Status
Available
Call number
Series
Publication
Roc, Paperback, 297 pages
Description
It has been forty years since the publication of this classic science fiction novel that changed the way we look at the stars and ourselves. From the savannas of Africa at the dawn of mankind to the rings of Saturn as man adventures to the outer rim of our solar system, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a journey unlike any other. This allegory about humanity's exploration of the universe, and the universe's reaction to humanity, was the basis for director Stanley Kubrick's immortal film, and lives on as a hallmark achievement in storytelling.
User reviews
LibraryThing member paradoxosalpha
This read of 2001: A Space Odyssey was my first, and I last watched the film over thirty years ago. The edition in hand is the 1999 "millennium" pocket paperback, with retrospective front matter by Arthur C. Clarke discussing the authorial process. In light of that introduction, I'm a little
Clarke wrote "hard" sf, with an effort to maintain scientific and social plausibility. So, with the passage of time, his projected world of "2001" now set a generation in our past has come to represent an alternate history, and it's one that makes me nostalgic for turns not taken in our cultural and technological paths. Clarke's 2001 has a manned moon base, and in general space exploration has progressed in preference to the technologies of simulation and social control that have come to dominate our 21st century to this point. He imagined a better diversion of the military-industrial complex into the work of peaceful extraterrestrial inquiry than we have been able to achieve. His geopolitical scenario failed to foresee the collapse of the USSR, but credibly made the USA and USSR allies in tension with China, as the USA and Russia arguably were in our actual 2001.
It was interesting to reflect that one of the conceits of this novel has come to dominate a lot of 21st-century sf: a "first contact" with extra-solar intelligence that is mediated by some sort of archaeological remains. I see this trope in a lot of recent space opera, including MacLeod's Newton's Wake, Harrison's Kefahuchi Tract books, the Expanse series, and even Wells' Murderbot books. I wonder if my library catalog needs an "exo-archaeology" tag to tie these works together.
Another notable feature was the epistemological feint in Chapter 15, whereDave Bowman recovers from a earthbound training simulation thinking at first he is being awoken from hibernation in space . This passage stands as a foil for the protagonist's later alien-curated experiences in the final section of the book, and together they offer a sfnal interrogation of human subjectivity that is not quite phildickian but still savory.
2001 has very short chapters; I usually read three or more in a sitting. These in turn are grouped into six parts: Primeval Night, TMA-1, Between Planets, Abyss, The Moons of Saturn, and Through the Star Gate. The structure suggests an initiatory ascent according to the symbol systems of modern Hermetic Kabbala: Malkuth/Earth (Neophyte), path of tav to Yesod/Luna (Zelator), path of samekh to Tiphareth/Sol (Adeptus Minor), path of gimel and Da'ath (Babe of the Abyss), Binah/Saturn (Magister Templi), and Chokmah/Zodiac (Magus). The initiand in this case would be humanity as a whole, and the viewpoint characters differ from section to section in the first half of the book.
The relationship of Clarke and Kubrick's 2001 to Homer's original Odyssey is not fully obvious. It seems to have been widely understood merely in the sense of episodic adventure over a journey, but my reading of the novel reassured me that the more specific sense of a homeward journey was intended, and this gist is consistent with the mystical progression that I inferred from the divisions of the text. "With eyes that already held more than human intentness, the baby stared into the depths of the crystal monolith, seeing--but not yet understanding--the mysteries that lay beyond. It knew that it had come home, that here was the origin of many races beyond its own; but it also knew that it could not stay" (293, emphasis added). I plan to read further in Clarke's "Odyssey Sequence," and I am curious to see whether the esoteric themes are perpetuated in the later books.
Show More
surprised that Stanley Kubrick didn't get a byline on the novel as a co-author. The book was plotted as a stage of the development of the screenplay, drawing on earlier stories by Clarke and incorporating Kubrick's ideas and ambitions for the film. Then the two parallel media products were completed in dialog with each other. In the end there are some significant differences between the novel and the movie, but the book certainly exposes and clarifies many of the ideas behind the film. Clarke wrote "hard" sf, with an effort to maintain scientific and social plausibility. So, with the passage of time, his projected world of "2001" now set a generation in our past has come to represent an alternate history, and it's one that makes me nostalgic for turns not taken in our cultural and technological paths. Clarke's 2001 has a manned moon base, and in general space exploration has progressed in preference to the technologies of simulation and social control that have come to dominate our 21st century to this point. He imagined a better diversion of the military-industrial complex into the work of peaceful extraterrestrial inquiry than we have been able to achieve. His geopolitical scenario failed to foresee the collapse of the USSR, but credibly made the USA and USSR allies in tension with China, as the USA and Russia arguably were in our actual 2001.
It was interesting to reflect that one of the conceits of this novel has come to dominate a lot of 21st-century sf: a "first contact" with extra-solar intelligence that is mediated by some sort of archaeological remains. I see this trope in a lot of recent space opera, including MacLeod's Newton's Wake, Harrison's Kefahuchi Tract books, the Expanse series, and even Wells' Murderbot books. I wonder if my library catalog needs an "exo-archaeology" tag to tie these works together.
Another notable feature was the epistemological feint in Chapter 15, where
2001 has very short chapters; I usually read three or more in a sitting. These in turn are grouped into six parts: Primeval Night, TMA-1, Between Planets, Abyss, The Moons of Saturn, and Through the Star Gate. The structure suggests an initiatory ascent according to the symbol systems of modern Hermetic Kabbala: Malkuth/Earth (Neophyte), path of tav to Yesod/Luna (Zelator), path of samekh to Tiphareth/Sol (Adeptus Minor), path of gimel and Da'ath (Babe of the Abyss), Binah/Saturn (Magister Templi), and Chokmah/Zodiac (Magus). The initiand in this case would be humanity as a whole, and the viewpoint characters differ from section to section in the first half of the book.
