Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Science

Arthur C. Clarke Is Dead At 90 538

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arthur C. Clarke Is Dead At 90

Comments Filter:
  • shame. (Score:2, Informative)

    by apodyopsis ( 1048476 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:27PM (#22788978)
    shame.

    his earlier works were total classics. RIP.
  • by Doofus ( 43075 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:38PM (#22789104)
    Coverage from several sources

    AP/Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]

    BBC [bbc.co.uk]

    LA Times [latimes.com]

    Bloomberg [bloomberg.com]

    National Post [nationalpost.com]

  • From TFA (Score:4, Informative)

    by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:38PM (#22789108) Homepage
    "Clarke's best-known novel, "2001: A Space Odyssey," became the basis of the 1968 film of the same name, directed by Stanley Kubrick."


    It's such a shame, isn't it, that they can't get things right in these articles, even when the slightest research would have shown the writer that the novel Space Odyssey [wikipedia.org] was written as a novelization of the classic movie. The movie itself was based mostly on Clark's short story, The Sentinel. Furrfu!

  • by _bug_ ( 112702 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:41PM (#22789150) Journal
    Here is a video from ACC [youtube.com] made in December 2007 in which he reflects upon his life and how he will be remembered.

    His Kipling quote at the end should help bring closure to all his fans.
  • Re:From TFA (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:44PM (#22789204)
    They were written in parallel. Clarke also wrote the screenplay.
  • Re:From TFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:50PM (#22789310) Homepage
    I know; I was simplifying. The movie came out first, and Sir Arthur made sure that the book followed the script as shot, making it, in effect, a novelization.
  • Huh. (Score:5, Informative)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:56PM (#22789362) Homepage Journal
    My understanding was that he wrote sections of the book alongside the movie, making the script/book a joint effort, although the book was actually finished and polished later. Well, the only two people who know for certain are now working on a prequel (not available on Earth), from the Monolith's perspective.
  • Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @06:56PM (#22789368)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:From TFA (Score:2, Informative)

    by invader_vim ( 1243902 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:13PM (#22789590)

    ... the slightest research would have shown ... that the novel Space Odyssey was written as a novelization of the classic movie. The movie itself was based mostly on Clark's short story, The Sentinel. Furrfu!

    While you're right about the movie being initially based on the the short story "The Sentinel", Clarke actually wrote the book concurrently with his and Kubrick's work on the screenplay (according to Clarke's introduction in the book). Perhaps that still qualifies as a novelisation of the movie, but in my opinion it sits uniquely in film/book crossovers, since elements of each were affected by decisions (and technical limitations) in the other.



    Regardless, it was a fantastic piece of work by two great artists, both of whom will be sorely missed.

  • by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:17PM (#22789626)
    ...ranks as perhaps the best Sci-Fi book I've ever read. It still takes my breath away.
  • by dlelash ( 235648 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:17PM (#22789636)
    Asimov wrote the Foundation books, not Clarke.
  • by TychoCelchuuu ( 835690 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:21PM (#22789710) Journal
    You're thinking of Asimov, unless Clarke wrote his very own Foundation series.
  • by jmv ( 93421 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:25PM (#22789736) Homepage
    It's [wikipedia.org] too [wikipedia.org] late [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:46PM (#22789968)

    that cell phone that bounces a signal off the satellites that he envisioned
    By definition, that's not a cell phone.
  • by RamblinLonghorn ( 1074873 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:50PM (#22790002)
  • by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:50PM (#22790004) Homepage

    There are two things that disappoint me about many so-called intellectuals. The first is that they don't seem to read enough history.

    Clarke's writing clearly defines him as a different sort of person. The Foundation series clearly identifies him as a man who knew history.

    Says the guy who doesn't read enough SF to know the difference between Clarke and Asimov.
  • by Surt ( 22457 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @07:50PM (#22790010) Homepage Journal
    Clarke's writing clearly defines him as a different sort of person. The Foundation series clearly identifies him as a man who knew history.

    Perhaps it identifies him as a person who knew history. Or perhaps it identifies you as a person who does not know science fiction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series [wikipedia.org]

    The foundation series was written by Isaac Asimov, and he also wrote a number of history books, and in fact his knowledge of history was quite extensive:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#Other_writing [wikipedia.org]

  • by Scaba ( 183684 ) <joe@joefranDEBIANcia.com minus distro> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @08:59PM (#22790572)

    Do you know what won the Oscar for the best movie of 1969? You might look it up. No one remembers it.

    Uhh, it was Midnight Cowboy. Hardly a forgotten film.

  • by blackest_k ( 761565 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @08:59PM (#22790576) Homepage Journal

    Are you sure they printed a retraction? There's no citation for this at Wikipedia and never has been.
    Not that it means anything if they didn't but I'm just interested to know their stance. I guess we'll find out when they print their obituary.
    Try this from the guardian in 2000

    http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,6000,374388,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

    Rupert and Arthur are good friends. The author of 2001: A Space Odyssey faced his trickiest moment three years ago, when he was turned over by the Sunday Mirror. It was Murdoch who wrote him a "very nice" note promising him that the reporters responsible would never work in Fleet Street again. "He is a rather shy, modest person," Clarke says teasingly. "I find him very deferential."

