What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost Worlds of 2001
The Lost Worlds of 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke was published in 1972 by Signet as an accompaniment to the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The book itself consists in part of behind-the-scenes notes from Clarke concerning scriptwriting (and rewriting), as well as production issues. The core of the book, however, is contained in excerpts from the proto-novel and an early screenplay that did not make it into the final version.
Alternative settings for launch preparation, the EVA scene where astronaut Frank Poole is lost, and varying dialogues concerning the HAL 9000 unit are all featured in the book. Also included is the original short story The Sentinel on which 2001 is loosely based.
The book itself consists in part of behind-the-scenes notes from Clarke concerning scriptwriting (and rewriting), as well as production issues. The core of the book, however, is contained in excerpts from the proto-novel and an early screenplay that did not make it into the final version.
Alternative settings for launch preparation, the EVA scene where astronaut Frank Poole is lost, and varying dialogues concerning the HAL 9000 unit are all featured in the book. Also included is the original short story The Sentinel on which 2001 is loosely based.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1971
22 people are currently reading
959 people want to read
About the author
Arthur C. Clarke
1,648 books11.6k followersStories, works of noted British writer, scientist, and underwater explorer Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, include
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968).
This most important and influential figure in 20th century fiction spent the first half of his life in England and served in World War II as a radar operator before migrating to Ceylon in 1956. He co-created his best known novel and movie with the assistance of Stanley Kubrick.
Clarke, a graduate of King's College, London, obtained first class honours in physics and mathematics. He served as past chairman of the interplanetary society and as a member of the academy of astronautics, the royal astronomical society, and many other organizations.
He authored more than fifty books and won his numerous awards: the Kalinga prize of 1961, the American association for the advancement Westinghouse prize, the Bradford Washburn award, and the John W. Campbell award for his novel Rendezvous with Rama. Clarke also won the nebula award of the fiction of America in 1972, 1974 and 1979, the Hugo award of the world fiction convention in 1974 and 1980. In 1986, he stood as grand master of the fiction of America. The queen knighted him as the commander of the British Empire in 1989.
This most important and influential figure in 20th century fiction spent the first half of his life in England and served in World War II as a radar operator before migrating to Ceylon in 1956. He co-created his best known novel and movie with the assistance of Stanley Kubrick.
Clarke, a graduate of King's College, London, obtained first class honours in physics and mathematics. He served as past chairman of the interplanetary society and as a member of the academy of astronautics, the royal astronomical society, and many other organizations.
He authored more than fifty books and won his numerous awards: the Kalinga prize of 1961, the American association for the advancement Westinghouse prize, the Bradford Washburn award, and the John W. Campbell award for his novel Rendezvous with Rama. Clarke also won the nebula award of the fiction of America in 1972, 1974 and 1979, the Hugo award of the world fiction convention in 1974 and 1980. In 1986, he stood as grand master of the fiction of America. The queen knighted him as the commander of the British Empire in 1989.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
March 25, 2019
I will go on record right at the beginning of this review by way of stating that I believe “2001: A Space Odyssey” to be the Greatest Science-Fiction Movie Ever Made. The novelization, while also great, ranks a bit lower on my scale, perhaps because I encountered the film version first. Like most novels that follow a movie, it doesn’t really do anything to enhance the experience of the motion picture. That said, the “2001” novel is still an important cog in the entirety of what was, for it’s era, a true phenomenon.
The roots of why I think “2001” to be The Greatest Science-Fiction Movie Ever Made are sort of complex. I first saw the movie when it made its network television debut in early 1977. It was a momentous evening in our house, and I can remember my mother and I watching with wide wonder on our little color television set. I should also mention that “2001” was also one of my older brother’s favorite movies, a fact that he would expound upon frequently. By ‘77 the movie had lost a bit of it’s cultural impact, the Apollo program having been abandoned and American’s interest in the space program abating somewhat. But the televised event was still an “EVENT,” bringing the iconic film to a second generation of potential fans.
It wasn’t until a couple of years later that I would see the movie on the big screen, finally getting the full impact of the scope of the visuals. I and my friends would sometimes sneak off to Shreveport to catch the midnight movies, a staple of late '70s and early '80s head space and “cult” cinema. By this time “2001” had become less unique and more of a staple with the stoner crowd, who still dropped hallucinogenic drugs and waited to space out as mankind finally found its way through the Stargate bound for universes beyond.
“2001” was, of course, a product of its time. It was an unusual partnership between British author Arthur C. Clarke and filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. Both men desired to bring forth a vision of science-fiction as “art,” eschewing the familiar staples and tropes of most previous science-fiction films. It was visually stunning, and provided a realistic portrayal of what life might actually be like for residents of a near-future world where technology has advanced along a reasonable timeline. Some of the predictions will ring true today, even if Clarke and Kubrick missed the mark by a couple of decades. Their vision of Artificial Intelligence in the form of the mission computer HAL is still jarring and disconcertingly vivid all these years later.
Now “2001: A Space Odyssey” is a Cerebral movie, fully deserving that capital C. It was the movie that established Stanley Kubrick as one of the great motion picture directors of the 20th century, and it enhanced Arthur Clarke’s already sturdy reputation as one of the foremost practitioners of the written science-fiction field. To this day there is still a bit of a divide between those who love the movie and those who just don’t “get” it. For the critics, there is much grist for the mill. The movie DOES move slowly, the acting IS a bit stiff and unemotional, and the dialogue, what little there is of it, is often unexciting. But “2001’” was the first science-fiction film that made the assumption that its audience was smart. Clarke and Kubrick deliberately paced the film the way they did because they weren’t afraid to frame the Big Questions…..who are we? Where did we come from? Why is it all here? Where is it all going? These are ideas that transcended science-fiction and hit on the main questions of philosophy and religion. And THAT is why “2001: A Space Odyssey” is The Greatest Science-Fiction Movie Ever Made.
“The Lost Worlds of 2001” came out in 1972. I was lucky enough to pick up a first edition Signet paperback copy from a used bookstore. It’s a great companion piece to the movie and the novel, as it brings together the original source material, some behind-the-scenes action from the movie set, and a lot of unused scenes that allow us as readers to get a glimpse of the evolution from concept to finished product.
“The Sentinel” short story is offered here as the primary inspiration for the screenplay and the novel. It tells of man’s first encounter with an alien artifact on the moon, and provides a basis for everything that comes after. Clarke then treats us to a bit of movie making background, as he and Kubrick jockey around different ideas for a movie that could change the scope of film making. We are treated to a much different opening sequence for the story, one which introduces us to a benevolent alien named “Clindar,” who serves as a sort of biological stand-in for what would eventually morph into the impersonal monolith. We get a section devoted to early versions of HAL, then a section describing various iterations of the Discovery star ship. The book finishes up with alternate versions of the ultimate trip through the Stargate, all of which would have been unfilmable but which were necessary stepping-stones to the finished product. It’s a fun volume to have if you are at all interested in having some idea of how much work and how many revisions must have gone on during the production of the story and film. Some of it even stands up as enjoyable science-fiction on its own without the benefit of the “2001” cachet to hold it up.
“The Lost Worlds of 2001” is certainly not a necessary addition to your science-fiction library. It’s definitely written for fans of the movie and/or novel, and you can absolutely enjoy both without having any of this extraneous material. For people like me, though, who love to get more detail and background on the media they enjoy, this was kind of a must have. You should pick it up if you want to get some great insight on the movie and novel and/or are interested in reading some fun alternative versions of this iconic journey.
