Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 Series

[SmileOfTheShadow]

Since this has come up in a couple posts over on the bab 5 forums because of the movie spacesuits...I want to discuss this, but rather, the books.

When I was a kid, the first sci-fi book I read was one of the Star Trek novels...I forget which one, but it involved Sulu's daughter showing up and it was post Star Trek 6. It got me hooked enough to start reading Trek novels.

Then 3001 came out. I saw it on the stands and I had heard of 2001 and all of that, but never thought about them much (being a kid). I know this is considered the least of the series, but I really thought his vision of mankind at that time was very interesting. He also had a lot of criticism for "ripping off" Independence Day by foiling the aliens by means of a computer virus, but he did write an assurance that he wrote that before the movie came out..I don't know. I don't think Arthur C. Clarke would just rip off a movie like that.

Anyway, I thought this was an excellent book, and it encouraged me to read the other 2001 novels in successive order, which then made the last one that much more fulfilling once I understood the references. From there I read a couple of his other series, which I also found very good. And that was it. I was hooked on hard sci-fi.

Now in discussion of "the greats of science fiction" I always hear Asimov, Heinlein mentioned, but Clarke's name not as much, and I'm wondering why that is? He came up with a lot of really cool concepts..and isn't it very much because of him that the communication satellite came about?

Feel free to post your thoughts on these books. I think 2010 and 3001 were my favorites of them. Maybe 3001 for sentimental value.

[Lunan]

Since this has come up in a couple posts over on the bab 5 forums because of the movie spacesuits...I want to discuss this, but rather, the books.

When I was a kid, the first sci-fi book I read was one of the Star Trek novels...I forget which one, but it involved Sulu's daughter showing up and it was post Star Trek 6. It got me hooked enough to start reading Trek novels.

Then 3001 came out. I saw it on the stands and I had heard of 2001 and all of that, but never thought about them much (being a kid). I know this is considered the least of the series, but I really thought his vision of mankind at that time was very interesting. He also had a lot of criticism for "ripping off" Independence Day by foiling the aliens by means of a computer virus, but he did write an assurance that he wrote that before the movie came out..I don't know. I don't think Arthur C. Clarke would just rip off a movie like that.

Anyway, I thought this was an excellent book, and it encouraged me to read the other 2001 novels in successive order, which then made the last one that much more fulfilling once I understood the references. From there I read a couple of his other series, which I also found very good. And that was it. I was hooked on hard sci-fi.

Now in discussion of "the greats of science fiction" I always hear Asimov, Heinlein mentioned, but Clarke's name not as much, and I'm wondering why that is? He came up with a lot of really cool concepts..and isn't it very much because of him that the communication satellite came about?

Feel free to post your thoughts on these books. I think 2010 and 3001 were my favorites of them. Maybe 3001 for sentimental value.

the main reason clarke's name isn't thrown with azimov and heinlein is that clarke is a much dryer writer. he is of the big three but heinlein and azimov wrote stories that appealed to many more people because of the way they are written. from a more human point of view clarke is often thought of as a much more "traditional" hard SF writer. most of his books have dazzling concepts and great science but fairly weak chars. Rama, 2001, and some of his shorts like the tales from the white heart are the exception

[Harrdy]

For me personal growth has much to do with what kind of SciFi I enjoy. While going to school I digged Perry Rhodan (a german SciFi "Space Opera" series), and cheap books, mostly collections of short stories, also Star Trek Stories (I only come out of that closet because you told first *g*). Then I read "Dune" from Herbert, and I had a hard time reading (at that time). But it was much more than I encountered prior. I started with the "classics", like Foundation or 2001. At that time I couldn't understand 2001, that came later. I was on the wave of "Space Opera", and there is a lot to read... when you like Star Trek you like most Space Opera, I'd guess. Later still I read 2001 the second time and really enjoyed it, that was after school, when I started working. I am an engineer, and so I really liked the "down to earth" way of the book.

The other books I enjoyed in a similar way (meaning I learned something while reading) are "The Forever War" (Joe Haldeman) which gives IMHO Starship Troopers a hard time and "Solaris" (Stanisław Lem) which shows our prejudices when we think "aliens" (like Star Trek, one facial extension and voila: Alien).

But I also like the collection of Robot Stories and Foundation Cycle by Isaac Asimov, which was available once. They are just more "entertainment" (and more Space Opera, still like it *g*) than the prior mentioned. And the robot stories where my first entry in "thoughts about personality" which got expanded by "Ghost in the Shell" and "Texhnolyze" lately... (both movies/series)

PeAcE

[cornholio1980]

I always enjoyed 2001, even if I like the movie more (which isn't hard since thats one of my all-time favorites). 2010 is a very different story, but still very good. 2051 was very interesting, but not as compelling and unique as the other two. And 3001 was just plain awful. Not as a novel per se, since the vision of the future that Clarke presented there was rather interesting (and chilling), but it had absolutely nothing to do with the monoliths, except for some 10 pages at the end, which seemed to me to have been thrown in by him as an excuse to release that story within the 2001-continuity. Very disappointing...

