2010: Odyssey Two: A Novel (Space Odyssey Series)

Despite the introduction of new material and mind-boggling imaginings there is no way this sequel can top the original. Once the idea, the plot, the germ of the story has been let out of the bag, it is extremely difficult to capture that initial excitement and even euphoria.
The ideas of our "new" sun, the further adventures of Bowman, the exploration of life elsewhere in the Solar System - all of these are developed well. Of course, as in all Clarke books, it is the lack of character development that is crucial. In order to overcome this shortcoming the story itself must be dazzling as it was in 2001. 2010, though, could only exist on the shoulders of 2001 and for that reason deserves a '4' instead of a '5'.

I started to read Arthur C. Clarke when I was quite young, and I believe 2010 is my favorite of all his books. Maybe it was my age when I first read it, or because Heywood Floyd is awesome. I believe he represents well Clarke's vision of hope that pervades the story, even when the world changes so dramatically, or maybe because it does. Life, love--it doesn't have to end, just evolve into something more wondrous and beautiful. That can be a terrifying thought, or it can be comforting. That's what I get from Clarke, comfort.

Arthur C. Clark presents a thrilling grasp of the infinate in this timeless novel. He combines imagination and science to create a dazzling display of time and space's eternal mysteries. He takes you on a journey from the remote past to the near future, and touches on that fragile subject- is there life on other worlds? From the firey fury of Io to the frozen ice of Europa, from the fragile wisps of gaseous creatures in the atmosphere of Jupiter down to its diamond core, Arthur C. Clark shows the dazzling splendor of what might be. I encourage you to read this book, especially if you have read 2001. 2010 prompted me to look up at the stars and think- "What is really out there?"

In the sequel to 2001: A space odyssey, we once again meet Heywood Floyd. However, all the other astronauts are new characters, and one quickly notices how original and colourful they are /while still remaining fully realistic).

There's the commander, Tanya Orlova. Dr Chandra, who constructed HAL 9000 and has stronger feelings for it than for people, Walter Curnow, an anthropomorphic personification of the word "jolly", and many others.

And it is their task to go and investigate Discovery in their fine vessel called LEONOV. But strange things will happen...

This is an incredibly good book. It is well-written, and it is obvious that Mr Clarke has used the book medium in a way impossible with other works.

In what Carl Sagan refers to as "a worthy successor to 2001," Clarke once again takes us to the outer reaches of the solar system for a rendezvous with the mysterious monolith orbiting Jupiter. Heywood Floyd (mission director from the first book) emerges as the protagonist, along with a supporting cast of Soviet cosmonauts. We finally learn what caused HAL to go on the blink last time around - a "Hofstadter-Möbius loop." Dave Bowman's fate is revealed, and we catch a glimpse of the intelligence behind the monoliths, which turn out to be, among other things, von Neuman machines. Plot discrepancies between 2001 the movie, and 2001 the book are resolved in favor of the former, and 2010 incorporates the findings of the Voyager missions, which hadn't yet occured when 2001 was written.

A decent outing by Clarke, but it's not as good as 2001, though that is one of the "Ultimate, Classic" Sci-Fi books of all time. However, the idea that a computer (HAL), even if it could pass the Turing Test, could then achieve sentience and then be transformed as Bowman was, is ludicrous to me. That's why it only gets 3 stars. (I might have given it 2 but I've read 2061 and KNOW what crap is.)

Upon reading 2001, I saw that Arthur C. Clarke had set up a high standard in his works. I knew that if he wanted to have a sepuel, it would have some pretty big shoes to fill. With 2010 I saw that Clarke could live up to his own accomplishment. The masked conflicts were again lurking and came out after a well-constructed plot. The Russian and Chinese elements brought out international as well physical problems and questions. With the destruction of the Tsien, It became apparent that Europa was going to be a focal point of the novel. I saw that there would have to be something more than observations and recordings as the first third of the novel presented. Again Clarke brought his readers through a long passage of time without the onset of boredom. Bowman's appearance and story gave a fine inside view as to how Arthur could humanize anybody. The monoliths were in their elements as simple question marks in a fact finding mission. I admired the way Clarke could create suspense and a feeling of closeness in a place of extensive distances. I can only wait for 2060.

