Slashdot Mirror
Arthur C. Clarke Is Dead At 90
Many readers are sending in word that Arthur C. Clarke has died in Sri Lanka. He wrote over 100 books including 2001: A Space Odyssey and Rendezvous With Rama, and popularized the ideas of geosynchronous communications satellites and space elevators.
Who actually has done a lot to promote science. Ok, so he did a lot of Sci-Fi. But most scientists I know were drawn to it *because* of some of the sci-fi they had seen. A sad passing, not just for the cause of geeks and entertainment, but nerd and science.
My deepest condolences to his family, friends, and fans. He was one of the first writers I experienced that changed the way I thought and felt about the world in a drastic way.
I can still remember hollowness in my chest from "Childhood's End," the wonder and fear from the "Odysseys", and the rompy fun from "Rama."
Though we can all take some solace from the immortal parts of him that live on in all of his books and in us, his readers, I for one will surely miss him.
Thank you Sir Clarke and peace on your eternal rest.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
His long lasting legacy is that he taught many computer sciences (and electrical engineers) how to dream.
many of those dreams became a relaity.
And we are still pursuing some of them.
--dmg
Rest in peace, Arthur C. Clarke - you will never be forgotten.
I can still remember the chill that went down my spine at the end of 2010 (the year we make contact) when HAL relays David Bowman's message:
All these worlds are yours except EuropaAttempt no landings there.
Use them together. Use them in Peace.
And the (almost Obamaesque) hope I felt when Haywood Floyd tells his son, "Someday, the children of the old sun will meet the children of the new sun. I hope we can be friends"
2001, 2010, Rama, Glide Path (and instrument landing systems), The City and the Stars, Earthlight, The Nine Billions Names of God, his Scientific American paper on geosynchronous satellites, and so much more. I can't imagine what our world would be like without his contributions.
Growing up in the 70's I scoured every library of every place I moved to for Asimov,Clarke and Heinlein and read their books many times over. Now they're all gone and I feel sad, like the last of a special group of friends is gone.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
I would argue it is precisely that movie that made him into the giant that he was. It was a synthesis and evolution of many previous works into a larger, more important, and more cohesive vehicle. The reason it exists at all is because of Kubrick. The books were great, but except for that movie he was just a very good science fiction writer. It was Kubrick's vision and execution that lifted him. And it was Kubrick that was responsible for its polished final form, as he kept rejecting Clarke's drafts and insisting that he could do better. The book was written along with the development of the movie. It was published after the movie was released, but it was finished beforehand and is in fact the basis of the movie, instead of the reverse, which is a common misconception.
And the morons, the geeknobs, the imbeciles that self-award themselves for movies, completely blew it. Do you know what won the Oscar for the best movie of 1969? You might look it up. No one remembers it. 2001 didn't even win an award for best costumes, that went to the inane world of Roddy McDowell and his geriatric simians for Planet of the Apes. They gave 2001 an award for special effects, and you can argue almost everything important until CG was done in 2001. It didn't make it onto that stupid list of 100 best films (give me a break). And compared to other films made the same year (how about the ludicrous 'Robinson Crusoe on Mars'?) it was just miles and miles ahead of anything anyone else could imagine.
Most importantly, much of what Clarke/Kubrick presented was righteously and vigorously dismissed as bunk, especially w.r.t. the early hominid sequences. Remember this was the era of arguing over "Killer Apes" or gentle pre-humans. His presentation of pre-humans' war-like behavior was ridiculed, and his presentation of weapons development as the nucleus of development of greater intelligence was mostly scorned.
Today we can watch some of the nature channel films about chimpanzees going out on "war patrol." They act almost exactly like the prehumans did in the film. They said bands of apes wouldn't fight, well, they do. They said apes don't fight over water, well, they do. They say they don't use tools as weapons, well, they do. In the end, Kubrick and Clarke were right about almost everything.
To this day, from watching his film, almost no one can grasp his biggest concept on their own (that when we encounter a greater intelligence we will have no greater understanding of it than an ant would walking about on a tank). And to this day almost no one can spot the aliens right there in plain sight (and no, they aren't the monoliths).
You will be missed, Arthur and Stanley.
-Luen
You seem to have dismissed the entire art of literature in one fell swoop. I find it somewhat condescending to only appreciate a great writer such as Clarke (or anyone else) insofar as they act as cheerleaders for other professions or ideals.
That said, I do share your opinion in part, and I don't want to sound like I'm flaming. I do think that his stories, and the field of science-fiction in general, has not only inspired budding scientists and engineers, but also ordinary people to develop an interest in the role of science in our society, as well as its prominent role in humanity's future.
That is one way of appreciating Clarke's writings. It can also be appreciated for its historical significance, having been written in an era of unprecedented American optimism. Just a year after both the book and movie were written, the Americans landed on the moon, after all! The stories' popularity can also be seen as a reflection of our self-image, value systems, or even fears through the themes and issues it raises. And if the HAL 9000 isn't an expression of our fear of technology, then I don't know what is!
(as written on Wikipedia, because I'm too lazy to do any of my own analysis, one theme that the book examines is the way that "troubles... crop up when man builds machines, the inner workings of which he does not fully comprehend and therefore cannot fully control"--sounds like my mother trying to work her DVD player, but I digress)
Once again, I'm not trying to criticize your feelings, but I merely wish to nitpick and point out to others that it is possible to appreciate authors and the works they create in more ways than a pragmatic, utilitarian, "what have they done to improve our world" sense of appreciation. Literature is more than just a tool...