Sign in with Facebook
Sean Barrs 's Reviews > 2001: A Space Odyssey
2001: A Space Odyssey (Space Odyssey, #1)
by
by
The film is WAY better than the book.
Sometimes I feel like there’s pressure in the reading community to side with the written word, to defend it over cinema because it’s supposed to be our preferred medium for storytelling. This isn’t always the case. And if I’m honest, I prefer theatre over anything. More importantly though, and what I’m trying to suggest here, is that the phrase “the book is always better” is simply incorrect.
Film comparisons aside, 2001 was not the book I was expecting. It’s divided into three narratives, the first two setting up the third. The third is the main part and it’s what the book is really about, but it just took far too long to get there. I was bored. The book is dull and overly descriptive yet also remarkably brilliant in its scope and conclusion. Ultimately, it’s a book with a great idea, but one that takes a very long time to convey its meaning and demonstrate the connectedness of the narratives.
In some ways its like a long journey, the destination is worthwhile but getting there can be a little bit tedious. And this book was so very tedious in places. So much superfluous material could have been edited out. It so desperately needed more plot and a little bit more excitement with characters that were engaging. Sure, it discussed some interesting ideas but first two thirds of the novel were completely flat.
The strongest element this book has is its depiction of evolution being an ever moving, ever developing, phenomenon. This alongside considerations over the danger of technology (that also had the power to evolve) made the book engaging and even tense in parts, but this energy was never consistent. It just needed more life.
As such, two stars seems like a fair rating for a book that is intellectually challenging but hindered by its dry tone and lack of action.
__________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________
Sometimes I feel like there’s pressure in the reading community to side with the written word, to defend it over cinema because it’s supposed to be our preferred medium for storytelling. This isn’t always the case. And if I’m honest, I prefer theatre over anything. More importantly though, and what I’m trying to suggest here, is that the phrase “the book is always better” is simply incorrect.
Film comparisons aside, 2001 was not the book I was expecting. It’s divided into three narratives, the first two setting up the third. The third is the main part and it’s what the book is really about, but it just took far too long to get there. I was bored. The book is dull and overly descriptive yet also remarkably brilliant in its scope and conclusion. Ultimately, it’s a book with a great idea, but one that takes a very long time to convey its meaning and demonstrate the connectedness of the narratives.
In some ways its like a long journey, the destination is worthwhile but getting there can be a little bit tedious. And this book was so very tedious in places. So much superfluous material could have been edited out. It so desperately needed more plot and a little bit more excitement with characters that were engaging. Sure, it discussed some interesting ideas but first two thirds of the novel were completely flat.
The strongest element this book has is its depiction of evolution being an ever moving, ever developing, phenomenon. This alongside considerations over the danger of technology (that also had the power to evolve) made the book engaging and even tense in parts, but this energy was never consistent. It just needed more life.
As such, two stars seems like a fair rating for a book that is intellectually challenging but hindered by its dry tone and lack of action.
__________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
2001.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 21, 2022
–
Started Reading
January 25, 2022
– Shelved
January 25, 2022
– Shelved as:
sci-fi
January 25, 2022
– Shelved as:
2-star-reads
January 25, 2022
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ostrava
(new)
Jan 25, 2022 07:07AM
I love the movie but I've never bothered with the book. It looks boring and I haven't heard glowing reviews from the sequels either. I do have Clarke books in my TBR list though, but I've always preferred more "emotional" scifi than the cerebral and science based one (Le Guin or Herbert as opposed to Asimov and Clarke). Just a matter of taste I guess.
reply
|
flag
Ostrava wrote: "I love the movie but I've never bothered with the book. It looks boring and I haven't heard glowing reviews from the sequels either. I do have Clarke books in my TBR list though, but I've always pr..."I prefered Asimov to Clarke but I'd definitely agree they're both lacking a certain sense of feeling. Le Guin, on the otner hand is just fantastic. I've not read anything by Herbert though.
I even didn't like the movie. The book was even worse.
I actually feel that I'm in the minority as I fell asleep during the movie, but I thought the book was excellent. There are a lot English teacher elements with the structure and directness of his writing that I really enjoyed.
Strongly disagree. Written and produced simultaneously, both the book and movie are EPIC.
Have you read childhoods end? I'm curious your thought on other Clarke's work
Have you read childhoods end? I'm curious your thought on other Clarke's work
Sentences with “always” or “never” are often too strong. That’s true for “the book is always better than the movie”.It’s worth pointing out, though, that book and movie were developed concurrently.
Via Wikipedia:
> 2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author.
Still, your review resonates. Thank you for sharing.
The book is actually WAY better than the film.
I’m 60% into this book and I am very much enjoying it. I loved the movie but have not seen it in a very long time. I almost feel like the book is a narration of the movie without all the artsy cinematography (which is fantastic but sometimes makes you miss the plot points). I feel I will have such a better understanding of the movie the next time I watch it and can’t wait!
The film is 100% better than the book. The book is a piece of garbage and hardly relates to the glorious movie Kubrick created. The only reason this book has such good ratings is because stupid people rate it high, having seen the movie and haven't read the book, not knowing it's totally different and garbage.
Yes, the movie is 100% better than the awful book. Why does this crappy book have such a high rating? Oh, because everyone saw the great movie, didn't read the book, and just gave it a good rating because they saw the movie. That happens a lot on Goodreads. Hello people! books and movies can be completely different.
I loved your post and am in total agreement. I found the book dry, flat, and lifeless, with no character development. However, what it was trying to say was interesting. Does the end justify the means? Mmm... not quite. I was bored.
