Archive 1

I'm sorry, I'm going to move the commentary from the parent page, for a couple of reasons:

1. This looks like it's been copied from somewhere else, and I'm not convinced that the copyright owner has given their permission to use it in this way. Could the person who added this material please clarify this. This is the major reason I moved the content here.
2. We avoid adding authorship of material in Wikipedia articles, so we'll have to remove the "By Daniel".
3. It's written as one person's take on the novel, and thus needs to read more neutrally and we should also leave out the somewhat idiosyncratic view on our supposedly post-Christian society.

--Robert Merkel

---

Removed content below:

Commentary on Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" by Daniel

Imagine one day waking up to the news that huge flying saucers have positioned themselves above every major city in the world. Later that day, you and your astonished friends and family shudder to discover that every radio and television station in the world has been co-opted by the aliens in the spacecrafts and the following message is repeated over and over in all the worlds languages. "We are not here to harm you, we are friendly, we want to help you, protect you and guide you. We will not allow you to destroy yourselves. Warfare will no longer be allowed." The message goes on, but that's the gist of how Arthur C. Clarke in his book "Childhood's End" envisioned how contact would begin between the aliens and earth.

Clarke goes on to tell how the aliens use their powers to stop warfare; how they communicated to the earth through one man, the head of the United Nations; how the friendly space men took upon themselves the re-education of the planet through the co-opted radio and television frequencies. The aliens revealed. how they had helped to engineer the evolutionary development of the race, and how throughout our history they had worked through chosen vessels like Moses, Gautama, Confucius, Baha lai, Jesus, Mohamed and many others to try and steer the human race down paths of survival. Unfortunately, according to the aliens, all these enlightened teachers soon had their teachings corrupted and turned into religion. That's why they, our space brothers, were here; to correct our misunderstanding and to help us in our evolutionary development.

Clark's writes that the aliens had revealed themselves in order to help the human race take the next big step in it's evolutionary progress. This next stage, as Clarke imagined it, involved the youth of the world metamorphosing into a universal mind and floating off the planet like a butterfly into another dimension. This coincided with the end of the ability of the race to procreate itself --the adults were left behind to grow old and just die off, thus the title of the book: "Childhood's End" Clarke, like many today, really believe that the human race is headed for a great evolutionary leap and that it could actually occur along the lines that he fictionalized in his book. Clarke wrote, that after the initial coming in their flying saucers, that it took decades before the aliens could actually reveal themselves personally to the people of earth. They first had to re-educate the planet and especially de-mystify the devil--because the funny thing was, that when the friendly space brothers finally did reveal themselves to the earth they looked like the spittin' image of the devil himself, or at least, how the old Christian artists had painted the devil--with horns, cloven feet, and a tail!

Now Clarke envisioned it taking decades of re-education by the aliens in order to get the people to the point where the aliens could reveal themselves without freaking everybody out of their minds. However, Clarke wrote this back in the 50's, and didn't anticipate the stupendous progress made in public education and the media towards demystifying religion and softening the minds of the masses to accept a demonic intrusion of Earth as a "Close Encounter Of The Third Kind".Today the entire western world is in a post-Christian era . It does have a Christian veneer, but underlying that is the new western paradigm of evolution with it's befuddled logic and a mind-set that is wide open to receive the great evolutionary deception of our friendly space brothers. They are ready to receive the the Devil himself!

That part of the article is just too long. One of those trivia list where a lot of people just list whatever reference they can find. What's the point? Since I'm very new to editing Wikipedia, I'm a little scared to delete the whole thing, or just trim it a little bit. Or what to do. Other than that, I really really like this article because it gives a really good insight and introduction to the novel. This one article probably made me like WP in the first place. Thank you if you wrote it :) --Soren84 (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states that a screenplay of the novel exists but it has yet to be produced. I have read somewhere on an Arthur C. Clarke fan site that there were two previous attempts to film it but they met with failure. However, how does anyone know that the screenplay is still being sold and traded and that Hillary Swank was once attached to the project? Does anyone have any sources for those claims?

Anyway, I hope that the film will eventually see the light of day. It is probably Clarke's best novel and it should not be overlooked. With Rendezvous with Rama heading into the studio, I guess anything is possible. -Suffor

I was once told by a leading Editor of a UK Sci-Fi magazine years ago that Mr Clarke refused permission for Directors to film this story unless he had executive directorship control. He didn't want it turned and twisted like so many other novel adaptations. HE wanted his vision, not someone else's. Shame he could never find such a director willing to partner up with him. --Quatermass (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking this. What's ironic, is that many writers and directors have taken parts from the book and used it in their films. Oh well. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of that which is owned by that one movie producer? I'd kill to see that! -Suffor

I know there is no official pronunciation, but how would you pronounce Karellen? I say (car 'ell en) or ('car ell en). It is my UNIX hostname so I realy ought to find out! Navaburo 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the same computer name: karellen.ipac.caltech.edu, where I am user waw. I have no idea about the correct pronunciation, I say ('Kair ell en) myself. Wwheaton (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I always pronounce it like "Cuh rel len".

When I first saw the name, I pronounced it as (Ka rel len), similar to what other people have said and I have stuck by the pronunciation. But really I think you can interpret the name in many ways. You could also say (Care llen) or even (Car len) like the name Carlin, so you don’t pronounce the first 'e'. -elle

Hrm I seem to remember themes like this in startrek episodes though I cant weem to find them. The closest one I can find is Where_No_One_Has_Gone_Before_(TNG_episode) -Ravedave 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Journey's End (TNG episode) and The Chase (TNG episode) come to mind as possibilities. Tomer^talk 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"One day, humanity's children start displaying telepathic and telekinetic abilities. These children soon become distant from their parents, and the Overlords quarantine all of them to the continent of Australia. " - I thought this was Africa. I don't have the book anymore can someone check for certain? -Ravedave 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The book never specifies which continent, simply saying they have a continent of their own. The protagonist assumes it to be Australia.Navaburo 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in Australia. I have not read the book in five years, so must do so to familiarise myself with it User: jslasher, to confirm that "the end" takes place on our continent.

