Rating: 
Summary: Buy only if you don't already own Against the Fall of Night
Review: How do you rate a book like this? First of all, it's not a novel, despite its 339 pages. It's two novellas, the first by Clarke (four stars, pp 3-155) and the second by Benford (one star, pp 159-339). Second, the styles and subject matter are quite dissimilar. Benford makes no pretense of continuing Clarke's story or paying homage to the master in any way; this is simply a novella inspired by Clarke's novella. That's fine if you're a fan of Benford's writing, which can be maddeningly uneven. Sometimes he uses whole pages of terse, deliberately elliptical dialogue; other times he seems to simply forsake dialogue altogether for rich, speculative, but often precious prose. But if you like the style of Arthur C. Clarke, you will dislike Benford's half of the book. Someone wrote of Clarke that he "can forge poetry from an engineer's blueprint." As Roger Ebert might say in reverse, Benford can forge a blueprint from someone's poem. Worse, Benford does not demonstrate a familiarity with the events in Clarke's novella. For instance, he speaks of visiting the moon, which fell to earth long before the events in Clarke's novella. Benford implies that it is difficult for the "ur-humans" to communicate with Vanamonde, then quotes history that the ur-humans learned FROM VANAMONDE in Clarke's novella. This is one of several times Benford contradicts not just Clarke, but himself. Clarke writes in the foreword that shortly after Benford asked to write a sequel to Against the Fall of Night, Damien Broderick asked to write a sequel to The City and the Stars! Oh, if only Broderick's letter had arrived sooner! Recommendation: Buy this book ONLY if you do not already own Against the Fall of Night. -- Peter C.S. Adam
Rating: 
Summary: Sense of Wonder Meets Sense of Wonder Why
Review: I actually read "The City and The Stars" (Clarke's own re-write of "Against The Fall Of Night") before I read ATFON. I still agree with Mr. Clarke's estimation of the two works; "City" is the superior work. When I first read "Beyond The Fall Of Night," I was extremely disappointed. While Gregory Benford is an excellent author, I came away with the feeling he had somehow missed the point of Clarke's earlier work. I especially was puzzled by Alvin's death and the assumption that the technologically-boosted telepathy of the inhabitants of Lys was also the instrument of their death. What had been a novel of new hope and a renaissance of humanity became a dark and dreary tome more typical of the cyberpunk movement. Only determination kept me going to the end of the book. Recently, I re-read this book and believe I was too harsh in my judgement of Mr. Benford's work. If we accept it as a tale of transition, It works well. Transitions are messy times and "Beyond The Fall Of Night" meets that criterion. The citizens of both Diaspar and Lys are shown in a more critical light unfiltered by Mr. Clarke's gentility. Also portrayed are more realistic assumptions about the changes wrought over a billion years. Perhaps the major flaw in this book is the two stories are presented in a common cover. There is so much difference in the two styles, Mr. Benford suffers simply because he is not Mr. Clarke. The trick is to skip past the original work and go straight to the sequel. The beautiful prose with which Mr. Clarke ends "Against The Fall Of Night" does not transition well to the gritty opening of "Beyond The Fall Of Night." While I still prefer the visions presented in "The City And The Stars," Mr. Benford's novel is powerful in its own way. Perhaps a better way would have been for Mr. Benford to write a synopsis of the earlier work in his own style. I must say, while my opinion has improved of this book, I certainly hope Mr. ! Clarke turns down anyone wishing to write a sequel to "The City And The Stars." As he promised in the preface to his later work, I am content to let his be the last words on the City of Diaspar.
Rating:
Summary: Ughhh!
Review: I agree with a previous reviewer that both parts of this book should not have been under the same cover. The style, focus, ambiance, and characterizations in the two parts differ tremendously. Consequently, the book seems the result of one of those writing games, where one person starts a story and another ends it, with no other communication between them. This is not to say that both parts are not good in their own right. Part I establishes a historical foundation of breathtaking scope and scale. Part II builds on the foundation creatively with modern ideas and the most interesting character in the book. However, I expect that criticism of this book will always be biased against Benford for not fulfilling a vision initiated by Clarke. (A warning to those of us who dream of writing sequels to Rendezvous with Rama or Asimov's Foundation trilogy!) The problem is that Part II struggles in vain to close the openings from Part I. Benford fleshes out the history and characters of Part I in completely different ways, and seems to have no qualms about rewriting them when he needs to. Consequently, the awe inspired by the temporal scale of events is dashed when they become fragmented and doubtful.
Rating:
Summary: Conflicting Messages
Review: I agree with a previous reviewer that both parts of this book should not have been under the same cover. The style, focus, ambiance, and characterizations in the two parts differ tremendously. Consequently, the book seems the result of one of those writing games, where one person starts a story and another ends it, with no other communication between them. This is not to say that both parts are not good in their own right. Part I establishes a historical foundation of breathtaking scope and scale. Part II builds on the foundation creatively with modern ideas and the most interesting character in the book. However, I expect that criticism of this book will always be biased against Benford for not fulfilling a vision initiated by Clarke. (A warning to those of us who dream of writing sequels to Rendezvous with Rama or Asimov's Foundation trilogy!) The problem is that Part II struggles in vain to close the openings from Part I. Benford fleshes out the history and characters of Part I in completely different ways, and seems to have no qualms about rewriting them when he needs to. Consequently, the awe inspired by the temporal scale of events is dashed when they become fragmented and doubtful.
