Battle of the Hard Sci-Fi Classics [100 Book Challenge #35-40]

SFUltra:
/ sfultra
If you would like to see in-depth reviews of single books, where I am able to share my thoughts in greater detail and care less about KZbin content restrictions, please visit my Patreon. $5 gets you everything.
/ bookpilled
Join my Discord server:
/ discord
Follow me on Instagram:
@book.pilled
My other KZbin channel, about reselling things online:
/ thriftalife
Join my Discord server:
/ discord
Follow me on Instagram:
@book.pilled
My other KZbin channel, about reselling things online:
/ thriftalife
00:00 Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
02:37 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke
05:11 The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein
10:50 I, Robot, Isaac Asimov
14:25 The Gods Themselves, Isaac Asimov
19:54 The Verdict
23:47 SFUltra

[@OLJeffo]

RwR is a great example of how Clarke does not really write "novels" in the modern sense of long-form fiction with characters that develop meaningfully in response to dramatic conflicts. His books offer futuristic, often cosmic, happenings, wonderfully imagined to be sure, but the characters exist only to observe, react to, and comment upon those happenings.

[@Bookpilled]

Very well put.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I enjoyed RwR and found it absorbing many years ago. Ruined by the sequels though. I actually gave up on them. Sometimes a mystery is best left as a mystery. I think your point about the characters is what I was failing to communicate. The change of gear to more character conflicts didn't work for me

[@aajiv1748]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 Yeah the sequels have Arthur C. Clarke in Huge type face , so one does not notice they were written by Gentry Lee . It looks like Lee had only a cursory contact with Clarke, who I am sure cashed a large advance. I got through about 2 chapters of Rama II before throwing it into my give-away pile.

[@aajiv1748]

Curious thing, Denis Villeneuve has listed Rendezvous with Rama as the film he is doing after finishing Dune 2 and making Cleopatra (depending on Cleopatra actually getting greenlighted).

[@frankmorlock9134]

Clarke is one of the very few authors who are able to manage without interesting characters because his stories are so well conceived. If you compare him to Jules Verne for example, it's the other way around. Verne's characters are very lively if not terribly convincing, Verne started as a dramatist and his dramatic talent though not great is always present and occasionally helpful.

[@AwesomeTingle]

I read Rama last year and it blew me away. I couldn't tell you a single character's name, and I don't think they really matter in this story. They're just there to allow you to discover "Rama," and wow what an adventure. Probably my favorite "archaeology" book.

[@MG-bs5mr]

I'd agree, it gave me a sense of awe. Did you read the rest of the series?

[@AwesomeTingle]

@@MG-bs5mr No I haven't, at least not yet. I read online somewhere that Clarke's involvement in the rest of the series was minimal, and the answers you get aren't as exciting as the mystery was. But that could be wrong- did you enjoy them?

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

@@AwesomeTingle I didn't enjoy the rest of the series, at least in part because it was more character based

[@MG-bs5mr]

@@AwesomeTingle you've pretty much summed up the other three books to be fair. You get all the answers but I felt that the other books lost that sense of awe. They were a bit "meh."

[@MG-bs5mr]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 I didn't mind them being character based but yeah, I definitely think that the first book stands out above the others. By a mile. I'm glad I read them to get the answers. But they didn't feel like "Arthur C Clarke answers."

[@chrisw6164]

Clarke is still the ultimate gateway writer for science fiction. I think we will still be pointing new people to Childhood’s End, 2001, and Rendezvous with Rama long after I’m gone.

[@winsomehax]

Childhood's end has always seemed ageless to me. Which is quite an achievement for a 1953 SF novel.

[@beefymario88]

Mine was ‘Against the Fall of Night.’

[@emsleywyatt3400]

Heinlein wrote at two levels. The ones written for an adult audience and his so-called juveniles. In the latter, the sexual innuendo was either non-existent or extremely muted, but they contained (but sadly without much elaborating) some pretty high concepts, suitable for any adult audience work today. "Double Star", "Tunnel in the Sky" and "Orphans of the Sky", which you touched on, are fine examples. It should also be remembered that Heinlein hit his stride as a writer when the "sexual revolution" was in full flower. Silverberg and Farmer are also examples of this. Oh, and maybe "The Puppet Masters" might be worth an examination.

[@grene1955]

Firstly, as a 68 year old long time Sci-Fi fan with hundreds of books...I love your reviews! I don't always agree, but I love the thoughtful analysis you bring to the books. I think that to a point, you have to look at these like reading Jules Verne. They are a product of their time. Cold war, capitalism vs. communism, many authors raised with a misogynistic attitude, exploring new ways of thinking...they don't always get it right by "modern" standards. But as a young reader, they definitely expanded my mental horizons.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

We also have to remember that authors including Heinlein complained vigorously to their editors about the censorship imposed in America. The editors frequently insisted on alterations that the authors felt were at odds with the intent of the story. John Campbell was known to get other authors to alter some writers. I suspect that even when attitudes changed some authors were canalized in their writing and by extension their attitudes

[@frankmorlock9134]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 Very interesting.

