Talk:Arthur C. Clarke/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Pedophilia claims

The claims of pedophilia made against Clarke should be mentioned here. They were big news a few years ago, and I've heard told that more cases arose which were not grabbed by the tabloids. I'm unsure of how to broach the subject without risking slander, however. Kricxjo 22:48, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Court document is best, then book, then reputable newspaper report. Don't add anything if you don't have at least one of those to cite, whether online or paper. It's not slander if your report is factually correct ("X accused Y of Z" may be true even if the accusation itself is false). Stan 00:44, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Done. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've read elsewhere that the allegations were eventually found to be false, but this wasn't picked up by the tabloids. I'd suggest doing a fair bit of research first on everything that happened and putting it together.

The allegations were indeed dismissed as false in 1998, and can be read about in the PlanetOut archive. All the wire services carried the report of the exoneration, but the fact that "the tabloids" didn't do so suggests that such an exoneration didn't serve their interests. jcsherwood1950 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that it needs to be mentioned, and if it was exonerated, that be included as well. I had heard about Clarke's pedophilia and was wondering how that resolved -- and see nothing in the article at all about it. It was prominent enough that I think it deserves mention because it hit people's public consciousness of the subject. No reason we can't include both claims and exoneration to make things quite clear, but coming to the talk page and seeing just this isn't effective. — WCityMike (T | C) 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sunday Mirror was the first tabloid to make the claim that they recorded an interview with Clarke in which he stated that he had sex with boys at his home in Sri Lanka and that he had no idea how old they where. Clarke was then cleared by the deputy inspector-general of police, MSM Nizam, who said: "We are satisfied that he has not violated any Sri Lankan laws or committed any crime. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm. Eventually the whole story ended up with Interpol critizing The Sunday Mirror for refusing to supply the tape. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150223.stm IMO, the story isn't worth spreading on Wikipedia is no more than a nasty rumour. On the subject of Clarke being gay. Clarke denies being homosexual. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,374388,00.html Clarke always gives the same puckish pro forma answer: "No, merely cheerful." To top if off, Clarke was actually once married. See the same guardian article "...He was married briefly to an American, Marilyn Mayfield, now dead, whom he met while diving in Florida in the 50s." Yes he does live in Sri Lanka, which may sound like a strange place for an old English man living alone, except for the fact that there are about another ten thousand Western litrature writers living there also. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)]

This is supposed to be an encylopedia. It is a *very* well-known fact that the Mirror started this hoo-hah and that Clarke was *not* knighted when he should have been. This has nothing to do with whether he is/was a pedophile, a homosexual, or even a little green alien. This is a fairly major happening in his recent life, I would say. The Robert A. Heinlein article has lots of info about his medical ups and downs and how they may have affected his writing. Wouldn't you say that a delayed knighthood is of equal importance in a *long*, supposedly NPOV article about a *very* well-known personage? Let's say that Ken Lay is found innocent of all charges against him in the Enron trial. Are we going to let a Ken Lay supporter edit the Wikipedia article about him so that all mention of the trial just *vanishes*? That's akin what you're trying to do here by removing this info. Hayford Peirce 04:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Edited out. By the end of this episode the evidence indicated nothing other than defamatory libel spun from whole cloth by a tabloid. It does not provide any significant information about Clarke, and there's a compelling interest in not perpetuating the report of the libel - unlike "he said she said" journalism, Wikipedia should be based on evidence. It's no better than using weasel words, e.g. "according to some critics..." and it's far worse, in the case of something for which removing the "according to..." clause would instantly convert the Wikipedia entry itself into a defamatory libel that would be liable for civil damages, probably of far greater magnitude than from any copyright infringement. A tabloid could print libel against anybody at all. That would not make the libel a significant aspect of the target's life. - Reaverdrop 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Clarke himself asked for the postponement of his knighthood to avoid embarassing the monarchy. Clearly something Rushdie hasn't the integrity to do.

