2001: A Space Odyssey was a joint project between Stanley Kubrick and Author C. Clarke, the two hammered out the basic premise together and then split to actualize the story in their respective mediums. As such Clarke’s Space Odyssey should be very familiar and shed light on elements left ambiguous in Kubrick’s vision but is distinct enough that it can be appreciated as its own entity and neither project can accurately be treated as a Rosetta stone for the other.
The distinguishing difference in Clarke’s work is that almost everything in the story is spelled out in great detail and not much is left to the imagination. For instance, in the first arc of the story, when early man discovers the monolith and begins to craft weapons, Clarke states where the monolith came from, why it’s there, and what it is doing to the protagonist Moon-Watcher. Personally, I did not find this as effective as in the film. With its magnanimous ambiguity the monolith was terrifying in a way that dominated our curiosity and bound us to it, rendering us in the same emotional and mental state as Moon-Watcher, a state we enter whenever we gaze into the abyss of the cosmos. Space, as the monolith, is infinite and yet empty, everything and at the same time nothing. It serves a humbling thematic purpose.
This isn’t to imply that Clarke’s work is necessarily the inferior of the two. Clarke spends a lot more time with Moon-Watcher than Kubrick did and it pays off in how intimately we watch him change, or perhaps mutate is the better word. Likewise we get a different take on Bowman and the Hal 9000 computer. In the movie Hal was the most human entity aboard the Discovery spacecraft, demonstrating paranoia and pride, with the astronauts aboard behaving more like androids devoid of any emotional resonance. While we, again, are more intimately acquainted with the mind of Bowman and can see firsthand how the solitude and monotony of his journey takes a toll on his mind, I don’t believe it plays out as well as it does in the movie when thoughts become words and actions. However, this window into Bowman’s mind makes up for this at times, there is a particular moment in the last few chapters where Bowman sees a reporter in a broadcast and is mesmerized by just seeing and hearing another human being that he watches for a while without really listening, but without joy. It was just a sentence but I found it powerful enough to compete with the climax of the film.
I think Clarke pulls off the “Space” and “Odyssey” part of the story better than Kubrick. Much time is spent in describing the celestial bodies that the Discovery encounters in Bowman’s journey. Early on a meteor passes by and Bowman makes great efforts to observe it in the brief moment it is observable, a wonderful demonstration of the unfathomable speeds objects travel in space. Many moons get their own chapter and we spend time with Bowman’s surprise at his inability to comprehending a gas giant up close. You get a feel for the great achievement humanity has and will achieve in its planetary voyages.
The ending of the book is another aspect that is different from the movie, not surprising considering how abstract Kubrick realized the conclusion. As with Moon-Watcher we know exactly where Bowman ends up, why he’s there, and what is happening to him. However, I feel this detail enhances the thematic contrast in Bowman’s transition from the Discovery and the cosmos to his prison. It transfers our gaze from the infinite of the abyss to the finite of the human experience and the detail Clarke provides prevents us from averting our eyes in a way the film does not provide, again, at least in my opinion.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a rewarding experience both on paper and on screen and you would be remiss to deprive yourself of either.
5 Stars
