Beyond The Fall Of Night

I just finished re-reading one of my all-time favorite books, Arthur
Clarke's anthology "From The Ocean, From The Stars." This anthology contains
my all-time favorite scifi novel, "The City and The Stars." I have read this
novel at least a dozen times since I first discovered it over 40 years ago,
and each time that I re-read it, I enjoy just as much as the first time.
Being an Arthur C. Clarke fan, I am of course aware that The City and The
Stars was a re-write of the earlier Clarke novel "Against The Fall of
Night."
I was very excited when I discovered that Gregory Benford in
collaboration with Clarke wrote a sequel to Against The Fall Of night
entitled Beyond The Fall Of Night. I bought a copy as soon as it was
available and couldn't wait to be transported a billion years into the
future once again and become immersed in the story of Alvin and Diaspar once
again.
Then I read it.
The first half of this novel was simply a reprint of Against The Fall Of
Night, as originally written by Arthur C. Clarke. This is still an
incredible story over 60 years after it was first written. The second half
of the novel was the continuation of this story, written by Gregory Benford.
Am I the only person who thought that the last half of this novel was a
hopeless, incomprehensible mess? I mean, some of the characters names were
the same, and the time that it was set in was the same (actually, it was set
a few centuries after Against The Fall Of Night) but there the similarities
ended. Everything that I loved about The City And The Stars and Against The
Fall Of Night was missing from Beyond The Fall Of night. The Clarke novel
were very easy to read, but I found that I was constantly re-reading
sentences and passages just to try to figure out exactly what idea was
trying to be conveyed. The Clarke novel had a sweeping vision of a far, far
distant Earth. The Benford novel had...I don't know...I really don't know
what it had.
I mean, I do like Benfords work; I loved The Great Sky River series. But
I must say that I have never felt more disappointed and let down with a
sequel than I was with Beyond The Fall Of Night. I am just curious as to
whether I am the only one who read this book that feels the same way.

Randy L.
--
We reveal our true selves not in how we
treat our friends, but in how we treat our
enemies.

In article <13n0u3gl5i8ru37 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>, "RandyL"
<rlink RemoveThis @cableone.net> writes:

> I was very excited when I discovered that Gregory Benford in
> collaboration with Clarke wrote a sequel to Against The Fall Of night
> entitled Beyond The Fall Of Night. I bought a copy as soon as it was
> available and couldn't wait to be transported a billion years into the
> future once again and become immersed in the story of Alvin and Diaspar once
> again.
> Then I read it.
> The first half of this novel was simply a reprint of Against The Fall Of
> Night, as originally written by Arthur C. Clarke. This is still an
> incredible story over 60 years after it was first written. The second half
> of the novel was the continuation of this story, written by Gregory Benford.
> Am I the only person who thought that the last half of this novel was a
> hopeless, incomprehensible mess?

No. In fact, this has been my impression with all the Asimov/Clarke
"extensions" by Benford, Silverberg etc. (Silverberg extended Asimov's
"Nightfall". The first part was not a reprint but a rewrite of Asimov's
story, still captivating. Then one notices right away where the
extension starts, even if one doesn't know the original. The extension
is bad enough, but the contrast to the original makes it even worse.
The same goes for Clarke/Benford.

> I mean, I do like Benfords work; I loved The Great Sky River series. But
> I must say that I have never felt more disappointed and let down with a
> sequel than I was with Beyond The Fall Of Night. I am just curious as to
> whether I am the only one who read this book that feels the same way.

I'm sure you're not alone.