The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Welcome to the discussion from the era 1960-1979 of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke. Originally published half a century ago, in 1968, it spawned a famous movie and several sequels. It should be easy to find in libraries.

Who has either never read it or does not remember it?

Has anybody never seen the movie"

Have any of you read the short story, The Sentinel?

Have any of you read any of the sequels?

Please remember to use spoiler tags, especially for the first half of the month!

I, for one, have very little familiarity with it or any part of the franchise. I saw the movie when younger and I just didn't get it.

I saw the movie. Never read the novel or the short story.

I'm looking forward to this classic.

Of course I saw the movie, many years ago. I never read the book, but started it now and just finished 2 days ago. In my recollection, the movie was much more about HAL than the book is. I remember the movie being hard to follow at times. To my surprise, the book is more easier. It was a pleasure to read. I will try to pick up the sequels this month.

I read the book earlier this year and enjoyed it. It is easier to understand than the movie, but the visual sequences and sound track of the movie are outstanding.

The short story "The Sentinel" was published in the early 50s, the movie premiered in 1968, & the book was based on the screenplay.

The movie rocked my world & that of a lot of people at the time. I first saw it at the World's Fair in San Antonio, TX on what was supposed to be one of the largest screens of the time with my father who was an SF nut. I was 9 & totally awed by it. We'd always watched SF movies together, but the special effects of this film were far beyond the 50s B movies.

It's important to remember the times when considering the impact of this movie. JFK had committed us to landing on the moon in a decade & we were getting there. Everyone, even my mother, was following it. We watched some launches on TV in the classroom & it was a very rare treat to even see a TV there.

The US (world?) was a mess. Even at my age then, I knew it. JFK had been assassinated. Just months before this movie came out, MLK & Bobby Kennedy were killed. Civil & Women's Rights rallies were clashing with the 1950s conservatives in charge. Woodstock was a year off & the Kent State shootings were only 2 years away. Global nuclear annihilation was ever present & we'd finally quit doing drills by hiding under our desks because it was obviously no use. It was a really grim time. We all knew it, even normally oblivious kids.

Then this movie came out & made space seem possible. It was sheer class, absolutely stunning & hopeful. It really hit hard & well.

I finished the book a month ago, but yet to watch the movie. I liked it very much even despite there were several places, where my suspension of disbelief failed me. For example, (view spoiler)[apes easily shifting from vegetarian diet to meat - it needs much more that the ability to kill the prey. (hide spoiler)]I like the current hypothesis that pre-human niche was second-stage scavengers, which means that they had to split large bones for which you need tools.

(view spoiler)[The idea of artifact on the Moon is great as is its description. If I planned to leave a sign to other species, which can achieve sentience in a few million years, I'd use something geologically stable, with no sediments or earthquakes (hide spoiler)]

The movie is really slow compared to movies today. There are a lot of very long space scenes that played well at the time. I found them pretty boring last time I watched it, though.

Someone once said "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is Twelve".

Well, I read this when I was around 12. The book was about the same age. I loved it, but don't think I want to re-read it now.

When I first saw the movie, at about 17, I found it intolerably slow in the first act. I still do. But if you skip the first act, it is great. And I love the use of Ligeti's music in the colorful trip through the, um, whatever it was.


* Peter Graham originally wrote "The Golden Age of science fiction is twelve" in *Void* around 1957. That may have been the first use of that phrase, but I'm not sure, and it has been repeated by others.

Cheryl wrote: "Who has either never read it or does not remember it?

Has anybody never seen the movie"

Have any of you read the short story, The Sentinel?

Have any of you read any of the sequels?"

I've read this book several times (at least three) so I won't re-read it again this month. I've seen the movie several times. It's worth noting that the book and the movie were written at the same time, and Stanley Kubrick wasn't always forthcoming with Clarke about what he was doing in the film which led to some notable discrepancies between the book and the movie. The movie is a classic also and a great companion piece to the book. There are some great film analysis pieces on You Tube that discuss the movie in great detail, as well as some discussions of whether or not Stanley Kubrick was involved in faking the footage of the moon landings (there are scenes in Kubrick's The Shining that also fuel the conspiracy theorists). The short story The Sentinel is also well worth reading as is most of Clarke's short fiction.

The sequels are a mixed bag. 2010 is well worth it, as is the movie, but the others aren't very good. 2061 was written to cash in on the Halley's Comet excitement of 1986 (actually the worst viewing conditions of the last 2000 years per Wikipedia) and 3001 was bland.