Having seen the movie many times, I thought I knew what to expect when picking up this book. Boy, was I wrong! The book is so much different from the movie as to be almost a different story all together. I enjoyed the book far more than the movie, which I also like. I can see why they couldn't film the story of the book, the book is much too complex. Highly recommend.

In the mid-1980s, Arthur C. Clarke expanded the plot lines of his 1968 speculative classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey into a trio of sequels, having, unfortunately, no specific direction or new ideas with which to propel the series. 2001's first unnecessary follow-up, 2010: Odyssey Two, brings back many interesting facets from its predecessor: More information is given on HAL, the onboard computer of the mission, Discovery, whose malfunction had deadly consequences in 2001; new developments occur in the international space race; David Bowman reappears in his star child form and some more big, black monoliths show-up. But the novel lacks the definitive direction of 2001. Half a dozen plot strains swim around but none answer any important questions left unanswered in 2001 or greatly spark the reader's interest. I'm sorry to say that Mr. Clarke was more likely inspired to write additional Odyssey novels by the attention and income drummed-up by the 2001 trademark than any further insights into mankind's enlightenment to the wonders of the universe.

Often, I'll read a book because I saw the movie, liked it, and would like to get a more detailed story. If you are motivated to read the book because you saw the movie and would like to get more details, then I would recommend this book (I would recommend even if you didn't see the movie).

If you read 2001, be prepared for the inconsistency of the monolith's "target planet" of Saturn in 2001, but Jupiter in 2010. Clarke explains why the planet changed in the introduction of 2010 so I was able to ignore the inconsistency and enjoy the book.

The first sequel to "2001: a space odyssey," Arthur C. Clarke's "2010: odyssey two" is a fascinating and spellbinding adventure into the unknown. Full of awe, terror, and pure human emotion, it is a masterpiece of modern literature that answers some of the questions left by "2001," but also leaves the reader with even more questions about the mysteries of the Monolith, and of what Dave Bowman has truly become. Fans of "2001" will not be disappointed by "2010," Clarke's second Odyssey to the moons of Jupiter and Beyond! Grade: A

After reading 2001, the greatest science fiction master piece ever, I was afraid of not having my expectations fulfilled in this sequel. But 2010 eventually did it. Many of the mysteries from the previous book were well answered in this book, such as the role of the star-child Bowman, acting as an interface between Earth and the superior civilization. There were also some new interesting concepts introduced, such as the von-neumann machine. Furthermore, the fact that this book was written about 15 years after 2001, allowed Clarke to make an outstanding description of the Jovian Galilean satellites.
The end of 2010 made me rush to buy 2061 to see how Europa would become habitable and what happened to HAL, but unfortunately, this time my expectations were not 100% fulfilled.

At times tedious, boring, and self-satisfied, this book seemed to me to be an attempt to fatten Clarke's wallet more than a further exploration of concepts from its prequel. Books like this did, however, help create a "good scientist" model that the scientific community embraced. Nothing new or intriguing here.

I enjoyed this book more than the movie which I felt was to politically motivated. I was dissapointed that it was the continuation of 2001 the movie and not the book. The book 2001 was different than the movie. I feel the author should have persued that path.

Other than this point, the book is very entertaining with little "slow parts". Good reading from a good Author.

Post Discovery mission.

Several years after Bowman and company's original mission failure a new expedition is undertaken - this time to Jupiter, not to Saturn as in the previous novel, so following on from the film plot instead. It is a joint country mission as it is the Russians that have developed more advanced travel technology, the Chinese too it is discovered.

What follows is more of Bowman and the aliens and what they are trying to achieve.

Just an ok book, really.

