Be as so kind as to give thier personal reflections of the man's work and if he influenced them? I am curious as Sir Arthur is considered such an influence and a hero to many authors. Pardon the presumption on my part as well.
In regards to Clarke's passing...could the writers..
- Thread starter Mr Nighttime
- Start date
The Clarke book that had the most impact on me was CHILDHOOD'S END. I haven't read that book in probably forty years but I can still vividly remember how it blew my mind as a kid. From the shocking revelation of the aliens' true form to the utterly cosmic conclusion, it was an amazing experience.
As I blogged earlier today...
Clarke was the first SF writer whose work I actually followed in any real sense; as a young lad my first introduction to his work were the novels Dolphin Island and Islands in the Sky, which they had in my school library.
I've enjoyed some of his books but not others. The Fountains of Paradise is one of my top ten science fiction novels, although I never really connected with Rendezvous With Rama. It's been a good few years since I read anything of his; the last Clarke I read was Childhood's End, which, ironically, I went through cover to cover on my 30th birthday.
It's safe to say that his books had an influence on my dreams of going into space (and later, of writing about people who did). And I remember his appearances on TV in Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, where - when confronted with some strange phenomenon - he would inevitably preface his opinion with the words "Frankly, I'm skeptical..."
Clarke was the first SF writer whose work I actually followed in any real sense; as a young lad my first introduction to his work were the novels Dolphin Island and Islands in the Sky, which they had in my school library.
I've enjoyed some of his books but not others. The Fountains of Paradise is one of my top ten science fiction novels, although I never really connected with Rendezvous With Rama. It's been a good few years since I read anything of his; the last Clarke I read was Childhood's End, which, ironically, I went through cover to cover on my 30th birthday.
It's safe to say that his books had an influence on my dreams of going into space (and later, of writing about people who did). And I remember his appearances on TV in Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, where - when confronted with some strange phenomenon - he would inevitably preface his opinion with the words "Frankly, I'm skeptical..."
I probably need to catch up with some of the later ones - 3001 for a start.
Along with Asimov he was one of the writers that first interested me in SF, with short stories. I still prefer the novel of 2001 to the film, and I enjoyed 2010 and 2061, but Rendezvous With Rama and The Songs Of Distant Earth are still my favourites of his work.
When I was a kid I didn't think much about who the authors were, but Clarke was one of the first I did think about because I was just the right age to take note when Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World first aired - not least because one of the stories is partly set in my home village!
Along with Asimov he was one of the writers that first interested me in SF, with short stories. I still prefer the novel of 2001 to the film, and I enjoyed 2010 and 2061, but Rendezvous With Rama and The Songs Of Distant Earth are still my favourites of his work.
When I was a kid I didn't think much about who the authors were, but Clarke was one of the first I did think about because I was just the right age to take note when Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World first aired - not least because one of the stories is partly set in my home village!
No, I think you can let that one alone.
I read my copies of 2001 and 2010 many times as a kid, though I never understood why they were going to Saturn in one book and Jupiter in the next, nor why the photos in 2001 depicted things that hadn't happened in the book! Rendezvous with Rama came many years later, but was quite enjoyable, even if the Gentry Lee-coauthored sequels were terrible.
My favorite Clarke novel was his first collaboration with Stephen Baxter, The Light of Other Days. A fascinating concept, given a really thorough exploration.
Clarke was one of my main SF influences growing up, along with Asimov and Niven. He had a great imagination for ideas and worldbuilding, even if his characterizations were pretty basic. Rendezvous with Rama and Childhood's End were probably his greatest works.
