2010 (Space Odyssey)

I loved this book from start to finish, although the end slowed things down for me because I had seen the movie first. That's the only reason it received 4 stars. I was always excited to see what happened next. Arthur Clarke is an inspiring author that makes you wonder about life in other places of the universe. The epilogue about the Europans...genius way of reflecting our own evolutionary history.

This book has me thinking new thoughts about SPACE and space travel. The beauty of the expanding universe as you travel further from Earth and see expanded views of the stars and planets. However, the inherent dangers of space travel would keep me firmly tied to Earth- I am not an adventurous type.

I would not recommend this book to someone who is not already a fan of Clarke's writing. But, if you are a fan of Clarke, you'll love this. many of the questions of 2001 are answered, and new ones are asked.Heywood Floyd, one of the characters in 2001, is the main character. One of the strengths of the book, to me, is the other characters new to the book. They feel like real people dealing with the real problems caused by the events of 2001. It's not an all time great book, but it's worth the time it takes to read.

I’ve seen the movie multiple times and finally got around to reading the book. The book was pretty good and much better than 2001 – lots of interaction between the characters, and a scenario and technologies you could believe without having to stretch your imagination too far. I’m now tempted to try the sequel. I picked this up for $1.99 during a Kindle promotion, and certainly received more than $1.99 of entertainment value out of this one.

I’ve seen the movie multiple times and finally got around to reading the book. The book was pretty good and much better than 2001 – lots of interaction between the characters, and a scenario and technologies you could believe without having to stretch your imagination too far. I’m now tempted to try the sequel. I picked this up for $1.99 during a Kindle promotion, and certainly received more than $1.99 of entertainment value out of this one.

lot better then the movie! answeres alot of questions. however i dont understand how you can just go from 2001 were the ship went to saturn and not just jupiter and not even mention the fact. the frist book ended at saturn with the discovery of the monolith, but there is no mention of saturn and the book is set at jupiter and is written as if saturn never happened. other then that fact was a very good book

Limp, to put it charitably.

I've read great fiction, and great narrative accounts of fact, and this ain't either one. Not by a parsec.

I've got a cold, so today I read both 2001 and 2010 (extraneous verbiage omitted), mostly on the strength of the Kubrick movie.

I wanted to like this; I'd heard so much. And the movie stands up, even today.

But apparently this is the distinction between Kubrick's genius and Clarke's semi-adequacy.

Apparently it's enough to achieve sci-fi “greatness" by cooking up interesting speculative science, then phoning in the fiction aspect. As in, halfway competent prose, where the final sentences of a chapter do not induce eye-rolling, not to say vomiting, on a consistent basis.

Clarke's insight into the intelligence of top-flight scientists is strained at best, and if considered journalistically: not just sad or pale or trite or ham-handed or myopic or robotic or even alienated from accuracy by some unguessable failure to grasp the basic human condition... no, sadly, nothing as forgivable as any of those.

The failure to represent allegedly brilliant persons as anything but challengingly brilliant--that is a capitulation. The Heywood Floyd character is presented as the world's single most qualified person to encounter alien life... but his expertise with even the novel's flimsiest, most laughably simple "humans" wouldn't convince my preschooler. I've known smarter pets.

Sometimes the stereotypes are true. This was a pleasant read (while ill), and could support an interesting magazine article of speculative science... but it's a sad excuse for a novel.

Excellent progression of an epic tale that's near-futuristic, sometimes spiritual, sometimes social commentary, but always fast-paced and engaging. Read it in 2 days - excellent hard-bound copy from the seller. Thanks.

I don't usually criticize writers overly but it'seems this is the poorest book I could imagine. It's lacking in completion of characters, illusions are unfinished and is probably the most ridiculous science fiction I have ever read. I had to force myself to finish it and even though I bought the whole series I can assure you that I will not read the rest and regret buying it.

A space voyage went horribly wrong. A computer went mad. And an astronaut vanished without a trace.

The epic, cosmic finale to the legendary "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of the most unique in literary history, but unsurprisingly, it leaves a lot of loose ends for the people back on Earth to tie up. And Arthur C. Clarke addresses these in the solid (though not quite as spellbindingly suspenseful) sequel "2010: Odyssey Two," which features a new voyage to the reaches of the solar system -- and new discoveries that change the way the human race sees the universe.

A few years after the fateful loss of the Discovery, a joint team of US scientists and Soviet cosmonauts (remember, written in 1982) is sent out in the spaceship Leonov. Their goal: find the Discovery, find out what happened to HAL 9000, discover what may have happened to Dave Bowman, and investigate the monolith. Among the crew are Dr. Chandra, the man who created HAL and similar intelligent computers, and Dr. Heywood Floyd.

However, their mission isn't free of complications. A Chinese ship shoots past them in a failed attempt to snag the Discovery data (inadvertently discovering life on Europa), and HAL remembers nothing of what happened to Dave Bowman. But Bowman himself is not truly gone -- he has become an energy creature of godlike power and scope, unrestricted by physical needs or limitations. As he bids farewell to his old human life, he brings a mysterious message to the crew of the Leonov, warning them of massive changes that will endanger the Leonov -- and change the nature of the solar system forever.

