OurColony.net

Pacifist Fairy Tale!

Customer Rating:
I have a hard time believing that Master Clarke would even lend his name, much less his writing talents to such a second rate piece of drivel, especially after such masterpieces as the 'Space Odyssey' and the Rama novels. I can't believe he would need the income that might be generated by such a poor piece of 'work'.
This is really a poor hack-job against U.S. citizens' Second Amendment rights in the Constitution of our United States. It attempts (poorly)to portray all firearms owners as borderline sociopaths who cling infantilely to their weapons as children would to their favorite toys, which any 'sensible adult' would tell them that they are old enough they should grow up and put away.
Rather than drag on in a lenghtly diatribe against this offensive piece of drivel, I answer with the classic pro-Second Amendment sayings:

"God, Guns, and Guts! The Three Made America Free, and will KEEP It Free!"

"If Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will Have Guns!"

As bad as it is, this fairy tale does have a few minor redeeming points. I thought it was hilarious that such a pacifist tale could turn such a brilliant fau paus as predicting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, two YEARS before they occured (even though it was proposed by American radical paramilitary 'gun nuts', rather than Islamic foreign radicals). The fact that the greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil was carried out with no weapon more deadly than a box cutting tool completely lays to waste the proposition that an unarmed society would be any safer.
I personally am overjoyed that the reality of this fairy tale is as bogus as the supposed 'technology' it bases itself on.
Whether one is a fan of Master Clarke, or not, be prepared for a disappointment of TITANIC proportions.

I've read Arthur C. Clarke. I KNOW Arthur C. Clarke.
This drivel is NOT Arthur C. Clarke! ! !

Not Free SF Reader

Customer Rating:
A scientist invents a field that prevents firearms and other such weapons from working.

This makes him and his research a target for those that have a vested in interest in things that go bang continuing to function.

Once it gets out there and is working things go smoothly for a bit, until all the socioeconomic effects are worked out.

Then, there is just an arms race of different technology, looking for vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the device.

Thought-provoking, engaging, worth the read

Customer Rating:
True to expectations, Clarke delivers a well thought-out, insightfully reasoned, fascinating book based on an intriguing scenario: what would happen if a new technology appeared that made firearms and most explosives inert? The authors do an excellent job of imagining the plausible reactions of government, normal people, and of course the extremist gun-worship lobby and fortified-compound jingoist set. Whom I imagine are largely responsible for the low-star reviews you see here. Despite what others have claimed, the authors do a great job of presenting the logical and illogical points of view on either side of the fundamental debate presented by the plot arc.

In any event, unlike many Clarke novels where a giant idea is presented but not much happens plot-wise, in this book the plot moves right along. This book should be required reading for anyone interested in the whole gun-control versus the-world-is-all-about-me-me-me-and-you-can't-take-my-precious-gun-away debate. This is high-quality sci-fi as society commentary, which lest we forget is mostly the point of sci-fi in the first place.

So godawful as to defy description

Customer Rating:
Clarke can be a wonderful writer when (1) he alone is in charge of the writing and (2) the stories are true sci-fi...the Rama series, Childhood's End, 2001. At one time it was possible to say "Good reading, bad pleading" but both are just incredibly bad. It's almost (but not quite) as bad as the one in which the Earth is divided into various time zones - Jeez Louise, what a flop.

Clarke has never been strong in the character department and that includes all facets from relationships to dialogue to growth. This weakness is highlighted here. Not one memorable character exists, none is interesting or believable, everyone speaks like a bad made-for-TV movie. The conversations were about as authentic as plastic dinosaurs and just as predictable - the president is commanding and strong, the scientists are full of noble thoughts, the generals are reprobates craving guns and violence, etc. There are no gray areas here - you're either against guns or support violence. The Trigger, one of the worst-described devices in fiction, destroys all ammunition and was created almost by accident. Being nice guys (a few female flunkies make cameo appearances) the scientists immediately see its worth in a world gone mad with gun violence. The fact that 99.99& emenates with criminals or the military is not important.

It is not that the message is wrong (I have no guns), it's all so preposterous,. Each chapter begins with a phony news story about gun violence. These events do happen but the presentation here is the height of artificiality. The authors never explain why African, Arab or Asian dictators would willingly relinquish control of the very thing keeping them in power. Clarke, who lives in Sri Lanka, has always seen the Third World through rose-colored glasses. It is no different here.

ALthough the story could have been bold - the ideas of blowing old land mines was great - the writing is so bad that only the author's plea (ban guns) remains in this quagmire of syrup. When in the first chapter, a world-renowned scientist shows up at the home of a gadget guru and asks him to work in his new science lab you know you are in for rough sledding. The idea of a universal ban on guns is not new. The two problems are: (1) rogue states refuse to obey & (2) the alternative may be nuclear or biological weapons. If you want anything remotely related to literature, try something else.

Clarke & Baxter at the top of their game

Customer Rating:
A group of scientists given free reign to explore their heart's desires are attempting to devise a tractor beam when they accidentally stumble upon emission of a field that detonates all explosives. The story tracks the political intrigue surrounding a discovery that will rewrite modern warfare, and the scientific refinements that play into this intrigue. Eventually, the Trigger gives way to the Jammer, which renders explosives useless without detonating them. Everyone seems happy with the exception of military warhawks, and domestic militia and gun rights advocates, who scheme in various ways to blunt the spread of the devices. In the chilling conclusion, a further refinement to the technology gives the controller the ability to kill any creature whose DNA is on file.
The Good and the Bad:
This is perhaps the best Arthur C. Clarke book I've read, with the possible exception of 2001, and I'm only saying that because 2001 is so famous. Clarke's vision of the science and the potential cultural impacts is apparent throughout, and that is completely entertaining. He's also somehow successfully integrated a lot of social-benefit philosophical arguments into the dialogue without it appearing to be too contrived, and that is entertaining. The attention to detail when presenting the inner workings of the scientist's lab and, especially, the military, are entertaining. I suspect his writing partner had a lot to do with the humanity of the characters; unlike his previous novels, this one read like a mainstream political thriller, and things like a love story were handled with a professional touch so that they didn't intrude on the storyline. All of those things were so well done that the book was a joy to read.
The drawbacks, however, were all the more glaring in this context. The gun advocates are all shown to be crazy and delusional by the end of the novel, resorting to murder in the face of a losing battle (there is an exception to this, but it proves the rule). This seemed more jarring at the tail end of a lot of intellectual discussion about the issues of gun control. The book also kind of leaves us hanging. One of the thing I liked about "The Lights of Other Days" is that the book projected far enough into the future that you got a very clear grasp of the furthest-reaching impacts of society. This is lacking here.
What I learned:
The issues surrounding gun ownership remain muddied. A scientist who creates an invention of military significance has virtually no chance of keeping the government out of dictating its use.