Short stories vs novels

[I, Brian]

Where are Clarke's strengths when it comes to writing - do his novels reflect the greatest of his talents, or is it his abilities with short stories that generally work much better?

[knivesout]

I'd say short stories. Some of his novels are very good indeed - Childhood's End or Rendezvous with Rama for instance - but for the most part, his brand of classic SF works best in the shorter format, where the masterful playing out of a kernel 'what if' can exist more or less on its own without needing further layers of human interest and so on. Having said that, he is a very humane writer, even if characterisation is not his strong suit.

[littlemissattitude]

I would have to agree with knivesout that Clarke's short stories are, on the whole, superior to his novels. Not that I haven't liked some of his novels. But just sit down and read "The Nine Billion Names of God", as just one example of many. Brilliant, IMHO. It's such a simple idea, not a very long story, and quite simply told. But my gosh, it's effective.

[Muad'Dib]

Arthur C.Clarke is one of the greatest sf writer, we may free to say that he is the father of modern sf genre.And it doesnt important what you read.Personaly i like the novels more, because they are longer and,when i read, get the felling of somekind travel into the future. And that voyage doesn't end soon. The same is with short stories, but then the trip is shorter.

[Hypes]

I believe you are in error making that assertion, MD. Clarke is definitely an interesting read, but to split hairs, he only revolutionised the hard science-fiction, not the entire genrè - truly, there are better authors who merge a brilliant narrative with a razor-edged scientific concept (the latter of which is Clarke's definite strongpoint, and the former his deficiency).

Today, I'd say the space opera is the most mainstream/popular genrè within science-fiction - a subject which Clarke refrains from dabbling in.

[knivesout]

Yes, I'd find it hard to call Clarke the father of modern sf, much as I love his work. Editor John Campbell has a better claim as he launched most of the writers we now reckon as 'classic'.

[Muad'Dib]

Well it's good to have different opinions, imagine what will be if all of us share the same.When i say modern sf i mean actually "hard" sf, or stories that tells about far future, and in first looks impossible- "hard" to belive.Clarke also writes about human evolution, mind evolution, in Childhood's End for example... Far future, i think billion years from now, in City And The Sky...For me that represent modern genre, or "hard", like Hypes saying. Summary at the end- Clarke is one of the best that we have today.

[Hypes]

Clarke usually writes of the near-present future, though - like he did in Rama and 2001. And again, sorry to split hairs with you, but hard science fiction is a sub-genrè focused on keeping the physics and general science of the story as close to real physics and science as possible.

For the themes you suggested, I'd say Philip K. Dick is a far more important author than Clarke - though Clarke is unparalleled when it comes to science itself. I've always found his characters to be very flat and stereotypical. Simply vessels to tell a millieu story.

Personally, I find that the revolutionary new authors, such as China Mièville move the genrè forward by merging both dark fantasy and steampunk science fiction.

[I, Brian]

Actually, I do quite understand the claim of Arthur C Clarke as the father of "modern" science fiction. It's not so much the style, or the theme - but the vision.

Clarke gives us such a careful insight into space and its exploration that the boundary between fact and fiction often seems blurred. Whereas this may be the mark of any good writer, no one seems to necessarily do it so well.

This is certainly with regards to the way sf was emerging from the 1960's. You read 2001 these days and you wonder if it wasn't heavily edited decades later, because too much of it seems too real.

To get to space opera, at some point humanity has to leave the planet and reach into space. That's the role that Clarke has played - his themes are essentially the human place in space. And as we move ever closer to that dream, Clarke seems all the more real.

Or so forth for discussion.

[Muad'Dib]

I agreeing with Brian, and for me the vision is the most important in creating written works with, not only science fiction, but also with artistic value.I'll be very thankful if someone can tell me what novel is worth reading, some kind of sf with vision, and with elements of mystery or paranormal.Or,it can be just a very good book.I read one, it's not novel, but scientific work, by Carl Sagan "Cosmos". If you have some time you sholud read it.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

I agreeing with Brian, and for me the vision is the most important in creating written works with, not only science fiction, but also with artistic value.I'll be very thankful if someone can tell me what novel is worth reading, some kind of sf with vision, and with elements of mystery or paranormal.Or,it can be just a very good book.I read one, it's not novel, but scientific work, by Carl Sagan "Cosmos". If you have some time you sholud read it.

Just trying something...

[stirdgit]

I tend to think of Clarke as one of the most technically sound SF writers of all time. His vision gave us satellite technology and one can even argue that his vision was instrumental in developing the super computers of the current day. I enjoy his short stoies a bit more than his novels, although The Songs of Distant Earth was quite enjoyable. If given the choice I would much rather read the Sentinel (the short story upon which 2001 was based), than 2001; although I would take the movie over both versions - Kubrik's film was a true monument.

[stirdgit]

Also, to reply to Muad'Dib, I agree with your assessment of Cosmos; a fascinating book. You may also want to try Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, if you have not already. And judging by your name, I would assume you are a fan of the grand master Frank Herbert and his epic Dune series. If you ask me, Herbert was the single greatest writer of the genre.

[kyektulu]

I prefare a novel.
I have tried to write short storys but there is always to much I want to include and it ends up becoming a full blown novel.
Also alot of short storys I have read feel rushed...

[terracapri]

methinks that both his stories and novels, though hard sci-fi, were very careful when discussing the implications of a story on contemporary human mindset.
And when fewer words are used, to discuss something which is within our grasp and still eludes us,the better and more resonating the effect. thats why i prefer short stories to the novels with the exception of mayb "childhoods end."