Long ago my wife and daughters found my pronouncements amusing. I codified them in a set of rules (which became referred to as the Rules of Acquisition after the Ferengi rules in ST: Deep Space 9). I have three related to fiction and opinions
16. Opinions are like certain bodily orifices. Critically important but not something decent people expose in public.
17. In fiction (Written, Visual, or Interactive) I desire a story and escape. If I want morals I’ll hear a sermon, if I want to work at something I’ll go to work and get paid for it.
18. This is not to say a writer or other content producer may NOT provide meaning or morals. Just don’t shove it in my face unceasingly (Remember that orifice in rule 16? You wouldn’t shove that in my face either).
And yes Clarke and Asimov are far more of the “Idea” arm of SciFi. Asimov often has to work to make his male characters two dimensional. His female characters rarely rose to that and are almost literally paper cutouts. Clarke uses some stereotypes in his early short stories, but almost all his stories even the Big ones like 2001 , Childhood’s End and Rendevous with Rama depend far more on story (and the first two are reusing parts of several short stories pasted together) than on character. I think it is why Asimov and Clarke excel in the shorter forms (up to about Novella) but struggle more ion the longer forms. This may also stem from the fact that from mid ’40s to mid 60’s the primary form (and most financially viable form) of Scifi was the magizines either as short stories or serialized for longer pieces. These forms make character development harder I would think.
Agreed on the three rules. I’ve stated similar things myself over the years.
I’m not qualified to discuss the character development skills of professional authors. I do know that I always enjoyed Asimov’s stories while Clarke’s were a slog to get through. I often finished them because I started them, not because I enjoyed the reading.
I think you qualify to critique these authors when you plunk down the cash. Luckily the reading population probably has a range of tolerances. But I know what you’re saying about the differences among these authors.
I’m a reader and have read vast quantities of SciFi as well as more traditional literature, so I consider it legitimate to analyze writing, That said I am to some degree violating my own rule 16 :-), the old saying is that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. For comparison look to fellow period authors Like Heinlein and Bradbury, both have better character development in their longer pieces, although the shorts tend to limit that. We may also be seeing a selection Bias. John Campbell was notorious for being specific about things he liked and what he would publish.… Read more »
I’ve enjoyed talking about sf with you guys. It’s much more fun than politics. I think tomorrow’s post should be about sf again.