Sci Fi fans' take on the work of Heinlen, Asimov and Clarke

I voted, but I feel that there might be a nuance missing from the options: All three of these writers left their permanent mark on science fiction.

Some of their stories were great, some awful to modern eyes and sensibilities. They are all slightly different parts of a phase of the spec fiction writing culture; to ignore that, and the distinctions between them, is about as foolish as ignoring key parts of history.

I shall respect my fellow writers, dead or otherwise, but I can't say I like Heinlein or Asimov's writing that much, and although I like some of Clarke's work very much indeed, 3001 was a miss, in my opinion.

The real problem is their stories were the foundation upon which other authors built better science fiction. I have the privilege of reading the better novels, and so I don't have as much ardour for the foundation. It's a bit like how Lord of the Rings is wonderful, but there are a whole lot of other fantasy books I'd re-read before I'd re-read them. Novels that move faster; novels that have women in them. (Okay, okay, Eowen was awesome-adjacent, but in the books, Arwen doesn't even speak, and all the elves, Galadriel included, were Mary Sues.)

Hi
I'm not sure I understand your poll . All the writers on your list have written some
really good stories . Some of the stories may seem a bit weak for modern readers , but I would prefer you actuly discuss writers work individually . To reduce three people's life work to a competition seems a bit pointless .

I've read a little Clarke and one of Asimov's (I may have read one Heinlein short), so I may not be well qualified...

But those were the names that built the genre my father still loves. These were forward-thinkers, exploring ideas about things that may come - and, in truth, have come. And even a lifelong fan like Dad, looking back on them, can see that the stories themselves are somewhat dated, even if the ideas and concepts have withstood the test of time. (Actually, I think Asimov himself acknowledged this effect. IIRC, in one of the sci-fi anthologies he compiled of old 1930's-ish sci-fi tales, Asimov comments that it wasn't until he was going back over the stories to compile them that he realized how ridiculously racist the old sci-fi stuff was: all black aliens were brutish and evil, all yellow aliens were devious and clever, all white aliens were good, etc. But at the time he first read them, he didn't even see that; he just saw the ideas and such that inspired him. Because he was as much a part of that era as the writers were. Even as an iconic sci-fi author, a man who should, theoretically, be able to envision the future and craft Ideas beyond prejudice and the distorting lenses of his own era, Asimov had his blind spots. As do we all.)

I suppose my equivalent would be Tolkien, in fantasy. Were his books groundbreaking? Yes. Did they leave an indelible mark on the genre? Clearly. Can they still be enjoyed today? Quite obviously. But are they somehow sacrosanct, incapable of aging or impossible to critique because of Who Wrote Them, a Grand Master and Father of Literature? No book is beyond that.

(I guess I just don't like the idea of cordoning off certain works or authors, setting them on pedestals to be worshipped. One can acknowledge the import and impact of a book, or a person, without transforming them into a larger-than-life icon beyond question, as sometimes seems to happen when people label things as The Greats.)

I generally prefer character-driven stories over concept-driven stories, so most of their work isn't my thing. At least from what I remember. It's been a while.

Eh, preferred Eric Frank Russell

I don't think any of the poll options fit my thoughts on these writers very well. None of the three are personal favorites of mine (though all of them have books or short stories that I've enjoyed), but I feel that they made great contributions to the field and should be recognized for that. However, other people are writing works now that I like better, many of which probably would not exist (at least not quite in their present forms) if not for the work of these writers. But I'm not sure how much I enjoy their works all on their own, and I don't think they should be considered "required reading" for new writers in the field, or studied in any particular way -- I think it's perfectly fine to just move on and read newer writers instead, if those are more to one's taste. Does that make sense?

In some parts of fandom, suggesting that Heinlein was not all that is fighting talk. There may be a transatlantic divide there: here in the UK, other than four or five titles in the SF Masterworks series pretty much all of Heinlein is out of print.

