Most Helpful Customer Reviews
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not the Disaster Book it could have been, 24 Mar 2006
This review is from: Richter 10 (Mass Market Paperback)
Arthur C. Clarke and his co-authour did not set out to create a straight-forward book about a massive earthquake. The result here, is a complex futuristic book, conceived from many cultural and political strands, resulting in a thriller rather than an action novel. The characters are well created, and their subsequent relationships draw you in to the story and keep you turning the pages. The irony is, unfortunately, the earthquakes are a device to move the characters forwards. However, as damning as that sounds, the book contains well designed concepts, emotional impact and should keep you going through the half-century of time the novel follows. Just don't expect a major motion picture type book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A curate's egg - good in parts, but not consistent, 14 Oct 2009
This review is from: Richter 10 (Mass Market Paperback)
A great plot, but patchy in its delivery. The plot has been detailed by others, so I'll spare you a repetition.
It meets one requirement for a great movie plot, too... "Start with an Earthquake, and build to a climax...."
The book starts with a series of earthquakes, and the plot moves along very snappily, until it gradually gets into politics...
Found that bit dragged on. But others clearly find it OK. Then it picks up again nearer the end, thankfully.
Well, that's how it seemed to me.
My boyhood hero the late Arthur C Clarke explains clearly that he _just_ did the plot synopsis, and the late Mike McQuay executed it (pretty competently, with caveats).
Clarke claims in his foreword to have read this book through - but I doubt that he did this carefully, since there are a couple of technical gaffes that spoil it for me. Things like a moon-skimmer that flies on fans. Fanning what, pray? Not a lot of air up there - good hard industrial vacuum. Stuff that we knew as kids in the 1950s - yes, I *was* a space cadet, and Arthur C Clarke was (as inventor of the geosynchronous communications satellite in the 1940s) one of our heroes. He would not have let this slip by, surely? Ah well. Age works its way with us all. Other slips include a large elevator using the earth's magnetic field - which is just not strong enough for the purpose.
Better for authors to ignore the science aspect if don't understand the schoolboy basics.
But it was readable, hence 3 stars. You might like it, even; but it was not for me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1.0 out of 5 stars
Lousy, 19 Mar 2008
I bought this book because I'd read and enjoyed some of Clarke's earlier works like 2010: Odyssey II when I was a teenager.
The first disappointing thing about this book is that it's not actually written by Clarke at all, despite his name being emblazoned in inch-high lettering on the cover. All that Clarke did, as he explains in the introduction, is to write a 2 page plot outline, which he passed onto someone else because he was too lazy / untalented to write it himself. By the time you read this proviso, however, you've probably already shelled out the cover price and feeling short-changed.
Second, McQuay's prose is in an awful Americanised style, full of 2D stock characters, and transparently written with the intention on being converted into a Hollywood action thriller so they can make a ton of money. Hardly high literature. Science fiction writers trying to do characterisation never worked anyway, and it misses the point.
Third, the "science" behind the book is woefully inaccurate. At least Michael Crichton meticulously researched the genetics content of Jurassic Park: it had a basis in reality, was thought-provoking and you could learn something from it. Richter 10, on the other hand, is pure trashy fantasy. Clarke knows less about geology and earthquakes than the average GCSE student, and clearly didn't do any research before the afternoon he cobbled together his plot outline. For instance, he envisages California being split off from mainland America after a particularly large quake... when the San Andreas fault is actually a strike-slip boundary which only involves sideways motion, rather than extension, so this could never happen.
In summary, then, it's a terrible read, with no interesting science, and Clarke didn't even write it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|