In Memoriam: Arthur C. Clarke

In article ,
"Lawrence" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
What happens is that most of the dreck gets forgotten, certainly rarely
reprinted, and we eventually forget about it, remembering only the
better remainder. The same thing happens with antique furniture,
machines, etc etc etc. Once the cheap junk crumbles away, the best
remains, along with an unwarranted impression that "they did things
better back then, none of this cheap modern stuff, by jingo!"

No doubt that's true, but I had in mind many of the modern prolific authors.
Current "big" names. There are only two I can think of that create true
worlds of the imagination, and I think often not as well.

That's no different at all from the early years.

There were big names back then who were quite popular, with lots of
output who just didn't turn out to have any staying power. Can't recall
offhand any particularly sterling examples, and with my books stored
right now, I'm not about to go digging for them...

Once in a while you'll come across some of their work and wonder why in
the world they ever got a sale, what with turgid prose, leaden
characters, and all the other things you don't want to read.

Then you get some writers who seem to keep working for decades, like
Jack Vance, for example, who manage to not keep writing the same things
over and over. (Mind, I've never been all that enamored with his work,
but he seems to have made a living at it, and garnered enough prizes and
critical acclaim to indicate that someone liked him over a long period.
Maybe just critics, but I suppose they need some diversion, too.)

You see similar effects in music, art, and just about anything else one
might spend money for.

It seems like they all think they are writing for another medium. But as
you point out, this is not a book club.

Goodbye Mr Clarke. I hope I knew the best part of you, through your books.