Customer Reviews


213 Reviews
5 star:
 (143)
4 star:
 (53)
3 star:
 (7)
2 star:
 (10)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


5.0 out of 5 stars Journey Involving Ape-men, Spacemen, and ET Intelligence
=====>
This easy-to-read book (first published in 1968, a year before the first Moon landing) by Sir Arthur C. Clarke is the first installment of his "Odyssey" series of science fiction novels. It is divided into six parts: (1) Primeval Night: six chapters (2) TMA-1: eight chapters (3) Between Planets: six chapters (4) Abyss: ten chapters (5) The Moons...
Published on March 3 2004 by Stephen Pletko

versus
3.0 out of 5 stars The all-time classic
There is not much that can be said about 2001 that hasn't been said already. It is, of course, a classic among classics, a story that begins three million years in the past and ends in what was, at the time Clarke and Kubrick developed the story, the near future. The background is well known: Stanley Kubrick wanted to make the proverbial "good science fiction...
Published on Feb. 4 2004 by Robert Holm


‹ Previous | 1 222 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

2.0 out of 5 stars Cosmic can be boring, March 13 2004
By 
Bart Leahy (Huntsville, AL) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Stanley Kubrick got together with Arthur C. Clarke to make "the proverbial good science fiction movie," and then proceeded to sift through Clarke's works for an idea. They settled on "The Sentinel" and a few bits from "Encounter at Dawn." Kubrick could have made Childhood's End into a film, used the same special effects budget, and made a much better movie. As it is, Clarke and Kubrick have created a massive albatross, a "classic," a visual masterpiece on the screen, and one of the most boring books you're likely to read. Clarke is partially to blame, of course, since he is known for writing about big concepts and remarkable speculative technologies, not characters.
2001 is such a part of the culture now, I don't think I'll be blowing any secrets here by revealing plot points. But just in case you haven't seen or read 2001, you have been warned. The book (and the movie--from here on, I'll talk about the book) starts at "the dawn of man," three million years ago, on the African plains. We confront our ancestors, Australopethicus, or whatever they're called. They're starving, vulnerable, and afraid. Then a strange object appears, probes them, and begins to give them ideas. The hominids begin using animal bones as weapons. The object, a black, featureless monolith, disappears, and leaves the hominids to their destiny. The book fast-forwards to our age. The movie does this really well, by using a sight-match between a bone thrown up in the air and then a space station orbiting the planet. The point being, the use of tools became the basis of human evolution.
We come to the present, 2001. There is regularly-scheduled traffic to the moon (courtesy of Pan Am, which has disappeared and reappeared in the real world), a space station orbiting the moon, and a complete lunar base. It's all straightforward technological speculation. However, as you read, you find two very obvious things wrong: there are no characters worth considering, and nothing much seems to be happening. The tools seem more interesting than the people. When we come to the Discovery mission, heading for Jupiter, we come across two of the flattest characters known to science fiction: David Bowman and Frank Poole. We almost welcome the presence of the schizophrenic, flat-voiced computer, HAL 9000. HAL makes things interesting by killing people. The flatness of David Bowman becomes useful once he encounters the Monolith. Then the narrative becomes nothing but descriptions of what Bowman sees. Clarke, after all, is best at describing the remarkable and the alien, not for portraying human reactions to them. So by the end, Bowman is transformed by the Monolith, and once again we are looking at another stage of human evolution. The book, anyway, is better at explaining "what the ending means" than the movie is. The visual feast of the movie allowed Clarke to write a successful sequel 20+ years later. The second book is the best of the lot. You might be better off just reading that one, since it summarizes much that is in 2001, and takes off from there. Just because 2001 is a "classic" doesn't mean you have to like it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Journey Involving Ape-men, Spacemen, and ET Intelligence, March 3 2004
By 
Stephen Pletko "Uncle Stevie" (London, Ontario, Canada) - See all my reviews
(TOP 50 REVIEWER)   
=====>
This easy-to-read book (first published in 1968, a year before the first Moon landing) by Sir Arthur C. Clarke is the first installment of his "Odyssey" series of science fiction novels. It is divided into six parts: (1) Primeval Night: six chapters (2) TMA-1: eight chapters (3) Between Planets: six chapters (4) Abyss: ten chapters (5) The Moons of Saturn: ten chapters (6) Through the Star Gate: seven chapters.
