Fans of Arthur C. Clarke discussion

Tell us about your least favorite Clarke novel or short story and why it is such.

My least favorite Clarke novel thus far has to be "Cradle," which was coauthored by Gentry Lee. It has lots of sexual descriptions throughout it and it seemed to focus too much on the characters, at the expense of the story. I very much liked the idea behind the story and the idea is very similar to that behind the civilization that created the monoliths in the Space Odyssey series. This novel shared many of the same problems that the Rama series novels had, but to a much greater extent. It seems to me that I am just not a fan of Gentry Lee's writing style and think Clarke would have done a much better job on his own with this novel and the Rama series novels.

Jason wrote: "Tell us about your least favorite Clarke novel or short story and why it is such."

MY least favorite Clarke novel?? Too easy. "Fountains of Paradise"! Had to be the most ridiculous premise for a story I could possibly imagine! A (literal) "elevator to the moon"? Come ON!! And that strange scenario at the end of the book with that android/angel/whatever it is....? What was UP with all that?!

To this day, I have to wonder whether "Fountains" wasn't a harbinger of the beginning of Clarke's dotage, as ridiculous as it was....

Stephen H. Turner
The Last Voyage of the Cassiopeia
Almagest The Adventures of MarsShield
3700
The Avedon Question

MY least favorite Clarke novel?? Too easy. "Fountains of Paradise"! Had to be the most ridiculous..."

I can't say that Fountains was one of my favorite Clarke novels by any means. In its defense, however, the idea of a space elevator (not an elevator to the Moon, but simply into Earth orbit) is actually a well-founded scientific notion. One of the primary shortfalls of their existence is the current lacking of a sufficiently strong material in sufficient quantities to use in them (there are also some other technical issues to overcome). I don't recall to what you are referring with the android/angel thing. I was a bit bored with all the historical stuff in the book, which was Clarke's attempt to pay homage to the history and mythology of Srilanka.

Jason wrote: "MY least favorite Clarke novel?? Too easy. "Fountains of Paradise"! Had to be the most ridiculous..."

I can't say that Fountains was one of my favorite Clarke novels by any means. In its defense..."

Don't you remember the last thirty or so pages of the book....? It suddenly breaks with all that went before and there's this winged...THING flying around and musing about everything and administering to children....I think he comes to rest on some kind of monument at the very end, talking to the kids. I haven't read it in a long time, but I definitely remember being jolted awake by that sequence....

Steve

I don't recall anything like that, but perhaps I am blocking it from my memory if I were affected by it as you were.

Jason wrote: "I don't recall anything like that, but perhaps I am blocking it from my memory if I was affected by it as you were."


If you have a copy of it, check it. It comes right after the sequence where the wire snaps, if I'm not mistaken. And it's set a good deal in the future from the period the elevator's story is set in.


Stephen H. Turner

Stephen, this comment refers back to a discussion we started in Member Introductions. I felt it would be more appropriate to continue it here in the Least Favorite Clarke Novel section.
First, you are wrong about at least one thing. I, and several moviegoers I've interacted with, are fond of both 2001 and 2010 in their book and movie forms. I think 2001 is the superior novel. It has a cleaner, tighter plot. 2010 is a classic sequel: same basic premise, but bigger, bolder, brassier. As for the movie versions, 2001 is a Stanley Kubrik film. And to like it, a viewer needs to appreciate Kubrik's signature style.

2010 is a very different movie. It reincorporates many fictional devices (like sound in space). The acting is less rigid, more flamboyant. Without dumbing down the plot, director Peter Hyams crafts more conventional action scenes, including the fantastic aerobraking sequence. As a kid, 2010 held my interest. Frankly, at nine years old 2001 bored the hell out of me. I almost didn't become a Clarke fan after watching it on the heels of seeing 2010. Fortunately, I went ahead and read 2010 and fell in love with Clarke's novels. A few years ago, while in college, I saw a midnight showing of 2001 on the bigscreen and was mesmerized. Kubrik is for grown ups I guess.

I'll grant you William Sylvester was great casting for Kubrik's subtext-driven film. But as a veteran filmgoer with professional training in criticism, I doubt he could have carried a more action-oriented film like 2010. I completely disagree with you. For me, Roy Scheider was fantastic. I believed him as a university chancellor, bored with bureaucracy, hungry for an odyssey, and driven by a compulsive need to vindicate himself. And I'll take a flamboyant sidekick like John Lithgow any day over a dry sidekick like Gary Lockwood. But that's me.

You know Stephen, I bet we could have some great conversations. But they would necessitate you giving reasons for your opinions, not just pronouncing them as cultural gospel. They aren't. Neither are mine and I'm happy to admit that.
I hope you'll explain in more detail why you dislike 2010 so much. I'm curious. Is it just the movie, or do you dislike the book as well?

Jake wrote: "Stephen, this comment refers back to a discussion we started in Member Introductions. I felt it would be more appropriate to continue it here in the Least Favorite Clarke Novel section.
First, you..."

