Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

My first introduction to Clarke was with his Childhood's End. Though not a particularly exciting or exceedingly well-written book, it nonetheless is one of my favorites because of the underlying theme and ideas of the story. I'm drawn to any science-fiction story that has such an apocalyptic or universal basis.

So I grabbed 2001 as part of my current personal reading program and took my time with it. I read the first chapter and didn't pick it up for another two weeks. I know I'm busy with school and all, but that was a big gap... Luckily it gave me some time to appreciate it.

The book is an example of classic science-fiction. Not that old aliens-and-damsels stuff, or invaders, but what a science-fiction story really should be. It's all about imagination and exploration. There's a big universe out there and Clarke wants to show us that. He's an astronomer at heart, and his works show that.

That's a big theme of his. A lot of his stories involve the big mysteries of the universe, how utterly uncomprehending it really is, and how we can only glimpse a little. If any of you have read any of his works, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

At first I thought there would be some good character development, especially around the HAL breakdown. It seemed like a good opportunity for Clarke to introduce a similar situation as that presented in his "Breaking Strain" short story. But it didn't happen, so I realized this was a story of ideas and milieu rather than characters. The fact that Dr. Floyd takes up almost half of the book, then is simply dropped for Bowman really makes it obvious that they are only there to move the story forward.

The book is the best example of one with short chapters that I like. They're short enough that I can just lie back and reflect on what I've read, but something actually happens in them to have a point. Something important happens in each chapter, no matter how trivial it may at first seem.

One of the things that really stood out to me is Clarke's ability to write. He doesn't try to overwhelm you with inflated words or huge chapters; he tells a story simply and effectively. The finest example is Moonwatcher's final thoughts at the beginning of the novel, and Bowman's echoing thoughts at the end. That kind of parallelism made me put down the book enormously satisfied with his ability as both a storyteller and a writer.

I'm a bit unsure whether I'll read any more of Clarke's work, particularly the rest in the Odyssey series. If anyone can recommend something that stands out, feel free to do so. I'm sure Clarke has many more good reads.

I'd give this a perfect 5 out of 5. It's exactly what you'd expect a science-fiction story to be.

Nice review, Redstar.

I like the "near-future, close-to-Earth" stories and novels of Clarke's the best - even the later, weaker Odyssey novels. Those were the kind of stories I think he really did well.

The more speculative works (City and the Stars, for example, or The Songs of Distant Earth), are very good, but I didn't enjoy them as much.

HBJ

2010 is interesting, but not that deep...

I would skip the last two books...

2061, in particular, reads like an episode from the Love Boat...

I didn't like the novelization (yes it came after the movie) of 2001 A Space Odyssey, here Arthur C. Clarke began his proverbial multidivergence series! (Jupiter in the movie, Saturn in the novel) and the rest of the Odyssey saga is not entirely consistent with the rest of the novels.

For me 2010: A space Odyssey Two is the best of the series.

I find his later years novels quite repetitive and boring: A tycoon invents a device that will change the world, the society is ultratechnified, the world lives in peace, etc. (Richter 10, Light of other Days, 3001, Cradle)

I haven't had the chance to buy his earlier novels

Redstar wrote:My first introduction to Clarke was with his Childhood's End. Though not a particularly exciting or exceedingly well-written book, it nonetheless is one of my favorites because of the underlying theme and ideas of the story. I'm drawn to any science-fiction story that has such an apocalyptic or universal basis.

So I grabbed 2001 as part of my current personal reading program and took my time with it. I read the first chapter and didn't pick it up for another two weeks. I know I'm busy with school and all, but that was a big gap... Luckily it gave me some time to appreciate it.

The book is an example of classic science-fiction. Not that old aliens-and-damsels stuff, or invaders, but what a science-fiction story really should be. It's all about imagination and exploration. There's a big universe out there and Clarke wants to show us that. He's an astronomer at heart, and his works show that.

That's a big theme of his. A lot of his stories involve the big mysteries of the universe, how utterly uncomprehending it really is, and how we can only glimpse a little. If any of you have read any of his works, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

At first I thought there would be some good character development, especially around the HAL breakdown. It seemed like a good opportunity for Clarke to introduce a similar situation as that presented in his "Breaking Strain" short story. But it didn't happen, so I realized this was a story of ideas and milieu rather than characters. The fact that Dr. Floyd takes up almost half of the book, then is simply dropped for Bowman really makes it obvious that they are only there to move the story forward.

The book is the best example of one with short chapters that I like. They're short enough that I can just lie back and reflect on what I've read, but something actually happens in them to have a point. Something important happens in each chapter, no matter how trivial it may at first seem.

One of the things that really stood out to me is Clarke's ability to write. He doesn't try to overwhelm you with inflated words or huge chapters; he tells a story simply and effectively. The finest example is Moonwatcher's final thoughts at the beginning of the novel, and Bowman's echoing thoughts at the end. That kind of parallelism made me put down the book enormously satisfied with his ability as both a storyteller and a writer.

