# Arthur C Clarke - 2001: A Space Odyssey



## Brian G Turner

Most people will be familiar with the film - which in itself was one of the most ground-breaking sci-fi's ever made. It was also one of the most confusing. Despite the powerful imagery of developing apes and ancient black monoliths - and not forgetting HAL - the ending of the film always appeared mysterious. When you read the book, you have a perfect idea of what is going.


  This, simply put, is one of the foundations of modern science-fiction. It's also a superb book.


  That's if you don't mind the lack of character, that is. Arthur C Clarke simply gets on with the plot and tells it with great pace, the whole novel only being a couple of hundred pages short. What that means is that any character you meet is ultimately an incidental concern to the story-telling. In fact, the famously "psychotic" computer - HAL - is actually the best developed character of the entire work!


  However, if you can forgive the lack of character, you're in for rich reward. This is where Arthur C Clarke tells a future of earth decades before it happens - we see satellites here, long before they were even considered...but, unfortuntely, Clarkes vision of a space station remains superior to the ISS. We also follow an ancient mystery to an astonishing conclusion, and discover the secret of those now almost archetypal black monoliths.


  At the end of the day, this work is not primarily about space or space travel - but about the development of humanity - past, persent, and future. It speculates not only on our origins of thought, but on our conscious future, and does so by rushing us from early hominids to Clarke's vision of what 2001 would be like, decades before it happened. And it's his vision here - his ideas - and his ultimate conclusions, that make this such a compelling - and dominating read.


  If ever science-fiction had to compile a list of its best few works, there would surely be room for the writings of Arthur C clarke. And somewhere in that list, you should find "2001: A Space Odyssey" has particular prominence.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Great review of a great book!  I agree, this should be in everybody's library of SF, especially for concept.

Clarke's writing can be dry to some readers... I've often described his writing style to "sitting in the drawing room, listning to the old Brigadier General telling his stories from the Boar War."  But what it lacks in bright and lively banter, it always makes up for in content.  Best of all, Clarke never feels like he has to berate you with deep scientific details, he just presents the material in such a way that anyone could understand it... then he runs with it.  As such, his is some of the most approachable SF out there.  He's always been one of my favorites, and (dry narrative aside) someone I would love to emulate as a writer.


----------



## Ice fyre

The visual style of the film is startling to me. It was a shock to realise that this film was made in the sixties (wasnt it?) way before the visual leap made by Star Wars. I remmber watching it in my Grandmas when I was about ten or so and it stuck with me. I didnt know what was going on but I loved space ships. It was only when I read the book years later it all fell into place. Quite enjoyed the subsequent sequels as well.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Ice fyre said:


> The visual style of the film is startling to me. It was a shock to realise that this film was made in the sixties (wasnt it?) way before the visual leap made by Star Wars.



Yes, it was made in the sixties, close to the same time the original _Star Trek_ was being produced!  

*Trivia Moment:* John Dykstra, Director of SFX for _Star Wars_, worked on _Silent Running_ under _2001_'s SFX director Douglas Trumbull.  Dykstra used the same basic photography tricks Trumbull pioneered for _2001_ and _Silent Running,_ and added computer motion control for 3-d movement to get _Star Wars_' groundbreaking effects.

*Add'l Trivia:* Dykstra's shop, Industrial Light & Magic, later had to bail out Trumbull's SFX shop when they could not complete the effects for _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_.


----------



## AE35Unit

Great review Brian,and I would put it,and the film,at the top of the list.


----------



## steve12553

I said:


> Most people will be familiar with the film - which in itself was one of the most ground-breaking sci-fi's ever made. It was also one of the most confusing. Despite the powerful imagery of developing apes and ancient black monoliths - and not forgetting HAL - the ending of the film always appeared mysterious. When you read the book, you have a perfect idea of what is going.


 
I saw the film a couple years after it came out and was totaly floored. But I was miles away from understanding it. I read the book a couple years later (I still have that same paperback copy) and it was as if I achieved Nirvana, it all made sense and amybe even the universe was explained. Then I saw the movie again and I was both dazzled and baffled, again. I think the third reading of the book finally cleared my head. A book able to explain and clear up the mysteries in such a powerful, visually stunning, motion picture and still being an excellent, independent work in its own right is amazing.


----------



## eanbardsley

Yes, and actually, because the screenplay was written by Clarke and Kubrick, it seems to me the movie has a different meaning than the Odyssey series which is completely by Clarke. Even the book based on the screenplay by Clarke after the film came out, takes Bowman to Saturn, not Jupiter. However, the sequential odyssey stories written by Clarke, follow the movie by taking place at Jupiter. I really understood the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey much better after watching an Italian animation interpreting the film. If you are a fan of 2001, I think you will really like it. Here is the link to it:

Kubrick 2001: The space odyssey explained


----------



## RJM Corbet

eanbardsley said:


> Yes, and actually, because the screenplay was written by Clarke and Kubrick, it seems to me the movie has a different meaning than the Odyssey series which is completely by Clarke. Even the book based on the screenplay by Clarke after the film came out, takes Bowman to Saturn, not Jupiter. However, the sequential odyssey stories written by Clarke, follow the movie by taking place at Jupiter. I really understood the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey much better after watching an Italian animation interpreting the film. If you are a fan of 2001, I think you will really like it. Here is the link to it:
> 
> Kubrick 2001: The space odyssey explained



That is so well done. Thank you for resurrecting it ...


----------



## Starbeast

Thanks for the good review, now I want to read the novel.

_2001: A Space Odyssey_ was the first science fiction movie I saw in the theater, I was six years old and was in awe of it, I understood what it was about. This was the beginning of my interest in sci-fi and aliens, I still can remember how I kept thinking about it for weeks, and I would watch _2001:ASO_ every time it played on tv. I also bought the album soundtrack in the 1970's with my lawn mowing money.