The relationship of Clarke and Kubrick's 2001 to Homer's original Odyssey is not fully obvious. It seems to have been widely understood merely in the sense of episodic adventure over a journey, but my reading of the novel reassured me that the more specific sense of a homeward journey was intended, and this gist is consistent with the mystical progression that I inferred from the divisions of the text.
Show Less
LibraryThing member absurdeist
As masterfully made as Stanley Kubrick's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is, it's too slow and too quiet at times for my taste. I like it - and in fact certain scenes in the film are favorites (especially the one where the ape man is going all ape having discovered ape man's first weapon, a piece
I prefer the novel mostly because Clarke crafted more meaningful philosophical observations on the page than Kubrick could accomplish with his camera - except for that iconic, Zarathustra-themed tibia-space station segue. And that's why, I think, the movie just plods and plods along - face it, even though it's a classic, it's boring - while the novel builds and builds (and is never boring) towards its monolithic climax, where we witness the birth of the next speculative step in humankind's evolution, the "Star Child," or, the "Fetus In The Bubble-Womb Floating By The Moon Child," assuming you've only seen the film. And the film is fantastic, don't get me wrong; and as revered as the film is, I think the book is even better, arguably the best thing Clarke ever wrote.
And don't forget Hal - the neurotic computer given conflicting commands by his programmers who ultimately jettisons the crew - I like how he's characterized more so in the novel than he is in the film as well. In the movie, Hal gets reduced to what amounts to a red dashboard light and a voice sounding like, if it were human, had popped one too many valiums. Not very scary. Certainly no Frankenstein. In the novel, though, Hal comes off a lot creepier, edgier, and more mysterious, because he's not confined to the limits of the filmmaker's finite images, but left alone to however the reader's vivid (and infinite) imaginations envision him.
And in the time it would take a person to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (does that movie ever end?) one could have easily polished off Clarke's novel. Or two, or three, or four of Clarke's slimmer novels even.
Show More
of bone, smashing it in a pile of other bones so that one bone, a tibia looked like, gets ricocheted end-over-end into the air and just as the flying tibia has reached its flight's apex, the scene seamlessly transitions to a space station likewise rotating end over end: fantastic filmmaking and editing for sure, but I prefer Clarke's novel nevertheless.I prefer the novel mostly because Clarke crafted more meaningful philosophical observations on the page than Kubrick could accomplish with his camera - except for that iconic, Zarathustra-themed tibia-space station segue. And that's why, I think, the movie just plods and plods along - face it, even though it's a classic, it's boring - while the novel builds and builds (and is never boring) towards its monolithic climax, where we witness the birth of the next speculative step in humankind's evolution, the "Star Child," or, the "Fetus In The Bubble-Womb Floating By The Moon Child," assuming you've only seen the film. And the film is fantastic, don't get me wrong; and as revered as the film is, I think the book is even better, arguably the best thing Clarke ever wrote.
And don't forget Hal - the neurotic computer given conflicting commands by his programmers who ultimately jettisons the crew - I like how he's characterized more so in the novel than he is in the film as well. In the movie, Hal gets reduced to what amounts to a red dashboard light and a voice sounding like, if it were human, had popped one too many valiums. Not very scary. Certainly no Frankenstein. In the novel, though, Hal comes off a lot creepier, edgier, and more mysterious, because he's not confined to the limits of the filmmaker's finite images, but left alone to however the reader's vivid (and infinite) imaginations envision him.
And in the time it would take a person to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (does that movie ever end?) one could have easily polished off Clarke's novel. Or two, or three, or four of Clarke's slimmer novels even.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sturlington
Ancient aliens guide the evolution of mankind through mysterious monoliths.
Even though the book was released after the famous film directed by Stanley Kubrick debuted, it would be a mistake to consider it a novelization of the movie. Actually, Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on both the screenplay
However, if you somehow missed both the movie and the book, I would recommend reading the novel only after seeing the movie first, and only if you don’t mind a lot of explanation for what happens in the movie. For me, Clarke’s novel augments my understand of Kubrick’s film and helps me understand the movie’s many abstract concepts: What are the aliens? What are their motives? Why did the HAL 9000 go crazy? How was Dave Bowman transformed and what is the significance of his transformation?
Clarke’s writing style is restrained and focused, making this short novel very readable. The best sections are the final two, aboard the spaceship Discovery during HAL’s breakdown and Dave’s encounter with the monolith. Clarke effectively conveys the paradoxical emotions of space travel: the boredom and tedium of space flight; the thrill of exploring worlds so beautiful and alien that it is almost impossible to comprehend them; and the extreme isolation and loneliness of being millions of miles from all other members of the human race. The sequence where the HAL 9000 computer loses its mind is particularly chilling, just as in the movie. And the description of Dave’s journey into the monolith is awe-inspiring, yet Clarke keeps us tethered to the universe and concepts we can understand.
It’s rare that both a great film and a great book can be produced in tandem; I can’t really come up with another example. The only flaw is perhaps the dated title. We’re now a decade past the pivotal title year, and about as far from building a moon base or putting people on Mars as we could be, much less mounting a manned expedition to the outer solar system. Well, just ignore the date, or consider this an alternate history instead of a vision of the future. What if our evolution had been guided by godlike aliens undertaking a multi-million-year experiment? Would be better off today, post-2001?
Even though the book was released after the famous film directed by Stanley Kubrick debuted, it would be a mistake to consider it a novelization of the movie. Actually, Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on both the screenplay
Show More
and the novel, and Kubrick’s name was originally supposed to appear on the cover as co-author. But Kubrick got caught up with filming, and Clarke finished the novel on his own. That’s why there are some noticeable — but not, in my opinion, critical — differences between the novel and the film. Some details were changed during filming for story purposes or because the original idea was too difficult to shoot. For instance, the location of the second monolith was moved from one of Saturn’s moons to orbit around Jupiter because Kubrick could not figure out how to realistically depict Saturn’s rings on film. (This was before Cassini, remember.)However, if you somehow missed both the movie and the book, I would recommend reading the novel only after seeing the movie first, and only if you don’t mind a lot of explanation for what happens in the movie. For me, Clarke’s novel augments my understand of Kubrick’s film and helps me understand the movie’s many abstract concepts: What are the aliens? What are their motives? Why did the HAL 9000 go crazy? How was Dave Bowman transformed and what is the significance of his transformation?
