The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

This is to discuss August 2017 group read The Hammer of God by Arthur C. Clarke

I was disappointed to see Arthur Clarke chosen to represent the 1990s. Don't get me wrong, I like him, but for a group called "The Evolution of SF", I'd expect something more representative of the decade. Clarke wrote novels already in the 1950s and I don't think his style changed much afterwards.

On the other hand, once I started this book, I find that I do enjoy it. That isn't really a surprise. I've always enjoyed his books. And while the style might not represent the 1990s, the theme may. I seem to recall that the topic of the potential for an asteroid to destroy earth, and that maybe we should try to do something to prevent it, was talked about a great deal in that decade.

Plus, this novel is short and my edition uses pretty big text. Something my old eyes appreciate.

I'm disappointed to report that my library carries few books by Arthur C Clarke. I think I've read all they've got - unfortunately not The Hammer of God.

Buck wrote: "I'm disappointed to report that my library carries few books by Arthur C Clarke. I think I've read all they've got - unfortunately not The Hammer of God."

Funnily enough the library near me doesn't have this one either. I'd been hesitating whether to borrow it and read the French version or buy it in English as I haven't enjoyed all his books. No choice now so will get my copy shortly.

Finished it fairly quickly. I enjoyed it, as I usually do with his works.

As usual, his characters are not really very interesting. It is hard to find fault with that, because it simply isn't something he seems to care about in his writing. He is all about science, engineering, and exploration. And while I normally want more exploration of characters, I didn't really miss it here. The engineering challenges behind trying to deflect an asteroid were interesting enough in themselves.

Still, Rendezvous With Rama will always be my favorite of his works.

I finished it a couple of days ago. I found it a frustrating read. I thought the book was great when he was writing about the comet and the problems with diverting its orbit, but there were too many extraneous side stories about religion and running races on Mars that did nothing to further the plot. It just felt, to me, like a puffed up short story.

I'm halfway. Indeed I was wondering what this moon olympics would lead us to eventually. Just nothing much then. Strange thing these side stories.

David wrote: "It just felt, to me, like a puffed up short story..."

That is what it was. It started as a short-story solicited by and published in Time magazine in 1992. Apparently only the 2nd time they'd ever published a work of fiction.

Finished and gave it only 2 stars. I saw some great ideas and think there was a potential great story in it but it was not worked out enough.

I am about half way through, at the end of part 3, and agree that there are too many side stories. Part three seemed to have a lot of unnecessary details about vocabulary changing over time.

I finished the book today and generally enjoyed it. The copy I read was a nice edition and the book was great reading for a hot summer day.

I'm quite late to reading this one, but at half way through, I agree with pretty much what everybody else has said. Each chapter jumps around a lot, but saying that, a story with a science basis of an asteroid going to hit the earth is always going to keep my interest. As it's quite a short I may even finish it before month end.

Finished it quite quickly in the end as it was very easy reading. The story improved towards the end as it stopped meandering. I do like Clarke's ability to write about scientific matters in such a readable way. He doesn't tend to wander off into too much theoretical detail unlike some of the other scientific authors.