[@Tetsujin-28]

Donuts in the sand, Laurel & Hardy ,broccoli and strawberry yogurt . I love this channel.

[@salty-walt]

Omg. You're right! You hit the high points! (As did Matt)

[@logan.horning]

the water the world swims in... yeah, me too :D

[@JohnG225]

Read Rendezvous with Rama many many years ago and I'd list it in my top 5 favourites. That said, now you mention it, I can't remember a single character. Great video.

[@shipraider333]

“Eating a donut that’s been dropped in sand” that was hilarious. Another great video, enjoyed it!

[@frankmorlock9134]

I loved it, too. Rather gritty image.

[@leannab3865]

You would be such an awesome teacher! I love how you break a book down and explain what you liked and didn’t like about it. This is the perfect channel for young people to spark that interest in reading.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Reading what? SF varies significantly. Before the New Wave invasion of the 60s it was more about ideas and technology than literary quality as judged by literary intellectuals. I have read reviews of Orphans of the Sky where the reviewer obviously did not understand the pseudo-gravity created by the spinning cylinder. The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin undoubtedly has better writing than Voyage from Yesteryear by James P Hogan but I would bet that Hogan knew more about technology and economics.

[@leannab3865]

@@psikeyhackr6914 the hamburger tasted like a waffle today.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@leannab3865 Like Freud said, "Sometimes a hamburger is just a waffle."

[@donaldb1]

I grew up with these authors. My intro to SF was from my Dad's library, which had a lot of all three them (along with John Wyndhan, Frederick Pohl and Christopher Priest I particularly remember). So I have fond memories of these three "Masters of the Golden Age", but I think Clarke is probably the one who has aged the best. I can't go back to Asimov or Heinlein now for anything more than historical interest. Henlein I used to read voraciously, I must confess partly for all those things about him that were seemingly designed to make adolescent boys with limited life-experience feel mature and sophisticated and iconoclastic. But I got over it.

[@northof-62]

Good job getting through that without throwing any into your fireplace!

[@Warstub]

Starship Troopers is the only Heinlein book I've been able to finish. I feel the same about his writing. The End of Eternity is the Asimov book I enjoyed the most and still remember (... enjoying)

[@bookssongsandothermagic]

Lentils and strawberry yoghurt…amazing. Love how you review books in general and this was an awesome video.

[@Gary-zq3pz]

Heinlein was more into character development, Clarke was about building strong stories, and Asimov was a 'big picture' guy.

[@Zackathor]

Within this video holds the most thoughtful description of why Robert Heinlein is a pervert on maybe the entire internet. A+ content.

[@adamconnor1898]

I don't see how anyone who read later Heinlein could doubt it. I remember trying to read some of it as a horny teenage boy and just being creeped out.

[@bimsbarkas]

I used to like heinlein, but even back then he was, at least in his books for adults, a raging pervert. With time and more reading, i have to concede most other points in this review. He is obnoxiously clever, and his politics are horrible, there are very few redeeming qualities.

[@winsomehax]

I loved Asimov's robot stories as a teenager - setup the three laws and explore their failures. Great. I revisited some later and they didnt quite hold the same punch. His three original Foundation novels though... They were still extremely readable. I still get a kick from the failure of Seldon's crisis message and the panic as they realise their great sage's plan is off track.

[@noeditbookreviews]

I love how you use food analogies to help convey a richer understanding.

[@WordsinTime]

Of the 3 Clarke books I’ve read I would rank them: 1. Childhood’s End 2. 2001 3. Rama. But I thoroughly enjoyed all of them. I guess I like lentils.

[@Bookpilled]

I agree with those ranks. Nothing wrong with lentils.

[@frankmorlock9134]

I enjoy eating lentils, I mean relly.

[@steveg1961]

With Rendezvous With Rama, the main character is the ship itself. All of the human characters are secondary or tertiary characters. A lot of readers don't seem to realize this. I first read this novel when I was a teenager. I'm now 62 years old, and I've re-read the novel twice since the 1970s. It's a fantastic story. Still in my personal list of "Top 10" science fiction stories. Definitely better than 2001: A Space Odyssey or Childhood's End, in my opinion. I would love to get a chance to see this made into a movie (a movie that does justice to the story) before I die.

