Short stories vs novels

[Brian G Turner]

Where are Clarke's strengths when it comes to writing - do his novels reflect the greatest of his talents, or is it his abilities with short stories that generally work much better?

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I'd say short stories. Some of his novels are very good indeed - Childhood's End or Rendezvous with Rama for instance - but for the most part, his brand of classic SF works best in the shorter format, where the masterful playing out of a kernel 'what if' can exist more or less on its own without needing further layers of human interest and so on. Having said that, he is a very humane writer, even if characterisation is not his strong suit.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I would have to agree with knivesout that Clarke's short stories are, on the whole, superior to his novels. Not that I haven't liked some of his novels. But just sit down and read "The Nine Billion Names of God", as just one example of many. Brilliant, IMHO. It's such a simple idea, not a very long story, and quite simply told. But my gosh, it's effective.

 

[Muad'Dib]

Arthur C.Clarke is one of the greatest sf writer, we may free to say that he is the father of modern sf genre.And it doesnt important what you read.Personaly i like the novels more, because they are longer and,when i read, get the felling of somekind travel into the future. And that voyage doesn't end soon. The same is with short stories, but then the trip is shorter.

 

[Hypes]

I believe you are in error making that assertion, MD. Clarke is definitely an interesting read, but to split hairs, he only revolutionised the hard science-fiction, not the entire genrè - truly, there are better authors who merge a brilliant narrative with a razor-edged scientific concept (the latter of which is Clarke's definite strongpoint, and the former his deficiency).

Today, I'd say the space opera is the most mainstream/popular genrè within science-fiction - a subject which Clarke refrains from dabbling in.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Yes, I'd find it hard to call Clarke the father of modern sf, much as I love his work. Editor John Campbell has a better claim as he launched most of the writers we now reckon as 'classic'.

 

[Muad'Dib]

Well it's good to have different opinions, imagine what will be if all of us share the same.When i say modern sf i mean actually "hard" sf, or stories that tells about far future, and in first looks impossible- "hard" to belive.Clarke also writes about human evolution, mind evolution, in Childhood's End for example... Far future, i think billion years from now, in City And The Sky...For me that represent modern genre, or "hard", like Hypes saying. Summary at the end- Clarke is one of the best that we have today.

 

[Hypes]

Clarke usually writes of the near-present future, though - like he did in Rama and 2001. And again, sorry to split hairs with you, but hard science fiction is a sub-genrè focused on keeping the physics and general science of the story as close to real physics and science as possible.

For the themes you suggested, I'd say Philip K. Dick is a far more important author than Clarke - though Clarke is unparalleled when it comes to science itself. I've always found his characters to be very flat and stereotypical. Simply vessels to tell a millieu story.

Personally, I find that the revolutionary new authors, such as China Mièville move the genrè forward by merging both dark fantasy and steampunk science fiction.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Actually, I do quite understand the claim of Arthur C Clarke as the father of "modern" science fiction. It's not so much the style, or the theme - but the vision.

Clarke gives us such a careful insight into space and its exploration that the boundary between fact and fiction often seems blurred. Whereas this may be the mark of any good writer, no one seems to necessarily do it so well.

This is certainly with regards to the way sf was emerging from the 1960's. You read 2001 these days and you wonder if it wasn't heavily edited decades later, because too much of it seems too real.

To get to space opera, at some point humanity has to leave the planet and reach into space. That's the role that Clarke has played - his themes are essentially the human place in space. And as we move ever closer to that dream, Clarke seems all the more real.

Or so forth for discussion.

 

[Muad'Dib]

I agreeing with Brian, and for me the vision is the most important in creating written works with, not only science fiction, but also with artistic value.I'll be very thankful if someone can tell me what novel is worth reading, some kind of sf with vision, and with elements of mystery or paranormal.Or,it can be just a very good book.I read one, it's not novel, but scientific work, by Carl Sagan "Cosmos". If you have some time you sholud read it.

 

[Muad'Dib]

I agreeing with Brian, and for me the vision is the most important in creating written works with, not only science fiction, but also with artistic value.I'll be very thankful if someone can tell me what novel is worth reading, some kind of sf with vision, and with elements of mystery or paranormal.Or,it can be just a very good book.I read one, it's not novel, but scientific work, by Carl Sagan "Cosmos". If you have some time you sholud read it.

Just trying something...

 

[stirdgit]

I tend to think of Clarke as one of the most technically sound SF writers of all time. His vision gave us satellite technology and one can even argue that his vision was instrumental in developing the super computers of the current day. I enjoy his short stoies a bit more than his novels, although The Songs of Distant Earth was quite enjoyable. If given the choice I would much rather read the Sentinel (the short story upon which 2001 was based), than 2001; although I would take the movie over both versions - Kubrik's film was a true monument.

 

[stirdgit]

Also, to reply to Muad'Dib, I agree with your assessment of Cosmos; a fascinating book. You may also want to try Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, if you have not already. And judging by your name, I would assume you are a fan of the grand master Frank Herbert and his epic Dune series. If you ask me, Herbert was the single greatest writer of the genre.

 

[kyektulu]

I prefare a novel.
I have tried to write short storys but there is always to much I want to include and it ends up becoming a full blown novel.
Also alot of short storys I have read feel rushed...

