I must admit that it does present an interesting idea. I think if the whole series would have been written with that ending in mind from the start it would have been better to me. As it is the series feels very incoherent with very little reason for the three sequels. I saw 2001 when it first came out so I have years of living with it as a stand-alone story.
@@telltalebooks that makes sense, yeah… But that’s one of the things I still love, about the world; we can both like different things, have differing opinions, and it’s ok… 🥰❤️ I’m very glad I found your channel 🙂
I've just read the saga, Halman was used to hack the monolith so that it didn't kill mankind. Where did you get the idea that everything was a computer simulation? You're wrong.
By "everything" I mean the trip Bowman took through the Stargate, which **SPOILERS** we now see was just Bowman being digitized into the computer that is the monoliths. He never went to the stars, never met the aliens. While this does update things to the emerging science of AI, it pulls the rug out of the beautiful philosophical meaning that some of us old guys saw in the original 2001. For younger readers Clarke’s idea here makes perfect sense. For me it destroys a cool Odyssey into the future of human evolution and a cool SF explanation of our origins and of God, and reduces it to an AI program. Very disappointing because I prefer the earlier non-computer explanation of 2001. HAL was originally thought to be a metaphor for how human civilization will go through a period where we allow our computers to take over too much and will become a danger to us. So the plug had to be pulled and civilization proceed to the ultimate evolution without our reliance on technology. Very much like in Dune and in Asimov’s Foundation series. But in 3001 it appears Clarke is showing us, in the form of Bowman, joining with the digital and losing our humanity forever. Okay, yes, the monoliths are still seen in the end as a threat to be stopped. I preferred the more metaphorical vision of 2001. Many people felt 2001 never needed any sequels. Everyone will come away from this series with different impressions and arguments will ensue. The sign of great literature?
@@telltalebooks Fortunately Arthur C. Clarke himself wrote in the preface to every sequel that these books are not direct sequels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and that they are variations on the subject, as taking place in alternate universes.
I read this when it came out and I remembered disliking it a lot and then I pretty much forgot what it was about. Thanks for reminding me how bad it was. I might just reread it to complete some research I'm doing. If I wrote it, it would be all about Dave and HAL Maybe THEY could find Frank and he and HAL could make amends. I just love HAL!
I don't understand the negativity. I t wasn't the best in the novels but its not that bad. I enjoyed it experiencing it through Frank Poole and Clarkes idea of the future. A request? will you read some from Stephen Baxter? I wouldn't calll what he wrote a "piece of crap"
Yeah, maybe I was a little stronger and dramatic in my criticism than I should been. I wanted to get across how clearly this departs from the original vision of 2001, which is one of my all-time favorites. I love the original ideas and I don’t care for how this book negates them. But as just an interesting SF novel it is good.
That's an incredible Channel, thanks for the amazing talk
You are welcome!
NGL _'3001: The Final Odyssey'_ is actually my favourite of the four *"Odyssey"* novels. 🤷🏻♀️
I must admit that it does present an interesting idea. I think if the whole series would have been written with that ending in mind from the start it would have been better to me. As it is the series feels very incoherent with very little reason for the three sequels. I saw 2001 when it first came out so I have years of living with it as a stand-alone story.
@@telltalebooks that makes sense, yeah…
But that’s one of the things I still love, about the world; we can both like different things, have differing opinions, and it’s ok… 🥰❤️
I’m very glad I found your channel 🙂
@@NostalgiaBrit thanks! Watch for more of Arthur C. Clarke.
I thought it was rubbish 🤔
I didn't know there were 4 books on this unbelievable saga
I have to catch up a lot ❤❤❤❤
Glad you guys share my opinion on this; just finished the book and I was quite disappointed with it.
Where was Heywood? Did I miss something? It was like he never existed.
In this book Heywood Floyd is long dead.
I've just read the saga, Halman was used to hack the monolith so that it didn't kill mankind. Where did you get the idea that everything was a computer simulation? You're wrong.
By "everything" I mean the trip Bowman took through the Stargate, which **SPOILERS** we now see was just Bowman being digitized into the computer that is the monoliths. He never went to the stars, never met the aliens. While this does update things to the emerging science of AI, it pulls the rug out of the beautiful philosophical meaning that some of us old guys saw in the original 2001. For younger readers Clarke’s idea here makes perfect sense. For me it destroys a cool Odyssey into the future of human evolution and a cool SF explanation of our origins and of God, and reduces it to an AI program. Very disappointing because I prefer the earlier non-computer explanation of 2001. HAL was originally thought to be a metaphor for how human civilization will go through a period where we allow our computers to take over too much and will become a danger to us. So the plug had to be pulled and civilization proceed to the ultimate evolution without our reliance on technology. Very much like in Dune and in Asimov’s Foundation series. But in 3001 it appears Clarke is showing us, in the form of Bowman, joining with the digital and losing our humanity forever. Okay, yes, the monoliths are still seen in the end as a threat to be stopped. I preferred the more metaphorical vision of 2001. Many people felt 2001 never needed any sequels. Everyone will come away from this series with different impressions and arguments will ensue. The sign of great literature?
@@telltalebooks Fortunately Arthur C. Clarke himself wrote in the preface to every sequel that these books are not direct sequels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and that they are variations on the subject, as taking place in alternate universes.
I read this when it came out and I remembered disliking it a lot and then I pretty much forgot what it was about. Thanks for reminding me how bad it was. I might just reread it to complete some research I'm doing. If I wrote it, it would be all about Dave and HAL Maybe THEY could find Frank and he and HAL could make amends. I just love HAL!
Agreed that the series took a different path from what some of us would have liked. I wanted to know more about the aliens that made the monoliths.
I don't understand the negativity. I t wasn't the best in the novels but its not that bad. I enjoyed it experiencing it through Frank Poole and Clarkes idea of the future. A request? will you read some from Stephen Baxter? I wouldn't calll what he wrote a "piece of crap"
We all see things a little different. Glad you liked the book. I would love to read something by Baxter.
Yeah, maybe I was a little stronger and dramatic in my criticism than I should been. I wanted to get across how clearly this departs from the original vision of 2001, which is one of my all-time favorites. I love the original ideas and I don’t care for how this book negates them. But as just an interesting SF novel it is good.
it's a piece of crap.
@@plasticweapon Why?
@@Brian-yk5kx because you have bad taste.