The roots of why I think “2001” to be The Greatest Science-Fiction Movie Ever Made are sort of complex. I first saw the movie when it made its network television debut in early 1977. It was a momentous evening in our house, and I can remember my mother and I watching with wide wonder on our little color television set. I should also mention that “2001” was also one of my older brother’s favorite movies, a fact that he would expound upon frequently. By ‘77 the movie had lost a bit of it’s cultural impact, the Apollo program having been abandoned and American’s interest in the space program abating somewhat. But the televised event was still an “EVENT,” bringing the iconic film to a second generation of potential fans.
It wasn’t until a couple of years later that I would see the movie on the big screen, finally getting the full impact of the scope of the visuals. I and my friends would sometimes sneak off to Shreveport to catch the midnight movies, a staple of late '70s and early '80s head space and “cult” cinema. By this time “2001” had become less unique and more of a staple with the stoner crowd, who still dropped hallucinogenic drugs and waited to space out as mankind finally found its way through the Stargate bound for universes beyond.
“2001” was, of course, a product of its time. It was an unusual partnership between British author Arthur C. Clarke and filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. Both men desired to bring forth a vision of science-fiction as “art,” eschewing the familiar staples and tropes of most previous science-fiction films. It was visually stunning, and provided a realistic portrayal of what life might actually be like for residents of a near-future world where technology has advanced along a reasonable timeline. Some of the predictions will ring true today, even if Clarke and Kubrick missed the mark by a couple of decades. Their vision of Artificial Intelligence in the form of the mission computer HAL is still jarring and disconcertingly vivid all these years later.
Now “2001: A Space Odyssey” is a Cerebral movie, fully deserving that capital C. It was the movie that established Stanley Kubrick as one of the great motion picture directors of the 20th century, and it enhanced Arthur Clarke’s already sturdy reputation as one of the foremost practitioners of the written science-fiction field. To this day there is still a bit of a divide between those who love the movie and those who just don’t “get” it. For the critics, there is much grist for the mill. The movie DOES move slowly, the acting IS a bit stiff and unemotional, and the dialogue, what little there is of it, is often unexciting. But “2001’” was the first science-fiction film that made the assumption that its audience was smart. Clarke and Kubrick deliberately paced the film the way they did because they weren’t afraid to frame the Big Questions…..who are we? Where did we come from? Why is it all here? Where is it all going? These are ideas that transcended science-fiction and hit on the main questions of philosophy and religion. And THAT is why “2001: A Space Odyssey” is The Greatest Science-Fiction Movie Ever Made.
“The Lost Worlds of 2001” came out in 1972. I was lucky enough to pick up a first edition Signet paperback copy from a used bookstore. It’s a great companion piece to the movie and the novel, as it brings together the original source material, some behind-the-scenes action from the movie set, and a lot of unused scenes that allow us as readers to get a glimpse of the evolution from concept to finished product.
“The Sentinel” short story is offered here as the primary inspiration for the screenplay and the novel. It tells of man’s first encounter with an alien artifact on the moon, and provides a basis for everything that comes after. Clarke then treats us to a bit of movie making background, as he and Kubrick jockey around different ideas for a movie that could change the scope of film making. We are treated to a much different opening sequence for the story, one which introduces us to a benevolent alien named “Clindar,” who serves as a sort of biological stand-in for what would eventually morph into the impersonal monolith. We get a section devoted to early versions of HAL, then a section describing various iterations of the Discovery star ship. The book finishes up with alternate versions of the ultimate trip through the Stargate, all of which would have been unfilmable but which were necessary stepping-stones to the finished product. It’s a fun volume to have if you are at all interested in having some idea of how much work and how many revisions must have gone on during the production of the story and film. Some of it even stands up as enjoyable science-fiction on its own without the benefit of the “2001” cachet to hold it up.
“The Lost Worlds of 2001” is certainly not a necessary addition to your science-fiction library. It’s definitely written for fans of the movie and/or novel, and you can absolutely enjoy both without having any of this extraneous material. For people like me, though, who love to get more detail and background on the media they enjoy, this was kind of a must have. You should pick it up if you want to get some great insight on the movie and novel and/or are interested in reading some fun alternative versions of this iconic journey.
March 3, 2024
Arthur C Clarke agreed to work with Stanley Kubrick in 1964 on the filmmaking of what Kubrick hoped to be the greatest science fiction movie ever created. The movie was completed and released in 1968. During those four years Clarke and Kubrick created the story together, each proposing his own ideas. As these ideas were formed, Clarke wrote sections of the book which was to be published at the same time as the movies’ release. There were scores of pages, filled with exciting ideas, that were written but were then set aside as new ideas formed.
In this book, Clarke tells the story of the movie and novels’ development, then adds to the text more than a hundred and fifty pages that were set aside when the team had come to the finished product. It is great that these pages were not lost to history as they tell a somewhat different account of the Voyage of Discovery. There are more plentiful characters and the ideas they had for the monument were quite different. In one attempt the story circled around an alien person rather than a stone structure. I have to say that I would have enjoyed this idea even more.
Excellent book!
In this book, Clarke tells the story of the movie and novels’ development, then adds to the text more than a hundred and fifty pages that were set aside when the team had come to the finished product. It is great that these pages were not lost to history as they tell a somewhat different account of the Voyage of Discovery. There are more plentiful characters and the ideas they had for the monument were quite different. In one attempt the story circled around an alien person rather than a stone structure. I have to say that I would have enjoyed this idea even more.
Excellent book!
October 28, 2025
Almost everyone among us that has read this book got to it because we wanted to learn more about the making of the legendary film from Arthur C. Clarkes perspective. And in the first few chapters that looks to be the case, as he goes through his first meetings with Kubrick and shares notes on the progress from his personal diary with us.
All of us familiar with the 4-year struggle to make this movie and allowing the book to be published will be disappointed to see almost none of that strife here. I do find it amusing and admirably diplomatic that the only comment we receive from Arthur C. Clarke about the final torturous stretch is a curt: “I’ve heard of easier ways to make a living “. If you want to learn more about filming of the movie there are plenty of books out there.
Instead, what we get here is the conceptual evolution of the story from the humble short story The Sentinel to the few iterations of the ending. Considering that the writing of the book is a product of both Clarke and Kubrick we can clearly see the influence of both in these drafts, from the technical, procedural and philosophical minutia prior to the launch of Discovery (Clarke) to the floating islands in one of the endings (Kubrick).
For everyone interested in writing (novel or script) this book is invaluable. Looking at these dropped ideas, it is interesting to critically appraise them in the wider context of the story and themes set out by the duo.
Even though this book most likely came into existence as an additional movie/book tie in and cash grab it still has value.
All of us familiar with the 4-year struggle to make this movie and allowing the book to be published will be disappointed to see almost none of that strife here. I do find it amusing and admirably diplomatic that the only comment we receive from Arthur C. Clarke about the final torturous stretch is a curt: “I’ve heard of easier ways to make a living “. If you want to learn more about filming of the movie there are plenty of books out there.
Instead, what we get here is the conceptual evolution of the story from the humble short story The Sentinel to the few iterations of the ending. Considering that the writing of the book is a product of both Clarke and Kubrick we can clearly see the influence of both in these drafts, from the technical, procedural and philosophical minutia prior to the launch of Discovery (Clarke) to the floating islands in one of the endings (Kubrick).
For everyone interested in writing (novel or script) this book is invaluable. Looking at these dropped ideas, it is interesting to critically appraise them in the wider context of the story and themes set out by the duo.
