2001
discussion
Did anyone else think the ending was lame?
Rob wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Actually, there is something worse. Namely, listening to a person thoughtlessly ..."Thoughtlessly? It doesn't take much deliberation to see hooey f..."
What about the amplituhedron? What about the discovery of the Higgs Boson? What about the first ever detection of gravitational waves? What about the Planck observatory's CMB surveys that all but prove the Big Bang Theory? What about the Fermi observatory finding the first real proof of Dark Matter?
All of these observations and discoveries have been made in the last decade and they all lend validity to both Supersymmetry and String Theory. Sorry, friend, but I've been digging through this for years, and if there's one thing I've learned, the belief that nothing's happened in decades is old news. In fact, breakthroughs are happening and demonstrating that the physicists and cosmologists are on the right track.
And Felix's clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just pitching things that he thinks are sci-fi fluff without any real background knowlege.
Matthew wrote: "Rob wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Actually, there is something worse. Namely, listening to a person thoughtlessly ..."Thoughtlessly? It doesn't take much deliberation to..."
Sorry - should have been clearer. I meant as in theories. String Theory has a changed but as far as I know it's only grown a multitude of sibling string theories as they try to fit the theories to the observations. Whic$h in turn leads to M-theory, all of the above cobbled together.
There's no denying the discoveries you've mentioned but I'm not sure it's really helped when you look at the theories. Mind you I'm not a scientist and I'm always happy to proved wrong.
Thanks for the update.
Guys, I was talking about this in terms of a story, not in terms of science or where our civilization is going! We all philosophize, speculate and dream. No one's predictions of the future is any more valuable or right than another's.
Rob wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Rob wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Actually, there is something worse. Namely, listening to a person thoughtlessly ..."Thoughtlessly? It doesn't take much..."
Your welcome :) It's kind of an occupational necessity, but it's still a fun pastime to read this stuff. That is, when it's not wildly mathy!
Susie wrote: "Guys, I was talking about this in terms of a story, not in terms of science or where our civilization is going! We all philosophize, speculate and dream. No one's predictions of the future is any..."Yes, but its taken on a life of its own. And what we're discussing is still related to the story, which was all about evolution, change, and the grand ol' possibilities that await us. As for the science stuff, you can blame Felix for that. He seemed to be suggesting that we were talking about wasn't high-brown enough and mixed real science in with science fiction. Someone had to straighten him out ;)
And your right, no one's predictions have any more value than another's. But that shouldn't stop us from sharing, contrasting and comparing them, should it?
The movie and book were both rather too long, but the ending was at least thought provoking. It left the whole of infinity as an answer, which was (imho) rather the point. If you want a shorter answer it as, as we all know, 42.
Susie wrote: "Guys, I was talking about this in terms of a story, not in terms of science or where our civilization is going! We all philosophize, speculate and dream. No one's predictions of the future is any..."You are absolutely right.
For me the book was better than the film, which I found self-indulgent. I know they were written together, at the same time. And I think if you take the story in context, Clarke's predictions were understandable.
The story ending, as Jan says, left us with our imaginations and infinity as a playground. Can't say fairer than that. The fact that we are discussing it now, some 46-ish years after it was written is proof that it's a good book.
One of the best films ever made.
It is a perfect ending. It carries the novel to its logical conclusion, and the final line creates a symmetry with the end of Part One ('The Dawn of Man'), where Moon-Watcher's thoughts are described in the same words. We are being shown that the process that began when the man-apes met the monolith has finally been completed. The book is about that process.
Ken, it may be a great movie but the book was weak.
Susie wrote: "Ken, it may be a great movie but the book was weak."The book was weak? I can only surmise that you skim-read it. It was one of teh best books I had ever read. Read it in one sitting and was knocked out by the engineers chapter and phenomenal ending. None of which appears in the films ending. The film was, slow, dull and had an ending which not only lost any of the spectacular visuals of the book but seemed to go out of its way to be as boring as it could.
Susie wrote: "Ken, it may be a great movie but the book was weak."That's a matter of opinion. Sure, the book was subject to Clarke's writing style, which isn't the best. But to call it a weak book is to seriously miss its value and particular brand of genius, which was present in the move as well. Clarke was responsible for the content in that as well, remember.
Darren wrote: "The film was, slow, dull and had an ending which not only lost any of the spectacular visuals of the book but seemed to go out of its way to be as boring as it could."I'd have to disagree with that.
With it being the first movie to give a realistic potrayal of spacefaring I'd say he created some stunning visuals of his own and I can't find a boring moment in it.