This novel is classified as science fiction but is so much more. It also has other elements such as the evolution of man, science, astronomy, computer science, extraterrestrial (ET) intelligence, and suspense.
Evolution of man is the subject matter of part one of the novel. Here you'll be introduced to ape-men and how they adapt to their environment. Two major ape-men introduced are "Moon-Watcher" and "One-Ear."
Science is presented throughout the novel. For example, "A man who weighed one hundred eighty pounds on Earth might be delighted to discover that he weighed only thirty pounds on the Moon. As long as he moved in a straight line at a uniform speed, he felt a wonderful sense of buoyancy."
Astronomy is introduced throughout parts two to six. Overall, Clarke gives good descriptions of our solar system, the asteroid belt, Jupiter, and Saturn. All these are presented with a sense of wonder.
Computer science is represented by the supercomputer HAL (which stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer). HAL was "the nervous system" of the Earth-built spacecraft 'Discovery' (which was piloted by astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole). "Without [HAL's] supervision, 'Discovery' would be a mechanical corpse."
Extraterrestrial (ET) intelligence is represented by the monoliths. A monolith is first encountered by the ape-men. Later, another monolith is encountered on the Moon (where it is called "Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-One" or TMA-1). It is described as a "vertical slab of jet-black material, about ten feet high and five feet wide: it [resembled]...a giant tombstone. Perfectly sharp-edged and symmetrical, it was so black it seemed to have swallowed up the light falling upon it; there was no surface detail at all. It was impossible to tell whether it was made of stone or metal or plastic--or some material altogether unknown to man." A monolith occurs at two more critical times in the novel.
Suspense is created when the astronauts have to go up against space, their own computer, and powers beyond human comprehension (presented in part six of the novel).
Numerous examples of nature imitating the art in this book can be found. For example, consider the saga of Apollo 13 in 1970. The Command Module, which houses the crew, was called 'Odyssey.' Just after the explosion that caused the mission to be aborted, one of the astronauts radioed back to Mission Control: "Houston, we've had a problem." The words that HAL said to the novel's astronaut Frank Poole regarding a similar event were: "Sorry to interrupt the festivities, but we have a problem."
Finally, this novel was written at the same time as the 1968 movie (which has the same title as the novel) was being made. As a result, there is a close parallel between the book and the movie but there are some major differences. In my opinion, a major difference is that the movie leaves out many of the explanatory details found in the novel. Thus, the movie can be difficult to understand. Therefore, I recommend the following: watch the movie first (to get an idea of its sheer wonder and don't worry about the details), then read the novel (to understand the finer details of the movie), and then watch the movie again (to get a greater understanding of what it is attempting to convey).
In conclusion, this novel will present you with a unique, mind-bending experience. Don't miss this incredible journey!!
<=====>
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Thought-provoking sci-fi featuring more science than fiction, Feb. 21 2004
By 
For most sci-fi fans, it is impossible to read Clarke's novelization of "2001" without calling up scenes from Kubrick's movie. Unlike nearly all books inspired by movies, however, many readers will find that Clarke's fiction enriches, rather than retreads, familiar ground. In particular, the novel more fully explains the purpose of the monoliths and the movie's ambiguous--and to many, bizarre--ending.
Those who complain about the book's datedness win the argument on purely literal grounds. The year 2001 has come and gone, and many of the "advances" in the book (and the movie) seem quaint, while humanity's adventures in space have, for the most part, stalled.
Nevertheless, what is remarkable about Clarke's book is not the technology, which was doomed to obsolescence within a decade, but rather the science. Reading "2001" reminds us that, while our industrial innovations may have departed from the expectations of the late 1960s, the principles on which our technology is based and the astrophysics that informs our worldview have altered relatively little. Indeed, the novel in many spots reads like a science book, and this impression is underscored by Clarke's journalese, which ranges from informative to didactic. ("It was true that the Special Theory of Relativity had proved to be remarkably durable." "That pinpoint of incandescence must be a White Dwarf--one of those strange, fierce little stars, no larger than the Earth, yet containing millions of times its mass.")