Clarke’s writing style is restrained and focused, making this short novel very readable. The best sections are the final two, aboard the spaceship Discovery during HAL’s breakdown and Dave’s encounter with the monolith. Clarke effectively conveys the paradoxical emotions of space travel: the boredom and tedium of space flight; the thrill of exploring worlds so beautiful and alien that it is almost impossible to comprehend them; and the extreme isolation and loneliness of being millions of miles from all other members of the human race. The sequence where the HAL 9000 computer loses its mind is particularly chilling, just as in the movie. And the description of Dave’s journey into the monolith is awe-inspiring, yet Clarke keeps us tethered to the universe and concepts we can understand.
It’s rare that both a great film and a great book can be produced in tandem; I can’t really come up with another example. The only flaw is perhaps the dated title. We’re now a decade past the pivotal title year, and about as far from building a moon base or putting people on Mars as we could be, much less mounting a manned expedition to the outer solar system. Well, just ignore the date, or consider this an alternate history instead of a vision of the future. What if our evolution had been guided by godlike aliens undertaking a multi-million-year experiment? Would be better off today, post-2001?
Show Less
LibraryThing member Nexa
Note: this review contains many spoilers and is mostly a compare/contrast between the book and the novel.
This novel is one that I had intended to read ever since watching the film for the first time several years ago. Because the novel is based upon the screenplay, I always found myself pushing it
The first major difference that I noticed was the expansion and depth of the first section, “Primeval Night.” I realize that film has many limitations over the written word, including time, that prevent it from expressing the feelings and sensations of the characters adequately. This section of the book was so intriguing and well written that I felt a great empathy for Moon-Watcher and the rest of the tribe. When re-watching the film after reading the book, I was greatly disappointed at how quickly this section was passed over.
The second difference that I felt took away from the film version was the reaction of Dave after Hal’s murder of Frank. When watching the film, I felt this was a weak point. Dave did not seem the type to let his emotions over-take his logic and it made him seem a much less controlled and logical person as he was portrayed in the book. I was pleased that he did not leave the ship to chase Frank’s corpse in the novel.
Lastly, the ending of the book was much clearer and concise than the ending to the film. I did not particularly enjoy the ending of the film at all as it felt sad, contrary to the uplifting ending of the book. The book makes it seem as though Dave were only in the “hotel room” for one night where the film seems to show the passage of many lonely years of imprisonment. The “supreme beings” of the film appeared to me to be careless and thoughtless rather than simply absent but prepared. I felt much more content with the story’s ending after reading the book and watched the film in an entirely new light! I misunderstood the ending of the film to simply mean that Dave was being reborn with all the knowledge that he had when he died. However, the novel describes how vast the knowledge and powers are that are possessed by the being that was once Dave Bowman. One is left with a sense that the world is about to change for the better and that this being has the ability to make our planet healthy and safe again amongst other things. The film just left me with a feeling that one person would have knowledge of the rest of the universe, rather than also having the power to use it.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although the film version of 2001 can be enjoyed on its own as the artful masterpiece that it is, I don’t believe it can be truly understood without the background knowledge provided by the novel. The movie is a triumph of light and sound ahead of its time, but the story can be lost in the color and music without that voice inside your head repeating the written words of Arthur C. Clarke to you.
This novel is one that I had intended to read ever since watching the film for the first time several years ago. Because the novel is based upon the screenplay, I always found myself pushing it
Show More
lower on my “books-to-read” list as I assumed it would be exactly the same as the film version. To my surprise, it was different from the movie in several vital ways that I believe make the novel far superior and more believable.The first major difference that I noticed was the expansion and depth of the first section, “Primeval Night.” I realize that film has many limitations over the written word, including time, that prevent it from expressing the feelings and sensations of the characters adequately. This section of the book was so intriguing and well written that I felt a great empathy for Moon-Watcher and the rest of the tribe. When re-watching the film after reading the book, I was greatly disappointed at how quickly this section was passed over.
The second difference that I felt took away from the film version was the reaction of Dave after Hal’s murder of Frank. When watching the film, I felt this was a weak point. Dave did not seem the type to let his emotions over-take his logic and it made him seem a much less controlled and logical person as he was portrayed in the book. I was pleased that he did not leave the ship to chase Frank’s corpse in the novel.
Lastly, the ending of the book was much clearer and concise than the ending to the film. I did not particularly enjoy the ending of the film at all as it felt sad, contrary to the uplifting ending of the book. The book makes it seem as though Dave were only in the “hotel room” for one night where the film seems to show the passage of many lonely years of imprisonment. The “supreme beings” of the film appeared to me to be careless and thoughtless rather than simply absent but prepared. I felt much more content with the story’s ending after reading the book and watched the film in an entirely new light! I misunderstood the ending of the film to simply mean that Dave was being reborn with all the knowledge that he had when he died. However, the novel describes how vast the knowledge and powers are that are possessed by the being that was once Dave Bowman. One is left with a sense that the world is about to change for the better and that this being has the ability to make our planet healthy and safe again amongst other things. The film just left me with a feeling that one person would have knowledge of the rest of the universe, rather than also having the power to use it.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although the film version of 2001 can be enjoyed on its own as the artful masterpiece that it is, I don’t believe it can be truly understood without the background knowledge provided by the novel. The movie is a triumph of light and sound ahead of its time, but the story can be lost in the color and music without that voice inside your head repeating the written words of Arthur C. Clarke to you.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ctpress
This is an idea-driven story and not a character-driven novel. Its scope is almost from eternity to eternity - from the dawn of human beings into the vast abyss of a transcendent cosmic conscience (don't be afraid of the aliens). And no, it's not a brick but only 200 pages. It's rather confusing to
I found it interesting as a phenomenon more than as a story - as it was written at the beginning of the computer-age and just before the first man on the moon - and features one of the most famous computer-characters - the spaceships main computer HAL. (The best part of the book). So my
So if you're into that kind of story - go ahead - you will probably enjoy it - It was only so-so for me.