Even though this book most likely came into existence as an additional movie/book tie in and cash grab it still has value.
May 24, 2021
231118: i read this years ago (decades...) but thought this was on here. this was probably the first critical work, nonfiction work, i read after ‘making of...’ some years after first seeing the film (rep theatre father took us to at u- so i got to see it on a big screen!) reading the book (6 times now?) so this rating is by nostalgia. this was the beginning of film-geekry for me into my adolescence... i would never see movies of any sort the same way after this book...
more
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Making of Kubrick's 2001
2001: A Space Odyssey
Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece
The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s '2001: A Space Odyssey'
more
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Making of Kubrick's 2001
2001: A Space Odyssey
Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece
The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s '2001: A Space Odyssey'
April 15, 2018
So, this was a re-read. I picked this up because it happens to be 50 years this week (as I type) since the US release of the MGM movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. For the record, and as regular SFFWorld readers may know, I’m a Clarke fan. This book was one of my Dad’s old paperbacks, which I read after reading the novel of 2001, looking for answers and trying to work out what the movie was about. The iconic cover to the NEL paperback (from the great artist Bruce Pennington, one of the iconic artists of the UK in the 1970's: http://www.brucepennington.co.uk) seemed to suggest that this book might help.
Just to put that into perspective, my discovery of the book would have been in the mid-to-late 1970’s, before the arrival of VHS and Betamax video recorders, but long after the movie had gone from the cinema. (My first watch, if I remember right, was a showing one Christmas on BBC television.) I had read just about every Clarke novel I could get my hands on – at this time it was up to Imperial Earth (1975) which I read in about 1978, I think. (It took a little while to appear in my small-town local library.)
Although these days, with the advent of Blu-ray, a big television screen and a surround sound setup, I have seen the movie many times – often once a year – this is the first time in over twenty years since I’ve read this book other than to dip in and out for the odd reference. If you’re a fan of the movie (and I know there’s a lot of people who are not!) it’s a rewarding read.
First of all – make sure you’ve seen the movie and/or read the novel before this book.
Sir Arthur is at pains to point out that his book 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a “novelisation” of the script, but instead something that was written at the same time as the development of the screenplay.
In fact, reading this book shows you how close Sir Arthur and Stanley Kubrick worked together before the movie was made – a film that was planned to write and make in two years but, in the end, took four. Clarke here gives some brief extracts of the log/diary that he kept whilst this collaboration was taking place, which are brief but typically Clarke.
The novel 2001 gives more idea of that ending, which Kubrick kept deliberately oblique in the movie, but this book explains further what Kubrick & Clarke’s ambitious intentions were.
What is fascinating here is that Lost Worlds shows the reader how a movie is made, and, most interestingly, the roads not taken in that process.
The book begins with View from the Year 2000, a short extrapolated history of an imaginary Space Race, extending past the Moon landings (this was written in 1964) to Mars and beyond. Wonderfully optimistic, the prologue tells of rock-like life discovered on Mars and the mysterious outer planets of Saturn and Jupiter, leading to the stars and beyond. This is typical Clarke-style fiction that wouldn’t be out of place in one of his novels.
The original Clarke story, The Sentinel (1948), the origin of (and inspiration for) the monolith story, is also included in this book. There are clear links between the two.
Obviously, in any production, there are ideas that are considered but then rejected. Lost Worlds is full of these, which suggest that the final movie could have been very different from what we actually saw. There are lots of little “Wow” moments throughout the book. I don’t want to give them all, but here’s a few ideas that stuck with me from the early stages of writing that were thought of and then (in most cases, thankfully) rejected:
*The discovery of the alien monolith/artifact TMA-1 was, like The Sentinel, meant to be the ending of the film/book but was quickly seen as a start, rather than a conclusion.
*Kubrick wanted to have the movie called “Journey Beyond the Stars”, which Sir Arthur hated. Other titles considered were Universe, Tunnel to the Stars, and Planetfall. It was not until April 1965 that Stanley selected 2001: A Space Odyssey, entirely his idea, to which Clarke agreed.
*Sir Arthur suggested to Kubrick that the aliens might be machines who regard organic life as a hideous disease.
*Clarke also proposed in the early stages that the people we meet on the other star system are humans who were collected from Earth a hundred thousand years ago, and hence are virtually identical with us.
*Kubrick wanted to include the idea from Clarke’s Childhood’s End that the aliens looked like devils.
*The first version of the famous monolith was the largest block of lucite produced in the world up to that date, weighing three tons. (It was rejected when it didn't look right.)
*Originally the monolith was to be a transparent cube or a tetrahedon.
*The novel was meant to come out before the movie. Clarke felt that it was about finished in April 1966, but Kubrick wanted to work on it more. It was further revised by Clarke (on Kubrick’s suggestions) continuously until its eventual release, months after the movie in the summer of 1968.
Whilst still revising the novel/script, Clarke went to the movie set a few times, but was not always a revered visitor:
It is at this point that we get to the core of this book. The remainder of this book are early versions of the novel used to develop a script, begun as part of the Clarke-Kubrick collaboration in progress and put together as an incomplete, alternative version of the 2001 plot. They are discarded elements excised or totally different from the final film version. All are intriguing.
And here was my surprise. This alternate tale is much more typically Clarke in terms of style, something not dissimilar from, say, Rendezvous with Rama or even Prelude to Space. These look more at many of the issues subtly referenced in the movie – the future relationship between Man and robots, HAL and Artificial Intelligence, Asimov’s Laws of Robotics, the exploration of Mars, Clarke’s ever-abiding interest in the ocean, the cosmic grandeur of the universe.
Most interestingly, there are characters fleshed out which are barely mentioned by name in the movie, not just Dave Bowman and Frank (here Kelvin) Poole, but also their other colleagues on the Discovery (Kaminski, Kimball, Hunter, and Whitehead.) Not only that, but there’s typically Clarkean big cosmic moments, a more Childhood’s End-type ending through the Star Gate, and even a named alien guiding Mankind’s future destiny. In this alternate world HAL is Athena, and in the early parts of the book is a mobile robot named Socrates – how different in the movie that would have been! Traveling from Mars to Venus and even under the oceans, this version of 2001 is a fuller and less clinical version of the 2001 novel and the original movie.
As engaging as this was, this actually may also be the book’s downfall. It is also more straight-forward and less ambiguous than the movie version, which may be why it wasn’t the basis for the final script. One of the reasons that I feel that the movie has a timeless quality is the fact that the elements that would have dated it have not been included. Instead, the dialogue is kept deliberately brief and general, the characterisation to a minimum (it has been noted by some critics that often the most interesting character is HAL the computer) and therefore the details more ambiguous. Even now, fifty years on, discussion over what the movie is about is still common. The film makes people think and wonder and watch again. Whilst this version of the story is great, it is also quite traditional. It would make a great movie – but not one that would be as revered as 2001 is, in fifty years’ time.
Reading Lost Worlds in 2018 I was surprised by how much of the original book/film I had forgotten but also how much I enjoyed this alternate, if more talky, version. Clarke’s writing voice is as clear as ever, with that sense of humour and deprecation not expected from someone nicknamed ‘The Ego’. A Director’s Cut edition of the novel, combining elements of this with the main plot of the movie, would have been brilliant.
Looking back, although I enjoyed this when I first read it, I remember this as an inconsequential book, feeling that it was full of incomplete bits of wastage from the years spent by Clarke on outlining the plot for Kubrick and cobbled together by a publisher eager to cash in on the 2001 phenomenon.
