On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:34:24 -0300, "Lawrence" wrote:

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid and he was the best. Better writer
than Heinlin but not as prolific. He influenced many, many people I'm
sure.

It's unfair to compare. I have an extensive collection of Sci-Fi, and I
often re-read the big three Heinlien was my first, Asimov was great but
published some real crap when he got to believe his own hype, Clarke was the
master of continuity and detail, both of the physical and spiritual. His
worlds are the truest and best and he had the largest impact on the real
world, far larger than Asimov. A great mind, and a great author.

My personal opinion is that Clarke fall excelled in the extrapolation of
technology and predicting what the scientific/human impacts would be. However,
the *people* in his novels always seemed pretty stiff. Heinlein was better with
characterization; inventing interesting people to interact with the technology.

The earliest Clarke novel I remember reading is "A Fall of Moondust," as a
Reader's Digest Condensed book back in the '50s or '60s. Though I read it many
times and remember the plot real well, I remember little about the characters.
But I can see a Heinlein title and say, "That's the one with the guy who...."

Ron Wanttaja