Sexuality

Anyone who's read ACC's work since the early 1970's can't doubt he is bisexual. What's the quote from Imperial Earth (from memory, so probably not verbatim) "He [the central character] couldn't understand anyone who's sexuality was exclusively polarized in one direction or the other". Also see the 70's rewrite of 'Songs of Distant Earth' (not the original short story or the 80's novel, the extended short story with the 2-men-1-woman threesome. Central character was called Falcon I think). Even the pin-up Kumar from the 80's Songs novel "had slept with all of the girls and most of the boys in his agegroup". Of course, just because he writes about it doesn't mean he does it.. but for a unsentimental writer like Clarke it's telling that bisexuality forms such a staple ingredient. It never happened in Asimov novels!! It's not as if Clarke is socially innovative generally (eg Iain M Banks).

Incidentally, none of this is intended as a critisism. He's an old man living in a country where (I think) homosexual activity is illegal - I can understand why he doesn't want to rock the boat. 80.177.152.35 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Er he doesnt live in a country where homosexuality is illegal! Just to let you knowPubuman 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The man's sexuality is not relevant to the article. --Muugokszhiion 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to his life and thus to the article. Although he might simply see bisexuality as a preferable state to heterosexuality. Zeck 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not relevant? Or perhaps you just wish people didn't talk about such things at all Muugokszhiion? A topic that so heavily infulences his writing is obviously relevant, must more so that his brief marrage, which is mentioned 80.177.152.35 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, none of these instances cited above have anything whatsoever to do with the story plots or any important aspects of the stories. If, let's say, the bisexuality of one of the characters led to him/her getting the post of captain of the starship, and then got him/her into trouble with a major character in the book, then it would be relevant to mention it. In articles about the Saint books, or the James Bond books, is it relevant to mention that Leslie Charteris or Ian Fleming were heterosexuals? I don't think so. In fact, let's say that they *weren't* -- what possible difference would that make to the books as they are written? If we say in this article that Clarke *might* be bisexual, do we then say in the Asimov article that he was *clearly* heterosexual, as based on the fact that there are married couples in his books? But how do we *know* Asimov was 100% hetero? Etc. etc. etc. Hayford Peirce 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This arguement just isn't logical or consistent. The article is packed full of details that arn't relevent to the plot of his books, (eg Place of birth, working as an auditor, marrage and rapid separation). Also, the bisexual nature of some of his characters is *highly* relevent to stories. See Imperial Earth or Songs for examples (I can supply page refs if you like).
The auguement that 'it doesnt affect the books so lets not mention it' misses the point. It manifestly influences a number of his later books (see above), and even if it didn't, by mentioning his marrage ACC's heterosexuality is implied. The article is about the man, not just the books.
Frankly the 'lets not mention it' arguement is a bit 1950's (least said soonest mended etc etc), the 'not relevent to his stories' one is just dumb.
The only good arguement is privacy and ACC's reluctance to 'out' himself - which is fine with me. I guess we have to wait for his death, and the publishing of his archives to find out for sure. (if you're reading this Arthur, sorry to be anticipating your demise! I wish you'd clear up the matter - you conspicously havent so far. I know a few Sri Lankan's, and it's the worst kept secret since Rajiv Gandhi said "fighter jets over sri-lanka, what fighter jets??"). 80.177.152.35 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because an author writes about bisexual characters does not mean that the author himself is a bisexual. Does an author who writes about a main character being a murderer make the author himself a murderer? I don't think so. Remember when Clarke stated in his paperback publication of Childhood's End that the opinions stated in the book were not his own? What does that tell you? Suffor

If anybody gives a damn, Clarke admitted to homosexuality in the July 1, 1986 issue of Playboy. I am not adding that manifestly relevant fact to the section on his sexuality because I am SICK AND TIRED of politically correct bowlderism on Wikipedia and don't feel like writing another contribution which will be immediately deleted by the Politeness And Sensitivity Police.

Oh, and if anybody cares, the parents in the area all knew to "keep your boys away from the Clarke compound". That is an exact quote, but even if I remembered the source (it wasn't the Sun), if I included it in this increasingly-irrelevant encyclopedia, it would be deleted.

Clarke also had a little boy living with him in the sixties; he mentions it his book about diving which came right before Treasure of the Great Reef. On top of that, homosexual pederasty is rampant in Siri Lanka; there was a sex-tourism scandal about it a few years ago, and for decades he has stayed exclusively at the hotel Chelsea, sometimes for months on end, in the 50's and 60's when that was THE place for wealthy homosexuals to hang out in New York when being gay was illegal. The hotel's advertising literature of the time all but comes out and says so explicitly (details on request).