2010 brings the approach of a second Cold War between the United States and Russia, and at the same time, a problem is raised when the Discovery's orbit is decaying and risks a crash on Jupiter's moon, Io. Heywood Floyd, the director of the Discovery mission in 2001, is sent on the Russian ship Alexei Leonov to help stabilize the doomed space station. His other mission objectives is to solve the mysteries between HAL 9000's malfunction and the status of David Bowman after the encounter with TMA-2, or Big Brother, a gargantuan version of the monolith found on the Moon. And even more questions develop when the Chinese ship Tsien comes in contact with life on Europa.
The characters are very believable, with a few good lines from Max. "'Not to worry,' said Max cheerfully. 'All that will be gone when you wake up. It's--what do you say?--expendables. We'll eat your room empty by the time you need it. I promise.' He patted his stomach." (pg. 31) The plot develops quite rapidly, with strange new conflicts in every section. The author also gives excellent descriptions of what could be true behind many planets' and moons' secrets. "The core of Jupiter, forever beyond human reach, was a diamond as big as the Earth." (pg. 190)
Clarke tells the story very well, and everything seems to flow evenly, quite the contrary to my expectations. This book is never boring, and will keep you reading until your eyes bleed (or you finish the book, which ever comes first). The ending is not at all sudden, and it leaves the story wide open for more. Of course, Clarke has taken advantage of this fact in the sequel 2061, but that's beyond this review. This is a must-read for any Sci-Fi fan.

The characters in 2010 are a little more "real" than the ones in 2001. You get Heywood Floyd's personal struggles and emotions, not just one single part with him in as in 2001. The ideas in 2010 are eerily real: joint US/Russian space missions at odds with the Chinese (who have sworn than, by 2010, they will land on the Moon I kid you not). We explore a little more of Hal and the Monolith and some questions are answered that were not answered in 2001.

Overall this was a more than worthy sequel to 2001. I highly recommend it. Much better than its movie counterpart.

The first book was so good in my opinion that reading the sequel was a must (especially since I liked the second movie so much more than the first). While that is my opinion about the movies I think that my opinion of the books is almost the reverse. The book continues the tension of the first and even increases the mystery. By the end of the book I would have thought the next one would really hit a home run and start answering some questions (the ones I thought would have been answered in this one).

It moves the story ahead and adds some new concepts and ideas. Recommended for those who liked the 2001 and want some more, and won't get annoyed by the slight changes Clarke made to adapt the second book to the movie. Really worth reading, but don't expect that it'll surpass the first.

- Attention: Spoilers -
If you find yourself captivated by the mysteriousness of the universe clarke and kubrick created in 2001, then DO NOT read 2010. Having been a fan of 2001 since childhood, I decided to commit myself to reading the books. When I began doing so, an aura of "untouchable coolness" surrounded the 2001 universe. This feeling was shattered by reading the books, especially 2010 and 2061. THe movie 2010 retains the omnipotent mysteriousness of the monolith, the characteristic of the 2001 universe which I feel makes it so great. There are a number of things about this book which annoy me. The first is Clarke's annoying tendency to spoonfeed the reader incredibly dumbed down, and often very corny, explanations for each major event in the story, which never fail to destroy the sense of awe which pervaded the movies. This is obvious in many different parts of the book, but reaches a fever pitch in the end of the book, with statements along the lines of - "wait a second - i think jupiter just turned into a star!" and "I think the monoliths just might be the "swiss army knife" of the galaxy. I almost could not bear reading the final chapter of the book, an unbelievably corny depiction of the thoughts of europan explorers in the year 20,001 on their place in the universe. Clarke also has a tendency to "pitch" scientific ideas to the reader, for no apparent reason, launching into what is essentially an essay on one of his pet topics. The example which sticks out is the "von neumann" mahcine, which served no purpose in furthering the story, but could have had a place in a collection of speculative essays. And lastly, Clarke seems to believe that everyone in the world is part of the scientific community, and that everyone will be able to relate to his nerdy scientist's sense of humor. I find this very annoying. wrapping things up here, I have nothing but the utmost respect for arthur c. clarke as a scientist, and scientific essaysist, as well as his ability to relate science to the reader. However, I think he should stick to the realm of writing essays, and not writing fiction.