Welp. I read the large print edition, including the introduction, in which ACC lauds himself, and also mentions that he consulted Asimov on "the biochemistry of turning vegetarians into carnivores." What? I mean, Asimov was a smart guy, w/ a degree in biochemistry, but consulting a person actually working in the field might have been a better move.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't saying that "the very atoms of [Moon-watchers'] simple brain were being twisted into new patterns. If he survived, those patterns would become eternal, for his genes would pass them on to future generations" so much bs? Unless Clarke is actually saying that the external influence is altering the DNA itself, in which case it's not 'the simple brain' that is relevant...

Anyway.
So, beyond the history and to the speculation. Bleh. A little bit of 'Sense of Wonder' that probably comes through better in the movie. No 'What If' because no development. Just an odd sort of world-building and reportage of events.

I've got to concede, I'm just not a fan of Clarke's longer works. I'm still planning to reread A Fall of Moondust but I am afraid I might not like it as much as I remember.

Given Asimov's writing career, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his advice on any subject. He had enough expertise to write a book in almost every section of the Dewey Decimal system. I've read several far outside his field that were very well done.

I think Clarke was going for the racial memory thing. It's never been something that's grabbed me, although I've read a few articles recently that are intriguing about 'learned' behaviors that are passed along at a genetic level. It's a lot more complex & lower level than the 'memory RNA' theories that came out in the 60s, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_RNA
I wonder if that debunked hypothesis was what he was basing this on. Felt that way to me.

I don't dismiss Asimov as a resource; I just don't think he'd be the go-to expert for a fine point like that.

Anyway, racial memory, yeah, that was supposedly a thing, eh. I have yet to be convinced that there's anything there... but it does sometimes seem like there could be so I remain open-minded. As with Susan Blackmore's memes, if only we could define a mechanism....

Cheryl wrote: "I've got to concede, I'm just not a fan of Clarke's longer works...."

Amen. This one and Childhood's End are his best. His short stories are terrific though.

I've always liked his short stories the best.

I started it. I'm at 28%. French version translated in 1968. Simple and enjoyable so far.

Which collection of short stories by Clarke would you recommand?

The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke has a good rating, indeed better than any of his novels. I still have to read Childhood's End and Rendezvous with Rama, but I must admit I was disappointed by some other novels that I read from him. 2001 Was a pleasant surprise for me.

Go with Leo's recommendation. I cut my teeth on Clarke & that was quite a few years ago. I've always enjoyed his stories in various anthologies, but couldn't name any off hand.

I liked Childhood's End, but last time I read it, I found I liked various elements more than the story overall.

Jim wrote: "Go with Leo's recommendation. I cut my teeth on Clarke & that was quite a few years ago. I've always enjoyed his stories in various anthologies, but couldn't name any off hand.

One Clarke anthology that has stuck in my mind for years is his Tales from the White Hart. The framework of the anthology is that each story is being told by narrators in the titular English pub.

Michael wrote: "One Clarke anthology that has stuck in my mind for years is his Tales from the White Hart..."
That's great. I have a copy of this one and wondered what it was like. Because it has a very non-sf illustration on the cover. I'll put it on my list, thanks.

Marc-André wrote: "Which collection of short stories by Clarke would you recommand?"

The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke has got just about all of his stories, missing only about six I believe. It will keep you busy for a while at just under 1000 pages. For something shorter, I always liked The Nine Billion Names of God or The Wind From the Sun. It's been a while since I read Tales from the White Hart but I remember enjoying it also.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll had The Collected Stories it to my queue.

I've finished 2001. Not bad, but I didn't get a wow factor. Gave it 3 stars. My favorite Clarke still remains Rendezvous with Rama. Awesome stuff that exploration of the alien generation ship.

I also have read The Fountains of Paradise and Childhood's End. Neither gripped me all that much. Fountains because the main character is so badly writen, and Children because the story is of humans becoming a disembodied group mind is more a spiritual thing than actual science. I guess this is why 2001 didn't move me more, because it is a spiritual journey more than science (and again about disembodied minds. Which reminds me why I didn't like Stranger in a Strange Land.

Aliens sure seem to play a big role in Clarke bibliography. Well, at least in the four novels I read by him.

So, this book. Obviously very influential. For just one reason, it got some people to understand that SF is more than genre pulp and that it can be taken seriously by artists.

In what specific ways do you note that it influenced the evolution or development of the genre?

The film seems more influencial than the novel.

Hm. I think I agree. In what way(s) would you suggest that's so?

The book makes many top 100 science fiction novel lists of all time. The film makes just as many top 100 films of all time lists. I'd say each was equally influential.

Do any authors (or filmmakers) take inspiration from 2001, do you think? Do we see anything in works created since then that we may not have, had Clarke and Kubrick not had so much success with these?

Cheryl wrote: "Do any authors (or filmmakers) take inspiration from 2001, do you think? Do we see anything in works created since then that we may not have, had Clarke and Kubrick not had so much success with these?"