I was wrong.
With the advantage of hindsight and a greater knowledge of the movie and Clarke's work, I find that Lost Worlds is a deeper and richer experience than I remembered. For too long this book has been left on my shelf – it is a worthy read, and one which I would’ve loved to see published as an alternate universe Clarke novel.
As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the movie’s release, this is an appropriate read to show what else could have been achieved with the material. This was a surprisingly good read and one worth getting hold of if you can.
Just to put that into perspective, my discovery of the book would have been in the mid-to-late 1970’s, before the arrival of VHS and Betamax video recorders, but long after the movie had gone from the cinema. (My first watch, if I remember right, was a showing one Christmas on BBC television.) I had read just about every Clarke novel I could get my hands on – at this time it was up to Imperial Earth (1975) which I read in about 1978, I think. (It took a little while to appear in my small-town local library.)
Although these days, with the advent of Blu-ray, a big television screen and a surround sound setup, I have seen the movie many times – often once a year – this is the first time in over twenty years since I’ve read this book other than to dip in and out for the odd reference. If you’re a fan of the movie (and I know there’s a lot of people who are not!) it’s a rewarding read.
First of all – make sure you’ve seen the movie and/or read the novel before this book.
Sir Arthur is at pains to point out that his book 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a “novelisation” of the script, but instead something that was written at the same time as the development of the screenplay.
“In theory, therefore, the novel would be written (with an eye on the screen) and the script would be derived from this. In practice, the result was far more complex; toward the end, both novel and screenplay were being written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions. Some parts of the novel had their final revisions after we had seen the rushes based on the screenplay based on earlier versions of the novel . . . and so on.”
In fact, reading this book shows you how close Sir Arthur and Stanley Kubrick worked together before the movie was made – a film that was planned to write and make in two years but, in the end, took four. Clarke here gives some brief extracts of the log/diary that he kept whilst this collaboration was taking place, which are brief but typically Clarke.
“June 20. Finished the opening chapter, “View from the Year 2000,” and started on the robot sequence.
July 1. Last day working at Time/Life completing Man and Space. Checked into new suite, 1008, at the Hotel Chelsea.
July 2-8. Averaging one or two thousand words a day. Stanley reads first five chapters and says “We’ve got a best seller here.”
July 9. Spent much of afternoon teaching Stanley how to use the slide rule - he’s fascinated.”
The novel 2001 gives more idea of that ending, which Kubrick kept deliberately oblique in the movie, but this book explains further what Kubrick & Clarke’s ambitious intentions were.
What is fascinating here is that Lost Worlds shows the reader how a movie is made, and, most interestingly, the roads not taken in that process.
The book begins with View from the Year 2000, a short extrapolated history of an imaginary Space Race, extending past the Moon landings (this was written in 1964) to Mars and beyond. Wonderfully optimistic, the prologue tells of rock-like life discovered on Mars and the mysterious outer planets of Saturn and Jupiter, leading to the stars and beyond. This is typical Clarke-style fiction that wouldn’t be out of place in one of his novels.
The original Clarke story, The Sentinel (1948), the origin of (and inspiration for) the monolith story, is also included in this book. There are clear links between the two.
Obviously, in any production, there are ideas that are considered but then rejected. Lost Worlds is full of these, which suggest that the final movie could have been very different from what we actually saw. There are lots of little “Wow” moments throughout the book. I don’t want to give them all, but here’s a few ideas that stuck with me from the early stages of writing that were thought of and then (in most cases, thankfully) rejected:
*The discovery of the alien monolith/artifact TMA-1 was, like The Sentinel, meant to be the ending of the film/book but was quickly seen as a start, rather than a conclusion.
*Kubrick wanted to have the movie called “Journey Beyond the Stars”, which Sir Arthur hated. Other titles considered were Universe, Tunnel to the Stars, and Planetfall. It was not until April 1965 that Stanley selected 2001: A Space Odyssey, entirely his idea, to which Clarke agreed.
*Sir Arthur suggested to Kubrick that the aliens might be machines who regard organic life as a hideous disease.
*Clarke also proposed in the early stages that the people we meet on the other star system are humans who were collected from Earth a hundred thousand years ago, and hence are virtually identical with us.
*Kubrick wanted to include the idea from Clarke’s Childhood’s End that the aliens looked like devils.
*The first version of the famous monolith was the largest block of lucite produced in the world up to that date, weighing three tons. (It was rejected when it didn't look right.)
*Originally the monolith was to be a transparent cube or a tetrahedon.
*The novel was meant to come out before the movie. Clarke felt that it was about finished in April 1966, but Kubrick wanted to work on it more. It was further revised by Clarke (on Kubrick’s suggestions) continuously until its eventual release, months after the movie in the summer of 1968.
Whilst still revising the novel/script, Clarke went to the movie set a few times, but was not always a revered visitor:
“November 10. Accompanied Stan and the design staff into the Earth-orbit ship and happened to remark that the cockpit looked like a Chinese restaurant. Stan said that killed it instantly for him and called for revisions. Must keep away from the Art Department for a few days.”
It is at this point that we get to the core of this book. The remainder of this book are early versions of the novel used to develop a script, begun as part of the Clarke-Kubrick collaboration in progress and put together as an incomplete, alternative version of the 2001 plot. They are discarded elements excised or totally different from the final film version. All are intriguing.
And here was my surprise. This alternate tale is much more typically Clarke in terms of style, something not dissimilar from, say, Rendezvous with Rama or even Prelude to Space. These look more at many of the issues subtly referenced in the movie – the future relationship between Man and robots, HAL and Artificial Intelligence, Asimov’s Laws of Robotics, the exploration of Mars, Clarke’s ever-abiding interest in the ocean, the cosmic grandeur of the universe.
Most interestingly, there are characters fleshed out which are barely mentioned by name in the movie, not just Dave Bowman and Frank (here Kelvin) Poole, but also their other colleagues on the Discovery (Kaminski, Kimball, Hunter, and Whitehead.) Not only that, but there’s typically Clarkean big cosmic moments, a more Childhood’s End-type ending through the Star Gate, and even a named alien guiding Mankind’s future destiny. In this alternate world HAL is Athena, and in the early parts of the book is a mobile robot named Socrates – how different in the movie that would have been! Traveling from Mars to Venus and even under the oceans, this version of 2001 is a fuller and less clinical version of the 2001 novel and the original movie.
As engaging as this was, this actually may also be the book’s downfall. It is also more straight-forward and less ambiguous than the movie version, which may be why it wasn’t the basis for the final script. One of the reasons that I feel that the movie has a timeless quality is the fact that the elements that would have dated it have not been included. Instead, the dialogue is kept deliberately brief and general, the characterisation to a minimum (it has been noted by some critics that often the most interesting character is HAL the computer) and therefore the details more ambiguous. Even now, fifty years on, discussion over what the movie is about is still common. The film makes people think and wonder and watch again. Whilst this version of the story is great, it is also quite traditional. It would make a great movie – but not one that would be as revered as 2001 is, in fifty years’ time.
Reading Lost Worlds in 2018 I was surprised by how much of the original book/film I had forgotten but also how much I enjoyed this alternate, if more talky, version. Clarke’s writing voice is as clear as ever, with that sense of humour and deprecation not expected from someone nicknamed ‘The Ego’. A Director’s Cut edition of the novel, combining elements of this with the main plot of the movie, would have been brilliant.
