Arthur C. Clarke books

After several years hiatus, I've gotten back into my Arthur C. Clarke books. I've read them all before, some several times, now I'm at it again. I have about fifteen of his books. Had twice that before, but many were water damaged beyond readability.

Just finished The Fountains of Paradise last night. An excellent book. Great story, good characters, and Clarke's wonderful gift for keeping it human. Also, perhaps most of all, he's easy to read. It's very rare you struggle through anything he writes. He's able to write technically, and with stunning imagination, yet doesn't lose clarity. There's always a picture in front of your eyes when you read him.

I read Earthlight and The Sands of Mars last week, along with dozens of his short stories. Might jump into Childhood's End today. Haven't read that book in decades. Another nice thing about many of his books is that they are short or only of medium length. 150 to 300 pages. You get a great story you can finish in a day or three. Nothing wrong with a 1000 page book, but nothing wrong with a 150 page book either. Keeps you literarily hungry. :study: Must... read... more...

His best books, for me, were the Rama series. (I hope the movie they're making of it doesn't suck.) I only have the first book of the series. Two of the others were destroyed, and one, a hardcover, I cut in half and mailed to a buddy in Costa Rica who couldn't find it there. (It cost much less to send two halves then the whole thing at once. Go figure.)

This looks very tasty. Hope to order soon.
http://www.amazon.ca/Collected-Stori...021102&sr=8-22

That's it. I'm a Clarke fanatic. If I ever meet the man, I swear I'm going to hug him.

You've got me thinking that it is time to stroll through my Clarke library again. I read Rendezvous with Rama a couple of years ago, but never followed through on its two sequels. I'm in a re-reading mode at the moment, so it may be time to move Mr. Clarke towards the top of the list.

Earthlight is my favourite novel of his I think. It has been many years since I've read it, but I still remember how vividly and realistically Clarke described the first space battle of mankind. His description was so well constructed, the images in my head were as if I was seeing it for real. I can't recall any other book so blurring the line between images of fiction and reality before or since.

His short stories are quite fascinating too. Superiority is a great tale of military technological advancement which seems to have some application to the state of our rapid advance of technology we are experiencing today. Hide and Seek is a surprising twist on cat and mouse. The end of The Nine Billion Names of God invoked a sense of almost terrifying awe while the end of The Star was a thought-provoking slug to the gut. As I recall, The Star was adapted for the new version of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits in the 80s though they changed the ending to be more uplifting rather than a downer.

Good stuff Beirut. Thanks for the trip down memory lane and the kick in the pants to re-read the works of Clarke. :2thumbsup:

Hey Gregoshi, thanks for the reply. This was looking like a mighty lonely thread. (I though the Asimov guys were out to get me. :inquisitive: )

The Rama series is well worth the effort. I can't remember if it was book three or four, but there was one part that had my jaw on the floor. And that hasn't happened often. The only other (part of a) book that ever floored me like that was Caillancourt's account of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

I'm going to re-read all of Rama as well, but not until I get books 2,3, & 4 from Amazon. I want them waiting for me, not the other way around. I might look for a full hardcover set. That would be nice.

I'm a few pages into Childhood's End right now. Should be done very fast. Nice small book.

Dinner! Back at'cha...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I though the Asimov guys were out to get me. :inquisitive:

---

I don't worry about the Asimov guys as much as the Mother Cupboard er L. Ron Hubbard ones... now they can be scary.

I read The City and the Stars back in high school and it's stayed with me all these years. It's a rewrite of his first novel, Against the Fall of Night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Another nice thing about many of his books is that they are short or only of medium length. 150 to 300 pages. You get a great story you can finish in a day or three. Nothing wrong with a 1000 page book, but nothing wrong with a 150 page book either. Keeps you literarily hungry. :study: Must... read... more...

---

Beirut, I agree with you 100% about the 150-300 novels. It is a lost art nowadays. 700-1000 can be good, but sometimes they feel bloated.

I didn't know there was a fourth Rama book. Must check that out and then read the whole set.

BTW Beirut, you'd better give Arthur that hug soon. I'm afraid he won't be with us too much longer...though I'm surprised he's lived as long as he has considering his health. He just turned 90 ond December 16th. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Beirut, I agree with you 100% about the 150-300 novels. It is a lost art nowadays. 700-1000 can be good, but sometimes they feel bloated.

---

In defence of short books:

"Were I called upon, however, to designate that class of compostion which should best fulfill the demands and serve the purposes of ambitious genious, should offer it the most advantageous field of exertion, and afford it the fairest opportunity of display, I should speak at once of the brief prose tale.

