Author Arthur C. Clarke has died at age 90.
I can’t begin to describe the impact his works have had on my life, my view of the world and my expectations for the future. Credited with the idea of the communications satellite (amongst other ideas) he has been an inspiration to scientists, engineers and writers over so many decades I doubt there is any current writer of science or science fiction who cannot remember the first story of his they ever read. His death marks the passing of the last of the Big Three of the mid-twentieth century: Asimov, Bradbury and Clarke.
Arthur, it was a privilege to be touched by your words. Rest in peace.
UPDATE: Via Instapundit, Bruce Webster says the Big Three were Asimov, Clark and Heinlein. Hard to disagree with that assessment, so I’ll say it’s the Big Four, and leave it at that.
UPDATE AGAIN: Well, what do you know, Ray Bradbury isn’t dead after all. Thanks to JonD in the comments for straightening me out on that.
{ 13 comments }
Yeah, I was about to say, “What about Heinlein?”
I never read a single work by Clarke but I know the impact he had on the genre I love so much. It simply wouldn’t have been the same without him.
And, speaking of Bradbury, I never appreciated him until I slipped into a panel discussion with him and Harryhausen. I slipped in because I wanted to see the panel after him, cast and crew from Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis, not really caring about this panel and as I listened to those old friends and legends tell stories of their exploits… I was blown away. I never really appreciated their work and what was built upon their legacy until that moment.
I wish I had the same opportunity to hear Clarke speak.
Mr. Bradbury is pretty much a pure fantasist. He cloaks his fantasy in SF trappings, but he has never been even remotely interested in getting the science right. For him, the science falls somewhere between poetry and magic. So though he’s highly influential, he stands on a different pedestal from the Big Three. Dr. Asimov was the weakest of them when it came to hard science, but a young layman could easily believe in his science. After a technical description by Clarke or Heinlein, though, I often felt like I could go out and build the damn thing (and better engineers than I sometimes did).
Only a real fan of Bradbury could include him as one of the big three. Everyone else names Heinlein, as already noted. But heh, it’s your web site…
“The Simpsons: Lisa’s Substitute (#2.19)” (1991)
Martin Prince: As your president, I would demand a science-fiction library, featuring an ABC of the genre. Asimov, Bester, Clarke.
Student: What about Ray Bradbury?
Martin Prince: I’m aware of his work…
Not to pick another nit…but its a bit early to bury Bradbury. He’s over 80, but not quite dead yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury
J.A.:
Your question about Bradbury is a valid one, and I’ve had a few other people raise it, so I wrote a follow-up post about it:
http://and-still-i-persist.com/2008/03/19/but-what-about-bradbury/
Trust me, it wasn’t a slap at Bradbury. ..bruce..
bfwebster’s last blog post..?But what about Bradbury??
I didn’t talk about Bradbury because I thought he was dead. I know he’s not. But since he was mentioned I thought I’d regale everyone with a story I had. Too bad it derailed things a bit.
Ray Bradbury still lives? How inconsiderate of him. I’d have sworn I read his obit a couple years ago. Bradbury has always been a favorite of mine because his works were really the first science fiction I ever read, starting with, of course, The Martian Chronicles.
Bradbury tended to concentrate on characters and situations and left hard science in the ‘black box’ so in that respect he really doesn’t belong in the company of Asimov, Clark and Heinlein. But as Alen noted above, it was my post and I’ll list them in any order I please…
J.A. Eddy’s last blog post..New Amsterdam
Besides the fact that he’s alive, Bradbury probably doesn’t belong on the list because he denies he writes science fiction! He considers himself a fantasy writer and acknowledges that what he writes can’t be science fiction because it’s not based on science.
I love Bradbury’s writings. “Something Wicked This Way Comes”, “October Country”, “Fahrenheit 451″… they’re all great. “F-451″ is probably the closest he comes to true SF, but that’s only because he got the combustion point of paper more or less right.
Heinlein absolutely must be on the list, but Bester belongs there, too. As do countless other writers like Cordwainer Smith, James Blish, Fred Pohl, Philip Dick, et al.
I saw an interview with Ray Bradbury on Neil Cavuto’s show a couple years ago. It was very inspiring.
Interesting that we’ve turned this into a discussion of Bradbury. On that score I’ll just say I agree that he’s more a fantasist than an SF writer, and that takes nothing away from him.
I’ve been expecting to hear about Clarke’s passing for some time now. I was never a huge fan of his work, but that also takes nothing away from him or his rather amazing achievements. His work always seemed a little dry to me. That said, he had one of the finest minds and one of the most impressive records of thoughtful hard science fiction writing ever.
Not to speak ill of the dead, but I’ve never been able to bring myself to finish anything written by Clarke. I don’t know if that’s just because I prefer the movies to the books (where applicable) or what.
But he’s left a legacy that few other men, much less authors of fiction, can hope to rival. And that’s something amazing.
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..Metropolitan Opera’s run of Tristan und Isolde has problems
Clarke’s writing was very dry. He was very similar to Asimov in that regard, only even more dry than Asimov. He was more interested in the technical side of things and less interested in the human element. Sort of the opposite of Heinlein in that regard, who was quite good at technical things but was mostly interested in the human angle.
Comments on this entry are closed.