The Children of Men

I barely remembered anything from the movie besides Clive Owen in a grey rubble world, so I had an open mind going into this. The book world is similar, a near future that is ridden with infertility. The dystopian premises is very interesting, what does it do to a society, a generation, when they learn they will be the last of humankind? When you're unable to bear children, destined to grow old without caregivers, destined to know that all your contributions to this world will ultimately be useless. While the world building is intriguing, the main plot and the main protagonist are less so. It depicts the transformation of a middle-aged snobbish Brit from resigned detachment to newborn hopefulness. Yet the narrative moves along sluggishly and gets lost in too many details most of the time. Spoiler alert: the last scene and last line of the book is quite similar to the ending of [b:Brideshead Revisited 30933 Brideshead Revisited The Sacred and Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder Evelyn Waugh https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1438579340s/30933.jpg 2952196].

Is it wrong that I liked the movie better? The book is fine: fleshing out certain aspects and providing a slightly different spin (Theo's an Oxford don instead of a City drone? or something). The whole birth-of-Jesus allegory is still there - which is good, as it was the spine of the film and what made it fascinating. In fact, James made it more overt in the book. No Michael Caine co-starring (alas).

Is there any place for morality if the human race is about to go extinct? Is there room for hope or should anyone who is ill, depressed, or a “burden” to society just take part in the mass suicides? Is it possible to use political power to make things more comfortable for a doomed society without becoming a tyrant?

PD James' excellent novel explores all of those questions in a dark sci-fi novel with heavy Biblical parallels about a world in which all men have become infertile. But then one miracle pregnancy has the chance to save the world from its impending doom.

The book, though short, starts a bit slow, with the first few chapters being ultra heavy in expositional world building. After that things get good. The last half of the novel is filled with suspense and the whole thing has a ton of political, religious, and moral arguments that are touched on without pedantry.

But mostly it's a story of redemption, about a man guilty of an (accidental) unspeakable act of violence who risks his life to save a miracle child that could save all of humanity. A powerful novel with a better story than the totally different but also good film adaptation.

The premise is so fascinating, but this book was just so slow and wordy that I couldn't get into it. I liked the movie more. Sorry.

Short Review: This is a ethically interesting scifi thriller set in a dystopian UK in the near future. The movie shares basic themes, but the story is very different from the book. (I would like to re-watch the movie soon). The story is fairly simple in the plot and I while the ending is fine, it was abrupt and intentionally vague.

I listened to the audiobook and thought it was okay as an audiobook. But was not especially memorable as an audiobook.

My slightly longer review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/children-of-men/

I picked this book for one of the challenges for a group I belonged to on Goodreads. but I have to say I should have picked a different book I didn't enjoy it at all I did how ever like the movie.
In Children of Men, P.D. James perfectly illustrates how a great idea can be mercilessly butchered by a terrible execution. The premise of the novel is dystopian. It's been eighteen years since the last human was born, and humankind, faced with its impending extinction, descends into a collective depression and constant conflict. The narrative follows Theo Faron, the cousin of the dictator of the United Kingdom, as he tries to help a dissident group restore democracy and to protect possibly the last (or first) pregnant woman on Earth. The premise is quite original and deeply disturbing, but its portrayal is far superior in the film adaptation, which is only loosely based on the original. If there was ever an exception to the rule that “the book is always better than the film”, Children of Men has to be it. There is no character development, and the protagonist has an absolutely flat personality. The narrative frequently drags on through excessive descriptions, which dulls some of the shock value of the future society that James has constructed. What little is left of the plot is so contrived that it's difficult to take seriously. The ending is probably the worst element of the novel, if I had to choose one. Human actions defy all logic and emotion and it feels like the last few pages were hastily put together after the author had written herself into a corner. Maybe the novel has merit on its own, but if you had watched the movie, and therefore know what could have been done with this great idea, you would probably be left extremely disappointed.

Waiting to die out
gently, without any fuss
only in Britain.

One of the rare books where the movie was better. Crazy slow opening- the plot doesn't really get moving until halfway through.

Excellently written and the premise is so good I would've liked it anyway.

Dystopian books have a certain appeal. Dystopian films also appeal so when I watched Children of Men several years back I was impressed enough to think that I would one day read the book. I finally have.

Now this is not meant to be a “film is better than the book” review and vice versa. I, for example, love the Terrence Malick version of the very good book by James Jones The Thin Red Line. What I liked about that film was that Malick took an idea and made it into something other. The same can be said for The Children of Men as well. Alfonso Cuaron took an idea and headed into very topical issues such as refugees. It worked.

The book alas has left me cold. It is slow, it plods and it just seems out of date. Of its time maybe? Even that question worries me. Now I am happy to be corrected here but being written in 1992 surely the author would be aware of a few of the more “modern” communication methods such the internet and mobile phones for example. Even such technology such as infra-red / heat seeking devices were around then. Nope we get none of that. We get a Britain written about as if it is the 1950's as opposed to the 2020's that is the era we are supposed to be reading about. On the other hand we get mention of drugs that can cure Alzheimer's. In the book people have drugs to control a horrendous disease but there is no communication such as the WWW?

I suppose that maybe the author wanted it to seem slow, after all this was a world that was made up old people. If so it did not work for me. If this had been written in the 50's by say John Wyndham I would be more forgiving but it was written in the information age. The author missed this sadly. Very disappointing.

Just ok. Not as good as the movie.

In the movie there were a lot of different factions trying to get a hold of the baby to use for their own gains. I thought this worked better to create the sense of urgency and the need for secrecy. In the book they are mostly just worried about the Warden himself, and wanting to give birth in peace. That didn't feel to me as worthy of all the lives that were risked (and lost) along the way.

It's a good read, but the quite excellent movie ruined me for the book. The movie's narrative arc, pacing, world, characters and climax were far superior. This is one of the few cases where I felt the movie version of a book was more enjoyable and challenging than the original literary work.