• Published a book you want to tell us about? Uploaded a YouTube video you want to share?

    Normally you'll need 100 posts to self-promote, but with an upgraded membership you can do so with your first post.

    Find out more here: Become a Supporting Member

2001 and the sequels (Arthur C Clarke)

Tabitha

Save Angel!
Joined
Jun 13, 2001
Messages
3,500
2001 and the sequels

For such an advanced mathematical mind, Arthur C Clarke doesn't half know how to spin an engrossing yarn.

I find it hard to give a balanced review of this series of books as I have read and re-read them so many times, add to this the fact that the movies (well, the Kubrick one anyway) are such a huge part of western pop culture, and it is difficult to remember exactly what happens in the book when images from the movie(s) pop unbidden into your head as 'memory aids'.

What did you think of this series? Did you think the emphasis on the cold war and its political effects on the exploration of space age the books too drastically?

What about the final book, 3001? What a departure from the previous three!

Comments and reviews are very welcome...
 

L. Arkwright

Vimes's stunt double
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
94
I love these books but unfortunatly 3001 just didnt cut it for me. It was more a documentry on what Clarkes visions of that time will be like (Which in its self isnt a bad thing) than continuing the saga. The first three had that someting special, that need to turn the page and urge to get to the end so that all would be revealed factor. I felt the last one was just an effort to close the door on this as it where. However I have no idea how old he is so maybe its a good thing that they have any closure at all. Oh my god that sounded so callous. It wasnt meant to be, after all he is one of my favourate authors and most sci fi fans have at least one of his titles
 

TomS

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
96
Old old thread, I know. But I just had to comment on this series from one of my favorite authors.

One thing in the series always stands out for me. I remember the first time I ever read 2010. I was on a bus trip and I was sitting in the bus station somewhere in northern Texas when I got to the "Descent into Jupiter" chapter. When I got to the end of that chapter, I literally laughed out loud. Heads turned but just kept on reading. "A diamond as big as the Earth." I guess it just took me by surprise. Love it!
 

SpanishMill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
65
I know... ancient thread...

I really enjoyed reading this series and now I'm into collecting the original 1st edition books....
 

megamaniac

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
20
3001 was indeed ACC's vision of the future more than a real book. Too many thoughts on religion and prisoners, etc.

Ok, so the Earth monolith was buried in Africa and _only_ discovered in 3001? aha, right.
And Frank Poole was brought back to life after 1000 years... ok, well, if a man could transform into a baby, sure why not.

2010 and 2061 I didnt like at all.
 

J-Sun

Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
4,889
Sounds like there's no consensus here at all. :) I remember liking 2001 and 2010 both as books and movies. Then I thought 2061 was pretty pointless. Directly contrary to some posts, it seemed to me like a mediocre book with the four digits slapped on it than an actual Space Odyssey. 3001 was actually much better than 2061 for me, but still nothing on the first couple and I agree with some that Clarke succumbed to his occasional problem with documentary vs. drama.
 

steve12553

The Enigma of Steel
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
1,292
Location
Moved my books to the deep south. I have a loft/li
Sounds like there's no consensus here at all. :) I remember liking 2001 and 2010 both as books and movies. Then I thought 2061 was pretty pointless. Directly contrary to some posts, it seemed to me like a mediocre book with the four digits slapped on it than an actual Space Odyssey. 3001 was actually much better than 2061 for me, but still nothing on the first couple and I agree with some that Clarke succumbed to his occasional problem with documentary vs. drama.
If I remember correctly, Clarke later commented on 2061 as being just a thrown together piece because his publisher wanted something or something along the line. I don't think he considered it canon, per se.
 

J-Sun

Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
4,889
If I remember correctly, Clarke later commented on 2061 as being just a thrown together piece because his publisher wanted something or something along the line. I don't think he considered it canon, per se.
Hm, interesting. I hadn't heard that, but it's exactly what it felt like to me, so I'm not surprised. Thanks for passing that on.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
14,330
I liked 2001 and 2010 , never had any desire to read the rest.
 
Top