As someone else pointed out, these things are not only true, but everyone who has followed clarke their whole life (presumably most of us here) KNOWS these things are true. Whether it makes you hate clarke or not (I still love him) and whether it is encyclopedic (I believe it is) are other questions, but in my mind, truth trumps all, and ALL truth should be included. In wikipedia, however, there are other... considerations... which Management deems more important than both relevancy and truth -- even when that truth can be cited in unquestionable sources (like a Playboy interview with clarke himself).

You people disgust me. TechnoFaye Kane 11:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of how Wikipedia really works. Sources, please. Do we have trusted sources that agree with you? --Kjoonlee 11:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
She actually quoted a source in there. I saw it, too. I remember that at the time I had a good friend who, having heard that Clarke had admitted to having sex with a man, refused to read Clarke's books any longer. My friendship with that homophobe broke up over it. The story is quite true and was the "scandal" widely discussed in the SF Fandom world in 1986. Sad that you youngsters don't remember it.--Eliyahu S Talk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither wide discussion nor a perceived scandal makes anything true. Also, it's not enough for anything to be just true; facts need to be verifiable for inclusion at Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.. well, you COULD start with the July 1, 1986 Playboy interview where clarke admits to homosexuality, but why bother? Not only will this information (clearly relevant to the section about his sexuality) not be included, but my discussion above will be censored out AND I'll be temporarily banned for "hate speech" or whatever name they're giving to telling the truth this year.

Sadly, I am all TOO well aware of of how Wikipedia really works. TechnoFaye Kane 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Have other people read that issue, and are those people trusted sources, and do they agree with you? --Kjoonlee 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian says he always denies it when asked if he's gay. I trust the Guardian more than second-hand news from someone I don't know. --Kjoonlee 11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See my comments above. I read it. It was quite a scandal in the SF world that summer.--Eliyahu S Talk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm making it up because I have homophobia: I hate homo sapiens. If you weren't a Comstockian Luddite, you'd google "homosexuality arthur c clarke playboy" and read each of the 9,960 hits. TechnoFaye Kane 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're making it up. I'm not a Luddite so I Googled it and found only wishful thinking. --Kjoonlee 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

??? Wishful thinking? You could start with 365Gay.com, or any of the "famous homosexuals" lists on "gay and proud" web sites. You might also read the Playboy interview (as I have). My point isn't that Clarke is gay; everyone KNOWS he's gay. And frankly, that doesn't make me think less of Clarke; it makes me think better of gays. My point is that wikipedia is less interested in manifest truth than it is in being "politically sensitive"TechnoFaye Kane 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is concerned about accuracy (even if it doesn't always meet that objective), verifiability, and reliable sources. The 365Gay.com reference (if you're referring to the one that comes up on the first page of a Google search for "homosexuality arthur c clarke playboy") merely says "July 1, 1986 - Renowned science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke comes very close to coming out in an interview published in Playboy magazine", not that he did so; the Guardian profile which Google throws up on the same page, says "He is widely thought to be gay, although he has never publicly acknowledged it. When directly asked the question, he jests he is 'merely mildly cheerful'". This is hardly the behaviour of someone who is "gay and proud". Everything else which that Google search throws up appears either to be wishful thinking, discussions of the sexuality of characters in his stories, or the fact that articles about him and stories he's written have appeared in magazines all over world, including Playboy. This is why unsubstantiated gossip will not be retained in the article. -- Arwel (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Of course he's not gay and proud, he's gay and ashamed of it. Ask him about it and he winks and makes jokes. He's on every list of famous gays, but at this point, it's academic, as the truth will never see the light of day here. Nevertheless, for the curious: http://www.tobyjohnson.com/arthurcclarke.html and http://forums.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?t=61803 where it says "That Arthur C. Clarke is gay has been an open secret in the science fiction community for years" not to mention http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