Would suggest that someone expand the article to include mention that the current asking price for the screenplay, written by Howard Koch, is over ten-times that which was paid out to A C Clarke shortly after the novel was first optioned. J S Lasher.

I've been re-reading the book, and it states that the children were given a continent of their own, but so far I have not been able to determine if that continent is named. I always thought it was South America, but that's a third option that was listed. I'm going to keep checking. Wyldkardde

So far the page has listed Africa, S America, and Australia, so it might vary by revision of the book. If you do find it specifically listed please post your edition & pg #. -Ravedave

The continent is never named, but it is briefly described in Chapter 23 as appropriate for about 300 million people, and a place of isolation. Thus one can infer Australia although it's never stated (or important). Modus Vivendi 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

page 194 of my edition (end of chapter 22). Jan is coming home to Earth and is surprised to see that there are no lights. "The only continent visible was Australia, a darker mist in the atmospheric haze along the limb of the planet". It doesn't say the he actually lands on Australia, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.181.73 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The continent can't be Africa, South America or Australia. The book describes the children as spread more or less evenly over the entire continent, it is fertile and originally has all the fruit and game they needed. That rules out Africa and Australia. It also describes the children wandering and occasionally bumping into obstacles because they wont go around them. The land is lightly wooded. This rules out South America. There is really no continent that matches the description and I suspect Clarke just wrote it with no particular continent in mind. Wayne (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Since it was apparently intended to isolate the children, it is hard to see how it could have been Europe or Asia. Australia would be the obvious candidate from the latter point of view, except that is so largely desert. Wwheaton (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this section, I notice a lot of "...Possibly inspired by..., May have been... Uncertain if... etc" It seems that unless a direct parellel can be drawn, or we have a source specifying that a piece of Media was inspired by this novel, it should be removed, in the interest of a more encyclopedic wiki.

For example, lets look at the Starcraft reference. The Overmind of the Zerg seems in no way related to that of the novel. If there is a likeness beyond name, I don't see it. The Overlords in Starcraft bear no resemblance beyond name to those in the novel. The Xel'naga actively participated in the evolution of the Zerg and Protoss, whereas the Overlords in the novel came to observe the ascendance of the Human race. Again, I don't see how the game draws from the book. The only thing vaguely similar is the emerging psionic abilities of humanity, but that is a theme common in alot of fiction so we can hardly place the inspiration here.

I'm not seeing how Starcraft draws anything from the novel. The same goes for several other entries in the section. I'd like some other opinions before someone goes through and deletes information though.--204.76.128.217 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

without saying anything about starcraft which i've never played -- i thought the overlords were here to kind of shephard us into our ascendance, make sure we don't kill ourselves in the meantime. that's not participating in the evolution itself, but they are more than observers. --dan 23:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

i really think the karellen article should be merged in here with some major snipping. it is primarily made up of quotes detailing the plot, but not important to the character itself. i've been talking about this on Talk:Karellen as well. --dan 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you merge the article, you don’t have to snip it. The Wikipedia policy is simply to put the quotations in a “Wikiquote” icon. By the way, I only work on Wikipedia on Sundays. —Cesar Tort 23:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge. Besides, we don't really need long quotes when we have Wikiquote for that. --Kjoonlee 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

so that's 2 for and 1 against, so far. where is everyone? this is a good book, more people should stroll by! --dan 08:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbers are not insignifant, but IMHO reasons are vastly more important when it comes to wiki discussions. We don't have any good reasons why we need a separate article on Karellen, I think. --Kjoonlee 08:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

i've never done a merge, i have no idea how any of this works. --dan 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When I originally wrote the Karellen article, I specifically tried to keep the information to the character in the book because I felt that the character was important enough to generate an article. Since I wrote it, this has become another Childhoods End article more than a character article. In it's current form, I agree, it should be merged, but in it's original form, it is a separate article and there are many articles for characters in books. Either merge it, or revert it and move the information that should be in the Childhood's End article there. Don't just leave it in it's current form. --Dan 19 September 2006

I have merged the Karellen article into this one. It had very little potential for expansion. As a good, concise, encyclopedic article it will probably only ever achieve stub status. Almost every quote that was on the page before is now in Wikiquote’s page on Childhood’s End. (By the way, that page needs some help cleaning up and formatting if anyone is interested) I have implemented a selective paste merger and formatted the information that was in the ‘Key Plot Events and Twists’ section. It is now in the plot summary of Childhood’s End. If you don’t think this is sufficient material on him, perhaps a separate section within the Childhood’s End article will be good. If you disagree with any of the actions I’ve taken regarding the Karellen article, please leave a message here or on my talk page. We can always work out a good article that deserves to stand on its own, but since Karellen has needed cleanup and merging for quite a while, I thought I would just be bold. Lebroyl 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"The song "A Childlike Faith in Childhood's End" by Van der Graaf Generator was inspired by the novel (but no bat-wings for Peter Hammill)." does anyone know what that last bit means? it sounds like an inside joke but it could be refering to something i don't know about (since i don't know the band). --dan 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was referring to Peter Gabriel's bat winged costume for "Watcher of the Skies"

