![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Do the Grand Masters Matter Anymore?
Aug. 24th, 2009 06:43 amJust got to thinking about this while reading a post about Isaac Asimov on OpenSalon. The author was waxing enthusiastically about the potential for turning more Asimov stories into films, but I politely disagreed with him, pointing out that Asimov was better at putting forth ideas than creating three dimensional characters that a viewer in a theater might connect with.
It got me to thinking about whether any of the big three, Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and their contemporaries who started the Golden Age of Science Fiction are relevant today. I'm not going to argue whether they were important back then. That's undisputed. It was their efforts that pulled sci fi out o the ghetto of rayguns and tentacled monsters threatening buxom blondes on the cover of digest mags to the "Literature of Ideas" that we cherish today. But a hundred years from now will we still be reading them or studying them, like we do Shakespeare? Or will we have put them aside to be ignored, like so many of Shakespeare's contemporaries?
Because let's face it, characterization is not their strong suit. Heinlien tends to come on out ahead, despitean obsession with polyamorous redheads certain quirks. But Clarke tends to fall back on a menagerie of stoic, sexless engineers or (in his more humorous works) flat characters that wouldn't look out of place in an Ealing comedy.[1] Asimov almost always left me cold, despite the intriguing nature of his puzzle stories. His later Foundation/Robot epics were just too painful for me to try to finish.
Ultimately characterization is what I read for. Someone I can connect to and admire, as they struggle with some strange new problem never seen before in our world. That's what made Shakespeare's works as relevant today as they did in his time, human nature never really changing. Can we say the same about the worlds of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein, when all they have are ideas that have been superseded by today's technology, examined by characters we no longer can connect to?
[1] And god, some of his early works, particularly his Sands of Mars, seem intent on re-creating the British Empire IN SPACE. Complete with loyal natives to help their newwhite human masters.
It got me to thinking about whether any of the big three, Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and their contemporaries who started the Golden Age of Science Fiction are relevant today. I'm not going to argue whether they were important back then. That's undisputed. It was their efforts that pulled sci fi out o the ghetto of rayguns and tentacled monsters threatening buxom blondes on the cover of digest mags to the "Literature of Ideas" that we cherish today. But a hundred years from now will we still be reading them or studying them, like we do Shakespeare? Or will we have put them aside to be ignored, like so many of Shakespeare's contemporaries?
Because let's face it, characterization is not their strong suit. Heinlien tends to come on out ahead, despite
Ultimately characterization is what I read for. Someone I can connect to and admire, as they struggle with some strange new problem never seen before in our world. That's what made Shakespeare's works as relevant today as they did in his time, human nature never really changing. Can we say the same about the worlds of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein, when all they have are ideas that have been superseded by today's technology, examined by characters we no longer can connect to?
[1] And god, some of his early works, particularly his Sands of Mars, seem intent on re-creating the British Empire IN SPACE. Complete with loyal natives to help their new