My last post in this thread; I'm tired of talking about it. TechnoFaye Kane 13:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who said "You could start with ...any of the "famous homosexuals" lists on "gay and proud" web sites", which is why I said that he has never claimed to be. Anyway, you're arguing in circles: The rediff article refers back to the Sunday Mirror article which started the whole hoo-ha at the time of his knighthood, and which was retracted as the article says. A discussion forum -- even one of PC Worlds' -- is nothing more than gossip and is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, and as a reader of SF for over 40 years I feel qualified to ask "who the hell is Toby Johnson?", as I've never heard of him and have no idea what his credentials or qualifications to discuss Clarke are. -- Arwel (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
wooooo go arwel parry, defender of reliability! Don't let the Man get you down! --Ceas webmaster 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the Playboy interview now (or what claims to be the thing), and I say it doesn't say he's gay. To assert at Wikipedia articles that Arthur C. Clarke is gay, based on that interview, would be POV pushing. --Kjoonlee 10:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"What CLAIMS to be a playboy interview"? Did you revert an *obviously* relevant fact in an article about Clarke's sexuality because you're accusing me of creating a fake page from playboy magazine as a citation? No, if thats what you're saying, then say it explicitly. Or better yet, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF IN THE LIBRARY. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TechnoFaye">TechnoFaye Kane</a> 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to reread my comment again, and check who reverted your edits. --Kjoonlee 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you need to reread the interview and your own edits as well, because the interview doesn't say what you want it to say, and your edits didn't match the interview. --Kjoonlee 19:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Playboy: "Have you had bisexual experience yourself?"
Clarke: "Of course!"
My new edit: "Clarke, who has enthusiastically admitted having bisexual experience..."

Okay, now BEFORE REVERTING IT AGAIN, please explain any one of:
1) why this is irrelevant to an article about Clarke's sexuality, or
2) why this edit is not supported by the magazine interview cited, or
3) why you think the exclaimation "Of course!" is not enthusiastic, or
4) why you say (as you did above) that you think I manufactured a forged page in Playboy magazine in order to slander my favorite (though gay) sci-fi author TechnoFaye Kane 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the interview carefully, because you're quoting it out of context. It seems to me as if you're in danger of violating several content policies at Wikipedia. And I think everyone is entitled to skepticism. Remind yourself about the first pillar of WP:5, if you want. --Kjoonlee 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Converting "Have you had bisexual experience" to "admitted to having homosexual sex" is just plain distortion of facts. Also remember to go through WP:BLP. An awfully ambiguous Playboy interview is nowhere near a good enough source for such an extraordinary claim. In any case what does it have to do with the section in question? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. Also, isn't it possible for you to be an innocent victim of trickery rather than a trickster yourself? Please don't jump to conclusions. --Kjoonlee 11:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say the interview cited is actually unambiguous in that Clarke is just as homosexual as the average person: probably not homosexual at all. "Have you had bisexual experience yourself?" "Of course. Who hasn't?" Note absence of enthusiasm, and apparent humour. --Kjoonlee 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, there was an exclamation point after that "of course".

I know I am outvoted by the politically-correct crowd, so even AFTER providing the requested smoking-gun playboy interview (and having been accused of forging it), I will again retire from this thread.

But you have managed to suppress the truth only by being pedantic and disingenuous. You guys remind me of the right-wing talk-radio people who defend the fag senator: "He MIGHT not be gay!" "The police just entrapped him!" "Since when is tapping your foot in a bathroom stall a crime?"

BULL SHIT. The senator's a fag and so is Clarke. That's not BAD, but it's TRUE. Have you ever heard Barney Frank speak? I did last weekend, and that's one COOL DUDE!! In general, I think gays are far better people than "normals" by every measure from intelligence to sense of humor, and I prefer to hang around with gay men than straight ones.

But all that is irrelevant: Clarke is GAY.

I'm not anti-gay; I'm anti suppression of the truth. Unfortunately, a lot of that happens here at wikipedia ever since "management" decided this was more about CYA and not offending anyone than it is about making the truth available to humanity for free. TechnoFaye Kane 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC) PS: You don't need to type a snotty comeback because I'm out of it now. YOU WON. You might just ask yourself though "What did I win? What did I accomplish?"

Please stay civil, and rely on reliable sources, please. --Kjoonlee 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And please don't distort facts. --Kjoonlee 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had left it at "be civil and cite reliable sources", I would have let you have the last word even though I AM being civil and an interview with Clarke in a national magazine IS a reliable source.

But then you invoked the name of my God: "FACTS".