One thing that was distinctive about him was that he never tried to consolidate his works into a larger universe, the way writers like Asimov, Niven, Anderson, and McCaffrey did with works that originally started out separate from one another. He had no systematic future history, but created a new future for each work. For most of his career, the only ongoing series he did was the Tales from the White Hart, a set of barroom stories in which a character named Harry Purvis regaled the tavern with tall tales of improbable scientific inventions that went awry. Since Harry's tales were most likely fabricated, even that doesn't really qualify as a single continuity. Aside from those, he never did a sequel for decades, until he finally gave into pressure to write a sequel to 2001. But typically, he made it a sequel to the movie rather than the book, so that it wasn't really in the same continuity as its prose predecessor. And I gather the other two sequels are in variant continuities as well. (Later on came the Rama sequels, but Clarke contributed very little to their writing, and I certainly don't consider them part of the same universe as Clarke's book.)
One thing that was distinctive about him was that he never tried to consolidate his works into a larger universe, the way writers like Asimov, Niven, Anderson, and McCaffrey did with works that originally started out separate from one another. He had no systematic future history, but created a new future for each work. For most of his career, the only ongoing series he did was the Tales from the White Hart, a set of barroom stories in which a character named Harry Purvis regaled the tavern with tall tales of improbable scientific inventions that went awry. Since Harry's tales were most likely fabricated, even that doesn't really qualify as a single continuity. Aside from those, he never did a sequel for decades, until he finally gave into pressure to write a sequel to 2001. But typically, he made it a sequel to the movie rather than the book, so that it wasn't really in the same continuity as its prose predecessor. And I gather the other two sequels are in variant continuities as well. (Later on came the Rama sequels, but Clarke contributed very little to their writing, and I certainly don't consider them part of the same universe as Clarke's book.)
Arthur C. Clarke was one of the two primary reasons I began reading (and ultimately writing) science fiction; the other was Isaac Asimov. When I was 16, I spent my high school junior year in (then West) Germany, attending a German school and living with a German family. I was not yet fluent enough to read novel-length German, so one of my teachers lent me a box of science fiction paperbacks in English that had been left in his attic. I don't remember which I read first, the Foundation Trilogy or 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I loved both and thought I had died and gone to heaven.
Coincidentally, a few months later the movie 2010 came out and I saw it in a huge movie theater with a screen so large it was curved at the ends. I know a lot of folks don't care for that movie, but I was 16 and it blew me away. I'd never seen anything like it. Naturally, it was in German, so to me, the seminal line is "Oh mein Gott, es ist voll von den Sternen" (although I could swear it actually said "Oh mein Gott, es ist voller Sternen", but that's not technically correct, I guess).
Then I discovered an English-language book shop in Hamburg, and bought up all the Clarke and Asimov I could find, as well as other SF.
Over the years, Clarke became my favorite author. My two favorite Clarke novels are The Songs of Distant Earth and Imperial Earth, which are not among his most popular work.
I regret that I never met him in person. I was lucky enough to meet Asimov when he signed at a Waldenbooks I worked at in New Jersey as a senior in high school.
Coincidentally, a few months later the movie 2010 came out and I saw it in a huge movie theater with a screen so large it was curved at the ends. I know a lot of folks don't care for that movie, but I was 16 and it blew me away. I'd never seen anything like it. Naturally, it was in German, so to me, the seminal line is "Oh mein Gott, es ist voll von den Sternen" (although I could swear it actually said "Oh mein Gott, es ist voller Sternen", but that's not technically correct, I guess).
Then I discovered an English-language book shop in Hamburg, and bought up all the Clarke and Asimov I could find, as well as other SF.
Over the years, Clarke became my favorite author. My two favorite Clarke novels are The Songs of Distant Earth and Imperial Earth, which are not among his most popular work.
I regret that I never met him in person. I was lucky enough to meet Asimov when he signed at a Waldenbooks I worked at in New Jersey as a senior in high school.
He is also credited with inventing (well, proposing the idea and how it work) the orbiting communications satellite. Then there's Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
2010 is an awesome sequel to 2001, and Fountains of Paradise launched my interest in Sri Lanka and space elevators.
2010 is an awesome sequel to 2001, and Fountains of Paradise launched my interest in Sri Lanka and space elevators.
^^That's actually Clarke's Third Law of Prediction. The whole set is:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Only the third law is really well-known, and the second is pretty obscure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Only the third law is really well-known, and the second is pretty obscure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws
But so true!