[@rickkearn7100]

Great review, BP, your perspective is fresh and no-BS. Thanks for the shout out on SF Ultra, shall check it out. And your shout out to another SF-related YT channel, the good chap in the UK, was a fine gesture. Looking forward to your upcoming "3-book chunks" format and more frequent posts. Cheers.

[@joebrooks4448]

Good reviews, thank you. An honest assessment of Rendezvous With Rama. Not terrible, not memorable. I am still a major fan of RAH. Let me qualify that. I do not recall the illness he suffered about 1960, but that hurt his writing dramatically. Nothing after "Glory Road" seemed like RAH. Actually, only "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" out of all of them after 1962 is not an embarrassing abomination. I am not usually that blunt, as he deserves respect for his prior tremendous accomplishments. For RAH in his prime, read "The Past Through Tomorrow." Short stories, novelettes, wide variety. For a short novel, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag*" is great. And you will see that influence right up thru today... I just reread both of these and a few others, "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" is fantastic SF in nearly every way, just my opinion. I have read it 20 times over 50 years... * Corrected, left out "of"

[@NatyFC]

your reviews are absolutely the best

[@BomageMinimart]

I don't agree with everything you say but I love watching you videos; it's the next best thing to actually having conversations about these books.

[@jameswalker6168]

I cannot understand why but I really do enjoy your videos and find them quite relaxing. Keep it up.

[@billbez7465]

Love the channel, but also love Issac Asmiov; he is favorite author. Thank you!!

[@emsleywyatt3400]

It needs to be remembered about Asimov that he wrote much of his most noted works as a very young man. Pick up "Robots of Dawn" to see how he matured as a writer.

[@MichaelDeeringMHC]

My favorite Heinlein book is The Puppet Masters. I like Heinlein. I've read all of them. I agree with his politics and his misogyny. You probably don't like me either.

[@donaldb1]

Slight correction - in the 2001 movie the mission goes to Jupiter, but in the book it goes to Saturn, which allows Clarke to go into lots of detail about slingshot orbits and so on that Kubrick must have found uncinematic, not surprsingly. The book and movie are definitely worth looking at together because of the way they differ in telling the same story. But another interesting thing is that when Clarke came to write his sequel, it is definitely a sequel to the movie, not to his own novel.

[@chrisw6164]

Thank you, I had forgotten the “slingshot” aspect for the book being set around Saturn vs the movie being set around Jupiter. It’s been decades since I’ve read 2001.

[@theoldman2821]

Slight correction - Kubrick.

[@donaldb1]

@@theoldman2821 Ta - corrected.

[@patrickocallaghan3429]

The main reason the movie used Jupiter rather than Saturn is that Kubrick couldn't see how to show Saturn's rings in a realistic way.

[@apriori_dasein]

It's high time you re-watched 2001, odds are that what we found boring in our youth would impress us by the time we come of age and go around the block once or twice. It's a masterpiece that trumps the novel by a mile, and I don't use that word lightly. Thanks for the content.

[@luiznogueira1579]

Totally agree with you on Heinlein. Don't remember any of his books as being particularly enjoyable. Your critique of Clarke and Asimov are spot on as well, imo, although I never found Clarke's 'nuts and bolts' descriptions boring(well, I was young...would probably have a harder time reading him now) Lentils, indeed...😂

[@s.t.5993]

Arthur c Clarke, Asimov and Herbert . Rama, foundation and dune, introduced me to this genre in high school. Nowadays they look simplistic but 100% they should be introductory for people to understand and appreciate the sci fi genre

[@Jason_Quinn]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1120">18:40</a> LOL I am a Heinlein fan and an Asimov fan but I never knew this. I'll be picking this one up, thank you!

[@douglasdea637]

Mostly I'll just parrot what others have said here. I read Clarke and Asimov when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. Loved them both, just about equally. I read sci-fi for the ideas and the mystery of it. I love books where something is discovered and humans have to investigate it to learn about their fate, about aliens, our place in the galaxy, etc. Thus books like Rama and 2001 really appeal to me. (Pohl's Gateway is another book I love.) That the characters are flat and dull I don't care. Scientists tend to be cerebral and non-dramatic anyway. I want to know about the thing, the mystery that could shape human civilization, not about the ups and downs of those studying it. Asimov is just amazing in the breadth of what he wrote, hundreds of books on every topic. Novels for children and novels for adults. There's really no other writer like him. I never read The Gods Themselves but I did enjoy I, Robot and Foundation including the later books that tie both of those threads together. Heinlein... I liked Starship Troopers when I was a teenager. Cool book. Years later I tried Job: A Comedy of Justice and found it dull. Today I can't remember a thing about it. There's a few other Heinlein books I want to check off someday, Moon is one, Friday is another. Who knows when I'll get to them.

