Hugo & Nebula Awards: Best Novels discussion

I will start a separate topic on this subject, for the convenience of having all the relating information in one thread. Whatever I know about the subject comes from Internet articles, which are pretty scarce and among which this article I found to be the most informative:

Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein are informally known as the "Big Three" - the best known members of the group of authors who brought science fiction into a Golden Age in the middle years of the twentieth century.

Clarke and Heinlein began writing to each other after Clarke's The Exploration of Space was published in 1951, and first met in person the following year. They remained on cordial terms for many years, including visits in the United States and Sri Lanka. In 1984, Clarke testified before Congress against the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Later, at the home of Larry Niven in California, Heinlein attacked Clarke's views on United States foreign and space policy (especially the SDI). Although the two were later reconciled, they remained distant until Heinlein's death in 1988.

Asimov and Clarke first met in New York City in 1953, and they traded friendly insults and jibes for decades. The feelings of friendship and respect between the two were demonstrated by the so-called "Clarke-Asimov Treaty of Park Avenue", put together as they shared a cab ride in New York. This stated that Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world (reserving second-best for himself), while conversely, Clarke was to claim that Asimov was the best science writer in the world (similarly reserving second-best for himself). Thus the dedication in Clarke's book Report on Planet Three and Other Speculations (1972) reads: "In accordance with the terms of the Clarke-Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer."

Heinlein and Asimov met after beginning to publish stories in Astounding magazine in 1939 and subsequently worked together at the Naval Air Experimental Station in Philadelphia during WWII. Asimov later commented that it was not an easy friendship - he felt that if they did not agreed on an issue then Heinlein would try to badger him to change his view and become hostile if he did not succeed.
(Original source)

I've always wondered why these three. Where was Ray Bradbury when they elected the Big Three? Maybe less prolific, not strictly enough science or science fiction, or maybe more short stories, or a matter of publicity? Still, Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles are as good as anything the others wrote.

Allan wrote: "I've always wondered why these three. Where was Ray Bradbury when they elected the Big Three? "

Not only Bradbury but Simak, Brown, Hamilton, "doc" Smith... ratings are quite a biased thing.

I am as ignorant as the next guy when it comes to the true history of the genre, whatever I know I picked up from reading articles over the years. So don't hold it against me if I am speaking out of my behind.
The writers mentioned in previous posts (Ray Bradbury and Simak) caught their big breaks during or after the 50s. "Doc" Smith was really of the old school and not part of the "Golden Era", a term which is very arbitrary to begin with.

I suppose "The Big Three" title is directly connected with that age and since they were the ones who ushered the genre into its new stage I suppose they deserve that much. They way I understood it is that up until 1938 sci-fi was mostly published in magazines and almost without fail had this "pulpy" feel to it. I was surprised to learn that Heinlein was older than both Asimov and Clarke, somehow I always felt as if he was the last to the party. Anyway, in many ways their novels changed the rules of the game and hard sci-fi got the recognition it deserved.

I don't think it is about the ratings or "hype", it's pre-WWII we are talking about.

Those who are interested in brief history of sci-fi, you are welcome to this great article by Bruce Sterling:

https://www.britannica.com/art/scienc...

My understanding is that the Big 3 were the most popular SF writers in the 1950s, which was when SF started being published and promoted as a genre in books rather than only magazines. But I don't know when the phrase "Big 3" started to be used.

I singled out Bradbury because I thought he was a contemporary of the Three and gained prominence around the same time.

Allan wrote: "I singled out Bradbury because I thought he was a contemporary of the Three and gained prominence around the same time."

Same here, I always believed that he was active during the 30s and 40s. The fact that he was born in 1920 was a huge surprise to me.

His The Martian Chronicles, an amazing collection of his earlier work published as a novel, came out in 1950 and F451° in 1953. I loved Chronicles when I read it first as a teenager and I enjoyed every reread since.

