Is he the greatest science-fiction writer to ever live? Even greater than Philip K. Dick, perhaps?
>>25396010>greater than Philip K. DicknoDick's the greatest despite his awful prose
>>25396010Of science-fiction writers he probably has the best real science chops. (Clarke Orbits, used by geostationary satellites, are named after him, because he did the maths.)But if you mean, literary ability . . . not so much. H. G. Wells wrote better, R. A. Heinlein wrote better, P. K. Dick wrote better. Lots of others too.
>>25396028>hurr durr PKD has awful proseCan we stop with this utter canard already?>>25396034>P. K. Dick wrote betterI think PKD did have good prose, but Clarke just had that je nais said quois only an educated, worldly, mid-century British decadent type could have.
me personally i love dick
>>25396065Based on hearsay, so did Clarke (specifically the dick of young Sri Lankan boys).
2001 is great2010 is a fantastic followup 2061 is boooooooring 3001 is also bad but worth a read just for how cray cray it all is.
>>25396168>2010 is a fantastic followupThe 20,001 epilogue seemed like the natural place to end.
>>25396012I recently read his book “the futurological congress” and not only is it a better version of Ubik, it’s really funny as well. I laughed out loud a couple times which I don’t often do while reading
>>25396214>a better version of UbikIn what ways? UBIK blew me away both times I read it.
>>25396010The 2001 movie script which he co wrote was his greatest achievement
>>25396028>getting filtered by a writer while being a fanembarrassing
>>25396348Not the book?
>>25396356I find the prose too utilitarian. It's the concepts that lift his stories
>>25396348This but it was Kubrick's achievment. Kubrick was the greatest science fiction writer and director
>>25396651the "utilitarian" prose is what adds layers upon layers of meaning, dig deeper
>>25396685>layers upon layers of meaningI hope you're not reading these books while high
>>25396010He was a nonce who fucked little boys in Sri Lanka.
Love the part in 2001 where they're doing the slingshot maneuver around Jupiter and its like a great wall of fire without end outside their window, and the dark side lit up by whorling phosphoresence. Japetus and everything after was also thrilling.
>>25396712start with the chinese
>>25396714That's how you know he was a good science fiction writer.
2001 the book > 2001 the filmYes I'm a massive Kubrick fan like all of you, however the book is quintessential Clarke and if Clarke appeals to you in the right way it just comes off as way more massive and epic even than the movie. I like how Clarke explained the origins of the aliens and the heavy transhumanist elements of the book. The ending is completely different and feels just way more massive than the extremely claustrophobic ending sequence the film gives the viewer. And the abrupt twist on the last page when the Starchild is gazing down upon the Earth. I hear people say the film is better because it's vague and mysterious but personally I simply disagree. I also liked being the only one in high school who had read it (I first read it when I was 14) and I enjoyed lording that fact over the movie snob kids who all idolized that movie along with Kubrick.
>>25396310>>25396214It isn't. It's more like a better version of fear and loathing in las vegas>>25397854I don't agreeI think Clarke, by endeavouring to explain everything, has taken away the astonishing quality of his work. It's definitely a matter of personal taste, but as it is the story of man carried away, mostly unawares, by the tides of time into a future that was unknown to him at every step, when it comes to the later stages of the adventure in space I believe it should have been left the same way it was in the beginning, when the monkeys (and we readers) receive no explanation as to what is going on. The future, as is mostly the case, was better left to the wordless gaze of those experiencing it than watered down to explanations after explanations. But again it is a matter of personal taste. I believe the right choice was Kubrick's, who deliberately left things that could not be understood inside the film. Perhaps the story should have been written the same way, with an optional appendix with explanation for whoever sought them.
>>25398149>endeavouring to explain everything, has taken away the astonishing quality of his work>The future, as is mostly the case, was better left to the wordless gaze of those experiencing it than watered down to explanations after explanations.Oftentimes the fun of a heady work of sci-fi is the exposition dump at the end. Many PKD books & stories do this.
PKD having awful prose as a judgement is the telltale sign of someone being too invested in trying to fit in and not having reached the capacity to engage directly with a work of art.
>>25398330Right. I never believed that.
>>25396056My mane Je Nais said ''quois?'' Shiiiiiet, that nigga always was downright cryptic.
>>25396010>Take smartphones, for instance. Can the average person explain how they work without it sounding like magic?
>>25398304I know what you meanPersonally I'd rather have the heavy appendix after the fact, like Dune for example, or a very last page effort. I think PKD treats it very differently, never holding your hand all along the way Clarke does. I hope I'm making myself clear
>>25398758Dune has an appendix???
>>25396725>Japetus and everything after was also thrilling.Word. I love how Bowman came out of the Stargate not like in the movie, ie directly to the apartment; but instead gets towed deep into the atmosphere of a fucking red giant and there is stripped of his past self and is transmogrified into the Starchild. Then the bodiless alien intelligence that summoned him takes him on a trip around the Universe, teaching him all things, before depositing him above Earth where he stops WWIII.
>>25399486More than one, in fact, where the planetary/climate science of Arrakis is discussed, which I think is the most interesting of the appendices and speaks of Liet-Kynes's father too, then there is another discussing the religion of Dune and two more about the Bene Gesserit and the Noble houses.They're pretty interesting
>>25399710>and speaks of Liet-Kynes's fatherHmmm I think I do remember reading them, now. At least that specific appendice, anyway.
>>25396010So this is the best Sci fi has to offer? G R I M. Enjoyed his works but not exactly deep stuff.
Childhood's End was spooky.
>>25396056PKD has dogshit prose and his works are painful to read. they are over glorified thought experiments and I get more value reading wikipedia summaries of his work than reading the books. he should have just been a screenwriter.
>>25398330>too invested to fit infit in to where? /lit/ is pro PKD. his writing is just awful. interesting ideas, although most just come off as paranoid delusions inspired by drug use
>>25400241>his writing is just awful.NO. The complete opposite, in fact.
He was a Zionist and a lover of little jeet boys.
>>25396010I can't even think of a name, off the top of my head, who deserves to be above HG Wells
>>25396010>Even greater than Philip K. Dick, perhaps?He's decent but let's not get ahead of ourselves
