In Memoriam: Arthur C. Clarke

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.

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.

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 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.