The Holy Trinity of Science Fiction - Last Round (READ CAREFULLY!)

[Greylock Crescent]

I voted to eliminate Star Wars. I'm actually a huge SW fan; I think there's a great deal of value to the films -- even the prequels -- but I just don't see that the franchise belongs in a "holy trinity" of science fiction.

 

[Goliath]

And yet, there are many people who only know Clarke through 2001 (more so the movie than the book) and nothing else.

That must be why he won three Hugo awards.

You know--the ones for which fans vote, at the World Science Fiction Convention.

Clarke also won three Nebula awards, which are voted by the Science Fiction Writers of America, which shows how well-known and respected he was by his peers.

I agree with you to an extent--it's a travesty that neither Wells nor Verne made the top three.

But the choice among giants like Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Bradbury is purely a matter of personal taste.

I've never liked Bradbury's work, myself.

 

[C.E. Evans]

And yet, there are many people who only know Clarke through 2001 (more so the movie than the book) and nothing else.

That must be why he won three Hugo awards.

You know--the ones for which fans vote, at the World Science Fiction Convention.

And Heinlein won four Hugo Awards, but who's counting?

Clarke also won three Nebula awards, which are voted by the Science Fiction Writers of America, which shows how well-known and respected he was by his peers.

Which means very little to the average person on the street, I would add. It's an important accolade for science-fiction writers, I grant you, but it's still basically an industry's self-congratulatory pat on the back.

My point is, however, that there are many science-fiction greats who have produced many outstanding and inspiring works out there, but the overwhelming majority of their works simply aren't known outside of fans of science-fiction literature. I would argue that most people get their science-fiction fix these days through movies and television. As a result, there are people who may have heard of Isaac Asimov and know he's a sci-fi icon--without really knowing why. There are people who associate Clarke with Stanley Kubrick's movie, but have never even heard of Rendezvous with Rama or anything else he's done.

Of course, the flipside of that is everyone has heard of Star Wars and Star Trek...

I agree with you to an extent--it's a travesty that neither Wells nor Verne made the top three.

But the choice among giants like Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Bradbury is purely a matter of personal taste.

I've never liked Bradbury's work, myself.

All such polls like this are a matter of current personal tastes, and more often than not just boils down to a simple popularity contest among the actual voters at hand. Oversights are to be expected, IMO...

 

[Mal]

giants like Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Bradbury

that list just blows my mind

think about it: bradbury wrote the martian chronicles which is really unlike any other science fiction novel i've ever read. it's so full of pathos (and it's opposite: hope), and presents the red planet as truly alien (and eerie), in a way that our modern blasé/jaded culture might never produce again. and that's not even his most famous novel (he wrote 451!)

Heinlein: on the one had he wrote the genre-defining fascist science fiction novel Starship Troopers, on the other hand, his masterpiece is a communist utopia (Stranger in a Strange Land).

And Clarke and Asimov - i can't even begin to describe how these giants shaped the fundamental ways in the which i see the world. the Foundation Series is probably more important to me that any one religious text

compared to books, shows (even important shows, that i turn to again and again, like B5 or Doctor Who), just cannot compare.

that said, Star Trek was a constant in my life - and i think the lives of most of us who came of age in the 80's or 90's. (TOS for the generation before that...). i mean, TNG: looking back on it now, sure it had HUGE flaws. but fuck, there is no denying that it was an insanely big influence in the lives of millions of people all around the world.

 

[Goliath]

And yet, there are many people who only know Clarke through 2001 (more so the movie than the book) and nothing else.

That must be why he won three Hugo awards.

You know--the ones for which fans vote, at the World Science Fiction Convention.

And Heinlein won four Hugo Awards, but who's counting?

That is not an answer.

You said "there are many people who only know Clarke through 2001 (more so the movie than the book) and nothing else."

I provided evidence that Clarke's other work is not nearly as little-known as you suggest. That, in fact, enough people know Clarke through his other works like "The Star," Rendezvous With Rama, and The Fountains of Paradise to vote them one of science-fiction's most prestigious awards.

The number of awards Heinlein has won is neither here nor there.

Clarke also won three Nebula awards, which are voted by the Science Fiction Writers of America, which shows how well-known and respected he was by his peers.

Which means very little to the average person on the street, I would add.

The average person on the street isn't interested in science fiction. So that is also neither here nor there.

It's an important accolade for science-fiction writers, I grant you, but it's still basically an industry's self-congratulatory pat on the back.

