This is one of those rare cases where the movie is actually better than the book. I watched The Children of Men on television a couple of months ago and since then I’ve been wanting to get hold of the book. It begins in much the same apocalyptic fashion as I was expecting it to. A fifty year old man begins penning down in his diary, not so much a chronicle of his life, but the inadequacies he has faced through the years. Theodore Faron is a college professor but he is also the cousin of the Warden of England, Xan, a benign tyrant of sorts.

This apocalyptic world, set in the future is aging and dying. No children have been born in the past twenty-five years. Women deprived of their chance at cuddling little babies have taken to taking dolls out for a stroll in a pram. There may not be any hope for this infertile race, but the Warden keeps up regular testing of males and females in case one of them turns up a viable seed.

Theodore, a man who was once an advisor to Xan, is approached by a group of dissenters, rebels who wish to seize power and make conditions in England better than they presently are. On their behalf Theo makes an appeal to Xan which falls on deaf years. Resigned to live out his years in a sense of gloom and grey, he spends a couple of months out of the country.

He returns back home and is approached by the group of rebels once again. This time the appeal for help that they make is no small matter. It is the most significant, most shattering discovery that has not been heard of for a quarter of a century and a discovery that would have Xan himself down on his knees.

What was perhaps the most disappointing part of the book is that the real story took a long time in coming. I shouldn’t have had to read half the book to feel the thrill and the action that finally takes over. This is why I preferred the movie. The absurd discovery is bared to the audience a lot sooner. Also, a lot of things seemed hanging. Like too many coincidences. Like lack of explanations.

Towards the end, neither of the feelings that the author tried so hard to create, stayed. There was no sense of relief from the unending misery nor a feeling of hope or revival of new beginnings, which I remember were two things I felt at the end of the movie. Sadly, the book failed to convey that intensity of emotion.

Had great potential to be a better book. Definitely mellow when compared to the movie. ( )

I picked this book for one of the challenges for a group I belonged to on Goodreads. but I have to say I should have picked a different book I didn't enjoy it at all I did how ever like the movie.
In Children of Men, P.D. James perfectly illustrates how a great idea can be mercilessly butchered by a terrible execution. The premise of the novel is dystopian. It's been eighteen years since the last human was born, and humankind, faced with its impending extinction, descends into a collective depression and constant conflict. The narrative follows Theo Faron, the cousin of the dictator of the United Kingdom, as he tries to help a dissident group restore democracy and to protect possibly the last (or first) pregnant woman on Earth. The premise is quite original and deeply disturbing, but its portrayal is far superior in the film adaptation, which is only loosely based on the original. If there was ever an exception to the rule that "the book is always better than the film", Children of Men has to be it. There is no character development, and the protagonist has an absolutely flat personality. The narrative frequently drags on through excessive descriptions, which dulls some of the shock value of the future society that James has constructed. What little is left of the plot is so contrived that it's difficult to take seriously. The ending is probably the worst element of the novel, if I had to choose one. Human actions defy all logic and emotion and it feels like the last few pages were hastily put together after the author had written herself into a corner. Maybe the novel has merit on its own, but if you had watched the movie, and therefore know what could have been done with this great idea, you would probably be left extremely disappointed. ( )

The Children of Men was even better than I expected, and I had expected a lot because I loved the 2006 film. The book tells a related, but different story from the film with several important characters having been changed for the film adaptation. It is unabashedly a story rooted in Christianity, but in a way that is neither bitter towards the religion nor cloying and preachy. P.D. James has great empathy for her characters and a wonderful sense of pacing throughout the book. The twists and turns the story takes keep the reader deeply engaged. The final scene of the book will make you question everything you just read. Absolutely brilliant. ( )

Such a good book. The Children of Men comments on how hope is the only thing that matters. The story's world is a awful place to live. It is dark and desolate, countries across the globe have fallen. In this modern dystopia women have become infertile and mankind is rapidly approaching extinction ( )

DNF at 18%. Based on the premise, you’d think this would’ve have been *more* exciting than watching paint dry. And that would be incorrect. ( )