I have love/hate relationship with Ray Bradbury. He was probably the most published foreign SF author is the USSR. The reason is simple: Fahrenheit 451 was advertised as a prophetic view about coming American fascism and the necessity to be ready to the war with the USA. So, his books were much more easily available than say Asimov's (and Heinlein was known only by short stories) and not all of them are what you expect from SF when you're 10-15 years.

I only read The Martian Chronicles just last year. I think I read Something Wicked This Way Comes a long, long time ago, and some of his short stories. What I noticed was the beauty of his prose. It felt like music to me, like reading LeGuin. Heinlein is pretty straightforward, Asimov & Clarke weave mysteries, and Bradbury creates poetry in prose. I plan to read some of his short story collections soon; there's a whole bunch of them. I'll start with with The October Country, which I found used for under a buck. I think that one is more horror/dark fantasy?

Allan wrote: "I'll start with with The October Country, which I found used for under a buck. I think that one is more horror/dark fantasy?

More fantasy/weird than horror IIRC

Allan wrote: "I only read The Martian Chronicles just last year. I think I read Something Wicked This Way Comes a long, long time ago, and some of his short stories. What I noticed was the beauty of his prose. I..."

I remember reading Something Wicked in my twenties and I loved it, probably not five stars but 4.5. Then about two years ago I've reread Dandelion Wine and Wicked and I could not wait to get it over with the latter. Still enjoyed the Wine though.

Watch in awe as Mr. Bradbury introduces us to the future of prunes.

Ed wrote: "Watch in awe as Mr. Bradbury introduces us to the future of prunes."

In 2019 we ought be sitting in a lawn chair at the foot of Olympus, eating wrinkle-free prunes! Where did we go wrong?

I have not read any Bradbury for years. I know I have read Fahrenheit 451, the Illustrated Man, and the Martian Chronicles, and the name Dandelion Wine sounds awfully familiar

I just noticed: Isaac Asimov's 100th birthday was a couple of weeks ago: he was born Jan 2 1920. Happy birthday, Isaac, the "best science writer in the world"!

Antti wrote: "I just noticed: Isaac Asimov's 100th birthday was a couple of weeks ago: he was born Jan 2 1920. Happy birthday, Isaac, the "best science writer in the world"!"

Yes, it is a semi-official SF day

I started reading The Naked Sun that day!

I'd argue Lester Del Rey would need to replace either Heinlein or Clarke... while he wasn't the best writer... he was an a publisher that did a TON for the genre.

I guess I need to put some Asimov on my list, probably the Empire trilogy

Joe wrote: "I'd argue Lester Del Rey would need to replace either Heinlein or Clarke... while he wasn't the best writer... he was an a publisher that did a TON for the genre."

The top-3 should have at least 10 positions for SFF authors :)

Seriously, the named two to a large extent defined the genre, so I think they earned their places. If we add ones who added in more general sense, both Hugo and Campbell should be mentioned

Agreed, all three practically became synonymous with the genre, so you can't really replace any of them. Del Rey, however, is a Grand Master. But that list is incomplete too, Gernsback and Campbell are not on it. Overall though, i think it does generally capture the best, most recognizable authors.

Allan--re reading Asimov. Read I, Robot and The Rest of the Robots and then Caves of Steel. Much more fun than Foundation, if I recall

Oleksandr wrote: "I have love/hate relationship with Ray Bradbury...."

I think I remember a scene in a Simpsons episode where one of the characters names the "Big Three" as Asimov, Bester, and Clarke. Someone asks him: "Bester? What about Bradbury?" Ralph responds "I'm aware of his work." LOL

I was so busy with Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, and Bradbury back then I actually "discovered" a new favorite author almost 20 years after his death: P.K.Dick.

RJ from the LBC wrote: "Ralph responds "I'm aware of his work." ..."

It's fair, though. Bradbury himself didn't consider his work to be Science Fiction. (Except for Fahrenheit 450.)

Bester wrote some awful stuff sometimes, though, such as Golem100.

There’s also The Martian Chronicles, but Bradbury’s greatest strength was short stories, not all sci-fi, as evidenced by his many collections. That’s probably why, despite those two stellar sci-fi novels, he’s not one of the so-called Big Three.