2001: A Space Odyssey – An refreshing, optimistic take on science fiction.

Most science fiction stories nowadays are pretty much copy and paste — scientific discovery leads to disaster, death, terror, and dystopia. These books criticize and demonize scientific exploration and portray it as mankind’s downfall, and it is really getting old. It’s time to treat science and discovery as something wondrous and exciting, while still criticizing its weak points, and this is exactly what Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey accomplishes.

Most people are familiar with the movie version, directed by Stanley Kubrick (who is an absolutely phenomenal director, by the way. Some conspiracy theorists say that he faked the moon landing and I don’t really blame them. If I was the government and I had to choose one director to fake the moon landing, it would be Stanley Kubrick). The movie was actually written side-by-side with the book in a collaboration, so the movie isn’t too far off from the book. If you watch the movie, you can still get the gist of the story, but I still highly recommend the book.

Back to the topic, 2001 is a book about discovery. An alien device in the form of a black monolith is found buried on the moon, emitting intense magnetic waves that are strong enough to disrupt signals. Upon being uncovered, it sends a loud signal to a larger monolith on one of Saturn’s moons, Iapetus. Dr. David Bowman and Dr. Francis Poole, along with several other scientists in cryogenic stasis, are then sent on a mission aboard the ship Discovery One to find the monolith on Iapetus. The true nature of their mission is unknown to them, however, and is only known to the ship’s AI, HAL 9000.

HAL is conflicted on his purpose, and, without spoiling the book or the movie, ends up jeopardizing the mission he was so desperate to save. It was almost as if, when trying to make a human-like artificial intelligence, made it too human, which resulted in internal conflict. Most people call HAL the beginning of the “evil AI” trope, but he really isn’t evil. He’s just a poor, conflicted robot trying to wrap his brain around his clashing mission instructions. This demonstrates how the story criticizes technology, while still being realistic without resorting to “robots take over the world and kill all humans.” Robots essentially are a part of the humans that created them, and, if capable of independent thought, are just as prone to mistakes and internal conflicts as we are.

Eventually, Dr. Bowman is forced to deactivate HAL in order to continue his mission to Iapetus. Upon arrival, he discovers the twin monolith, though much bigger than the original found on Earth’s moon. He enters the monolith and, well, the rest is spoilers, but the wonder and awe towards discovery is really made evident in these last few scenes, of both the book and movie.

Discovery and wonder also plays a part when the ship uses the “slingshot effect” to fling itself past Jupiter and towards Saturn. Dr. Bowman gets a quick glance at the surface of Jupiter, and describes it as “a sparkling gold”.

I don’t want to get too deep into this novel, as it has lots of symbolism and imagery that the reader should experience for themselves. So, if you’re sick and tired of trope-y sci-fi like I am, give 2001: A Space Odyssey a read, and definitely a watch as well. The movie is considered a “cinematic masterpiece”.

 

Jekyll and Hyde – Not Multiple Personalities, but a Commentary on Human Nature

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was written by Robert Louis Stevenson, and was published in 1886. The main character, Dr. Jekyll, and his “alter ego”, Mr. Hyde, are often used to portray a (quite harmful) stereotype of Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder). However, the nature of Dr. Jekyll’s case was not meant to depict this trauma-based mental illness, but was rather a social commentary on human nature.

In Dr. Jekyll’s confession letter at the end of the novella, he talks about “dark urges” that he experiences. He, as a refined gentleman and scientist, is quite ashamed of these secret impulses that he harbours, and is desperate to find a way in which he can separate them from himself. He then comes up with a plan to create a concoction that can turn him into “Mr. Hyde”, a ruthless, violent, and rude individual who earns the hatred of everyone who meets him.

When Henry Jekyll first drinks his mixture and transforms into “Edward Hyde” for the first time, he goes through several physical changes. The identity of Edward Hyde is much shorter and stockier than Henry Jekyll, as well as appearing younger. As Jekyll looks in the mirror during his first transformation, he describes himself using “I” — not separating himself from Hyde, and acknowledging that Hyde is himself.

However, as Hyde, his violent urges get out of hand, and he commits murder by bashing a man to death with his cane. Only after this event does Jekyll begin to refer to Hyde as a separate person from himself, presumably out of guilt. Jekyll and Hyde are not two separate people inhabiting one body, but rather the same man acting out two very different natures. “Hyde” is only a mask for Jekyll to go out and act out on his violent urges without damaging his own name. While the serum does change his appearance and enhances his violence, Jekyll and Hyde are very much the same person.

Now, how does this act as a social commentary? Well, in essence, it is a criticism of humanity’s inability to take responsibility for its own deeds. Jekyll experiences these violent urges and is quite ashamed of them, and in order to free himself of the guilt and shame of these urges, pushes the blame of them onto “someone else”. The fact that he only begins to refer to Hyde as a separate entity after he commits murder is important to take note of — he does not want to take responsibility for his actions out of fear, so he pushes it onto his “alter ego”. Humanity in general is well known for its reluctance to take the burden of its own actions. For example, whenever countries go to war with one another, each side blames it on the other, and neither of them take responsibility for their violent actions.

The idea that Jekyll and Hyde is not a commentary on human nature, but rather a depiction of Dissociative Identity Disorder is a harmful stereotype that perpetuates the stigma against people with mental illness, portraying them as “dangerous” and “violent” — but that’s a rant for another day.

For now, Jekyll and Hyde is a short but good read, and recommended if you’re interested in the concept of human nature and its duality.