Talk:Rendezvous with Rama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Mass Effect![edit]

I'm surprised there's no talk of how many of this book's elements Mass Effect borrows. The Citadel is clearly Rama, the Keepers are clearly the biots and they even use the "use massive gravitational fields to travel across the galaxy" sub theme. It's actually quite obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArKaiN RBG (talkcontribs) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

--Completely agree with that assessment. I was amazed by how familiar it all appeared when I first saw it ingame. Might be worth mentioning as part of "Other media" or in "popular culture" or something to that effect. Martin Ninov (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

List of cities[edit]

The article states that the cities are called Bombay, Beijing, Paris, Moscow, London, and Tokyo, while my copy says Rome, Peking, Paris, Moscow, London, and Tokyo. Anybody know why the discrepancy? User:67.101.137.186

My copy also says Rome, Peking, Paris, Moscow, London, and Tokyo, so I'm changing it to that. —Lowellian (reply) 20:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mine says Paris, Moscow, London, Rome, and New york.

Mine syas Rome, Peking, Paris, Moscow, London, New York, and Tokyo: "Because it reminds us of old Manhattan, we've called it new York." and "We've called them Rome, Peking, Paris, Moscow, London, Tokyo." Page 32 in my copy, chapter 9

Editorial comments[edit]

The following line;

"Facing such enormous pressure, Clarke paired up with Gentry Lee for the remainder of the series, but some fans consider these sequels as inferior to the original"

Is problematic. Unless there's some kind of critical consensus (in which case the critics should be cited) there's no point in mentioning what "some fans" think. "Some fans" probably hold every opinion possible on the sequels. User:Mattcolville

I happen to be one of the fans that considers the sequels inferior, a myterious wonder was transformed into alien monsters capturing the worst of humanity to study under a microscope.Max Vitor 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that problematic as was phrased. However, it is quantifiable that the latter books have not received the same number of critical awards as has the original book. —Lowellian (reply) 20:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the claim in the current version that Clarke uses more stereotypical characters than are seen in the later books seems to be totally wrong. The reverse is the case! Clarke uses rather unusual characters, though he does not portray them in enormous psychological depth, and there is an understated quality about the way their unusual (to us) psychological qualities are brought out. The characters in the later trilogy are portrayed with a greater show of psychological realism/depth, but they are more stereotyped and their interactions are quite melodramatic: these characters could easily come out of a Hollywood soap opera. From what I have heard and read (and my own response), this is one reason why these books are less well regarded by critics and fans. Metamagician3000 10:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The characters of the sequels were perhaps too realistic as humans, but were extremely unrealistic in the roles of explorers and representatives of the human race, it would have been credible if this group had been dispatched from some remote outpost along Rama's path, but for this group with all of their vices, neuroses and psychoses to have been hand picked and specially trained for the task is simply inconceivable.Max Vitor 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits to reflect the above. Metamagician3000 08:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Details on Film[edit]

The film is more than a rumor. Michael Gilvary is the latest writer to be hired to work on the adaptation.[1] BehroozZ 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman had his role in it listed on his own webpage for a long time, it's also listed against him in the DVD extras of Shaw-shank redemption.

Plus there was this presentation: http://www.rendezvouswithrama.com/comdex.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.54.231 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A noteworthy element[edit]

The handheld computers in this 1972 novel are quite close to the capabilities exhibited by PalmOS 4.1, released circa 2001, when the PDA operating system gained the Notepad application that can store sketches and handwriting, but can't translate handwriting to editable text.

Crew[edit]

Maybe it'll be appropriate in the article to add a list of the crew of Solar Survey Research Vessel "Endeavour". Though there's no such list in the book, it could be of some value for readers. So, here it is as follows:

  • 1. Appointed Commanding Officer "Skipper" William Tsien Norton (Bill Norton, b. 2077, Brisbane, Oceana, educated Sydney, Bombey, Houston, 5 years in Astrograd specializing in propulsion, commissioned 2102, Myrna and Caroline his wives, three children)
  • 2. His Executive Officer Jerry Kirchoff
  • 3. Lieut-Commander Karl Mercer
  • 4. Lt Joe Calvert
  • 5. Communication Officer Lt Cosmonaut Boris Rodrigo
  • 6. Herr Doktor Professor Technical Sergeant Willard Myron
  • 7. Surgeon-Commander Laura Ernst [f]
  • 8. Chief Steward Sergeant Ravi McAndrews, Superchimpanzees Master
  • 9. Sergeant Pieter Rousseau, space recon instruments expert, "Biot-Watcher-In-Chief"
  • 10. Sergeant Ruby Barnes [f], keen sailor, captain of HMS Resolution
  • 11. Lt James Pak, "Jimmy", pilot of the Dragonfly sky-bike

--Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Spoiler in first paragraph[edit]

{{spoiler}}

The first paragraph contains a plot details that aren't revealed in the book until the last handful of pages:

Rendezvous with Rama is a novel by Arthur C. Clarke first published in 1972. Set in the 22nd century, the story involves a thirty-mile-long cylindrical alien starship that passes through Earth's solar system on its way past the sun. The story is told from the point of view of a group of human explorers, who intercept the ship in an attempt to unlock its mysteries.

I suggest this as an alternative: Rendezvous with Rama is a novel by Arthur C. Clarke first published in 1972. Set in the 22nd century, the story involves a thirty-mile-long cylindrical alien starship that passes through enters Earth's solar system on its way past the sun. The story is told from the point of view of a group of human explorers, who intercept the ship in an attempt to unlock its mysteries.