Looking back, although I enjoyed this when I first read it, I remember this as an inconsequential book, feeling that it was full of incomplete bits of wastage from the years spent by Clarke on outlining the plot for Kubrick and cobbled together by a publisher eager to cash in on the 2001 phenomenon.
I was wrong.
With the advantage of hindsight and a greater knowledge of the movie and Clarke's work, I find that Lost Worlds is a deeper and richer experience than I remembered. For too long this book has been left on my shelf – it is a worthy read, and one which I would’ve loved to see published as an alternate universe Clarke novel.
As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the movie’s release, this is an appropriate read to show what else could have been achieved with the material. This was a surprisingly good read and one worth getting hold of if you can.
January 22, 2018
First off, I would advise anyone of reading this book prior to , at the minimum, having seen the movie, and preferably, having read the book.
This is an interesting collection of four different aspects of the writing of the book. Firstly, there is time spent divulging the details of the constant negotiations with Stanley Kubrick on the content of the novel. Secondly, there is time dedicated to the two short stories that served as the basis on which the movie and novel were created. They are "The Sentinel" & "Encounter At Dawn". Both are in this work in their entirety. Thirdly, there is a significant section of novel that was cut which dealt with the picking of the crew and launching of the mission. Lastly, there are four different endings that were all scrubbed before the final one was selected.
I found the segments that dealt with the back and forth with Kubrick very entertaining. In fact, I wished there had been more of them as they were the most riveting details in the book. The two short stories are both very reminiscent of science fiction in the forties. I found both enjoyable, but doubt either would get much notice in today's market. The lengthy section that was cut was the right choice. To have portrayed that part in the movie would have been a dull sequence. It also made boring reading. The various endings, though different, also bore a certain similarity in an effort by Clarke to envision an alien world. Because expectations would vary wildly, I think the way they went was the right decision. Still, it was fun to see Clarke's imagination at full steam in this various worlds.
This is an interesting collection of four different aspects of the writing of the book. Firstly, there is time spent divulging the details of the constant negotiations with Stanley Kubrick on the content of the novel. Secondly, there is time dedicated to the two short stories that served as the basis on which the movie and novel were created. They are "The Sentinel" & "Encounter At Dawn". Both are in this work in their entirety. Thirdly, there is a significant section of novel that was cut which dealt with the picking of the crew and launching of the mission. Lastly, there are four different endings that were all scrubbed before the final one was selected.
I found the segments that dealt with the back and forth with Kubrick very entertaining. In fact, I wished there had been more of them as they were the most riveting details in the book. The two short stories are both very reminiscent of science fiction in the forties. I found both enjoyable, but doubt either would get much notice in today's market. The lengthy section that was cut was the right choice. To have portrayed that part in the movie would have been a dull sequence. It also made boring reading. The various endings, though different, also bore a certain similarity in an effort by Clarke to envision an alien world. Because expectations would vary wildly, I think the way they went was the right decision. Still, it was fun to see Clarke's imagination at full steam in this various worlds.
December 4, 2023
This is a 'peek behind the curtain' kind of book for what is, arguably, the greatest sci-fi film of all time. Clarke gives an excellent insiders' look to the screenplay, the book (written mostly after the screenplay), and into the filming itself.
The problem, for me, is that I never liked the movie that much in the first place. Yes, that makes me a philistine to many sci-fi fans, but that's the way it is. Despite that, I still enjoy any book of this type and recommend it for fans of movies and sci-fi. The chapter selections and the descriptions of his writing process with Stanley Kubrick show exactly why this writer is still considered a master of the genre.
Find it! Buy it! Read it!
The problem, for me, is that I never liked the movie that much in the first place. Yes, that makes me a philistine to many sci-fi fans, but that's the way it is. Despite that, I still enjoy any book of this type and recommend it for fans of movies and sci-fi. The chapter selections and the descriptions of his writing process with Stanley Kubrick show exactly why this writer is still considered a master of the genre.
Find it! Buy it! Read it!
July 27, 2016
A fun read, especially enjoyed reading the original short story Clarke and Kubrick worked from, Clarke's The Sentinel. I enjoyed the interspersed commentary on creating the script and filming the movie, as well as various draft sections of the novel Clarke was working on to be released along with the film. The movie and the book are separate creations and both can stand on their own as great works.
January 18, 2018
It's like a DVD extras disc, for a book. About 10-20% of this is Arthur C Clarke's reminiscences about writing 2001: A Space Odyssey in collaboration with Stanley Kubrick. The rest is deleted scenes, alternate versions of scenes, and 'The Sentinel', the 1948 short story which was the original inspiration for 2001.
The book explains the unusual origin of the novel and movie, where the novel was written in collaboration with the director prior and in parallel with the writing of the screenplay. It would be easier to visualise scenes when reading a prose version than a screenplay, and novel drafts would help to give potential investors an idea of what the movie was trying to do. Sometimes a scene in the novel would be rewritten after the author and director saw the daily 'rushes' and decided something didn't work.
Given this, it's curious that the book and the film of 2001 are as different as they are, and it would have been interesting to read more about why. I'm especially fascinated by the totally un-novelistic 'journey to the Moon' sequence in the book. In the movie, Kubrick adds human drama and conflict: Floyd phones home from the space station and apologises for missing his daughter's birthday party because he's at work; and his meeting with the Russians is much more confrontational.
The unused material (mostly from early drafts of the novel, and thus very inconsistent with the finished version of the book and film) is always interesting, but 2001 is much better for not having any of this stuff in it.
Of the alternate versions of the 'Star Gate' sequence Clarke wrote:
The Lost Worlds of 2001 could be improved by making its structure clearer--creating clearer divisions between different deleted scenes and variants, perhaps by adding another layer of headings above the chapter level.
Part of the fun of reading The Lost Worlds of 2001 is discovering just how different the book and film might have been, so I shall spoiler-protect my descriptions of the deleted / alternate material. The list that follows is not exhaustive; I'm only noting what I consider to be notable.
The book explains the unusual origin of the novel and movie, where the novel was written in collaboration with the director prior and in parallel with the writing of the screenplay. It would be easier to visualise scenes when reading a prose version than a screenplay, and novel drafts would help to give potential investors an idea of what the movie was trying to do. Sometimes a scene in the novel would be rewritten after the author and director saw the daily 'rushes' and decided something didn't work.
Given this, it's curious that the book and the film of 2001 are as different as they are, and it would have been interesting to read more about why. I'm especially fascinated by the totally un-novelistic 'journey to the Moon' sequence in the book. In the movie, Kubrick adds human drama and conflict: Floyd phones home from the space station and apologises for missing his daughter's birthday party because he's at work; and his meeting with the Russians is much more confrontational.
The unused material (mostly from early drafts of the novel, and thus very inconsistent with the finished version of the book and film) is always interesting, but 2001 is much better for not having any of this stuff in it.
Of the alternate versions of the 'Star Gate' sequence Clarke wrote:
Our ultimate solution now seems to me the only possible one, but before arriving at it we spent months imagining strange worlds and cities and creatures, in the hope of producing something that would produce the right shock of recognition. All this material was abandoned, but I would not say any of it was unnecessary. It contained the alternatives that had to be eliminated, and therefore first had to be created.
The Lost Worlds of 2001 could be improved by making its structure clearer--creating clearer divisions between different deleted scenes and variants, perhaps by adding another layer of headings above the chapter level.
