In Memoriam: Arthur C. Clarke

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.

"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.
--
We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to
have the life that is waiting for us.
~ Joseph Campbell

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

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.

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

"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. I'm not sure that any of
them is a true window into the others although it is likely that they were
aware of each others work. Indeed each of Asimov and Clarke would insist
that the other was a better writer. (Clarke-Asimov treaty). I reagrd them
each as best generation SF writers. The next iteration of authors is good,
but they seem somehow to lack the spark of true invention. The stuff today
is uninspiring for the most part to me, strange when we have not truly
discovered much, it seems they'd have more to work with as mankind discovers
so many more questions. But I have no room to talk, I can't write at all.

"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?)

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?)

If you'd like to relive a little of the old
Heinlein "kids and science fiction" stuff,
try Jerry Pournelle's new book "Starswarm".

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.

In article ,
"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. I'm not sure that any of
them is a true window into the others although it is likely that they were
aware of each others work. Indeed each of Asimov and Clarke would insist
that the other was a better writer. (Clarke-Asimov treaty). I reagrd them
each as best generation SF writers. The next iteration of authors is good,
but they seem somehow to lack the spark of true invention. The stuff today
is uninspiring for the most part to me, strange when we have not truly
discovered much, it seems they'd have more to work with as mankind discovers
so many more questions.

Having grown up during the 50s and 60s, and reading SF since I was 11 or
so, I'd have to say that "uninspiring for the most part" describes SF
(or any type of fiction, for that matter) during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s,
and so on to the present. Sturgeon's Law wasn't (and isn't) a joke.

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!"

Which gives us memories of a Golden Age that wasn't all that shiny when
it was happening. Our grandkids will likely say the same things about
right now, happily able to ignore the fluff and dross.

To pull things, kicking and screaming, into the aviation realm again;
there have been a lot of homebuilt designs over the years, but the ones
that stand out are the best, with the indifferent to poor being
abandoned and forgotten.

Well, except for some of the *really* bad stuff, mostly for their
entertainment, or frightening the kids, value.

"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!"


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Hix"
Newsgroups:
rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.avi ation.owning,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Subject: In Memoriam: Arthur C. Clarke

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. 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.

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.