I read a fair amount of Asimov and Clarke, in my teens especially. Some Heinlein (a few novels). Their place in defining the genre, and in becoming the first bestsellers from within in, isn't in doubt. Asimov in particular is a good place to start in your teens: ideas-driven in plain style, without much in the way of messy emotional stuff. He's the default voice of a certain type of SF. But I'd like to think I've grown past him, into writers who knew more about style and characterisation.

Clarke was never really much into style or character either, though he could be a more graceful writer than Asimov at his best.

eyeblink said:

In some parts of fandom, suggesting that Heinlein was not all that is fighting talk.

Click to expand...

*prepares dukes*

:d

Eh, ideas cool. Execution....not my bag baby

I also don't think the poll quite encompasses me. +1 on exactly this:

Layla Lawlor said:

I don't think any of the poll options fit my thoughts on these writers very well. None of the three are personal favorites of mine (though all of them have books or short stories that I've enjoyed), but I feel that they made great contributions to the field and should be recognized for that. However, other people are writing works now that I like better, many of which probably would not exist (at least not quite in their present forms) if not for the work of these writers. But I'm not sure how much I enjoy their works all on their own, and I don't think they should be considered "required reading" for new writers in the field, or studied in any particular way -- I think it's perfectly fine to just move on and read newer writers instead, if those are more to one's taste. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

I think it's complicated. I think finding these three holy and un-criticize-able is indeed "overrating" them, if you want to call it that, and they certainly aren't my particular favorites -- in terms of personal love, I grew up adoring Asimov (though Robots, not Foundation), read and appreciated some of Clarke but wasn't obsessed, and read and appreciated some of Heinlein while wondering WTF on other Heinlein. I certainly think people can have whatever personal opinions they have on the three and their styles, and I certainly think they can be criticized as both authors and people, both in and out of their time.

But I don't think there is any denying the impact they had on the field, and I accord respect for that. I do not think according such respect and leveraging any criticism I might feel -- however harsh -- are mutually exclusive.

I'm going to use my Newton analogy again - saying that Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke are the best ever and no one since has done better is like saying Sir Isaac Newton was the best physicist ever.

Newton was perhaps the most brilliant in his field, at a time when the field was new and he didn't have much competition.

Heinlein and Asimov and Clarke were groundbreakers, trailblazers, and inspired generations. And I still love many of their stories.

But some of what they wrote was crap.

I Will Fear No Evil has only the excuse that Heinlein literally had brain fever when he wrote it. And most of what Asimov wrote made it hard for me to believe he'd ever even talked to a woman. Clarke - brilliant, big ideas, boring as hell execution.

They certainly did not write the best sci-fi that's ever been written, but much of the best sci-fi that's ever been written was probably inspired by them.

I don't understand the point of the poll. There are a dozen SF authors I'd rather read nowadays than any of those three (though I do still love my Heinlein juveniles).

I think a lot of the old giants of fantasy and SF are viewed through the rose-hued glasses of time. I've long since lost count of the people who have said, wistfully, that they long for the good old days when SF was diamond hard. They usually cite Heinlein and these others as an example.

Heinlein wrote a story about telepathic twins communicating across space and time at near light speeds, FFS.

Also, they were big fish in relatively small ponds. They stood head and shoulders above the competition, in part, because they were creating their genres.

They deserve credit for being pioneers. And they wrote some damned fine stuff that has stood the test of time in various ways. They were also products of their time in others, and they wrote some stuff that makes this painfully clear. Some of their work is almost unreadable to me because of this.

So yeah, I think they tend to be overrated in hind sight. It's hard for modern writers to stand out in the same way because there are so many SF and fantasy writers, and the tastes of fans is more compartmentalized than they once were. Most of my favorite writers started their careers a good decade or two (or more) after they did, and there are some new writers I like a great deal too. I think the bar for what's "good" is much higher now.