[@zonkster909]

Heinlein was the king. Not close. I could name at least 4 of his novels that should be made into movies yesterday. Glory Road, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough For Love…. And on and on really.

[@svendtang5432]

RwR was an incredible plausible story… sometimes I get so tired with drama and characters navel watching. I just want to dive into the mystery.. and Rama has that quality

[@PsychoholicSlag83]

It's so odd and funny that you mentioned Asimov winking at the reader, because that's exactly what happened crossed my mind while reading some of the plot twists in the Foundation Trilogy. I mean, I LITERALLY pictured Asimov sitting on a chair, against a library with a glass of whisky in one hand and a cigar in the other, narrating the story and winking at the camera when the plot twist came. A really vivid image that took me out of the story at times

[@richelliott9320]

Asimov didn't drink or smoke lol

[@mikes4865]

Your reviews bring me back to my younger days when first read these books. Clarke was my favorite author back then. Now I much prefer more of character development.

[@davidaldinger3666]

I always give all the old writers a chance. They’re writing wasn’t always the best and they were still the products of their time but I read them for their ideas which even now can seem fresh. In most cases I definitely prefer their short stories and novellas to their novels. That extra 100 pages are fluff. Some people use the rule of Before Dune / After Dune or Before Star Trek / After Star Trek.

[@josephnash2081]

Heinlein is at his best in the Juveniles he wrote in the 1950s. The editor Alice Dagliesh at Scribner and Sons kept all of the parts of Heinlein's ideology that you dislike turned down to one.

[@waltera13]

s'trooth.

[@zonkster909]

I’ve always thought that Lazarus Long was the most iconic character in all of sci-fi. Time Enough For Love literally transported me from pre-WW America to the far reaches of the galaxy. Nothing else came close.

[@paulallison6418]

I can understand why you are not blown away by Rendezvous with Rama, this is one of my all time favourites but I read this about 40 years ago. I guess 2001 is less "dated", 4o years ago Rendezvous was higher for me but now 2001 is higher. I'm not keen on Heinlein either - of course the dated sexual approach was ignored when I was reading Heinlein (and other writers) 40 years ago. The Gods Themselves is excellent but again its a distant memory. Other Clarke books I love are City & The Stars & A fall of Moondust. Asimovs best books apart from FOUNDATION SERIES are the robot novels, CAVES OF STEEL, THE NAKED SUN are both great.

[@frans-jozefhendrickx2267]

Thank you for these opinions, I generally agree. This examination illustrates a notion that I have thought about for some months, the visual landscape verses literary “shorthand” used. In particular the references to 2001 and “I, Robot” with both a film (English ancestry) and book. This notion centers around the visual “language” the reader uses to complete a performance of literature. This notion of a visual “language” is not new but I think it has a greater effect than most consider. This aggregates context, education (mandatory and self), exposure and generational differences in one discordant conglomeration. Discordant because rather than neat generational (20 years or so) steps the generations are a continuum. Also the elements mentioned are so interdependent with each other. For any reader/viewer Context includes, social, personal and societal histories, knowledge and speculations. Education typically builds a set of agreed cultural and societal “facts” we share. Exposure to imagery, media and marketing along with trends and “new” concepts are specific to each reader. Generational differences are tradition/novelty, conformity/revolution and many other contradictory behaviours. All of which generates a specific, individual visual language. Prior to the rise of mass visual media (before “Quatermass”, “Doctor Who”, “The Invaders” and “Star Trek:TOS”) the average reader had a limited stock of visual cues (regularly) available so a “visual language” required a larger reliance on personal imagination. This identifies my particular visual context to the late 60’s TV and 70’s comics (Dan Dare, 2000AD and so on). Once enthused into SciFi I began to delve into past works as you do today but my visual “language” was much more limited or more specifically, less commonly shared (highly personal). Oh damn! Forgot the 50’s film serials (Rocketman, Flash Gordon, etc) shown Saturday mornings at all local (London) cinemas. The principle effect I now recognise today is that I am more interested in the conceptual framework than the visual representations. An argument I’ve had is that I am not enamoured with “Star Wars” because the concept was familiar to me, not new. I am more interested in the story telling techniques, plot and resolutions than the wonderful new visual techniques and technologies. The upshot of Star Wars for me was that I could concentrate more on the story than use my imagination to fill in production value faults. 2001: a space odyssey was my first exposure to a Kubrick film (distressingly high production values) thus I saw the film and never read the book. Unconsciously I recognised that my visual language or imagination could not compete with the visual splendour. Also Clark was and is a tough read for me. The discussions, debates and pontifications engendered satisfied my need to understand the story. Not so I, Robot, I read the serials, short stories and expanded or compiled books before exposure to the star vehicle I, Robot film. What I saw prior and since confirmed that the concept and story were compromised or “artistic licensed” to death. I did not imagine the slick organic modern style humanoid robots rather Asimov’s boxy stick figured robot limping across Venus, an ambulatory toaster lying to me or the stoic nursemaid (suitably robust and threatening) unconditionally loved by a child. I am taking too long, too many words but that is me. So in conclusion consider the context of both the author and reader, the shared visual language, what was known and speculated (flying cars) and the visual mediums each generation initially developed in. This could assist in the “suspension of disbelief” needed to appreciate the “classics” indeed I think this notion is not genre specific but required for any literature even modern media forms. Again thank you for your opinions they do inspire interesting cogitations.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I struggle with films because it's never my imagined story and visuals. If I've read a book and enjoyed it, the film doesn't live up to it but unfortunately spoils the book subsequently