the book mentions that there is an alternate opening in the new version. But the plot synopsis gives no illumination about the alternate version. This should be fixed, but I have not read the new version. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never read Childhood's End. In reading this article, I would like some sense of the author's tone with regards to the topic. Is this a hopeful novel, envisioning the evolution of mankind into the Overmind as a Good Thing? Is it a Twilight Zone-esque "To Serve Man" horror novel where the final destination is sprung out on the reader in a cautionary way? Or is it something else? Applejuicefool 15:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The narration style is third person omniscient and nonbiased. The narrator refrains from making value judgements about the assimilation into the Overmind, aside from noting that they it is a superior entity. The Overlords actually note at one point that the logical thing to do in the face of the inevitable is to simply accept it.--Sludge 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto the narration style, but Clarke is an optimist IMHO, and the book left me in a rather euphoric state after reading, so i would say it is hopeful! Navaburo 04:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have always found the book very moving, I think in part because of the tension between its tragic (the end of humankind) and its fulfilling (the birth of something wonderful: our children, who will go forth to do and be what we cannot, nor even fully comprehend) aspects. One edition I have purchased describes it as a very dark vision, but I think it is much richer than that. It does seem useful to put something on this issue into the article, but I suppose this would require an external reference to support any judgments rendered? I agree that Clarke is an optimist, yet it is remarkable how many of his short stories kill off humankind: "History Lesson", "No Morning After", and several others, though sometimes with a humorous twist, as if we are not really all that important. Wwheaton (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the kind of book that is depressing if you are happy and uplifting if you are depressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.181.73 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this guys. The discussion to merge had been quiet for a few months after most agreed on a merge, so in accordance with policy on merging, I was OK. I made sure to save all information from the page that was relevant as an encyclopedic article, and all of the quotes to Wikiquote. Anything that wasn't saved was repetitive with the other stuff in Childhood's End, or did not necessarily belong in an article. It is still in the history section for referring back to if you need to. We can always still discuss changes or bringing back the article if we really rework it. Lebroyl 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about what another editor had written above:

"I really want to keep this article about the character. —Wyldkardde 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)"

He was talking of the incarnation of this article before my 30 July 2006 copyedits: [1] —Cesar Tort 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Childhood 68.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it ever explained in the book why the further evolution is even desirable? From what I can understand, it involves giving up freedom and creativity, some sort of global extermination of civilization and life, and eventually vast social strife. The thing with the parents is odd too - why, specifically, would the parents try to kill their children?

This short of stuff should be at the least explained with Karellen, as to why, after seeing what happens to the other species, the Overlords actually want to do this to themselves. If it's not, then I'd be highly surprised.KrytenKoro 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Karellen stated that because of the children's evolving state, their parents would no longer see them as human children but aliens. UPDATE - Perhaps psychotic religious people would think they are "of the devil"? Ha ha! But then again, the Overlords helped desecrate religion but who knows. Suffor

...that's a pretty pathetic reason. Anyway...what about the reason why Karellen wanted to evolve?KrytenKoro 05:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

well, so why apes wanted to evolve into humans? or did they really "wanted" to evolve into humans? And as far as I remember, during Jan's visit to the Overlord's homeworld, he realized the predicament that humankind is in : either humankind continues to evolve physically, eventually reaching the physical and technological dead-end that is the Overlords, or humankind need to evolve spiritually to a new level of existence beyond this physical and technological dead-end, to a more infinite state of true freedom, not the mundane physical freedom/creativity/life as we know it. I think Clarke is trying to evision a truely trascendent evolution that's not centered around currently humankind's mundane value of mere physical freedom/creativity/life/etc. Ufopedia (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Historically on Earth, evolution does not proceed because of "wanting to"; it proceeds by accidents that turn out to be successful. But in the book, a more teleological explanation is given: that "there is only one bridge" across the gap to the next step (based apparently on the Overmind's observations of many civilizations' development), and the Human Race "would never have found it", and would have become a danger to other races. Thus the Overmind intervened, via the Overlords. The details of the life beyond are never revealed; how could they be? Yet the chaotic natural process appears to have given rise to all the wondrous and beautiful living world we know on Earth. In any case, humans would seem to have had little choice, in the novel, but to accept the next step. Karellen's apparent wisdom and nobility seem the best guarantee of the hope that the step, seen "from above", is in fact a step forward rather than a step backwards, or into slavery. Yet in the nature of things, one can never know for certain, as our knowledge and viewpoint are too limited. Wwheaton (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall from the book, Jan has concluded that the Human Race would either evolve into Overlords, which is a dead-end, or join Overmind... or destroy itself with nuclear wars I guess, given the US vs. Soviet tension at the start of the novel. I don't remember it saying anything about "being a danger to other races". And Karellen is just following Overmind's orders, not exactly much about his own wisdom or nobility (not that he is not wise/noble). It seems that Overlords are the ultimate dead-end of a non-spiritual "chaotic natural process" evolution, while the Overmind is the more open-ended path of spiritual evolution. Human Race has the potential to reach Overmind, but will end up as Overlords at best (or nuclear war at worst) if not guided, at least that's what I think it's implied in the book. Ufopedia (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The passage you ask about is in Chapter 20, about two pages in (p.183 in the 1953 hardcover edition). Karellen in his last speech to humanity, says:

"... For the physicists could only have ruined the earth: the paraphysicists could have spread havoc to the stars.

"That could not be allowed....Let us say tht you might have become a telepathic cancer, a malignant mentality which in its inevitable dissolution would have poisoned other and greater minds."

Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't explained clearly why Karellen wants to evolve but there are hints that he does desire the evolution. In his last speech to humanity, his last words are "We will always envy you" which shows the Overlords are envious of humanity being chosen by the Overmind and not themselves. I guess they feel cheated. I would feel cheated too if I was under servitude for someone and didn't get anything in return despite what I had done for them. At the very end when Karellen is looking back towards the Solar System, the narrator states clearly Karellen is full of sadness and that his sadness is with only his race. That is a definite give away that he is devastated that he and his race are constrained to their current forms. However, it is also debatable if the Overlords indeed do want the evolution. This is implied from when Rashaverak tells Jan that the arrangement his race has with the Overmind has its own advantages and that no creature of intelligence would dare not deny the inevitable. Before it says Karellen is in a depressed state, the narrator does say that Karellen knows his race will carry on and realizes that their individuality will forever be theirs and that they won't "lose their souls". Suffor