That is just not true. The SFWA is not "the industry." The Nebula is an award handed out by writers, for writers.

My point is, however, that there are many science-fiction greats who have produced many outstanding and inspiring works out there, but the overwhelming majority of their works simply aren't known outside of fans of science-fiction literature. I would argue that most people get their science-fiction fix these days through movies and television. As a result, there are people who may have heard of Isaac Asimov and know he's a sci-fi icon--without really knowing why. There are people who associate Clarke with Stanley Kubrick's movie, but have never even heard of Rendezvous with Rama or anything else he's done.

Of course, the flipside of that is everyone has heard of Star Wars and Star Trek...

Even if that's true...so what?

The poll question was not "from which sources do most people get their science-fiction fix nowadays".

You seem to want this poll to mean something that it was never intended to mean.

I agree with you to an extent--it's a travesty that neither Wells nor Verne made the top three.

But the choice among giants like Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Bradbury is purely a matter of personal taste.

I've never liked Bradbury's work, myself.

All such polls like this are a matter of current personal tastes, and more often than not just boils down to a simple popularity contest among the actual voters at hand. Oversights are to be expected, IMO...

It never fails. Offer a conciliatory concession--and they'll slap it out of your hand.

This last part you've written here makes no sense. You now seem to be arguing out of pure contrariness. Or maybe you're just outraged that Star Wars lost out to Arthur C. Clarke--or that Robert Heinlein lost out to both.

If all such polls as this really are a matter of current personal taste, and boil down to a simple popularity contest among the actual voters at hand, then it makes no sense to claim that "oversights are to be expected".

If what you say is true, then the most popular contestants will win, every time. The less popular contestants will lose, every time.

In such a situation, there are no "oversights". An "oversight" would only occur if people had somehow forgotten which contestants they really liked, when they voted.

For an oversight to truly occur, there must be some absolute standard of value, which the voters have ignored, out of bias.

You seem to want to argue that films and television programs are absolutely more valuable than stories and books. In your reply, you specifically disparaged both the Nebula awards, and figures that are unknown outside of the field of science-fiction literature.

Most people, you said, get their sci-fi from television and film--and so, presumably, Arthur C. Clarke, whose work is primarily literary, and little-known outside of the field of SF literature, "should" have lost.

But if that was true--if film and television really are more valuable and influential, as you say--then Clarke would have lost.

I see no indication that the people who voted in this poll are literary snobs. Quite the contrary: most of the people who frequent these forums get their SF from TV and the cinema, as you say. This is a Star Trek board, after all.

And yet, this effectively random sample of sci-fi fans chose Clarke over Star Wars. If what you say is true, then how can this be?

There seem to be three possibilities here:

1. The people who voted in this poll are not representative of science-fiction fandom. That's entirely possible--but I don't see any evidence that this is, in fact the case. If you have any, I'll be happy to look at it.

2. You're just wrong, and literary science fiction is more important than you seem to think.

Or 3. You are correct--but 2001: A Space Odyssey is a far more important and influential film than you seem to think.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That must be why he won three Hugo awards.

You know--the ones for which fans vote, at the World Science Fiction Convention.

And Heinlein won four Hugo Awards, but who's counting?

That is not an answer.

Of course it is. It means that Clarke isn't the only author to have won Hugo Awards and indeed Heinlein has won more, but it didn't help him on this list did it?

You said "there are many people who only know Clarke through 2001 (more so the movie than the book) and nothing else."

I provided evidence that Clarke's other work is not nearly as little-known as you suggest. That, in fact, enough people know Clarke through his other works like "The Star," Rendezvous With Rama, and The Fountains of Paradise to vote them one of science-fiction's most prestigious awards.

But would the average joe on the street know any of that that? I doubt it.

The number of awards Heinlein has won is neither here nor there.

And neither are the number of awards Clarke has won by that same token.

The average person on the street isn't interested in science fiction. So that is also neither here nor there.

Oh, yes it is. And indeed that is exactly the point I'm coming from--from the perspective of the average person (of which I consider myself). You may disagree, but I don't think this poll was exclusive only to people who are well-versed in classic science fiction literature.

That is just not true. The SFWA is not "the industry." The Nebula is an award handed out by writers, for writers.

See=industry.

Even if that's true...so what?

Exactly my point. It is so what.

The poll question was not "from which sources do most people get their science-fiction fix nowadays".