One thing I've noticed is that these "dead, white males" of SF tend to make it onto every top 10, 25, 50 and 100 best SF/F books ever list, while books by more recent authors (many more of whom are women and people of color than in Heinlein's, Clarke's, and Asimov's time) do not, unless they've written runaway bestsellers. I think this is because there are so darned many writers and subgenres within SF and F nowadays that's it's much harder for any one to be on nearly everyone's "favorites" list.

What about H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, two SciFi/Fantasy writers who surely had an impact on modern science fiction???

Not only Wells and Verne should be considered. There were many writers of SF in the '40's, '50's. and '60's who were better than any of those three, but those three were rather prolific and did plenty of publicity for themselves. But Verne made science fiction something substantial, and he should be accorded special respect. Wells wrote one of the best time travel novels yet, and was his first and perhaps his best novel.

Amadan said:

I Will Fear No Evil has only the excuse that Heinlein literally had brain fever when he wrote it.

Click to expand...

That explains a hell of a lot about that book! *shudders in remembrance*

King Neptune said:

Not only Wells and Verne should be considered.

Click to expand...

I'm very partial to Eric Frank Russell myself

Instead of arguing whether Heinlein et. al. were "great writers" (which is subjective), I'd say instead that it's inarguable they hugely influenced the field. For that alone, they certainly IMO deserve recognition.

Personally, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Heinlein's "juvie" works: "Have Space Suit - Will Travel", "Tunnel in the Sky" and "Farmer in the Sky" in particular. I read the crap out of those in my pre-teen and early teen years.

Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy was also read-the-crap-out-of material back then.

Clarke's "Rendezvous With Rama" ditto, and is one of the few works from those three that I've re-read as an adult.

And since Verne was mentioned, I'd also like to put in a plug for Edgar Rice Burroughs as hugely influential. His works are best read as fantasy these days (and perhaps then as well ). He was a prodigious writer, creating characters still popular (or at least recognizable) around the world.

Hm... I've voted. Each has a very different emphasis in their science fiction writing. to take them in alphabetical order...

Asimov has the most humorous and adventurous streak in his stories and is probably the most biased towards (but far from) the comic strips

Clarke liked to get his facts right and describe things. In flavour he is probably the most hard science fiction writer of the three.

Heinlein was most interested in the social impact of science, even if his politics tended to lean to the right.

Depending on what mood I'm, I'll veer and haul between the three.

Main novels include:

The Foundation series
The Robot series (The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun etc)
Rendezvous with Rama
Childhood's End
The City and the Stars
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Starship Troopers
Stranger in a Strange Land

Aquarianhelix said:

Heinlein was most interested in the social impact of science, even if his politics tended to lean to the right.

Click to expand...

I always find it amusing that the guy who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land and I Will Fear No Evil and Number of the Beast and worked on Upton Sinclair's gubernatorial campaign is labeled a rightist.

Later in life he leaned libertarian, but he was still pretty far from being a conservative.

jjdebenedictis said:

I
The real problem is their stories were the foundation upon which other authors built better science fiction.

Click to expand...

I think that pretty much sums it up. Moreover, I think the perceptions and expectations about what Sci-fi is have changed so much that it is hard to get back to the worldviews upon which they had so much impact. Their works were among the things that induced that changes and that makes it all that much harder to see them as they were originally. So, in the end, they are overrated as writers but underrated as game-changers for the genre.

One major problem is that there's "early Heinlein" and "late Heinlein", more or less bridged at "Stranger in a Strange Land." I like almost all of his early stuff, including the juveniles, but I range from "take it or leave it" to strong dislike for most of the rest.

For some reason Asimov seems to be best known for his Foundation series, which I considered to be among his weakest work. And Asimov's fiction output dropped off sharply in his later years; very few short stories, and some novels that, frankly, probably only made it into print because, by golly, they were by Asimov, and *someone* would buy them...

I wouldn't put Clarke on a "greatest SF writer" list at all; I'd put Andre Norton or Keith Laumer far higher on any such list. Norton being another with "early" and "late" periods; "Galactic Derelict" was literally the first book I ever read, and I still like most of her early stuff. Then it all turned into mediocre to poor magic/fantasy.