[ggm-at-algebras]

If he'd stopped after one, it would have been fine. He decided to do a series. It got weird. I still read them but the original is a decent standalone and you won't die unhappy if you never read the following.

The same could be said of 2001.

[Analemma_]

Officially, all the Rama sequels were co-authored by Clarke and Gentry Lee. Clarke claimed that Lee did virtually all the writing and he was only a consultant, although AFAICT the only source for this claim was in an interview many years after they were published, presumably after Clarke was aware of their negative reception, so who knows how much of that is true vs. reputation management.

But yeah, they're awful. I read them when I was 12-13 and it was one of my first introductions to the idea that sequels to great books could be so bad (and then for some reason I went on to read the Brian Herbert Dune prequels, which are even worse). Read the first one, and pretend it stopped there.

[metaphor]

In my mind, the prose of the sequels were so unlike Clarke when I read them as a teen that it created a long stint of aversion towards spending time on anything with co-authors. I owe Rendezvous a lot though; had I not discovered that book as a kid, there's little chance I'd be reading recreationally today.

[rendleflag]

The sequel series was one of my favorite sets of books. It’s markedly different from Rendezvous, but I found them an enjoyable read. It was contrived at points, but the series had my favorite ending for a character.

[ggm-at-algebras]

It would seem passing strange that Gentry Lee came up with all the awful bits and the consulting oversight didn't.

[BeetleB]

I've read almost all of Arthur C. Clarke's novels. The Rama sequels are nothing like his work. It's easy to believe that he barely contributed.

[rbanffy]

By the same time he did The Hammer of God, which is great.

[rbanffy]

I always felt that Gentry Lee kidnapped Clarke and forced him to be his co-author.

Clarke was so much of a better writer than the [2010|Rama] sequels indicate. He would not be able to screw it up so thoroughly without extensive "help".

Clarke also made some good partnerships - Richter 10 is a very good book. Sadly, the partner died and never worked with Clarke again. Gentry Lee would be my main suspect.

[Sharlin]

The terrible bits were all stuff that Clarke never wrote in any of his solo novels.

[rbanffy]

2010 is also good. The movie is also competent, but it could never fill the shoes 2001 left.

[twoodfin]

I am a big fan of both films, and have over many years come to the firm conclusion that, while 2010: The Year We Make Contact could never live up to its best-films-of-all-time predecessor, it’s both a terrific film on its own merits and could be tweaked even today to be better.

What it needs, fundamentally, is the Blade Runner treatment: Kill the expository voiceover, tighten up the edit, make the ending less sentimental and more mysterious.

[rbanffy]

Sean Bean meme saying “one does not simply make a sequel to 2001”.

I would completely redo the sets and get rid of CRTs everywhere, add understandable displays in Russian to the Leonov, and re-add the 1:1 flat displays to the Discovery. Also, remove the keyboards, which weren’t there in 2001.

[XorNot]

I thought 3001 was fine and a good conclusion.

Although it seemed implausible in the setting that humanity wasn't immortal given some of the technology.

[rbanffy]

I feel the stories got successively smaller from 2010 and on. 2010's epilogue hints at the developments after 20,000 years, and 2061 and 3001 feel small in comparison.

2010 is a good follow on to the 2001 book, and answers some of the questions the first book left while expanding the mysteries and the sense of wonder.

My wife and I still quote it when answering questions such as what's for dinner.

"Something wonderful".

[zem]

I remember 3001 mainly for the bit about deism vs theism, which is one of my favourite throwaway passages in all of sf.

8<-------------------

"You said that all the old religions have been discredited. So what do people believe nowadays?"

"As little as possible. We’re all either Deists or Theists."

"You’ve lost me. Definitions, please."

"They were slightly different in your time, but here are the latest versions. Theists believe there’s not more than one God; Deists that there is not less than one God."

"I’m afraid the distinction’s too subtle for me."

"Not for everyone; you’d be amazed at the bitter controversies it’s aroused. Five centuries ago, someone used what’s known as surreal mathematics to prove there’s an infinite number of grades between Theists and Deists. Of course, like most dabblers with infinity, he went insane."

[qingcharles]

All I remember from 3001 was a bit about velociraptors being used as gardeners and babysitters.

[ggm-at-algebras]

Nothing in this thread makes me feel I should change my mind but de gustibus and all that.