2010: Odyssey Two

For some reason the great A.C.Clarke made the egregious mistake of retconning the original 2001 story to go to Jupiter instead of the much more compelling Iapetus moon of Saturn where the first book ends up. Some foolish notion of following the movie when the book should be a sequel to the book. And 2001 the book was far better than the film. Aside from that this is a pleasure.

In writing 2010, Arthur C Clarke had to decide if he was going to sequel his book or the masterpiece that was the movie. He chose the movie and does indicate this before starting the story. The difference here is that 2001 the novel had the stargate on the Saturnian moon, Iapetus. Instead he writes as if the first novel followed the movie completely with the stargate orbiting Jupiter. The book 2010 is very similar to the movie except for another ship from China landing on Europa and discovering life there just before the "Leonov" russian ship arrives in orbit. The "Tsien" the chinese ship discovers a creature from the ocean on Europa. It's too bad the movie did not include this as i think it would have made great cinema. There are some other chapters on Dave Bowman coming back to earth, visiting an old girlfriend and his mom in a nursing home. I really enjoyed the book as Athur C Clarke is so good at helping us understand the real science behind the story. For this alone i would recommend the book.

In every way, this book is worthy to succeed the masterwork 2001: A Space Odyssey. That is quite a rare thing, considering the hype and standard that its predecessor set. Like the predecessor, this book is prophetic. In 1980's, only had the single-shot Apollo-Soyuz mission to build on. Now joint Russo-American spaceflight are standard operating procedures. But that is the job of science fiction--to blaze the trail. I was surprised how well this book read. Either Clarke's style has improved immensely since penning or he is free to tell his own tale without the obsessive-compulsive perfectionist Stanly Kubrick constantly nit-picking, as described in The Lost Worlds of 2001. Maybe it is a little of both. Either way, this book was a breeze to read. Really, this book wanted to be read. There are several discontinuities, however, that let me down. Not just the flip-flop of Saturn to Jupiter. Nor Clarke tweaking the story to bring it scientifically up-to-date--in fact, I appreciate him doing this. The greatest strength of the "2001" books is that they take current science and take it a few steps into the future. So unquestionably you are getting science fiction, but it is realistic enough that you feel that NASA could announce any one of these programs in the next few months. As the blurbs on the flyleaf of the original run of 2001 said, , "You are commander of the USS Discovery . . ." It felt exactly like that! The plot was squishy at times, and if Clake had done one or two more reivison, I imagine he would have gotten closer to the film version 2010: The Year We Make Contact, which had the better plot and plot twists. But what bothered me are the changes that are really retroactive continuity changes. For example, Bowman is no longer the godling Starchild, but something less. The analogy of "pet dog" and an ever-present "leash" (Ch. 38) are a far cry from benevolent Clindar of the early drafts found in "The Lost Worlds of 2001." Remember that Bowman is a mirror character to Moon-Watcher. After getting the brain boost from the Monolith, each says the same thing "he was mater of the world, but he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something." Now Bowman is a lapdog. Also, Clarke paints himself into a logical corner. If Dave Bowman is "beyond love and hate, desire and fear"(Ch. 36)--the things that make us quintessentially human--, and if the Firstborn are in danger of evolving into "the stupefying boredom of absolute omniscience" (Ch. 52), they why bother with cultivating intelligence? The point of the monoliths is--admittedly in an indirect way--to stupefy intelligent species? Why bother to climb the top of the evolutionary ladder, if there is nothing at the top? And then there is the assumption that omniscience is stupefying. Why does Clarke believe this? Where is his hard data? I mention these three caveats solely because they are the cracks in the franchise's foundation. 2001: A Space Odyssey

2010 is one of the rare cases where the sequel is almost as good as the original - in some ways it is even better. There are some quibbles of course. In building on 2001, Clarke chose to follow the movie rather than the book (hence Jupiter instead of Saturn, the recap of Bowman's conflict with Hal gives the movie dialog and so on). Also, 2001 was almost austere in its simplicity. Dialog and character development were skeletal. The reader was positioned as an external observer - in that sense, 2001 was a challenge to the reader. 2010 is dumbed down in a sense. Character development (never a Clarke strength) is marginally better than 2001 but the dialog is plentiful, making it a far easier read. Not a criticism, one just misses the simplicity and elegance of 2001.Having said that, 2010 can easily claim to be one of the landmarks of science fiction. Imagination has always been Clarke's forte and the way he comes up with the various ideas of primitive life on Europa, the proto-sun of Lucifer and so on are nothing short of brilliant. The story line builds on 2001 and takes us further down the road, telling us more about David Bowman, the monolith and the intelligence behind it. All with a very human touch to it - witness the fate of the Tsien. And as always, Clarke uses his trademark sly humor and simple analogies to make technical concepts easy to understand. Language has always been Clarke's second strength and he paints superb pictures with words, describing the spacescape, the flight of the two ships, the exploration of Jupiter, Io and Europa (in fact fans of Clarke will recognize the Jupiter descriptions from his earlier short story classic "A Meeting with Medusa"). A very good book.

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.

I reread this novel for the third time recently and enjoyed it every bit as much as I had the first two times. 2001 is more famous and the movie is far better known, but 2010 is my favorite sci-fi book outside Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama.My interest in learning about our solar system exploded after reading this novel. It is incredibly intriguing, you can visualize Jupiter and its moons up close, but you really are just dying to see them yourself. I feel like its such a tease, this is as close as I will ever get to experiencing the king of our solar system.The descriptions of Europa are still highly accurate and you can't help but wonder how true the novel might really be. The ending was fantastic and quite unexpected, I really didn't see it coming.What makes 2010 great I guess is the pacing. If there is any semblance of a "slow" part, it would be the beginning. After that the novel takes off and cannot be put down. Best of all, 2010 does not have any of the mindbending trippy stuff that was at the end of 2001. I was quite thankful for that. 2061 and 3001 are also good reads, but it is 2010 that stands above the rest in Clarke's spectacular four part odyssey. I doubt that you'll be disappointed, and if you liked 2001, I guarantee that you won't be disappointed.