As the novel itself cannot be read at one sitting, it cannot avail itself of the immense benefit of totality. Wordly interests, intervening during the pauses of perusal, modify, counteract and annul the impressions intended."

In the brieft tale, however, the authour is able to carry out his ful design without interuption. During the hour of perusal, the soul of the reader is at the writer's control."

Edgar Allan Poe

(Ain't he just the greatest?) :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I didn't know there was a fourth Rama book. Must check that out and then read the whole set.

---

You won't regret it. Some wonderful flights of fancy in that series. I read the 2001 series, but it does not compare in scope and imgination to the Rama story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

BTW Beirut, you'd better give Arthur that hug soon. I'm afraid he won't be with us too much longer...though I'm surprised he's lived as long as he has considering his health. He just turned 90 ond December 16th. :2thumbsup:

---

I make for Sri Lanka at dawn!

Clarke is good, very good. Although I find Azimov and Heinlein just as good and in the case of Isaac, better.

:hide: :laugh4:

I have to step in here and say that Hubbard wrote some very fun books before he fell into his own trap. Final Blackout is a must read for any military history buff.

Clarke's great gift, IMHO, was the careful construction of his tales and how precisely and logically they followed from the premises he layed out. I can't say I ever found him inspiring, but neither do his books ever disappoint.

:egypt:

I read the Rama series too (I even owned the books at one point), but for some reason I just wasn't that impressed. Perhaps I should read a different book and/or series by Clarke instead -- any suggestions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

(I though the Asimov guys were out to get me. :inquisitive: )

---

All in good time, mate. We'll strike when you least expect it. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I read the Rama series too (I even owned the books at one point), but for some reason I just wasn't that impressed. Perhaps I should read a different book and/or series by Clarke instead -- any suggestions?

---

The 2001 series (2001; 2010; 2061; 3001) is good, but I liked the Rama series better.

The Fountains of Paradise and Imperial Earth are both good books. Other books, such as The Mands of Mars, A Fall of Moondust, and Islands in the Sky are good fun, short, and easilly digested. Glide Path is a bit of an oddity as it's not sci-fi, but a WWII story about a radar operation base in England. Also a nice story and not a big book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

All in good time, mate. We'll strike when you least expect it. ~D

---

In one of Clarke's books, he makes mention of the ongoing dual with Asimov. He said they agreed to a truce; one could be called the best science-fiction writer and the other could be called the best science writer.

Haven't read Clarke in ages and ages. For professional reasons, I've been plowing through every Hugo nominee since Y2K. To relax, I gifted myself with the complete Aubrey/Maturin series.

This thread has me thinking I should go back and re-read the Rama series.

"Don't waste your time with novels." :book:

People who don't read novels limit their imagination to their own skulls.

Have any of you ever read Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny? I dislike what else I've read by the guy, unfortunately, but that one book is in my opinion a gem. Sounds like one for those who enjoy Clarke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

People who don't read novels limit their imagination to their own skulls.

---

Umm, yea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

"Don't waste your time with novels." :book:

---

What's wrong with an imaginative story?

I love a good history book as much as the next guy, but we would be lost without the wonders of fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

What's wrong with an imaginative story?

I love a good history book as much as the next guy, but we would be lost without the wonders of fiction.

---

It's a quite from a professor I know. Anyone who PM's me with his name gets all the cookies he can eat for $2. It's also my version of truth is stranger than fiction. Novels are good for filling in the gaps in history but are no substitute what actually happened. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It's a quite from a professor I know. Anyone who PM's me with his name gets all the cookies he can eat for $2. It's also my version of truth is stranger than fiction. Novels are good for filling in the gaps in history but are no substitute what actually happened. :book:

---

If I give you $3, can I have the cookies anyway?

I don't see novels as replacing history, but as reflections of our nature. Also, they are fun. People like stories, and though history is replete with them, our imagination is bigger than our history and our stories reflect that.

In reference to Vladimir's point:

"The truth, as always, will be far stranger." - Arthur C. Clarke


Here's a Clarke quote I hadn't seen before, but I likey:

"Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering."

History, naturally, is limited to the momentary view society takes of actual events at the time the book is written. Novels bear no such limitation, and so can reveal, or at least hint at, truths that remain outside our experience.

Some extremely important concepts have been introduced through the medium of fiction; just to name a few from science fiction (Per the thread):

1. The idea of the Dyson Sphere was inspired by science fiction, and most of it's more practical variants and in between steps were explicitly given form in science fiction stories. Any consideration of the not-so-distant future scope of humanity is quite beyond history's capacity to consider.

2. A. C. Clarke's thoughtful prediction of geosynchronous communications satellites several years in advance of their actual creation.