I think that 2001: A Space Odyssey had a bad influence on the first Star Trek movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The first Star Trek movie was called by the late Gardner Dozois, Star Trek: The Motionless Picture. It tried to be "profound" but was slow going.

Cheryl wrote: "Do any authors (or filmmakers) take inspiration from 2001, do you think? Do we see anything in works created since then that we may not have, had Clarke and Kubrick not had so much success with these?"

Of course! This question has been written on extensively:

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/20...

https://www.vulture.com/2018/04/how-2...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xy...

Information about Clarke's novel's influence on science fiction is harder to trace, but here's my favorite article on the topic followed by the most relevant paragraph from that article:

http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/...

The 1980s and after provided an astonishing coda to all of this. These decades were – in terms of the number of books appearing with his name on the cover – unexpectedly productive, unexpectedly because Clarke was well into his sixties, and had previously announced that Fountains of Paradise would be his last work of fiction. However, soon there appeared 2010: Odyssey Two (1982), a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey (see above) which, where the first novel and film differ, follows the film. This was made into a film directed by Peter Hyams, 2010 (1984). Neither book nor film is as distinguished as the original, but the book is better than the film. It was followed by 2061: Odyssey Three (1988), whose open-endedness correctly suggested that the Odyssey saga of alien intervention might not yet be complete; 3001: The Final Odyssey (1997) – though it declaredly puts finis to the sequence, giving a resurrected astronaut Frank Poole a guided tour of the new world he has helped to create – was itself followed, very tangentially, by the A Time Odyssey sequence comprising Time's Eye (2004) (a geographical Timeslip story), Sunstorm (2005) and Firstborn (2007), all as by Clarke and Stephen Baxter. These novels present an Alternate History version of the 2001 Forerunners who in the original book and film kick-started human Evolution via the famous black monolith but are here determined to eliminate us. The trilogy reworks themes central to both authors. A little earlier Clarke had published The Songs of Distant Earth (June 1958 If; much exp 1986), which also derives the film scenario, also published as "The Songs of Distant Earth" (September 1981 Omni); the tale quietly and without much action recounts the meeting of an isolated human colony on a remote planet with one of the last Spaceships to leave a doomed Earth, and the cultural clashes that follow.

Well, I was more interested in discussing what members here actually notice and appreciate, but of course outside documentation is also relevant. Thank you.

I recently read and loved the fantasy (and horror?) book The Library at Mount Char. A section near the end has a solo man being housed in a luxurious penthouse that has been removed from Earth. That feels to me definitely like a reference to 2001.

I've watched a few youtoob videos on the making of the movie. It is really amazing how many 1000s of people are involved in making a film like that. No doubt they learned and applied things to later works.

Didn't the movie use some new techniques that were later used in other films? I seem to recall something about how space was portrayed from then on. I think "Silent Running" was mentioned as owing it a lot. That's an early 70s movie starring Bruce Dern which had 3 robots (Huey, Dewey, & Louie) to whom R2D2 owes much.

Arthur C. Clarke's novel's influence is proving hard for me to trace. I thought it highly influential, yet I haven't been able to find anyone directly writing about that.

Did you know Keir Dullea, the actor who played astronaut David Bowman in the film, is still alive although more than fifty years has passed? (That character name is a riff on rock legend David Bowie's name, right? Oh yeah. Here it is: https://www.moshcam.com/articles/3631...) Keir Dullea was also in a three hour 1980 TV movie based on Huxley's book Brave New World. Wouldn't that movie be something to see if it were still accessible? Oh! Just found it for free on youtube. It was a BBC video.

Dan wrote: "Did you know Keir Dullea, the actor who played astronaut David Bowman in the film, is still alive although more than fifty years has passed?..."

Yes I did. And I am also still alive after 50 years, though I was considerably younger than him when the film was made.

Saw him on a recent video Q&A panel talking about 2001. While he no longer remembers what he was saying in the scene where HAL reads his lips, he remembers perfectly the text of a scene that was cut from the film. It was a scene where he was docking one ship into another and the text was all technical navigation instructions. He had to spend so much time memorizing it that he has never forgotten it.

Cheryl wrote: "Hm. I think I agree. In what way(s) would you suggest that's so?"

The visuals and the music seems to have inspired other film makers. Like how in Star Wars, when the Millenium Falcon goes into hyperspace (or whatever) and we see stars become white lines. That reminded me of the astronaut in 2001 who goes into the wormhole.

Oh, yeah, I remember that... good one!

Ronald wrote: "I think that 2001: A Space Odyssey had a bad influence on the first Star Trek movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture...."

Good point. The first Star Trek film tried awfully hard to be profound and failed pretty miserably. The film series struck gold when they became more action-oriented with The Wrath of Khan.