This book is, in my opinion, one of the few cases where the best book in a series is NOT the first one. I think that this book is a lot better than 2001, and I think I know why. 2001 was based on a screen play by Stanley Kubrick. This book was not based on a screen play, and this let A.C.C. take more liberties with it. It has plenty of plot twists, and the whole shape of the book gets turned around in the middle. I definetly reccomend it, although you should probably read 2001 first

2010: Odyssey Two is a very good book. It is not, however, of the same caliber as 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001 is a thought provoking, philosophical novel which raises issues such as the nature and origin of mankind, the difference between man and artificial intelligence, extra-terrestrial life, etc while 2010 mainly deals with war and the nature of politics (not quite as interesting to me). I would recommend this book to any true science fiction fan but don't expect it to be as good as 2001.

I thought the book was much better than the movie. In the movie they dumbed down the issue and the superimposed a Cold War trope on the story which was (I am glad to say) absent from the book version.

The book started off well and then dragged into plotlessness. I still had fun; I love planets that aren't Mars, so it was nice visiting Jupiter. The characters are interesting, though a bit aimless, and I couldn't help but feel Clarke forgot where he was going with the plot halfway through. I still enjoyed this imaginative book and may finish off the series.

While not quite as visionary as is prediscor it is still a solid story with solid characters. Please don't expect the movie. There is little cold war propaganda. What we get is a wonderful story driven by intrinsic motivation, science, and great human curiosity.

I'm looking forward to 2065.

This is classic science fiction. It is well written and stands the test of time well. It's surprising how many of Clarke's predictions about modern society were right, even if we don't have big spaceship s and travel between planets.

I enjoyed this more than the first. I felt it had more action and more dialogue. I liked how the action was the tension among the crew, the danger of space and not the alien-explosion-OMG-WE-GONNA-DIE type that so often gets dumped into books. Clarke's work is a subtle, slower variety. He explores human interactions with each other and the environment, the heart and mind and universe. All in all, it's a story that sticks with you.

Years ago I read 2001 and recently decided to re-read it and follow up with the rest of the series. 2010 does not follow exactly from 2001. I am not going to give anything away, but if you are a purist and want utter consistency you will be perturbed. The book is an easy read, the character development is pretty good, but what keeps your interest is the plot. Even as we approach 2010 you can't help but think what if...

After reading this installment of the "Odyssey" series I've finally realized why it has, so completely captured my imagination. It's because many of Clarke's extraordinary space happenings are based upon actual astronomical theory. This lends his stories a realism and possibility that is irresistibly captivating.

I really do enjoy these books that continue on after 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you enjoy the thought of space and thinking into the future of space travel and exploring other worlds, then this series is for you!

This book is an indirect sequal to the original 2001 published in the 60's, but it was still a good book anyway. 2010 was about a joint effort between the US and USSR to study the enigma of the black monolith found by Io in 2001, and learn more about HAL's malfunction. The book seemed to drag on and on through the middle with little surprises here and there, but the surprises still made it worthy enough to wait until the big surprise in the end. The ultimate transformation of the king of the planets would open up the door for its much better sequal 2061. However, 2010 is still worth the time taken to read it, and still makes a much better science fiction book than most. I recomend it, especially if you are interested in the entire "Space Odyssey" series.

2010, which is in my opinion the best of the Odyssey series, is an amazing book in every sense. Perhaps my favorite aspect of this masterpiece is Clarke's wonderful descriptions of Jupiter and its moons...his words make you think "WOW! I can't believe this stuff is actually OUT THERE!". Having read this book, I will never look at a picture of Jupiter, or any planet, moon, etc. with only passing interest...