Even the attempts at characterization are reportorial: "Like all his colleagues, Bowman was unmarried; it was not fair to send family men on a mission of such duration." Heywood Floyd, David Bowman, and even Hal (the mutinous computer) are inarguably one-dimensional. Yet, none of this seems inappropriate, since Clarke--and Kubrick--clearly decided to forego traditional features of storytelling (character, plot, etc.) in favor of pure, extravagant speculation. Instead, Clarke has fully developed his true protagonists: science as a discipline and human progress as a whole.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars The all-time classic, Feb. 4 2004
By 
Robert Holm (at home behind my keyboard) - See all my reviews
There is not much that can be said about 2001 that hasn't been said already. It is, of course, a classic among classics, a story that begins three million years in the past and ends in what was, at the time Clarke and Kubrick developed the story, the near future. The background is well known: Stanley Kubrick wanted to make the proverbial "good science fiction movie," and to achieve this goal, he and Clarke collaborated to develop a screenplay based partly on some of Clarke's earlier short stories (The Sentinel, among others). Clarke then wrote the novel from the screenplay.
I must admit that I've never really liked 2001 all that much, to be honest. The "problem" with the movie is that you cannot today avoid knowing that you're watching something that was made in the 1960s. Most of the movie is set in the future, but it feels like the past. In the book, the annoying thing is that Clarke's style of writing (which usually works so well) is too brief and abrupt, and the ending doesn't satisfy. On the other hand, I do like the beginning, with Moon-Watcher and the early hominids struggling for survival, and I also like the idea of mankind being essentially the creation of an unknown alien intelligence. But I can't escape the feeling that the story should have been more "fleshed out." And, like I said, the ending, when Bowman is transformed into Star-Child, is not satisfying and even a bit disturbing, even if the story in this way does come full-circle at the very end. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing idea, but somehow it just doesn't "feel" right. As an explanation to why there doesn't seem to be any intelligent life on other worlds in the universe (why have we not been visited?), it's certainly a breath-taking concept. But the idea of transcendence is a little bit too much mystical and "religious" for my taste. But who's really to say, after all? Maybe our weak and frail physical bodies, that age and decay all too quickly, are only a momentary stage in the chain of evolution. And maybe humanity is the last remaining race in the universe that still have not achieved the next stage.
This will forever remain the science fiction novel that Clarke is best remembered for. But that is perhaps a bit unfair, since both the book and the movie (that is, the writing of the screenplay) was a collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick. Clarke wrote the book, of course, but so many of the ideas and so much of the material was developed together with Kubrick. Still, 2001 was epoch-making, and no one can deny that as a movie, 2001 was the most influential science fiction movie ever made. It helped to clear the way for things to come, like Star Wars and the other great science fiction movies of the late -70s and early -80s. And that's one more thing that we can, at least in part, thank the genius of Sir Arthur C. Clarke for.
The millennium edition has a new foreword and an "In Memoriam" for Stanley Kubrick, who died in 1999. As Clarke says, "One of my deepest regrets now is that we shall not be able to welcome the year 2001 together."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars How it might have happened? And a look at ourselves., Dec 18 2003
By 
B. Jemella (New Jersey) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
When Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick sat down together and simultaneously developed this book, and the visually stunning movie by the same name, you have to wonder if they imagined that they were creating something timeless as they have.
While this book would fall under the genre Sci-Fi, the perhaps ficional elements about the evolution of man provide an entertaining backdrop for a story about where man has come from and where we are going. Have we learned from our mistakes? At the time this book was written, Clarke would indicate that we have not. Will we reach what scientific philosophers like Clarke believe are going to be our future evolutionary states?
The way you begin to think as you read this book will remind you of any and all the nights you may have stared at the stars as a child and wondered what our role in the universe is. This book is as artistic a piece as the film for that reason, and it is far less confusing on the first read as compared to the first film viewing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars A new Evolutionary step, Oct. 21 2003
By 
Arthur C Clarke has returned to his favorite theme - that of the proverbial First Encounter. We've had them in the RAMA series and in CHILDHOOD'S END. But this time we meet them by proxy. Everyone is quite familiar with the story but the originality and suprises (aided by an extraordinarily perceptive cinematic translation) just keep coming. It's like the author is drinking from a well of originality and talent that won't run dry.
