The Children of Men

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.