I don't think Karellen/Overlords feel "cheated" even the slightest. I think the reason of their race reached the ultimate physical/technological evolution and meeting a dead-end is implied to be that there were no other race to lead them at that time, so they happened to choose the "wrong turn" when they were at the same stage of humankind, at the critical crossroad between choosing to evolve physically or spiritually. Basically they became the Overmind's servants AFTER they reach the physical and technological evolutionary dead-end, when they are advanced enough to decipher the Overmind's message (as shown by Jan, the Overmind's message was not really comprehensible by humankind), so they are tasked by the Overmind to help other races to the better, more open and infinite path of spiritual evolution, and at the same time they are trying to find way for themselves to join the Overmind. But then it is also hinted that they may never join Overmind as they have already reached an evolutionary dead-end, and the Overlords themselves are also aware of that. Ufopedia (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a deep issue here about purpose and meaning, which I suspect each reader must answer for themselves. Evolution to higher levels of organization seems to be a common, even central, theme in the history of life on Earth as we understand it. The question of the intrinsic value of individuality is much less clear and more difficult, in my opinion. We are, after all, super-organisms ourselves, composed of cells which have surrendered their individuality to the community. Is it tragic or totalitarian that eons ago our single-celled ancestors gave up their freedom and chose instead to cooperate in this way? None of us, now, campaign for "Lymphocytes Lib" (I believe we generally call it leukemia). But at homo sapiens's  level of organization, the tension between the interests of the community and the interests of the individual is central and unavoidable, and may even be the Core Issue in our ongoing cultural, ethical, religious, literary, and philosophical debates. Personally, I feel my loyalty is probably really to the process by which Life has evolved (so many of us think) from something simple and primitive into something astonishingly rich. complex, and beautiful -- rather than to any particular answer, be it amoeba, rose, beehive, octopus, hummingbird, human, or perhaps something like the Overmind. That it raises the issue in such a powerful and provocative way is one of the reasons I think Childhood's End  is such an important book. I have no idea how to make this point in the article itself without major research into the critical literature; is it even consistent with Wiki's rules to make it here?! Wwheaton (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The documentaries on Stanley Kubrick - Warner Home Video Directors Series 2001 Disk 2 got me to thinking. Very few SF writers are interviewed. Well Clarke is there, being a little coy some of the time.

Anyway that Big Question about what the hell is the film and ending about comes up many times. (I mean aside from the other major story line about HAL, which actually ties to the film's base story.)

I see a strong connection between 2001 and Childhoods End, but am reluctant to place this opinion on the main page about the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert.a.jackson (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and even think Childhood's End  is almost an essential prerequisite to understanding 2001. The movie has HAL as its one additional essential element, which looms more and more important with the developments in computers and information technology of the half century since CE was written. Like you, I see no way to put this idea into the article itself without first establishing it as non-original by finding some reliable external source. Wwheaton (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried! That is, I tried lately to at least add some words to the 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) article to the effect that the novel contains considerable explanation of a movie that is not exactly transparent taken by itself. But two other editors rushed in to revert, claiming it violated WP:NOR, even though I referenced it to the novel, thinking Clarke is surely a reliable source.... Well, Clarke didn't explicitly say their meanings were related, so apparently I can't either, at least not here. Sheesh!

Of course it is yet a further step from the movie "2001" to Childhood's End, but I thought establishing the connection between the film & novel versions should be a slam dunk, and a step in the right direction. I do strongly recommend that anyone who was moved by "2001" but at all puzzled should read both books, CE & "2001".Wwheaton (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have tried again, this time by writing an intro section to Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey simply pointing out the obvious, that the 2001 book and film are closely related, hoping to establish that at least without violating WP:NOR. Let's see if it flies. If anyone knows a good third-party reference supporting the fundamental parallelism between the two, it would help to put it in or mention it here. I fear it is common knowledge, too obvious to be publishable, but it must appear incidentally in some secondary critical literature. My impression is that at least some of the folks who have written on "the meaning of 2001" (almost always meaning the movie version, I claim) have not actually read the novel version, let alone Childhood's End. I write about this here because it seems important to the interpretation of Clarke's fiction, of which I think CE is key. Wwheaton (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Does any one mention that Clarke's diary mentions Kubrick and themes from "Childhoods End"? http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0073.html --aajacksoniv 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs)

I need to make this a little more clear, during the writing of the novel/screenplay for 2001, Kubrick explicitly mentions to Clarke about including something from CE. Clarke explicitly documents this in THE LOST WORLDS OF 2001,(New American Library,1972) page 37, May 25 1965.. Clarke then must have dissuaded Kubrick from this idea. That means Kubrick had read CE either before he met Clarke or very soon thereafter.--aajacksoniv (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of several (Dreadstar in particular), we now have a completely revised article Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey in place. I hope you will agree it is a vast improvement over preceding versions, and I think relevant to CE, though good external sources for the underlying linkage between the two would be welcome. Due to a running dispute, the article is currently protected, but comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism on the talk page are possible and most welcome as we try to establish consensus among other interested Wiki editors. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a reconsideration of what I had written before. One has to watch all the supplementary material on the Warner special edition of Kubrick's films, and we find out something from Christiana Kubrick we already knew:...... Kubrick had read most of the important prose SF of the 1950's thus by in inference Childhood's End. CHILDHOOD'S END and 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY : Clarke was decidedly influenced by H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapleton. Clarke wrote and published CHILDHOODS END in the mid 1950's. As Heywood Floyd first stroked the Monolith on the Moon, the idea presents itself ..... is this is some kind of abstract re-interpretation' of BIG THINKS about advanced alien civilizations by way of Clarke's Childhoods End? ( Clarke's "The Sentinel" is really only a hook to hang the Monolith on.) It appears now Kubrick was throughly familiar with modern prose science fiction and must have read CHILDHOOD'S END. The ending of film could be interpreted as a connection to Karellen/Overmind/Rashaverak of CHILDHOOD'S END all super concentrated and contracted by Kubrick into the Star Child. The ending of 2001 can be interpreted as an abstracted-précis non-literal translation of Childhood's End. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End