I loved the man-machine/man-monolith/man-Jupiter interactions. Clarke has ventured into the metaphysical here and the movie perfectly suggests to the viewer what we, the readers, can only imagine from the text.
The idea of an extraterrestrial boost to Earthly intelligence has been suggested before (along with the idea that life itself arrived from outer space via meteorite). One still has to ask the question: OK, so where did THAT life come from? Clarke simply assumes that "it is" without questions.
Another theme present in almost all his works is that we on this planet are still children of the universe, we are in the learning stage and must and will learn from the more "advanced" races. Whether this happens or not - my personal opinion is that it won't - it is still a good concept to bandy about.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars One of science fiction's major triumphs, Aug. 29 2003
By 
Daniel Jolley "darkgenius" (Shelby, North Carolina USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
Arthur C. Clarke's monumental novel 2001: A Space Odyssey is top-notch science fiction that more than earns its spot among the greatest works published in the genre. Reading the novel is quite a different experience from watching Stanley Kubrick's wildly famous movie adaptation of the story. The movie is far too abstract and vague for my tastes, concentrating more on visual wonders than sound plot development. Many of the questions left unanswered in the movie (along with some questions and answers the movie never even addressed) can be found in the novel, and this made for a much more rewarding and satisfying 2001 experience for me. Moviegoers had to wait sixteen years to learn the real story of Hal's failure, but Clarke explains it (and in more detail) in the pages of his original 2001 novel. There are actually a surprising number of differences between the novel and the film, which strikes me as somewhat strange given the fact that the book was inspired by the idea of the film; as a matter of fact, much of the writing took place during the film's production, and Clarke has said that some movie shots led him to make changes to the novel as he was writing it.
The story begins in the ancient past, providing much more detail about the appearance of a huge black monolith on earth and its deliberative interference with the man-apes of the area. The film fails to convey the overwhelming impact of the alien monolith on the evolution of life on earth, and that is one important reason why I find the film too vague. The events of Clarke's first few chapters are of great importance in one's understanding of the story, and all the facts become clear in this book. One will also find some major differences between the novel and the movie in terms of the setting of the final events. In the novel, the crucial mission goes to Saturn, whereas the movie takes us no farther than Jupiter; this doesn't change anything really, but Clarke has said that Kubrick made the right decision and saved him some embarrassment from making a visual representation of Saturn that later failed to hold up to more recent scientific discoveries about the ringed planet.
Many of the crucial events onboard the Saturn-bound spaceship Discovery also differ significantly between book and movie. Clarke's exposition of the growing doubts expressed by Captains Poole and Bowman over the performance of the onboard supercomputer Hal works much better than Kubrick's lip reading explication, and there is a lot more information provided here about the whys and wherefores of Hal's troubling and duplicitous actions. The pivotal events of Hal's takeover of the ship play much better in the book as well, and the events as described here are actually much more exciting and convincing than the events you see in the film. The novel concludes with a much more revealing look at Bowman's journey beyond Saturn into infinity. Here, Clarke even goes into some detail about the creators of the monoliths, which is a topic the movie never really addresses at all.
In the end, the novel is just much more compelling than the film, and for that reason I would recommend watching the movie before reading the book. Kubrick intentionally left his film rather vague and open-ended, and a reading of the much more compelling and informative novel may well rob you of whatever small joys you might otherwise find in the film. In the same vein, the paucity of answers in the movie does little to detract from one's enjoyment of and fascination with the novel.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Towers Like A Monolith Above Current Sci-fi., July 1 2003
After 30 plus years this book says more in its 200 pages than much of the 600 page TOR opuses that pass as current sci-fi and which are grossly in vogue today. Unlike much of current sci-fi it speculates on mans past as well as his future. It also has something intelligent to say within the action as opposed to the hack and slash of some of the contemporary sci-fi dreck being shilled out these days. Many people are more familiar with the classic movie than the equally classic book. "2001" the book is just as great as the movie and certainly less ambiguous. It is not just a movie adaptation.