3. The concept of nanotechnology was introduced and thoroughly explored by science fiction.

4. Potential ethical concerns of population control, organ transplants, cloning, AI and human analogs, and a host of looming issues too large to list get frequent exploration in Sci Fi novels.

5. In the more speculative realm, deep space travel, aliens, and parallel universes.

You can't have a theory without a hypothosis, and you can't often get to a hypothosis without some wild, if educated, guessing. The novel is the perfect format for making those guesses which, even when wrong as they often are, can reveal important possibilities and details about the nature of our future. History is knowledge revealed by experience and discipline, but it still often errs or is subject to the undue influence of the society of it's writer. Novels, and Science Fiction in particular, are unbound by the strictures of what's actually happened or actually possible, and so can explore the outrageous and sometimes necessary outer limits of reality.

In short, don't dismiss the creative while swallowing whole the restrictive format of known, experienced truth. There's room enough in any mind for both.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

History, naturally, is limited to the momentary view society takes of actual events at the time the book is written. Novels bear no such limitation, and so can reveal, or at least hint at, truths that remain outside our experience.

Some extremely important concepts have been introduced through the medium of fiction; just to name a few from science fiction (Per the thread):

1. The idea of the Dyson Sphere was inspired by science fiction, and most of it's more practical variants and in between steps were explicitly given form in science fiction stories. Any consideration of the not-so-distant future scope of humanity is quite beyond history's capacity to consider.

2. A. C. Clarke's thoughtful prediction of geosynchronous communications satellites several years in advance of their actual creation.

3. The concept of nanotechnology was introduced and thoroughly explored by science fiction.

4. Potential ethical concerns of population control, organ transplants, cloning, AI and human analogs, and a host of looming issues too large to list get frequent exploration in Sci Fi novels.

5. In the more speculative realm, deep space travel, aliens, and parallel universes.

You can't have a theory without a hypothosis, and you can't often get to a hypothosis without some wild, if educated, guessing. The novel is the perfect format for making those guesses which, even when wrong as they often are, can reveal important possibilities and details about the nature of our future. History is knowledge revealed by experience and discipline, but it still often errs or is subject to the undue influence of the society of it's writer. Novels, and Science Fiction in particular, are unbound by the strictures of what's actually happened or actually possible, and so can explore the outrageous and sometimes necessary outer limits of reality.

In short, don't dismiss the creative while swallowing whole the restrictive format of known, experienced truth. There's room enough in any mind for both.

:egypt:

---

Sorry, that's incorrect.

History is a rapidly evolving, living science. As technology improves and new discoveries are made our understanding of it improves. There is also a great deal of creativity involved when filling gaps in our knowledge of (even recent) history. Novels reveal no truths as they are novels. They reveal no truth, only speculation. What is the study of history if it is not the revelation of truth beyond one's experience?

Your points (briefly):

1. Doesn't need to be revealed in novels as it can be based on past scientific discoveries.

2. Not very impressive.

3. Viruses.

4. While interesting can be based on current and past social norms as well as the evolution of human history.

5. Science, not novels, will reveal those answers. To understand these mysteries one needs to learn what has already been revealed not read a fanciful flight of whimsy.

The perfect format for forming an hypothesis is the scientific method, not a dime store novel. If you want to frame the discussion that way novels will always come up short. There is a place for them in society but truth is better, and can be stranger than fiction.

:toff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

To understand these mysteries one needs to learn what has already been revealed not read a fanciful flight of whimsy.

---

I happen to like fanciful flights of whimsy. :sunny:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I happen to like fanciful flights of whimsy. :sunny:

---

Just don't burst into song when wielding that chainsaw. :hanged:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Just don't burst into song when wielding that chainsaw. :hanged:

---

:alien: "Neeear... faaaaaaar... on whatever planet you are... I believe that my heart will go ahhhh-ah-ah-onnnnnnn... "

I personally tend to enjoy non-fiction more than fiction, but I think it's very short-sighted to say that novels are a waste of time. Beyond just refreshing the brain, fiction in general, and science fiction in particular, have been dramatically influential on our history. Scientists, engineers, politicians, and military leaders have all be hugely influenced by things that have struck them as significant and worthwhile in fiction settings. Ender's Game is required reading at West Point. Martin Cooper was inspired by Star Trek to invent the mobile phone.

History is certainly all-important, but fiction is actually part of history. To ignore it is to ignore one of the most important determining factors in human existence: our imagination.

First let me say that my post was not meant in any way to diminish the importance of non-fiction or history, but meant instead to drive home the importance of fiction through the specific example of science fiction.