You want to know why I hated "2010" so much, Jake? Beause it was a weak movie....VERY weak, and it followed probably the single most impressive film in movie history! For instance, the "geek" fsctor is a little too high in the cast, what with Bob Balaban and John "Crossdressing is his life" Lithgow, and even Keir Dullea acting geeky as Bowman's shade. The eventual reveal was anticlimactic and VERY far-fetched to say the least! I mean, Jupiter turning into a second sun?? Seriously....

The book did NOT read this badly....


Stephen H. Turner

2001, the "most impressive film in movie history"? Maybe to Kubrick fans in 1968.

Fair enough. You just didn’t like the film. And I am forced to admit that 2010 failed to find a popular audience, grossing only $40 million in a Christmastime release. But I have to chuckle at your response. Where the heck did the cross-dressing slam come from?--a reference I presume to that Garp movie. Although, the character of Curnow is bisexual in the book which makes a sometimes effeminate Lithgow a compelling choice to embody Clarke’s vision.

More amusing, did you, a self-professed “sci-fi freak” and member of an Arthur C. Clarke Fan Group, just slam geeks? For what it’s worth, I’ve seen/met three astronauts in person, as well as a NASA engineer who helped oversee the first successful Mars Rover. All those guys had a distinct air of geekiness about them. So it works for me to see a geek-factor brought into a film about devout scientists/engineers leaving the cloister of academia and voyaging through space. Could you please explain what constitutes “geeky”, why it bugs you, and why Dullea comes off as “geeky” to you? How do you draw that conclusion from his brief, pensive, and minimalist performance in 2010?

Finally, I’m not a scientist, but if memory of my college astronomy course serves (and the mighty Wikipedia says it does), Jupiter generates more energy than it receives from the sun. It is sometimes referred to as a “failed star” by astronomers. Clarke’s depiction of Jupiter becoming a star was, I assume, based loosely off of established astronomic hypotheses. It’s certainly no more implausible than a contraption like the monolith, which you don’t seem to be bugged by.

Wow, Jake, you have met some fascinating people in your life...very fortunate. As far as Jupiter becoming a star is concerned, it is rather far-fetched, but not impossible, especially for a sufficiently advanced civilization. It would require Jupiter to have much more mass, almost entirely in the form of hydrogen as a fuel for a long-term fusion reaction to be sustained. Brown dwarfs lack this abundant fuel and mass, which is why they are known as failed starts. Jupiter likely radiates more energy than it receives from the sun due to radioactivity. I enjoyed both movies, though I enjoyed 2001 more for sure. I watched it when I was 11 and fell in love with it immediately, but then I really am a "scifi freak." ;-)

Jason wrote: "Wow, Jake, you have met some fascinating people in your life...very fortunate. As far as Jupiter becoming a star is concerned, it is rather far-fetched, but not impossible, especially for a suffici..."

Hey Jason...I can name-drop too...I've actually met: Isaac Asimov, Lin Carter, Neal Adams, Denny O'Neill, Jim Steranko, Jack Kirby and Julius Schwartz. Not to mention Barry Smith, illustrator of the "Conan" comics of the seventies....

How about THAT??!


Stephen H. Turner

I am envious of you also, Stephen, especially about Asimov. There is no competition between you and Jake though: I think you're both swell. :-)

Jason wrote: "I am envious of you also, Stephen, especially about Asimov. There is no competition between you and Jake though: I think you're both swell. :-)"

Aw...pshaw! ;-)


Stephen H. Turner

Jake wrote: "2001, the "most impressive film in movie history"? Maybe to Kubrick fans in 1968.

JUST to Kubrick fans?? I would think to George Lucas and Ridley Scott as well, considering that all spacecraft used in their movies have the realistic, "nuts and bolts showing" look that the "2001" vessels did...that the music for both franchises are classically impressive. Trust me...to ANYBODY with discerning taste, "2001" is probably high on their list of fave movies.

Fair enough. You just didn’t like the film. And I am forced to admit that 2010 failed to find a popular audience..."

Uh...there was a reason for that....(g)

More amusing, did you, a self-professed “sci-fi freak” and member of an Arthur C. Clarke Fan Group, just slam geeks?

Hey, when you're part of a field that is so ASSOCIATED and RIFE with geeks, wouldn't it make SENSE to be a little fed up with them? I mean, they think SOOOO much differently than normal people do....

It's kinda scary.

Jupiter generates more energy than it receives from the sun.

ANYTHING as large as Jupiter is going to send off more energy than it receives more than a billion miles away from the sun like it is. In fact, aside from the sun, Jupiter is the biggest radio-signal generator of all the bodies in our system. So what?? That STILL doesn't mean it would make a good star....Suns, especially suns supporting complex systems like ours, should be massive, not relative pinpricks like Jupiter.....