Becoming overly artsy towards the end? Hell, yeah!
Boring? Not to me, anyway. It's still one of the most vividly remembered cinematic experiences.
Susie wrote: "I'm an avid fantasy/sci fi reader but the whole ending was beyond belief! Anyone else feel the same way?"I find it interesting that someone who reads fantasy and lumps it into the same category as science fiction (when they are, in fact, nothing alike) would read a philosophical ending to a sci-fi classic and call it lame. I've read more than enough fantasy that was a lot more lame than that. Given what came before in the story/film, I found the ending to 2001 a perfectly sensible conclusion. In fact, it incorporated the same adult sense of wonder that was present elsewhere in the film But that's me.
This thread has devolved into gibberish. Nothing is more painfully mawkish than listening to people talk 'theoretical'. Reminder: we're a species of clumsy incompetents who can't even keep our space shuttles from exploding. We're not going anywhere. "The space shuttles exploded not because we were incompetent but because in the case of Challenger, we were in uncharted territory and nobody knew how that O-ring would react once it had been frozen, and in the other case probably because we didn't anticipate the effects of long-term deterioration of the materials used to shield the shuttles. Space travel is always and every time experimental for us because 1) we haven't done much of it yet and there is so much to learn, and 2) nature is unforgiving, and we never got back enough of the remnants the second time to learn enough. And if we're not in space now, it's because we won't devote enough money to it because so much of the federal budget is wasted on the U.S. being the world's policeman (we're damned either way now: we've done it long enough that we'll be vilified if we quit and vilified if we continue that role). Morevoer, even if we could get out of that role, there's still all that money going to defense contractors for things we don't need and funds spent on Homeland Security. We're not working smart on those, just working every expensively. But that's really getting off topic. To return to it: unmanned satellites are our only way into space for the moment, and human transcendence really doesn't seem imminent; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be going into space. Keeping humanity stuck on one planet is not a good long-term strategy, certainly not when it comes to asteroids and survival. As for why others might be interested in our planet, think a moment: there really aren't many places you can find this much water. That in itself ought to make earth tempting to other carbon-based life, to which this universe appears to be favorably disposed. Given that we appear to be unnoticed at the moment, perhaps that's a good thing -- until we either evolve further and survive having split the atom, created WMDs, etc. or else learn enough to protect ourselves and colonize other planets. Clarke evidently hoped we'd evolve, which was part of the message of both 2001 and Childhood's End; I hope we become worthy of that belief.
I could never sit all the way through the movie and while not crazy about the ending, enjoyed the book very much.Weak compared to what? A movie? I don't think that's a fair comparison, totally different art forms. Like comparing boxing to mma or soccer to ice hockey.
Darren wrote: "Susie wrote: "Ken, it may be a great movie but the book was weak."The book was weak? I can only surmise that you skim-read it. It was one of teh best books I had ever read. Read it in one sitting..."
Excu-u-u-u-se me! I read that book! If I'd have just "skim-read" it I wouldn't have been so disappointed in the ending! I majored in writing in college and while I'm not a professional writer, never been published, I am an avid reader and do know about constructing a story. That's my critique of the book, it was poorly constructed.
M.R. wrote: "Susie wrote: "I'm an avid fantasy/sci fi reader but the whole ending was beyond belief! Anyone else feel the same way?"I find it interesting that someone who reads fantasy and lumps it into the ..."
Sorry, I put a slash between them! I read fantasy and I read sci-fi. They are different genres but require the same willing suspension of disbelief. Geez, I'm being dogged as a lazy and careless reader. I am neither.
I am inclined to agree with Susie. While I don't agree with her assessment of the book - I didn't find it weak, regardless of whether or not it was as good as the movie - she should not be accused of "not getting it". That's a facile argument, and an all-too-easy dismissal of someone who didn't like it. Also, it's a common practice to treat fantasy and science fiction as part of the same constellation of literature, even if they are technically separate genres.
Matthew wrote: "I am inclined to agree with Susie. While I don't agree with her assessment of the book - I didn't find it weak, regardless of whether or not it was as good as the movie - she should not be accused ..."Well why not? It's a fair assumption. The book was strong science fiction and in its own universe, very plausible. It took a subject that most humans dwell on at one point or another in their life and explored it and what might actually happen if a very advanced species took to gardening the galaxy. It also elaborated on the potential history of the galaxy gone before us and to come in very short time. The book was conscise, well written, tense, realistic and inventive.