But if I recall, Clarke's 2001 Dairy (I believe it is in "Lost Worlds", and excerpted on the web) indicates Kubrick fist heard of Clarke from one of his friends or co-workers, as a possible collaborator on "The great Science fiction movie" he wanted to make. The guy said Clarke was "a recluse living in a tree in Sri Lanka", or words to that effect. This suggests Kubrick must not have been very familiar with him or his work. Wwheaton (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there seems to be some contradiction about Kubrick's knowledge of Clarke, but it is Christiane Kubrick herself, either in Life in Pictures, or on one of the DVDs in the Warner set (I don't think the 2001 one) she says Kubrick was very well read in modern science fiction prose. That he did not know any details about Clarke's life may have been true. I read in one of Kubrick's bios that he wanted to do CHILDHOODS END , later I asked two SF authors who had collaborated with Clarke if they could verify this they said yes it was true. For reasons known only to Kubrick (probably the physical depiction of the Overlords) he dropped the idea or considered Clarke's novel as not adaptable or some other reason. Clarke apparently never discussed this in print anywhere. --aajacksoniv 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs)

Couldn't Earth: Final Conflict be said to be inspired by this Childhood's End? --69.255.17.40 (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you have valid references that state it (ie in an interview with the writers of Earth: Final Conflict).

Supersquid (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Childhood 68.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 ensure 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) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone document the claim in the current article that the Overmind is supposed to consist of "pure energy"? I think this is not stated in the novel text, and am dubious that it is warranted otherwise. Physically, I do not know what it means, though it might perhaps refer to bosonic fields that do not obey the Exclusion Principle. The possibility of the existence of another "spiritual" realm, entirely different than any known to contemporary physics, cannot be denied, and if so the Overmind might have some relation to it; yet borrowing our term "energy" to describe it seems inappropriate except perhaps metaphorically, and I doubt Clarke would have done it except perhaps very informally. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At one point, Karellen says the Overmind had "left the tyranny of matter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.73.114 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe; though I still feel uneasy about asserting that "anything not matter" is necessarily "pure energy" by default. In particular I am thinking of information, which seems essential to mind as I understand the concept. (Is there a necessary quantitative relationship between information and energy? The entropy of a black hole, and thus I suppose[?] its total information content, is believed proportional to the area of its event horizon, which is at least related to its mass and total energy.)

I guess, returning to relevance to the article, I would propose that it just say the Overmind is non-material, or something of that kind. Wwheaton (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Holographic principle, re the above question about energy and information. Wwheaton (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped the "pure energy" description of the Overmind, and substituted the wording, "freed from the limitations of ordinary matter", which I think is closer to Clarke's own words quoted above by 70.122.73.114 (talk) as, "left the tyranny of matter". I hope this is satisfactory, but take a look. Wwheaton (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more information on the physics of matter vs energy may be found at Matter. Wwheaton (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After the change noted above, I also worked over the first few paragraphs of this section, which I thought lacked coherence and needed some re-balancing of emphasis and general re-organization. Some of this spilled back into the introductory paragraph, which has a modified lead "about" sentence, and re-orders the publication and version history information. Wwheaton (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that the current article includes no references at all. This one [2] is a commercial student study guide. It gives a fairly useful and detailed summary of plot, characters, etc. Nevertheless I think some of their interpretive statements are problematic. (This may be the origin of the "pure energy" description of the Overmind, which I still consider a doubtful extrapolation, based on progress in physics since 1953. Or, perhaps they got it from the earlier text of our article here?)

Anyhow, my real question is whether it is acceptable to include this link as a reference on the article page. It could be considered spam I guess (though the on-line version can be read for free), but a book is a commercial product too, and would be OK I assume. I will try to do some study of the relevant Wiki policies, but some of you may know already. Wwheaton (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Childhood's End".

Speaking of references, I was wondering if anyone here could help me out. I'm currently edting the Xenogears article and there's a connection between this book and that game with the name Krelian (its mentioned in this article). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew where there was a decent reference to back this claim up. Thanks! Evaunit♥666♥ 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

.: D Evaunit♥666♥ 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the Plot summary that the story begins "twenty" or "thirty" years after the end of WWII has been inserted and changed. It needs some substantiation if we are going to be that definite. I've substituted "a few decades" after, pending verification. Wwheaton (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by Gebl Gebl Gebl Gebl of a satanic face that IMO is quite contrary to the persona of Karellen in the novel, which was not unfriendly to humans, nor malicious, and extremely serious in his purpose. Karellen's role will certainly appear ambiguous from some points of view of humanity's "purpose", whatever that may be, but he was not a mischievous, Mephistophelan or demonic character, despite his appearance. Let's have consensus on this image before re-inserting it. Wwheaton (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed an image (at right), this time of medieval vintage, which I consider irrelevant and inappropriate. Perhaps other authors could comment? Niether this nor the image I removed before (March 12, above) reminds me of the Karellen depicted in the novel, nor any of the other Overlords. If there is consensus for it I will yield, of course, but I oppose it. Wwheaton (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the summary in general, but there are a couple of errors I'd like to correct: (1) What Jan goes through is not the twin paradox, but relativistic time compression. If you want a dramatization of the twin paradox, look at Heinlein's TIME FOR THE STARS. (2) Referring to C.S. Lewis' earlier novel THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, the summary says that the eldila are demons. Actually Lewis says that they are comparable to either angels or demons, the only difference being how they choose to use their powers. CharlesTheBold (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say "good job" to whoever wrote this article. Second I did some copy editing, but please don't see this as a negative thing. Look at this as a quest for accuracy. Here are the comments I made in the edit summaries:

Remove WP:SYN: dealing with mind, hive mind, over mind, mergint with mind, etc . and Man's inability to live in Utopia? These statements appears to be a philosophical synthesis not supported by references. Please stick to the story. No analysis without comprable sources , please. In other words if a source says these things then it can be parpharased or quoted and put into the article. However, we are not supposed to synthesize original analysis and place it into a Wikipedia article. I know this is an easy mistake to make when writing an article such as this, because books such as these do give insights into being a human being, and humanity.