Where "2001: A Space Odyssey" was all suspense building up to a glorious finale, "2010" is a somewhat slower build. The first half of the book is solid but not entrancing, mostly devoted to the voyage of the Leonov, the interplay of the crew members and the reclaiming of the Discovery. Clarke keeps it from getting stagnant by injecting some outside perspectives (glimpses of Floyd's family on Earth, the doomed Tsien and its discovery), but it's pretty standard hard-SF fare.

And it's something that Clarke does well -- he gives the highly-technical side of the voyage a sense of suspense and urgency, as well as a gentle undercurrent of humor and compassion (Dr. Chandra's embarrassing incident with the cigar and the fire alarm). Despite the obvious political anachronisms, it's a very solid, semi-realistic depiction of a space voyage.

But that changes when Dave Bowman rejoins the story. He brings back a sense of bittersweet wonder to the book, as we see Bowman saying farewell to the vestiges of his old life, and exploring the universe as easily as Clarke's expansive imagination can allow. The writing becomes utterly spellbinding ("The megatons flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to half the sleeping world"), and Clarke reveals a great deal more about the mysterious godlike aliens who created the monolith, and the mind-blowingly epic destiny that awaits the changing solar system. Really, this part makes up for the more technical, pedestrian first half.

And he crafts the characters with equal skill. The Leonov's crew each have their own distinct personality and personal history (Zenia's scars, for instance), and there's a lot of personal and romantic interplay between them (including a bisexual love triangle). Clarke especially focuses on the socially awkward Dr. Chandra, as well as the amiable Floyd, who is leaving his younger wife and children for the next two-and-a-half years. And despite his exalted state, Dave Bowman is a fascinating creature, with almost boundless power but with still with vestiges of human thoughts.

It's not quite the masterpiece that the first book was, but "2010: Odyssey Two" builds on its story, before unleashing some shocking plot twists of its own -- and leaving doorways (in monoliths) still open for more expansive journeys through the cosmos.

Continuing the story told in the classic science fiction movie and novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, this chronicles what happens when an international team is sent to Jupiter to investigate the fate of the 2001 mission.

Description: In 2001 the crew of the spaceship Discovery found a mysterious monolith orbiting Jupiter; it’s clearly an alien artifact. The spaceship’s computer (known as HAL) had started to act oddly and caused the death of all but one of the crew. David Bowman, the lone survivor, manages to disable HAL and then continues on with the mission. When he leaves Discovery and starts to explore the monolith he disappears, with his last words sent back to Earth being “My God, it’s full of stars!” But there is now a newly created version of Bowman, unobtrusively watching over Earth and humans, unsure of what his next steps should be.

Nine years later a joint Soviet-American team travels to Jupiter on a Soviet spaceship. The objectives are to find out all they possibly can about the 2001 mission from Discovery’s records, and to further investigate the monolith. A key to unlocking some of the mysteries surrounding the 2001 mission is to resuscitate Discovery and to delve into HAL’s memory banks – so a vital member of the 2010 mission is the scientist who created HAL. There are another two Americans aboard who are deemed necessary, but the rest of the crew is Soviet. There are ongoing political tensions between the two countries and neither is happy about having to partner with the other, but there are some necessarily tight deadlines that have to be met, and only the Soviets have a ship that is ready in time. Inevitably the relationships between the crew factions are strained as the mission starts out.

As the ship gets nearer to Jupiter there are some big surprises in store; there is also the horrendously dangerous braking maneuver which entails circling Jupiter and using its gravity to help slow the ship down. Finally they rendezvous with the dead US ship, Discovery, and then start the arduous task of trying to bring it back to life. They also have to carefully bring the powerful HAL back online, unsure of what they will find and how it might react to the newcomers. Meanwhile the huge monolith seems to be inert and unperturbed by their presence. But by far the biggest shock is yet to come. And “Bowman” continues his watch and starts to flex some of his newfound powers.

John’s thoughts: 2001: A Space Odyssey was such a classic movie, which was groundbreaking in all sorts of ways. The ending left some audience members scratching their heads a bit, though the resulting novel did clear things up at least somewhat (the movie was a result of collaboration between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, while Clarke followed up with the novel). In many ways it cried out for a sequel, but more than twenty years passed before Clarke released this novel.

It was a tough act to follow, but employing his usual gifts of huge imagination, technical credibility, and first-rate storytelling, Clarke did a terrific job. In common with most Clarke books, this is a really fine read. The futurism and science don’t get in the way at all, but rather add to what is a really cool story. This is an easy read – which is not to diminish the depth and complexity of the plot. And of course there are plenty of surprises to keep you turning the pages.