I don't think she gave it much of a chance and as a result I don't think that she got it. It's a fair comment and who are you to tell people what they can and cannot say on goodreads?
I read a book that is the basis of a renowned movie and I don't think the story holds up. I wonder whether or not the book is that good or that the movie greatly improved the impression that this is a classic. I am attacked as a lazy reader who just didn't "get it." No I got it, I just DIDN'T LIKE IT!!!!! I have noticed there are a whole lot of guys here and no women. Now I know not to question a "fanboy" book. 2001 obviously appeals to men more than women. Maybe this is why.
Thank you, Matthew and any others who understood my point of view. I wrote the original post to try to find out what I was missing. It seems I'm missing a penis.
Susie wrote: "It seems I'm missing a penis..."Wow, I'll spare me the sexist wiseass response (although it is tickling my tongue :D) and just say, well, this thread did decline pretty fast.
So, now can we just stop with further insults (and insulting assumptions) and simply agree to disagree?
After all, not liking one of Clarke's books is not the end of the western civilization, it only feels that way for us devoted fanboys. :D
Well, just to throw another spanner in the works.... I don't think this has anything to with gender preferences. I am very much female and I very much enjoyed this book (and the ending!) and 2010 and just about all of Clarke's works. In fact I don't think the one can be truly apprecciated without the other. Where the movie delivers on timeless aesthetics, the book supplies some much needed background story to the pictures.
But that's only my humble opinion of course...Feel free to disagree.
Susie wrote: "I read a book that is the basis of a renowned movie and I don't think the story holds up. I wonder whether or not the book is that good or that the movie greatly improved the impression that this ..."Susie has hit on something interesting here. Many years ago a female writer and I were discussing our work and she brought up an idea about How writers and by extension people receive character information and descriptions. Basically some people are visual and some emotional. This in turn led to gender and she thought, and I'm sure she's right, that females are far more inclined to view things from an emotional perspective.
So for Clarke's writing I think this has some relevance. His visualisations are great, but detached, his character's often lack depth and thereby some emotional content. Perhaps that's the reason for the more male bias.
I have to add that it's one of my all time favourite SF novels, despite Clarke's limitations as a writer.
The construction issues Susie mentions may be a by product of the way the novel was written. Clarke wrote the novel during script writing and also the making of the movie. It was a colaboration with Kubrick. Clarke would spend hours onset and then go back to his hotel and bang out an updated version of the novel. It was a very chaotic time. Perhaps the novel suffered. I felt that it's sequel, 2010, was a far more satisfying read.
Darren wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I am inclined to agree with Susie. While I don't agree with her assessment of the book - I didn't find it weak, regardless of whether or not it was as good as the movie - she should..."Is it a fair assumption? The book certainly hit on all of those themes, much as the movie did, and provided additional information and elaboration on all fronts. But that doesn't mean it was well-written, well-conveyed, suspenseful, or well-developed. And while I don't share Susie's characterization of the book as "weak", I certainly see her point.
Comparing the novelization to the movie, I felt Clarke's writing style did deprive the story of some of its more suspenseful and intriguing aspects, not to mention oversimplifying the characters and the emotions involved. Especially where the climax was concerned (which is what this thread originally addressed), Clarke treated the idea of being hurled millions of light years from home and experiencing a massive transformation very clinically and matter-of-factly. And I think this applies to many of his better known works, including Rendezvous with Rama.
One can appreciate the deeper nature of something while at the same feeling it did a poor job conveying it. That doesn't mean they didn't get it, it just means they think it could have been done better.
I actually think it's one of his better books, and its the book by which I judge SF. I like all SF but prefers those that are similar to 2001.
Darren wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I am inclined to agree with Susie. While I don't agree with her assessment of the book - I didn't find it weak, regardless of whether or not it was as good as the movie - she should..."Also, I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't say. Last I checked, it was Susie who was being faulted for calling the book "weak". Perhaps you should take issue with these people instead of the person who's defending someone else's right to share their opinion.
Rob wrote: "Basically some people are visual and some emotional. This in turn led to gender and she thought, and I'm sure she's right, that females are far more inclined to view things from an emotional perspective."OMG! Oy Vey! Sheesh! Holy cow!I described where I saw failings in the plot, not where the story left me emotionally bereft. I have read enough to know the basics of plot construction and character development and I thought these two principles were not employed to a great degree in this book. Seeing as it was written the same time as the movie was being filmed, I understand why. I thought the end was lame, others didn't. They read it from a different perspective, maybe after reading other Clarke novels. However, I did not read it looking for emotion! That's just as insulting as a politician saying that "we have to break down complex issues in little pieces so it's easier for women to understand" or "that's pretty good for a woman"! Jesus H. Christ!
