Take a photo of a barcode or cover
elenajohansen 's review for:
2001: A Space Odyssey
by Arthur C. Clarke
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?