"2001 - A Space Odessy"

[Brian G Turner]

My girlfriend hated this book. She couldn't wait to finish and be rid with it. She didn't like the disassociation from the characters and speculated that Arthur C Clarke must have been deprived of affection as a child (particularly on the Starchild events near the end).

Personally thought it was brilliant.

So it was interesting to note the difference of opinion no the matter.

What's the consensus from others here - did you think "2001" a really great book? Or average? Or were you disppointed by it as well?

???

 

[mac1]

Never read it I'm afraid, classic film though, I'm not sure reading the book could match the majesty of the film. That Johann Straus score was perfect

 

[Brian G Turner]

Couldn't get the music out of my head when reading it - especially at the beginning - but most certainly at the end.

The great thing about the book is that you actually learn what on earth was happening at the end of the film - which may or may not be a spoiler for some.

 

[mac1]

Please do explain it! Might be better on a seperate post with a big spoiler alert. Don't want to spoil it for anyone. I figured the end was mostly metaphor. Something along the lines of... after exploring the universe, all that was left was the exploration of time, inner space, and humanity itself. That's what I read into it anyway, I'm probably wrong. If you could explain the ending on another post it would be appreciated though. Cheers

 

[Brian G Turner]

No! No spoilers! Read the book - I'd say it's worth it. And it's only short as well. Then tell me what you think!

 

[mac1]

Won't be for a while if I do. Almost finished reading Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men", a most constructive use of my lunch breaks at work! The next book I want to read is Moore's prequel "Downsize This!", maybe then I will have time to read 2001.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Actually, I may not be able to explain it properly anyway - that event takes up a few chapters, and I'm usually typing tired at the moment, so that would make it even more difficult to explain. There's more than one part involved.

 

[Foxbat]

It might be worth bearing in mind when reading this book that it was written in parallel with the filmscript and that might be the reason for a certain distance in the characters - It's possible that cinematics were taking precedence over character when it was being written. On the whole, I'd say that 2001 was a good book but not great. On the other hand, the film was just stunning for its time (and still is).

 

[Brian G Turner]

Certainly a good point - I didn't actually think of that. I just assumed it was his style. Didn't at all mind the lack of character as it was a plot driven book. As the individual characters are not necessarily the engnie for that plot progression, it would have been pointless to have had a few hundred pages describing the lives, families, backgrounds, and interests of the crew that HAL kills. Sure, it would have created a stronger pathos - but I'm happy to see plot-driven have a good pace. I guess that's very much a reason for my not being keen on Peter F Hamilton, who presents a differing extreme.

 

[G-borg]

In fact you could argue that Clarke has a more profound reason for not 'caring' about his characters. The book/film is not about persons or characters but about the entire human race. It is about mans place in the entire evolution of the universe.
Is he a starchild? or made of simple mechanics?
In fact isn't HAL the most human of them all?
I sometimes feel like screaming at those people who disregard books like this simply because they are unable to look beyond their own psychology. But maybe thats just me.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Hi G-borg and welcome to the chronicles-network!

And glad to see I wasn't the only one impressed by its scope and core questions.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I think it's really interesting...the first time I saw the film (I was 12 or 13 years old) I was absolutely certain that I knew exactly what the ending meant. Then I saw the film again, and read the book, I am much less certain about the meaning in it. I guess I need to read the book and see the film again, and see how it feels now.

For what its worth, I suspect that it may be all about the evolution of the species, with the message that it hasn't completely played out its hand yet for all that we seem to think that we are the pinnacle of creation. Then again, that's just me.

Then, again, I also suspect that the film especially may have been constructed so that its meaning can be taken any number of ways.

By the way, have any of you read the short story that started it all, "The Sentinel"?

 

[Foxbat]

My own take on the ending was that it was another step - but also the story had gone full circle. The ape at the beginning gains an advantage (and step forward) by using the bone. Ditto the Starchild who gains an advantage (and therefore an evolutionary step forward) with his new powers.

It's many years since I read The Sentinel but, from what I remember, it covers the finding of the Monolith on the Moon. It's around here somewhere........

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

'The Sentinel' is a pretty good short story. Actually, I tend to like Clarke's short stories a lot more than his novels.

 

[polymorphikos]

The natural form of science-fiction is the short story. I've never read a novel that moved me as much as a short. Like that one by Dick about the family whose child is raised by a robot.

 

[Shoegaze99]

“2001: A Space Odyssey” is a pretty good read. Not among Clarke’s best, and certainly not comparable to Kubrick’s incredible vision, yet full of ideas worth mulling over (especially the climax, which is more direct and understandable than the film). What 2001 does well is set up the 2001 universe, which is continued in the very worthy sequels 2010 and 2061. (We’ll pretend 3001 does not exist, thanks). Clarke makes among the very best cases in fiction for life within our own solar system in 2010 and 2061, explores the surface of a comet in 2061, and examines the impact of what a seemingly godlike alien race/being could have on life as we know it in both.

In all the works Clarke grapples with the idea of evolutionary leaps, alien technology, beings greater than us toying with our development, human nature, the birth of life in the universe, and very dramatically copes with the reality of space travel and all the solitude and danger that comes with it.

Because all three are relatively short books by today’s standards, it should be easy to fit then into any reading schedule.

 

[skbass]

In fact you could argue that Clarke has a more profound reason for not 'caring' about his characters. The book/film is not about persons or characters but about the entire human race. It is about mans place in the entire evolution of the universe.

BINGO...

This could be my all time favorite book. I know I might take some abuse for that statement. But it's to the point, it isn't your typical good vs. evil novel, and it illustrates the feeling that humans just might be one microscopic cog in the machine that is the universe, not the engine itself.

 

[Stormflame]

I thought the book was cool. It opened doors to alot of things. But, the movie, the older one, if any more have been made, was not very good in my opinion. It was way to old and the effects lacked highly. Certain parts of the movie went on way to long as they tried to 'make' you experience the feeling that they were wanting to get across. Two thumbs down, buddy.

 

[cyborg_cinema]

But, the movie...

The movie really dragged on, even during the struggle between Dave and HAL, which was the most suspenseful part of the film. Perhaps the hour long version would be better, but the classic sci fi flick still leaves a lasting impression.

There are parts of the novel that I have never been able to grasp completely, including the cosmic embryo that seems to come back to earth and destroy it.

 

[Shoegaze99]

I thought the book was cool. It opened doors to alot of things. But, the movie, the older one, if any more have been made, was not very good in my opinion. It was way to old and the effects lacked highly. Certain parts of the movie went on way to long as they tried to 'make' you experience the feeling that they were wanting to get across. Two thumbs down, buddy.

Kubrick’s film version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most astonishing marriages of sound and visuals ever put to screen, putting together the two elements in a way never before done. The way he uses silence in the film is much like how a photographer might use white space (or “dead” space) in a photograph to enhance the impact of an image or make an artistic statement. Amazingly effective. In 2001, he uses both sound and the visual nature of film in such a way so as to impart the vast loneliness of space, while also engaging in strong symbolism (the match-cut of bone to spaceship, for instance) that underscores the themes present in the story. It was a bold, bold thing.

Couple this with his much-praised use of music, the shrill collages of sound surrounding the finding of the moon monolith, and the dull, deadening hum of the spacecraft (not to mention Hal’s voice) and you have an achievement that is among cinema’s finest.

No, it’s not slam bamn golly gee look at that science fiction. And that’s a good deal of what makes it such a wonderful, important film.

(And I’m absolutely shocked at the statement, “It was way to old and the effects lacked highly”, so much so I can’t even begin to respond.)