Clarke's SF books

[M Holmes]

Denis Regenbrecht writes:

> The first Rama book was great IMHO and it really deserved its Hugo and
> Nebula Awards. But the last three don't have the same sense of wonder the
> first one had.

I hated the tech being inconsistent with what the first mission had
seen, and the plodding plot with politically correct characters.

> Asimov is great and the Foundation-series rightfully belongs into the Hall
> of Fame of SF-literature, but I can't stand Heinlein. His
> pseudo-philosophical ("Starship Troopers" is the best example) babble and
> his right-wing-propaganda spoils most of his books for me.

Tch tch. Heinlein is a libertarian, not a right winger, as his "The Moon
is a Harsh Mistress" clearly indicates (besides, how could you hate a
book with a subversive AI called Mike Holmes?). I'd concur that some of
the philosophy in ST is almost sophomoric and certainly detracts from
the plot.

> The best SF-books ever written IMHO are the "Dune" Chronicles by Frank
> Herbert

Some of them anyway. God Emperor of Dune was almost a testament to
philosophic witterings spoiling a novel. Things didn't really improve
until Chapter House Dune, and then the bugger died.

> and a lot of Roger Zelaznys work, especially "Lord of Light".

Same problem as Clarke there. The first Amber books were great (except
the fifth anyway) but with the second series, he handed outlines to his
stable of writers and we had a relatively consistent magical tech
destroyed by their constantly inventing new magics. His Sandow books,
LoL, Damnation Alley, and Doorways in the Sand were good, and Today We
Choose Faces was excellent as were a goodly number of his short stories.

I reckon the first Amber series, and Stableford's Grainger series are
still my favourite SF sagas.

FoFP