OFF: 3001

[M Holmes]

QUEST writes:

> Clarke has been known historically for his basis in "hard science" (i.e.,
> no "Hollywood physics" e.g. Star Trek).  I've always respected this aspect
> of his work.  This time he let that slide quite a bit, despite what the
> reviews on the cover indicate.

That is a pity. I have to admit I gave up on the Rama books because they
just became too silly. His "Asteroid" book was also pretty bad.

> P.S.:  I also didn't like Clarke's ever-present religion-bashing.  He's
> been on quite a soapbox lately, and the characters through which he does
> the most soapboxing are REALLY annoying and rarely shut up.  If Clarke's
> purpose was to anger non-atheists, he did quite well.

Hmmmm. The same thing happened to Phillip Dick when he was dying. I
wonder if Clarke will go for Celestis.

FoFP