Wikipedia discussion of interpretations of "2001"

Rating: 10/10 (12 February 2008)

This is an excellent film, which I have watched many times, but I believe it is complementary to Arthur C. Clarke's & Kubrick's novel of the same title. The novel fills in the explanation that would be simply impossible (and probably even boring) in the film, which presents a visual and aural inspiration that cannot be duplicated on paper. Thus I highly recommend that anyone puzzled by the movie should read the book, and as Clarke has suggested, repeat the pair alternately as necessary. I would also recommend Clarke's 1953 novel "Childhood's End" as deeply relevant for those who want more.
Lately an article has been underway on Wikipedia, "Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey", amidst a swirl of controversy. (There are also separate articles on the film and the novel.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and there are necessarily strict rules for what can be claimed in a "properly scholarly" encyclopedic article. While anything can be said (once), content deemed improper will be removed very quickly by swarms of dedicated defenders of the integrity of the project, rightly or wrongly, depending on the opinion of the persons involved. Once consensus has been reached on each article's discussion or "talk" page, argument should damp down. Anyhow, this is a good time for dedicated or interested 2001 fans to take a look and comment on the talk page (tab at the top). The article itself is presently "locked" to give tempers a chance to cool, but the discussion page is open. In any case, I hope the Wiki pages on "2001" will provide a useful resource to those interested in the film, as well as to Clarke's and Kubrick's thinking on questions of deep human interest, not only 40 years out, but likely for many decades to come as our species matures.