In Review: 2001 and 2010 Space Odyssey
After some unplanned hiatus, it’s time to get back to this little corner. I’ve missed so much sitting down to write about something that’s been on my mind. And, while I was away, I didn’t stop reading. Which means I have a few book reviews to come. Today, I’m focusing on classic sci-fi. No, it’s not Dune. I’m still making my way through that one at turtle speed. It’s 2001 Space Odyssey and 2010 Space Odyssey 2.
While this was my second time reading 2001, I never got to write a review. Not all the books I read I write a review. Sometimes, a book is nice, but I don’t have enough to say about it to write a full post. And 2010 was heading in the same direction until it wasn’t. And so, I have some thoughts about reading 2001, watching the movie and then reading 2010.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Author: Arthur C Clarke Series: Space Odyssey #1 Publication year: 1968 Length: 6 hours 42 minutes Genre: Mystery, Sci-fi Pace: Medium Story focus: Plot
When I first read 2001, what surprised me the most was how easy it was to read. It’s a classic sci-fi published in the ’60s. I was expecting to have a hard time going into it. And yet, it was so easy. That iconic scene of the monolith with human ancestors was amazing to read and a great introduction to the story. That remains my favourite part of the whole book. And for that scene alone, I’ll read the book again.
Although not everything is a walk in the park, at some point, I felt the story drag. The author loses himself over-explaining a lyrical and philosophical view of outer space. So my mind would wander off. But once the action happened, I was back in business!
There are some hints on how old this story is, although most often, I didn’t see it. The space exploration felt so familiar to the current sci-fi stories I questioned if this book was actually from the ’60s or if I made that up. Maybe it’s the use of the simplicity of human curiosity or the lack of hanging on technological advances that allows this book to become timeless. Even though most, if not all, science is outdated.
And let’s face it, a strange monolith that we know was in contact with humans way before they were humans, and now there’s one on the moon that emits a signal? I’m intrigued! I want to find out more about it. And that mystery is what keeps me coming back for more. That’s why I read 2010 and why I’ll read the other two books after that.
Goodreads | The Storygraph | Literal
2010: Odyssey Two
Author: Arthur C Clarke Series: Space Odyssey #2 Publication year: 1982 Length: 7 hours Genre: Mystery, Sci-fi Pace: Medium Story focus: Plot
Almost a decade after the Discovery mission, the monolith remains a mystery, and HAL 9000 data could hold some answers, including what happened to David Bowman. Slowly, the Discovery is on a collision course with Jupiter, so a new mission needs to reach it fast. Although, they aren’t alone. A Chinese team is also racing to reach the Discovery. However, they end up stumbling across something else. Earth isn’t the only place to support life in the Solar system.
Once again, the book has a strong start. Moderately fast plot with high stakes, and then the author drops the bomb of life outside our planet. I was so excited. And then, oh yeah… this story is about Bowman and the monolith. Let’s go back to that.
I want to say there are two plot lines in this novel: what the Chinese teams discovered on Jupiter’s moon, Europa, and Bowman. However, I don’t think I can because the first one doesn’t even reach the 100th page mark. I was so interested and excited to think the story would explore even further, to see it being dropped not even halfway and resolved as “well, we now know things are living there, better not mess with them”.
The same way I felt in 2001, after that initial excitement, the story drags. But this is not my first rodeo, so I gave it some slack. But the story never picks up again. I felt it kept the same slow rhythm. The high stakes were still there, Bowman even came back with a warning for something big, but the climax of the story didn’t feel very climatic.
To me, many plot points weren’t fully explored, but I know they were. I know it’s confusing and doesn’t make much sense. The plot was presented, developed, and resolved. Although, it didn’t feel like it. Everything was very chill. And yet, a planet exploded! How can that feel just like an average Tuesday?
And this is not even my biggest problem with this book. You see, 2010 is a continuation of the movie, not the book. And the author’s note makes that very clear from the start. Although I never thought that would be such a problem for me.
Like a lamb, I watched the movie before even reading the first chapter. I wanted to recognize what where the changes made in the movie. I had tried to watch it once and gave up after 20 minutes. This time, it was no different. I was so bored. I’m sorry if you love that movie, but the story is so slow I just wanted it to end. Needless to say, I don’t mind where the book and the movie diverge because the plot is the same. And while I didn’t enjoy the movie, it has a place in what 2001 Space Odyssey is. The movie isn’t an adaptation of the story, it’s another way of telling it. Both the book and the movie were written at the same time. They tell the same story in the best way for each medium. They complement each other. I didn’t see that compliment, but that’s my problem.
Perhaps my experience with the movie could have clouded my upcoming reading of 2010. One thing is for sure, I didn’t enjoy the changes. Another important detail is that those changes don’t happen only in the beginning as the story sets up the scene and acts as a reminder of what happened in the previous book. Because the author is changing those scenes for the ones in the movie, for a matter of rigour, he adds them all. Because of this, he introduced them throughout the novel. I mean, I have to give him credit that while I didn’t appreciate the changes, he decided to choose the movie version and stuck to it all the way. He could have hoped between the book and the movie, whichever version would fit the narrative better, but instead, he was faithful to the movie from the first page to the last.
Looking back, there’s nothing wrong with having the story in Europa and Jupiter instead of Iapeto and Saturn. It’s pretty cool to have living creatures in Europe – this is the second time I read about life there, someone should investigate – and having Jupiter go ka-boom. The plot of the book is a fine sci-fi story. What bothers me is those changes gave me the feeling the author was rejecting his book, 2001.
Thinking about it, there’s no reason to make those changes. The first book wasn’t bad. Those scenes didn’t need to be rewritten. And for the action in 2010, couldn’t that be set in the Saturnian system instead? Maybe it wouldn’t work as well, or the science wouldn’t allow it. But still, the story of 2010 could happen in Europe and Jupiter and in some way connect with Saturn and Iapeto. On the way over to Saturn and/or on the way back, they could pass Jupiter and see something was happening there.
And for other changes like the final confrontation of HAL and Bowman, there is no reason to choose the movie version other than to give continuity to the story. As I already mentioned, if the author was changing in favour of the movie, then getting all the details right is important. But other than that? There wasn’t a need for it.
Because I don’t see a clear-cut reason to opt for the movie instead of the book, I feel the author was abandoning his work. And I understand that perhaps the movie was more broadly viewed than the book was read, and the changes could be trying to capitalize on that. Although in the same author’s note, Clarke, expresses how impactful both the movie and the book were. He even recalls a moment, after the first images of Iapeto taken by Voyager 1:
Well, when Voyager 1 transmitted the first photographs of Iapetus they did indeed disclosed a large, clear-cut white oval with a tiny black dot at the centre. Carl Sagan promptly sent me a print […] with the cryptic annotation “Thinking of you…”[…]
Author’s Note in 2010: Odyssey Two by Author C Clarke
So his story, the way he wrote, has impacted people. It has a place in many people’s hearts. And seeing it being whipped out without a good reason to do so, disappoints me. I feel the author is saying that 2001 was bad, and the movie was better as if he was trying to fix what he previously wrote.
Despite my problems with this second book, I have no doubts I want to continue reading. The solar system has 2 Suns now, and that will create some changes. The monolith is still a mystery, and with Bowman back, new revelations are yet to come. I’m curious to see what else Clarke has in store for the fate of humankind.
No Comments