Scan barcode
ritikk's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
jeffscott's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
2.0
alf_read's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
I was disappointed by how easily they defeat HAL 9000. This book has some of the most surreal visuals from the neolithic primates to the dark monolith to the space baby. The ideas are all there but I did find the execution somewhat lacking.
jo123br's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.75
tayvesyp's review
4.0
amazing sci-fi dealing with very huge existential issues, dealing with technology and humans relationship with it but without the aliens and lazer beams. i recommend it.
sebbyroth's review against another edition
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.0
katiescho741's review against another edition
4.0
This book made me fee insignificant, and slightly shocked at humanity's feeble attempts at space travel! Why don't we have a city on the moon yet? And why can't we travel to Saturn?
Essentially, this book is about aliens contacting humanity throughout time, but it's beautiful and enigmatic and such a sci fi classic.
I always encourage people who have watched the film to read the book too because it gives a much clearer idea of the "Stargate" section and what it all means (when he enters the TMA2 in the film).
This book is subtle and wonderful.
Essentially, this book is about aliens contacting humanity throughout time, but it's beautiful and enigmatic and such a sci fi classic.
I always encourage people who have watched the film to read the book too because it gives a much clearer idea of the "Stargate" section and what it all means (when he enters the TMA2 in the film).
This book is subtle and wonderful.
deep_in_the_reads's review
2.0
Arthur Clarke’s novel has one of the most unorthodox production histories that I know of. Space Odyssey was developed simultaneously as film and novel, largely under Stanley Kubrick’s direction. Kubrick said: “It was an unprecedented situation for someone to do an essentially original literary work based on glimpses and segments of a film (Clarke) had not yet seen in its entirety.” Clarke wrote: “I had the strange experience of revising the manuscript after viewing rushes based upon an earlier version of the story.” Clarke was sometimes frustrated by this, at one point saying he felt like “quite a minor cog in the works.” Knowing that Space Odyssey was conceived primarily as a film goes some way to explaining why the book feels oddly shallow.
Every medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. The novel format has its own advantages. Internal monologue could have made the nearly-robotic characters of the film much more complex, making the story much more personal. Skillful prose could have brought a different artistry to the material. Unfortunately, Clarke doesn’t often take advantage of his medium. Though he does a decent job novel-ifying the lead primate in the Dawn of Man section, he makes little attempt to apply this treatment to the humans, aside from the occasional half-hearted anecdote from a character’s past. His prose is flat and utilitarian. When comparing the film and book versions of the story, Clarke’s shortcomings are thrown into starker relief.
The enigmatic, multi-sensory experience of Kubrick’s version plays strongly to the inherent qualities of film—sequences that are visually arresting and ethereal on screen are badly hampered when translated to Clarke’s exposition-heavy prose. In addition to spoon-feeding the audience, he’s also very literal in his thinking, which robs a lot of scenes of their magic. The mind-bending finale is downgraded to a high-tech parking lot in Clarke’s treatment; HAL9000’s motivations are explicitly and repeatedly stated, and the visceral sense of dread that builds throughout the film is totally absent. The book also feels quite shallow compared to the film, stripping most of Kubrick’s multi-layered meanings in favour of obvious allusions to Homer’s Odyssey. The references to the Cold-War tensions of the space race are preserved, but are made much more overt. All this makes Clarke’s version seem like one of those cheap film novelizations that used to come out on the heels of major movie releases. The one advantage to Clarke’s version is that it expounds on the hard science involved in some scenes, even describing a space flight path which uses the gravity of passing planets to ‘slingshot’ the ship—a technique which was theoretical when the book came out, but which is now commonly used in NASA’s missions. I also enjoy some of his descriptions of inter-planetary travel. Despite the book’s shortcomings, the brilliant core concept of Space Odyssey shines through, so it’s still engaging in that sense. It just feels like a pale shadow next to the movie.
Reading about Clarke’s attitude to the Kubrick collaboration, you come away with the sense that Clarke felt somewhat hamstrung while working on the novel. Because he wasn’t writing in ideal conditions (and because I have a clear bias towards Kubrick), I won’t write him off as an author. It appears that few Clarke fans consider Space Odyssey to be his best work (“Childhood’s End” and “Songs of Distant Earth” seem to be his hits), so I plan on seeking out something else by him eventually.
Every medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. The novel format has its own advantages. Internal monologue could have made the nearly-robotic characters of the film much more complex, making the story much more personal. Skillful prose could have brought a different artistry to the material. Unfortunately, Clarke doesn’t often take advantage of his medium. Though he does a decent job novel-ifying the lead primate in the Dawn of Man section, he makes little attempt to apply this treatment to the humans, aside from the occasional half-hearted anecdote from a character’s past. His prose is flat and utilitarian. When comparing the film and book versions of the story, Clarke’s shortcomings are thrown into starker relief.
The enigmatic, multi-sensory experience of Kubrick’s version plays strongly to the inherent qualities of film—sequences that are visually arresting and ethereal on screen are badly hampered when translated to Clarke’s exposition-heavy prose. In addition to spoon-feeding the audience, he’s also very literal in his thinking, which robs a lot of scenes of their magic. The mind-bending finale is downgraded to a high-tech parking lot in Clarke’s treatment; HAL9000’s motivations are explicitly and repeatedly stated, and the visceral sense of dread that builds throughout the film is totally absent. The book also feels quite shallow compared to the film, stripping most of Kubrick’s multi-layered meanings in favour of obvious allusions to Homer’s Odyssey. The references to the Cold-War tensions of the space race are preserved, but are made much more overt. All this makes Clarke’s version seem like one of those cheap film novelizations that used to come out on the heels of major movie releases. The one advantage to Clarke’s version is that it expounds on the hard science involved in some scenes, even describing a space flight path which uses the gravity of passing planets to ‘slingshot’ the ship—a technique which was theoretical when the book came out, but which is now commonly used in NASA’s missions. I also enjoy some of his descriptions of inter-planetary travel. Despite the book’s shortcomings, the brilliant core concept of Space Odyssey shines through, so it’s still engaging in that sense. It just feels like a pale shadow next to the movie.
Reading about Clarke’s attitude to the Kubrick collaboration, you come away with the sense that Clarke felt somewhat hamstrung while working on the novel. Because he wasn’t writing in ideal conditions (and because I have a clear bias towards Kubrick), I won’t write him off as an author. It appears that few Clarke fans consider Space Odyssey to be his best work (“Childhood’s End” and “Songs of Distant Earth” seem to be his hits), so I plan on seeking out something else by him eventually.