Show More
know what's going on here - it makes some sense when you come to the last page. Don't be too attached to the individuals you meet - it's not about them at all - they are just pawns in a big display of evolutionary ideas. I found it interesting as a phenomenon more than as a story - as it was written at the beginning of the computer-age and just before the first man on the moon - and features one of the most famous computer-characters - the spaceships main computer HAL. (The best part of the book). So my
So if you're into that kind of story - go ahead - you will probably enjoy it - It was only so-so for me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member baswood
See the movie. Read the Book. The frontpiece to the book describes it as based on the screenplay by Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick. It would seem that the movie was being made in conjunction with the writing of the novel. The movie being released some months before the novel appeared due to
Like many people I have seen the movie both at the cinema and on TV and so the question for me was; how does the book hold up after familiarisation with the movie? Well it holds up pretty good. I have always been confused by the ending to the movie, but it all becomes perfectly clear in the book. It's almost worth reading for this reason alone. The book is well written with enough suspense contained in the familiar story line to keep you reading. Where the novel takes off however is in the brilliant description of the journey through the stargate.
The novel was originally published in 1968 at the height of the American space program and I think this benefits the novel in a number of ways. Clarke captures the feel for astronauts working in space, the meticulous care that was needed, the training that had to be undergone by the kind of people that regularly appeared on our TV screens at that time. He has made Dave Bowman almost as famous as the moon astronauts
Its always fun to look back at sci fi novels published in the sixties to see how accurate they were in predicting the future. Well obviously we hadn't made made any discoveries of alien artifacts by 2001 and Clarke's prediction of a working moonbase being established in 1994 was way off target. However he was more accurate when talking about handheld newspads being standard and that;
"the more wonderful the means of communication, the more trivial, tawdry or depressing its contents seemed to be" Thank you Arthur.
Show More
rights issues.Like many people I have seen the movie both at the cinema and on TV and so the question for me was; how does the book hold up after familiarisation with the movie? Well it holds up pretty good. I have always been confused by the ending to the movie, but it all becomes perfectly clear in the book. It's almost worth reading for this reason alone. The book is well written with enough suspense contained in the familiar story line to keep you reading. Where the novel takes off however is in the brilliant description of the journey through the stargate.
The novel was originally published in 1968 at the height of the American space program and I think this benefits the novel in a number of ways. Clarke captures the feel for astronauts working in space, the meticulous care that was needed, the training that had to be undergone by the kind of people that regularly appeared on our TV screens at that time. He has made Dave Bowman almost as famous as the moon astronauts
Its always fun to look back at sci fi novels published in the sixties to see how accurate they were in predicting the future. Well obviously we hadn't made made any discoveries of alien artifacts by 2001 and Clarke's prediction of a working moonbase being established in 1994 was way off target. However he was more accurate when talking about handheld newspads being standard and that;
"the more wonderful the means of communication, the more trivial, tawdry or depressing its contents seemed to be" Thank you Arthur.
Show Less
LibraryThing member aethercowboy
2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most influential pieces of science fiction in existence. Both the book and the movie have had their fair share of parody in popular culture, but at the same time, many authors borrowed in part or in whole from Clarke and made his work their own.
The story spans
Expressing a circular theme of rising above what you are, as well as featuring some really neat science, this sci-fi story definitely set a new standard for its genre.
Sure to please any fan of Clarke's writing, or the writing of authors like Carl Sagan or Alastair Reynolds.
The story spans
Show More
millennia, starting with apes who encounter a strange monolith, which starts their evolution into man. Then, some time later, near the turn of the millennium, a similar device is discovered on the moon, which sends a mysterious radio signal to one of the moons of Saturn. This obvious sign of extraterrestrial intelligence (the device has a size ratio of 1:4:9), leads to an expedition to Iapetus, the Saturnian moon in question. The crew aboard the Discovery One, the ship sent on this mission of discovery, however, soon realize that their ship's computer is having difficulty coming to terms with its programming, and is trying to kill the crew.Expressing a circular theme of rising above what you are, as well as featuring some really neat science, this sci-fi story definitely set a new standard for its genre.
Sure to please any fan of Clarke's writing, or the writing of authors like Carl Sagan or Alastair Reynolds.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
Clarke is a favorite author, but 2001 isn't really a favorite for me among his novels--but that might have something to do with my introduction to this story. My mother dragged me to see the 2001 film when I was five-years-old. I found the psychedelic odyssey among the stars terrifying and cried
As an adult? Well, I don't recall my reaction when I saw the film next, or if I had read the novel by then, but I imagine the reaction of most would be what Clarke relates in the introduction. He reported Rock Hudson left the film asking "Can someone tell me what the hell this is all about?"
I'm betting that is what sends a lot of people to this novel--and Clarke says some even complain the novel ruins the "mystery" of the film. It was interesting by the way learning this was in a sense a novelization of the film. On the title page it says this is: Based on a screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. Although it in turn was based on a short "The Sentinel" and what Clarke says was material from five other shorts, the novel was simultaneously developed with the film; it's impossible to read this without constantly thinking of the film. Naturally given their origins, they're very faithful renditions of each other, but that only underlines what different experiences they are--the film versus the text. The written form being far less ambiguous and the film more concise.
