OFF: 3001 reviews (long)
Rudich, Robert A
Rudich at VOLPE2.DOT.GOV
Wed Apr 30 11:34:00 EDT 1997
Since it is of interest to at least the big 3, here are some reviews of
3001. Seems the comments are mixed (too late to back out, B!).
Rudy
***********************************************************************
Buzz Aldrin, astronaut and author of Encounter With
Tiber:
From the moment I picked it up, I couldn't put it down.
3001: The
Final Odyssey is a tour de force that finally answers
the questions
that sparked the imaginations of an entire generation.
The New York Times Book Review, John Allen Paulos:
Much of the enjoyment of the book comes from . . . the
high-tech
thingamajigs that often differ interestingly from their
present-day
analogues and the barely disguised commentary on issues
like prison
reform, Freudian therapy, clitoridectomy, terrorism,
religious mania
and. Of course, computer security and complexity . . .
fans will most
likely embrace 3001
Synopsis:
With his masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C.
Clarke
created a classic of imaginative fiction and the
inspiration for a
landmark film. Now, for his millions of readers
worldwide, Clarke
has written the stunning conclusion to his extraordinary
saga--a
book which returns to the future to reveal the answers
to the
questions that have intrigued readers for decades.
Customer Comments
pittmanp at acm.org, 04/30/97, rating=1:
Bad
This book is almost as bad as 3001. The first 25 pages
are
interesting. The rest is a waste of time, especially the
non-climatic
climax. Clarke has written a self-serving money maker to
trap into
adding to the value of his estate. Give it up Arthur.
You're outdated.
If you want good Clarke, read "Tales from the White
Hart" or
"Childhood's End."
Austin Hach (hach at ix.netcom.com), 04/28/97, rating=10:
The best book I have ever read!!!
From the minute that I started this book I was totaly
hooked. Arthur
C. Clark has to be the best science fiction wrighter in
this century.
He has so many good book that I have just started to tap
into the
wealth of knolage that he has to offer. The one person
that I would
belive the most in prediction of the futur, Arthur C.
Clark would be
the one. His book goes into great detial about the star
city around
Earth. He even has a section at the end of the book to
explane how
parts of the book are posibale. From one science fiction
reader to
another plase read this book.
samsevern at aol.com, 04/23/97, rating=8:
Cosmic Conclusion!
A wonderful conclusion to one of sci-fi's cosmic
chapters. Less
sweeping than "2001," but classic Clarke.
kathe at deckard.mc.duke.edu, 04/18/97, rating=4:
Science - 10, fiction - 2
Arthur Clarke is a genius, and when he tells me what the
future is
going to be like in a thousand years or so, I pay
attention. His future
is minutely detailed, and will probably prove true in
many respects.
Where this novel fails is in a failure to couple the
technological
change with humanity. These people don't breathe and
spit and
snore; these are illustrations, not characters. The plot
isn't really
worth mentioning: there was only enough of it for a
short story.
rajshekar at hotmail.com, 04/15/97, rating=8:
A defense not , but a suggestion.
At the outset, I must say that I am a keen reader ,
first and last (a
reviewer last). Arthur.C Clarke lives as they say in our
general area
of the pond (The Indian Ocean) and has no doubt been a
witness to
the fracticious and often unqualified opinions affected
by one and all,
on all and sundry. This should aclimitize him and by
inference the
many potential readers of the book the quagmire that any
well-known author or any well-read book lover faces. Its
a simple
problem that has been with us a long long time, it is
called prejudice.
A new tale is judged often by our expectations from/of
the writers
tale-telling ability/plotting style and very little from
the story itself.
Clarke is writer who probably in an attempt not to be
bogged down
in his own highly respected style of narrative,
legitimizable SF, upset
the apple-cart of many's expectations. 3001 may by many,
not be
considered the perfect sequel, if one goes by the
negative critical
acclaim that it has provoked.
But is not that the essence of a good book!
A book that makes one react is more relevant than one
that does
not, at least in terms of its impact on our collective
conscience.
Clarke (by the time tested wisdom called hind-sight)
been an oracle
of sorts in reporting mankinds technological and other
tendencies, I
for one trust him to be accurate (within some degree) in
his
anticipations. With due respect to a genuine visonary, I
have never
been a great admirer of his linguistic style, often
sparse and
somtimes forced. BUT and this is the most important
'BUT' what he
conceives and projects in his tales are signposts,
guiding beacons in
the uncertain future and that too in very humanistic
terms.