Chapters 1-5 (Leonov)
The first five chapters were not very interesting. It basically spoke about how they had created a computer similar to Hal named Sal. They also spoke of news that the people on the first spaceship Discovery were killed and gave assignments to those who were supposed to go back up to Jupiter to find out what went wrong with Discovery.
Chapters 6-11 (Tsien)
The next six chapters focused on the mission to Jupiter. This chapter also spoke of how the Chinese had created a ship that no one knew was a spaceship until they launched it because it was being built in space. It attempted to land on Europa and something of a different species destroyed the ship Tsien. The crew on board Leonov found out that there was life on Europa from a message received from the only survivor of the Tsien explosion.
Chapters 12-21 (Discovery)
These chapters discuss how the crew finally makes it to the ship Discovery. They get there and attempt to get Discovery back and running. They get things started up on the ship, and fix Hal. However, Hal remembers nothing from the past and his rehabilitation begins.
Chapters 22-29 (Lagrange)
These chapters discussed more of the exploration of Discovery and more of the rehabilitation of Hal. This also goes more into depth of what takes place on the ship Leonov. It also gives you more of a description of the characters and their personality traits. They also discover something strange heading straight for Earth.
Chapters 30-41 (A Child of the Stars)
These chapters were very confusing for me. They would begin speaking of things that were taking place on Earth and then they would hop to Discovery and then to some supernatural human. It also seems to be speaking of strange types of creatures on Europa or Jupiter. They also make it seem like a member of Discovery is still alive.

Chapters 42-49 (Devourer of Worlds)
One of the members of the ship Discovery returns as a ghost and speaks to a crewmember of Leonov. He tells them a very important message but doesn't explain himself. Then Big Brother vanishes and the crew begins to believe the message sent by the ghost. They find a way to get back to earth earlier.
Chapters 50-55 (Lucifer Rising)
This is a very interesting chapter and explains everything to a full extent. However I won't ruin the ending for you! You'll have to pick it up for yourself!

The second book in Arthur C. Clarke's phenomenal 2001 trilogy. This book follows on with a mission and further discovery of what happened to the first crew that set out to discover the mysterious monolith.It has a good touch of relevant conflict tension between the U.S. and the USSR.

Pretty awesome sequence to 2001. At first I felt it would be a killer to read the sequels, but it turned out I was dead wrong. The story keeps getting more and more interesting. It's a really good read.

This isn't the best book i've ever read, but I liked where Clarke took the storyline. It kind of spoils the mystery of 2001, but at the same time (after reading the entire series) I got the feeling that Clarke himself didn't truly know where to take this storyline. I would recommend this book if you are interested in the storyline, but I don't recommend reading past this one. The last two are a waste of time, and don't add to the story whatsoever.

Arthut C. Clark is my hero! He posses the ability to place you on Europa and enables you to observe the evolution of a new "intelligent being". The utilization of hard science interwoven with a fabulous imagination sends me into orbit! It was great to see that water has been dicsovered on the moon. Now we can get on with the real journey to the stars..

Filled with intrigue, suspense, and the one and only HAL computer, "2010: Odyssey Two" is a incredible sequel to its predecessor "2001: A Space Odyssey." Learn more about Heywood Floyd and what actually happeded to Dave Bowman in the Monolith, how our solar system will be forever changed. Pick up and read this book right away

2010: Odyssey Two has great depth but fails to live up to the brilliance of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Even though Clarke still raises profound philosophical questions, creates a broad story and keeps proposing believable fiction he's somehow lost his touch on this one, in this book I didn't really felt the panic and the awe I felt on 2001: A Space Odyssey. There are some big lagoons between the really good parts and they don't allow the book to reach a crescendo. However the book is *not* boring at all it does takes the story a step further and Clarke's imagination and his point of view on the cosmos continues to be really interesting. Definitely worth reading if you liked the first installment, just don't expect it to be a masterpiece like 2001 was.

I'm re-reading all of Clark's Odyssey Adventures. This and 2001 are just as amazing as they were when I read them years ago. What makes Clark's stories special are his stunning visions of the future along with his respect for the physical laws of the Universe as revealed by science. This is great stuff! Now, on to 2061.

Great story that ebbs and flows. Could have had a tighter story line. Felt some of the descriptions of what is happening in the black bug brother were overtly superfluous and didn't add to the speed of narration.

Amazing. The only thing you can say is amazing. I often worry about sequels, but this went above and beyond all of my hopes and dreams. Arthur C. Clarke has woven together a story that not only compliments the original MOVIE, but adds so much more. We now understand the Space Baby and what the hell it's doing looking at Earth.
We were told so much more...there's no way you can not like this book. Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant.
A shame the motion picture 2010 was such a terrible waste of time....someday I shall redo it myself...(I wish) and I'll say, "Arthur, Stan, I've made you guys a sequel you can be proud of!"