I'm a bit unsure whether I'll read any more of Clarke's work, particularly the rest in the Odyssey series. If anyone can recommend something that stands out, feel free to do so. I'm sure Clarke has many more good reads.

I'd give this a perfect 5 out of 5. It's exactly what you'd expect a science-fiction story to be.

I've only read Childhood's End and 2001: A Space Odyssey and I enjoyed them both, though I did find them slow at times. However, sometimes I think I only like the book and movie as much as I do is because I read the novel shortly after seeing the movie. If I had watched the movie or read the book without the aid of the other medium I probably wouldn't hold either in high regard.

I had been meaning to read the sequels to 2001 but I've heard that they aren't that good.

I read 2001 just before seeing the movie and I still don't get the movie.



I think I liked 2010 better and I thought they did a great job with the movie.

This is wery bad for my asthma, Dr. Heywood...

I made it about half way through 3001 and just lost interest.

cmsahe wrote:I didn't like the novelization (yes it came after the movie) of 2001 A Space Odyssey, here Arthur C. Clarke began his proverbial multidivergence series! (Jupiter in the movie, Saturn in the novel) and the rest of the Odyssey saga is not entirely consistent with the rest of the novels.

I think it was more a "reverse-novelization", (not a film adaptation). Kubrick approached Clarke to write something he could base a movie on, and Clarke just took off and made it his own. They different works ended up have differences just because of the lack of communication towards the end of production, so Clarke just said the hell with it and finished the book.

Seems about consensus that 2010 is worth the time, but nothing else? I just keep in mind that Clarke has said each successive book takes place in an alternate timeline, and in no way is a continuation of the first. So I don't really have to read further, though he may have something more than artistic reasons saying this.

I would read 2010; it's definitely the strongest of the three sequels, and is not bad in its own right. The other two you can skip (although I quite enjoyed them, even as weaker novels).

Or you can skip them all; they don't "complete" the story of 2001.

HBJ

My favorite trivia fact about this series is that in 2010 (maybe it is 2001, I don't remember) they use aerobraking to land on a planet/moon. NASA used this same technique after the book was written on two separate missions, one to Mars and one to Venus. I love when fiction becomes reality it shows how intelligent some of these authors really are.

Now we just have to figure out ultra-spice, mega death stars, etc. and we can prove the TheKJA is as smart. Oh shit, my bad he is not, he is still a fucking moron.

Redstar wrote:

cmsahe wrote:I didn't like the novelization (yes it came after the movie) of 2001 A Space Odyssey, here Arthur C. Clarke began his proverbial multidivergence series! (Jupiter in the movie, Saturn in the novel) and the rest of the Odyssey saga is not entirely consistent with the rest of the novels.

I think it was more a "reverse-novelization", (not a film adaptation). Kubrick approached Clarke to write something he could base a movie on, and Clarke just took off and made it his own. They different works ended up have differences just because of the lack of communication towards the end of production, so Clarke just said the hell with it and finished the book.

Seems about consensus that 2010 is worth the time, but nothing else? I just keep in mind that Clarke has said each successive book takes place in an alternate timeline, and in no way is a continuation of the first. So I don't really have to read further, though he may have something more than artistic reasons saying this.

The movie was written as a loose adaptation of an old short story called The Sentinel. Clarke consulted and wrote with Kubrick, then Clarke wrote the novel while Kubrick dicked around with the production. In the end Clarke had to get permission from Kubrick to publish the novel, which actually was an adaptation of the film. Clarke wrote the novel to conform with the discussion he and Kubrick had about the film; what Kubrick was saying with all those dream sequences. I loved the film, but the book in an absolute classic of SF.

IIRC, the discrepancies between the book and the movie weren't due to any lack of communication between Clarke and Kubrick.

Both the book and the movie were to have Discovery slingshot around Jupiter to pick up speed to get to Saturn. (Something the Pioneer and Voyager probes did in real life, incidentally). However, the movie was changed partly because they felt that explaining the slingshot stunt would be difficult to do without taking up a lot of time, and partly because the Saturn model wasn't very convincing.

So they decided to change the movie plot to have all the action happen around Jupiter. Clarke didn't want to change the book, though, since the slingshot plot point was a pretty cool idea.


I may be mis-remembering the details; I read this in "The Lost Worlds of 2001" about 25 years ago. But that's the gist, I think.

HBJ

Omphalos wrote:

Redstar wrote:

cmsahe wrote:I didn't like the novelization (yes it came after the movie) of 2001 A Space Odyssey, here Arthur C. Clarke began his proverbial multidivergence series! (Jupiter in the movie, Saturn in the novel) and the rest of the Odyssey saga is not entirely consistent with the rest of the novels.

I think it was more a "reverse-novelization", (not a film adaptation). Kubrick approached Clarke to write something he could base a movie on, and Clarke just took off and made it his own. They different works ended up have differences just because of the lack of communication towards the end of production, so Clarke just said the hell with it and finished the book.