Rating: 
Summary: SF IS AN ON-GOING CONVERSATION
Review: I appreciate the comments, which indeed mirror the thoughts I had after Arthur and I agreed that I would try to write a sequel. You see, he, too, wanted to see revisited the assumptions of half a century ago. As the last comment says, there was the lurking danger that a sequel made more realistic & in line with modern science would dispel the sense of wonder. I'm sorry that for some it did. But sf is a discussion ringing down through decades, and we need to revisit our assumptions. I did what I could, and I'm sorry some didn't like the change of style; I write my own way. (Though in view of these comments, I think I won't henceforth spend so much time on character, description, etc. Maybe just a fast plot; it's easier writing that way, too.) A few details: I intended to insert the moon--it appears in the first few pages of my portion--because I wanted to show how celestial events were being reshaped. Someone replaced the moon. As well, we later learn that the planets aren't in the old order. This sign of larger things afoot I deliberately sought. Oh yes--that Vanamonde is hard to talk to for Ur-humans does not mean it's impossible. Thanks for the feedback!
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing but boring
Review: I have read several of Arthur C. Clarke's books before, but never any Benford (which after reading this book, I don't plan to.) The actual idea for the first novella is absolutely fascinating...a super high-tech race of humans billions of years into the future. Unfortunately, this type of storyline would require at least some emotional quality like that found in Clarke's Rama series. Clarke just didn't pull it off. The character of Alvin is either extremely shallow, or Clarke just never put any thought into his personaity. Either way, the lack of depth just completely ruins a good book. Also, he laves many questions unanswered. It may be hard to sumarrize a billion or so years of history, but if he didn't want to try, he shouldn't have even written the book. For Benford's half of the book, everything that Clarke missed on is mutiplied ten-fold, making the second half completely unbearable, since it lacks even an interesting plot. The grotesqueness of the characters, their lack of personality and intelligence, and the lack of a plot make this second novella both extremely boring and hellish to read. Benford's dialogs skip from one subject to another, the action is choppy and without explanation (example: when the flyers are ravaging the "tribe" he doesn't even explain who the "tribe" is, where they lived, or what they looked like, which eliminates all chance of a reader picturing the events in their head as they would with any other story). Overall, the only thing that saves this book from a 1 rating is the slightly interesting ideas expressed in the first novella.
Rating:
Summary: Ughhh!
Review: I read "Against the Fall of Night" about six times in the last sixteen years. It is by far my most favorite sci-fi book. I can't say the same for Mr. Benford's continuation. The great fun of Clarke's portion is the sense of wonder it gives you. He never goes in great depths about the technology or history of this universe. He gives you a general idea and goes no further. Since this story is placed billions of years in the future, this is fine. Could one of us really understand such a world? Benford goes to great lengths to explain the workings of technologies. In doing so, he takes out the fun. He also de-humanizes many of the original characters. Clarke left it to us (mostly) to determine what these people are like. Benford turns them into bubble-headed aliens. Another problem I have with Benford's novella is massive inconsistencies. As an example, Clarke sets up a future where the moon was destroyed long ago when it began to fall out of orbit. Flip over to Benford's tome and the protagonist visits the moon and it is inhabited!! Never does Benford explain why the moon suddenly exists. If you have never read "Against the Fall of Night", you should get this book. However, I wouldnt waste my time reading the second half.
Rating:
Summary: Benford's work is not a sequel; it's a rebuttal.
Review: I'm reminded of the story of a well-known SF writer who as an experiment tried revising E.E. "Doc" Smith's galactic epics to remove the obsolete and clunky bits only to find he'd removed all the fun along with them. It's only by virtue of not tampering with the original text that Benford avoids commiting the same fault but with premeditation. Of course "Against The Fall Of Night" is obsolete SF. That doesn't matter. What matters is its atmosphere, and it is this atmosphere that Benford rejects systematically and irreverently. Clarke might not have objected to the changes, but authors view their works very differently than the readers do.
Rating:
Summary: Read the first part; skip the second part.
Review: I've just finished reading this. I really enjoyed Clarke's "Against the fall of night". It was an excellent idea and an interesting story. I was looking forward to Benford's sequel to see how the ideas would be developed, and was completely disappointed. The sequel was boring and incoherent. I found myself skipping pages hoping that it would get better-it didn't. I managed to finish it, but only just. Finally, the end was just too cute to be believable. I've never read anything by Benford before, and so I don't know if this is typical of his work. So, read Clarke's part (4 stars) and forget Benford's (0 stars). Hence, the combined work gets an average of 2 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Read the first part; skip the second part.
Review: I've just finished reading this. I really enjoyed Clarke's "Against the fall of night". It was an excellent idea and an interesting story. I was looking forward to Benford's sequel to see how the ideas would be developed, and was completely disappointed. The sequel was boring and incoherent. I found myself skipping pages hoping that it would get better-it didn't. I managed to finish it, but only just. Finally, the end was just too cute to be believable. I've never read anything by Benford before, and so I don't know if this is typical of his work. So, read Clarke's part (4 stars) and forget Benford's (0 stars). Hence, the combined work gets an average of 2 stars.
| 