Part of the fun of reading The Lost Worlds of 2001 is discovering just how different the book and film might have been, so I shall spoiler-protect my descriptions of the deleted / alternate material. The list that follows is not exhaustive; I'm only noting what I consider to be notable.
August 8, 2024
ENGLISH: A mixture of the history of the making of the famous film "2001, a space odyssey" and of the first -later rejected- versions of some parts of the associated novel and the film script. I've liked the historical parts more than the alternative versions.
Some atheists, like Arthur Clarke, consider it fantasy to believe in God, but they don't realize that they are looking for a substitute in hypothetical intelligent extraterrestrial beings far superior to us (see Chapter 35.) If the former is fantasy (which it isn't, since atheists have not found a single argument to prove that God does not exist; for them, it is an axiom), what should we call their substitute? Science fiction?
ESPAÑOL: Una mezcla de la historia de cómo se hizo la famosa película "2001, una odisea del espacio" y de las primeras versiones -posteriormente rechazadas- de algunas partes de la novela y del guion de la película. Personalmente, me han gustado más las partes históricas que las versiones alternativas.
Algunos ateos como Arthur Clarke consideran fantasía creer en Dios, pero no se dan cuenta de que buscan un sucedáneo en hipotéticos seres extraterrestres inteligentes muy superiores a nosotros (véase el capítulo 35). Si lo primero es fantasía (que no lo es, pues los ateos no han encontrado un sólo argumento para demostrar que Dios no existe, para ellos es un axioma), ¿cómo debemos llamar a su sucedáneo? ¿Ciencia-ficción?
Some atheists, like Arthur Clarke, consider it fantasy to believe in God, but they don't realize that they are looking for a substitute in hypothetical intelligent extraterrestrial beings far superior to us (see Chapter 35.) If the former is fantasy (which it isn't, since atheists have not found a single argument to prove that God does not exist; for them, it is an axiom), what should we call their substitute? Science fiction?
ESPAÑOL: Una mezcla de la historia de cómo se hizo la famosa película "2001, una odisea del espacio" y de las primeras versiones -posteriormente rechazadas- de algunas partes de la novela y del guion de la película. Personalmente, me han gustado más las partes históricas que las versiones alternativas.
Algunos ateos como Arthur Clarke consideran fantasía creer en Dios, pero no se dan cuenta de que buscan un sucedáneo en hipotéticos seres extraterrestres inteligentes muy superiores a nosotros (véase el capítulo 35). Si lo primero es fantasía (que no lo es, pues los ateos no han encontrado un sólo argumento para demostrar que Dios no existe, para ellos es un axioma), ¿cómo debemos llamar a su sucedáneo? ¿Ciencia-ficción?
November 12, 2012
Aficionados of the film can eat this book like a good meal. I certainly did, over the course of a Seattle-Bay Area flight, trumping any of the edible cardboard on the airplane menu. Clarke offers his experience of working and re-working and re-working and endlessly finetuning 2001's script, lacing his narrative with succulent details of the many blind alleys and comic possibilities he brainstormed with Stanley Kubrick.
If you're like me, seeing HAL as the end-all, be-all of the film's lasting greatness (it has several peerless qualities, to be sure, but HAL, in the greater context of science fiction, is for the ages) -if you are a HAL fan, it may amuse to learn the different names s/he could have alternately borne; Athena, for instance, or Socrates, both of which are interestingly Greek, but....
As well as tasty movie bits, there is plentiful prose here, special because it is unpublishable sections of the 2001 novel that had to be ejected because A) they contradict the final screenplay, or B) they slow things down. Unpublishable but fun to read to see how things could have gone had the film been skewed more to Clarke's rather than Kubrick's sensibilities.
If you're like me, seeing HAL as the end-all, be-all of the film's lasting greatness (it has several peerless qualities, to be sure, but HAL, in the greater context of science fiction, is for the ages) -if you are a HAL fan, it may amuse to learn the different names s/he could have alternately borne; Athena, for instance, or Socrates, both of which are interestingly Greek, but....
As well as tasty movie bits, there is plentiful prose here, special because it is unpublishable sections of the 2001 novel that had to be ejected because A) they contradict the final screenplay, or B) they slow things down. Unpublishable but fun to read to see how things could have gone had the film been skewed more to Clarke's rather than Kubrick's sensibilities.
October 25, 2020
Read while passing time in someone else's house.
Lots of detail about Kubrick's brutal whims and maniacally hands-on approach to everything. (In preproduction he threw the bones into the air and filmed the arc himself, apparently, nearly giving himself a head injury.) They both come across as two quite silly men with odd amounts of access to astronauts and presidents and captains of industry.
I was expecting to see something about Clarke's dismay (at working for several years at something essentially discarded), but he totally kept it out of this.
Most of this is deleted scenes from the novel. They're very thin and discardable.
Lots of detail about Kubrick's brutal whims and maniacally hands-on approach to everything. (In preproduction he threw the bones into the air and filmed the arc himself, apparently, nearly giving himself a head injury.) They both come across as two quite silly men with odd amounts of access to astronauts and presidents and captains of industry.
I was expecting to see something about Clarke's dismay (at working for several years at something essentially discarded), but he totally kept it out of this.
Most of this is deleted scenes from the novel. They're very thin and discardable.
February 8, 2020
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3331396.html
The Lost Worlds of 2001, originally published in 1972, is an interesting exploration of alternate storylines for the novel and the film. Earlier versions of the film had more personalised aliens coming to educate the apemen, and a much longer segment of politicking in Washington DC (where incidentally there are quite a lot of women, even of most of them are defined by their male partners). Clarke frames the out-takes with some explanation of the painful process of film-making. He was 48, Kubrick was 40, and there's a slight sense of generational clash (the Englishman old enough to have fought in the war, the American who wasn't). It's interesting to see which paths were not taken, and in the end I have to agree with the judgements made by Kubrick and Clarke to move the narrative as they did; making the aliens too visible would have risked looking silly, and monoliths and music are much more impactful. I like it for the same reason I like the Book of Lost Tales, etc; they throw further light on something I already love.
The Lost Worlds of 2001, originally published in 1972, is an interesting exploration of alternate storylines for the novel and the film. Earlier versions of the film had more personalised aliens coming to educate the apemen, and a much longer segment of politicking in Washington DC (where incidentally there are quite a lot of women, even of most of them are defined by their male partners). Clarke frames the out-takes with some explanation of the painful process of film-making. He was 48, Kubrick was 40, and there's a slight sense of generational clash (the Englishman old enough to have fought in the war, the American who wasn't). It's interesting to see which paths were not taken, and in the end I have to agree with the judgements made by Kubrick and Clarke to move the narrative as they did; making the aliens too visible would have risked looking silly, and monoliths and music are much more impactful. I like it for the same reason I like the Book of Lost Tales, etc; they throw further light on something I already love.
October 30, 2022
An interesting mish mash of a book. The first part gives the reader a brief idea of the difficulties of making the movie (and novel) of 2001: A Space Odyssey. A regular movie would be difficult enough, but the sci-fi elements of this one would make it exponentially more so. Not to mention the finicky and mercurial nature of its genius director, Stanley Kubrick. It's a wonder everyone involved didn't have a breakdown.
The second part gives us all the various scenarios that were considered for the ending of the movie. Many seem unfilmmable to me which is likely why they were abandoned, and they eventually settled on the famously peculiar, WTF is happening? No seriously - WTAF is happening? - ending that we all know and love and have been puzzling over for more than half a century. Happily, thanks to this book and the recent serendipitous screening of the movie on TCM, some of my long-lingering questioms have finally been answered. Although, I still have plenty more.