----------



## Rodders

I've only seen this once and i have to confess that i didn't understand it at all. The book made a lot more sense at the time than the movie. I do remember it being a stunningly shot movie though. I have it on DVD at home. Maybe i need to dig it out.


----------



## Metryq

eanbardsley said:


> Yes, and actually, because the screenplay was written by Clarke and Kubrick, it seems to me the movie has a different meaning than the Odyssey series which is completely by Clarke.



Clarke should not have been allowed to write sequels. I know I haven't read everything by Clarke, but the sequels to _2001_ and _Rama_ were really terrible. And I don't mean merely disappointing follow-ups, but actually absurd at points, or tedious at least.

Any sci-fi reference will tell you that _2001_ was inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel." However, the story (both movie and novelization) has a lot of _Childhood's End_ in it, too. The change in destination (Jupiter/Saturn) is completely inconsequential. Although the movie script and the novel were developed at the same time, perhaps Clarke picked Saturn because its moon Iapetus ("the Eye") seemed more mysterious at the time. I've read that Kubrick could only get Jupiter out of the FX team because they could not deliver a satisfactory Saturn—a lapse that is probably the sole purpose for making the blockbuster _Silent Running_ </sarc>.


----------



## Rodders

This seems to be a popular opinion on Clarke's sequels. Personally, I very much enjoyed 2010. (Both the book and the movie.)


----------



## J-Sun

Rodders said:


> This seems to be a popular opinion on Clarke's sequels. Personally, I very much enjoyed 2010. (Both the book and the movie.)



Agreed.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Metryq said:


> Clarke should not have been allowed to write sequels. I know I haven't read everything by Clarke, but the sequels to _2001_ and _Rama_ were really terrible. And I don't mean merely disappointing follow-ups, but actually absurd at points, or tedious at least.


 
Agreed!


----------



## AE35Unit

Metryq said:


> Clarke should not have been allowed to write sequels. I know I haven't read everything by Clarke, but the sequels to _2001_ and _Rama_ were really terrible. And I don't mean merely disappointing follow-ups, but actually absurd at points, or tedious at least.


Rama maybe but Odyssey, no, they're actually quite good, the only low point being 2061, Odyssey 3. The thing to remember tho is that the book of 2001 is by Clarke AND Kubrick!


----------



## Vertigo

Starbeast said:


> Thanks for the good review, now I want to read the novel.
> 
> _2001: A Space Odyssey_ was the first science fiction movie I saw in the theater, I was six years old and was in awe of it, I understood what it was about. This was the beginning of my interest in sci-fi and aliens, I still can remember how I kept thinking about it for weeks, and I would watch _2001:ASO_ every time it played on tv. I also bought the album soundtrack in the 1970's with my lawn mowing money.


 
Hehe that is so close to my experience it is spooky Starbeast. 2001 was probably the first or one of the first SciFi movies I ever saw, certainly the first *serious* one. And I too purchased the soundtrack as one of the first LPs I ever bought, which, backed up by Beethoven's 6th Pastoral Symphony, formed the foundation of my enduring love of classical music!


----------



## J-Sun

AE35Unit said:


> Rama maybe but Odyssey, no, they're actually quite good, the only low point being 2061, Odyssey 3. The thing to remember tho is that the book of 2001 is by Clarke AND Kubrick!



Well, I agree that _*2061*_ is definitely the low point and that _*3001*_ is better, but it's still skippable, too, IMO. I think of them as the Space Odyssey duo: _*2001*_ and _*2010*_.

(_*2061*_ was just weird. Kind of like he was cashing in on a number (for no obvious reason) - it wasn't much of an Odyssey.)


----------



## AE35Unit

Vertigo said:


> Hehe that is so close to my experience it is spooky Starbeast. 2001 was probably the first or one of the first SciFi movies I ever saw, certainly the first *serious* one. And I too purchased the soundtrack as one of the first LPs I ever bought, which, backed up by Beethoven's 6th Pastoral Symphony, formed the foundation of my enduring love of classical music!


Ha thats funny- the first time I read 2001 I had a Beethoven symphony playing! Never got that soundtrack on lp tho. Something I regret!


----------



## 2001aspaceodysseyfan

Anyone want to here a funny joke about the space odyssey series. Okay 2001: A space odyssey was so good that when you tried to write a sequel it blew up and the charred remain of ashes was 3001 which was actually ok to 2001. Now i'm not saying 2010 or 2061 is bad but im saying compared to how good 2001 was they were terrible.


----------



## AE35Unit

2001aspaceodysseyfan said:


> Anyone want to here a funny joke about the space odyssey series. Okay 2001: A space odyssey was so good that when you tried to write a sequel it blew up and the charred remain of ashes was 3001 which was actually ok to 2001. Now i'm not saying 2010 or 2061 is bad but im saying compared to how good 2001 was they were terrible.



I have to disagree there. Odyssey 3 is certainly the weakest in the series but Odyssey 2 is a superb book! And 3001 is rather good too!


----------



## mosaix

Vertigo said:


> Hehe that is so close to my experience it is spooky Starbeast.



And mine! Saw it first in the year it was released. There was a power cut at the office where we worked in Manchester and half a dozen of us took the afternoon off and went to the pictures. Absolutely stunned by the whole thing and have never forgotten it.

As I've got older and reminded people about things that happened years ago most people don't remember them but remember things that I don't. But not so with 2001.

Had a reunion with few people from those days last year and once that afternoon was mentioned four of us (out of the six that were there) remembered it almost word-for-word.

Bought the soundtrack the following year and I've still got it.


----------

