Rewriting 2010

[Leovinus]

From an online review of 2010 - Odyssey 2: <i>2010 is, ironically, even more dated than 2001. Unlike the book, 2010 places great emphasis on Cold War tensions - even inventing a second Cuban crisis to raise blood pressures. Who knew back in 1984 that the Eastern Bloc would fall in just five short years? Still, it's a great movie and certainly worth a second look.</i><br /><br />Given that 2010 has been outdated since 1989, do you think it should be rewritten? Heck, 2001 is outdated as well. We might as well call it 2101 instead since it will probably take that long to get a space station and moon base like we see in the movie.<br /><br />On a side note, has anyone heard if Clarke has survived the tsunami? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelle]

Even though 2001 and 2010 is outdated, they are still very good books. And the outdatedness gives them a special feeling, that they are really classic science fiction, from the time they felt that techological development was going ultrafast. There is something special about that. Though they could be good if rewritten too of course, but not as good as the originals!<br /><br />And Clarke survived the tsunami: http://www.appomattox.demon.co.uk/acca/tsunami.htm

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">On a side note, has anyone heard if Clarke has survived the tsunami?</font><br /><br />He posted the following on his website... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.clarkefoundation.org<br /><br /><i>"Thank you for your concern about my safety in the wake of last Sunday’s devastating tidal wave.<br /><br />I am enormously relieved that my family and household have escaped the ravages of the sea that suddenly invaded most parts of coastal Sri Lanka, leaving a trail of destruction.<br /><br />But many others were not so fortunate. My heart-felt sympathy goes out to all those who lost family members or friends.<br /><br />Our staff members are all safe, even though some are badly shaken and relate harrowing first hand accounts of what happened. Most of our diving equipment and boats at Hikkaduwa were washed away. We still don't know the full extent of damage -- it will take a while for us to take stock as accessing these areas is still difficult.<br /><br />We are encouraging concerned friends to contribute to the relief efforts launched by various national and international organisations. If you wish to join these efforts, I can recommend two options:<br /><br />Contribute to a Sri Lanka disaster relief fund launched by an internationally operating humanitarian charity, such as Care* or Oxfam*<br /><br />Alternatively, considering supporting Sarvodaya, the largest development charity in Sri Lanka, which has a 45-year track record in reaching out and helping the poorest of the poor. Sarvodaya has mounted a well organised, countrywide relief effort using their countrywide network of offices and volunteers who work in all parts of the country, well above ethnic and other divisions. Their website http://www.sarvodaya.lk/ provides bank account details for financial donations. They also welcome contributions in kind -- a list o</i>

 

[drwayne]

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the book 1984?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[kelle]

Unfortunately I haven't read 1984 yet, there are just too many other books I have to read! But it sounds like a good book, always interesting to see how people in the past thought the future would become, even though the future didn't become like it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

It is interesting having seen dates like SciFi dates like 1984, 2001, the launch of the Jupiter 2 etc. come and go.<br /><br />For the record, we had to read 1984 in High School, I forget the exact year, probably 1976 or 1977 - so when I read it, 1984 was off in the future.<br /><br />I don't think I ever thought then that 1984 would be the year I earned my M.S. in physics. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[hracctsold]

Wayne,<br />I know what you mean. As I look back on some of the shows I remember, I think the same thing. How about Space 1999, now that was dated when you look back on it. But at the time it was good. <br /><br />I also read 1984 years ago as well, and that year had special meaning for just that reason. I was married for 9 years at that time. What did you think of the movie version of the book, (British I think)? A little dark, but that is what the whole idea of the book is all about, isn't it. <br /><br />Another Orwell book I liked was Animal Farm, but when I set down to watch Patrick Steward do it, I couldn't. Part of that storyline and the way Patrick performed it so in character, got to me. Sometimes I much tooo involved in the storyline!!!

 

[rogers_buck]

I'd wait to see how the history sorts out by 2010. They never said that the Soviets in 2010 were the same as our old cold war buddies. They might be Soviet Mark 2. Clarke has been pretty insightfull in things political. I recall reading a story of his where he had the White House in China. It's almost there.<br /><br />Where Clarke screws up is with cyber tech. Instead of HAL in 2001 we had BSOD. The lunar locker of cyber viri in 3010 was pretty silly as well.<br />

 

[drwayne]

I had forgotten that we also read "Animal Farm" in 9th or 10th grade.<br /><br />Looking back on it, we read some pretty good stuff in the 9th grade- Martian Chronicles, Illustrated Man, Flowers for Algernon..<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[hracctsold]

Two things to write about here,<br /><br />Wayne, I sure wish I was in your Jr. High class, at least that was what we called it back in the stone age. That class must have been real interesting. But our 9th grade was grouped with the 7th and 8th graders though.<br /><br />About 2010,<br />If things keep on track like they have for all the other monumental dates, it will come and go without much fanfare or reality realized. Don't mean to rain on your dreams though.