Secondly, history is not properly a science in the same sense as the sciences which prove the possibility of the Dyson's Sphere, or created the communications satellite. There is such broad, general acceptance of this point that I'm always quite surprised to hear claims to the contrary, but it seems to me that they originate in a misapprehension of the difference between sociology and mathematics. That may be a whole other discussion, but I'll include a few links for the curious and try not to sidetrack the larger point.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=003...3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/129.html

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=339

In any case it seems to me, as an avid reader of history, that to try to narrow history into a category of what is proven true and what is proven false robs it of it's beauty and interest.

Now, to your points, briefly as you say:

1. It's easy for you to say that science 'can' do something or the other, but impossible for you to prove. Freeman Dyson personally acknowledged a debt of inspiration in his scientific exploration of the idea to a science fiction novel. It's unseemly for you to backtrack and claim he had no such help.

2. A utterly unimpressive rebuttal. You might as well write 'You're wrong' and go get a coffee as post something this petty again.

3. Prions. You've typed a word, not made a point.

4. Easily said, impossible to prove.

5. To 'reveal' an 'answer' is not the purpose of fiction, the purpose is to evoke a speculative train of thought, to inspire the mind in a new direction, to open a possibility where before none existed.

You'll note I do not claim that hypothoses are formed out of science fiction, but that the wild guesses and speculation of science fiction can inspire a person to formulate such. In fact I've listed a very specific historical case of this happening. You've made a great many claims and backed them up with nothing. The attempt to make out that I'm equating science with science fiction is a bald strawman :strawman3:, and the insulting dismissal of such works as 'dime store' is beneath you.

I will reiterate my point in the simplest possible terms in the hope that it doesn't become lost; novels are not a waste of time.

:egypt:

You guys are being too serious. Beirut is in the right spirit!

You write post #21 and then you accuse us of being too serious? Pot, meet my friend, the kettle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Sorry, that's incorrect.

History is a rapidly evolving, living science.

---

There might be a component of technology and science within history, but that does not make history a science. Sure it is fashionable and cool but its like calling a janitor a technician... it does not make him a scientific one.

History is a branch of knowledge. Science goes a couple of steps beyond that by organising its information in a manner to allow predictions. One does not make accurate predictions on future events based on history... you can make general ones, but nothing with the level of accuracy and sustainability required to call it a science.

As for science fiction.
1. Not really, first to the post is the inventor. That was science fiction.

2. Mr Clarke was lauded by the scientific community for his idea on satellites. Strangely enough in a branch of knowledge called history... NASA chronicles the idea of satellites... and they credit Arthur C. Clarke as the originator of the idea..

Communications Satellites: Making the Global Village Possible

Quote:

---

In fall of 1945 an RAF electronics officer and member of the British Interplanetary Society, Arthur C. Clarke, wrote a short article in Wireless World that described the use of manned satellites in 24-hour orbits high above the world's land masses to distribute television programs. His article apparently had little lasting effect in spite of Clarke's repeating the story in his 1951/52 The Exploration of Space

---

3. Huge difference between nanotechnology and viruses. It's like claiming that the idea of fusion has no merit because stars do it.

4. Asimov's 3 Robotic Laws:
Again from a Nasa website:

Quote:

---

# 1942 - Asimov wrote "Runaround", a story about robots which contained the "Three Laws of Robotics":

* A robot may not injure a human, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
* A robot must obey the orders it by human beings except where such orders would conflic with the First Law.
* A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict withe the First or Second Law.

---

And from the SETI insitute:
I, Robot

Quote:

---

Now admittedly, there are some who believe that, despite such capability, machines will never be capable of human-style intelligence. But that suggests that there is some sort of unfathomable miracle going on between our ears.

The alternative view is that synthetic sentience -- thinking machines that can write a symphony, or turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece -- is not only a possible development, but one that will probably occur in this century. Asimov wrote his robot stories in 1950. A bare two generations later, it's possible that the fiction will be superceded by fact.

If we do invent thinking machines, how will we handle their interaction with us? Will we be able to forever cripple their initiative, with laws similar to Asimov's, in order to avoid situations in which the created turn on their creators? Can we always pull the plug on the androids?

---

5. I think that having listed only science institutes to answer... it would appear that science fiction has been integral in inspiring and directing the search for answers in science and technology. Often we are not limited by what we can do, we are limited about what we think we can do. Science fiction often opens up those limits on what we think and allows us to go forth and do it.

Science fiction is the muse of Science. And in a theater of knowledge where the first step is hypothesis's this gives science fiction a valuable role. Of course to make it science one has to test these ideas and as demonstrated come up with theories that can predict future outcomes. So science fiction is a branch of knowledge that by itself doesn't contain the apparatus for testing or predicting the future... that would put it on par with history methinks. :whip: :clown: :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

You write post #21 and then you accuse us of being too serious? Pot, meet my friend, the kettle.

