Scan barcode
pageturner42's review against another edition
1.0
Terribly sexist from the get go. I found that to make it a difficult read and was not enjoying the book. Added it to the DNF pile
etste's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.5
livia_r's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
andy_hird's review against another edition
2.0
I was interested in this book by the premise on the book and the involvement of Arthur C. Clarke. Unfortunately, the story never really developed, the character back-stories or sub-plots were largely irrelevant, and the overall execution (including the writing itself) was just plain poor.
ainsleym's review against another edition
1.0
The prologue was interesting and the cover art was gorgeous. Unfortunately, those are the only two good things I can say about this book.
archiekeys99's review against another edition
adventurous
inspiring
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
regnarenol's review against another edition
1.0
I don't think I'm going to touch Gentry Lee with a bargepole after this train crash of a book. It's so bad I'm almost tempted to stop this review right now because you shouldn't give too much time to things you don't love, right?
Anyway, the problem with the book is Gentry Lee has this idea that character development should be the core of any book, even a science fiction one. A fine ideal to strive towards, certainly. But somebody failed to tell him that character development should be woven into the plot - bombarding the reader with dozens of pointless anecdotes and escapades about every character major and minor without, for a moment, giving us a hint as to how everything would tie in together in what's ostensibly a science fiction novel is immensely frustrating.
An excellent pay-off in the form of a mind bogglingly visionary climax might still have redeemed the book somewhat, but we don't even get that. If the arduous character building at least resulted in complex, interesting characters that we'd kind of care about, this book would be somewhat palatable, even if still a failure as a science fiction book. But, and this is the biggest failure of all, Lee, after hundreds of pages of minute backstory development manages to construct remarkably two dimensional cutouts of stereotypical characters - the cold, successful, man-hating feminist; the happy-go-lucky black man who can't seem to say two words without referencing his race. Even the interactions between the characters never seem to evolve beyond the third grade playground bully variety. (Argh, my head.)
Even after all that criticism, I'd happily take it all back if the writing were spectacular, and take in the book as a well written intellectual exercise, even if a rambling, pointless tale. But it isn't well written. It's often stilted, and the humour, if you can call it that, primarily around crude racial references.
Is there any Arthur C. Clarke at all in this, you may wonder? I think there is a little, at least, in the sequences that describe the manouevrings of powerful alien races; sequences that are so out of tune with the rest of the book, that otherwise fine pieces of speculative writing may even begin to jar. Yes, Gentry Lee is so bad, he's made my Clarke hard to swallow. Avoid this book!
Anyway, the problem with the book is Gentry Lee has this idea that character development should be the core of any book, even a science fiction one. A fine ideal to strive towards, certainly. But somebody failed to tell him that character development should be woven into the plot - bombarding the reader with dozens of pointless anecdotes and escapades about every character major and minor without, for a moment, giving us a hint as to how everything would tie in together in what's ostensibly a science fiction novel is immensely frustrating.
An excellent pay-off in the form of a mind bogglingly visionary climax might still have redeemed the book somewhat, but we don't even get that. If the arduous character building at least resulted in complex, interesting characters that we'd kind of care about, this book would be somewhat palatable, even if still a failure as a science fiction book. But, and this is the biggest failure of all, Lee, after hundreds of pages of minute backstory development manages to construct remarkably two dimensional cutouts of stereotypical characters - the cold, successful, man-hating feminist; the happy-go-lucky black man who can't seem to say two words without referencing his race. Even the interactions between the characters never seem to evolve beyond the third grade playground bully variety. (Argh, my head.)
Even after all that criticism, I'd happily take it all back if the writing were spectacular, and take in the book as a well written intellectual exercise, even if a rambling, pointless tale. But it isn't well written. It's often stilted, and the humour, if you can call it that, primarily around crude racial references.
Is there any Arthur C. Clarke at all in this, you may wonder? I think there is a little, at least, in the sequences that describe the manouevrings of powerful alien races; sequences that are so out of tune with the rest of the book, that otherwise fine pieces of speculative writing may even begin to jar. Yes, Gentry Lee is so bad, he's made my Clarke hard to swallow. Avoid this book!
rainbowrachel's review against another edition
It is hard to express just how abysmal this book truly is.
