I was into this book right until the very end when it went completely off the stratosphere and became incomprehensible to me. The premise was great, the conflict was excellent, and the rising drama had me spellbound until the climax made me sit back and go "Huh?" It was definitely memorable, though. ( )

An enjoyable story that far surpasses the movie. According to what I've read, they were both made simultaneously, which makes the vast difference in quality all the more surprising. I disagreed with many of the points the book seemed to be making about humankind, but that didn't make the illustration of those points any less fantastic. Be warned though the ending is ridiculous. ( )

This was a great to start to a wonderful series. HAL was intriguing. The whole concept was profound. ( )

2001 has been called the “definitive science fiction book of all time.” I have read a fair amount of science fiction. I plan to read a lot more. I found 2001 merely average. The three sections of the book are almost stand-alone tales; the transition between is mildly confusing. It took me quite some time to read this, as I was not terribly engaged with the tale except during Hal’s defection. Even that, though, was a little telegraphed. The alternate creation myth was thought-provoking, but not terribly engaging. I do; however, want to know what happens next, so I will be picking up 2010 shortly. ( )

Earlier this year I made a vow to read all of the Space Odyssey books before 2010 rolled around, because it is the year the sequel to 2001 is named after and I needed a kick in the pants to read the series. I'm glad I did. I'm a big fan of hard science fiction, where all of the futuristic content can be backed up by solid science or speculation on future technologies. In the late Sixties no one was in a better position to write this book than Clarke. I enjoyed the book greatly for this reason, he knows his material and it shows. If you aren't interested in the minutiae of Lagrange points or the details of how space travel works you should steer clear of this book (maybe use it's gravity to slingshot in a faster trajectory around it). There are two main plots and sources of drama: the Monolith and its mysterious masters and the tragic tale of HAL 9000. Some people get hung up on one or the other in trying to decide if it's Frankenstein in Space or some heretical book questioning the Creation myth and most modern religions. It is both and more plus a lesson on nuclear propulsion. It can be very dry as human drama doesn't seem to be Clarke's strong point at this period of his writing. It certainly doesn't hold his interest. The synthetic HAL 9000 acts with more pathos and humanity than Bowman or Poole. This book is great for being ahead of its time as well as being the best at what it does. Not for everyone perhaps but I did not waste my time on it. If the ending of the movie version confused you, reading this book will make you 60% less confused. Return to movie and repeat as often as desired. ( )

This book BLEW MY MIND! ( )

Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey was my first foray into REAL science fiction literature. Ok, maybe I've read one or two others, but it astounded me how different this novel was from others. I can't wait to see the movie because I just can't imagine how you could make an entertaining film out of a novel that occurred mostly in a metal canister. It's a novel almost devoid of human relations, a novel almost entirely in one man's head. Very interesting, but not my preferred reading. ( )

One of the greatest science fiction stories ever created. Its impact on the collective imagination of the world can not be underestimated. Watched and read by the Apollo crews, Carl Sagan, etc.. the stories very lexicon has entered the reality of space exploration, and molded the public's view of what is possible.

Of course while the film and not the novel bears 90% of the responsibility, they were created concurrently and thus impossible to separate. The novel on its own is still widely read and appreciated more than 40 years later. The first part of the story - up until the death of HAL - is more effective on screen. The later half, which is too weird to really understand in the film, is much clearer and more interesting in the novel. ( )

Not Read

2001 A Space Odyssey is probably the most famous of Clarke’s novels. 2001 tells of humanity’s first exploration of the solar system and the amazing things we find when we get out there. Everything from alien zookeepers to crazy artificial intelligences, this book has it all. 2001 A Space Odyssey is the essential science fiction novel and has proved its worth through the ages, even after Clarke’s vision of the future failed to come true. I enjoy this book more and more each time I read it. ( )

The film is more visually stunning and ambiguous and consequently better. I don't like that the novel tries to explain the ambiguity. I give the film 5/5 and the novel 3/5. ( )

As masterfully made as Stanley Kubrick's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is, it's too slow and too quiet at times for my taste. I like it - and in fact certain scenes in the film are favorites (especially the one where the ape man is going all ape having discovered ape man's first weapon, a piece of bone, smashing it in a pile of other bones so that one bone, a tibia looked like, gets ricocheted end-over-end into the air and just as the flying tibia has reached its flight's slow-mo apex, the scene seamlessly transitions to a space station likewise rotating end-over-end: fantastic filmmaking and editing for sure, but I prefer Clarke's novel nevertheless.