So it was a poll meant to a specific point in time and not the here and now?

You seem to want this poll to mean something that it was never intended to mean.

I'm sorry, I thought it was a poll in which people were voting for what they thought were the holy trinity of science-fiction. I didn't know that it was meant to be something else.

I agree with you to an extent--it's a travesty that neither Wells nor Verne made the top three.

But the choice among giants like Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Bradbury is purely a matter of personal taste.

I've never liked Bradbury's work, myself.

All such polls like this are a matter of current personal tastes, and more often than not just boils down to a simple popularity contest among the actual voters at hand. Oversights are to be expected, IMO...

It never fails. Offer a conciliatory concession--and they'll slap it out of your hand.

What? Don't be absurd.

This last part you've written here makes no sense. You now seem to be arguing out of pure contrariness. Or maybe you're just outraged that Star Wars lost out to Arthur C. Clarke--or that Robert Heinlein lost out to both.

Utter nonsense on both points. You don't even know me to even begin to make such claims, so don't even try that.

If all such polls as this really are a matter of current personal taste, and boil down to a simple popularity contest among the actual voters at hand, then it makes no sense to claim that "oversights are to be expected".

And yet it happens frequently, if not all the time. Polls are indeed nothing more than popularity contests and they are in indeed a reflection of current tastes by the voters. Had this poll been taken years earlier, the results would have been dramatically different. Take this poll again years from now, it'll be different as well then.

If what you say is true, then the most popular contestants will win, every time. The less popular contestants will lose, every time.

We have a winnah! That's what voting contests are. People generally vote for who they want to win (or in this case, lose) and not necessarily for what might be considered the best of the best. This very poll may be proof of that.

In such a situation, there are no "oversights". An "oversight" would only occur if people had somehow forgotten which contestants they really liked, when they voted.

For an oversight to truly occur, there must be some absolute standard of value, which the voters have ignored, out of bias.

Whatever makes you happy, go for it.

You seem to want to argue that films and television programs are absolutely more valuable than stories and books.

I said no such thing, so please either read what I say more carefully or stop putting words in my mouth.

What I specifically said, what that these days the majority of people get their sci-fi fix through movies and films. This does not mean that stories and books or less valuable, but that sci-fi television shows and movies tend to be more popular with today's audiences. Of course people still read sci-fi books and many become bestsellers, but I would argue that more people get their sci-fi through TV and films in this day and age simply because of the times we live in.

In your reply, you specifically disparaged both the Nebula awards, and figures that are unknown outside of the field of science-fiction literature.

I didn't disparage anything--indeed, I said the Nebula award was an important accolade for science-fiction writers--but I do maintain that it it's an industry award and it's importance is limited to the field of science-fiction literature.

Most people, you said, get their sci-fi from television and film--and so, presumably, Arthur C. Clarke, whose work is primarily literary, and little-known outside of the field of SF literature, "should" have lost.

Not necessarily.

But if that was true--if film and television really are more valuable and influential, as you say--then Clarke would have lost.

Once again, not necessarily. And once again, I didn't say film and television is more valuable and influential, but I do think they have become the mediums of choice for the majority of folks now. I don't believe that more people read books than they watch TV today, I'm sorry.

I see no indication that the people who voted in this poll are literary snobs. Quite the contrary: most of the people who frequent these forums get their SF from TV and the cinema, as you say. This is a Star Trek board, after all.

And yet, this effectively random sample of sci-fi fans chose Clarke over Star Wars. If what you say is true, then how can this be?

There seem to be three possibilities here:

1. The people who voted in this poll are not representative of science-fiction fandom. That's entirely possible--but I don't see any evidence that this is, in fact the case. If you have any, I'll be happy to look at it.

Knock yourself out.

2. You're just wrong, and literary science fiction is more important than you seem to think.

Or that more people feel that Clarke is more deserving to be in the holy trinity than Star Wars.

Or 3. You are correct--but 2001: A Space Odyssey is a far more important and influential film than you seem to think.

Actually, I do know how important and influential 2001 was as both a science-fiction film and just a film in general. In some high school and college film courses, it's even required viewing, but it's also where many get their first introduction to Arthur C. Clarke (it certainly was for me).

But I think more than anything else, people just didn't want Star Wars to be in the top three.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Bye bye Clarke. Star Wars may be fantasy and/or crap, but it's made too much moolah to ignore.

Meh.

