Old School

[threemonkeys]

While digesting Yum Char related food overconsumption, I finished reading Time's Eye by Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter. It's one of those stories where a bunch of people from various historical times are contrived to all be together in the same world so that they can come into conflict - Alexander the Great vs Genghis Khan with some modern observers helping on each side. Been done before? Yes it has. It is the first in a series and I detect a formula.

The thing is, not only is the story a bit trite but so is the old fashioned way it is written. That might be a duh moment considering how long ACC has been around but still relevant as it really is his writing style in evidence. You also pick up on Stephen Baxter's tendency to throw in big chunks of exposition. Actually I think most of it was written by Baxter trying to write in Clarke's manner. It all seems a bit clunky. It is an easy read too - you certainly won't have to stop and try to figure out deep meaning or bother with those pesky layers or complex characters.

Nasty? Maybe. Despite the above limitations it is not actually a bad book if you are looking for a bit of light diversion and a little anachronistic battle action. The story is soundly constructed and I couldn't see any holes in the historical research. (Note that my ability to see historical inaccuracy is based on watching History channel documentaries so may not be all that relevant.)

Comments

[lobelet.livejournal.com]

I loved the book (and the sequel). In my original review I compared it to 2001 because I got the same tingle in the spine, the same sense of semi-religious overminds playing at god. The "eyes", the fragmented jigsaw puzzle of the reconstructed Earth, even the humour (using one of the eyes as tent pole! I even vaguely recall a joke about the value of pi). It may well have been mostly Baxter in the sense that he was the man who put the words onto paper - but if so he managed Clarke's wry wit better than anybody except Clarke himself (I always loved Clarke's prose, he is so funny for those that have ears to hear). But I'm sure that Clarke's input was much larger on this project than on many other of his "collaborations". It's just so quintessentially Clarke; science to the nth degree all wrapped up in mysticism. A wonderful, magnificent book.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

"he is so funny for those that have ears to hear"

I never ever got that from Clarke. Different minds work different ways I guess.

[lobelet.livejournal.com]

I suppose. I think it's a very "English" thing. I find a lot of Clarke's stuff hilarious because it is so sarcastically dry. (You can dehumidify your house with it).

"Earthlight" is perhaps one of the best. It never fails to give me the giggles (it long pre-dates Dilbert, but it has much of the same beautiful "office politics" observational humour about it, as well as the ultimate space battle, of course; it almost out-Smiths E. E. Smith himself!). I also find "The Sands of Mars" playfully amusing. His only non-SF novel "Glide Path" is a hoot from beginning to end.

I don't like his short stories much (apart from the classics, of course) because they tend too much to the serious. Perhaps there isn't enough room in them to indulge himself properly. Though having said that, the stories that make up "The Other Side Of The Sky" and "Venture To The Moon" are delightfully playful -- a serious scientific experiment that turns into a Coca Cola advert ("Watch This Space"), for example.

Yes; I find Clarke hilarious. And serious, of course. But who ever said the two things are incompatible?