I prefer the novel mostly because Clarke crafted more meaningful philosophical observations on the page than Kubrick could accomplish with his camera - except for that iconic, Zarathustra-themed tibia-space station segue. And that's why, I think, the movie just plods and plods along - face it, even though it's a classic, it's boring - while the novel builds and builds (and is never boring) towards its monolithic climax, where we witness the birth of the next speculative step in humankind's evolution, the "Star Child," or, the "Fetus In The Bubble-Womb Floating By The Moon Child," assuming you've only seen the film. And the film is fantastic, don't get me wrong; and as revered as the film is, I think the book is even better, arguably the best thing Clarke ever wrote.

And don't forget Hal - the neurotic computer given conflicting commands by his programmers who ultimately jettisons the crew - I like how he's characterized more so in the novel than he is in the film as well. In the movie, Hal gets reduced to what amounts to a red dashboard light and a voice sounding like, if it were human, had popped one too many valiums. Not very scary. Certainly no Frankenstein. In the novel, though, Hal comes off a lot creepier, edgier, and more mysterious, because he's not confined to the limits of the filmmaker's finite images, but left alone to however the reader's vivid (and infinite) imaginations envision him.

And in the time it would take a person to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (does that movie ever end?) one could have easily polished off Clarke's novel. Or two, or three, or four of Clarke's slimmer novels even. ( )

Along with the equally iconic movie this is amongst the pillars of classic science fiction. Mysterious and adventurous in equal measure, and hopeful as well. ( )

Sci fi is not my genre, but it was tolerable. ( )

This was one of the many books my father exposed me to when i was 12 years old. While I was reading it, I found it outrageously boring, and found myself counting pages. Yet once I'd finished, I began to think about the novel. I contemplated ever aspect of it and realized how wonderful it was. I realized, then, that it was a truly and it now stands out to me, and I plan on reading it again now. ( )

I loved the movie, and the book clears up a lot of misunderstandings I had. However, something unidentifiable still seemed lacking... ( )

I read this at age 10, and still enjoyed it. Classic science fiction from one of the true science fiction authors. ( )

Note: this review contains many spoilers and is mostly a compare/contrast between the book and the novel.
This novel is one that I had intended to read ever since watching the film for the first time several years ago. Because the novel is based upon the screenplay, I always found myself pushing it lower on my “books-to-read” list as I assumed it would be exactly the same as the film version. To my surprise, it was different from the movie in several vital ways that I believe make the novel far superior and more believable.
The first major difference that I noticed was the expansion and depth of the first section, “Primeval Night.” I realize that film has many limitations over the written word, including time, that prevent it from expressing the feelings and sensations of the characters adequately. This section of the book was so intriguing and well written that I felt a great empathy for Moon-Watcher and the rest of the tribe. When re-watching the film after reading the book, I was greatly disappointed at how quickly this section was passed over.
The second difference that I felt took away from the film version was the reaction of Dave after Hal’s murder of Frank. When watching the film, I felt this was a weak point. Dave did not seem the type to let his emotions over-take his logic and it made him seem a much less controlled and logical person as he was portrayed in the book. I was pleased that he did not leave the ship to chase Frank’s corpse in the novel.
Lastly, the ending of the book was much clearer and concise than the ending to the film. I did not particularly enjoy the ending of the film at all as it felt sad, contrary to the uplifting ending of the book. The book makes it seem as though Dave were only in the “hotel room” for one night where the film seems to show the passage of many lonely years of imprisonment. The “supreme beings” of the film appeared to me to be careless and thoughtless rather than simply absent but prepared. I felt much more content with the story’s ending after reading the book and watched the film in an entirely new light! I misunderstood the ending of the film to simply mean that Dave was being reborn with all the knowledge that he had when he died. However, the novel describes how vast the knowledge and powers are that are possessed by the being that was once Dave Bowman. One is left with a sense that the world is about to change for the better and that this being has the ability to make our planet healthy and safe again amongst other things. The film just left me with a feeling that one person would have knowledge of the rest of the universe, rather than also having the power to use it.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although the film version of 2001 can be enjoyed on its own as the artful masterpiece that it is, I don’t believe it can be truly understood without the background knowledge provided by the novel. The movie is a triumph of light and sound ahead of its time, but the story can be lost in the color and music without that voice inside your head repeating the written words of Arthur C. Clarke to you. ( )

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most influential pieces of science fiction in existence. Both the book and the movie have had their fair share of parody in popular culture, but at the same time, many authors borrowed in part or in whole from Clarke and made his work their own.