When I was very young I read Tolkien and Lewis. Lewis, because I loved the animated The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Tolkien because I loved the animated Hobbit (and still do, so you haters can keep keep your hater-ade). I would have been six or seven.
A few years later, when I was nine, or possibly eight, 2010 came out. And my dad, who was a librarian, brought it home. I devoured it. The Silmarillion at a very early age warps the mind. 2010 at an early age, though -- that's what science fiction should be.
I went back and read 2001 one summer's day. I didn't understand why it wasn't at all like 2010. Rendezvous With Rama didn't hold my attention, and I had to rediscover it later. Fountains of Paradise was amazing. I loved The Songs of Distant Earth (though I'm told it's one of his weaker books). I thought there was something "off" about Imperial Earth.
The short stories! "The Nine Billion Names of God" was fascinating. "The Star" -- amazing stuff.
I remember watching Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World on PBS Saturday afternoons, after Doctor Who. Wasn't that amazing? To go from Tom Baker to Arthur C. Clarke? I remember an episode about bleeding crystal skulls. That's stayed with me for twenty-five years.
Into high school I read 2061. I thought it was great fun. As Christopher notes above, the 20xx books aren't really part of the same continuity. "Variations on a theme" is the phrase Clarke himself used.
The last Clarke novel I read was 3001. I honestly wished I hadn't read it at all.
That was 1996. Or was it 1997 when it came out?
I've never felt a need to revisit Clarke's work, when there were other writers to discover.
In college I found The Lost Worlds of 2001. I'd been looking for the book for a long time, even since I'd seen it in the list of other works by Clarke in the front of a Signet paperback of 2001. I didn't know what it was; I assumed it was a side-quel to 2001, another novel in the milieu. I wasn't expecting an alternate draft of the novel, plus a "Making Of" for the film. Fascinating stuff, and I would recommend seeking this book out to fans of science fiction cinema, just as I would recommend Star Trek fans seek out David Gerrold's The Trouble With Tribbles. There's a similar book on 2010 that I've never read. Never even seen, actually. Someday. I loved the film, even if it cut out my favorite sequence in the book -- the Tsien on Europa.
That's something I loved about Clarke's work. His near-future science fiction had a cosmopolitan feel to it. That the United State was one nation among many. That the Soviets were not the villainous monsters that I grew up believing they were in the era of Ronald Reagan's militarism. Clarke told us that we needn't feel threatened by our neighbors and fellow travelers on this Earth. Star Trek said that and paid lip-service to it, but Clarke actually showed that.
He certainly shaped the way I see the world, probably more than Asimov or Bradbury did, two other authors that I discovered at about the same time.
A few years later, when I was nine, or possibly eight, 2010 came out. And my dad, who was a librarian, brought it home. I devoured it. The Silmarillion at a very early age warps the mind. 2010 at an early age, though -- that's what science fiction should be.
I went back and read 2001 one summer's day. I didn't understand why it wasn't at all like 2010. Rendezvous With Rama didn't hold my attention, and I had to rediscover it later. Fountains of Paradise was amazing. I loved The Songs of Distant Earth (though I'm told it's one of his weaker books). I thought there was something "off" about Imperial Earth.
The short stories! "The Nine Billion Names of God" was fascinating. "The Star" -- amazing stuff.
I remember watching Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World on PBS Saturday afternoons, after Doctor Who. Wasn't that amazing? To go from Tom Baker to Arthur C. Clarke? I remember an episode about bleeding crystal skulls. That's stayed with me for twenty-five years.
Into high school I read 2061. I thought it was great fun. As Christopher notes above, the 20xx books aren't really part of the same continuity. "Variations on a theme" is the phrase Clarke himself used.
The last Clarke novel I read was 3001. I honestly wished I hadn't read it at all.
That was 1996. Or was it 1997 when it came out?
I've never felt a need to revisit Clarke's work, when there were other writers to discover.