 

[terracapri]

methinks that both his stories and novels, though hard sci-fi, were very careful when discussing the implications of a story on contemporary human mindset.
And when fewer words are used, to discuss something which is within our grasp and still eludes us,the better and more resonating the effect. thats why i prefer short stories to the novels with the exception of mayb "childhoods end."

 

[chrispenycate]

"Earthlight" was the first real science fiction novel that I read (at nine) It was also the first in which (considerably later) I found a technical error (not the last though)
Still, one of his great strengths (noticably reduced in his later work, particularly in the "Rama" series) was knowing the right length for a story, not trying to pad out a short story or a novellamaking for several excellent shorts.

 

[Shoegaze99]

Still, one of his great strengths (noticably reduced in his later work, particularly in the "Rama" series) was knowing the right length for a story

In all fairness to Clarke, he did not write the follow-ups to Rama, Gentry Lee did. While Clarke's name is the one featured, his role was limited to providing a bunch of ideas and some framework and his universe to Lee, who did the actual nitty gritty writing.

Which is kind of why the sequels were so poor.

 

[Lyrebird]

I tend to prefer short fiction, myself... though this heavily depends on the writing (Who's writing what). For example, in almost all cases where I'd read both a short and a long version of the same story, I have liked the short version... (A couple or so were AC's works, though I can't recollect the names.) Also, observe that it's always possible to shorten a novel, while the reverse is less often likely to work.

Did somebody say Vision? I'm reminded how underappreciated Asimov seems to be...

Oh, did I say underappreciated? That's just what a good short story always seems to be. I doubt the majority of readers know AC for his short fiction, or any other author, for that matter.

 

[j d worthington]

I tend to prefer short fiction, myself... though this heavily depends on the writing (Who's writing what). For example, in almost all cases where I'd read both a short and a long version of the same story, I have liked the short version... (A couple or so were AC's works, though I can't recollect the names.) Also, observe that it's always possible to shorten a novel, while the reverse is less often likely to work.

And that's where part of the problem comes in. It depends on what you mean by it being possible to shorten a novel... if you can remove much from a novel without it affecting the novel deleteriously... then it didn't need to be a novel (or at least, a novel of that length) in the first place. A short story that's "expanded" to a novel should only be so if the writer has more to say on the subject that's really pressing to be said, in which case it ends up being a different thing than it was to begin with... related, but not the same story. Flowers for Algernon is a case in point. It's not just an expanded version of the story, it addresses new layers, new levels, and is a good novel with or without reference to the short story -- they both work very well as what they are. (I prefer the short story because of the concentrated effect, but the novel couldn't lose anything without also losing much of what it's saying.) Another is T. E. D. Klein's The Ceremonies, which began as a short story, "The Events at Poroth Farm" and then was -- over a 10-year period -- turned into a novel of over 500 pages... without a word wasted. It bore almost no resemblance to the short story save for one or two motifs and incidents; the rest was completely new; and it's one of the best horror novels written in the latter half of the twentieth century. As I said, not a word was wasted; every single thing builds not only the story, but the atmosphere of this one -- which is fitting, as its main influences are Machen and Lovecraft.

However, your principle, in general, has far too many valid examples to be disregarded; and that goes to something I've said quite a bit myself: that too many works in the field are bloated and could at very least stand serious trimming, and would be much the better for it. A work should only be as long as what the work itself requires, not one word more. Otherwise you're wasting the reader's (and your) time -- at least, if you're striving for excellence in what you do.

Did somebody say Vision? I'm reminded how underappreciated Asimov seems to be...

On that one... I'm not so sure. Recently Asimov was given his own forum here, because enough people requested it -- which shows Ike is still very highly thought of in some circles, at least; and his work still receives both critical acclaim and more common recognition than may be realized.

Oh, did I say underappreciated? That's just what a good short story always seems to be. I doubt the majority of readers know AC for his short fiction, or any other author, for that matter.

And on this one... hurrah! Another person who proclaims the value of the (now) often-scorned short story -- a wonderful art form that can be very demanding, and when done well, is among the true gems in literature's crown: John Collier, Gerald Kersh, Harlan Ellison, Roald Dahl, Shirley Jackson, Charles Beaumont, Alexander Woollcott (try doing "Moonlight Sonata" as anything but a very brief short story!), H. Russell Wakefield, M. R. James, Isaac Asimov (especially "Eyes Do More than See"), Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore, Damon Knight, Kate Willhelm, C. M. Kornbluth, E. M. Forster, Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway.....

Yes, people who reject the short story are missing much of the greatest that literature has to offer... and Clarke is a good example, with "The Star", such collections as Expedition to Earth, The Wind from the Sun, Tales from the 'White Hart'....

 

[ntstatic]

The greatest strenght of Arthur Clarke is, in my opinion, how simple he makes, some of the most profound ideas. The stories seem almost real. for eg. while reading his stories i would feel that a "monomolecular wire" is a scientific reality. i would appreciate the wonderfull world of a mandelbrot set ( i made the pentominoes out of a cardboard when i was around 16 and solved the 3 x 12, after reading the story - i forget which novell it was)

on the point of characterization - which i have noticed people say about both ACC and Asimov - two of my favourites - that they lack the detailing and character building this In my opinion - it is what make the stories actual "Science" fiction and not some drama. i like my SF to be scientific and plausible.

IMO no one can say that ACC or for that matter Asimov are underappreciated. I do not know any one who would refute their genius.