[@frans-jozefhendrickx2267]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 I had and have a similar response but I changed my point of view. I changed my objective from the story and concept to the production. An example was David Brin's "The Postman", one of the worst butcherings of a complex concept into a star vehicle. So I make a game of those book -> films I choose to view, judging how effective or true to the story they are. It's rare I see a film before reading the book but when I do I "forget" the visuals and concentrate on the nuance a literary work offers ("Game of Thrones series" by R.R. Martin).

[@Verlopil]

Haha I picked up The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the first time in about 15 years when I saw you were going to read it, and as soon as I started it I knew you were going to bounce hard off it. To my surprise, so did I. Mike always managed to pull me through it in the past, but I'll tell you, the whole thing with the female lead and the smarmy dialogue just turned me right off and I couldn't go on. I'm female and Heinlein always annoyed me to a degree, but my tastes have changed more than I'd realized and I just can't deal with that anymore. Luckily for me I am not reviewing it and could stop. I really love Big Dumb Object sf stories. I have a hard science/engineering background and just really enjoy the mystery and exploration angle. It's like comfort reading for me, so I do enjoy those sides of Clarke. I do agree with your assessment of Asimov's prose and especially dialogue. I have a lot of trouble reading him these days too.

[@zonkster909]

Heinlein definitely writes in a male ex-military voice… I can’t imagine women of any age enjoying him as much as men do. Very predictable.

[@sleestack13]

I'm going to agree with you about Heinlein. I TRIED to read Moon, Stranger, and Starship Troopers, and DNF'd them all. And that is EXTREMELY rare for me. My buddy who is a big Heinlein fan implores that I should try his short stories, so maybe I will try a collection one day, but It may take me another 20 years to get to it.

[@rossh7186]

I think the best thing I've read by Heinlein is "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoeg". It's a novella. It's not really like anything else I've read by him; I'd say it's more like Harlan Ellison or something. Very spooky and terse atmosphere. He's got some nice short stories, but not astronomically better than loads of other short story writers from around the same time, and some aren't so great, like "The Roads Must Roll". There's two interesting ones I'll mention - I'm not saying they're great stories, just to say. One is "The Green Hills of Earth", which contains the lyrics of a kind of future folk song of spacers and astronauts. He might have been the first writer to think of something like this - and quite nicely you see the song getting mentioned in other writers' stories for some years afterwards! The other is "The Man Who Sold The Moon", which I feel must have been the starting off point for the Elon Musk's and Jeff Bezos's of this world, with the protagonist channelling all his chicanery and sociopathic marketeering to "get humanity to space" no matter the human cost. I won't spoil how preposterously callous the way this unfolds in the story is - but I'm sure someone on the internet will if you can't be bothered reading it. I'm fairly sure I've heard they have both read this at a young age.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

@@rossh7186 Job a Comedy of Justice is another non standard Heinlein. Maybe worth a read for those who dislike most Heinlein

[@rossh7186]

Cheers for that, I'll pick it up if I see it

[@BenjaminsBookclub]

Great Video as always! I love how similar I can find some books to you and how different others can be. Rendezvous with Rama hit me really hard, I read it on a couple plane trips for a work trip, with a great sci fi ambient track in my headphones and I just adored it. The ending was perfect I think. I haven't felt the same level of awe since. I read Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress back to back, and while I don't share his politics either, I ended up enjoying Moon is a Harsh Mistress quite a bit, but it lacks a competent antagonist I believe. But Starship Troopers fell really really flat for me, so much so that I don't think I will be seeking out anymore Heinlein. Currently working my way through all of Asimov's robot books before getting to Foundation. I read the short stories in the collection "Complete robot" edition, I found about as many of them hit as missed. It does have introductions to each section by Asimov which goes a way to explaining what he was trying to say with that group of stories, which helped some and maybe harmed others.