In college I found The Lost Worlds of 2001. I'd been looking for the book for a long time, even since I'd seen it in the list of other works by Clarke in the front of a Signet paperback of 2001. I didn't know what it was; I assumed it was a side-quel to 2001, another novel in the milieu. I wasn't expecting an alternate draft of the novel, plus a "Making Of" for the film. Fascinating stuff, and I would recommend seeking this book out to fans of science fiction cinema, just as I would recommend Star Trek fans seek out David Gerrold's The Trouble With Tribbles. There's a similar book on 2010 that I've never read. Never even seen, actually. Someday. I loved the film, even if it cut out my favorite sequence in the book -- the Tsien on Europa.
That's something I loved about Clarke's work. His near-future science fiction had a cosmopolitan feel to it. That the United State was one nation among many. That the Soviets were not the villainous monsters that I grew up believing they were in the era of Ronald Reagan's militarism. Clarke told us that we needn't feel threatened by our neighbors and fellow travelers on this Earth. Star Trek said that and paid lip-service to it, but Clarke actually showed that.
He certainly shaped the way I see the world, probably more than Asimov or Bradbury did, two other authors that I discovered at about the same time.
When I was about twelve an uncle of mine took me to a rerelease of the movie 2001.
As weary as I've grown of the whole period-after-each-word thing, I think in this case I have to say:
It. Blew. My. Mind. Hey, it was the seventies. Actually, I think it was the same summer that Star Wars came out. The original and one and only. 1977, baby.
After we got out of the theater, I basically said the twelve-year-old version of WTF?! He explained it to me, and I was hooked. I've also read a number of his books, the memories of which are overshadowed by his collaboration with Kubrick. I'm planning on going back and reading some stuff now.
2001 remains one of my favorite films. 2010 was a worthy sequel, both novel and film. 2061 didn't grab me, so I never read 3001, but he has a much wider body of work than that.
2001 challenges the way you think, and in combination with Kubrick's mastery, the film is just amazing, nothing like it. I think my ten-year-old daughter is now ready to get her mind blown.
As weary as I've grown of the whole period-after-each-word thing, I think in this case I have to say:
It. Blew. My. Mind. Hey, it was the seventies. Actually, I think it was the same summer that Star Wars came out. The original and one and only. 1977, baby.
After we got out of the theater, I basically said the twelve-year-old version of WTF?! He explained it to me, and I was hooked. I've also read a number of his books, the memories of which are overshadowed by his collaboration with Kubrick. I'm planning on going back and reading some stuff now.
2001 remains one of my favorite films. 2010 was a worthy sequel, both novel and film. 2061 didn't grab me, so I never read 3001, but he has a much wider body of work than that.
2001 challenges the way you think, and in combination with Kubrick's mastery, the film is just amazing, nothing like it. I think my ten-year-old daughter is now ready to get her mind blown.
The first science fiction novel I ever read was DOLPHIN ISLAND, a so-called boy's adventure story that involved future tech (it opens with a scene involving a magnetic monorail), ecological issues (dolphins and the Great barrier Reef) and a hell of a lot of fun and adventure.
Mr Clarke's work, along with that of Zelazny, LeGuin and Herbert has, one way or another, influenced my work and my life ever since.
He had a great long run and he will be missed but never forgotten. We owe a good deal of our current technology to him.
GPS anybody?
Mr Clarke's work, along with that of Zelazny, LeGuin and Herbert has, one way or another, influenced my work and my life ever since.
He had a great long run and he will be missed but never forgotten. We owe a good deal of our current technology to him.
GPS anybody?
Amy and Scott: it was nice to see your props for 2010.. I've enjoyed the hell out of that film since i saw it in the theater on opening night. I still listen to David Shire's score for the film quite a bit while I write.
Allyn: Awesome to see your nod to "The Star." I had never read it before I saw Alan Brennert's adaption of it for an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in 1985. That story rocked my foundations and was one of the reasons I bought the Season One set of the TZ relaunch. I still love it. For those not in the know:
But this has spoilers—don't cheat yourself out of seeing or reading it if you haven't yet.