2010 is my favorite odessey. Arthur C. Clarke did an excellent job I think. You will be suprised at how imaginative it becomes as the story unwinds. There are many twists to the story-but I certainly won't spoil it for you. This is a "Must Read" especaily if you liked 2001, Or if you just like a good Arthur C. Clarke book

I must say this is a jolly good book. Not as exciting as 2001, though. I give 2001 a 10 on a scale from 1 to 10, and i give 2010 a 9.3. The plot is very nice, and it's not as suspensful as 2001, and it's a lot more down to earth, but that doesn't make it bad. So basically if you like sci-fi, and liked 2001, you will like 2010 also.

Although it is a good book, does not equal the first one (2001).
I recommend reading first 2001, cause this book creates the questions you want answered in this second part (and not all of them are answered yet).
2010 shows wonderful views and sights of space, specially Jupiter and its moons, that alone makes reading worth it, but, as I said above, it is more enjoyable once you read 2001.

2010 is a great book; I couldn't put it down. It leaves you thirsty for more, and you just can't enough. If you have seen the movie then you will have a very good idea what is going on, but don't let that stop you from reading the book, because it is still even better then the movie. The movie to me was better then 2001 and so the book 2010 is just outstanding. I suggest that you read 2010 and get it for your collection because it is a classic in the SciFi genre.

2010 is better than the first book, in my opinion. The end is extremely fascinating and it adds much volume to the characters, especially the entity formerly know as Dave Bowman. It also explains much. His descriptions make the ice planet Europa interesting. Unfortunately, the last two in the series don't match this.

+++++

This 1982 book (that consists of 55 chapters plus an epilog), by Sir Arthur C. Clarke (who "said for years that [a sequel] was clearly impossible"), is really a hybrid book since it attempts not only to be a sequel to his previous novel ("2001: A Space Odyssey," published in 1968) but also attempts to be a sequel to the 1968 movie (also called "2001: A Space Odyssey").

In this novel, a joint Russian-American space mission is sent to the planet Jupiter (on the spaceship called "Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov") to try and discover what happened to the previous American spaceship (called "Discovery") that was sent previously in 2001. As well, Leonov's crew is "to locate the alien artifact [also called the monolith] encountered by Discovery, and to investigate it to the maximum extent possible."

Because this book attempts to be a sequel to the previous novel and the 1968 movie, it appeals to four different types of readers:

(i) those who have not read the previous novel and have not seen the 1968 movie
(ii) those who have read the previous novel only
(iii) those who have seen the 1968 movie only and
(iv) those who have read the previous novel and have seen the 1968 movie (as I have).

Each of these four types of readers will probably rate this book as follows:

(1) Those who have not read the previous movie or have not seen the 1968 movie will enjoy this novel. Reading the previous novel or seeing the 1968 movie is not needed to understand this novel. There is good character interaction and there is both known and speculative space science throughout. (Examples of speculative science include the idea that gas giant planets such as Jupiter may have diamond cores and there may be aerial life forms in Jupiter's atmosphere.) There are excellent descriptions of Jupiter and its moons (especially of the moons Io and Europa). As well, this novel's climax (that occurs in chapter 52) is exciting and unexpected.

These readers will probably give the novel a 5 star rating.

(Note that these positive comments will apply to the other types of readers indicated below.)

(2) The reader who has read the previous novel only will notice some differences that interfere with the continuity from the previous novel. For example, Discovery is no longer orbiting one of planet Saturn's moons but is now orbiting one of Jupiter's moons. (No explanation for this is given.) Instead of the monolith being on one of Saturn's moons, it is now in orbit around one of Jupiter's moons. (Again, no explanation for this is given.) As well, the mystery and awe of the previous novel is replaced with the straightforwardness of this novel. Many of the questions left open in the previous novel are now answered.

