Conference noted::sf

Have you gotten any further into 2061? How about any further opinions? Plot?

Dave

    I just finshed 2061 and had to check to make sure it was not
    written by Lary Niven.  It is not classic SF material but is
    a entertaing adventure story simular but not as intense as one
    Lary Niven would write.  The book does not answear many
    of the open question of 2001/2010 and opens new ones, but
    it does give us insite as to what is going ( but not why ).
                                                     
    A good book to read, but if you are on a budget you can wait
    for the Paper Back or the Movie.   That may be why I did not
    think it was a great book , the plots and scenes are not
    very complicated so they could easlly be made into a movie.
    
                                                                
    john
    

    I just finshed it and I liked it , but I've liked all the books
    I've read by Clarke. I agree with .2 that it opens a lot of new
    questions. I also find that the last chapter of 2061 contradicts(sp)
    the epilog of 2010 .
    
                                             Don
    
    

    			       ***SPOILERS***
                               
    	How does the ending of 2061 contradict the ending of 2010? 
    The end of 2010 took place in the year 20,010 (or thereabouts),
    while 2061's ending took place in 3001 - so how can there be (and
    where is) conflict?
    
    	As for the novel, as much as I like Clarke's work (and I did
    like 2061 to a degree), it is a pale, pale copy of 2001, and even
    2010, if that tells you anything.  I think the whole message of
    2001 has become distorted.
    
    	Larry
    

    re.4
    
     At the end of 2061 in the year 3001 the new star Lucifer is no
    more, therefore the epilog in 20010 can't happen because there is
    no more life on Europa, this is where I see the conflict.
    
                                                       Don
    
    

    	Obviously I didn't read the end close enough!  I guess I was
    getting pretty disappointed with the book!
    
    	How in the world could such a good writer like Clarke make such
    a huge inconsistency like that?
    
    	Larry
    

    
    It didn't bother him to move Discovery and the monolith from Saturn
    to Jupiter, did it?
    
    DFW

    	Too true, though Clarke's "excuse" was that he was basing 2010
    on events from the 1968 film, rather than the novel.
    
    	Kubrick did try to have DISCOVERY's mission take place at Saturn,
    but they could not get the special effects on the planet to look
    right (the biggest problem were the rings), so they opted for the
    much easier planet Jupiter.
    
    	I still wish that Clarke had left 2001 alone.  It is a classic
    in itself, and does not need the tacky sequelizing of the 1980s.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    In defense of the man (even though he spells his last name WRONG!)
    
    In the intro to 2061, ACC states that 2010 IS NOT a sequel to 2001
    and that 2061 IS NOT a sequel to 2010.  He also states that each
    book should be read as if in a different reality/continuem/parralel
    world then the previous.
    
    with that in mind the consistencies are a little easier to take.
    (but they still SUCK from a writer of ACC's supposed caliber)
    so to date there are 5 different "2001" universises -
    2001 the book,
    2001 the movie,
    2010 the book,
    2010 the movie,
    2061 the book, 
    (and there will probably be a 2061 the movie GAG!)           
    
    Later,
    
    Clark. (No E!)
    

< Note 544.9 by CSMSRE::WRIGHT "Underneath the Radar" >

<	To date there are 5 different "2001" universises -
<	    2001 the book,
<	    2001 the movie,
<	    2010 the book,
<	    2010 the movie,
<	    2061 the book, 
<	    (and there will probably be a 2061 the movie GAG!)           
    
Not to mention "The Lost Worlds of 2001" in which were included "The Sentinel"
and other short works on which "2001" were to a greater or lesser degree based.
As I recall, there were three alternate possible endings given. There was also
an account of the story of "the making of 2001".

Dave

    Clarke's principle justification for 2010: ODYSSEY TWO being a
    sequel to the film 2001 rather than the book is that he feels
    (most assuredly correctly, too) that more people would be
    familiar with the film rather than the book.
    
    --- jerry

    Why the name switch ofthe woman toward the end?
    
    Did I miss something?
    

    
    Any chance of some more of the plot of 2061.  I dont know if I
    want to buy it...
    
    Chris

    re:.13
    
    That's why God invented public libraries.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .14:
    
    Did Benjamin Franklin get promoted?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: .15
    
    Yes, how else could he survive flying a kite in an electrical storm?
    
                            Roak

    Don Martin
    NIOB, Salem, NH
    
    Funny, I don't recall Benny being in any of the books.
    
    More on the plot of 2061.  Heywood Floyd is 103 years old.  He has
    lived in space ever since 2015, after the end of the Jupiter mission
    of 2010, due to an accident on earth which cripples him.  Only being
    in a space-based hospital will "cure" him.  No gravity explains
    his longevity.  He is more like 70 than 103.
    
    Being considered a hero, or a pioneer, he is invited to take part
    on a historical flight to land on Haley's Comet, on a luxury spaceship
    called Universe.  
    
