Arthur C. Clarke, premier science fiction writer, dies at 90 Arthur C. Clarke, a writer whose seamless blend of scientific expertise and poetic imagination helped usher in the space age, died early Wednesday in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where he had lived since 1956. He was 90. Rohan de Silva, an aide to Clarke, said the author died after experiencing breathing problems, The Associated Press reported. Clarke had post-polio syndrome for the last two decades and used a wheelchair. From his detailed forecast of telecommunications satellites in 1945, more than a decade before the first orbital rocket flight, to his co-creation, with the director Stanley Kubrick, of the classic science fiction film "2001: A Space Odyssey," Clarke was both prophet and promoter of the idea that humanity's destiny lay beyond the confines of Earth. Other early advocates of a space program argued that it would pay for itself by jump-starting new technology. Clarke set his sights higher. Paraphrasing William James, he suggested that exploring the solar system could serve as the "moral equivalent" of war, giving an outlet to energies that might otherwise lead to nuclear holocaust. Clarke's influence on public attitudes toward space was acknowledged by American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts, by scientists like the astronomer Carl Sagan and by movie and television producers. Gene Roddenberry credited Clarke's writings with giving him courage to pursue his "Star Trek" project in the face of indifference, even ridicule, from television executives.
All of the 3 kings of a modern scifi are now dead (Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke) they legacy is that today all post-modern scifi writers are considered mediocre: either that is testament to how great the 3 kings were... or it means scifi has lost public respect.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that theory. Who knows? It may have even worked as The USSR and the USA competed in the "space race" and the cold war instead of open conflict. I enjoyed Arthur C Clarke, my favorite story by him was Rescue Party. It was also the first story he ever sold. Here's a link to an online version of it: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743498747/0743498747___1.htm
(my emphasis) Or, the status that these three writers enjoy within the pantheon of SciFi authors is simply a function of exposure. I don't mean to deride any of the authors mentioned (although I find them all quite bland), but I've often found it odd how they are held in such high esteem specifically when making comparisons to contemporary writers.
Many of the very best contemporary Sci Fi authors are described as great by being compared to one or more of those 3. e.g., Stephen Baxter.
Which is exactly the problem. By continuing to compare contemporaries to these ancients, we're devaluing both the new writers, and the oldies.
Perhaps, but i thinks its at least a good way to find contemporary writers who have a similar style of writing.
Maybe. Yet, simply comparing one to another doesn't necessarily mean that their writing styles are similar. For myself, I would hope not in any case. I'm no big fan of Baxter for example, but his style is certainly an improvement on any of the old three mentioned.
Well its just a vague prod in the general direction, if such and such author whose works i have read and enjoyed recommends such and such author I've never heard of and compares them to one of those three, Well then I'm inclined to investigate further. The author in question may turn out not be particularly good or interesting but well then i just move on.
Agreed, however it does at least bear a resemblance to Clark's style. Especially on the several occasions where they have cooperated on a Novel; Light of Other Days, Sunstorm, First Born, Times Eye
I would not count any of them as Kings of Modern SF, given that modernity is not the middle of the 20th century. SF has evolved, along with society, and the public have lost some respect for SF at the same time as they have lost respect for science, due to various issues I hardly need to spell out to you. Temur- having just re-read "Earthlight" by Clarke, I cannot see how you can write an SF book that is any harder in any way at all. Sure, not all of his books were hard SF, but then neither are Baxters.
I hate it when my sarcasm fails: of course scifi has lost public respect and liking and yes I would love to discuss why.
Oh, right, you don't know? OK, several reasons, and I am not a social scientist, so don't expect any quantificaiton of their relevance. 1) concerted actions by certain sections of the business world to rubbish scientific findings that would make them change their behaviour (eg tobacco, global warming). 2) General reaction by fluffies, pagans, greenies and others who find science a bit harsh and masculine and stuff. 3) Overblown promises by politicians misusing "science". 4) Destruction of professionalism and industry in many parts of the world, such that nobody actually does science (or indeed engineering) any more, so most people havn't a clue what it is and how it works. This benefits the entities in reason 1 very well. 5) Religion wars continue, with the fundies fighting a valiant rearguard. 6) Scientific results telling people things they don't want to hear, so they stop listening alltogether.
No. Future shock is a specific condition brought on by societal change exceeding an individuals ability to cope. In what way does that maatch points 1,3, 4, 5, and 6?
All of them, 1) the business community would not have it power if people were not put off my future shock, the ability to pander to people about what they would like to be true over what is actually true would not be possible without their understand of science and reasoning be damage by future shock. 2) The regression to religion or naturalism is a a direct result of future shock as people will revert to what they can understand and what give them immediate meaning over the ever increase complexity of science. 3) Again rather then blame politicians people see this as a failing of science, again future shock. 4) Again peoples regression from science and that the cycle is self feeding postive loop as science become increasingly hard to understand as they become increasingly ignorate and shy away from it 5) Again why do people become religious and fight each other, because they strayed from science. 6) that is the descriptor of future shock. Future shock is not how a individual reacts to processes out pacing their ability to react but rather it about how societies react, and much of what was predicted in the books decades ago has come true.
