I do like hard, classic SF. I read all the golden era classics when I when I was younger. It is still my go-to light entertainment type of reading. Recently i stumbled upon Arthur C. Clarke’s Space Odyssey, all 4 parts together in one large 800+ pages book. Grabbed it, to re-read the first 3 parts on my vacation. Also, I never read the 3001, the series finale, so that was a plus.
Oh my was I disappointed in 3001. The contrast between first two parts and the finale is mind-boggling (third part is so-so, but still okay).
It’s just sad when an author simply runs out of ideas and you can see him trying hard to deliver, but he fails. There’s so many things wrong with 3001. Clarke is clearly out of his zone, trying to imagine a world and society thousand years in the future, something that other writers, such as Ursula LeGuin, do much better than him.
And when the novel takes an turn into more familiar territory, the hard science, orbital mechanics, spaceflight, you just feel relieved, you can feel the author is in his zone here and is damn out of his comfort zone in society- and world building in the other parts.
I love Arthur C. Clarke. I truly do. But the 3001 Final Odyssey should have been written. I truly recommend against reading it.
Just a disappointed rant I guess.
by Douchebak
2 Comments
It’s fine to be disappointed in a work but I don’t think anyone but the author gets to decide what they “should” put out.
Honestly I think it’s odd that people (not necessarily the OP here) seem to expect creatives to stay at the peak of their craft forever, just seems unrealistic to me.
I agree. I’m a lifelong Stephen King lover, but *juuuust* about the time I was feeling like the new novels were formulaic…. I heard a reliable account that he was using ghost writers. He provides the characters and outline, they fill it the detail “in his style.” All uncredited of course. *Sigh*. I can’t fault him if the well runs dry, not after 5 decades-plus of epic stories!