Rating: 
Summary: Absolutely worth reading
Review: I have read 2001: A Space Odyssey and, of course, had to read the sequel. This book was written like 15 or so years after its prequel and its not the same.This book is not as mind boggling as 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is very cool technology, many things are explained, and you finally see whats really going on. The science in the book is very intriguing and you dont need to be proficient in nuclear physics to understand it. The main character as well as secondary characters are very interesting and easy to emphasize with. I say that this book isnt as "mind boggling" as the first one and its important that I explain why. I dont think it should be a reason for you not to read this. The first book (2001) was written by Arthur C. Clarke AFTER the 2001 the movie was made. He coroborated with Stanley Kubrick before writing a novel, which means that a lot of imagery and suspense in 2001: A Space Odyssey book were taken from the movie. This book is very consistent with the style of other Arthur C. Clarke writing. Succint, right to the point, appropriate for all ages, no foul language, simply brilliant. Action - 3/5
English - 5/5
Plot - 5/5
Erotic Aspect - 1/5
Foul Language - 0/5
Technology/Aliens - 4/5
Hard Science - 5/5
Overall Satisfaction - 4/5 (Becasuse there is a sequel)
Rating:
Summary: A good followup
Review: 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'.
Rating: 
Summary: As good as 2001!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: As good as ( in some ways better than) 2001
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Great depth but not near 2001
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Are to stories better than one
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: A Worth Follow Up Effort
Review: 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).
Rating:
Summary: A Worthy Successor
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: imaginative and scary
Review: clarke is great at putting a twist of horror and poetry into the universe unfolding around us in his trilogy of 4 books. i loved 2001 the best but the next two were worthy reads.
Rating:
Summary: Good second part, but not as good as the first one
Review: 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.
| 