    As Universe lands on the comet, its sister ship, Galaxy, is hijacked
    by a woman belonging to a radical organization named "Shaka" which
    is based in the United States of South Africa.  She forces the ship
    to crash land on Europa... and the ship does not blow up in the
    atmosphere like the several probes sent there have.
    
    On this ship is Floyd's grandson, First Mate Chris Floyd. The Galaxy
    is crippled in the ocean of Europa, drifting helplessly.  The Universe
    is called in to help, and makes a revolutionary feul stop on Haley's
    comet, refueling from a gieser (the ship uses "Muon drive", or cold
    fusion to propel itself, thereby water is the fuel of choice).
    
    Most of the interior of the book deals with The Universe as it blazes
    its way to save its sister ship Galaxy, and The Galaxy's adventures
    on Europa, finding new life forms, and a mountain made of solid
    diamond, which was originally in Jupiters core before it exploded.
    In the long run, we find out that this is probably the reason for
    the hijacking, someone discovered a diamond the size of Everest
    and the South Africans, being the world supplier of diamonds, wouldn't
    want that to happen... you could buy diamonds like gumdrops if that
    ever happened.
    
    Universe eventually reaches Europa and saves the crew of Galaxy.
    The monolith doesn't really appear throughout the meat of the book,
    or do anything miraculous, as in 2001.  Heywood Floyd eventually
    dies, and "meets up" with David Bowman and HAL, who are now the
    "Keepers of the New Life" on Europa.  They explain to Floyd that
    the Monolith on Europa is 'defective' because it has tipped over,
    or something like that.
    
    But more importantly, time is running out for the Europans. Only
    a thousand years will pass before Lucifer (Jupiter) will go out,
    and life on Europa will perish.  Bowman and HAL explain this to
    Floyd and tell him "they must act quickly..."
    
    The year 3001 comes about in the epilogue, and Lucifer does go out,
    just as the monolith that was found on the moon, which has been
    kept on Earth in the U.N. building for almost a millenium, disappears.
    The last line reads something like;
    
    "And for the second time in four million years, the monolith awoke..."
    
    Interesting.  I wonder when Artie is going to come out with Odyssey
    IV.....
    
    Don
    

    Just finished reading 2061.  I think it is one of the worst SF I
    ever read.  At the end of every chapter, I asked myself whether
    I should keep reading.  I kept telling myself to give the book one
    more chance....  Well, that says it all.
                     
    Eugene

    Just started on 2061. So far only 8 chapters in 3 days. I'm not
    too impressed with it. For a start it's too much filled with cheap
    SF-stuff. I'll see how it goes on. A small correction on previous
    replies: I thought Floyd was still alive, not because of the lack
    of gravity, but the fact that hibernation reversed the ageing process,
    which is an example of what I mean by cheap SF-stuff. Taking up
    this sort of things we'll end up with a 5000-year old Floyd in 6958:
    Odyssey Three-hundred something.

    	No, hibernation in the 2001 series does *not* reverse the aging
    process, it just slows it down a lot.  Clarke also seems to be implying
    that living in a zero gravity environment eases the efforts the
    body usually endures from gravity and thus extends life somewhat.
    
    	From what I've read about living in space, however, is that
    it is actually *harmful* to the body without some gravity.  The
    Soviet SALYUT and MIR cosmonauts were weak and lost calcium at a
    rapid rate without exercise and spending time in a "gravity tank".
    
    	Larry
            

    I read it.  It was OK.  But I guess I must not like Clarke anymore.
    This is the second time (after "Songs of Distant Earth") that my
    expectations of Clarke were higher than my enjoyment of the book.
    
  --Simon
    

    	This third installment in the 2001 saga is now out in paperback.
    
    	Larry
    

    I have to agree with .18 et al. 
    
    	I've put the book away several times in order to read something
    else, then had trouble motivating myself to start again. The last time,
    I gave it my `test':
    	At the end of a chapter, I ask myself the question `If I turn the
    page, and everything is blank except for the words:
    	"And then they all died."   Would I care?'
    
                                                  Nope.
    
    Mike

    I didn't much care for it either.  His characterization is 
    becoming really perfunctory - you can hardly tell these people 
    apart.  He's also picked up the annoying habit of ending every 
    chapter with a twist, usually a lame one.  The nature of Mount 
    Zeus wasn't much of a surprise, although I did like what was done 
    with it back on Earth.  
    
    Worst of all, Clarke seems to have lost his sense of the cosmic.  
    What I most wanted to know was what had become of David Bowman, 
    and who was really behind the monoliths.  This was the 
    awe-inspiring part of 2001, not the tourist view of the Solar 
    System.   The same went for Clarke's earlier novels like 
    "Childhood's End" or "The City and the Stars".   What made them 
    great was their sense of the infinite and wonderful.  We remember 
    them and forget the prosaic, near-future-in-space books like "A 
    Fall of Moondust".  In "2061" we're getting more tourism and less 
    wonder. 
    
    /jlr