I would reccommend Mr.A.Clarke to any one, any time, any
where, any work, just for the insight. 2001 was and is
an icon,
Kubrick insured that, can we not make room in our minds
for
more?
czarboris at hotmail.com, 04/15/97, rating=5:
Not a great end to a great series
Lots of possibilities for the future but it is sort of
flat. Never get any
real action. The virus that was locked in a cave for
hundreds of
years seems a bit naive. Any good hacker could do that.
One
thousand year old men could be made more exciting. No
more
sequels please.
Jon Reed (jon.reed at ci.longview.wa.us), 04/11/97,
rating=4:
A highly palatable mess
The ideas and technology were way cool; unfortunately,
the plot
was not.
A reader, 04/10/97, rating=5:
I read "2001" so many years ago with awe and enjoyed the
two
books that followed thus giving me high expectations for
"3001".
There was of course the amazing potential for a great
story that
would wrap up the mysteries of the entire series. Mr.
Clarke did not
deliver, doing great injustice to the entire saga. The
book in general
though was still an enjoyable read and would recommend
it to any
Arthur C. Clarke/2001 fan.
yangh at uci.edu, 04/10/97, rating=9:
pretty good
Clarke writes science fiction, not science fantasy, I
thought his vision
of the future was very plausible, including the possible
sociological
evolution of humanity. Admittedly the plot was kind of
weak, and it
was kind of short, but overall I enjoyed the book very
much.
Carlos M. Santillan: cmsahe at hotmail.com, 04/07/97,
rating=10:
A must read for all Odyssey series followers
It's an excellent book and a moving final to the Odyssey
series; It
represents the bright future that awaits to the human
race: Its
expansion through the solar system. Together with the
stirring
representation of the equatorial ring, the colonization
of the
jovian-luciferian satellites and the enhancement of the
human mind
with the "cap", it does a very good story and work, as a
one of the
best sci-fi pieces I've ever read. With all due respect
to all those
fellows that didn't like the book, quoting Mr Clarke,
quoting to an
american president: "It's fiction stupid!" ?Bravo Mr.
Clarke!
71600.300 at compuserve.com, 04/04/97, rating=2:
Where's the story?
"Arthur C. Clarke is considered the greatest science
fiction writer of
all time," says the publisher's blurb. By who? _3001_
contains
maybe 25 pages' worth of story (though "story" is
putting it too
strongly), padded out to ten times that length by
self-indulgent
prophesying and preaching, in amateurish prose that
makes you
cringe several times per page. And when, after 150 pages
of this
padding, we finally get to the actual story, Clarke
fails to provide us
with the most important and potentially interesting part
of it, the
actual message whose warning of impending disaster
finally sets the
real plot in motion. Ironically, the best writing and
reading come in
the nonfictional source notes and valediction at the end
of the book.
For addicts only, and they might want to wait for the
cheaper
paperback edition, which surely won't be long in coming.
kekane at worldnet.att.net, 04/03/97, rating=5:
Conditional Recommendation
In the latest book, in what has become the "2001"
series, we find
not only an uninspiring, but implausible plot. Sure,
there were some
interesting ideas and Clarke's linear extrapolation of
the future is
fine, but as a novel, it just doesn't ever "take off".
When I read the
"2063" book, I felt that Clarke had produced a novel
only to
commercially exploit an original and brilliant idea
(that is, the 2001
book). In "3001: The Final Odyssey," I felt that while a
good read
(have you ever anything that doesn't read well from
Clarke?), it
lacked the well defined imaginative classic qualities
(like the "2001:
A Space Odyssey"). In fact, while reading the novel, I
was
disturbed by the narrow historical references (only back
to the late
20th and early 21st centuries). This is where Clarke
could have
painted a highly imaginative picture of the future and
provided
linkage between the "now and then". There were also a
series
terrific storylines that could have been developed that
would have
gk1 at dolnet.gr (George Kopeliadis), 04/01/97, rating=8:
Full of good points for further thinking and analysis
Unveils mysteries so well spread in the other Odyssey
books. I rate
the book 8 because I have to rate 2001 with a ten. Many
may
dislike that Clarke unveils all the mysteries and
answers almost all
questions set in the previews sequel books. Others may
dislike the
absence of hard action. But the book is full of good
points for
further thinking and analysis.
cina at us.ibm.com (Vincent Cina), 03/31/97, rating=6:
Interesting but not exciting
If you read 2001, 2010, 2061 you have to read 3001. Some
interesting questions are raised but there is little
excitment and it is
not overly imaginative. The ending was disappointing,
similar to a
recent, highly publicized, sci-fi movie. A quick, calm,
comfortable
read.
craigwads at aol.com, 03/28/97, rating=7:
Better than 2061, weak ending though.
