• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Asimov vs. Clarke vs. Heinlein

Out of these three, who's your favorite author?

  • Isaac Asimov

    Votes: 19 51.4%

  • Arthur C. Clarke

    Votes: 10 27.0%

  • Robert A. Heinlein

    Votes: 8 21.6%
  • Total voters
    37
E

Ensign_Redshirt

Commodore
Commodore
Tough choice between Asimov and Clarke for me. I think in the end Asimov narrowly wins because of the awesomeness and the literary significance of his original Foundation trilogy. Clarke isn't very far behind though.

On the other hand, Heinlein never did that much for me (and this hasn't necessarily something to do with those never-ending "fascism" allegations regarding Starship Troopers :p ).
 
Ensign_Redshirt said:
Tough choice between Asimov and Clarke for me. I think in the end Asimov narrowly wins because of the awesomeness and the literary significance of his original Foundation trilogy. Clarke isn't very far behind though.

On the other hand, Heinlein never did that much for me (and this hasn't necessarily something to do with those never-ending "fascism" allegations regarding Starship Troopers :p ).
Click to expand...

My rankings are pretty much the same, although the support of fascism in Troopers (and I've been told by an editor who knew Heinlein personally that it was sincere) definitely has something to do with my assessment of Heinlein.

Although Asimov and Clarke had a "treaty" declaring Asimov the second-best science fiction writer and Clarke the second-best science writer. It is hard to choose between them in terms of writing style, but Clarke probably has a bit of an edge as a wordsmith. However, I think Asimov wins out for me because he created compelling series, whole universes extending beyond a single work (several of which were eventually retconned into the same even larger continuous universe), whereas Clarke usually created a different universe for each work. I like big, interconnected universes in my SF.
 
For me, Asimov and Clarke are close together in terms of what I enjoy reading, with Heinlein running very distant behind them.

I find Asimov's work to be more timeless (even if he does have things like coal-powered starships) and Clarke's prose to be more evocative. Heinlein's work may pack more ideas, but his stories haven't aged well.
 
Can't really call between Clarke and Asimov- it's like choosing between Dr Who and Star Trek, in terms of them being the iconic SF output of the UK and US respectively...

But since Clarke's the underdog of the two on the poll scores, I'll vote for him...
 
Clarke but only by a slight edge. His science success superseded Asimovs, but now some of Asimov's 3 Laws are being used in regards to AI. Heinlein has had the greatest "literary" acclaim of them all.

RAMA
 
Heinlein, for Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I Will Fear No Evil, etc. Starship Troopers may be one of the few novels of his I didn't like.
 
Heinlein, then Asimov, then Clarke.

Heinlein first for Starship Troopers, Asimov second for the sheer numbers of his stories that I love, and Clarke third cause I love 'em all but sombody gotta be third.
 
Clarke will always win in any poll for me, but these guys are all my favorite writers (along with Ellison). Clarke's poetic, almost mystical, view of the universe was a huge influence on me as a kid. Plus, I love how his stories almost always contain a through-line from the distant past through the distant future.

Calling Heinlein a fascist is simplistic and gives the wrong idea about him. His viewpoints are diverse and actually appear quite contradictory in the context of contemporary politics, but are internally consistent. And he's always fascinating and thought-provoking even when I disagree with him, which is much of the time (he has this in common with Ellison).
 
The only one I connected to as a younger reader was Clarke, so he gets my vote. I haven't read any of them in ages, however.
 
RJDiogenes said:
Calling Heinlein a fascist is simplistic and gives the wrong idea about him. His viewpoints are diverse and actually appear quite contradictory in the context of contemporary politics, but are internally consistent. And he's always fascinating and thought-provoking even when I disagree with him, which is much of the time (he has this in common with Ellison).
Click to expand...

I didn't call him a fascist; I simply said that a book he wrote, Starship Troopers contains material that apparently endorses fascism and I've been told that it was sincerely meant rather than satirical as I initially assumed. An observation about a book is not necessarily equivalent to an observation about its writer.
 
I was speaking generally, because the term fascism came up a couple of times. He's frequently accused of this because of his patriotism and support of the military. In fact, he was really a Hippie who just disagreed with the other Hippies. His strongest messages were about individualism and individual liberty.
 
How else would you describe a bipartite society with political right of franchise and to hold office resting exclusively in the hands of military and former veterans.
 
Hound of UIster said:
How else would you describe a bipartite society with political right of franchise and to hold office resting exclusively in the hands of military and former veterans.
Click to expand...

A society where at some point in the past the military got tired of being mistreated and forgotten and created one where anyone who wanted to help make policy would be required to share the plight of those chosen to defend it. The Terran Federation isn't, strictly speaking, a fascist society, though it is definitely conservative and definitely pro-military.
 
I voted RAH because he had more books that I treasure, but it's really a tie in my mind... they're all good at different things.
 
Admiral2 said:
A society where at some point in the past the military got tired of being mistreated and forgotten and created one...
Click to expand...

IOW, a society where one group of people enforced its will on others and denied basic rights of citizenship to those not sharing its values. Got it.
 
Clarke Asimov Heinlein

Discovered Asimov first, but the bulk of what I read by all three occurred around the same time.

Clarke has the right blend of hard science and humanity that appeals to me and that's why he gets the nod.

Asimov appeals my love of universe building and history. Even he didnt start off to do so. His early stuff was a bit dry character wise.

Heinlein for me hasn't aged well. Not as interesting at 53 as it was as 23.
 
Hound of UIster said:
How else would you describe a bipartite society with political right of franchise and to hold office resting exclusively in the hands of military and former veterans.
Click to expand...
A very specific form of meritocracy; Heinlein very much believed in a meritocracy. If he wrote the Constitution, it would have a Bill of Rights and a Bill of Responsibilities. :rommie:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top