South African prediction: Remove WP:POV and WP:SYN. These are not predictions, these are short stories and novels. Please stick to the facts. Also, reference required for first sentence in section. Once again the article can only say these are predictions if another source has written that these are in fact predictions. Otherwise these are WP:SYN.

Plot summary: Remove confusing sentences that were not related to summarizing the plot, and not supported by the book. Change to accurate summary points in first paragraph. In other words, this first sentence, or couple of sentences were not related to the content of the book, or the plot. These appeared to be a report of current events in 1953, and also used weasel words (WP:Weasel words), such as "height of cold war". This is imprecise, vague, and not nuetral wording WP:NPOV.

OK thanks for your time, I just wanted to communicate my edits. This is a really enjoyable article, based on a very good book! ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, In an article on a work of fiction, is it permissible to give s straight precis (summary paraphrase) of the original work, without using an external source? I understand and agree that interpretation, or explanation not directly and explicitly supported by the original, is OR and forbidden, yet it seems that as long as these dangers are avoided, the original ought to be a valid reliable source for itself. (It may need in-line page references, and then the particular edition and printing could be important, as I suppose that pagination may change in later editions. I have a hard-cover edition of the original 1953 edition, if that would be useful.) There are commercial "study guide" synopses out there, but even close paraphrasing of these seems to verge on copyright infringement. (Surely the commercial sources would not appreciate their material being used as the basis for a free summary of the plot!) Our editor Jcsherwood1950 (talk) is probably the expert on this, as a journalist who has written a great deal about Clarke's works. He may be able to supply suitable external references, possibly material he has written and published himself. Anyhow, I do appreciate your work in this area, as the summary was a bit of a mess two or three years ago, and I think your changes have moved it along in the right direction. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Will, you are correct. I saw this error in the article myself, but for some reason I decided not to bring it up. Yes, the summary actually needs to be cited. I almost left citation needed templates at the end of each summary paragraph, but I thought I would be over-doing it. I am glad to see someone agrees with what I was thinking. I think any edition of the book would be acceptable, becaue the date of publication could be part of the reference, or some of the study synopsis is a good idea as well. It sounds like the editor Jcsherwood1950 could be very helpful. Well, thanks for speaking up, Will. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that 2001: A Space Odyssey finally gets mention on the main page, but under 'literature' , the film is most unique and poetic, but I would be hard put to list it as Literature. Maybe not change it, it's been so damn hard to get notice of the echos of CE contained in the film 2001, I would just leave it at that! That section seems a bit higgly piggley , for instance notes are out of total temporial sequence, Olaf Stapledon was a major influence on Clarke, CE flowed from ideas and themes by Stapledon that Clarke embraced. --aajacksoniv (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) and I had a mix-up in the discussion above ("Editing" section). I somehow did not look at his 4/27 edits to the article until today, only his edit summaries and talk page remarks. All these seemed OK. But then today when I did a cf on his edits (having forgotten our exchange above), I saw that there had been significant changes, which at first I could not figure out. I realize after talking to him on his talk page that we have apparently been looking at different versions of the text: the pre and post cold-war introductions. The editions immediately after about 1990 had only the new version, then later both. Of course both are genuine Clarke, and both need to be acknowledged and treated with more balance. So now I think we have to put in two subsections at the beginning of the plot summary, or at least two paragraphs, outlining the two variations. I'll try to take a stab at patching it up over the weekend if no one esle beats me to it, though I have to get part of a proposal out in the next day or two. Anyway, that is what seems to have happened. I know at least some later editions still have both introductions, so the reader can take his pick. Other editors might help if they know if the only thing we have to deal with is the sequence (Old; New; Both), or if it is yet more complex. John Sherwood might know this off the top of his head; let us know John, if you do. Thanks all.... Wwheaton (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A group of editors really needs to work on this article. Right now it appears to have so much WP:SYN, that the Overlords and Arthur C. Clarke would probably cringe, if they knew about this :>). I don't want to be the "bad" guy and move material to the talk page, or remove it from the ariticle, because of this issue. But some people, including me, needs to work on finding the sources and / or references. Personal interpretations don't fly on Wikipedia. This has already been brought up on the talk page, more or less. People really like this article, from what I have seen. Why ruin everyone's day by removing material that does not need to be removed. Starting from the section entitled "Similar themes in other literature" and scrolling down, all the material needs references and citations - acceptable ones that conform to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. So hopefully people will pitch in, myself included. This would be a difficult job for only one person. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Move this material to talk page until sources can be affixed to these interpretaions. Right now this is synthesis WP:SYN and WP:OR original research. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea of humanity reaching an end point through transformation to a higher form of existence is the main idea behind the eschatologies of Marxism, the Omega Point, or the technological singularity, among others. The idea of self-transcendence also appealed to devotees of psychedelic mind expansion, and Tom Wolfe would offer a quote from the novel at the conclusion of his LSD-soaked memoir The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. It is also reminiscent of the belief held by some Christians in the "Rapture". The concept has been used in a number of science fiction works written since Childhood's End, the most famous being Stanley Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey, based partially on a short story, "The Sentinel", by Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Other examples include Blood Music, Darwin's Radio, and its sequel Darwin's Children by Greg Bear, Sideshow by Sheri S. Tepper, the Vernor Vinge novels incorporating the "Singularity", the pre-1950s author Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker (1937), the sublimation which advanced civilizations may undergo in Iain M Banks' Culture novels, Instrumentality in Neon Genesis Evangelion, and in Julian May's Galactic Milieu Series. David Brin refers to it as stepping off in his Uplift Universe novels. It is referred to as ascension in the Stargate fictional universe. Kurt Vonnegut's novel Galápagos represents an antithesis of Childhood End's central theme; in Vonnegut's book, humanity evolves into an unintelligent species of aquatic mammals, albeit without the intervention of aliens.