After all, as Arthur C. Clarke himself once said, "If you completely understood 2001, we didn't do our job."
The second part gives us all the various scenarios that were considered for the ending of the movie. Many seem unfilmmable to me which is likely why they were abandoned, and they eventually settled on the famously peculiar, WTF is happening? No seriously - WTAF is happening? - ending that we all know and love and have been puzzling over for more than half a century. Happily, thanks to this book and the recent serendipitous screening of the movie on TCM, some of my long-lingering questioms have finally been answered. Although, I still have plenty more.
After all, as Arthur C. Clarke himself once said, "If you completely understood 2001, we didn't do our job."
February 7, 2020
When it was new in 1971 or 72, I read this behind-the-scenes telling of the collaboration between Clarke and Kubrik to produce the film version of 2001, as well as the novel. I was looking for new science fiction and was disappointed at the time.
January 12, 2019
Good collection of essays and fiction demonstrating the developmental stages of the Odyssey.
December 29, 2025
Why haven’t I heard more about this book?
It’s 2001: The Extended Edition!
It has a total of 33 Deleted and alternate scenes.
Written in 1972
Even at that point the Apollo program was being shut down.
It's mainly about the development of the idea behind the novel and movie - the proverbial good science fiction movie that wasn’t just giant ants invading the USA.
At the time, Clarke and Kubrick were developing the movie in the second half of the 60’s, they had the problem of trying to outguess the future, to make something that wouldn’t be obsolete by the time it came out. The Apollo program was in full swing and about to land men on the moon.
They decided to base it on the story Sentinel (1948) which is very neat. Only 10 pages long. First person, guy on moon expedition, goes and investigates something. The rest is very expository. Good idea though.
The first part of this book has lots of journal entries, chronicling the development of the novel and screenplay at the same time over 2 years.
Full of details like the shape of the monolith, originally tetrahedral 4 sided die shape - but it never looked right.
The first scene shot was the astronauts encountering the monolith on the moon, filmed in dec 1965 - he shows the call sheet. There were still major parts of the story being developed over the next year. At one point Clarke felt he was done with the novel and they were all set to publish it in July 1966 but Kubrick kept wanting changes. It wouldn’t be published till 2 years later in July 1968, some months after the film was released.
There are all sorts of small details such as the moment Kubrick got the idea for the transition where the bone flies up in the air and turns into a spaceship. They’d just shot the scene of the ape learning how to use a bone to smash skulls and were walking back to the studio and Stanley started to throw some of the bones up into the air and then got a hand held camera and started filming his throws. And thus the idea was born. Another funny anecdote, the Oscar for make-up in the year of the movie’s release went to Planet of the Apes - I mean really?! Clarke thinks maybe the Hollywood judges thought they used actual apes.
There are whole chapters of the book that were removed but presented here.
For example, at one point there was an idea about the aliens who put the monolith on the earth. Instead of just dropping it there, they visit earth and hang out for 5 years and in a very slow and deliberate way teach the hominids lessons to kick start their higher thinking - ie by teaching them how to use a tool - a bone - to kill. And then they put the monolith on the moon.
As an aside, the book talks about the Star Gate out near Jupiter that the aliens use to travel around the galaxy.
Another large 7 chapter section was intended to get people up to speed with all the technology - the introduction of HAL, (who’s called Socrates and is a full-on robot), describing processes like cryo sleep, etc.
It even quotes Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics.
One whole chapter is about the space agency trying to educate the public about distances in space and has a person narrating basically the Powers of Ten video.
And you learn about the backgrounds of all the astronauts as they are gathered together from various places (eg in orbit around Venus) for the Discovery mission.
It’s fascinating to hear Clarke talk about what was going on at the time of writing. When talking about the design of the ship and how its propulsion would work, he mentions the idea of sling-shotting the craft around Jupiter to get to Saturn and as an aside mentions it’s a variation of the grand tour concept used by the voyager probes. Except he’s writing this in 1972 and mentioning how that will be possible in 1976 due to the alignment of the planets which won’t happen for another 200 years and he really hopes they’ll be able to do it. And here we are living in the future of that moment.
We then get 15 chapters of a different version of the story, proceeding from the launch of the discovery all the way to the crew discovering the stargate on the fifth moon of Jupiter (with a couple of deaths along the way).
Reading parts of this, I actually felt like I was reading Andy Weir’s The Martian. Of course, that should be the other way round - that The Martian should remind me of Clarke. I guess what I’m saying is, if you like The Martian, I think you’d enjoy Clarke.
Then we get 3 alternate endings. The first one continues with more of the crew alive. In the other two they’d started to get to the idea that it should just be Dave Bowman who survives. They all contain detailed descriptions of strange alien cities and creatures and they’re all obviously unfilmable given the technology of the day.
This was just such an enjoyable book.
It’s 2001: The Extended Edition!
It has a total of 33 Deleted and alternate scenes.
Written in 1972
Even at that point the Apollo program was being shut down.
It's mainly about the development of the idea behind the novel and movie - the proverbial good science fiction movie that wasn’t just giant ants invading the USA.
At the time, Clarke and Kubrick were developing the movie in the second half of the 60’s, they had the problem of trying to outguess the future, to make something that wouldn’t be obsolete by the time it came out. The Apollo program was in full swing and about to land men on the moon.
They decided to base it on the story Sentinel (1948) which is very neat. Only 10 pages long. First person, guy on moon expedition, goes and investigates something. The rest is very expository. Good idea though.
The first part of this book has lots of journal entries, chronicling the development of the novel and screenplay at the same time over 2 years.
Full of details like the shape of the monolith, originally tetrahedral 4 sided die shape - but it never looked right.
The first scene shot was the astronauts encountering the monolith on the moon, filmed in dec 1965 - he shows the call sheet. There were still major parts of the story being developed over the next year. At one point Clarke felt he was done with the novel and they were all set to publish it in July 1966 but Kubrick kept wanting changes. It wouldn’t be published till 2 years later in July 1968, some months after the film was released.
There are all sorts of small details such as the moment Kubrick got the idea for the transition where the bone flies up in the air and turns into a spaceship. They’d just shot the scene of the ape learning how to use a bone to smash skulls and were walking back to the studio and Stanley started to throw some of the bones up into the air and then got a hand held camera and started filming his throws. And thus the idea was born. Another funny anecdote, the Oscar for make-up in the year of the movie’s release went to Planet of the Apes - I mean really?! Clarke thinks maybe the Hollywood judges thought they used actual apes.
There are whole chapters of the book that were removed but presented here.
For example, at one point there was an idea about the aliens who put the monolith on the earth. Instead of just dropping it there, they visit earth and hang out for 5 years and in a very slow and deliberate way teach the hominids lessons to kick start their higher thinking - ie by teaching them how to use a tool - a bone - to kill. And then they put the monolith on the moon.
As an aside, the book talks about the Star Gate out near Jupiter that the aliens use to travel around the galaxy.
Another large 7 chapter section was intended to get people up to speed with all the technology - the introduction of HAL, (who’s called Socrates and is a full-on robot), describing processes like cryo sleep, etc.
It even quotes Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics.
One whole chapter is about the space agency trying to educate the public about distances in space and has a person narrating basically the Powers of Ten video.
And you learn about the backgrounds of all the astronauts as they are gathered together from various places (eg in orbit around Venus) for the Discovery mission.