If you read the others in the series, then you will want
to read this
one as well. If not, then read the others first, or this
will make no
sense. I enjoyed his weaving of many ideas from other
Clarke
stories. The ending was very weak tough, never resolving
the central
questions of the other books: Who build the Monoliths?
Where are
they now? Will mankind ever take a place with them? (as
to the last,
Mr. Clarke seems to think not.) Recycling HAL and Dave
Bowman
was not bad, and thawing Frank Poole was a great device
for
spanning the time between books. Clarke remains one of
the great
SciFi writers and this book does his historic reputation
no harm.
pleco at macconnect.com, 03/23/97, rating=1:
A pitiful ending to an otherwise fantastic series
3001: The Final Odyssey is a simply horrible ending to
what has
been one of the greatest series in science fiction. By
answering
nearly all of the questions and tying up neatly all the
loose ends from
2001 et. al., this book effectively destroys that
wonderful sense of
mystery and intrigue that was the heart of what made the
other three
Odysseys such wonderful books. It's a similar effect to
if the
X-Files suddenly revealed all of its secrets, except the
Odysseys are
longer running (and, in my opinion, even better). Also I
was hoping
to finally see HAL return (after his disconnection in
2001 and
abandonment around Jupiter in 2010), but instead all we
get is this
awful quasi-Dave Bowman who's really rather
uninteresting as
Clarke's characters go. I did like the long vision of
the future in this;
I always like to see the perspectives on it of great
authors like
Clarke, but it takes up far too much of the book to be
significant
(only about half of 3001 is actually concerned with the
plot; the
other half is just Poole's experiences with the future).
Finally I
thought the plot in general of Poole returning was a bit
weak; surely
Arthur C. Clarke could have invented something more
imaginative
than that dime-novel trash. Overall I think 3001 was a
pathetic
ending to what has been one of the greatest series in
science fiction
history, and wish Clarke had simply left well enough
alone with
2061 and not destroyed the whole core of the series with
this trash.
cpto at aol.com (Rick), 03/22/97, rating=3:
Clarke's End
What I've always admired about Arthur C. Clarke's
writing is the
sheer poetry he managed to meld so successfully with the
narrative.
The city glowing like a jewel on the desert in "The City
and the
Stars." The arrival of our primal fears in "Childhood's
End." The
wonder of the artifact in "Rendevouz with Rama." Sadly,
most of the
poetry and the wonder was missing from his later,
collaborative
books. And although Clarke's physical difficulties have
prevented
him from writing more single-author novels in the past
few years, I
wish he had passed on authorship of 3001 to someone
else. Then I
would have been able to remember him from his past
triumphs.
Although 3001 would have rated a 7 or 8 from a lessor
author,
from the past master it is a 3 at best. The narrative is
rudely broken
by what must be Clarke's thoughts of the world at
present.
Circumcision and religion may play a valid point in any
novel, but
the way they are addressed in 3001 reminds me more of
Gernsback's polemeic Ralph 124C41+ than it does of the
Clarke I
look forward to reading. His opinions interrupt the
narrative and do
so in a way that doesn't advance the story line.
Unforgivable in an
author of his stature. Most of his 40-year-old short
stories evoke
more of a sense of wonder than this novel does. The mind
"sees" the
printed words in a book. 3001 requires significant
allowance for
myopia and astigmatism. Wait for the paperback. Or
better yet,
wait for the Sci-Fi Channel adoption of the book. It
couldn't be
worse. Unfortunately, it might even be better.
t2 at bii.com, 03/21/97, rating=7:
"The Final Odyssey?"--I'd like more!
This novel may not be as action packed as previous
works, but
Arthur C. Clarke again demonstrates his craft of placing
the human
spirit, emotions, desires, and faults into a culture and
time of
technology far advanced. It is not the speculative
technologies that
capture the reader but how the human experience remains
true no
matter the time frame. I highly recommend 3001: The
Final Odyssey
along with the entire body of work by Arthur C. Clarke.
aljawad at kuwait.net, 03/20/97, rating=3:
Was this sequel really necessary?
I remember 9 years ago and upon finishing reading 2061:
Odyssey
3, my reaction was the whole book was Clarkes answer to
the
challenge of using the characters of the original novel
to the last one
-- in that case it was the 100+ year old Haywood Floyd.
