As approximately six billion other blogs have noted, Arthur C. Clarke is dead. His obit in the Times runs to three pages, which is a good indicator of just how long and distinguished his life was.
My initial reaction is similar to Matt McIrvin’s: it feels like the passing of an age. Bradbury and Pohl are of the same generation, but they don’t feel like the same sort of writers as Clarke and Asimov and Heinlein, the ruling triumvirate of old-school SF.
I was never a huge fan of his fiction– I went through Asimov and Heinlein phases, back in the day, but didn’t get as deeply into Clarke. I’m also dubious about his “laws”, which I think say more about the worldview of SF fans than the world itself. But it’s impossible to deny his huge influence on both the world of SF and the world, period. His stories are Exhibit A in the case that science fiction has helped shape the world we live in, and you could pretty much rest there without bothering the rest of the alphabet.
The world we live in is a better place for him having been here. And really, that’s the most that anyone can hope to have said about them.
I have to say, of those three it is Heinlein that is the weaker author for me. I really like some of his work, but his sometimes rather crude in-your-face political nostrums often marred his stories. By contrast, Clarke and Asimov never really tried to preach to people in the same way, focusing instead on the science part of sci-fi.
I was never a big Clark fan either, but I did read and enjoy some of his works. I’m definitely in the Asimov camp with Heinlein lower down. Clark’s story telling was always a bit weak to me and perhaps reading future predictions after they already happened wasn’t as powerful. Then again, I’m still amazed reading Jules Verne’s descriptions of submarines and the amount of propulsion (and the optimal US location!) for sending something to the moon.
I thought many Clarke’s short stories were outstanding – artfully written and wickedly funny too. He had the depth like Asimov (who also had sence of humor but in a more hidden manner) and I remember being impressed that Clarke imagined how things could work in a non-humancentric way. I did not care much for his novels though.
[Heinlain is a great fun too – and morale boost if you are 15 years old, ready to take on the whole worlds. I fondly remember his Door into Summer.]
I was a BIG Clarke fan, later Asimov, never got into Heinlein much.
Clarke and Asimov could be criticized for their wooden characterization, but that misses the point. The main “character” in their plots was the core science fiction idea itself.
Both were at their best in their short stories, where characters just needed to be sketched briefly.
I can truthfully say that I would not be what I am had Clarke not opened my mind to the world of science.