When Arthur C. Clarke was 55 years old, he gave us Rendezvous with Rama, which won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards for best novel, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest SF novels of all time.

When George Lucas was 55, he gave us...The Phantom Menace.

I rest my case.

George Lucas has three billion dollars. But my definition of "holy trinity" does give some kind of nod towards the will of the people, as benighted as they might be. Otherwise, I'd just say my holy trinity is Ursula LeGuin, Philip K. Dick and Samuel Delany. If we're really trying to give credit where credit is due, Star Trek doesn't belong on that list, honestly. Star Trek never originated anything in sci fi. It just glommed onto ideas from literary sci fi.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

With respect to the guy, Asimov comes off like a '50s figure, whereas Clarke has a certain counter-cultural cool thanks to 2001.

 

[Australis]

Temis the Vorta said:

I'd just say my holy trinity is Ursula LeGuin, Philip K. Dick and Samuel Delany

They are good authors, but a bit... esoteric. SF is a big school now, genres within genres, which makes a trinity hard to point out conclusively. Which is why Clarke/Asimov/Heinlein were hailed as the Big 3 originally, as their collected works cover a huge range of the overall genre. Example, LeGuin, gret with characters and cultures, nit so big on hard SF.

 

[Blue_Trek]

Only on Trek board would Star Wars go down

I do not agree

How can you vote against these guys?
http://digg.com/d1x80t

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's next to no real SF outside of literature, anyway, so there should be no movies or TV shows on the list. And beyond Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein, it's hard to think of anyone else who would qualify; only Wells and Verne, since they were trailblazers. Maybe Campbell, if you included his influence as an editor. Or Hugo Gernsback.

 

[Harvey]

There's next to no real SF outside of literature, anyway, so there should be no movies or TV shows on the list. And beyond Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein, it's hard to think of anyone else who would qualify; only Wells and Verne, since they were trailblazers. Maybe Campbell, if you included his influence as an editor. Or Hugo Gernsback.

I'd say that there have been a *few* films that might qualify as real science fiction (as I assume you define it) outside of literature. 2001: A Space Odyssey being one. Primer being another. I'm sure there are a few others that have escaped me. Richard Linklaiter's adaptation of A Scanner Darkly must be considered, if you also consider the book "real" science fiction. It's an intensely faithful adaptation.

 

[Mistral]

MAL

Starship Troopers is not a "facist science fiction novel", its an exploration of the idea of a responsible citizenry, personal responsibility being an ongoing theme of R.A.H.'s work through-out his career.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

There's next to no real SF outside of literature, anyway, so there should be no movies or TV shows on the list..

I'm curious. How do you define SF in such a way that exclude just about everything outside of literature?

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's next to no real SF outside of literature, anyway, so there should be no movies or TV shows on the list. And beyond Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein, it's hard to think of anyone else who would qualify; only Wells and Verne, since they were trailblazers. Maybe Campbell, if you included his influence as an editor. Or Hugo Gernsback.

I'd say that there have been a *few* films that might qualify as real science fiction (as I assume you define it) outside of literature. 2001: A Space Odyssey being one. Primer being another. I'm sure there are a few others that have escaped me. Richard Linklaiter's adaptation of A Scanner Darkly must be considered, if you also consider the book "real" science fiction. It's an intensely faithful adaptation.

Oh, sure, there's some. There's even some episodes of some TV shows that qualify, like Outer Limits. But in terms of volume, it's negligible. And for something to qualify as part of a Holy Trinity, it would have to be a franchise of some kind (like ST or SW, but they are Space Opera).

There's next to no real SF outside of literature, anyway, so there should be no movies or TV shows on the list..

I'm curious. How do you define SF in such a way that exclude just about everything outside of literature?

Just as Hard SF. The extrapolation of science (or applied science) and its effect on an individual or society.

 

[Harvey]

Ah, I didn't realize you were only looking for material that was part of a franchise or a large body of work by a singular author. Even if you were to look at directors who exercise significant creative control and have realized more than one great science fiction film (Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Ridley Scott begin and end such a list in my view), it really seems inadequate to compare these filmmakers to consumate authors of science fiction such as Clarke or Asimov.

The best hope I see right now for a science fiction filmmaker who could approach such status is Duncan Jones, who directed (and shares a story credit) Moon (2009), though I have not seen the film myself as of yet, and it is ultimately premature to hedge bets on a career that is just getting off the ground.