Stephen H. Turner
The Last Voyage of the Cassiopeia
Almagest The Adventures of MarsShield
3700
The Avedon Question

<.<
I did not like "Hammer of God."
Just not the same Clarke novel I like to read.
:/ <.< *cough*
I don't have alot to say >.<
And you guys said "Fountains of Paradise" Is the wrost
:/ I liked better then "Hammer of God" He talks about
The space elevator In "3001" So thats prolly the only reason I sorta got into it alittle Dr.Morgan failz tho lol

Taylor wrote: "<.<
I did not like "Hammer of God."
Just not the same Clarke novel I like to read.
:/ <.< *cough*
I don't have alot to say >.<
And you guys said "Fountains of Paradise" Is the wrost
:/ I liked be..."

I STILL say the basic concept of the elevator is ludicrous to the extreme....the logistics would make it a Pyrrhic undertaking to say the least!

(And wouldn't the cable eventually wrap itself around the Earth....?)

Steverino

Stephen wrote: "I STILL say the basic concept of the elevator is ludicrous to the extreme....the logistics would make it a Pyrrhic undertaking to say the least! (And wouldn't the cable eventually wrap itself around the Earth....?)"

I can say no definitively to your parenthetical question, because the cable would move (rotate) in synchrony with the Earth.

Jason wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I STILL say the basic concept of the elevator is ludicrous to the extreme....the logistics would make it a Pyrrhic undertaking to say the least! (And wouldn't the cable eventually w..."

I can say no definitively to your parenthetical question, because the cable would move (rotate) in synchrony with the Earth.

You HOPE....!

Stephen wrote: "Jason wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I STILL say the basic concept of the elevator is ludicrous to the extreme....the logistics would make it a Pyrrhic undertaking to say the least! (And wouldn't the cabl..."

Yes, it would likely be disastrous if the counterweight moved out of geosynchronous orbit for whatever reason and cause the cable to begin wrapping around Earth, as it would make it all the way around at least one full time (geosynchronous orbit is about 22,000 miles and Earth's circumference is about 25,000 miles).

Jason wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Jason wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I STILL say the basic concept of the elevator is ludicrous to the extreme....the logistics would make it a Pyrrhic undertaking to say the least! (And w..."


Wind....airplanes....clouds....storms....Roche's Limit....we're talking so MANY factors that would work against it, it's unreal....ON TOP of the fact that the resources needed would have everybody rethinking the necessity of the ******* thing in the first place! ;-)

I can't believe the idea has ANY advocates at ALL, to be honest with you.

Like I said, probably something poor Arthur came up with in his dotage....

Steve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_el...

>.< It Could...work <.< prolly not tho >.<
:P

How could a airplane not see a HUGE Space elevator.
<.< There prolly be a "no fly zone"
:) <.<
*cough* it a book Science fiction novel *end cough*

The Deep Range is my only Clarke nemesis-I just found it boring and tedious. Its not because its not SF because I quite enjoyed his early non SF novel Glide Path.

Larry wrote: "The Deep Range is my only Clarke nemesis-I just found it boring and tedious. Its not because its not SF because I quite enjoyed his early non SF novel Glide Path."

I have been avoiding that one so far, just because I wanted to read his fiction work first. Thanks for the tip, Larry.

Jason "plasborgma" wrote:I have been avoiding that one so far, just because I wanted to read his fiction work first. Thanks for the tip, Larry

Oh Deep Range is definitley SF,just not particularly interesting SF IMO

Larry wrote: "Oh Deep Range is definitley SF,just not particularly interesting SF IMO"

I see. I guess I do recall now that it is fiction, but it didn't seem like science fiction when I looked at the description a few years ago. Still, I think there are better works by Clarke for me to get to first, as you suggest.

Jason "plasborgma" wrote: I think there are better works by Clarke for me to get to first, as you suggest

Oh yes, plenty. Childhood's End, Rendezvous with Rama, Earthlight,Islands in the Sky, Fall of Moondust-the list goes on!

Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "My least favorite Clarke novel thus far has to be "Cradle," which was coauthored by Gentry Lee. It has lots of sexual descriptions throughout it and it seemed to focus too much on the characters, a..."
Is that the one that features the Blue Iguana Club or somesuch? Or is that Ghost from the Grand Banks?

Larry wrote: "Oh yes, plenty. Childhood's End, Rendezvous with Rama, Earthlight,Islands in the Sky, Fall of Moondust-the list goes on!"

I have read all of those, except the last so far, and the first three are some of my favorites, with the first being my favorite book of all time!

Larry wrote: "Is that the one that features the Blue Iguana Club or somesuch? Or is that Ghost from the Grand Banks?"

I have not yet read GftGB, but it is not from Cradle. Come to think of it, GftGB might have been the book I was thinking about when I was talking about Deep Range. :-)

GFTGB aint bad from what I remember-but then it features the Titanic which interests me, alsdo theres mention of Fractals I think.