Arthur C. Clarke said of Stapledon's 1930 book Last and First Men that "No other book had a greater influence on my life ... [It] and its successor Star Maker are the twin summits of [Stapledon's] literary career".^[1] Both of these books, along with Odd John share some similar themes with Childhood's End, such as mass minds and human evolution.

C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength features N.I.C.E., which is controlled by the Eldila, an alien race, who exploit human scientists in order to bring out their negative attributes. Like the Overlords, the Eldila have a devilish appearance.

Darren Shan's Demonata series was greatly influenced by this story ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, Tom Wolfe's book was neither a novel nor "LSD-soaked" or a memoir. It was a work of journalism, in other words non-fiction, and I don't think Tom Wolfe has ever taken LSD nor has he written a memoir on this subject. You really have to work hard to get facts like this wrong. Thanks for moving this out of the article, Steve. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, did the Earth evaporate? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The last children of humanity used up the Earth to facilitate their transcendence into the Overmind. The critical literature on the book compares this to that of a seedling using its food stores, with the Earth acting as a giant seed. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It was first published in 1953 in book form, but had previously appeared in 1950 as a short story titled "Guardian Angel" in Famous Fantastic Mysteries magazine.

That should be reversed like this: "Childhood's End was originally a series of [installments] short stories published in Famous Fantastic Mysteries between [month year and month] 1950." Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BBC says it was April 1950. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In a way, I was working off Clarke’s Childhood’s End (which was the first science fiction book I ever read). There, it’s the children who are tapped for this large change and merge with an over-consciousness, and that never seemed right to me. Children don’t have enough time to develop a depth of consciousness. In a way, I deliberately inverted Clarke in Steal Across the Sky: it’s old people, who have lived long enough and accumulated enough (if you want to put it in a scientific sense) neural connections or (if you want to put it in a mystical sense) enough life experience, enough depth of consciousness, to be sought after by an over-consciousness.[3]

I think Nancy missed the point, here. This particular generation of children have evolved to a point where they were ready to merge into the Overmind. The adults couldn't do it, even the ones who had latent psi skills, but they increased their skills with each generation; This is explained in the narrative. Think of Jeffrey, who could travel from planet to planet—while asleep in his bed! In the novel, the children happened to be children only because they were the last generation to achieve this "ideal" (but most dangerous) state. The intervention of the Overlords only occurs because without it, humanity would have destroyed not just themselves with their new powers, but would have represented a threat to the rest of the universe. Because humanity did not know what kind of powers they were dealing with, the Overlords were forced to step in and make way for a peaceful transition. As for the "depth of consciousness" that Kress refers to, in reality that prevents one from achieving new insight or making new discoveries, which is why most (but not all) major innovations come from people under the age of 30. In any case, the title refers to the end of the childhood of humanity, and the beginning of their maturity as members of the Overmind. There is also the metaphor of 1 Corinthians 13. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: The 2008 article in The American Scholar, titled "The Grasshopper and His Space Odyssey: A scientist remembers the celebrated science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke", and authored by physicist Jeremy Bernstein, contains an erroneous plot summary of Childhood's End:

...Childhood's End, about aliens known as the Overlords, who come to Earth to transform mankind. The Overlords establish a golden age, which is followed by disaster when the transformed human race alters Earth so that it is no longer inhabitable. Having failed, the Overlords leave to try again elsewhere.

First of all, the Overlords did not come to Earth to transform mankind. They came to prevent the self-destruction of humanity that would inevitably occur due to their use of psi, and to forestall the threat mankind posed to the rest of the universe. This is clearly stated in the book. Second of all, the Earth wasn't made uninhabitable, it was completely destroyed in order to provide energy for the transcendence. Lastly, I am not clear why Bernstein believes the Overlords failed or that they left to try again elsewhere, as that is not in the book. As far as I can tell, the Overlords were completely successful in their mission, as humanity joined the Overmind at the end. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: It appears Bernstein was referring to the last message from the Overlords to humanity in reference to the "transform mankind" bit. It is true that they transformed mankind, yes, but that's not why they came to Earth. As for the failure part, after looking into this, the only failure I can see is the inability of the Overlords to make the evolutionary leap into the Overmind, so I'm not clear where Bernstein is getting that from in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the current image really the first hardcover edition? A more reliable site has a different image. It may be that the current image is the first paperback edition, not hardcover. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: After looking into this more closely, I have discovered that the image is correct. I was thrown off by the image on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database website, which displays the paperback image instead of the hardcover image.[4] Somebody might want them to correct it. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Another update: It appears that the paperback and the hardcover were published at the same time, with Ballantine focusing on the paperback as the "main edition". This explains why the ISFDb uses the beautiful paperback image instead of the hardcover. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

TBA (from Cyclopedia of Literary Characters)

• Rikki Stormgren, secretary-general of the United Nations
• Karellen, supervisor of Earth for the Overlords.
• Jan Rodricks, University of Cape Town graduate student in engineering physics
• George Greggson, television studio designer
• Jean Morrel, student and wife of George Greggson
• Jennifer Anne Greggson, baby daughter of George and Jean
• Jeffrey Angus Greggson, Jennifer’s brother
• Rupert Boyce, veterinarian working in Africa
• Alexander Wainwright, head of the Freedom League
• Joe, opponent of the Overlords
• Rashaverak, Overlord and anthropologist
• Thanthalteresco, Inspector, an Overlord

TBA (from Magill’s Guide to Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature)

• Stardrive-driven ships
• Truth-in-history machines
• Panoramic viewers
• Etc...