---

:toff:

:inquisitive:

*skips pseuso-philosophical claptrap*

The only Clarke stuff I've read is the 2001 series. I gotta admit I was blown away when I first read 2001 - a real Road To Damascus moment, THE FILM MADE SENSE! THE FILM MADE SENSE! THE FILM MADE SENSE!

So overjoyed at this discovery was I, that I went and watched A Space Odyssey again at the first possible moment - only to be disapointed as it was still the boring, phsycadelic nonsense I remembered it to be. But at least having read the book I actually knew what was meant to be going on ~:)

Asimov, I read a collection of his short stories many years ago, but gave up 2/3 of the way through when I realised every single story was based around inducing logic traps in the 3 Laws of Robotics....zzzzzzzzzz

I am currently working my way through the Foundation series......why have these not been made into films? Or games? The potential is huge.

And whilst we're on old-skool sci-fi, how about CS Lewis? I've already read The Great Divorce, currently on part 2 of the Perelandra series. The science is quite naive in a lot of ways, but I guess his point is more to illustrate the arrogance of man than inventing great new scientific concepts.


One last point on Arthur C Clarke - that bloody skull of his used to give me nightmares!

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/x0/x3124.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

So overjoyed at this discovery was I, that I went and watched A Space Odyssey again at the first possible moment - only to be disapointed as it was still the boring, phsycadelic nonsense I remembered it to be.

---

I happen to like boring psychedelic nonsense. :sunny:

The film has to be taken for what it is, when it was made, and who made it. Within that context, it's a masterpiece. It's like watching The Battleship Potempkin; you have to see it for what it was meant to be. Then you realize what an incredible film you're watching.

I still think the docking scene to the strains of the Blue Danube is one of the greatest pieces of film ever.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ce_station.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I happen to like boring psychedelic nonsense. :sunny:

---

I bet you listen to track 2 on Dark Side Of The Moon every time you play it, don't you? :smash: And the first 30 seconds of track 3........ :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I happen to like boring psychedelic nonsense. :sunny:

The film has to be taken for what it is, when it was made, and who made it. Within that context, it's a masterpiece. It's like watching The Battleship Potempkin; you have to see it for what it was meant to be. Then you realize what an incredible film you're watching.

I still think the docking scene to the strains of the Blue Danube is one of the greatest pieces of film ever.

---

I agree with you 100%. 2001 is an incredible piece. I am also a huge fan of the docking scene. One of the best choreographed and edited scenes in cinema, period. I am also in love with how it is introduced: man's first technology, the bone, is thrown into the air and it becomes the spaceship. Such much is conveyed with only just that one cut. Plus, you can't dislike Hal. Kubrick takes a totally static glowing light and a completely monotone voice and makes it one of the most terrifying 'villains' in film history. Amazing.

To be fair to Suribachi, though, I do find the ending to be annoying. I understand what he was trying to do, but it just doesn't work for me, and that's not a sobriety problem either.

The American Film Institute has a beautiful theater outside DC and I was lucky enough to see a near-pristine copy of 2001 on the big screen just last spring. I wasn't even born when it came out, so it was a first for me. Seeing it on the big screen, complete with intermission, was a wonderful experience. Now if only I could get to a showing of Barry Lyndon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I agree with you 100%. 2001 is an incredible piece. I am also a huge fan of the docking scene. One of the best choreographed and edited scenes in cinema, period. I am also in love with how it is introduced: man's first technology, the bone, is thrown into the air and it becomes the spaceship. Such much is conveyed with only just that one cut. Plus, you can't dislike Hal. Kubrick takes a totally static glowing light and a completely monotone voice and makes it one of the most terrifying 'villains' in film history. Amazing.

To be fair to Suribachi, though, I do find the ending to be annoying. I understand what he was trying to do, but it just doesn't work for me, and that's not a sobriety problem either.

The American Film Institute has a beautiful theater outside DC and I was lucky enough to see a near-pristine copy of 2001 on the big screen just last spring. I wasn't even born when it came out, so it was a first for me. Seeing it on the big screen, complete with intermission, was a wonderful experience. Now if only I could get to a showing of Barry Lyndon.

---

Wonderful thoughts on the film. :bow:

The docking scene is an absolutely perfect mix of elements. The music, the physics, the science, the grandeur, the depth. If there is a list of greatest film scenes, it has to be included. Not sure where, but somewhere. (Hmm, that might make a good thread topic...)

Funny, though, I tended to see HAL as a victim, not a villain.