What I like about Arthur C. Clarke’s writing is that his narratives are so diverse. By that, I mean that there will be periods of narrative description or dialogue without much action, then he will hit you with the good stuff: the stuff that gets your heart pumping and makes YOU want to get the heck out of whatever predicament his characters are in. Its those moments of heart palpitations that keep me reading his books. And those are some of the greatest moments of this novel.
So after reading Clarke’s 4-book 2001 saga (see my Cinematophiliac blog posting on it, and other related posts), I couldn’t resist Rendezvous with Rama, if not for the cover’s flaunting of its Hugo and Nebula awards. Okay, enough of the build up.
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!!! (though you’ve had since 1973 to read this…. 😉
It’s ironic that Clarke ends this book mentioning the triple redundancy of the Ramans because of the quadruple-plus redundancy of his books I’ve read so far (2001, 2010, 2061, & 3001), and the other three left in the Rama series. Anyway, that’s an interesting side note.
Rendezvous with Rama ended before I thought it would, but clearly it ended primed for a sequel. That’s good and I wasn’t disappointed. I read books much like I watch films: with little to no understanding of their backgrounds. I never read film reviews, and I’d certainly never be caught reading a book review. It’s just not my style. And, that way I am surprised by what unfolds, like not realizing there were sequels to this book. It sounds naive, but really it’s much more pleasurable that way. And, if I knew there were 4 books, I might not have read the first one! Large volumes intimidate me. For instance, I took almost an entire summer to read Barbara Kingsolver’s The Poisonwood Bible. It was like 500 pages! Great book though.
Sometimes the beginning of Clarke’s story is a bit tedious (i.e. my mention above of the diversity of his narratives), with a lot of background information before you get into the meat of the action. I realize, after reading his books, that I really like narrative action. I like feeling connected with the situations the characters are in: the danger, the clock ticking away. It’s exhilerating. I think of the books on narratology I read in grad school. Mainly Mieke Bal’s On Narratology. I learned a lot from that book.
One of the things that stood out for me in this novel was the insistence by Captain Norton to do the right and ethical thing at ever moment possible. In fact, there weren’t any situations in which he acted out of fear or impulse. He always took into consideration the way their actions would affect the Ramans and he went to extremes to make sure that they did not adversely affect the temporary world they were exploring. I think that’s great. He was even open minded to one of his crewmen’s (Rodrigo) “religious” explanations and thoughts on Rama, and eventually let him disable the bomb sent by the Hermians on Mercury.
(I just now get why they called them Hermians…obviously Hermes, the Greek god of the forge! Ahh…Thank God for The Iliad and The Odyssey!!! They’re the gifts that keep on giving! I love it! And this is what’s so wonderful about writing on this blog: it helps so much with comprehension and retention of what I’ve read. Mission Accomplished!).
Captain Norton reminds me of Captain Jonathan Archer from the Star Trek: Enterprise TV series (2001-2005) because Captain Archer ALWAYS took the most ethical route possible. That was a great TV series, by the way, and I can’t believe it went off the air.
At a time when a lot of uncertainty was barreling through the solar system, and a lot of people were afraid of the unknown, Captain Norton kept his head on straight and didn’t react out of fear. This says a lot about the type of character that Clarke was developing: someone level-headed who could take in all of the data from a lot of different directions, and make the right decision. His compassion for the reasonableness of his “religious” crewman (Rodrigo) showed perhaps the most about Norton’s character: that he didn’t jump to conclusions and assume the guy was a whack-job.
I think we all need to learn some lessons from this: we might be surrounded by people we think are whack-jobs, but aren’t we being just as fanatic by not being open to their ideas?
I’m wondering what Rama II has in store for Captain Norton, or future generations’ captains. I assume it’ll pick up with the NEXT Rama ship (because there will be 3 if we read the triple redundancy correctly) and will help prove why it’s best to NOT bomb things we don’t understand, but rather observe, relate, and let them go on their merry way. And, who knows how many years it will take for ship #2 to get there….
I finish with this: In our day and age, can “we” refrain from bombing things and people “we” don’t understand? Or is there a Captain Norton or a Rodrigo out there brave enough to stand up to the “Hermians,” and their political influence, savagery, and xenophobia, for the good of not only us, but for the good of those we don’t know, can’t see, and certainly don’t understand?
That’d be nice.