Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.03 AVERAGE
4.03 AVERAGE
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This was absolutely brilliant. I first saw the movie around 15 years ago and I thought it was beautiful and intriguing, but I put off reading the book for no good reason. It's one of my father's favourites, and I think waiting until I had enough context to read it was an unconscious decision. I've read a bunch of sci-fi lately, and now that I have a basis for comparison, however small, I'm glad I hadn't read it yet because now I can appreciate just how outstanding this book is.
I find it's hard to write sci-fi without being either too clinical or too campy; it's a thin line to walk. Clarke manages to do it with precise and visually stunning descriptions that still feel grounded and human. The fact that he included both an AI and aliens, two of my favourite tropes, seals the deal for me: this is going on my favourites list.
This has a very classic sci-fi feel about it (not surprisingly), and I found it fascinating to see which things Clarke got right and wrong about how living in a spaceship would actually work before we were doing it. Some things I found a little baffling. Creating artificial gravity for a toilet instead of using a vacuum seems like a ridiculously expensive and difficult way to go about it. Others, like the comment that news from utopian newspapers would be boring, felt very much like the kind of thing that someone who has never struggled in their life would say. There's also the scientist saying that you can’t have very small intelligent creatures because you need a minimum brain size. This has been proven to be patently untrue unless you want to be very obtuse and narrow about what constitutes intelligence, and it's one of my pet peeves. The pieces of equipment named after women because they were "unpredictable"... kind of rude. So this wasn't perfect, but it gets close.
Since this book was written in conjunction with the script for the film, the controversy around which one is better is apparently skewed towards the movie. Just to be contrarian, I liked the book better. No, really, hear me out.
The movie has stuck in my brain since I first saw it. I remember it vividly, and it's fantastic. But it had one flaw: it let me assume something about which I was wrong and was bothering me, and the book explains that. This is a very old book/movie, but spoilers ahead:
I also felt a deeper connection to the descriptions of planets, stars and space than watching the movie. It is made more beautiful by words in my brain than it could have been on the screen. I think listening to the soundtrack while reading the book may improve the experience even more. However,
The criticisms of the book usually say it explains too much. On one hand, sure. But the movie and the book are different things in more ways than the obvious one. I feel that the movie is an art piece; more about evoking raw emotion in the viewer and planting questions in their minds than about communicating Kubrick's and Clarke's thoughts. The book is about what Clarke wants to tell you happened, and you can have your feelings about it in your own time, but things are as they are. That's just the nature of books. If he had attempted to be as vague in the book as in the movie, I don't think it would have made for a very enjoyable reading experience.
I find the weakest parts of the book are the strongest parts of the movie: the beginning and the end. The movie's opening scene is iconic for a reason, and the ending also works much better, because it doesn't answer the questions to which you couldn't possibly get an answer.
To sum up, this was fantastic and I plan on rewatching the movie soon. I'll have to read the sequels too!
I find it's hard to write sci-fi without being either too clinical or too campy; it's a thin line to walk. Clarke manages to do it with precise and visually stunning descriptions that still feel grounded and human. The fact that he included both an AI and aliens, two of my favourite tropes, seals the deal for me: this is going on my favourites list.
This has a very classic sci-fi feel about it (not surprisingly), and I found it fascinating to see which things Clarke got right and wrong about how living in a spaceship would actually work before we were doing it. Some things I found a little baffling. Creating artificial gravity for a toilet instead of using a vacuum seems like a ridiculously expensive and difficult way to go about it. Others, like the comment that news from utopian newspapers would be boring, felt very much like the kind of thing that someone who has never struggled in their life would say. There's also the scientist saying that you can’t have very small intelligent creatures because you need a minimum brain size. This has been proven to be patently untrue unless you want to be very obtuse and narrow about what constitutes intelligence, and it's one of my pet peeves. The pieces of equipment named after women because they were "unpredictable"... kind of rude. So this wasn't perfect, but it gets close.
Since this book was written in conjunction with the script for the film, the controversy around which one is better is apparently skewed towards the movie. Just to be contrarian, I liked the book better. No, really, hear me out.
The movie has stuck in my brain since I first saw it. I remember it vividly, and it's fantastic. But it had one flaw: it let me assume something about which I was wrong and was bothering me, and the book explains that. This is a very old book/movie, but spoilers ahead:
Spoiler
I thought, from watching the movie, that aliens had singled us out as a species to be The Chosen Ones, which is a trope I find very boring and self-aggrandising. In the book you learn we're one of MANY, and just another try at nudging an intelligent species towards thriving instead of extinction. I guess they could have picked octopuses instead but we were more convenient. I liked that.I also felt a deeper connection to the descriptions of planets, stars and space than watching the movie. It is made more beautiful by words in my brain than it could have been on the screen. I think listening to the soundtrack while reading the book may improve the experience even more. However,
Spoiler
the destruction of HAL was less dramatic in print than in the movie. It felt more rushed and less emotionally charged. Something I thought was odd is that nobody had ever turned off HAL, even as a test. The emotional impact of it was definitely worth overlooking that detail, so I'm not complaining.The criticisms of the book usually say it explains too much. On one hand, sure. But the movie and the book are different things in more ways than the obvious one. I feel that the movie is an art piece; more about evoking raw emotion in the viewer and planting questions in their minds than about communicating Kubrick's and Clarke's thoughts. The book is about what Clarke wants to tell you happened, and you can have your feelings about it in your own time, but things are as they are. That's just the nature of books. If he had attempted to be as vague in the book as in the movie, I don't think it would have made for a very enjoyable reading experience.
I find the weakest parts of the book are the strongest parts of the movie: the beginning and the end.
Spoiler
The beginning of the book follows the brand new hominids for too long; the end tries to make comprehensible the thoughts of a god-like being, which feels pretty futile. It's also full of concrete things that happen.To sum up, this was fantastic and I plan on rewatching the movie soon. I'll have to read the sequels too!
adventurous
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
dark
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
- very very cool
- kind of confusing in the beginning with the switch in pov from floyd to bowman but i got it in the end
- ending was very interstellar tessaract like
- the trope where aliens are actually higher beings that help us understand the true meaning of life always fucks my brains out in a good way
- def need to watch the movie, even though i heard its a little different
- kind of confusing in the beginning with the switch in pov from floyd to bowman but i got it in the end
- ending was very interstellar tessaract like
- the trope where aliens are actually higher beings that help us understand the true meaning of life always fucks my brains out in a good way
- def need to watch the movie, even though i heard its a little different
This is basically how I felt about the movie too. I did appreciate how much context it helps provide for the movie but that’s about it.
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexism