I don’t know why he said those words attributed to him, if indeed he said them. There may well be life on Mars–I don’t think we can even rule out intelligent (if very weird and deep underground) life there. Nor do I worship the “consensus” of scientists in complicated cases like extraterrestrial life, wherein we don’t know for sure whether we even know which questions to ask. That life simply MUST be, or even is at all LIKELY to be, “as we know it” is an extrapolation from exactly ONE (us) known case to EVERY OTHER (them) POSSIBLE case; and I think we ought to approach such things with modesty aforethought.
Nevertheless, to say that the existence of life on Mars is beyond dispute is rubbish; inasmuch as it IS being disputed every day.
Alas, people DO get old and lose all perspective. I waded through the so-called “last” of the 2001 series not long ago–at least up to about a third through–and tossed it aside. The scientific and logical errors, the simple lack of style and literary deftness, led me to conclude–then–that ACC had allowed his name to be printed on a work written almost entirely by one of his pre-need executors–probably Gentry Lee. Now I’m not so sure. Maybe the remains of Arthur C. Clarke really ARE capable of churning out a final potboiler.
One might mention the final years of Bertrand Russell is this sad context of the aged and exploitable.
And by the way, we ARE in Millenium Three. Is it really necessary to delicately tiptoe around any discussion of what we might (delicately) term “the undiscussed question of Mr. Clarke’s personal life and tastes”? My guess is we’ll be soon discovering that it wasn’t all about skin diving and sunswept beaches. --Which has no great bearing on anything else here, except that I fear it will alter the general perception of ACC as a dry-witted apostle of science in the service of the common good. I’m already regretting the loss.
ACC has always been my favorite, the first serious SF writer I discovered. I do believe he is slipping he also seems to believe in “cold fusion” as well.
If by this you mean the rumors that Clarke favors the company of young boys, then I really don’t think so. It didn’t hurt William S. Burroughs, and whilst it might have been shocking and damning for Oscar Wilde during his life to be found to be a homosexual, it really hasn’t done much harm to his reputation in the years since his death. (Not equating child-molestation with homosexuality, mind you. I just think that Clarke’s actions and writings will outshine any evil he might have done.)
I’m not giving a Chester a pass, but what impact does his lasciviousness have on his accomplishment or greater meaning? Does one’s personal life or opinion, albeit odious, make a bit of difference about one’s place in or contribution to our culture? After all, Ride of the Valkyries is still a bloody good tune.
I do much the same. I am using a spiral galaxy image as wallpaper. It is an awfully stupid thing to admit but I actually felt sorry for the Mars machine when it finally went off the air.
I keep thinking that NASA is missing a real money-spinner by not setting up some special (paid) services for people. I read a science-fiction story once where NASA set up guided VR tours of Mars. Sure, the images are time-shifted by a few minutes but who cares?