Mina's Reviews > Songs of Distant Earth

Thank you for this review and, in particular, the first few sentences. I was struggling over how to say just this, and you did it very well!

I'm glad you found my review helpful. Great science fiction is not so much about the science, but about the human condition in light of new power delivered by new technologies. When one fundamentally misunderstands humans, or we could say, has a very poorly formed anthropology, then that person will be less successful in hitting cords of truth when writing such fictions.
I greatly appreciate Clark's skills and have read many of his books, but of the top-pop 3 (Asimov, Clark & Heinlein) there is no doubt that Asimov "gets" humanity far better than the other two and crowned much of his work with the virtue of humor as well.

I have been rather unsatisfied with science fiction and, each time I make a venture into it, I become even more dissatisfied. Perhaps I have been unlucky, but I feel that I have too often come across "science" without the "humane" that is so necessary. I will, though, take the recommendation on Asimov (although I have not had much luck with him either).

The problem is that science fiction is truly a post "Enlightenment" era genre. By nature it is focused on the powers of man over the material realm and tends to be written by those who are not interested in man's spiritual dimension. Some writers however can not help but to incorporate some hints of Truth in their writing because they were so deeply programed by it themselves. That is to say that a person can live and act as if there is no spiritual reality to life and yet still manifest that truth in their values and thoughts. For instance, the idea that all men are created equal comes from the Christian understanding that God made us to share in His dignity, (without Him, might makes right- that's just cold evolutionary logic) yet this democratic premiss is held by many who don't want to hear a word about having been "created". Oh Man, uniquely able to function in contradiction! Anyway, that's the problem with science-fiction, in general its writers don't have a complete view of the human condition, so you have to approach their work with a little charity (and pity) and enjoy what they do have to say. Try Asimov's short stories, they're a little more engaging.
I don't care how "cheesy" it may seem, Star Trek, especially TOS, frequently strikes a good balance of humanity & science-fantastical, even though it definitely embraces the ideals and humanism of the Enlightenment, it is never-the-less in touch with the spiritual side of man.
Some of Dean Koontz' books are science fiction and he really understands the human element so you might enjoy his. Try "Lightning".
For something very different try C. S. Lewis' "Perelandra" series, a personal favorite, though it's a bit more on the fantasy side than the science side. - happy reading

Thanks for the suggestions! With the exception of "That Hideous Strength" I was extremely impressed with Lewis' series. And I have a special place in my heart for Star Trek, cheese and all.

I think you are right in your critique of most sci-fi. When the focus is on the workings of the machine as opposed to what might come -from- the machine (or come in spite of the machine) the analysis is problematic. It is for this reason I've moved mostly to fantasy (although the genre has its own problems). It is rather sad, though, that when sci-fi does throw caution to the wind and attempts to face Truth that the result is often an embracement (and almost worship) of extreme nihilism. I recently read "Voyage to Arcturus" by David Lindsey and found it terrifying; it was like reading a book written by Weston (of Perelandra).

I'm currently reading "I Robot" by Asimov, in which he threads a series of short stories together via a main character, a female robot psychologist (interesting casting choice for 1950). The focus is primarily on what could go wrong with the idea of machines with sophisticated "brains", so it supports your point. That anyone should embrace nihilism is certainly tragic, yet it is an understandable and logical result of a worldview which has no god, truth or ultimate meaning. What is more awful is when a person of real talent may be drawing followers to empty and destructive views by enchanting story-telling. hmmm, well, that is the way it has always been done isn't it?

Wow. Now that's scathing.

Dan, I'm curious which bits of the discussion you found scathing? I always try for clear, honest and well-reasoned. I also try to be clear as to what is personal perspective vs. objective critique.
Please tell me what part was scornful or severe.

Did I just get you out of 2013!
Oh, think we are in a loop here. Your review and Clarke's book, well are exactly the same. Both of them are so logical.
Your reasoning is impeccable.
As for me, I just enjoyed the book.

Good Reads sends me a notice whenever someone comments on a review.
Thank you for the compliment to my logic.
Arthur C. Clark was a very good writer which is why he could make epic tales of scientific development like 2001, not boring. That takes talent and skill.
Every human being is a fascinating, unique individual and I think writers of fiction reveal themselves more directly to the public than almost any other category of artist. This is why it matters what books we read, they are the company we keep.