Seems about consensus that 2010 is worth the time, but nothing else? I just keep in mind that Clarke has said each successive book takes place in an alternate timeline, and in no way is a continuation of the first. So I don't really have to read further, though he may have something more than artistic reasons saying this.

The movie was written as a loose adaptation of an old short story called The Sentinel. Clarke consulted and wrote with Kubrick, then Clarke wrote the novel while Kubrick dicked around with the production. In the end Clarke had to get permission from Kubrick to publish the novel, which actually was an adaptation of the film. Clarke wrote the novel to conform with the discussion he and Kubrick had about the film; what Kubrick was saying with all those dream sequences. I loved the film, but the book in an absolute classic of SF.

I've read The Sentinel, and there's really almost nothing to connect the two save the presence of an artifact left behind by an ancient alien race (and it doesn't even look the same). I've heard Clarke doesn't like 2001 being compared to that one story, since it's like comparing an "acorn to a full-grown oak". I've noticed similarities in a few other stories, and the whole Jupiter thing is a theme of his.

Hunchback Jack wrote:IIRC, the discrepancies between the book and the movie weren't due to any lack of communication between Clarke and Kubrick.

Both the book and the movie were to have Discovery slingshot around Jupiter to pick up speed to get to Saturn. (Something the Pioneer and Voyager probes did in real life, incidentally). However, the movie was changed partly because they felt that explaining the slingshot stunt would be difficult to do without taking up a lot of time, and partly because the Saturn model wasn't very convincing.

I haven't read Lost Worlds yet, though I want to, but there is a rather long introduction by Clarke in the latest copy of 2001 that I read. He explained that the divergent endings were due to the increased difficulty to communicate as the movie neared ending of production, while the Saturn/Jupiter bit you mentioned was also true. Kubrick just didn't think they could get the rings right.

I don't have Clarke's own words here, but the core idea of the two stories is the same. In The Sentinel another culture has left and early warning system buried in the moon so that they would know if and when mankind ever could become a competitive risk for them. In the other another culture left a device to tell them when mankind would be ready for the next step in its evolution. That's the core story that wound up in each: A warning device that would let the other race when the next big step should happen. The Sentinel was the starting place for Kubrick and Clarke. But you don't have to take my word for it. The way I stated it above is almost verbatim from Clarke himself.

Admittedly I haven't read The Lost Worlds of 2001, which I'm sure would provide a lot of insight into the history of the film/novel, but I have recently read both The Sentinel: Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy and the most recent edition of 2001. Both share his opinion on the subject.

In "The Sentinel" the reason why the artifact was left behind is never known, though the main character does wonder if the alien race would be "jealous" by now. So the reasoning behind it isn't known as clearly as in 2001, which is still pretty vague.

I can believe that "The Sentinel" was the starting point for the film/novel, but in The Sentinel: Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy Clarke explicitly states that he does not like it when people think it is sole or dominant basis. Like I said before, he said that it's like comparing "an acorn to the resulting oak-tree". The resulting film/novel are simply the amalgamation of many dominant themes in Clarke's stories, though none in particular.

Redstar wrote:I can believe that "The Sentinel" was the starting point for the film/novel, but in The Sentinel: Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy Clarke explicitly states that he does not like it when people think it is sole or dominant basis. Like I said before, he said that it's like comparing "an acorn to the resulting oak-tree". The resulting film/novel are simply the amalgamation of many dominant themes in Clarke's stories, though none in particular.

That is why I said it was a "loose adaptation." I have also read other things (interviews and the like and stuff he wrote) where he acknowledges the link, and didn't seem to mind the questions.

I read something about that Stanley Kubrick read the short story The Sentinel (by ACC) he liked it, approached him and asked him to collaborate with the writing of a script for a movie, that's how 2001 the movie was born.

BTW (slightly off topic) I think that 2010 has similitudes with the movie Star Trek the Wrath of Kahn, that finale: the beginning of a new world, the promise of new life and the black coffin of Spock (like if it were a black monolith)

IMDB gives the year 1982 (june)for the release of the Wrath of Kahn and 2010 was released in january 1982, Who influenced who?

Someone said that Sci Fi is promiscuous, books, novels, movies are always "having relations" with each other.

For example this review to the Star Wars saga talks about the multiple influences it has:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25zE6cs2vtw

Redstar wrote:

cmsahe wrote:I didn't like the novelization (yes it came after the movie) of 2001 A Space Odyssey, here Arthur C. Clarke began his proverbial multidivergence series! (Jupiter in the movie, Saturn in the novel) and the rest of the Odyssey saga is not entirely consistent with the rest of the novels.

I think it was more a "reverse-novelization", (not a film adaptation). Kubrick approached Clarke to write something he could base a movie on, and Clarke just took off and made it his own. They different works ended up have differences just because of the lack of communication towards the end of production, so Clarke just said the hell with it and finished the book.

Seems about consensus that 2010 is worth the time, but nothing else? I just keep in mind that Clarke has said each successive book takes place in an alternate timeline, and in no way is a continuation of the first. So I don't really have to read further, though he may have something more than artistic reasons saying this.