SusieThat's not what I meant, and if anything, my paragraph after the one you quoted goes on to point out that men probably like it more due to 'our' lack of emotional empathy, which I obviously managed to demonstrate in my post.
If you recall, you mention that there were a whole lot of guys here.
I certainly didn't want to tread on your equality stance, and imply women were in any way less able than men. Obviously that's not true.
As to plot construction and character developement, I'm pretty sure he knew what he was doing. His book sales are all the proof you need.
Reemi wrote: "Susie wrote: "I read a book that is the basis of a renowned movie and I don't think the story holds up. I wonder whether or not the book is that good or that the movie greatly improved the impress..."How is Susie being sexist? Rob is the one claiming that one's perspectives is related to their gender. And this seems to be one explanation as to why she didn't like it. Another was she just didn't get it. Why can't people just accept that she didn't like the ending and this is not a personal failing?
Ha, it's okay! We've all been there, and in truth, I kind of suspected there was a mix up.
Reemi wrote: "Reemi wrote: "We get it, you didn't like this book (or just it's ending) and that's OK."Sorry for not pointing my finger at the right person, but I just want to read other people's opinions on th..."
I feel duely pointed at. Only a passing idea, and I certainley did mean it in a nasty or insulting way.
Rob, as it is coming up more and more these days I should have explained that gender identity is more than ability, it's about qualities too. My son feels for people more than anyone I know but I know women who don't care a whit about emotion or other people's problems. I didn't start out this discussion to be a feminist book review, that came out after about 90 comments. It was written at a time when men controlled virtually everything in the world, including women. There are no women characters of any note in the book. I don't condemn the book for being sexist because it's a product of its time.My OMG response to you was somewhat harsh, and I apologize.
To all: One can only be sexist if their gender holds power over women and because of that position treats them different than they would treat a man. Read Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg. It's very eye-opening. In meetings for example, men are dominant, women should shut up. Women should negotiate differently than men to get what they want. Then there's "He wouldn't have won the election if it hadn't been for the women's vote" as if the women's vote should somehow count less.
As a person and a reader I didn't care for the book and thought it's mechanics and construction were poor. I was surprised by it because I've heard some awesome things about the book. The difference is that I didn't read it as an analogy or as a wish for mankind, I just read it as a story. It obviously means more than that to many people. I never expected the comments about me "not reading, just skimming" and others. I've been a part of several goodreads discussions on different books and have never been attacked for my opinions but most of these discussions have been heavily dominated by women but men who post aren't attacked if someone disagrees with their opinion. I don't think I'm buying into a gender stereotype here by classifying something that it's not. "Women are emotional" is a generalization. "The women on goodreads have treated me thusly" is not.
Matthew: Thanks for your comments, they pretty much sum it up. I wish they had "like" buttons on here.
SusieThanks for that. I certainly didn't mean to upset you.
I totally agree that the novel is a product of it's time and by today's standards is not as good as it might be. In fact, when I try to read Clarke's Childhood's End I find it almost impossible.
2001 holds a special place for me - the first novel I ever read. At the time it blew me away, and I guess that colours my perception of it.
You, of course, have not had the same experience with the novel as I have and I completely understand where you are coming from.
I'm trying to think of a Clarke novel with a good female character. If I recall, The Songs of Distant Earth has one, but enter at your peril :-)
Yes, the ending was lame, but I found that to be true of many of Clark's books. Another good example of his lame endings is Rendesvous with Rama.
Greg wrote: "Another good example of his lame endings is Rendesvous with Rama."Really?
Found that quite effective.
Although a lot of fans complain about Rama ending just when things would get really interesting. :)
I personally found the whole book boring, and annoying.
Jordan wrote: "I personally found the whole book boring, and annoying."Annoying how?
My son and I recently read 2001 together and we hated the ending. Massive let down. I met Arthur C. Clarke way back when and asked him about this and he gave some vague answer. I'm not sure he even knew what it all meant either. Can you say LSD? The movie was equally obtuse. But loved the book for most of the way. Killed of Hal way too early...
Agreed, son. Hal is the thing we all remember. It's 45+ years since the movie and book were released and what are we talking about? Hal is the only thing people really remember from that book other than a big black thing buried on the moon and a stupid ending. Why kill your best character and then never reference him again. The sequel should have been, "Lightning Storm in space. The return of Hal"...