Now
Clarke has went a step beyond, he is reviving dead
charaters to
play along. The Author reminds us again that like the
other Odyssey
sequels this book takes place in a somewhat different
universe than
the others, Haywood is now gone - I guess that answers
my
question about how necessary are these sequels. And
again, all the
mystic traces that have made 2001 (the book and the
movie) what it
is have been wiped out. The ending, oh boy! I was under
the
impression the makers of the monoliths would at least
include a
good version of ...., er, a certain utility familiar to
all computer
user,.... . Clarke himself seems apologetic about the
silly ending in
the books notes (if it is one indeed - who knows if he
is considering
an "Odyssey: The Next Generation" series). I'm not gonna
kid any
Clarke fans, go get the book. Others will be happier
watching 2001
again.
ghunter at csrlink.net, 03/19/97:
I can't go on...
Perhaps Mr. Clarke says it best in chapter 32: "...it
had been an
interesting but uneventful three decades...."
Interesting but uneventful
defines this novel. I was eager to begin the novel, rapt
as I
witnessed the year 3001 through Frank Poole's eyes,
disappointed
as the narrative floundered a bit on Europa, bored (dare
I say it?) to
discover the answer to the mighty mystery of "Halman" in
the
monolith, and finally dismayed to read that Frank Poole
was born in
1996! (199) Please tell me that I am wrong; say that I
have
overlooked something, and I will be on my way. But could
Poole
have been born in 1996 and been an astronaut in 2001?
Until I find
my copy of 2001, or one of you good people set me
straight, I
cannot finish 3001. Help me put Clarke and the Odyssey
back up
on that rectangular pedestal! I withhold my rating until
I have my
answer.
A reader, 03/13/97, rating=9:
So far so good
The book so far has followed a Clarke tradition of
carefully yet
vaguely describing an odd scenario that probably will
not exist. I will
finish this book as soon as possible given the well done
story setup.
A reader, 03/02/97, rating=6:
Disjointed addition to the classic series...
Some of the scenery was very well depicted, but on the
whole I found the latest iteration
of the 2001 series disappointing.
There was little of Clark's characteristic technological
speculation, despite the huge
opportunity the setting offere. In fact this was
eclipsed by the novel's sociological crystal
ball gazing, which was actually a high point that could
have been further developed. The
lack of scientific depth was worsened by annoying
references to popular science and
(worse) culture from our times...
In addition the formidable alien devices and transhuman
protagonists he had built up in
the first two books were somewhat cheapened in this
novel, which was far too short.
Still, it wasn't as bad as 2063 and I'll be first in
line for 4001 when the time comes...
mlh812 at aol.com, 03/02/97, rating=7:
A pleasant visit with old friends.
A nice new chapter to the saga, albeit a short one when
you consider a couple chapters
are rehashed from earlier books. As a fan it was nice to
see the old characters again. An
interesting look at the future but by no means ground
breaking. Mr. Clarke seems to like
his early stories a lot to keep revisiting them (the
several Rama books and 2001
sequels). For someone not familiar with the series, I
would give it a 2. A good read for
fans.
davea at barrow.com, 02/26/97, rating=8:
Good for dedicated 2001 fans
The book is farily easy reading, not a lot of technical
jargon . Definately not
action-packed (no sex, violence, or high speed chases),
it does clarify things from the
previous Odyssies and is a must for those of us who have
been with 2001 from the
beginnings in the '60s. Finding and reviving Frank Poole
after 1000 years, Clarke did a
fair job of taking modern problems and concerns and
relating them and their possible
solutions to the future. I thought the ending was
anticlimatic, but it did leave the door
open for another sequel.
pamela at decisioninfo.com, 02/26/97, rating=4:
A bit slow moving; for die-hard fans only.
Astronaut Frank Poole (remember? HAL booted him off into
space in 2001) lives
again. His frozen corpse is retrieved from beyond
Neptune's orbit and he is revived to
become a "national treasure" of the third millenium, at
least until he finds a more
interesting calling as potentially the only person with
whom Dave Bowman & HAL (now
existing in some form inside the monolith watching over
Europa) may communicate and
share insights concerning an impending threat to
humanity. Most of the book plods along
steadily, but without much effect. Entirely plausible,
if unexciting, descriptions of the
living environments and technologies of the third
millenium are intertwined with minimal
plot development. The climax of the story is,
unfortunately, greatly diminished in impact
by its (apparently) entirely coincidental commonalities
with ID4. And, despite the book's
title, the door seems to remain ajar just a bit (4001?).
Overall: happy ending, no sex, no
violence, easy reading, good footnotes. This one is
probably mostly for die-hard 2001
and Arthur C. Clarke fans.
More information about the boc-l
mailing list