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.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message news:sehix-

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...


Well, that's fineI wouldn't expect you to. I disagree for many reasons,
that's the thing about opinions, isn't it.

Lawrence,

There are only two I can think of that create true
worlds of the imagination, and I think often not as well.


Hmm. I am an avid Clarke fan and even had the extreme pleasure to meet
him 8 years ago (we did an interview with him on "the real 2001"
compared to his - and did an elaborate photo production in the process,
the wonderful work of Peter Menzel,
http://menzelphoto.peripix.com/group...rke&order=inse
rt_date&date_how=+%3D+). He was a remarkable person - and quite a
character, too.

But several current authors come to mind with respect to what you
mention:

Tad Williams
Orson Scott Card
Neil Stephenson
William Gibson

for example.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:58:33 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

"Lawrence" wrote:
"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
.. .

I was told that to best see Clarke's brilliance, read Heinlien. I
never did. Got talked into Tolkein. Mistake, ymmv.
--

That's interesting, I'd never heard that before.

News to me too. I've read Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and a host of others.

Heinlein did as good a job at the science as Clarke, IMHO - particularly in
his "juveniles". For example, Heinlein's explanation of space suit
requirements in "Have Space Suit, will Travel" was instructive to me when I
read it in my early teens. (The idea of a used rocket dealership in
"Rolling Stones" caught my fancy too. Man, where does one go to buy a good
used nuclear powered VTOL rocket when you want to go to Mars to picnic on
the edge of Valles Marineris?)

Ran across this a day or two ago. Look at the bottom Good-Bad
Science. Not that I agree or disagree, I didn't want to go 90 degrees
with my neck to read it .

http://depletedcranium.com/index.php?cat=3
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:08:29 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

But I have no room to talk, I can't write at all.

I ghost wrote for a guy in the slammer about a dozen war and mercenary
experiences, and a few conspiracy type things. People bought them. They
were awful, the stories carried the writing. I refused to submit the
last one except to Japan. Writing is no fun, like golf, if you aren't
accomplished, it's too painful to do it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:36:41 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

http://menzelphoto.peripix.com/group...rke&order=inse
rt_date&date_how=+%3D+

http://tinyurl.com/22b3r2

Nice, thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:05:20 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

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,

King and ??
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:05:20 -0300, Lawrence wrote:

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

And 2001:Space Odyssey Wow I lived in a podunk college town that had a
three screen whatever the cinematography was, multi-projector,
semi-wraparound. It was a transforming experience. I doubt it had
anything to do with the chemical pre-show either
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

In article ,
"Lawrence" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message news:sehix-

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...

Well, that's fineI wouldn't expect you to.

?

I disagree for many reasons,

What, that there were very popular published writers decades ago that
nobody much reads any more, and if you do get to read some of their
work, you can't understand why they were popular?

There are tides in fashion in all sorts of things. And some items seem
to ignore fashion quite happily.

that's the thing about opinions, isn't it.

The thing is that I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that
a state where most of the writers active at any given time weren't all
that interesting is nothing new. It's pretty much the way things have
always been, and likely always will be.

The problem is that we don't remember the bottom strata from that time,
and it seems that it was a Golden Age(tm).

OK, I found one that wasn't packed. "The Golden Age of Science Fiction",
edited by Groff Conklin. Just under 800 pages of stuff published before
1946, when it was originally published as "The Best of Science Fiction".

Along with the Heinlein, Asimov, Boucher, Leinster, Sturgeon, and Simak
you've got the other greats: Frank Stockton, Cleve Cartmill, Ray Gallun,
Dave Keller, Ralph Milne Farley, Calvin Peregoy, Malcolm Jameson, Art
Zagot, Warner van Lorne, Nelson Bond, Cecil White, C.W. Diffin, Ross
Rocklynne, ...

Mind, it's also got contributions from Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G.
Wells and Julian Huxley.

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