[@be-noble3393]

Your complaint about Hard Sci-fi is one I can relate with as sometimes it can come off as a technology dissertation with plot. (Also, Hard Sci-fi seems to age the worst.) Hard Sci-fi for me works best in a visual media (The Expanse TV series) as you can show the technology without info dumps.

[@markporter6933]

I have to say that I love all 3 authors; but you are correct concerning Rendezvous with Rama. It is a far cry from Childhood's End. My own opinion is that the Foundation trilogy, Childhood's End, and Frank Herbert's Dune series are amongst the best sci fi literature ever written, and I do put them in the category of real literature.

[@barbararowley6077]

I remember loving Rendezvous, but read it first at 11 so that early experience makes it difficult to truly evaluate quality. Do enjoy quietly exploring deserted cities in a book though - one of the reasons I loved Lovecraft’s Mountains of Madness. Must admit I’ve not read any Heinlein I really clicked with. Mum didn’t mind his work, so I did try. Big Asimov fan, but with the same qualifier as Clarke. Books that you read as a child or young teenager become a part of you in a way that only the very best books you encounter as an adult can and that hugely impacts your view.

[@DamnableReverend]

Asimov was my first favourite science fiction writer. I started reading him when I was really, really young, and within the time of about four or five years I read everything I could get my hands on by him. SInce then I guess he was supplanted by others, and I can't say I've revisited him much since those years. But, he hit me at the right time and I can't help but have a huge amount of respect for what he did. If i were to revisit anything, it'd be some of his hundreds and hundreds fo short stories. I actually really appreciate the, as you described it, "thought experiment" nature of many of his tales. They feel like puzzles, in a way. I used to really like someo f the FOundation stuff but even as a kid I felt the series was pretty inconsistent, with FOundation and Empire being the very obvious stand-out. I also remember really liking the standalone book End of Eternity a lot. I read The God Themselves during that time and, while I can't say I'd have the same feeling so many years later as I did when a child, I don't recall a damn thing about that third part, at all. The second part was very Silverberg-ish, you are right. Cool book but the third part just ground everything down. I guess that is a problem with "fixups" sometimes. The first part was great and the second maybe the weirdest thing to be found in an Asimov novel -- but then it's not over; you gotta read part III! yeah.

[@civoreb]

You put me on Silverberg and now hes the gold standard for old school SF for me. Struggling through The Moon is a Harsh Mistress atm 😅

[@ajaxplunkett5115]

DO YOU ever feel this way: Guilty a bit ( as i do ) judging older works up against , by default , modern high quality works that cover the same themes and ideas of the " classics " of the older period? I wonder sometimes if we would have judged poorly some of The Big Three's works IF born in an earlier time. Yes , I too was impressed by Foundation , and some of Heinlein , a bit of Clark but they do come off a wee bit dusty and bland. I think to myself : What If - I were to read science fiction only in the order of publishing chronology ( a near impossibility i realize ) then it would be more " fair " when judging the merits of the work. But- I guess good story telling is good storytelling regardless when written or what was read first. Still- The publishers / editors and the Readers the writers were writing for- had their own rules/ expectations and taboos( censorship ). I hate not liking " the old classics " . Makes me feel bad. Guilty in a way. I get over it.

[@chrisw6164]

I don’t like Heinlein’s prose either. Drives me nuts. I’ve DNFed most Heinlein’s.

[@alexp3462]

"I read horny people" - you had the perfect clickbait youtube thumbnail text right there. I made myself read the rest of the Asimov robots/Foundation "saga" for the sake of completion recently, and I would simply advise you never to do this. Kinda put me off ever getting round to The Gods Themselves tbh. Agree with you on Clarke's shortcomings but always enjoy being in the worlds he writes, remembering reading Rama when I was a teenager and feeling the wonder of that sense of discovery which I think other writers can struggle matching.

[@scottking4047]

you should try John Varley. He's a bit of all three, especially Heinlein, but with an emotional core the older ones could not approach. I like to think they walked so Varley could fly

[@JackMyersPhotography]

SFULTRA is a great recommendation, btw, thanks!

[@felixfifeauthor]

'Clarke is lentils and Asimov is strawberry yogurt.' I laughed outloud, it's so witty and true. Thanks for your insightful and honest reviews

[@MartiniBlankontherest]

Totally get your meaning. I'm new to reading and Rama was my first space epic series. It is VERY vanilla. Not a lot of fantastical elements. The prose is often flat and grey. I did cry at the end and i loved it for its own sake, but i totally agree. Vanilla.

[@Jamikel351]

Interesting point about Asimov having the greater lineage, but Clarke being the more engaging read, which has definitely been my experience. Though I do think Clarke's legacy is a bit more apparent in cinema than in literature, thanks to the massive shadow the 2001 movie has cast over the sci-fi movie landscape. Just about every director interested in science fiction has made their own (usually vastly inferior) riff on 2001.