Here are FACTS:
1) Arthur C. Clarke is a bisexual.
2) Everybody KNOWS he is a bisexual.
3) He admits to being bisexual in a national interview.
4) This information is relevant in an encyclopedia article discussing his sexuality.
5) You said we couldn't publish it here unliess I produced the article.
6) I produced the article; you accused me of forging the article.
7) When that appeared manifestly ridiculous (I told you to go look it up in the library as I did), you then denied that Clarke said what he blatantly, obviously, explicitly said.
8) Your strongarm effort to bully me with semi-idiotic semiotics does not convince anyone, but it DOES make this my last word in the subject here.
9) You have successfully suppressed a relevant FACT in an encyclopedia. I am sure you are very proud of that.

Now go ahead and take the last word with more disingenuous, psuedo-hoity-toity verbiage garbiage. TechnoFaye Kane 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are not paying enough tribute to your "God" is now a fact. If you look at the image that you linked, there's no exclamation mark after "Of course". --Kjoonlee 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should say "ACC persistently refuses to comment on his sexuality when interviewed on the subject"..? Otherwise known as 'doing a jodie' ;) 80.177.152.35 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical/Other

I think adding in his medical condition (arthritis in the extreme I think?) would also be a good idea. John Lynch 15:52, 31 July 2004 (GMT 10+)

Sir Arthur suffers from post-polio syndrome and is wheelchaired as a result; however he also does daily exercises and can stand for brief periods, especially when he plays table tennis. jcsherwood1950 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the scene in You Only Live Twice that Sir Arthur is supposed to have a cemeo appearance in? Kuralyov 02:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When someone's joke is taken seriously, you see how rumors get started. Sir Arthur wasn't in You Only Live Twice. But ... Doesn't Donald Pleasance as the evil Blofeld, sitting in his wheelchair, remind you just a little of Sir Arthur ...? Of course, it's a backward-in-time reference, as Sir Arthur wasn't in a wheelchair until the late 1980s, and the Bond movie was made a generation earlier. In passing: Blofeld also was the inspiration fo Mike Myers' "Dr. Evil." jcsherwood1950 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention should also be made of his cameo in 2010: Odyssey Two - sitting on a park bench outside the White House (his face and that of Stanley Kubrick also appear on a "Time" Magazine cover in the movie as President of the US and Premier of the USSR respectively). Grutness|hello? 23:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Arthur_C._Clarke article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Arthur_C._Clarke}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor note should be added including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake information in the following Slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/12/28/0120240.shtml?tid=99&tid=1 --Spug 22:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not having seen this first (bad Me :-), I put a blip in the lede. We can expand it below, preparatory to moving it down there permanently later. -- Baylink 05:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Autodidact category removal

I removed "autodidact" - he studied at one of the England's most prestigious universities. The fact that he did it after a short period of employment and then his military service doesn't mean that he was self-taught (at the time he went to university, it was usual to be studying while in mid to late 20's). Admittedly he was already publishing sci-fi by that time, but many sci-fi writers start young. The fact that they haven't finished their formal education before starting their occupation doesn't qualify them as autodidacts, as far as I can see. And just because the degree wasn't in English literature or similar, doesn't mean he counts as an autodidact just because his occupation was not a direct branch-out of his degree. --VivaEmilyDavies 00:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


2001: book and film will have separate articles

Just a head's up that the book will have its own article soon, which will necessitate some link changes. See the film's talk page for more.

Science fact

Clarke also wrote at least one science fact book. The Promise of Space appeared in 1968, and was reissued in 1985. --205.175.225.5 20:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

telecomunications

Isn't Clarke considered the inventor of the telecomunication's satelite?

I think he was the first person to think up the idea of a geostationary satelite. For people interested in communications, get a copy of his non-fiction book "When the World Was One"

He wrote about satellites in his short stories that were published. He did not think that they would come as soon as they have done so he did not patent them. However when the companies saw that the satellites could make a lot of money they tried to patent them but Clarke pointed out that he had invalidated their patents.

