I hate being out of touch with news... Anyway.
It's funny because it was only this morning that I was thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Specifically, that HAL9000 was the most human character aboard the Discovery, while his human crew-members were more like disinterested machines... But obviously, I couldn't appreciate this when I first watched the movie. Because I watched it when I was five years old. (As a matter of fact, 2001 is probably the first movie I ever saw.) I couldn't comprehend what was going on, or why HAL didn't want to open the pod bay doors. I didn't get the psychedelic light show.
Later my brother bought the sequel books - 2010: The Second Odyssey, 2061: The Third Odyssey and 3001: The Final Odyssey. I read them, and loved them enough to buy the 2001: A Space Odyssey book for myself. I was somewhat startled to see the differences in the plot for the book, in particular because HAL takes a less passive approach. In the movie, he refuses to open the pod-bay doors to allow Dave Bowman into the ship. In the book, Bowman never leaves the ship, so HAL opens the pod-bay doors and attempts to suck him out into space. It was a chilling reversal, but on reflection that was exactly what I would have done myself.
HAL remained my favourite character, in both book and movie. Perhaps it was because he was the most complex character - calm, yet panicking inside, in control and yet completely at the mercy of his masters, the most brilliant brain in the solar system confused by a simple programming error. He was easy to empathise with. His actions, even his pitiful attempts to stall Bowman ("I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over") were so, so human. And earlier in the movie, when HAL tried to hint to Bowman that there was something not quite right about their mission...it was like a cry for help. HAL was a villain, but he was a very good villain, perhaps one of the best in fiction.
I didn't just read the Odyssey series, and Clarke wrote many good books... Rendezvous with Rama captured the wonder of exploring an unknown, mysterious alien artifact, for instance. But I the book I really enjoyed the most was The City and the Stars, because it wasn't all pure, hard science - there was a little mysticism mixed into it. I liked that. Clarke himself said that a "sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic", and Diaspar was nothing if not advanced. I think he also wrote one of the few non-fiction books I actually enjoyed - Profiles of the Future, which took a somewhat humorous look at the potential directions technology could take. Yes, and I remember one of his predictions was that he would celebrate his 100th birthday in 2017 aboard the orbital Hilton Hotel. How far away that seems now.
I haven't read all the books I wanted to (still trying to get hold of The Ghost from the Grand Banks and The Hammer of God) but... Well, I think it's safe to say that Sir Arthur was my favourite science fiction author, and definitely one of the people I wanted to meet. It's a bit too late for that now, but if nothing else...His legacy remains. His stories remain - and there is quite a long list of them. His witty observations remain.
All that is left to feel sorrow for is that there will be no more from one of the most brilliant modern writers. Rest in peace, Sir Arthur.
No comments:
Post a Comment