In 2004, when I was contacting celebrity fans of Star Trek for the 150th issue of Star Trek Communicator, I emailed Mr. Clarke to request a comment. While my response came from an assistant, I was forwarded an email from him giving me permission to reprint one of his quotes in the magazine. It was a way-cool and gracious second-hand brush with greatness for me.
Here's what Mr. Clarke let me repeat on his behalf:
“At a dark time in human history, Star Trek promoted the then unpopular ideals of tolerance for differing cultures and respect for life in all forms -- without preaching, and always with a saving sense of humor. We can all rejoice that Gene (Roddenberry) achieved professional success and world respect. What must have given him even greater satisfaction is that he lived to see so many of his ideals triumphantly accepted.” —Sir Arthur C. Clarke (from “Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!” and used with permission from the author)
Kevin
Allyn: Awesome to see your nod to "The Star." I had never read it before I saw Alan Brennert's adaption of it for an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in 1985. That story rocked my foundations and was one of the reasons I bought the Season One set of the TZ relaunch. I still love it. For those not in the know:
But this has spoilers—don't cheat yourself out of seeing or reading it if you haven't yet.
In 2004, when I was contacting celebrity fans of Star Trek for the 150th issue of Star Trek Communicator, I emailed Mr. Clarke to request a comment. While my response came from an assistant, I was forwarded an email from him giving me permission to reprint one of his quotes in the magazine. It was a way-cool and gracious second-hand brush with greatness for me.
Here's what Mr. Clarke let me repeat on his behalf:
“At a dark time in human history, Star Trek promoted the then unpopular ideals of tolerance for differing cultures and respect for life in all forms -- without preaching, and always with a saving sense of humor. We can all rejoice that Gene (Roddenberry) achieved professional success and world respect. What must have given him even greater satisfaction is that he lived to see so many of his ideals triumphantly accepted.” —Sir Arthur C. Clarke (from “Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!” and used with permission from the author)
Kevin
It's an underrated film. All it really has against it is the thankless job of being a sequel to a film that is legendary. The makers of the film took the very sensible course of not even trying to outdo 2001. It's not like you could try to be more psychedelic--2001 is too much of its time. Instead they just made a straightforward, fairly hard sci-fi film that has some great moments when it intersects with the events of the original. I recently picked it up on DVD, and I'm trying to find the time to watch both of them with my daughter.
Very cool!
Personally, I like it better than the original film. Kubrick's filmmaking style just isn't for me.
And you're right about its hard-SF approach. When I caught it recently on TV, I was delighted by its scientific rigor (for the most part) and I lamented that virtually no movie since then has made any effort to match it.
The aerobraking scene is fabulous.
I just watched 2001 and 2010 back-to-back a couple months ago. 2010 is competent, at best-- as a followup to 2001, it's abysmal. The movie's primary flaw is that it seems to be made for idiots. Is there a moment that goes by where Roy Schneider is not clumsily explaining the plot?
And as for attention to science-- Leonov stops rotating to dock with Discovery, but the crew walks around for the rest of the movie just fine!
And as for attention to science-- Leonov stops rotating to dock with Discovery, but the crew walks around for the rest of the movie just fine!
First off, his name was Roy Scheider, not Schneider. Second, the level of exposition in the movie was pretty faithful to the book on which it was based. Clarke always gave plenty of detailed exposition, which is what made him such an odd match with Kubrick. The original novel of 2001 explains just about everything that the movie left vague.
As far as I recall, the rotating section of the Leonov was still rotating after the docking maneuver. The problems with gravity vs. freefall were actually on the Discovery sets, particularly the scenes of people walking around in the pod bay. Nobody's claiming that the science in the movie is absolutely perfect. But compared to the ridiculous, fairyland depiction of space and physics that we get in most movies, 2010 is refreshingly science-literate and its problems minor.
Similar threads
