Rating: 
Summary: Trite
Review: I know I'm in the mainority, but I couldn't stand this book. It was trite and boring and raised no moral or ethical questions with me. If this is spirituality, no wonder the world is in such a mess!
Rating: 
Summary: Bad, But Better Than Her First
Review: I thought this was a very poorly written and poorly edited book. I do think, however, that it was better than her first in that she used point of view slightly more skillfully, though this is still not her strong point. The plot was also slightly more coherent. Just for the record, I thought celibate was used in the wrong way, too. You can't judge by dictionary definitions the way the previous reviewer does. You have to read the context in which Russell uses the word. She's okay, but I didn't find any great religious or philosophical issues in either book.
Rating: 
Summary: Less thought-provoking, more eventful, a solid continuation
Review: For those who admired the soul-searching tenor of the first book, The Sparrow, there's very little of that here. Despite attempts to reintroduce the spiritual and moral concerns of the first volume, this second book is primarily concerned with events...telling the long and complicated story of what unfolds on Rakhat after the first mission. The actual presence of priests in this book is for the most part a red herring. Unlike the very plausible scenario of the first book, which found Jesuits doing what they have always done--rushing forward to the vanguard of exploration in the name of God--the second book requires a ridiculous and infuriatingly contrived Camorra (Mafia) kidnapping ploy to get its characters into space. With that said, the story itself is an interesting one, and those who appreciated the first book will enjoy the deeper insights into Rakhati culture. I would advise, however, against expecting too much of this sequel--it aspires to, but does not reach, the thought-provoking heights of its predecessor.p.s. For the record, Merriam Webster Online reports the definition of celibacy is: 1 : the state of not being married 2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage Seems to me Russell used the word correctly, by definition 2a. Besides, when it comes to matters of grammar and usage, one could just as well blame the writer's editor as the writer herself.
Rating:
Summary: As Bad as Her First Book--Zero Stars
Review: I thought Russell's first book, "The Sparrow," was the worst book I've ever read, however, so many people disagreed with me that I decided to give her another chance and read "Children of God." I have to admit that Children is a SLIGHTLY better book than Sparrow, but still represents a weak, amateurish attempt that, in my opinion, should have never been published. First, nothing in this story is original material nor is it old material presented in a fresh and original way. (See "A Case of Conscience" for a fabulous book regarding the same subject.) Russell does a slightly better job of characterization in Children. Emilio at least speaks and appears to live on the periphery of the human race, although Russell still fails to give us her characters's deepest thoughts, thereby reducing them to mere cardboard cut-outs. Sofia, who was so hateful and self-centered in Sparrow has surprisingly emerged as a fully-mature human being, much wiser than Sandoz could ever be. The only problem I find with her is that she still utters her warcry "I am Mendes," far too often. Russell's dialogue hasn't improved and things that are supposed to be profound often seem inane and funny. And she still uses words in the wrong way--a case in point being celibate--the state of remaining unmarried, which Russell uses to mean something else altogether. She's still painfully slow and boring. An author should be able to tell us what a book's about in the first paragraph, the first sentence, if possible. I think Russell could have improved Children greatly had she begun the book with "Emilio Sandoz had vowed never to return to Rakhat," or something similar and then given us the necessary backstory and exposition. Personally, I found Gina spiteful and self-serving and would have liked her more had I not met her personally but only heard about her. Writing is a gift and in my own personal opinion, Russell wasn't given this gift. I know many of you disagree, but there are also others who do agree (read the reviews, I'm not the only one who gave this book one star). I'm sorry, but I can't give this poor author a third chance.
Rating:
Summary: As Bad as Before
Review: I thought Russell's first attempt, "The Sparrow", was the worst book I've ever read, however many of her followers attacked me for having the audacity to express my own point of view. (Hey, don't forget, even Charles Manson had his followers and that didn't make what he did right.) Anyway, I decided to give Russell another chance and read "Children of God". Now I have to ask, "What's wrong with all you people? Is Sparrow the first book you've ever read or are you always that naive." While Children is SLIGHTLY better than Sparrow, it still represents a weak and amateurish attempt that should have never been published. First, nothing in this story is original material, nor is it it old material expressed from a fresh point of view (see "A Case of Conscience" for a fabulous book re the same concept). Russell does a SLIGHTLY better job of characterization in Children--Emilio at least speaks and APPEARS to live on the periphery of the human race, but Russell still fails to give us her characters's deepest thoughts and feelings thereby reducing them to little more than cardboard cut-outs. Sofia, however, who was so hateful in Sparrow now emerges as an almost fully-mature human being, much wiser than Sandoz could ever be, save for the fact that she still utters her war cry, "I am Mendes" with every other breath. Russell's dialogue hasn't improved and things that are supposed to be profound often seem inane. Russell should also check the meaning of her words before she attempts to use them. Celibate (from the Latin, caelebs) means a state of choosing to live unmarried, NOT a state of living without sex. That would be virginal. I'd wager that many celibate persons are definitely NOT virginal. And Russell's still painfully slow and boring. An author should tell us what a book is about in the first paragraph, the first sentence, if possible. Russell could have improved Children greatly had she begun with, "Emilio Sandoz had vowed never to return to Rakhat," and then given us the necessary backstory and exposition. We don't need to actually MEET the conniving Gina. This, however takes skill, something Russell still lacks and no doubt always will. Russell will never be an original or a first-rate writer--that's a gift she simply wasn't given. In my review of Sparrow, I advised her to learn to write. Now I think she should climb down from her self-appointed throne of wisdom and return to the dusty bones of anthro. At least there the mindless drivel she seems so fond of was mercifully inflicted on only a very few.