Whatever became of our talk archive here? I'd like to revisit some of the earlier discussions. Wwheaton (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that we lost it in December 2010. It can still be viewed via the page history for 02:32, 29 December 2010. Is there any way to recover it to a traditional archive file? Wwheaton (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I aplogize in advance, but I'm not following you. Do you see the link to the archives at top of the page below the project tag? Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bingo, silly me. I guess I just missed it, and clicked on the "Archive" link at first. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

These words are also used for the alien race Zerg in the Star Craft universe of Blizzard Entertainment in somehow similar context:

• The Overmind is the highest sentient instance of the Zerg.
• The Overlords transfers commands to the controlled lifeforms.

The Overlord was created on the Zerg's homeworld Zerus by an older Race named "Xel'naga" to bring order to the Zerg. Besides the Overmind only the "Serebrates" seam to have real consciousness among lifeforms of Zerg origin. Further information can be found at Starcraft WikiaFlorian Finke (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This has become a trivia section that seems to lack good secondary source coverage. I'm leaning towards outright removal of this section. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is no discussion on this by December 12, I will probably remove the entire section unless we have good secondary sources supporting the prose. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to remove it now instead. I'm not convinced of the importance of this material, and the backstory concerning the influence of the book on Aubrey Powell and Storm Thorgerson (Hipgnosis) in the development of the cover art for Houses of the Holy needs additional research as it is disputed by other sources (Hewett 2007). Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• David Bowie's song "Oh! You Pretty Things", from his album Hunky Dory (1971), was partly inspired by the book.
• The cover of the Led Zeppelin album Houses of the Holy (1973) was inspired by the final scenes of the book, in which Earth's children gather and become an entity of the Overmind.^[2]
• The text of Van Der Graaf Generator's song "Childlike Faith in Childhood's End" in the album Still Life (1976), written by Peter Hammill, was heavily inspired by Clarke's novel.^{[3][self-published source?]}
• The lyrics of the Genesis song "Watcher of the Skies" (from the 1972 album Foxtrot) were revealed by Tony Banks as being inspired by the story, the "Watcher" in the song being an Overlord.
• Song title from Pink Floyd's 1972 LP Obscured by Clouds.
• An Overlord is illustrated in Wayne Douglas Barlowe's bestiary, Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials (1979). The Overlord is also on the cover, in the upper left position.^[4]

The scuba diving elements in the development section fail to connect with the diving part of the novel. I'll try to remedy this by finding a source that makes the connection. I believe it was Magill’s Guide to Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature or a similar source that tied the two toegether, but I've misplaced my notes. Currently, the material supports the influence on "The Man Who Ploughed the Sea", but the influence on Childhood's End should also be discussed, in particular, the opening to "The Golden Age" involving Jan and Sullivan, and the trip in the submarine. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The link for t goes to the page for WEB Du Bois, but gives a life of differant years than WEB Du Bois lived (1903-1997 vs. 1868-1963). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.191.122 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The link is wrong, so I've removed it until a dab can be created. The dates are correct as this is a different person with a similar name.[5] Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dab fixed for William DuBois (writer). I will also modify the primary entry for W.E.B. Du Bois, as they are often confused for one another.[6] Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, I wouldn't have noticed but for the fact I had clicked the WEB Du Bois page earlier today, so it displayed purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.191.122 (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"You done good!" :) Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Childhood's End/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Looked at talk page, noted presence of WP:GOCE, no issues there.
2. Upon inspection of talk page archives, not even any major conflicts or older issues there.
3. Took a look at recent article edit history, seeing good deal of copyediting going on with help from WP:GOCE, no issues here.

Stability is passing now, on to image check. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1. File:ChildhoodsEnd(1stEd).jpg = Fair use image, appropriate rationale on image page.
2. File:Barrage balloons over London during World War II.jpg = Image on Wikimedia Commons, checks out okay.

Image usage is passing now, on to rest of GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 27, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Well written indeed, I see that there's been a good deal of copyediting from WP:GOCE, great job.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is thorough, however going forward towards stages of peer reviewing involving input from responses after posts to WikiProject talk pages, I'd suggest expanding the Reception section a bit more, and adding some more detail to Adaptations, and also creating a section for the Themes as commented upon by secondary sources. Yeah, reflecting more, it really could use a separate standalone Themes section going forward, and also expansion of Reception sect. Not enough to hurt it for GA quality assessment now, but certainly a strong suggestion for future quality improvement.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Stability passes, as per above.

6. Images?: Images pass, as per above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This may be a minor detail, but this line stuck out to me

"Clarke finished the final chapter in Atlanta while Clarke and Macauley discussed racial issues; these conversations may have influenced the development of the last chapter, particularly Clarke's choice to make the character of Jan Rodricks – the last surviving member of the human species – an African American"

Unless I am misunderstanding, Jan Rodrick is Scottish and makes no mention of having ever lived in the USA

http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/sfarris/Files/English12%20Files/Childhoods%20End/CE%20ch8-10%20text.pdf

Jan's father had been a charming but somewhat feckless Scot who had made a considerable name for himself as a professional magician

[...]

Mrs. Rodricks, still very much alive, lectured in advanced probability theory at Edinburgh University. It was typical of the extreme mobility of twenty-first century Man that Mrs. Rodricks, who was coal black, had been born in Scotland, whereas her expatriate and blond husband had spent almost all his life in Haiti. Maia and Jan had never had a single home, but had oscillated between their parents' families like two small shuttlecocks.

That matches my own recollection. He is African, not American. You should correct the page. --GwydionM (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be a faulty paraphrase on my part. The original might have said "black" in the context of the Ameican civil rights movement. I haven't had time to go back and look, but I have no objection to someone changing it to "black". Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "a black man". If that's not good enough, please change it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)