[@davidgifford8112]

I was looking forward to this episode. All of these titles I had read decades ago as a teenager. Rama was my first hardback purchase (I so remember talking myself into buying a copy at that price) reading Rama then I felt it was fantastic. I read it again a few years ago and felt the shine had really worn off over the preceding decades. My youthful memory of The Gods themselves is very positive, perhaps I’m better off by not attending to re read it as well. As for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I never really enjoyed it, in fact found better things to do before I finished it.

[@darktower74]

It's interesting to hear your aversion to some of the big names in science fiction, and I was wondering how you felt about John Wyndham. Chocky, Day of the Triffids, etc. I found some of his stories to be quite enjoyable. Perhaps his ideas were greater than his prose (like an alien communicating with a boy from interstellar distances away, somehow teaching the boy how to swim in order to save his drowning sibling), but they were fairly short novels (novellas?) and I recommend some of them to my friends who are readers.

[@bookmeridian]

I really enjoyed Rama, mainly while I read it I was picturing how bad ass Denis Villeneuve will make it. I really gotta pick up Eon, it's been staring at me from my shelf forever.

[@ianevans6909]

I read RWR as it came out. I was a literate teenager and reading a lot of science fiction at the time. It's hard now to convey how powerful it was since so much of science fiction that followed it ripped it off and took its ideas. But there had been nothing quite like it before and the air of mystery - awe, really - that Clarke conveyed in the novel has stayed with me my whole life. I agree with you about Heinlein, and also Asimov - both of whom I have always found to be over rated in their different ways. But Clarke is in a different league, imo, and his approach to science fiction - making the ideas the 'star' of the piece rather than complex or nuanced characterisation is a strength rather than a weakness. And few writers convey a sense of wonder in fiction, of any stripe, better than he.

[@friendlyone2706]

Clarke was a working scientist. Makes a difference.

[@royalewithcheeze]

I almost fully agree with your Heinlein takes, but i keep finding myself reading his stuff, like i feel i'm supposed to read him to be a sci fi fan. but i'm having a really tough time getting through "Time enough for Love." It has to be his magnum opus of ick horn ball writing.

[@joebrooks4448]

In my opinion, RAH wrote only one novel worth reading after Glory Road. The rest are literally trash, and his agent should not have allowed publication. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and it is just OK.

[@Warstub]

24 years later I still have lingering images of Clarke's descriptions from the 3rd part of 2001. He was that good at bringing to life the seemingly unimaginable weirdness of space.

[@thedumbdog1964]

Been watching all your recent videos. Very glad you’ve uploaded. Agree that the computer was the only good thing in that book. Just a nice idea, teaching an AI humor

[@r0kus]

Asimov's writing discipline is legendary. IIRC he had a period where he wrote 60 books in 11 years. A lot were not even science fiction. For example, he wrote long commentaries on the old and new testaments, and many "science explained for the common man" books. He thought of writing like a full time job. He would go to his typewriter each day, and spend like 8 hours there. I don't know if it were more than 5 days a week, but he was very disciplined. I say all this as it might explain something you noticed. You sensed lack of inspiration during some chunks of his books. That could well have derived from him sitting in front of his typewriter out of pure drive, not because his heart was in it.

[@Bookpilled]

Yes, very true. I got this sense while reading it.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I respect Asimov's discipline but personally I think it made him patchy. He did a great job making scientific principles accessible, however I found it wearisome how many titles were published as "Asimov's Amazing Whatever" which had slight actual connection to him

[@evalamont274]

Heinlein, i will fear no evil, was the first book that got me into reading sci-fi and I've enjoyed a lot of his books. 😂 i searched your channel specifically to see how you felt about him after watching your top 15. 😅

[@armandogonzalez8636]

nice strawberry flavor analogy

[@robertmalinowski6804]

It would be interesting if you did a video about all the sequels to one of these series. Or more precisely, whichever one you enjoyed the most, and reading the sequels to that book.

[@sciencefictionreads]

I've always preferred Clarke over Asimov. Vanilla hard sf seems accurate. Its a very different form of the genre than what we have today, and when the mood strikes I absolutely love that stuff. And despite having probably 50 Heinlein books I haven't read anything of his. I've always felt I wont like his stuff and just not in any hurry to check it out.

[@Bookpilled]

Walk, don't run, to Starship Troopers maybe. I read it as a teenager and recall it not being painful to read, at least.

[@joelcarson9514]

The "I, Robot" I remember reading was a collection of SF magazine short stories about robots by Asimov. The stories might feature previously used characters but were pretty much standalone. This was sometime in the late 1960s. The movie bore absolutely no resemblance to the collection of short stories. Of course.