He wrote a wry article, "How I Lost a Billion Dollars At Home In My Spare Time" (later updated to "How I Lost a Trillion Dollars At Home In My Spare Time") on how he thought of, but did not patent, the idea of communications satellites. - 21 december 2005


He couldn't have patented it, it was already public domain by over 15 years.Herman Potočnik's book(c.1929) introduced the first full concept of geostationary communications satellites (first put forward by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky). - 26 January 2006

To be precise, Potočnik's book describes a space station and discusses communication between the space station and the ground, but the application of a satellite for mass communication and telephony is a specific invention that does not seem to be covered. Elroch 11:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He's wearing a "I Invented the Satellite and All I Got is this Lousy T-Shirt" t-shirt in a BBC news article. I kid you not. [1] — WCityMike (T | C) 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Herbert

Was Frank Herbert as good of a science fiction author as Clarke, Asimov and Heinlen, the so called Big Three of science fiction?--Moosh88 22:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In what units would you like us to measure "good"? - 21 december 2005
His reputation rests mainly on the Dune series. The Big Three were much more diverse and productive. Clarityfiend 09:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Good Herbert is in the same league as the "Big Three". However, they are not known as the "Big Four"
Strange, when I read Sci-Fi back in the 80s, the "Big Three" seemed to be Clarke, Asimov and Ray Bradbury. Although already then I wondered why I knew so few about Bradbury. 195.46.254.17 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image for top of article

The image that assumedly had been uploaded for the top of the article appears to have been deleted. I removed the empty box for it for now, and hopefully someone has an image that they can upload and place in the article. --Syrthiss 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

RPG link

An anonymous put "http://ramarpg.proboards74.com/index.cgi? Raman simulator" in the external links. This looks like an RPG, but it isn't there yet. I'm removing it for now, but if something develops, it might become interesting later maybe. Or maybe this is just link spam. --ssd 06:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused about 2001 film credit

In the 2001 section, second paragraph, it says, "It was credited to Clarke alone." This doesn't make sense to me -- is "Kubrick" intended/correct? Thx, "alyosha" 05:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about Clarke's spirtual beliefs...

"crypto-buddist" he once said and noted secular humanist.

Attribution of quote needed

The article currently claims that the United States said that Clarke "provided the essential intellectual drive that led us to the moon.", a statement that is taken from a 1994 news release. Since countries themselves do not speak, does anyone know who did say this (or something similar)?Elroch 13:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rescue Party movie wanted

Is is possible to find the short movie Resue Party for legal purchase in any media? DVD preferred, VHS ok, BetaMax slightly-less-ok, film-reel acceptable.


Gentry Lee, co-author or ghostwriter?

He is listed as "co-author" on a number of Clarkes' later books. I believe "ghostwriter" would be more accurate. If one reads the books it appears that they were actually written by Lee and then published with Clarkes' name on them. They do take place in Clarkes' settings and use Clarkes' characters. Their styles are quite different. Clarke is a first rate author. Lee would quickly fade out of print if he published under his own name. Based on his fiction, I had not realized Lee had any real scientific background. Would it be appropriate to change the Wiki article to reflect this?

Having read some of the Clarke/Lee works, I agree that it's difficult to detect any trace of Clarke's style in them. The notion that Lee ghost-wrote them is quite plausible. However, we cannot state it as fact in a Wikipedia article without citing a reliable source. Accordingly, I have tagged that statement with the {{citation needed}} template. Pat Berry 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No one has come forward with a citation, so I am deleting the statement that Clarke's later works were ghostwritten. I am aware of no evidence supporting that notion. Pat Berry 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarke in gaming

someone should add a section on the few Video Games that have been made out of his books. User:Zerath13

Wait! Time out! Please sign your comments when you add your thoughts in this subject and all the other areas of Wikipedia. Thank You for you co-operation! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I made a slight edit in the Introduction; I think it reads a bit better this way. CFLeon 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deist, agnostic, atheist?

Is it compatible for Clarke to be categorised both as a "Deist thinker" and an agnostic? I thought he was an atheist--I believe that's the category he was in some time ago.

2001 as first section? WTF?

Why is the first section on one small part of this man's life? It needs to be moved or deleted or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.217.6.9 (talk • contribs).

I agree that it's placement is odd. Someone more familiar with the article than myself should move it to a more appropriate place. - Dr. Zaret 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Report on Planet Three

I'm deleting this from the list of novels, since it isn't a novel. Johnny Pez 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

World of Strange Powers on DVD yet?

Clarke is also well known to many for his television programmes Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World (1981) and Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers (1984).