I think that's particularly brought home by the Part I, "Primeval Night" through the point of view of "Moon-Walker"--a "man-ape" ancestor to humans. I think the film wins here: the eerie music of the obelisk, the brilliant way Kubrick with the toss of a bone tool into the air turns it into a space shuttle going to the moon--in an instance saying everything needed about the passage of three million years. For me reading the novel pays off in the last part, "Through the Stargate" because I do find the mystifying end to the film more confusing and thus annoying than inspiring. And here the novel clarifies things immensely.
Show More
until my mother was forced to leave the theater before the film ended. Ever after she'd tell the story of how I was a brat and I'd tell the story of how she was callous. So, to a child that last part of the film is terrifying. As an adult? Well, I don't recall my reaction when I saw the film next, or if I had read the novel by then, but I imagine the reaction of most would be what Clarke relates in the introduction. He reported Rock Hudson left the film asking "Can someone tell me what the hell this is all about?"
I'm betting that is what sends a lot of people to this novel--and Clarke says some even complain the novel ruins the "mystery" of the film. It was interesting by the way learning this was in a sense a novelization of the film. On the title page it says this is: Based on a screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. Although it in turn was based on a short "The Sentinel" and what Clarke says was material from five other shorts, the novel was simultaneously developed with the film; it's impossible to read this without constantly thinking of the film. Naturally given their origins, they're very faithful renditions of each other, but that only underlines what different experiences they are--the film versus the text. The written form being far less ambiguous and the film more concise.
I think that's particularly brought home by the Part I, "Primeval Night" through the point of view of "Moon-Walker"--a "man-ape" ancestor to humans. I think the film wins here: the eerie music of the obelisk, the brilliant way Kubrick with the toss of a bone tool into the air turns it into a space shuttle going to the moon--in an instance saying everything needed about the passage of three million years. For me reading the novel pays off in the last part, "Through the Stargate" because I do find the mystifying end to the film more confusing and thus annoying than inspiring. And here the novel clarifies things immensely.
Show Less
LibraryThing member amerynth
Since I'm not living under a rock, I've seen the movie "2001" A Space Odyssey" a few times. Knowing that the screenplay and the novel were developed by Arthur C. Clarke simultaneously, I thought I knew what to expect. But I was blown away by how much more I enjoyed the novel than the film.
Much of
I found the book fascinating and deserving of its reputation of as a science fiction classic.
Much of
Show More
the framework of the story is the same (the major exception being the ending) but it is told in a very different manner (as events are happening rather than through an investigation afterward.) There is strong and interesting story telling here and a better explanation of why events are happening. I found the book fascinating and deserving of its reputation of as a science fiction classic.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JGolomb
"The thing's hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" - Astronaut David Bowman's final message to Earth.
Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is an epoch-spanning imagining of humankind's first contact with alien life. Most people know the core story from Stanley
This edition of the book includes a foreword by Clarke, which provides insights into the story's production. He describes an early conversation with the great director, where Kubrick tells him, "What I want is a theme of mythic grandeur." Clarke certainly delivered.
The story revolves around a monolithic stone-like entity that simply appears on earth 3 million years before modern times. The obelisk explores the mental and physical "skills" of individual man-apes, identifying which have the capacity to carry forth their subtly enhanced genetics. And while the movie is known for it's groundbreaking cinematography and special effects, in equal parts with its story-telling vagaries, Clarke's exposition-strong style draws a clear picture of how this alien-borne object was built to experiment, prod and alter the life forms it finds.
Not wholly through the serendipity of natural selection, but through delicate alien modifications, do these man-apes take the first tentative steps down their evolutionary paths. The alien interference is subtle; it provides sort of an evolutionary jump-start and then disappears as suddenly as it appeared. Clarke writes, "…the man-apes had been given their first chance. There would be no second one; the future was, very literally, in their own hands."
One of the first gifts of enlightenment explored by the man-apes is the use of tools, and the actualization that they can be used to defend…and kill.
A clear theme throughout, Clarke writes on the impact of the human propensity towards violence. Using the monolith's suggestion for the man-ape's adoption of tools as the starting point, Clarke writes that the physical and mental abilities to lay waste to nature and man, up close and at a distance, has defined human evolution -- from the first Promethean spark of consciousness through his fictional 2001 and beyond.
The novel jumps to the late 20th century. Man has uncovered a monolith buried deep below the surface of the moon. Once the 3 million year old object absorbs the first rays of the sun, a burst of energy explodes towards space. After millions of years of solitude, humankind inadvertently pulls the trigger on its next major evolutionary leap. The burst of energy blows through the solar system targeted at a small moon orbiting Saturn.
Contextually, this story was written during the dawn of the space age. Russian satellites had orbited the earth and Kennedy had rallied America behind its own goals to put a man on the moon. Science and technology were at the forefront of culture. Consideration of the possibility of alien life was a natural outcome of this collective thought.
Clarke explores one of the most common themes in science fiction, that of 'First Contact': "The political and social implications were immense; every person of real intelligence--everyone who looked an inch beyond his nose--would find his life, his values, his philosophy, subtly changed. Even if nothing whatsoever was discovered about (the monolith), and it remained an eternal mystery, Man would know that he was not unique in the universe. All futures must now contain this possibility."
The final third of the story follows astronaut David Bowman aboard a spaceship powering towards the destination of the moon-monolith's energy burst. The memorable HAL-9000 accompanies Bowman on his journey and despite the supercomputer-character's renown, fills only a relatively brief portion of the book. HAL represents a step on the continuum of humankind's evolutionary ascent. It represents the convergence of man and machine. As man developed machines to enhance his existence, he took a step further by transferring human consciousness to machine, which, to dire results, includes all of man's neuroses and psychoses.
I thoroughly enjoyed the slow build to human-like sentience of HAL. Following its very purposeful deceptions and murder, HAL says to Bowman rather innocently, "is your confidence in me fully restored? You know that I have the greatest possible enthusiasm for this mission."
