Did anyone else think the ending was lame?

[Susie]

Susanne wrote: "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."

I'm old-fashioned. I believe a book should tell a stand-alone story that has a beginning, a middle and an end. It doesn't have to be reality, I can totally get into the ending of The Lord of the Rings or Dracula. What Clarke has done is write a book with an ending that asks you to make it up. He was too rushed or too lazy to do so.

To say: "repeat as needed until you 'get' it" is like an acquaintance of mine defended his boss from charges that his boss was an asshole. He said: "Really, he's a great guy, you just got to know how to take him." The responsibility is on us to end the story how we want to, just like the responsibility was on me to forgive this guy for being an asshole simply because I was "taking" him wrong.

[Matthew]

Susie wrote: "Susanne wrote: "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."

I'm old-fashioned. I beli..."

I don't see how that's the case. Clarke spelled out quite clearly what happened to Frank Bowman by the end of 2001. Bowman had entered the Monolith and crossed an existential barrier where he became something greater than himself. It echoed the beginning, where the apes became aware of a whole new world once they learned mastery of tools. The line was even the exact same:

"For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something."

It was the movie that was deliberately esoteric and vague, with all its intense imagery and no dialogue. There, people's confusion was quite understandable, but that's party why Clarke wrote the book, to offer explanations.

[Susie]

I just finished ender's game and where it had a compelling story, it had some very one-dimensional characters. I can see why that has become sort of a cult classic, though. I see the appeal of 2001 to people, just not for me.

I took a jaundiced view of ender's game, though. Orson Scott Card lives in my city and writes far-right homophobic stuff in a local weekly. I didn't buy the book, just took it out of the library because I didn't want to put any money in his pocket.

[Matthew]

Susie wrote: "I just finished ender's game and where it had a compelling story, it had some very one-dimensional characters. I can see why that has become sort of a cult classic, though. I see the appeal of 20..."

Well, I certainly can understand that. I myself found it a bit hit and miss compared to the film. Clarke was a visionary, but he wasn't really the best or most nuanced writer.

As for Card - I know, right? There's was a forum here on GR that discussed his homophobic views, in advance of the release of the Ender's Game movie. Some rather "interesting" views were expressed there. You're approach, of getting it from the library rather than buying it, was considered as a very enlightened approach.

[Ben]

The ending was very strange, but definitely not lame. I had no idea how the end of the book would bring things together, and was satisfied with the surprise of the actual ending.

It was surprising for me in hindsight, as I was quite content with the fact that not all the threads of the story were looped together: I was happy with how abstract the ending was. It brought together the sense of mystery beyond humanity that was present in the end.

I don't have much more to add to how I felt about the ending, but it was not at all lame.

[Kenneth]

I don't think it was lame at all, but I think the way the book spells everything out means it doesn't carry the same sense of mystery and wonder that the film accomplishes.