Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Familiar?

     Apes were to become men, in the inscrutable wisdom of nature . . .Down on the grass by a streamside, one of those apes with inquisitive fingers turned over a stone and hefted it vaguely.  The group clucked together in a throaty tongue and moved off through the tall grass foraging for seeds and insects.  The one still held, sniffed, and hefted the stone he had found.  He liked the feel of it in his fingers.  The attack on the animal world was about to begin.
     If one could run the story of that first human group like a speeded-up motion picture through a million years of time, one might see the stone in the hand change to the flint ax and the torch.  

-- Loren Eiseley --  "How Flowers Changed the World"
first published in The Immense Journey, 1957

The Star Thrower




Does this sound familiar?


And from the back cover of The Star Thrower:

"The book will be read and cherished in the year 2001. It will go to the MOON and MARS with future generations.  Loren Eiseley's work changed my life.  -- Ray Bradbury --



Curious.   Why that year of all the years he could have picked?

14 comments:

  1. I wonder if Kubrick read this book cover of this edition before making his film. This might make the most sense. Otherwise it is a very interesting coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian, unfortunately I know nothing of Kubrick's reading habits. I suspect it's just an interesting coincidence, but it could easily be a source for the opening scene, adapted for the screen.

      Delete
  2. Interesting coincidence indeed! [images of tumbling bones turning into spaceships]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CyberKitten, that's what caught my eye as I was reading--the reference to the camera.

      Delete
  3. And...why did Clarke choose 2001? There’s just something about the rhythm of the syllables?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R.T., I never read anything that suggested why that date. Perhaps it's as Stephen suggests: the first year of the new millennium.

      Delete
    2. That was my thought - the *actual* Millennium rather than the one we all celebrated [grin]

      Delete
    3. CyberKitten, so far it's the most reasonable guess I've heard.

      Delete
  4. i think i mentioned that our library has no Eisley at all... i chastised them about it, but they just looked sheepish...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle, neither does mine, except for a few anthologies which include a poem or an essay or two. As a consequence, I own many of his works.

      Delete
  5. Perhaps the year itself has some symbolic weight, as the first year in the next millennium. Most people would use 2000 for that, though..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen, that's the best answer I can come up also.

      Delete
    2. It's amazing how annoyed people got when I started to explain to them that they were a year early celebrating.... [lol]

      Delete
    3. CyberKitten, I gave up after the third? fourth? attempt. Go with the Flow.

      Delete