Clarke's novel evokes the very familiar pacing and mood of Kubrick's film. The details are rich, the exposition extensive and all encompassing.
The book finishes with a much more satisfying conclusion than the movie. Clarke actually provides an explanation for the sequences of Bowman's final interactions with the alien intelligence, and his own fate. His conclusion satisfies years of frustrated confusion with Kubrick's final scenes.
Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is an epoch-spanning imagining of humankind's first contact with alien life. Most people know the core story from Stanley
Show More
Kubrick’s film of the same title. What's less known is that the book and screenplay were produced in parallel; Clarke and Kubrick working closely together on both. This edition of the book includes a foreword by Clarke, which provides insights into the story's production. He describes an early conversation with the great director, where Kubrick tells him, "What I want is a theme of mythic grandeur." Clarke certainly delivered.
The story revolves around a monolithic stone-like entity that simply appears on earth 3 million years before modern times. The obelisk explores the mental and physical "skills" of individual man-apes, identifying which have the capacity to carry forth their subtly enhanced genetics. And while the movie is known for it's groundbreaking cinematography and special effects, in equal parts with its story-telling vagaries, Clarke's exposition-strong style draws a clear picture of how this alien-borne object was built to experiment, prod and alter the life forms it finds.
Not wholly through the serendipity of natural selection, but through delicate alien modifications, do these man-apes take the first tentative steps down their evolutionary paths. The alien interference is subtle; it provides sort of an evolutionary jump-start and then disappears as suddenly as it appeared. Clarke writes, "…the man-apes had been given their first chance. There would be no second one; the future was, very literally, in their own hands."
One of the first gifts of enlightenment explored by the man-apes is the use of tools, and the actualization that they can be used to defend…and kill.
A clear theme throughout, Clarke writes on the impact of the human propensity towards violence. Using the monolith's suggestion for the man-ape's adoption of tools as the starting point, Clarke writes that the physical and mental abilities to lay waste to nature and man, up close and at a distance, has defined human evolution -- from the first Promethean spark of consciousness through his fictional 2001 and beyond.
The novel jumps to the late 20th century. Man has uncovered a monolith buried deep below the surface of the moon. Once the 3 million year old object absorbs the first rays of the sun, a burst of energy explodes towards space. After millions of years of solitude, humankind inadvertently pulls the trigger on its next major evolutionary leap. The burst of energy blows through the solar system targeted at a small moon orbiting Saturn.
Contextually, this story was written during the dawn of the space age. Russian satellites had orbited the earth and Kennedy had rallied America behind its own goals to put a man on the moon. Science and technology were at the forefront of culture. Consideration of the possibility of alien life was a natural outcome of this collective thought.
Clarke explores one of the most common themes in science fiction, that of 'First Contact': "The political and social implications were immense; every person of real intelligence--everyone who looked an inch beyond his nose--would find his life, his values, his philosophy, subtly changed. Even if nothing whatsoever was discovered about (the monolith), and it remained an eternal mystery, Man would know that he was not unique in the universe. All futures must now contain this possibility."
The final third of the story follows astronaut David Bowman aboard a spaceship powering towards the destination of the moon-monolith's energy burst. The memorable HAL-9000 accompanies Bowman on his journey and despite the supercomputer-character's renown, fills only a relatively brief portion of the book. HAL represents a step on the continuum of humankind's evolutionary ascent. It represents the convergence of man and machine. As man developed machines to enhance his existence, he took a step further by transferring human consciousness to machine, which, to dire results, includes all of man's neuroses and psychoses.
I thoroughly enjoyed the slow build to human-like sentience of HAL. Following its very purposeful deceptions and murder, HAL says to Bowman rather innocently, "is your confidence in me fully restored? You know that I have the greatest possible enthusiasm for this mission."
Clarke's novel evokes the very familiar pacing and mood of Kubrick's film. The details are rich, the exposition extensive and all encompassing.
The book finishes with a much more satisfying conclusion than the movie. Clarke actually provides an explanation for the sequences of Bowman's final interactions with the alien intelligence, and his own fate. His conclusion satisfies years of frustrated confusion with Kubrick's final scenes.
Show Less
LibraryThing member rufty
You know I never liked the film much - never did anything for me. I hated the mysterious seemingly drug induced ending that pointlessly baffled the viewer.
That I can now put down to a limitation in the medium of film; the book is able to tell the story of what was happening there so much better. In
I much preferred this to the film, so taking it as a standalone entity:
A good bit of hard sci-fi; an intersting concept well executed - if he could just have left out the pseudo religious stuff at the end and left it as a good bit of science fiction then it would be much better for it. Not that I really have a problem with what he wrote there really, just that it was totally out of character with the rest of the book.
That I can now put down to a limitation in the medium of film; the book is able to tell the story of what was happening there so much better. In
Show More
fact it shows how much better this story is told in book form.I much preferred this to the film, so taking it as a standalone entity:
A good bit of hard sci-fi; an intersting concept well executed - if he could just have left out the pseudo religious stuff at the end and left it as a good bit of science fiction then it would be much better for it. Not that I really have a problem with what he wrote there really, just that it was totally out of character with the rest of the book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member themulhern
The 1950s sexism is thrown into extraordinary relief by the future setting. This book is divided into parts which are quite distinct. The first part is about pre-humans, and it would have seemed very exciting to me when I was in high school, but now it's just not that interesting. The second part
We owe this book something, because it and the movie grew together, and the movie is pretty extraordinary. The part of the movie that corresponds to Part II of the book is more palatable than the book, because we aren't a party to Floyd's thoughts and the visuals are arresting. The plot of Part III is actually better in the book, as Bowman acts more rationally, but it does not include the "Open the pod bay doors HAL" scene because in the book Bowman does not foolishly chase after the corpse of his dead comrade. Anything to make a movie more exciting, I guess.
