Has anyone read The Children of Men, by PD James?

[Cunctator]

It it any good?

I've got a work colleague who's eagerly thrusting her copy at me as a "must read". I quite like PD James' crime stuff but I gather that this work is a bit different and more dystopian. There's also a film in the offing too I'm told.

[Larry Borgia]

I read it. It wasn't bad, IMO, but it wasn't great either. It was entertaining but forgettable. In fact I've forgotten most of it. It's good light reading, but if you don't get around to it, you're not missing much.

It's an apocalyptic novel that takes place in a world where humans have stopped giving birth. I don't remember much more than that.

[dangermom]

I read it, I suppose it was about a year ago. It wasn't all that great IMO--OK, but not my cup of tea. I like her mysteries better, and to be honest, I'm not all that big a fan of the mysteries.

[susan]

I like James and I like apocalyptic SF, but this was a bad pairing of the two. I read about a hundred pages and stopped, which I almost never do.

[twickster]

I read it when it came out, which is quite a while ago now.

It was okay.

[Baldwin]

Not bad, but not outstanding in the field. I guess James wanted to do something different, which is great, but there are plenty of writers who are better at that area of fiction.

Saw a trailer for the upcoming movie (with Clive Owen). Like so many of them, the trailer gave away way too much of the plot. The idea seems to be to make sure people don't have to deal with anything at all unexpected when they go to see a movie.

[Baldwin]

Originally Posted by Baldwin

Saw a trailer for the upcoming movie (with Clive Owen). Like so many of them, the trailer gave away way too much of the plot. The idea seems to be to make sure people don't have to deal with anything at all unexpected when they go to see a movie.

Spare us the hijack; just answer the damn OP question, 'kay?

[kittenblue]

I just reread it last week, when I heard the movie was coming out. I think I liked it more the first time I read it...the second time through I found it a bit slow on getting to the point.

Since I read it the first time, I have been intrigued by the idea of declining fertility rates, and indeed it seems that more people I know are having trouble conceiving. Of course, others are having no problems, but I know that the recent upswing in multiple births is a indicator that more and more people are having to resort to getting help in conceiving.

The book is totally different than James' other works, but still a good read. And the picture she paint of how society reacts to the end of the human race is quite thought-provoking.

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

I picked up this book a few years ago because I like post-apocalyptic fiction, and I had heard that her mysteries were good. I'll agree with most of the others in this thread - the book was okay, not particularly memorable. I was surprised to hear that they were making a movie about it.

[Tess of the Derbyville]

I eagerly snagged a copy when it first came out. I'm a fan of her mysteries and also like science fiction so I thought it would be a treat. But I agree with others here that it was just ok. If IRC I didn't find the main character very appealing.

But, there are several images created in the book that have stayed with me for years - how the museums and libraries were all empty except for a few staff that couldn't bear to leave. And the women with the doll carriages - chilling.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by Baldwin

Spare us the hijack; just answer the damn OP question, 'kay?

It's not really a hijack. The OP mentions the film.

I haven't read the book, but the movie looks great. It also stars Julianne Moore and Michael Caine, and was directed by Alfonso Cuarón (Y tu mamá también, Prisoner of Azkaban). Based on what's said here, the movie could very well be much better than the book.

I love how

SPOILER:

the fate of humankind rests with a black woman.

Is it like that in the book?

[Flutterby]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

SPOILER:

the fate of humankind rests with a black woman.

Is it like that in the book?

Nope. The movie is similar in setting, but it appears that there are several big differences.

SPOILER:

In the book it is Julian Taylor (played by Julianne Moore in the movie) who is pregnant, not a seperate character and there is no sanctuary of scientists they are seeking but instead a place for Julian to have her baby and keep it away from the Warden of England.

Theo is the cousin of the Warden, his ex-wife is not Julian but another woman who divorced him after he accidentally backed over their child and proceeded to marry someone else. In the book he was never an activist but rather a scholar and professor.

At the end of the book

SPOILER:

Theo kills his cousin and assumes the role of Warden and protector of Julian who he has fallen in love with, as much as he can anyone as he is a fairly scholarly man who is not known for being emotional. It seemed implied to me that he marries her (or would if she would agree), but I could be wrong.

I only read it recently, because of the previews for the movie (and to me the movie does look better, the book was okay but not great) but I agree with Tess of the Derbyville there are certain images that stick with you. The women with the dolls being one of them.

SPOILER:

The woman who smashed another woman's doll, the 'mother' goes wild with grief at her 'child' being smashed to bit

The Quietus was disturbing also.

[bonzer]

I haven't read the book, but - unlike everyone else in the thread, it appears - I have seen the film. (It's UK release was a month or two back.)
The strong impression I got from the film was that Cuarón has probably only used the broad premise and circumstances of the novel as his jumping off point for the screenplay. Many of the most powerful scenes are very deliberately inspired by post-9/11, Guantanomo and Abu Ghurayb imagery that I doubt has much to do with the novel. He's exploring a vision of a near-future Britain under extreme pressure as a way of critiquing some very 21st century issues. The fertility crisis is just a backdrop to explain how the country and world was propelled into this extreme state.
The various spoilers for the book up-thread only tend to confirm this suspicion that it's a pretty loose adaptation.

That said, I do recommend the film. While much of the plotting is very obvious, the - ahem - mise en scène is superb.

[zelie zelerton]

I quite liked it. It raised some interesting ideas and was the writing was appropriately done. I'm not sure if that's typical of PD James's style as I haven't read any of her other stuff. I haven't seen the movie and I'm not too fussed if I don't but I have been vaguely fishing around trying to remember where I put the book - I'd quite like a re-read.

[Equipoise]

Thank you for the information Flutterby (butterflies gutterflies).

And thank you for the film recommendation bonzer. I'm looking forward to it.

[Flutterby]

You're welcome.

The movie is on my to see list also, it looks quite interesting even being a loose adaptation.

[Cunctator]

Well, I've finished reading it. It seemed easier to do so than continue to fob off my work colleague.

I thought it was beautifully written. PD James has such a way with words. But overall I agree with what others have said: good but not great. I felt that it faltered towards the end and the conclusion was fairly predictable.

I agree about some of the chilling images though - the Quietus and the incident with the doll. The one that most disturbed me however was the:

SPOILER:

baptism of the cat, dressed up in baby's clothes

And a question. Even after reading the book, I'm still not clear on one point

SPOILER:

Were the men the ones who had become infertile? Or the women? Or both?

[Boulter's Canary]

Brian Aldiss did it better. Greybeard.

[Flutterby]

Originally Posted by Cunctator

I agree about some of the chilling images though - the Quietus and the incident with the doll. The one that most disturbed me however was the:

SPOILER:

baptism of the cat, dressed up in baby's clothes

I had forgotten about that one, but yes that was disturbing also. The doll one really got to me though, because somehow I could see myself going around the bend just like that..

And a question. Even after reading the book, I'm still not clear on one point

SPOILER:

Were the men the ones who had become infertile? Or the women? Or both?

I don't think even they knew, but would it really matter either way? Actually, now that I think on it, that could make things even more complicated if just one side were to become infertile.