[MarkG]

Now in discussion of "the greats of science fiction" I always hear Asimov, Heinlein mentioned, but Clarke's name not as much, and I'm wondering why that is?

IMHO it's largely because Clarke was much better writing ideas than people; his stories often seemed to be just something to hang his ideas from. Also he's not American and didn't live in America .

I would say that many of his stories have dated much more than a lot of his contemporaries; I read 'The Stars My Destination' a while ago and was amazed that it had been written in the 50s because it felt more like a 'cyberpunk' novel of the 90s; the main things which dated it were the references to big corporations of the 50s which are no longer anywhere near as famous or powerful even if they exist. Many of Clarke's stories of that era, on the other hand, are dated both by the characters and the fact that his attempts at more 'hard SF' have fallen to later scientific discoveries; for example, his stories set on Mars expected a much thicker atmosphere than it actually turned out to have.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

IMHO it's largely because Clarke was much better writing ideas than people; his stories often seemed to be just something to hang his ideas from. Also he's not American and didn't live in America .

I would say that many of his stories have dated much more than a lot of his contemporaries; I read 'The Stars My Destination' a while ago and was amazed that it had been written in the 50s because it felt more like a 'cyberpunk' novel of the 90s; the main things which dated it were the references to big corporations of the 50s which are no longer anywhere near as famous or powerful even if they exist. Many of Clarke's stories of that era, on the other hand, are dated both by the characters and the fact that his attempts at more 'hard SF' have fallen to later scientific discoveries; for example, his stories set on Mars expected a much thicker atmosphere than it actually turned out to have.

That pinpoints it. The stories definitely are more about the ideas and it feels like the characters and plots really come second. Which is kind of fun because he presents a lot of very interesting concepts. It's a bummer when things don't quite pan out right for the SF writers of the early SF days

[WorkerCaste]

It's rather interesting to me that Clarke was actually the one of the "big three" that I started with. I'd agree, though, that Clarke's ideas are generally bigger than his characters. I think that's an astute observation. It never occured to me, though, that Clarke was less well known in some circles than Heinlein and Asimov. BTW, Asimov became my favorite when I heard him speak once. This was around '80 or '81 and he is a truly entertaining speaker. His talk was about the future of space exploration so he didn't deal with his books much, but he did mention both Heinlein and Clarke at one point when he was talking about having waited for Clarke to retire and Heinlein to produce his last, greatest work on the state of mankind. He didn't want competition. He then went on to say that as soon as he was committed to his new novel, Clarke announced he was coming out of retirement and Heinlein had announced that he was penning his next, last, greatest work on the state of mankind. The guy was a real hoot.

[Lunan]

It's rather interesting to me that Clarke was actually the one of the "big three" that I started with. I'd agree, though, that Clarke's ideas are generally bigger than his characters. I think that's an astute observation. It never occured to me, though, that Clarke was less well known in some circles than Heinlein and Asimov. BTW, Asimov became my favorite when I heard him speak once. This was around '80 or '81 and he is a truly entertaining speaker. His talk was about the future of space exploration so he didn't deal with his books much, but he did mention both Heinlein and Clarke at one point when he was talking about having waited for Clarke to retire and Heinlein to produce his last, greatest work on the state of mankind. He didn't want competition. He then went on to say that as soon as he was committed to his new novel, Clarke announced he was coming out of retirement and Heinlein had announced that he was penning his next, last, greatest work on the state of mankind. The guy was a real hoot.

i do have to admit that some of heinleins later works are some of his best. i happen to think JOB: a comedy of justice is one of the finest comentaries on human existance i have read. Time enough for love is rather amazing as well. friday is fun and the cat who walked thru walls is also notable

i still maintain the Moon is a Harsh Mistress is his best work though

[Whyruss]

I read 2001, 2010, 2063 (or is it 64?!), 3001 and The Last Generation. He's definitely one of my most fav. sci-fi writers (although 2063 and 3001 aren't as great as the other 3)

[babylonlurker]

I was around when "2001" premiered and saw the movie before reading the book. That certainly helped appreciate the final part of the book much better. the others 2010, 2061 and 3001 I consider inferior to 2002 .

I still consider Clarke as one of the great scifi authors, though there may be some truth in the (not so good) character development.

Personally I can go for hard scifi and fantasy alike, leaning more to myth based stories by now. To me, B5 is, of course, a *great* mythical story.

[ZenoParadoxus]

I saw 2001 in a large theater that was set up to show Earthquake next. So I saw it in 70mm/6 track with a Sensurround(TM) sound system! It was as close to a religious experience as I have ever experienced. That's the same theater I saw all three Star Wars in, also in 70mm; sadly, that screen was split into a triplex later, so that experience is lost forever.

Zeno

[SmileOfTheShadow]

I read 2001, 2010, 2063 (or is it 64?!), 3001 and The Last Generation. He's definitely one of my most fav. sci-fi writers (although 2063 and 3001 aren't as great as the other 3)

Wait..I've never heard of this "The Last Generation" it's part of the series?

[Lunan]

google search says no such thing