It’s fascinating to hear Clarke talk about what was going on at the time of writing. When talking about the design of the ship and how its propulsion would work, he mentions the idea of sling-shotting the craft around Jupiter to get to Saturn and as an aside mentions it’s a variation of the grand tour concept used by the voyager probes. Except he’s writing this in 1972 and mentioning how that will be possible in 1976 due to the alignment of the planets which won’t happen for another 200 years and he really hopes they’ll be able to do it. And here we are living in the future of that moment.
We then get 15 chapters of a different version of the story, proceeding from the launch of the discovery all the way to the crew discovering the stargate on the fifth moon of Jupiter (with a couple of deaths along the way).
Reading parts of this, I actually felt like I was reading Andy Weir’s The Martian. Of course, that should be the other way round - that The Martian should remind me of Clarke. I guess what I’m saying is, if you like The Martian, I think you’d enjoy Clarke.
Then we get 3 alternate endings. The first one continues with more of the crew alive. In the other two they’d started to get to the idea that it should just be Dave Bowman who survives. They all contain detailed descriptions of strange alien cities and creatures and they’re all obviously unfilmable given the technology of the day.
This was just such an enjoyable book.
August 28, 2024
This is an entertaining read about Clarke's writing of 2001 - the novel, which was written hand in hand with the film. It's partly a history of that time, though it's not a book about the making of the movie (there's another book for that). This book chronicles some of the paths not taken by either the novel or the film, but things they explored in writing. So once Clarke gets some of the preamble out of the way, we get the short story called 'The Sentinel', which Clarke wrote for a BBC contest and which didn't win, but it was the story around which 2001 developed - the initial spark, so to speak.
Later, Clarke gives us a number of abandoned episodes that they explored and then abandoned. What if the visitor to the early hominids was a living alien instead of a monolithic machine. What if more of the crew members survived to make it to Jupiter? What's that thing on Iapetus? My God, It's Full of Stars makes so much more sense now. And what if, instead of taking a psychedelic trip into his own future, Bowman actually visits alien worlds? These are the lost worlds of 2001. It's fun stuff.
And this being my first Clarke in a while, I'm reminded what a good writer he was of things, and ideas, and places, and concepts. Really, I think, the best of the big three.
Later, Clarke gives us a number of abandoned episodes that they explored and then abandoned. What if the visitor to the early hominids was a living alien instead of a monolithic machine. What if more of the crew members survived to make it to Jupiter? What's that thing on Iapetus? My God, It's Full of Stars makes so much more sense now. And what if, instead of taking a psychedelic trip into his own future, Bowman actually visits alien worlds? These are the lost worlds of 2001. It's fun stuff.
And this being my first Clarke in a while, I'm reminded what a good writer he was of things, and ideas, and places, and concepts. Really, I think, the best of the big three.
December 19, 2024
Highly recommend to any fans of the movie or book series !
March 16, 2024
In hindsight, rejects can't be as good as the final product for a writer that does their homework, like Clarke does, so in a way my lack of enjoyment is par for the course. Some interesting backstory in the beginning, but it goes downhill quickly.
November 8, 2022
3/5 Stars (%61/100)
Despite my doubts and prejudice, I quite enjoyed 2001: A Space Odyssey (both the film and the book). However, that is not the reason why I decided to read this book. No, I've read the book for research purposes for my master's thesis because of a particular entry by Clarke. He tells us that Kubrick introduced Joseph Campbell and his monomyth theory to him and that he found it "very stimulating" (28). Yet, I still finished the book and liked it overall. Learning more about the creation of 2001 and the relationship between Kubrick and Clarke was interesting. If you are a fan of the film, the book, the writer or the director (or all of the above), you should definitely give this a go.
Despite my doubts and prejudice, I quite enjoyed 2001: A Space Odyssey (both the film and the book). However, that is not the reason why I decided to read this book. No, I've read the book for research purposes for my master's thesis because of a particular entry by Clarke. He tells us that Kubrick introduced Joseph Campbell and his monomyth theory to him and that he found it "very stimulating" (28). Yet, I still finished the book and liked it overall. Learning more about the creation of 2001 and the relationship between Kubrick and Clarke was interesting. If you are a fan of the film, the book, the writer or the director (or all of the above), you should definitely give this a go.
Read
September 19, 2011I THINK this is the edition I read. The edition I read discussed things like Clarke's incredulity at Kubrick's choice of the 9-page short story The Sentinel as the basis for the movie, and also discussed the variations Clarke introduced in the book which didn't make it into the movie, because of the costs of staging.
Clarke himself, for example, argued that Discovery should go to SATURN, not Jupiter, and he was amused to discover that though the depicted ship would (of course) not actually have to go farther, Kubrik argued that faithfully depicting Saturn, rings and all, was just too expensive, and that Jupiter was cheaper.
Clarke himself, for example, argued that Discovery should go to SATURN, not Jupiter, and he was amused to discover that though the depicted ship would (of course) not actually have to go farther, Kubrik argued that faithfully depicting Saturn, rings and all, was just too expensive, and that Jupiter was cheaper.
August 22, 2024
For fans of the motion picture, this is a treasure trove full of interesting details about the creation of both the movie and the book adaption of "2001 - A Space Odyssey". It is so interesting to read earlier versions of HAL and of the overall narrative. However, for non-film-buffs, it may be a bit boring to read about the tedious processes involved. The movie was several years in the making, and a genius like Stanley Kubrick gave everything he could. It's good to be able to read so much about it, but at the same time it is saddening to read about the cuts and realizing that we will probably never see them...
November 28, 2017
This is actually better than '2001' itself, in particular the unfilmable scenes that constitute several chapters towards the end. The narrative parts constitute much harder and less New Wave SF than the film, which to my mind is too vague, waffly and tries to wow the audience too much - it probably works well if you're tripping. There's a reference to Isaac Asimov as a character in it but sadly he had died before 2001. The optimism expressed about space travel in the last part of the twentieth century makes a depressing read now. It's also odd, though justifiable, how Japetus is spelt. It's not just a "making of" book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2013
This book is basically Arthur C. Clarke's personal Behind-The-Scenes journals of working with Stanley Kubrick on the book and the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey. He tells the story of how the classic started and developed, and included are multiple alternative passages as the two brilliant creators worked their way to what the story would ultimately become. It's a fantastic read and hugely insightful.
June 28, 2016
I might have liked it even better if it hadn't been over a decade - possibly two - since I read 2001 A Space Odyssey itself. My recommendation would be to read that, see the movie again, then read this for greatest absorption and comprehension.
December 7, 2015
this book is for hardcore odyssey fans, which i am - the first chapters go into the making of the story with kubrick but most of the book consists of chapters that were rejected from the final story - it was interesting to learn how many aspects of the story changed - it gave some insight into the creative process of kubrick, but i would have liked more of that
July 26, 2011
Still another year later and I am still caught up in the mythos of 2001. But I think I liked the aliens better in this first draft (nine feet tall and orange if I remember correctly) than I did in the final version as a weirdly humming monolith.
January 13, 2014
A combination of what can be called a behind-the-scenes look at the origin of the 2001 movie script and a "side-B/Alternate lyrics" version of the 2001 storyline. If you're a C. Clarke fan, you'll like it for sure.
August 25, 2017
I have had this book since 1972, re-read several times as needed in my continuing therapy as a result of seeing the film. Straight from Clarke's mouth. If you are doing any mid-depth exploration of the film this is a must have. It informs both the book and film, the making of the film, the ending.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews