An old look at the new millenium

Amanda's choice:

Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Discussed: 24 Mar 2009

@ the Dockside Pub (Granville Island)

This was only my second selection for the book club, so I was still frightened that an unwise pick would get me thrown to the curb. However, I decided to go out on a limb (or what constitutes "out on a limb" for the likes of me) and opt for something less literary than what we've been reading so far. I've been meaning to explore the sci-fi genre ever since reading H.G. Wells's The Time Machine (1895), so I picked the classic 2001. What usually attracts me to science fiction is not just what it tells us about the future, but what it says about its own time; how it takes present-day issues and extrapolates a fantastic but plausible vision of their ultimate effects. Sci-fi novels are marvellous historical documents. 

But this is not why I enjoyed 2001, although it does capture the cold-war era determination to pursue the limits of space exploration. In fact, I did not enjoy the book for the first eighty pages or so. The story initially seemed silly, what with the screeching ape-men named Moon-watcher or whatever.  Clarke's writing struck me as clunky, and his characterization particularly shallow. These men were cartoons. (Later, when I read Clarke's foreword to the 2000 Roc edition, I learned that he had written the novel at the same time as he and Kubrick were writing the screenplay for the film. And, as Jennifer I think mentioned, it reads like a function of the film, and not like a free-standing, complex narrative.) I was similarly unimpressed with Clarke's renowned "wit." Jokes about the technicalities of interstellar masturbation, for example, have not aged well, although his mention of the scarcity of "dusky maids" in space did make me chuckle. (Leanne, thanks for reminding me of that gem.) Incidentally, Kubrick's cinematic handling of humour is much more successful.

By halfway through the novel, against all odds, I was completely engrossed, and this has everything to do with the power with which Clarke conveys the impression of the solitude and magnitude of "outer space." His astronauts don't have to be paragons of human complexity, because they are utterly insignificant next to the real show. And our hero, Dave Bowman, demonstrates his humanity most poignantly in his passion for discovery, his explorer's spirit, which ultimately trumps even his concern with survival. 

A general complaint voiced by my fellow readers was that, after the tense and thrilling confrontation between Bowman and HAL, the ship's sentient central computer system, the story sort of peters out, with a comparatively obscure, tacked-on ending. I do agree that the action peaks with HAL's meltdown, but the playing out of Clarke's evolutionary vision, in which organic beings transform into something I can only describe as "energy," is hugely compelling, precisely because the mind can grasp it. 

The club's response to 2001 was largely positive, and I was especially pleased with Kerry-Lynn's four-star (out of five) rating, after she had declared her aversion for "space" literature at the previous meeting. Nicole, quiet (and exhausted) through much of the meeting, did eventually declare her unequivocal dislike of the book - always an exciting event - and uttered the quote of the evening: "I could relate to nothing in this book." Awesome.

I hope to post each member's individual ratings in the future. For now, you'll have to settle for mine (and Kerry-Lynn's): 4 stars (out of 5)