These readers might give this novel 3 1/2 stars.

(3) Fans of the 1968 movie will have a stronger sense of continuity after reading this book than those who have only read the previous novel. However, they may not recognize some of the dialogue that was said to exist (since it appeared in the previous novel only.) The overwhelming mystery and awe of the movie is replaced with the straightforwardness of this novel. However, many of the questions left open in the movie are now answered.

These readers will perhaps give this novel 4 stars.

(4) Those who have read the previous novel and have seen the 1968 movie might be a bit confused since they have to contend with what has been said in (2) and (3) above. But with some reflection, they should be able to sort out this confusion.

Possible rating by these readers: 4 stars.

As mentioned in (1) above, there is quite a bit of true and speculative space science throughout this book. Thus, this book would have different appeal to yet two more types of readers:

(5) Those without space knowledge. Such readers, I believe, would find this novel fascinating.

These readers would probably give the novel 5 stars.

(6) Those with some space knowledge. These readers would also be intrigued with the novel especially the speculative space science. However, they would be very dissappointed with the novel's climax (in chapter 52). For this climax to occur, there would have to be sufficient mass (which there isn't). Further, if this does occur (and it does in the novel), the novel would have to abruptly end since the spaceships (Discovery and Leonov) and Jupiter's moons would be instantly incinerated.

Possible rating by these readers: 3 stars.

The average of the above six ratings is 4 stars.

Finally, there is the 1984 movie called "2010: The Year We Make Contact." It is a straightforward, traditional science fiction movie. You don't have to read this book to understand this movie.

In conclusion, this novel as Carl Sagan says is "a worthy successor to 2001." It appeals in different ways to different people.

+++++

With this sequel to "2001", Arthur C. Clarke proves, yet again, why he is at the top of his game. This work, bringing back Heywood Floyd, along with a group of new characters, along with the evolved Dave Bowman and the monolith once again catapults us into the fantastic. This book is on my shelf along with: Stranger in a Strange Land", "Puppet Masters", "Foundation", "2001", "2010", "Rendezvous with Rama", "Ringworld", all the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" books, as well as books as new to the genre as "Advent of the Corps" and others.

A) This book ruined the movie for me (I can't imagine anyone who read the book liking the movie...but then...).
B) The drop through the Jovian atmosphere, life on Europa (go Richard Hoagland) and the ultimate fate of Jupiter are all amazing (the fact that 1 1/2 of the 3 don't appear in the movie helped to doom it to me).
C) I've probably read it 15 times, and I've enjoyed it each time.

If you enjoyed 2001, then you will probably like this book as well. It comes pretty close to the standards of 2001. Especially if the ending of 2001 left you with some questions and you are curious to see how ACC "filled in the blanks", then you should probably read this book.

amazing sequel to 2001. This edition is the perfect size, bound very well. If you liked the movie or the book, you will enjoy this sequel. Whereas 2001 can be read as a companion piece to the film, this book stands very well on its own.

The differences between the book 2001 and 2010 can be distracting at first, considering Discovery and the Monolith were at Saturn in the book 2001 and not Jupiter, but other than that this is an excellent book and part of the best sci-fi series in existance.

Another great read. Couldn't put it down. There are some continuity inconsistencies (in the 2001 the Discovery was abandoned at Saturn, but in 2010 it is found orbiting among the moons of Jupiter) but Clarke maintained that each of the four odyssey books takes place in a parallel, yet slightly different, universe.

Brilliant! This book is really REALLY good, exciting and engrossing! I could hardly stop reading it the whole weekend! A brilliant follow-up to 2001! I heartily reccommend you buy this even if you're not a big sci-fi fan.

Ok this book was good and moved along nicely compared to 2001, but failed to deliver a stunning or even remotely good ending.

The word play was much better than his previos novel, and grabbed my attention from the first.

But the main thing I saw was his almost prophetic one line reference to a Tsunamui in 2005. I read this book shortly after the real Tsunami in Sri Lanka, and was totally taken aback and thought to myself,"Holy cow! What are the odds of Clarke saying a Tsunami in the year 2005, when he wrote the book in 1982?" He even wrote this book in Sri Lanka, were the blunt of the wave hit.

