"2001 - A Space Odessy"

[brian]

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]

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

[chronicles]

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.

[chronicles]

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]

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.

[I, Brian]

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........

[knivesout]

'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.