Show More
is about the reaction of the US government to the exciting discovery on the moon. This is all achieved as a sort of short story, as the scientist, Heywood Floyd, gets a call from the government and quickly travels to the location on the moon, demonstrating how technology has advanced. This is the one that is absolutely mired in sexism. No progress in human rights, but a happily functioning moon base. The third part is the astronauts' trip and the sexism drifts into the past pretty quickly due to the activities of the true hero, the homicidal computer, the HAL 9000. This is the best part, the most exciting, and the most interesting. Then comes the rest which is about mopping up after HAL's attack and goofy new age alien encounters. Not so interesting.We owe this book something, because it and the movie grew together, and the movie is pretty extraordinary. The part of the movie that corresponds to Part II of the book is more palatable than the book, because we aren't a party to Floyd's thoughts and the visuals are arresting. The plot of Part III is actually better in the book, as Bowman acts more rationally, but it does not include the "Open the pod bay doors HAL" scene because in the book Bowman does not foolishly chase after the corpse of his dead comrade. Anything to make a movie more exciting, I guess.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Kristelh
I watched the movie when it came out in 1968 and finally got the book read. Not sure why it took me so long, it is not a long book. I found Hal and space travel really scary. This book was written in conjunction with Stanley Kubrick and the film was released before the book. When this movie and
Show More
book were first released man had not yet walked on the moon. This book covers from early man-ape to the evolution of man to star child. It is a book about technology, artificial intelligence, aliens, and space travel. The book actually is quite detailed about the space travel. I found the book slow to get into. For me it was hard to engage until Hal becomes malevolent and has to be taken out. That is quite a tension filled section. I also found the last sections of the book to be like the first part. I just wasn't all that engaged. The movie was quite awesome, ahead of its time and received awards for visual affects. Arthur C. Clarke born in 1917 was a British science fiction author. 2001 is made up of some short stories he had written. The book and movie were worked on in tandem. The editor's of 1001 state that while the details of the passage of time made the author's projected futuristic developments not age well, Clarke is known and respected for the many fictional predictions that have become fact. Rating 3.75 Show Less
LibraryThing member paven
worth reading becouse of its place in history. But not that amazing.
LibraryThing member invisiblelizard
I was flipping channels one day a few months ago and noticed that 2001: A Space Odyssey had just started playing on one of the HD channels. I have a love/hate relationship with this movie. I hated it the first time I saw it, strapped in a theatre chair between two friends who took me to showing of
A friend of mine told me a while ago that if I really wanted to understand the movie, I should read the book, so I immediately went to the bookstore and picked up a copy. And, since I was in a Sci-Fi kind of mood, I bought 2010 and 2063 to go along with it. I would have grabbed the fourth, 3001, if they had a nicer copy in the store, but I figured I'd save it for later.
The introduction to this copy of 2001 (some sort of anniversary edition) was illuminating. I didn't know that Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick wrote this together, Kubrick the screenplay and Clarke the novel, often going back and forth with ideas even while the movie was filming. In the end, they had nearly the same story except Clarke sent his exploration team to Saturn while Kubrick, fearing that he couldn't adequately represent that planet's rings, settled on Jupiter.*
It's a fairly light Sci-Fi book. I've certainly read heavier stuff. The writing is about average for Sci-Fi, a genre not known for its great literary talent, but rather for its clever thinking and imagination, and in this, 2001 excels. The bits that explain what in the hell was going on in the movie made it more than worthwhile. And, being a fan of the movie, this book seemed like icing on the cake.
A fun read, if only fair writing, but without the popularity of the movie behind it, I'm not sure if it would ever have grown so popular itself.
Invisible Lizard's Unusual Oranges
Show More
it in college, guaranteeing me I'd love it, and not warning me that there is no spoken dialogue for the first and last half hour of the movie. Then, later, I rented it and loved it, because I could fast forward through the parts that I didn't care about, like the last half hour. (Does that make me a bad person? No, I don't think so.) This time, however, in wide-screen high-def, I was nearly ecstatic. I had never seen it look so good before, and you really get an idea of what a master film maker Stanley Kubrick was.A friend of mine told me a while ago that if I really wanted to understand the movie, I should read the book, so I immediately went to the bookstore and picked up a copy. And, since I was in a Sci-Fi kind of mood, I bought 2010 and 2063 to go along with it. I would have grabbed the fourth, 3001, if they had a nicer copy in the store, but I figured I'd save it for later.
The introduction to this copy of 2001 (some sort of anniversary edition) was illuminating. I didn't know that Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick wrote this together, Kubrick the screenplay and Clarke the novel, often going back and forth with ideas even while the movie was filming. In the end, they had nearly the same story except Clarke sent his exploration team to Saturn while Kubrick, fearing that he couldn't adequately represent that planet's rings, settled on Jupiter.*
It's a fairly light Sci-Fi book. I've certainly read heavier stuff. The writing is about average for Sci-Fi, a genre not known for its great literary talent, but rather for its clever thinking and imagination, and in this, 2001 excels. The bits that explain what in the hell was going on in the movie made it more than worthwhile. And, being a fan of the movie, this book seemed like icing on the cake.
A fun read, if only fair writing, but without the popularity of the movie behind it, I'm not sure if it would ever have grown so popular itself.
Invisible Lizard's Unusual Oranges
Show Less
LibraryThing member jolerie
Humans are always asking the age old question of whether we are alone in this universe. This question is the one question that continually drives us to look outside ourselves, to explore the worlds beyonds, and to test the limits of human ingenuity. The premise of 2001 is that there is intelligence
Half way through the book, I realized with a shock that there is minimal to no character development whatsoever in the book. Despite the fact that I knew nothing about the characters's family, history, or development, which is a rarity in most books, I was still thoroughly intrigued by the plot and direction of the book. Perhaps it is my unabashed curiosity about space travel and exploration, but despite not really connecting with the characters (since there was nothing to connect with), the overall premise of our evolutionary development being experimented with at one specific point in history, and that causing irrevocable changes in our species had me completely sold and wanting to find out what happens in the subsequent sequels to the book.
