5 way tie for 5th so far-go Roger!
The voting structure is probably to “blame” for that, FF, since you can’t express your preference for your 2nd-best choice.
Ditto. I just felt that Clarke’s later stuff was such a letdown that it biased me against him. I recently read “The Last Theorem” and was sorely disappointed; the magic and sparkle seemed to have vanished entirely. OTOH, if some of Clarke’s later work was crap, so was some of Asimov’s - “Prelude to Foundation”, anyone? Lord, how I hated those two prequels. If I could go back and erase them from my memory, leaving me with the happiness of never having seen them, I’d do it in a heartbeat.
Tough call.
I have to confess I’m surprised that Heinlein isn’t further ahead. It might be interesting to have a version of the poll that omits Heinlein and Asimov from consideration.
I cast my vote for E. E. Doc Smith for the sake of him doing the definitive space opera, but I’d also be strongly tempted to vote for Cordwainer Smith, Ted Sturgeon, or Leigh Brackett. I personally classify the Dying Earth stories as fantasy rather than science fiction, which is why Vance wouldn’t get my vote in the SF category.
With only one vote, I had to go with Heinlein. If it were a multiple choice poll, then Spider would have gotten a vote from me.
Yeah, as a winnowing poll this really should have been a three- or five-vote scheme. Heinlein et al would have still been in, easily. But it would have allowed greater distribution to second and third favorites so that the Top 5 were better fleshed out.
As it is I feel I have to vote strategically instead of for my favorite(s).
Only one? Dammit.
I had to vote based on what I see as influence on the genre, and not just my personal favourite storytellers (in which case, Vance, Cordwainer Smith, Poul Anderson and Ted Stugeon would have had to fight it out).
But is “personal favorite” equivalent to Grand-Master? A Grand-Master is the best of the best, recognizable, the one that causes a hush when she/he enters the room-someone who’s life work you can put forth to a stranger and say, “THIS is what we mean by Science Fiction!”
I agree with Oak on this.
I met Mr. Robinson at an SF con and he was a genuinely great guy to talk with.
The kind you’d want to introduce to your friends not because he is ‘famous’ but because he is a great guy.
The Calahan series is a genre creating type of work.
Hard to ignore that kind of genius.
(OK, I know Sir Arthur did ‘Tales from the White Hart’ forst, but it wasn’t the same, dammit!)
Vance, Cordwainer Smith, and Sturgeon easily fall into that category. Anderson would be debatable IMO.
Niven and Pournelle put that sort of behavior re: Heinlein inside one of their own books. Heinlein (in the guise of a writer named ‘Anson’) is the one that all the other writers stop speaking when he wishes to speak. One of the non-writer characters claims they’ve seen generals get less respect.
But I like Anderson. He’s fun.
Then he should have no trouble in a poll titled “Pick the most fun SF Writer”
Yes, maybe we should do that next. I might exclude Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke from that one; they’re all of a kind, I think, and I’ve heard them referred to as the “three Grandmasters of Science Fiction” before.
If you asked people to name the three greatest science fictin writers, the most common combination would be Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. The only real dispute is generally the order between them.
The real surprise for me is that Clarke trails the other two so badly. Perhaps his work has not stood the test of time like Heinlein and Asimov, or his output is too thin.
It might be the foreign angle. Both Asimov and Heinlein are deep down American writers.
Still, for me Clarke holds up better than Asimov, actually. The collection of Clarke’s short stories I have is excellent. He is, without a doubt, the best writer of the bunch. But he never quite got the adventure part of it all.
Of those three, I’d go with Clarke. I’m not much of a scientist, but I know from genre fiction, and he’s the only one whose fiction is IMO enjoyable.
Of course, if I were trying to show a stranger why science fiction is such a powerful genre, I’d show them The Dispossessed, a novel that uses a McGuffin to explore human nature and does it very well. There’s no way I’d show them Asimov’s work–yeesh!
I voted Cordwainer Smith because I have gone back to his stories again and again. Sturgeon would have been my second choice.
I can understand why Heinlein leads. If I were to vote for someone from that tradition I would have with Niven.
Exactly—when you read Time Enough for Love you think to yourself “that Lazarus guy has all the fun. I want to be him.”
1 vote for Silverberg, 2 votes for Ellison, but Douglas Adams gets 3 votes? I think Adams stuff is truly hilarious, but would you really look at the bulk of his work and say,“This, more than anything else, should represent what science fiction should be”?
There may be some strategic voting going on.
Besides that, Asimov surprises me - is this name recognition? Has anybody actually read his works… not that great at all.