You two would would have been made for each other, Clarke and Mina. Soooooooooooo logical....
Thumbs up.

@Mina. What of religious literature? They play an integral role in various individuals.

Are you referring to a) works specifically reflecting on clearly theological topics and themes, - which does encompass some fiction, say, Dante's Inferno, but of course includes everyone from Moses to Karol Wojtyla-
Or are you referring to b) works in which the author is certainly formed by and intentionally reflecting a worldview in which there is a God who is integral to reality, like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings?
And then, I'm not sure if you are asking a question or seeking a conversation. Caution: you have wondered into a territory of particular interest to me.
I affirm and strongly agree with either of the above categories of literature playing "an integral role in various individuals." The culture we imbibe, especially in our youth is going to be very formative in our worldview. Literature is often (at least in the past =sigh=) a part of that culture.
People who are truly skilled and thoughtful writers have also done much reading of meaningful works and certainly what they read will be part of their internal conversation. - by internal conversation I mean when one thinks over things and like a scientist examining a specimen, considers the thing from many angles and compares and contrasts it to related topics and experiences, even conducting "thought experiments" -the essence of science fiction.
Once upon a time, people were interested in discovering truth and getting to know the causes behind things -even people whose lives may have been spent in laborious work- in the last century or so the idea that there is indeed any such thing as truth has gone mostly out of fashion and is often considered an almost offensive suggestion. But I digress, the point is that the best of the really good literature, the kind that makes you glad you spent the time, these come from writers who have supported your instinct for truth, even a simple truth such as -experiencing profound goodness from another person can move a heart from anger to peace- Such works affirm our "better natures" and when the author takes us there in a new and unexpected way, via Fairyland, outer space or in a subway car, it is all the more delightful.
Here's a quick bit of evidence: why are superhero movies still popular? it's not just the action and special effects, it's because everyone deep down believes that heroic goodness is possible and admirable and most of us would like to be someone's hero or be rescued. That is a truth of human nature. Certain theological traditions can explain to us why this is so, and people formed in those are probably going to do a much better job of telling you an exciting, satisfying story, no matter how fantastic, than someone who doesn't understand the causes behind those truths.
Remember, I warned you the topic was of particular interest to me. I certainly hope I've given you some fodder for an internal conversation of your own. I smile at you and thank you for the opportunity to share these reflections.

Dan wrote: "You two would would have been made for each other, Clarke and Mina. Soooooooooooo logical....
Thumbs up."

Logic is not a world view nor an ideal, it is merely a tool for clear thinking.
I am giving into temptation here, purely for the benefit of anyone who might just happen by and need to know this:
- Serious relationships should be founded on important common ground.
- Physical attraction comes and goes, even intellectual attraction can wane.
- Being married means sharing the entirety of life, the good and the bad.
- Whoever you are in relationship with should be a friend.
- Definition of a friend: someone with whom you share points of view, interests, joys - not merely experiences, someone you truly respect and admire despite their faults. And the love of friends: willing the good of the other, not seeking them for the pleasure they give like an object.
- Why someone you marry should be your Best friend:
when life is rolling up and down it is our worldview, our essential beliefs about what is important, the meaning of it all and our final goal, these things remain and are what we hold onto.
If you do not share the same view of these essential questions you will respond to life's challenges in ways different from each other. This is potentially extremely problematic.
Also, when you enjoy the other first as friend, your love will be true, that is founded on the things that really matter, knowing and respecting one another. So when physical attraction wanes or leaves, you still love, you still enjoy one another. When one has a problem you still truly care for them.
Though Dan was just being funny, the reality is I could not be in a deep relationship with someone who holds a radically different view of life and humanity from mine, therefore someone like Arthur C. Clark and I could never be more than friends at a level of mutual appreciation for the ingenuity of man and ideas of that sort. I would never choose to couple my life to an atheist, though I had all the respect in the world for him. How could we be of one heart and mind at the death of a child? see what I mean?