Show More
out there and we are by no means alone. Since the dawn of mankind as a conscious entity, our evolutionary path has been tampered with, altered, and ultimately advanced upon with the intervention of "beings" not from our world. Our existence may be a natural process that came to be over millions of years, but our advancements, is by no means natural.Half way through the book, I realized with a shock that there is minimal to no character development whatsoever in the book. Despite the fact that I knew nothing about the characters's family, history, or development, which is a rarity in most books, I was still thoroughly intrigued by the plot and direction of the book. Perhaps it is my unabashed curiosity about space travel and exploration, but despite not really connecting with the characters (since there was nothing to connect with), the overall premise of our evolutionary development being experimented with at one specific point in history, and that causing irrevocable changes in our species had me completely sold and wanting to find out what happens in the subsequent sequels to the book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AtrixWolfe
This book helps to explain that whole sequence of colors and images towards the end of the film: read the last pages to get a more ominous interpretation of the ending of the film.
LibraryThing member Stbalbach
One of the greatest science fiction stories ever created. Its impact on the collective imagination of the world can not be underestimated. Watched and read by the Apollo crews, Carl Sagan, etc.. the stories very lexicon has entered the reality of space exploration, and molded the public's view of
Of course while the film and not the novel bears 90% of the responsibility, they were created concurrently and thus impossible to separate. The novel on its own is still widely read and appreciated more than 40 years later. The first part of the story - up until the death of HAL - is more effective on screen. The later half, which is too weird to really understand in the film, is much clearer and more interesting in the novel.
Show More
what is possible.Of course while the film and not the novel bears 90% of the responsibility, they were created concurrently and thus impossible to separate. The novel on its own is still widely read and appreciated more than 40 years later. The first part of the story - up until the death of HAL - is more effective on screen. The later half, which is too weird to really understand in the film, is much clearer and more interesting in the novel.
Show Less
LibraryThing member soylentgreen23
Another of the books I read after the movie, Clarke's work is doomed to come away second-best. I believe this was written during production of the film - the original inspiration being Clarke's short story "The Sentinel."
I think the choice of Saturn is a curious one - Jupiter is a more obvious
The highlight of the book is the treatment given to that part of the film left out - the period when Bowman is alone on the ship, coasting through space without HAL. When Clarke broke away from Kubrick in this manner, his skill as a narrator suddenly returns to prominence.
I think the choice of Saturn is a curious one - Jupiter is a more obvious
Show More
failed star - and the dislocation this choice brings when taken with the film is immense.The highlight of the book is the treatment given to that part of the film left out - the period when Bowman is alone on the ship, coasting through space without HAL. When Clarke broke away from Kubrick in this manner, his skill as a narrator suddenly returns to prominence.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bardsfingertips
This book was Tom Clancy in space; but much more secular. It was a lot of fun to read and I would suggest it to anyone...especially to those that need an explination for the celluloid enigma. (After all, the book came second.)
LibraryThing member ashishg
Humanity's encounter with aliens, twice, indirectly, and all that follows. Slow but interesting read with disappointing ending.
LibraryThing member wfzimmerman
A handsome anniversary edition of the best film novelization, evar.
LibraryThing member RoboSchro
"Now I'm right above it, hovering five hundred feet up. I don't want to waste any time, since Discovery will soon be out of range. I'm going to land. It's certainly solid enough -- and if it isn't I'll blast off at once.
"Just a minute -- that's odd..."
This classic meditation on human evolution was
As with most Clarke books, the story is surrounded and supported by a big theme -- in this case, it's human evolution, and (towards the end) our place in the universe. The science is also fairly detailed and realistic -- much of the length of the book is taken up by the long, slow journey of the Discovery from Earth to Saturn. This serves to build up the suspense rather well, and makes the mission's problems, when they come, all the more sinister.
This has aged well, and is fully deserving of its classic status.
"Just a minute -- that's odd..."
This classic meditation on human evolution was
Show More
written alongside the production of the Stanley Kubrick film, and first published in 1968. At times it seems to suffer in comparison to the iconic film; at other times it clearly surpasses it.As with most Clarke books, the story is surrounded and supported by a big theme -- in this case, it's human evolution, and (towards the end) our place in the universe. The science is also fairly detailed and realistic -- much of the length of the book is taken up by the long, slow journey of the Discovery from Earth to Saturn. This serves to build up the suspense rather well, and makes the mission's problems, when they come, all the more sinister.
This has aged well, and is fully deserving of its classic status.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jsnrcrny
Written in conjunction with the movie directed by Stanley Kubrick, the novel is based upon Clarke's earlier short story, "The Sentinel." A profound representation of artificial intelligence and alien life, Clarke's adaptation of Kubrick's screenplay is most striking because of its narrative range.
Show More
Beginning during prehistorical times, before the evolution of humanity, Clarke's novel depicts homo sapiens in their primal state and suggests, provocatively, an alternative story about our evolution as a species. Spiritually, philosophically, and scientifically resonating, the novel is a wonderful example of the richness of 1960s science fiction. Show Less
LibraryThing member Neale
A classic Sci Fi book that was created concurrently with the movie and is different from the movie in a number of plot areas.
Highly recommended.
HAL the computer is a classic.(BTW if you take the previous letter in the alphabet from IBM you get HAL - spooky!)
Highly recommended.
HAL the computer is a classic.(BTW if you take the previous letter in the alphabet from IBM you get HAL - spooky!)
Subjects
Awards
Locus All-Time Best (Science Fiction Novel — 27 — 1998)
501 Must-Read Books (Emma Beare, 2006) (Science Fiction)
Waterstones Books of the Century (87 — 1997)
Original publication date
1968-06
1968
Other editions
2001, a space odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke (Paper Book)