    The Mirror claimed that Clarke had paid young boys for sex. It produced affidavits from the boys in question. Sri Lankan police later disproved them, he says. The story ran two weeks before Prince Charles flew to Sri Lanka to confer a knighthood on the grand old man of science fiction. The saga was the lowest point in his career. At a banquet in his honour Clarke, who has post polio syndrome, found himself hobbling away from the press, pursued by an unctuous reporter from the Daily Telegraph. The episode still upsets him. "I take an extremely dim view of people mucking about with boys," Clarke says. "The whole thing was distressing to me. It was vindictive and very unpleasant. I can only assume it was a plot to embarrass Prince Charles." The novelist finally got his gong this May, at a low-key ceremony at the British high commission in Colombo.

    Clarke's private life remains a mystery. He was married briefly to an American, Marilyn Mayfield, now dead, whom he met while diving in Florida in the 50s. Asked whether he is gay, Clarke always gives the same puckish pro forma answer: "No, merely cheerful." The answer, presumably, lies in the "Clarkives" - a vast collection of his manuscripts and private writings, to be published 50 years after his death.
    A further quote
    ""I had an operation for prostate cancer 10 years ago," Clarke says. "I haven't the slightest interest in sex."

    He deserves respect, not anonymous sniping , for his remarkable influence and contributions to humanity.

    Rest in Peace Sir Arthur.
  • Re:From TFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by STrinity ( 723872 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @10:01PM (#22791050) Homepage

    Sir Arthur made sure that the book followed the script as shot,
    In the book the Discovery is going to Saturn (with an entire chapter devoted to the funny geology of Iapetus), and it ends with Bowman/Space Fetus blowing up an orbital weapons platform as a way of telling humanity to behave.
  • by ChameleonDave ( 1041178 ) * on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @10:11PM (#22791106) Homepage

    Requiem im pace, Sir Arthur.

    It's requiescat, if you want to say "[may he] rest in peace", i.e. the traditional RIP.

    If you mean it as a command (as you phrased it), it would be requiesce.

    Requiem is a noun. You could say something like Requiem ei donetur (Rest be granted unto him).

    And of course, it's in, not im.

  • by MRe_nl ( 306212 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @10:31PM (#22791228)
    "It's not a frequency we can hear, let me turn up the volume."

    LOL, they said that in Stargate ?

    A C Clark's quote vis a vis technology / magic might be his most well known,
    but the following quote had me grinning ;
    (Of UFOs:) "They tell us absolutely nothing about intelligence elsewhere in the universe, but they do prove how rare it is on Earth."

    Strange in a way for a man who, on the other hand, wished to meet/communicate with ET.

  • Re:Mortality (Score:5, Informative)

    by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:20PM (#22791556)
    no. Clarke's three laws.

    1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
    3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  • Predicter (Score:2, Informative)

    by GnuDiff ( 705847 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @02:21AM (#22792550) Journal
    Arthur Clarke has been behind numerous perceptions and ideas that are commonplace nowadays.

    For example, he is the author of the widely quoted "Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic".

    As well, he was able to pretty accurately imagine an astounding number of technological advances.

    A loosely re-translated quote from a Russian magazine "Esli"(If), regarding Clarke's 90th birthday:
    "By the way, in the early works of Clarke there is an enormous amount of bold technical predictions, many of which have been realized - or they have every chance to be realized in near future. In the very same "Childhood's End", which is more of a religious-philosophic rather than futurological work, there is the determination of the baby's gender during pregnancy (very similar to nowaday DNA testing), contraception pills, document sending over phone lines with a device which is even named "facsimile device". Among the catalogue of technological predictions it is easy to miss a direct hit on social predictions -- Clarke assumes that socialism as a political order will be extinct by 22th century."

  • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @03:23AM (#22792806)
    Do you know what won the Oscar for the best movie of 1969? You might look it up. No one remembers it.
    Uhh, it was Midnight Cowboy. Hardly a forgotten film.

    Yeah, but 2001 was released in 1968, the "best picture' that year was the musical "Oliver".

  • by gsslay ( 807818 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @06:33AM (#22793490)

    God speed, Mr. Clarke.
    As an atheist, I'm not sure he'd appreciate your wishes.

    He was a imaginative and intelligent man. He contributed a lot. He's gone, but he's not going anywhere.
  • Re:shame. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @06:53AM (#22793590)
    Light of Other Days. by Bob Shaw
  • Re:shame. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ikester8 ( 768098 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @10:20PM (#22802906)
    Gah, that movie. The effects were wonderful, but they completely mangled the storyline in order to make an anti-Cold War statement. Do yourself a favor and read the vastly superior book. I read it again every couple of years, it's one of my favorites. The entire message was, "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there." They also didn't mention the Chinese expedition, and they made the existence of life on Europa inconclusive, unlike the book.

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Working...