A Dive-In to the SPACE ODYSSEY SERIES by Arthur C. Clarke
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- Books discussed (please note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Get it on Amazon: amzn.to/3V1Xn2b)
2010: Odyssey Two (Get it on Amazon: amzn.to/4dZNg6C)
2061: Odyssey Three (Get it on Amazon: amzn.to/3VgPc3n)
3001: The Final Odyssey (Get it on Amazon: amzn.to/4e2jnm6)
The Lost Worlds of 2001 (Get it on Amazon: amzn.to/3KkNcRq)
(Different edition of The Lost Worlds of 2001 on Amazon: amzn.to/3VjsLur)
Get the audio books if you prefer!
2001: A Space Odyssey (On Amazon: amzn.to/4bEWnrO)
2010: Odyssey Two (Could not find a link for the audiobook.)
2061: Odyssey Three (On Amazon: amzn.to/3yzNGQW
3001: The Final Odyssey (On Amazon: amzn.to/3V2cpVR)
#booktube
#booktuber
#sciencefiction
#scifi
#2001
#2001aspaceodyssey
#arthurcclarke
2001: I love it as a different animal from the movie.
2010: A really great hard SF space opera, under appreciated IMO. Hell of an ending!
2061: Was bored by most of this.
3001: I thought this was unnecessary. And what a terrible ending!
I liked certain parts of 3001 a lot but did feel the ending was a little mundane.
I really love 2001 and 2010, I like 2061, and there were some good things in 3001 but it’s nothing exceptional.
I first saw 2010 in the 80s when I was twelve, and didn’t see 2001 until several years later. But I was hooked on Clarke and science fiction in general after seeing 2010.
I still haven't seen the 2010 movie, alas. One of these days, when I have time...
Thanks for review of these books. I've only seen the film version of 2001 and 2010, and I read the book 2001. Just a few comments:
1. People still make the mistake of saying that the film is based on the book. If anything, the idea for the film starts with the short story "The Sentinel". The book 2001 is based on the film, but Kubrick was mischievous. He invited Clarke to the studio to watch scenes being recorded that were never in the final cut of the film.
2. There's no denying that Kubrick was a visual and film genius. 2001 is brilliant. I don't see why Peter Hyams agreed to make film of 2010. It would have been fine just on its own, no need to burden it by linking it with one of the greatest visually stunning films.
3. Even though I agree that 2001 is visually stunning, it is so wrong about the past and the future. It is silly that pre-historic mammals can touch an alien object, and instantly learn to use "bones as tools, and as weapons"!! Whereas millions of years of evolution, mammals did not know about tools! Also, touching the alien object, converted these mammals from herbivore into carnivores, within a few hours!! Hard to believe.
4. And last point... his image of a stewardess walking in a circle, and upside-down, is totally wrong (although very beautiful to watch). Just have a look at any modern astronauts... they float. And they never walk in a circle like in 2001.
Awesome video, thanks for posting !
You're welcome!
I've recently read through this series, too! I didn't much like 2001, but I liked the later books. Rendezvous with Rama is my favourite Clarke, though!
Interesting. Did you like the movie?
@@inerdius Yeah, it was pretty good! I read the book first as I hadn't seen it before.
@@danecobain That's interesting. I wonder how many people read the book first. I always assumed most people saw the movie first, and then read the novel to figure out just what the heck it all meant.
@@inerdius I read the book, watched the movie, then consulted Wikipedia to figure out what the heck it all meant :D
Rama (1, the others don't exist lol) it's perhpa one of the best books I've ever read
3001 felt so anti-climactic. The story just didn't do anything for me; and I actually reread that book only a couple years ago. There were so many rudimentary things that are talked about and the ending was........meh. The first two books are pretty good, but to be honest, it has been decades since I read 2061: Odyssey 3. Both movies are pretty good, but I will probably always prefer the first movie better. It is an interesting series, but I think these will always be more remembered for the movies, as opposed to being remembered as a book series. My favorite book is Odyssey Two, though I still don't understand why they added "The Year We Make Contact" to the movie. Thanks for this!
Yes, 2001 the movie is definitely the thing that makes these books even worth considering. With the movie, there's nothing.
NEVER---EVER---show the magician behind the curtain!
I feel like Clarke was just a great one-off sci-fi writer, but he never really wrote a series that hit the mark. Every "2001" sequel was less necessary than the prior one, and "2010" was wholly unnecessary. I got out to "2061" and stopped, but I will say the "Rendezvous with Rama" sequels are far worse and largely undermine the overall point of "Rendezvous With Rama".
On the whole, I would agree with that, and assert that the same applied to Heinlein (luckily he never really attempted to write a series, per se) and most other sci-fi writers. There are plenty of exceptions, of course!
Finding out the actual form of the Sentinels in 3001 was a BIG MISTAKE! I lost all interest when Clarke just threw away the concept and gave it form, destroying all that mystique this series had built up. Stephen Baxter does this better by explaining how the XEELEE were formed but that's it---we never really meet them on a fathomable capacity, because they're beyond us---beyond the baryonic universe, in fact. In 3001 it's like, oh, so that's that then, oh, Bowman and Floyd and HAL are just digital info after all, eh? Very, very disappointing; I'd NEVER read the lowest book of all, which probably explores (exploits) every damn recess of the concept we really don't need to know
@TrainingtoThrive-x5m Baxter was writing stuff more ambitious than Space Odyssey and Three Body Problem decades ago, with the Xeelee sequence; I don't know why he isn't more popular. He's successful, but why isn't he a household name? Never red anything as mind bending--my mind is still bent from his concepts.
@@markpaterson2053 Well now I REALLY need to read his stuff. I'll see what I already own; I think at least one of his early novels is down in my stack of sci-fi books.
@@markpaterson2053 BTW, that UA-cam handle for me, "TrainingtoThrive" is due to me experimenting with possibly starting a second channel, which I ultimately have decided not to do.
After 2001 and 2010 I'm out. Everything after that kinda sucks the hope out of the story. Clarke is great at making nihilism look naive and optimistic. One of his weird talents i guess.. 2061 doesn't add much and needs way more HAL and 3001 was just Clarke rewriting stuff from the first 3 and preaching a lot, trying to make eugenics look cool and nullifying everything that went before. PS: See 2010. It's great!
I really do plan to see 2010 at some point, I swear!