I'll alter it in a week if no one comments, feel free to do it yourself if you know this article and agree. --RickiRich 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the real synopsis?[edit]

To me, that really isnt a synopsis. It mainly consists of a few "behind the scenes" comments concerning the author and almost nothing about the story. Since its been almost 20 years since I read the series, maybe someone with a fresher memory than my own could re write it and add a few more details. Coradon 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Gentry Lee[edit]

Could someone please add brackets to the name Gentry Lee in the section where it lists his sequels? Thanks. 151.198.233.92 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done 58.169.189.226 10:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate Page for Rama Series[edit]

I noticed that some of the information on this page fits under the whole series, not just this book. There is also a "link" to the Rama series page, but it just returns here! Should there be a page thet encompasses the whole series instead of just dumping it here on this page? Comtraya 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

   If we had no articles on any of the 3 co-authored novels of the series, i could sympathize with the lack of a separate article on the series. But repeating, in each of the 4 articles, the same text, and the same links (except for the one that would there become a self-link) is something WP aims to avoid. There indeed should be a Rama series or Rama cycle article (with the other title Rdr-ing to it), and each article with a Rama novel as its topic (2 additional ones already suggest themselves) should link to it.
--Jerzyt 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
   The indirect self link still stands, tho "Self links are usually not recommended." In fact, if it had be given anywhere near adequate attention, it would be coded as "#Rama series" instead of "Rama series" -- (and for that matter, the Rdr would point to "Rendezvous with Rama#Rama series" instead of to the [start of the] article). I am making changes corresponding to both of those, to each of the 4 existing single-novel articles -- even tho i expect (after delaying 7 days to provide the opportunity for objections) to carry out the splitting-out proposal that has passed 6 years without objection. I will of course use "This edit copies copy-left content from ..." language (reflecting each article that was the first to acquire some part of the 4 similar lists) in the edit-summary for the new article.
--Jerzyt 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

no Plot, no Synopsis[edit]

I would like to comment that the novel has no plot worth mentioning. Clarke simply narrates a series of incidents, with little conflict and no character development. This isn't really a criticism, because it is obviously exactly what Clarke wanted to do: the interest is in the gradual revelation of alien knowledge. So there's no point in including a synopsis, unless you're going to describe Clarke's ideas in detail. CharlesTheBold 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a plot: A space ship appears in the outer reaches of the solar system and Humans only have a few weeks to explore this mysterious world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.1.195 (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mercury[edit]

After reading the book, it seems to me that maybe Mercury was supposed to be an anology of present day America. Rough settlers who shun the place of their origin, and who's first response to something unknown is a nuclear bomb. Does anyone else think that this was Clarke's intent? 12.218.145.112 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an authoritative source, not just speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.194.7 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rama copy.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Rama copy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Whoever designed that cover must have been recovering from seeing '2001' for the first time! Halmyre (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Film, TV or theatrical adaptations[edit]

"The novel is also known to have influenced the movies Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

Having read the reference, this is director David Fincher's POV and I suggest it should be deleted. Halmyre (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively you could say that, "in the words of director David Fincher, QUOTE the series etc UNQUOTE". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chant No. 1[edit]

The article says that, "facing pressure, Clarke paired up with Gentry Lee for the remainder of the series". This is very ambiguous. What kind of pressure, how much pressure, and from whom? It throws a dark cloud over this section of the article. At one extreme it could be read to imply that he was on the verge of financial ruin, and needed to churn out some books that he didn't care for; at another level it could be read to imply that he was perfectly happy to continue the series, but simply couldn't find the time. It could also be read to imply that he faced pressure from Gentry Lee, which is surely not the case. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Published in 1972?[edit]

So far I found no evidence that this novel has been released before 1973. The first edition (by Gollancz) states 1973. AFAIK the Harcourt Brace Jovanovich edition has been published a few weeks later.217.18.181.18 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Problem with deceleration[edit]

The analogy with the bow and stern of a ship isn't valid; in deceleration mode, the drive at the South Pole would be devoted to slowing the ship and would have to point in the direction of travel. Essentially Rama would be "sailing" backwards. There are some other problems with deceleration mode. The solid metalic slab at the North Pole, supposedly devised to protect the ship against meteor impacts, would be useless, because oncoming meteors would be more likely to hit the South Pole. Of course, maybe the explorers didn't figure out everything about Rama.

CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, what eactly are you talking about? I can't find any mention of any "deceleration" (sic) mode in the article. Given that the drive system seems to flout known laws of physics - i.e. is reactionless - there's no reason to assume that Rama has to point in the direction of thrust - indeed the layout of Rama suggests the opposite; that it will always be orientated in the way shown in the book.
Even if the craft did reorientate itself, bow & stern are still valid even if only as terms of reference. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

3D Artists Impression[edit]

The 3D artists impression image in the 'Geography' section appears to show vegetation in the interior (Northern hemisphere) of Rama, the book indicates that although a single flower is discovered in the southern hemisphere of Rama there appears to be no other forms of vegetation aboard. This image could be considered misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NebulousBlue (talkcontribs) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the image is misleading and doesn't match the description in the book. Furthermore, the other image "File:Spacecolony3edit.jpeg" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacecolony3edit.jpeg has no relation to the book at all, and should be removed from this page. --Bobofthedead84 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Bobofthedead84

Merge[edit]

Proposing merge of the Rama (spacecraft) article here. Seems like it'd fit nicely into the "Rama" section. -- Director (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree and I think it is time we remove this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeBK (talkcontribs) 02:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)