Rating:
Summary: A satisfying sequel, but not as delicious as The Sparrow
Review: It's about what I expected in a second half. (Me thinks she could have written more but her editor put a limit on the number of pages.) Her writing style is noticeably improved as her moving back and forth into time is not as abrupt as in The Sparrow. Supaari VaGayjur's character was well developed, as he becomes up being more tragic than Emilio Sandoz. Russell got me to judge Supaari at the end of the Sparrow as Voelkering judged Sandoz at the beginning-- good trick!. While the discourse of the pre-revolutionary Machiavellian politics was interesting in the Children of God, I was more interested with the spiritual dilemmas brought up in The Sparrow. Perhaps it is because Russell spends so much time on Fr. White Horse's pet subject, that the spiritual redemption of Emilio is anticlimactic, even hollow, if it ever reaches a clear resolution. I felt that Emilio came to peace with himself and even forgave Supaari VaGayjur and Havlin Kitheri -- he had to or the hatred would have killed him. But his relationship to God at the end seems just as distant, just as far removed as when he realized that his pleas during the rapes seemed to be futile gestures. It seems that Russell has two main threads one is of a spiritual nature and another demonstrates how even the political correctness of the late 20th & 21st century cannot prevent the sociopolitical havoc wreaked by a 'first contact' situation. In the first thread, Sandoz's experiences are not too dissimilar to Job, Jeremiah and other Biblical Prophets. The latter thread is very similar to the experiences of the early European 'Discoverers' of the Americas and our current judgement of their insensitivity. In the Sparrow, the political events help to drive Emilio's journey froward while in the Children of God the roles are reversed. I think it is this reversal that makes the Children of God not as satisfying to me.
Rating: 
Summary: Actually liked it better than the first one
Review: I read "The Sparrow" & "Children Of God" back to back, and I seem to be the only one who thought the second one was better. I thought Sparrow just kind of glossed over everything at the end. Once I read "Children Of God", I saw why; she obvious was saving most of the details for the second book. If these two books had been written as one, I would probably have been my favorite of the year.
Rating:
Summary: A less-than so-so companion to "The Sparrow"
Review: I find it interesting that amazon.com critics have given this volume a better overall review than the first book, "The Sparrow." I myself was enraptured by the first book, its human characters, the excellent meshing of linguistics, anthropology and theology, and Sandoz' almost Jesusian experience. "Children of God" I cannot even get through. I have been wading through it for weeks and can't get into it. Sure, it's nice that Sofia survived because she was a cool neo-feminist and all, but the whole interplay between her, Supaari and her son Isaac is quite odd. Isaac seems like some kind of autistic prophet, which is rather bizarre to me. Russell seems to go into rather esoteric ideas about religion and civics in this volume. I have to admit, I have no idea at the point I'm at what is going on between Sandoz and the members of the Hugo crew. I can't figure out at all who's good and bad. Iron Horse? Sean Fein? And who are these Italian thugs, the megalomaniac conqueror Carlo seems more fit for an X-Men comic than Russell's universe....and did Father Giuliani put them up to this? If so, it ruins his character from the previous book, I'd say. I also don't find the VaRakhati characters very interesting in this one. In conclusion, I guess sometimes you really should let the dead rest. The legacy of characters like Jimmy, Anne and George is done little honor by digging them around. In my mind, Sandoz's quest was finished in "The Sparrow."
Rating: 
Summary: Don't miss the wonderful sequel..
Review: "Children of God" and the earlier "The Sparrow" are really two parts of one larger piece of work. The writing is entrancing; the books are both treasures. I find it agonizing that I have to wait for more of her work.
Rating:
Summary: Russell nutures characters and socio-political upheaval
Review: In Children of God, Russell continues to nuture the characters that she created in "The Sparrow", but focuses not on the religious implication of their journey, but on the tremendous social upheaval their journey has caused, not only on another planet, but on earth. Her characterizations aren't as strong as "The Sparrow", but she explores the more interesting questions of how a society is formed from chaos, and paralles the Runa's plight to various events in American history, giving us a look at our own history.
|