 

[drwayne]

"Wayne, I sure wish I was in your Jr. High class"<br /><br />Well, my high school was kind of rough, they screened you for weapons, and if you didn't have one, they gave you one...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Why on earth (or Jupiter) would anyone want to rewrite a classic? The alternate history aspect of all of these books lends them an additional charm. Otherwise you might as well rewrite 20,000 leagues under the sea, the war of the worlds, almost everything that larry Niven ever wrote.<br /><br /><br />The sad thing is there won't be people on Mars by 2010, let alone at Jupiter.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Rewriting 2010 (or 2001) after being outdated would not eliminate the originals -- if the original author does it then it would be an additional version -- an alternate timeline. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

True, and it would be intriguing. However, Clarke owns the intellectual property, so I don't advise that anybody try to make money off such a book without his permission. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Of course, my biggest problem with 2010 was not the fact that history failed to match but the fact that he completely ignored the *negative* affects of turning Jupiter into a star, like increased radiation, increased heat, and far less darkness on Earth. To say nothing of the gravitational affects -- Jupiter's mass is established as increasing considerably thanks to the monoliths. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

But Leo, what is the point? If someone wants to write something new they should do something original. Movie remakes are bad enough, let's not spread the disease to literature.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

The book 2010 was outdated within 5 years. 1984 and 2001 took considerably longer. But since 2001 is already outdated, rewriting the sequel wouldn't make sense without rewriting the original too.<br /><br />That's ok. 2001 is still my favorite movie. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Movie remakes are bad enough, let's not spread the disease to literature.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's way too late for that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Literary remakes have a very old and venerable history. Even Shakespeare did remakes. The story of King Arthur has been written and rewritten many many times since <i>Le Morte D'Arthur</i>, which itself was probably not the first (though possibly the first committed to paper in its complete form). And how many times has the story of Troy been told? Homer wasn't the only one to write it. Even Shakespeare played with part of the story, resulting in the play <i>Troilus and Cressida</i>.<br /><br />There is a fine line between telling your own version of a story and simply rehashing somebody else's work. The division is not at all clear. It seems to have nothing to do with how much you reuse of the source material, whether you are being kind to the original or not, or how many liberties you take with it. In the end, the test seems to simply be whether or not it's a good story on its own merits. And I think a lot of people forget that when they do a remake. They expect the quality of the original material to carry through into their remake, and there is no guarantee of that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

There is also a world of difference IMHO between a person retelling or embellishing a folk story for which there was/is no definitive version, for example the Arthurian cycle, or Robin Hood. It is quite another to rewrite an story written by a known author and for which a definitive version, published and copyrighted, exists.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Yes, but it's still not <i>fundamentally</i> wrong to do so. Very little is fundamentally anything in storytelling. In the end, the only thing that really matters is to tell a good story. Anything else is a secondary consideration. So if a storyteller choses to retell "Romeo & Juliet", he'd better be focusing on telling a story. If he focuses on fixing things he didn't like, or on showing off how good he is at updating things, or even on being faithful to the source, then the story will almost certainly fail.<br /><br />In general, it's a good guideline not to rip off somebody else's work. Reason being, the audience will notice, and it may put them off. If that happens, the story will fail, because telling a good story means keeping the audience on your side so they're willing to suspend disbelief.<br /><br />But there is indeed a long tradition of rewriting stories by known authors for which a so-called "definitive" version exists. Many are no longer copyrighted, or never were, having predated the concept of copyright. Did you know that "Hamlet" is a derivative work? And the story of "Troilus and Cressida" wasn't just Shakespeare extrapolating from Homer's "Iliad". It was really a dramatic adaptation of Geoffrey Chaucer's poem -- and Chaucer most certainly should qualify as a known, published author, even if you don't think Homer should count.<br /><br />BTW, regarding Arthur, many scholars believe that the first "real" version of Arthur's story was <i>Le Morte D'Arthur</i> and that prior to that, there never really was a story of Arthur at all -- just dissociated pieces which Geoffrey de Monmouth knit together into a new story. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Times change, even in story telling. There is less room for manuever these days, because of copyright. This is an important configuration.<br /><br />But let's not move the goalposts. We are talking about reqwrites, which is taking the story and updating it. This is not what Shakespeare and others did. they took elements from original stories and created something new, new combinations, new details within the overal framework, whatever. Stories rarely spring, Minerva like, fully grown from the forehead of Zeus, but from a long rich mould or soup of older stories (to use Tlkien's metaphor). It is the creativity of the new work that distinguishes literary greatness, not the antecedents. A simple rewrite, which is what is proposed here, is not likely to achieve this, it is so pedestrian and unimaginative. Furthermore, it insults the reader by assuming they can't cope with the fact that the real 2010 won't look anything like the one in the book. I find this risible. It's like saying that 1984 is no longer important or chilling because the real 1984, by the grace of God, turned out differently.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

They mentioned that in the movie and said that they had only 15 minutes to make it from one ship to the other because of the radiation. That wouldn't make me feel any better -- it reminds me of "K19 Widowmaker". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>