If you're like me, you might be thinking, "but how can a science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke be bad?" To which the answer is that this isn't really science fiction, isn't really a novel, and isn't really by Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke himself has stated:
"Another important influence on my life, of course, has been Gentry Lee, who was introduced to me by Peter Guber, who wanted to make a film based on Gentry's ideas. It was never filmed, but it led to the novel, Cradle, which was based on our joint ideas but almost entirely written by Gentry."
So, it isn't really by Clarke, and it is more a novelisation of a failed idea for a movie than a story that was originally conceived as a novel. As far as science fiction goes, it is certainly a story that has science fiction elements, but they are not prominent. The majority of the story is in a contemporary setting, and it would not have beendifficult to rewrite the whole thing to completely remove all traces of science fiction.
And yet, it is probably best labeled as science fiction because no other label fits either. It has elements of a thriller, yet it is not thrilling. It has elements of a romance novel, yet it is not romantic. Sometimes, it seems to aspire towards literary fiction, yet I can't imagine anyone considering it literature. Science fiction is where it arrives by default.
When I read some of the classics of older science fiction, I often come away feeling conflicted. On the one hand, they contain grand ideas and flights of fancy, they paint a vision of a possible future, envision glorious new technology, or shine a light on the human condition. Yet on the other hand, they are often deeply flawed. Too often, the genre is highly sexist, or it features wooden characters, stilted dialogue or awkward sex scenes.
Cradle feels like a condensation of all that is bad about old science fiction, without any of the good in there as a counterweight.
There are no grand science fiction ideas to be found, here, no exciting plot, no lovable characters, no redeeming features of any kind. Instead, there is sexism and racism aplenty, a boring and meandering plot in which very little happens, inconsistencies and plotholes, a cast of entirely unlikable characters, date rape, a 43 year old man lusting after a 17 year old girl, a pornographic video game, terrible dialogue, clumsy and misfiring attempts at social commentary, and badly written prose.
I can't say for sure that this is the worst book that I've ever had the misfortune of reading. I've read a lot of books, and some of them have been pretty terrible. However, if this isn't the absolute worst, then it's certainly a close contender. Every aspect is a failure, and it has no redeeming features. Avoid, at all costs.
If you're like me, you might be thinking, "but how can a science fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke be bad?" To which the answer is that this isn't really science fiction, isn't really a novel, and isn't really by Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke himself has stated:
"Another important influence on my life, of course, has been Gentry Lee, who was introduced to me by Peter Guber, who wanted to make a film based on Gentry's ideas. It was never filmed, but it led to the novel, Cradle, which was based on our joint ideas but almost entirely written by Gentry."
So, it isn't really by Clarke, and it is more a novelisation of a failed idea for a movie than a story that was originally conceived as a novel. As far as science fiction goes, it is certainly a story that has science fiction elements, but they are not prominent. The majority of the story is in a contemporary setting, and it would not have beendifficult to rewrite the whole thing to completely remove all traces of science fiction.
And yet, it is probably best labeled as science fiction because no other label fits either. It has elements of a thriller, yet it is not thrilling. It has elements of a romance novel, yet it is not romantic. Sometimes, it seems to aspire towards literary fiction, yet I can't imagine anyone considering it literature. Science fiction is where it arrives by default.
When I read some of the classics of older science fiction, I often come away feeling conflicted. On the one hand, they contain grand ideas and flights of fancy, they paint a vision of a possible future, envision glorious new technology, or shine a light on the human condition. Yet on the other hand, they are often deeply flawed. Too often, the genre is highly sexist, or it features wooden characters, stilted dialogue or awkward sex scenes.
Cradle feels like a condensation of all that is bad about old science fiction, without any of the good in there as a counterweight.
There are no grand science fiction ideas to be found, here, no exciting plot, no lovable characters, no redeeming features of any kind. Instead, there is sexism and racism aplenty, a boring and meandering plot in which very little happens, inconsistencies and plotholes, a cast of entirely unlikable characters, date rape, a 43 year old man lusting after a 17 year old girl, a pornographic video game, terrible dialogue, clumsy and misfiring attempts at social commentary, and badly written prose.
I can't say for sure that this is the worst book that I've ever had the misfortune of reading. I've read a lot of books, and some of them have been pretty terrible. However, if this isn't the absolute worst, then it's certainly a close contender. Every aspect is a failure, and it has no redeeming features. Avoid, at all costs.