Just picked up the book today. Its weird, but I have never read it, but I did read the two later books.
Sort of surprised there hasn’t been more discussion so far. Although maybe everyone else, like me, is just slow getting to it. I was surprised to discover that, in Clarke’s text, [spoiler] the first monolith that shows up is transparent, and I don’t remember any of the crazy light show going on in the prehistoric segment of the film that goes on in the book. It makes sense and is gripping reading, though, and links in nicely with the light show at the end of the movie (and the book? – guess I’ll find out when I get there!) [/spoiler]
So, did anyone else read this? I did, and had a question about the ending:
[spoiler]
Do you all consider it optimistic or pessimistic? On the one hand, Bowman-as-Star-Child echoes Moonwatcher’s thoughts from the first part of the book – “Now he was master of his world, and he didn’t know what he would do, but he would think of something.” Moonwatcher, you’ll recall, thought that after he learned (courtesy of the first monolith) how to kill. Bowman has just exploded a nuclear device over the earth, implying that violence/killing is somehow integral to human evolution (a scary thought, that). On the other hand, maybe Bowman exploded the device so it would not cause any harm, and he is now free to lead the rest of his race toward evolution, as well?[/spoiler]
The later novels are no help because, as ACC said on many occasions, they are more variations on a theme than direct linear sequels. I like the ambiguity of the ending, don’t misunderstand, but I am curious as to what others on the forum thought.
Do we have a book for May?
I’ve just seen this thread.
I’m happy that you chose 2001 as Arthur C Clarke was one of the first Sci Fi authors I read, and I even chose my university on the basis that he took his degree there.
I just got this from the library… comments coming soon!
I finished this a while ago, but just found this thread. The ending is bizarre. I don’t get it at all. What was the point of the book - a comment on evolution?
Evolution is a common theme of 2001, and while a perfectly valid point for the book I think it’s something different. If I had to pick a single word to describe the point of 2001, I would pick transcendence. The ability to transcend beyond our preconceptions. HAL is a perfect example of the inability to transcend, while Bowman epitomizes this at the end by becoming the star child. What I see is Clarke saying “you can be great, you don’t need to be limited to the ideals and idiologies around you (this is a common theme for Clarke in his personal life), you can be more than the physical being that you are.”
I will buy this, but what do you make of the fact that Moon Watcher’s transcendence is linked to learning how to kill, and the fact that similar language is employed of the Star Child in the final pages of the book? “He was the Master of his world, and wasn’t sure what he would do next. But he would think of something.” The book struck me as possibly being a fairly pessimistic take on human evolution – i.e., we only advance as we learn to destroy. On the other hand, that seems prima facie so out of touch with what I thought was Clarke’s philosophy, it strikes me as not quite ringing true. Then again, the monolith intelligences can’t be quite benevolent if they accelerated our evolution by teaching us to kill…?
Thoughts?
You’ll remember that when the monolith begins, it’s clear and only changes color to black after Moon Watcher uses the tool to kill. The lesson trying to be taught was to use tools. Instead, Moon Watcher uses it as a weapon. The lesson isn’t that transcendance comes from learning to kill, but learning to use tools.
Ah. I will have to go back and look at that. But, as Spock says in Star Trek II, “It would explain a great many things.” 
Thanks for pointing out my misreading.
(In the movie, the monolith is always black, yes? I noticed the transparency when I read the book, but perhaps I ended up conflating the two after all.)
Correct. Just one of several differences between the movie and the book. Not as major a difference as going to Jupiter instead of Saturn.
In a sense, though, which planet the Discovery goes to is not as big a difference as the transparency or opaqueness (?) of the monolith. Because if the monolith only goes solid dark after Moon Watcher uses his newfound knowledge of tool manipulation to kill (murder?), then that is an important symbolic detail that really changes how I view the monolith-makers’ motivations.
Yeah.
I have to say that I liked the movie version better (I know, I know.) I was the price of advancement, which felt true.
You do make a valid point, but destination when we’re talkin about these distances is significant.
In 2001 we’re presented with a world were there is a living population in space. We have orbital stations that are manned by people who essentially live there. Same with the moon. It’s not stated, but it’s implied that mankind has viisted Mars. Now let’s take into account travel time. For the moon it’s a couple days. Mars is 9 months. 3 years to Jupiter. 6 years to Saturn.
You would think it would be logical to move progressively outward. Devoting 6 1/2 years to a Jupiter mission is big, but not as significant as devoting 13 years to a Saturn mission. To me, it would suspicious to go to Saturn first and would paint a very different picture of the personalities of Bowman and Poole. 12 years with only each other and a computer to talk to is significant.
An interesting article about A. C. Clarke’s dialogue with C. S. Lewis re: humanity’s place (or lack thereof) in outer space, especially relative to Clarke’s novel Childhood’s End:
Have to be registered. What’s with the email thingy? Is that accessible to anyone else?
Well it is a bit late, but here are my thoughts on the book.
First, I am glad I read it. I did not care for some of the descriptive writing, such as explaining how some of the technology works or looks, but overall, not a big hindrance for me.
Second, what I really liked, was some of the visual images I got of space and the planets. When I was a kid, I was obsessed with space photos. Specially ones of other planets and moons. and I would literally pour over them for hours, so this part of the book seemed really vivid to me.
Lastly, I liked how the whole book tied together, from beginning to end.
Thanks for picking this book, Chuck, otherwise, I might not ever read it.
I’m a bit late too. It’s been awhile since I read 2001, but I remember what struck me, was how it seemed that HAL exhibited more emotion than any of he human characters.