The story spans millennia, starting with apes who encounter a strange monolith, which starts their evolution into man. Then, some time later, near the turn of the millennium, a similar device is discovered on the moon, which sends a mysterious radio signal to one of the moons of Saturn. This obvious sign of extraterrestrial intelligence (the device has a size ratio of 1:4:9), leads to an expedition to Iapetus, the Saturnian moon in question. The crew aboard the Discovery One, the ship sent on this mission of discovery, however, soon realize that their ship's computer is having difficulty coming to terms with its programming, and is trying to kill the crew.

Expressing a circular theme of rising above what you are, as well as featuring some really neat science, this sci-fi story definitely set a new standard for its genre.

Sure to please any fan of Clarke's writing, or the writing of authors like Carl Sagan or Alastair Reynolds. ( )

When there is such a universally pervasive imagery from a movie like that which Stanley Kubrick produced, most books would suffer and pale. Fortunately, the book and the script were developed concurrently by Kubrick and Clarke from a couple of short stories which were written by the latter. Because of this, the book and the movie imagery support each other remarkably well - about the only change between the two is that the Discovery goes to Saturn in the book, yet it goes to Jupiter in the movie. This is not an easily accessible book. Clarke enters into some deep philosophising about intelligence and life, and there a long sequences of description which can become quite cumbersome. However, the imagery is incredible, and the technological premonitions by Clarke (travelling to the moon on a commercial flight, the slingshot manoeuvre which was then used by NASA for the Pioneer and Voyager probes more than a decade later, etc) make this an enjoyable read. Clarke is one of the few science-fiction authors who had come through a solid science and engineering background, and it shows through details like this. The book is surprisingly short - even more so since the publishers have included the two short stories on which the full novel was based. Unfortunately, these two stories don't appear to have withstood against time as the main story has, and severely weaken the book as a whole. If you like science-fiction, or just liked the movie, then you'd easily get on with the book. Otherwise, I'd suggest something less in-depth and philosophical. ( )

After puzzling over Stanley Kubrick's movie adaptation all those years, I was surprised at how straightforward this book is compared with the movie. Yes, strange and wonderful things happen but Clarke explicates them while Kubrick puts them beyond our ken. Isn't it usually the other way around? Hollywood always seems to spoon feed when authors try to make you think. Well at any rate, I enjoyed reading this book version. ( )

Ground breaking science fiction by the master. ( )

I saw the movie first. Big mistake! The book is better anyway. I love all the characters. I also always love books where humans are put in their place as not the center of the Universe. ( )

I saw the movie some time ago, but I'd never read the book. So when I saw it on a table at the local bookstore, I grabbed it, figured it would be an interesting read. While I thought it was good, I had the same problem with it I had with Rendezvous with Rama, another of Clarke's books... it's too short. The reader is bounced from event to event and time progresses very quickly, I felt some things could have used more development. I think HAL only gets about forty pages. Slightly disappointed by that, but a good book overall. ( )

I saw the movie first on a school trip and, in a vague 7th-grader sort of way, could appreciate that it was arty and well-done, but it confused the heck out of me and wasn't really what I thought of as science fiction. Thank goodness for the book, which I read a few months later, as now I had some idea of what was going on in those last scenes. :-)

Anyway, I think this is a book worth the time to read. It's about Clarke's usual theme of human evolution but, unlike Childhood's End and others, it's less straightforward. Much of the tale is only implied, left to the reader's imagination to fill in. This bit of mystery works very well and is, in my opinion, one of the major good points of the work. It's why I think that 2010: Odyssey Two and the other sequels were mistakes...they take away a lot of that. It's why seeing the movie doesn't detract from the book, since the movie captures even more of that feeling. In fact, I think I was exposed to this the right way: see the movie first and then read the book as a companion.

What I can't understand...given that the movie and the book were written together...is why they don't have the same story. Is someone confused about Saturn and Jupiter being two different planets? ( )