So anyway if you want to read a gripping science fiction novel, this is the one for you. Also this book is for anyone wanting to be completely freaked by the similarities between the novel and real life.

After reading Childhood's End, I'm not so sure I'm as big a fan of Clarke I thought I was. Odyssey Two was interesting to say the least. I loved the description of the monolith on one of Jupiter's moons and the mind-bending dimensions of it, etc. However, I couldn't help but feel that the ending was childish. I didn't like the idea of Jupiter becoming another sun, making it constant daylight on Earth. To me, it just sounded like something a 3rd-grader would think of. All in all, I don't find the Clarke books I've read to be anything near that of Bradbury. Sorry Clarke.

Great hard sci-fi, greatly amazed by author's astronomical and physical knowledge. The imagination of the origin of life is very interesting. I am very intrigued to read his next book. "Is it gonna be good? God knows." -Arthur C. Clarke

This book was an incredible and amazing journey through the solar system and the mind. A worthy succesor to 2001, and a creative adventure about the possiblity of life elsewhere. For me, the most intriguing aspect of this novel pertained to it presenting a new and different perspective on the thought of man and even a controlled outcome. A great book and movie.

This book is the best book in terms of plot and "timing", it is almost impossible not to read the book in a single day. The details are superb. Read this book, specially if you have read 2001. This book and "Fountains of Paradise" are the two best books Clarke has done.

2010 odysse Two is good for to reasons. It has to stories in one. The story of the star child David Bowman and the crew of the spaceship LEONOV. But that is also its downfall. In one chapter is the thriling story of the LEONOV making its way to Jupiter and in the next is David Bowmans boring history. Still if you can cope with that then this Sci-fi book is right for everyone. Especially if you read the prequel

I must admit, 2010 is a very interesting book.
The book seems to be more interested in explaning its cryptic predecessor rather than being its own book with its own storyline. The author apparantly wanted to leave the reader in wonder by leaving open many parts of the first book.

In the background of 2001, Clarke introduced us to an advanced civilization that helped Earth's "dumb" apes evolve millions of years ago into modern humans by teaching them how to kill prey. I'm fascinated by these mysterious characters lurking in the background. They, like us, evolved from ocean slime, then into intelligent, self-aware carbon-based beings like us, then into living machines, and finally into organized states of energy. Then the reader is suddenly translated into modern times. Humans, developing powerful artificial intelligent life, are at the cusp of taking the next evolutionary leap. This, post-Darwinian evolution, is what 2001 is REALLY about. 2010 continues the devlopment of this theme when we learn of the "lost" astronaut's fate. He has been "ascended" by the avanced beings into a being of energy. Still, the topic of what post-Darwinian evolution might mean to us in the near future is not really developed at all.

On the other hand, a book I recently read and strongly recommend, Beyond Future Shock by Alaniz, picks up where Clarke coldly left off. Like 2001, it is a strong science fiction book. Starting in WWI, tracking the lives, romances, struggles and triumphs of several infant Germans who will live through WWII, the Cold War, and into the age of youth cocktails when these "kids" are in their late 90s, Alaniz tracks the science behind the coming transhuman age with masterful, subtle "Clarkian" writing. He also tracks the potential perils, and the problem of Luddism and religion versus science. As you sink deep into Alaniz's powerful imagery, you will find yourself thinking about mankind's various potential fates in the coming few decades: some horribly dystopian some reasonably utopian. Singularity (read the new book by Kurzweil) will soon be upon on us.

For me, Alaniz has finished with genius what Clarke only touched upon in 2001. I am fully sastisfied at last.

Paul

Although, it is part of a sequel, anyone could read it in the beginning.
It's a great story and very well-written.
And the ending is superb - with a philosophical touch.
A MUST read for any reader.

one star = no star.
the film 2001 a space odyssey is ok-ish. the book is brilliant & so is the short story that inspired it "the sentinel".
2010 is a lotta drekk.
so are the the other add ons from this "franchise".
do yourself a favour and die.