Thank you Jordan, Jacob and Stephen! As a "cult classic" it makes a pretty poor story. I think Clarke couldn't really decide which one he was going for. Come to think about it, I read more well-constructed fiction in my intro and advanced fiction writing classes in college. Whatever we wrote we had to copy and hand out to the class for them to critique.
Jacob wrote: "Stephen wrote: "My son and I recently read 2001 together and we hated the ending. Massive let down. I met Arthur C. Clarke way back when and asked him about this and he gave some vague answer. I'm ..."Well, Hal does come up again in 2010, where his malfunction is explained and he is given a big send off. And then again 3001, the final sequel to the series (though several additional ones were added by other authors after Clarke died), he experiences a reintroduction alongside Frank Bowman and they both are given a requiem.
As for the ending of the movie, it was meant to be visual and psychedelic for sure. But I'm not sure "obtuse" would be the right word. I for one thought they conveyed the sense of rebirth and witnessing something that went beyond the range of human experience quite nicely. It's like, welcome to the universe, kid! We've been here way longer...
Susie, how could you say that? I don't think he could have ended the book on a better note. That final sentence opens your mind to endless possibilities. He became the star child, a form of existence that was capable of things no man could ever do. It was because of the monolith that he could take this form. The monolith is tampering with mankind nudging us into evolution and observing what we do with it like a scientist observes their experiments. Bowman is just like the moon watcher, and just as the moon watcher was manipulated into using tools to evolve mankind bowman was born as the star child to serve the same purpose. Clarke knew exactly how he wanted to end the book. I promise that the story doesn't end there. And if you want more of HAL, read the other books. Everything is explained. 2010 was my favorite. Lastly, if you were born again as a star child, I'm sure you would be curious as for what to do with your newly found potential. And just as well, I'm sure that you too would think of something.
For me it was one of the best mind-blowing endings ever:) It was way better than the film ending.
Mark wrote: "Some elements like oxygen or water might lure them here.I was always in awe of the concept of Aliens in the Independance day movie, they are travelling space and visit planets for its sources, c..."
Water, etc. are pretty common elements in the universe. I am sure that a species advanced enough for interstellar travel would have mined the resources elsewhere already. By that I mean that water, oxygen are present in moons and asteroids, etc. No need to travel here to obtain that, and spend resources killing us all. It's hard to understand that a higher civilization would do that, if they truly mastered space travel. They could be very aggresive, yes, that's different. They may enjoy hunting other species, that's plausible (ala Predator), but again, those are different reasons.
Also, it's a fallacy to believe that travelling at the speed of light is the only way possible to travel. Worm holes or other yet-to-be-discovered ways of travel may be more effective. It's easy to fall prey of anthropocentric views of space, with our limited knowledge I honestly wonder if any of us would be able to recognize a very advanced intelligent being if we have it in front of us. Perhaps not.
Gary wrote: "I think there's something to be said for the end of the book being if not weak, then certainly the product of a particular kind of thinking. That is, Clarke was a believer. He believed in the ult..."I don't think Clarke thinks these advanced beings in 2001 are "good". They were lonely, but that doesn't mean they care or have "our morality" or that this morality is right. Morality is a product of human evolution (or Earth like animals). We don't know what or if morality is necessary at all.
The First Born planted seeds and saw them grow (from time to time), we could be an experiment. And their morality, the morality of a God, may be totally different to what we conceive it to be; love creatures big and small. Perhaps they don't care about that, perhaps they just care that we fit in to their view of the universe, and if we don't we are weeded out. That's pretty clear in the book.
Clarke always said you should read the book and watch the movie, as he basically wrote them together. He also said, repeat as needed until you "got" it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
2001: A Space Odyssey (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Hard to Be a God (other topics)2001: A Space Odyssey (other topics)
Thoughtlessly? It doesn't take much deliberation to see hooey for what it is. I..."
While I disagree with Feliks on nearly every level I have to stick up for his views on string theory. Sure, it's what most cosmologist etc are using to prop up their theories, but it's palinly not working. If you dig deep enough you'll find that there really hasn't been a big breakthrough in physics/cosmology since the late 80's. I thinkthey've taken a wrong turn somewhere.
The book 2001, is great and it speaks to the spiritual in us all. The ending, in my opinion is just right. After all Clarke is no nearer seeing the truth of the universe than any one of us. To say more would have ruined the book.