersea themes with the sea scorps, but A Darkling Sea scratched that itch for me. This novel inspired me to write two of my novels.
The pastoral science fiction genre seems to be similar to utopian/dystopian novels. Utopian novels have various settings. A couple years back I read Three Early Modern Utopias: Utopia / New Atlantis / The Isle of Pines, one was an educational facility utopia in addition to the famous city utopia Utopia by Thomas More. They all have elements of utopia/dystopia. All dystopian socoties as described in novels tried to be utopian and had somehow failed.The overlap between utopian/dystopian fiction and science fiction can be seen in 1984 by George Orwell andFahrenheit 451by Ray Bradbury and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
I did finish it but forgot to come back and comment.I thought it was very much a thing of its time, when SciFi authors were exploring alternative relationship dynamics and living conditions.
I don't know if it would do well if published today, but I'm glad to have read it now.
I did not know as arts person how I might like a hard science selection. But I did.https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Brave New World (other topics)1984 (other topics)
Fahrenheit 451 (other topics)
Three Early Modern Utopias: Utopia / New Atlantis / The Isle of Pines (other topics)
Utopia (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Aldous Huxley (other topics)George Orwell (other topics)
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Thomas More (other topics)
What did you think of the characters?
What did you think of the Thalassan society? Do you think it was utopian?
What did you think of the rules of Colonisation that the last group to leave Earth adopted?
In the foreword Clarke talks about Star Trek and Star Wars amongst others being Science Fantasy and how humanity will likely never travel beyond the speed of light. Do you think he succeeded in telling a more realistic tale of travelling the galaxy?
What are your overall thoughts?
Non-spoiler thread here: First impressions