

The world loses its largest advocate for science and science fiction today









Comments     Threshold


RE: .. really?
By christojojo on 3/21/2008 5:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
but I hardly consider DailyTech to be a creative force in science fiction let alone carrying on any legacy. Are you going for brownie points?

Science Fiction like most art forms tends to use what is real as a muse (and vice versa). The reporting of what is happening today, lets us dream about what could happen tomorrow. So, indirectly, I am sure that Daily Tech and other tech news sites have earn their share of inspirational "Brownie Points."

RE: .. really?
By wordsworm on 3/21/2008 10:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
That's precisely what's wrong with science fiction these days. Science fiction used to be more imaginative. Now, it looks too much to science. How much science did Jules Verne need to create 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? He had a vision, and the science and submarine came after. Now, sci-fi writers wait for the science and then try to have a vision how it would work. It's definitely an inferior system.

RE: .. really?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/22/2008 4:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "Science fiction used to be more imaginative. Now, it looks too much to science"

Eh? It's just the other way around. Authors like the "Big 3" had a firm grounding in science, and it showed in their writing. Asimov was a Professor of Biochemistry, Clarke had degrees in Math and Physics, and Heinlein....well he once spent three days working out heat loss equations by hand (no computers back in those days) just to ensure a scene was plausible...and that was just in a book he was writing for teenagers, not even one of his adult works.

RE: .. really?
By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 8:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
I read most of that stuff in my teens. The last sci-fi books I read were 1984, and Zamayatin's We. I guess the draws for me for sci-fi were HG Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs (entire Barsoom, Venus, and Tarzan works - I know Tarzan wasn't sci-fi, but I thought I'd throw it in), Clarke (earlier work), Heinlein, Asimov, Keith Laumer, Piers Anthony, endless Star Trek novels, amongst others I've forgotten.

You're right that these artist had a background in science. However, I don't agree that they were limited by their scientific backgrounds. Of course, I'm pretty much out of touch with contemporary work since the late 80s when I realized all the good work was already printed. However, I now know that time is an excellent filter for working all the junk out of the system. I really should give William Gibson another shot. Neuromancer was actually decent.

Anyways, Clarke won't be forgotten any time soon.