It is not unusual in many science fiction books to find that characters are rather thin and under-developed, taking a back seat to “gee whiz” plots and grand visions, but that is not a problem that I have found with Clarke – the characters in this novel are interesting and have some depth, as are those in most of his books. (Though I must admit that this is my first Clark read in a long time and it was in my student days when I voraciously read his books, so maybe my memory is playing little tricks with me).

All in all, this is a great read that I’d recommend to any and all science fiction fans; though of course it has been out for a long time now so perhaps most have read it already. You don’t have to have read 2001 first as the key elements are recounted in 2010 - but it will help to provide a little added background and color. I’d also say that for non-science fiction fans who want to test the water, Arthur C. Clarke is a great place to start. I’d rate this book 4 stars.

P.S. It only just occurred to me how apt it is to rate science fiction novels using a system of stars!

Having seen 2001 in its debut back in the sixties and then watching it again in 2015 I was still confused. Kubrick obviously had a cinematic abstract painting that had no clear explanation... Until I finally read the book which made the ape episode make sense and tied it to the whole. But then the ending with Dave hurtling over Jupiter in that LSD inspired montage still made no sense until I read 2010. Now it comes together. While this is Clarke's version of the story that he and Kubrick developed the book makes sense. I have never been good with extreme abstract art. If the artist wants to communicate something then, darn it, be clear, or at least offer some decent hints. But Kubrick did none of that and so a Google search for an explanation of Kubrick's version revealed that no one had ever definitively determined what the heck he meant, as apparently was his intention. Thank God Arthur was more of a realist painter and wrote stories that, while thought provoking, at least guide you to some satisfactory conclusions. If he were alive today I'd buy him a beer and toast him in appreciation.

Clarke had many attributes as an author, but what I most enjoyed were his thoughts on technology and perceptions of aliens. With his continuing inclusion of HAL he brings an interesting new twist into machine-human relations. It is much less conflictive than later artists would be in Terminator, Battlestar Galactica, and a host of other works. In that sense it is more real than anything else I have read.

Where he stands out, however, is with the Aliens. He has non-sentient animals as the most advanced species, something rarely tried in Science Fiction. And then a race of godlike powers protecting them. The symbolism was great, of these superpowers from Earth fighting over resources and having the chance to exploit a new planet as they have exploited Earth in the past. And in the midst of this a species makes itself known that is as far beyond us as we are beyond the aboriginal species. It does not want to exploit us, and in fact is protecting the races from each other. Why, because it is mature than we are. I love the idea that we are not all-powerful! that there are species out there that will protect lesser species from us! and Clarke did a wonderful job of creating one for us here.

Each time I venture back into the world of science fiction I'm reminded how much I love it. The sheer inventiveness of the authors, creating entire species and technologies fascinates me. As of right now (in my brief exploration) Clarke is so far one of my favorites.

He doesn't sacrifice characterization to get the sciencey parts across. In both of his books I've read he creates deep feelings about the characters, positive or negative (even for the computer-HAL). In other sci-fi books I've read it's all about the story and the tech and the characters fall flat, but Clarke manages to do both.

One of the reviews on the front calls it "sweeping", and that to me is the best definition I could find for this dazzling sequel. It isn't just fantastic, or inventive, it literally races across the solar system so fast at times I found it hard to keep up with it; it feels like flying. The book makes you question, and wonder, and imagine if these things could be possible. Not only am I constantly astounded by the author's creativity, I'm surprised by the creativity it sparks in myself.

Granted science fiction isn't for everyone. It can at times be a little dense and hard to grasp, requiring a little bit of rereading. But it definitely is an amazing feeling to be taken completely out of the context of any other genre and forcing your brain to read in a new way. It's like trying to do things with the opposite hand you normally do-not hard, but definitely a challenge.

Arthur C. Clarke is an excellent writer, and this book is a good read. But basically it's the same book as 2001. In the version of the book I read, Arthur C. Clarke has written an interesting preface. There I got to know that 2001, actually was developed simultaneously as both a movie and a book. Eventhough 2001, the book, is good, it's properly one of those rare situations where the movie is actually better than the book. Another fun thing I read in the preface to 2010, was that when the dark side of the moon for the first time was observed by the human eye, by the astronauts in the end of the 60's, the astronauts were very close to make a joke when they send their first message back to the Earth, they considered: "Oh my god we see an immense black monolith!", but eventually they chose to well-behave in the historic moment, and did not send that message;-) It's interesting to compare a sci-fi writer as Arthur C. Clarke to another sci-fi writer as Jules Verne. It seems like Jules Verne was underestimating the future. What we have seen in our time far surpasses the visions he had in "From the Earth to the Moon", "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and "Around the World in Eighty Days". On the other hand a writer like Arthur C. Clarke's visions have been too bold, today, April 1. 2012, we are nowhere close to make computers like HAL 9000 and we are nowhere close to make spaceships and space travels as he describes them. I actually think Arthur C. Clarke went wrong there, he shouldn't have dated his vision 2010, that's far too optimistic!