Who do you like bettter Clarke or Isaac Asimov?

[Bick]

I love Clarke but it's Asimov by miles for me. While characterization is not my top concern, I've never understood the common reaction about it. Susan Calvin, Baley and Olivaw, Giskard, Hari Seldon, Bayta and Arkady Darell, the Mule--these and others live strongly in my imagination. Other than Bowman, Poole, and HAL (mostly due to the movie), I can't name a single Clarke character. But both created great works of imagination, full of ideas and interest. Clarke has some smaller-scale but extremely vivid and compelling tales like A Fall of Moondust and cosmically grand, mystic (but somewhat nebulous) things like 2001. It's mainly that, in addition to great miscellaneous works and the fascinating sociology and logical permutations in the Robot novels and stories, Asimov's conception of the Empire and Foundation has blown my mind from childhood to now like few other things have.

Ditto

 

[Robert Zwilling]

For me, Asimov created much better hooks in my mind for his stories and characters than Clarke did. No idea if it was the writing style, choice of story elements, or just the story itself.

 

[Lizard King]

Clark was a one trick pony. Asimov was brilliant both fiction and non. The Foundation series may be the only Sci Fi series ever written that didn’t fall apart two or three sequels. I’d place Heinlein and Zelazney ahead of Clark. My $.02.

 

[Bick]

Clark was a one trick pony.

Regards Clarke, what do you base that on?

 

[Lizard King]

Regards Clarke, what do you base that on?

I dunno. Did Clarke write anything other than 2001?

 

[hitmouse]

Regards Clarke, what do you base that on?

Clark was a one trick pony.

What @Bick said. Complete lazy nonsense imho. @Lizard King: Please defend your assertion.

 

[Vince W]

Clarke, one trick? Childhood's End, Rendezvous with Rama, Sands of Mars, Imperial Earth, The Hammer of God. Some trick.

 

[Phyrebrat]

@Lizard King welcome to the forum. As Vince has shown there’s plenty of good content out there from ACC. And lots of others. I really liked RWR.

I know of and about Asimov* but never tried his novels for fear they were too inscrutable or science heavy for my comprehension. I think I’ll give IA a try.

*I tend to read weird fiction and horror and have not been exposed to much SF.

 

[Bick]

I dunno. Did Clarke write anything other than 2001?

Yes he did. Lots of things.

 

[Rodders]

At the time I read them I liked them both equally and never really felt the need to compare them.

If i was put on the spot, i think i'd go with Clarke as i felt that there was a weight of science behind his work. Besides, Rendezvous With Rama made quite an impact on me as a young reader and even though i only read it once, it stayed with me.

 

[KiraAnn]

Personally, I don’t see a need to prefer one over the other. I like them both.

 

[Valtharius]

I prefer Asimov, if for no reason other than his late career mutton chops.

 

[Lizard King]

At the time I read them I liked them both equally and never really felt the need to compare them.

If i was put on the spot, i think i'd go with Clarke as i felt that there was a weight of science behind his work. Besides, Rendezvous With Rama made quite an impact on me as a young reader and even though i only read it once, it stayed with me.

I ended up with an advanced degree in physics and credit Azimov with teaching me more science than any college professor. ;-)

I suppose good is in the eye of the beholder. Now that I see the Clarke books mentioned I recall reading probably all of them. As you can see they were so memorable that I completely forgot them. Those five or six novels don’t come close to comparing with the Foundation series alone…and Azimov had hundreds of other novels not part of the Foundation series. His best trick was uniting the Foundation series and Robot series…you know, the three laws of robotics that even those who don‘t read SciFi know of. In contrast Herbert completely destroyed a VERY good novel in Dune by turning it into an endless series of garbage…God Emperor of Dune!!! Give me a break. The Whipping Star series he at least had the grace to quit while he was ahead. I give ACC credit for not polluting the universe with an endless series 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, Children of 2001…

The only one who came clone to Azimov in quantity AND quality was Heinlein.

 

[Astro Pen]

I guess to today's younger readers here this is a bit like asking my generation, "Who do you prefer Wells or Verne?"
Pebble in the Sky and I Robot were released 71 years ago!

 

[tobl]

I guess to today's younger readers here this is a bit like asking my generation, "Who do you prefer Wells or Verne?"
Pebble in the Sky and I Robot were released 71 years ago!

verne. no doubt.and don't compare any of them to asimov please. since i'm not a particular fan of asimov.... i think verne might be slightly compared to heinlein but there's plenty of difference. honestly i read most books from asimov. i can vaguely like the robot stories but couldn't get into foundation.

 

[Astro Pen]

verne. no doubt.and don't compare any of them to asimov please. since i'm not a particular fan of asimov.... i think verne might be slightly compared to heinlein but there's plenty of difference. honestly i read most books from asimov. i can vaguely like the robot stories but couldn't get into foundation.

My comparison was chronological, not stylistic.

 

[hitmouse]

In contrast Herbert completely destroyed a VERY good novel in Dune by turning it into an endless series of garbage…God Emperor of Dune!!!

I think most people agree that the sequels to Dune are increasingly crap. I fail to see how that assessment diminishes the original novel in and of itself.

 

[Elckerlyc]

It's been awhile since I read anything from Clark or Asimov. Neither of them were my favorites, prose wise, but I appreciated the intriguing ideas and vistas they presented. I think I slightly preferred Clarke over Asimov, because of the characterization. From Clarke I mostly remember A Fall of Moondust, from Asimov the Robot novels and, off course, Nightfall.
Foundation and 2001 remained DNF for me, though I tried.

Anyway, each writer has their own strong points and characteristics. You like (or don't) each of them for different reasons.
I don't think I ever read something from Wells (but watched War of the Worlds, naturally), Verne's novels devoured when I was young.

 

[Bick]

… Azimov had hundreds of other novels not part of the Foundation series.

A couple of things:

If you're going to write about the merits of Isaac Asimov, you might spell his name right. Pedantry, I know, but still...

Secondly, Asimov didn't write hundreds of novels, he wrote 19 (and 3 were co-authored with Silverberg and simply extended short stories). The original Foundation trilogy of books were themselves not novels, but collections of short stories and novellas. In contrast, Arthur C. Clarke wrote 32 SF novels (11 co-authored) - which, to clarify, is more. Now, I'm an Asimov fan myself and probably prefer his work. But it's marginal; Clarke was great and he arguably wrote more classic SF novels than Asimov.

The only one who came clone to Azimov in quantity AND quality was Heinlein.

If we're going to simply bring quantity into it, Poul Anderson, Andre Norton, Clifford Simak (all great and prolific SF writers) might have something to say about this. They all wrote more SF books than either Asimov or Heinlein.

 

[Bick]

I give ACC credit for not polluting the universe with an endless series 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, Children of 2001…

He wrote 3 sequels to 2001: 2010, 2061, 3001.