Does anyone know if there are any plans to release either of those shows on DVD? I remember hearing rumors on and off but does anyone know what the story is? Or even if Clarke is aware that these works are not available on DVD? (Simonapro 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Puzzlements and miscellany

1. This sentence from "Themes, styles and influences":

"Despite this, Clarke's style was open to humour and a degree of whimsy which salted its propagandist tone regarding scientific advancement with a sting in the tail."

Can someone tell me what it's trying to say?

It's just lousy, pretentious writing. Hayford Peirce 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I edited the section, and that sentence is gone. But those paragraphs still need work. ChrisWinter 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And now it's back. Further, there's no sign of that version in the history. What gives? ChrisWinter 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've just taken it out again. And this time I'll keep it out. Hayford Peirce 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've no idea who put it back — if anyone did. My edit of 11 August is missing from the history, which makes me suspect some sort of glitch in Wikipedia's servers. Does that sound sensible? ChrisWinter 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I *know* that I made a minor edit in another article about the same time, in which, like here, I simply removed a sentence, then saved it. A while later I went back to the article and discovered that there was no record of what I had done. Just a Wiki glitch, I guess. Hayford Peirce 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "'The Sentinel' (1948) introduced a religious theme to Clarke's work, a theme that he later explored more deeply in "The Star". His interest in the paranormal was influenced by Charles Fort and embraced the belief that mankind may be the property of an ancient alien civilization. Surprisingly for a writer who is often held up as an example of hard science fiction's obsession with technology, three of Clarke's novels have this as a theme."

I know Childhood's End is one. Which are the other two?

3. I also think that the article should say a bit more about Clarke's involvement with the BIS and his life on Sri Lanka. WRT the latter, I know he played an important role in a school or university in Colombo -- Chancellor or some such.

4. Concerning who are the "Big Three" authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction, see the article on A. E. van Vogt. There's a potential conflict there.

Not really. Van Vogt was a big shot *before* Clarke first appeared. Clark did not really become a major writer in the SF world until, oh, let's say the late 40s, early 50s. By which time Van Vogt had partially vanished. The "Big Three" was probably not used for Clarke, Asimov, and RAH until the 60s, or maybe even later. Hayford Peirce 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Finally, having a list of books here and a separate article about his books (collectively) with a similar list seems like overkill. --ChrisWinter 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to external links

The list of external links has been tagged for cleanup for some time. I propose to change it as follows:

External links

The following links point to supplemental material on Arthur C. Clarke, or to links to such material.

Interviews

Awards and organizations startedor influenced by Clarke

Other links

Links deleted

Because it's on the page of links pointed to by entry #5 above.
Because it's on the links page, and appears (or should appear) as a reference in the text.
Because that page doesn't make it clear what Clarke's contribution to cooperation in space was: that he's been a long-time advocate of satellite monitoring as a means of arms control. I think it would be better to put this link back in the article proper, inside a paragraph that discusses those contributions.
Because AFAICT it has only a tenuous connection to Clarke's work.
Because, again, the science abstractor job is a minor part of Clarke's career. The link should to to a paragraph above.
Bare mention of Clarke as a member, halfway down the long page, and a tiny photo. Once again, I'd put this in the paragraph about his SCUBA diving.
Because it's just a greenhouse named in honor of Clarke.

Links added

None. I was going to suggest adding a link to the Science Museum reproduction of Clarke's Wireless World article, but I see that one's on the links page too. Also, it appears as a reference above, or it should. In fact, I'd put in 3 references to the commsat idea: R-Bianci, Lakdiva, and Science Museum. ChrisWinter 05:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Publishing date of Prelude to Space contradiction

The bibliography gives a 1951 date for Clarke's first novel. The actual article on the book says 1953. Which is correct? 23skidoo 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to my copy of Twentieth Century Science Fiction Writers (2nd ed.) (1986), it was published in New York by Galaxy Books in 1951; in London by Sidgwick and Jackson in 1953; as Master of Space by Lancer Books, New York in 1961, and again by them in 1969 as The Space Dreamers. -- Arwel (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Radar experience

The article says "he ... was involved in the early warning radar defence system which contributed to the RAF's success during the Battle of Britain.". Is this really right? I thought he joined the airforce during the war (after the Battle of Britain, I assume) and was involved in the Ground Controlled Approach system which can't really be called an "early warning radar defence system". EdDavies 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct. His (excellent) novel 'Glide Path' was based on this experience. TechnoFaye Kane 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)