I agree mostly with this review. The book wasn't great. The characters and relationships were, like you said, bland. But I think it's unfair to say Clarke isn't good at connecting science with human nature/anthropology just because he doesn't do a fantastic job in this book. I think Childhood's End and 2001: A Space Odyssey both have a memorable and haunting psychological message. Much more highly recommended than the vanilla Songs of Distant Earth.

My thoughts exactly, at least as far as your opinions about the book go.

I think you're forgetting that the whole civilization on Thalassa was born from testubes, With what we're coming to know about DNA and it's role in human behaviour and psychology it is perfectly possible to create utopia and a slightly altered brand of human beings without the shortcomings of current society

I'm aware of Clark's premiss and If humans are purely material beings, tweaking DNA could be sufficient to create homo sapiens who behave in more tame ways. My experience and observation of humanity fall in line with the majority opinion of history that we are not merely material creatures with a slightly more developed brain but that there is a significant element to what we are that is above and beyond our animal component.
There is also the fact that one cannot by genetic design eliminate our free will by which we are able to consciously choose our actions, and so there will always be the capacity to choose meanness or generosity. To do so would create something that was not man but a mere animal.
The questions I ponder: why is it that humans generally desire perfect justice to exist in their society and yet often beg mercy when they are the offender, even if the consequence is merely discomfort?
And why is it humans as a type experience a deep need to be really known and loved, preferably unconditionally despite the preponderance of evidence that such love is almost humanly impossible?
And why should we look at the effect of solar radiation filtering through the atmosphere and bouncing off the clouds in a variety of wavelengths cause us to gasp and say, "Oh what a beautiful sunset!"?
These are rhetorical questions and pondering them is an infinitely better exercise for us humans than trying to eliminate our faults via genetic dissection.

Catholics! *shrugs*

At first, I definitely agreed with your characterisation of the Thalassans. However, having re-read the book, I felt as if Clarke wasn't quite endorsing that way of life - while glibly and materialistically he claims they're the apex, I'm convinced that he wants to force the reader to engage with our ethical and psychological bugbears on this new breed of man.

He never explicitly endorses (to my recollection) or applauds these people. I think the dispassionate presentation is precisely in order to have us consider whether we would wish to create such a human with no concept of honour, fidelity, and time-preference. Should we ever aspire to create Edenic man, or does the fallen world we live in demand us to have higher moral concepts and to suffer?

That is the question (or, more like a cacophony of thought) that came to me reading this. Not an endorsement, but a presentation of the ultimate aspiration of many materialists - warts and all.

Wow. Possibly the best review on Goodreads. Well said

Clarke wasn't suggesting discarding morality. You can have moral thought and actions (which the Thalassans clearly did; it just wasn't a "Christian" morality) without religion.

I’m not an atheist in any sense, but I found The Songs of Distant Earth to be a rather poignant commentary on Religion and Sociology. Idk if I’d call the Lassans in this text a model of a perfect utopia. In fact, within the text, these characters are often semi-chastised or criticized, at least internally, by the Earthlings who do embody the aforementioned traits the Lassans lack. Ultimately, my only criticism of Clarke’s commentary on religion is the ludicrous statement that Buddhism has never been the cause of violence. The reason this text (and really all of Clarke’s works) worked so well for me is because he seems to be one of the few SciFi authors who can go high concept, put out practices and cultural norms into question without tossing out the baby with the bath water.

Take, for instance, the chapter in Songs of Distant Earth where the wise Moses is explaining the histories of Earthly Religions and the dichotomy of Alpha vs Omega with a terse criticism. Yet he ends this discussion with, “Do not believe anything I’ve said- simply because I said it... the Omega is still out there... and I often wonder about Alpha.”

Clarke is obsessed with the unknown. He doesn’t accept atheism as dogmatically as most religious people embrace their own spiritual beliefs.

I came to write a review, but you have already said what I was going to say, but better than I could have. I would like to recommend The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russel to show what CAN be done in the sci-fi genre while still showing fully fleshed characters and a spiritual side to humanity.

@mina thank you for your review. I think you perfectly said the elements of sci-fi that I love that sometimes are lacking.