I think Hal is remembered too much. Maybe it's the movie's fault. He isn't the first threatening machine in sci-fi there was Robby the Robot from "Forbidden Planet" and that giant robot from "The Day The Earth Stood Still". And like those movies we remember the machine more. This is unfortunate for HAL has become this ingrained pop icon for malfunctioning computers that he overshadows the hero, Bowman. Bowman is one of the classic sci-fi heroes. He is on par with Rand's Roark, Heinlein's Valentine Michael Smith and Tolkien's Aragorn. He is Clarke's Ideal Man and an inspiration for our real lives. He has a lust for life that is unafraid, committed and with a thirst for knowledge. He takes control of his own destiny despite the deepening circumstances that surround him. He literally descends into the unknown without blinking. Like Bowman don't sit idly by depending on computers to do you're thinking take control of your own destiny. Hmm...sounds like something out of the "Matrix". Some people think Clarke wrote uninteresting and underdeveloped characters, I disagree, at least with Bowman. If you think sci-fi is for teenage boys this book will change your mind.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Towers Like A Monolith Above Current Sci-fi., July 1 2003
After 30 plus years this book says more in its 200 pages than much of the 600 page TOR opuses that pass as current sci-fi and which are grossly in vogue today. Unlike much of current sci-fi it speculates on mans past as well as his future. It also has something intelligent to say within the action as opposed to the hack and slash of some if the contemporary sci-fi dreck being shilled out these days. Many people are more familiar with the classic movie than the equally classic book. "2001" the book is just as great as the movie and certainly less ambiguous. It is not just a movie adaptation.
I think Hal is remembered too much. Maybe it's the movie's fault. He isn't the first threatening machine in sci-fi there was Robby the Robot from "Forbidden Planet" and that giant robot from "The Day The Earth Stood Still". And like those movies we remember the machine more. This is unfortunate for HAL has become this ingrained pop icon for malfunctioning computers that he overshadows the hero, Bowman. Bowman is one of the classic sci-fi heroes. He is on par with Rand's Roark, Heinlein's Valentine Michael Smith and Tolkien's Aragorn. He is Clarke's Ideal Man and an inspiration for our real lives. He has a lust for life that is unafraid, committed and with a thirst for knowledge. He takes control of his own destiny despite the deepening circumstances that surround him. He literally descends into the unknown without blinking. Like Bowman don't sit idly by depending on computers to do you're thinking take control of your own destiny. Hmm...sounds like something out of the "Matrix". Some people think Clarke wrote uninteresting and underdeveloped characters, I disagree, at least with Bowman. If you think sci-fi is for teenage boys this book will change your mind.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Towers Like A Monolith Above Current Sci-fi., July 1 2003
After 30 plus years this book says more in its 200 pages than much of the 600 page TOR opuses that pass as current sci-fi and which are grossly in vogue today. Unlike much of current sci-fi it speculates on mans past as well as his future. It also has something intelligent to say within the action as opposed to the hack and slash of some if the contemporary sci-fi dreck being shilled out these days. Many people are more familiar with the classic movie than the equally classic book. 2001 the book is just as great as the movie and certainly less ambiguous. It is not just a movie adaptation.
I think Hal is remembered too much. Maybe it's the movie's fault. He isn't the first threatening machine in sci-fi there was Robby the Robot from "Forbidden Planet" and that giant robot from "The Day The Earth Stood Still". And like those movies we remember the machine more. This is unfortunate for HAL has become this ingrained pop icon for malfunctioning computers that he overshadows the hero, Bowman. Bowman is one of the classic sci-fi heroes. He is on par with Rand's Roark, Heinlein's Valentine Michael Smith and Tolkien's Aragorn. He is Clarke's Ideal Man and an inspiration for our real lives. He has a lust for life that is unafraid, committed and with a thirst for knowledge. He takes control of his own destiny despite the deepening circumstances that surround him. He literally descends into the unknown without blinking. Like Bowman don't sit idly by depending on computers to do you're thinking take control of your own destiny. Hmm...sounds like something out of the "Matrix". Some people think Clarke wrote uninteresting and underdeveloped characters, I disagree, at least with Bowman. If you think sci-fi is for teenage boys this book will change your mind.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 222 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

2001 (LIBR. ED.) (6 CD'S)
2001 (LIBR. ED.) (6 CD'S) by Arthur C. Clarke (Audio CD - Sept. 12 2000)
CDN$ 68.95 CDN$ 43.44
Usually ships in 3 to 5 weeks
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews