Arthur C. Clarke 1917-2008

[D'kian]

Arthur C. Clarke died yesterday at age 90.

While best known as a science fiction writer, clarke was much more than that. He was a popularizer of space travel, for inctance. He did not advocate for NASA, or the ESA, or even the Soviet space program, but rather he explained the mechanics of space travel, its history, developments and what course it might take in the future. One of his best books on the subject was "Man And Space," written for the Time-LIFE collection.

He served in the RAF during WWII as a radar technician, where he was one of the first people involved with Ground Controlled Approach systems (GCA); a system that allows ground controllers to guide an airplane down to the runway under poor visibility conditions (this was instrumental in the success of the Berlin Airlift after the war). His experiences in the war led him to his one non-science fiction novel "Glide Path."

He also pointed out the usefulness of the geosynchronous orbit flat to the equator for communication satellites, since then known as the Clarke orbit in his honor. This may well be the biggest immediate practical contribution by an SF writer to modern technology. The satellites you get your TV from, and through which you make telephone calls, all are stationed alonge the Clarke orbit.

As for his science fiction, which was the larger part of his life, there is a lot to say. Clarke's politics and ethics were to the left (he visited the USSR several times, seeing no fundamental difference between the USSR and the West, never mind America), but he was an inveterate optimist regarding life and, in particualr, the role of technology in human life. All his novels stress the use of technology to achieve better living conditions. Be it the taming of one of Saturn's frigid moons for use as a fuel supply (Imperial Earth), or a means for cheap space travel without rockets (The Fountains Of Paradise), technology was either central or near to it in all his novels. That's good hard science fiction.

He will be missed.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

Arthur C. Clarke died yesterday at age 90.

Just saw that.

Clarke was one of my personal heroes:

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

While not ideal or without intellectual flaws, he was indeed a brilliant man with a wonderful sense of life.

In case you've never read them, his "Odyssey" series (2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001) contains by far the most intelligent, far reaching, thought provoking sci-fi ever written. 3001 in particular has the added benefit of rationally, properly actively attacking religion and mysticism explicitly. Regarding the more well-known film 2001, Kubrick made a very visually interesting movie. The images are beautiful and stylized to the max. But he utterly DESTROYED the content of the idea.

It would be tradegy to dismiss the book because of the movie. The book is a very quick, precise, CLEAR read. The total, polar opposite of the movie in it's presentation of the ideas. For whatever reason, Kubrick (apparently with Clarke's sanction?) did his best to obscure the ideas in the film. Reading the book is really amazing, especially after seeing the movie and thinking, "What the ...?" Because Clarke at all times makes it perfectly clear is happening.

My favorite Clarke quote, from the "Odyessey" series, in which he is describing an advanced alien intelligence:

"And because, in all the galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere."

I gained much irreplacable value from Mr. Clarke. I will miss him. Salute!

[D'kian]

It would be tradegy to dismiss the book because of the movie. The book is a very quick, precise, CLEAR read. The total, polar opposite of the movie in it's presentation of the ideas. For whatever reason, Kubrick (apparently with Clarke's sanction?) did his best to obscure the ideas in the film. Reading the book is really amazing, especially after seeing the movie and thinking, "What the ...?" Because Clarke at all times makes it perfectly clear is happening.

2001 is a strange work of art. Clarke didn't write the book on his own, nor did Kubrick adapt it to the screen. Rather both book and movie were done more or less simultaneously. Naturally Clarke's "version" of 2001 is clearer. Books have a lot mroe room for everything than movies do, so a writer can afford more clarity without cutting any of the action.

My favorite Clarke novel is "The City And The Stars," which happens to be among his earliest works. The future technology he imagines foreshadows his famous first law, for one thing, and is believable for a society set millions of years in the future. Alvin works very well as an independent thinker who aims to do the impossible and goes and does it; still, I would ahve preffered he not lean so much on the Jester. And that's about what can be told without spoilers.

[Gabo]

He will indeed be missed. I love the fact that most of Clarke's stories are about science as an end in itself, and they always portray and optimistic and benevolent sense of life.

[Gabo]

2001 is a strange work of art. Clarke didn't write the book on his own, nor did Kubrick adapt it to the screen. Rather both book and movie were done more or less simultaneously. Naturally Clarke's "version" of 2001 is clearer. Books have a lot mroe room for everything than movies do, so a writer can afford more clarity without cutting any of the action.

I think that both movie and film of 2001 complement each other perfectly. On the one hand, you need to read the book in order to understand the movie fully, and on the other, reading the book while having the impressive images from the film on your mind makes it a much more enjoyable experience.