Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.03 AVERAGE
4.03 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Worth a read for fans of the movie, but not nearly as thought-provoking as Stanley Kubrick's version. I did enjoy learning about Arthur C. Clarke, though, and got to discuss him on my podcast "Ink to Film."
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This is a novel published in 1968, that was very avant-garde for its time. I was fascinated with really, everything in the book.
It's a captivating story, that combines many elements: sci-fi, space exploration, technological advances, spiritual apprehension, and it raises a lot of interesting questions.
I can only sum it up with another quote from its own pages:
[...] it goes on forever—and—oh my God!—it’s full of stars!
Amazing read! Quick, to the favorite shelf!
It's a captivating story, that combines many elements: sci-fi, space exploration, technological advances, spiritual apprehension, and it raises a lot of interesting questions.
I can only sum it up with another quote from its own pages:
[...] it goes on forever—and—oh my God!—it’s full of stars!
Amazing read! Quick, to the favorite shelf!
Intertextualidad
Menciones directas:
* La Odisea (ca. s. VIII a. C.) de Homero.
* Moby Dick (1851) de Herman Melville.
* La guerra de los mundos (1898) de H.G. Wells.
* La Biblia (ca s. IV), anónimo.
* Mención a los autores:
-William Shakespeare (Inglaterra, s. XVI-XVII)
-Henrik Ibsen (Noruega, s. XIX)
-George Bernard Shaw (Irlanda, s. XIX-XX)
Indirecta:
*El libro fue escrito en conjunto con el libreto para la versión cinematógrafica de Stanley Kubrik, por lo que intertextualmente ambas obras se influyeron entre sí.
Menciones directas:
* La Odisea (ca. s. VIII a. C.) de Homero.
* Moby Dick (1851) de Herman Melville.
* La guerra de los mundos (1898) de H.G. Wells.
* La Biblia (ca s. IV), anónimo.
* Mención a los autores:
-William Shakespeare (Inglaterra, s. XVI-XVII)
-Henrik Ibsen (Noruega, s. XIX)
-George Bernard Shaw (Irlanda, s. XIX-XX)
Indirecta:
*El libro fue escrito en conjunto con el libreto para la versión cinematógrafica de Stanley Kubrik, por lo que intertextualmente ambas obras se influyeron entre sí.
I went into this more than a little worried I wouldn't like it, compared with the movie, but boy, was I wrong.
Now, reading a fifty-year-old sci-fi novel, science and technology have moved so far beyond what they dreamed possible back then it's amusing. The first part of the book I found almost quaint in its old-fashioned view of what the future looked like. I don't hold that against Clarke, and it didn't diminish my enjoyment of the book as a whole.
I have seen the movie several times, though it's been many years since the last time. What struck me as I was finishing this, was that the book did best what the movie did worst, and vice versa. HAL in the movie was disturbingly menacing and dominated the tone of the movie; in the book, I found him far less creepy, and though his actions are still wrong, the insight we gain into his functioning (and his malfunctioning) means I see him now as a victim of mental illness far more than an evil AI gone rogue. And I actually like that better, because that makes this story less about the perils of AI and more about the journey beyond the stars, what the "odyssey" is supposed to be about.
The big plus of the book in my personal book v. movie debate is that the entire ending makes so much more sense. Kubrick's directorial vision gave us a trippy and memorable epilogue of cosmic weirdness that I never liked. Clarke's novelization of the screenplay gives me, instead, a clear view of the intent of Bowman's final journey beyond space-time, beyond human consciousness, and into/beyond the stars. The final epiphany, and Bowman/Star-Child's status as a protector of Earth, is just so much more moving when I can understand it, you know?
Now, reading a fifty-year-old sci-fi novel, science and technology have moved so far beyond what they dreamed possible back then it's amusing. The first part of the book I found almost quaint in its old-fashioned view of what the future looked like. I don't hold that against Clarke, and it didn't diminish my enjoyment of the book as a whole.
I have seen the movie several times, though it's been many years since the last time. What struck me as I was finishing this, was that the book did best what the movie did worst, and vice versa. HAL in the movie was disturbingly menacing and dominated the tone of the movie; in the book, I found him far less creepy, and though his actions are still wrong, the insight we gain into his functioning (and his malfunctioning) means I see him now as a victim of mental illness far more than an evil AI gone rogue. And I actually like that better, because that makes this story less about the perils of AI and more about the journey beyond the stars, what the "odyssey" is supposed to be about.
The big plus of the book in my personal book v. movie debate is that the entire ending makes so much more sense. Kubrick's directorial vision gave us a trippy and memorable epilogue of cosmic weirdness that I never liked. Clarke's novelization of the screenplay gives me, instead, a clear view of the intent of Bowman's final journey beyond space-time, beyond human consciousness, and into/beyond the stars. The final epiphany, and Bowman/Star-Child's status as a protector of Earth, is just so much more moving when I can understand it, you know?
adventurous
challenging
dark
inspiring
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
challenging
mysterious
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
challenging
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
the first half was like yeah okay cool but the second half? what?