Senior HTF Member
- Mar 29, 2020
- Hamster Shire
- Real Name
Wholeheartedly agreed. The thing that really gets me is how stuck in his literalism Clarke was that he felt the need to ret-con the dates that events from the early books occurred when referring to them in the sequels, because they didn't line up with real-world history anymore. By the time we get to the third and fourth books, the events of "2001" are moved much further ahead. Yet the original book is still called "2001," because that title was too inconic to change.
He should have just embraced that his story took place in a fictional alternate timeline, but that wasn't how his mind worked.
Well, to be fair, while he might've shifted the timeline of events in the sequels, he didn't go back and rewrite 2001 to shift the timeline in that book. So, it can be argued that he did embrace the fact that the sequels split off to take a different path from the original.