[@VMSelvaggio]

I think it's funny you compare it to Lentils, honestly the best lentils I have ever had were Red Lentils from a fantastic Middle Eastern Restaurant I used to frequent in Arizona.

[@leannab3865]

Love love love your videos.

[@michaelsamerdyke108]

You are right. It is inconvenient to be a science fiction fan and not like Heinlein. Certainly 30 years ago. You summed up my experience very well.

[@richelliott9320]

I agree with you on Heinlein on his later novels but not on the moon is a harsh mistress i really liked that one

[@paultoback3577]

While everyone has the right to like what they like and Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke and to a degree Bradbury are forefathers of sci fi. Well there is Wells and Verne but that may be preGolden age. Meanwhile these authors wrote for the pulps ....paid per word and all these novels were fix ups. Asimov would be the first to say he is not a great writer. Sci fi now would not exist if it were not for these guys In many ways these are required reading and would we have sci fi today if not for these pioneers??? Also the time when these were written and the imagination of the audience of their time need to be considered. FYI ..thank you for Bester and Simak recommendations. Also I am not a fan of 2001. It was a lazy ending and 2010 was a great casted movie with a terrible answer to 2001. The beauty of old sci fi is that it is still available to be read and debated and very much alive in 2023. Finally....i hope you are feeling better as no one should be in pain. And keep making posts they are so great

[@sethball2475]

Of that batch, my standout is Rendezvous with Rama, followed closely by 2001 - but Clarke, like Asimov, is unmemorable for style, or "pizzazz", just like you said. On that note, I never really thought of it before, so concretely, but once you just spelled it out: it is the Voice of an SF writer, the way they write, that got me to read many many books by author A, whereas author B seemed workmanlike, using uninteresting prose telling an interesting story. This ties to your teaser: it is exactly why I read every Bob Shaw book I could find after discovering Orbitsville, in 1984, when I was sixteen years old. It is why I don't feel obsessed to read all things by Clarke or Asimov. Extremes, in my case, where I love going to the author for style, even when I know that I will not necessarily understand the plot or will have trouble with structure, are: John Crowley, or A. A. Attanasio (maybe Jeter too). And this is rare for me, because I am not a "I didn't understand anything that was going on, but I loved it!!" kind of guy. I hated The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I figured you would not be happy, but was not positive. My memories of the book suggested very strongly that I was not going to be in for a surprise, when it came to your reaction. I have had happy times with Asimov's stuff, but not mind-blowing times. I had to fight against a tainted opinion before reading much by him, because when I picked up David Pringle's reading guide, called Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels, back in 1985, I saw that his 2-page essay on the Asimov book he chose for the list, The End of Eternity, started with something like "He is one of the most admired and best loved authors of SF, but I confess to little enthusiasm for his work...But I felt I had to include something...". So there. Pringle goes on to mainly savage the book, with a few bits of praise. I came out of the essay feeling Pringle should have stuck to his principles and, no matter Asimov's reputation, not wasted a "100 Best" list spot with a book he did not like. My problem is, I don't gravitate to fix-up novels. So I have never had the urge to read the bits and pieces that make I, Robot. The Gods Themselves is not tempting me, either. I did read Foundation, and felt it was something patched together. The End of Eternity remains my fave Asimov to date, followed by Second Foundation (I got that as a gift, and skipped right over Foundation and Empire, many years ago). Nemesis was pretty good, Prelude to Foundation bored the living everything out of me. But I would read Asimov again; one of his nonfiction/science books helped me understand something and pass an exam, so I kind of owe him. I think the "3 books per video" idea is great, for both sides. You always seem to come back about three days before I get antsy for the next video; now I suppose you will be back just before I think of you.

[@Bookpilled]

I would like to read End of Eternity and the novel-length version of Nightfall he cowrote with Silverberg. I think that Asimov stands up fine when approached on a level with any other author, divorced from his Mt Rushmore prestige. Fix-ups are rough when they aren't fixed up properly. But some of my favorite books are fix-ups.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I find Asimov and Clarke patchy. I would assume because they wrote SO MUCH. Sometimes less is more I recently tried to reread Foundation and wondered why I was doing so but have kept it on my shelf for decades

[@stephenmorton8017]

a random find at the thrift: Gregory Benford's Galactic Center Series. i'm being constantly amazed at the concepts he threw out in 1984. they are everywhere now in the literature. tidally locked planets around old red dwarfs, etc.. just excellent nerdout science fiction in context. he even had an inkling of the gas giant around Epsilon Eridani in '84! now confirmed.

[@ForNoOne1981]

The robot series is connected to the foundation series. While separate series, they are in the same universe, just at a different point in time.

[@MrWeezer55]

That was a bit of a rant about Heinlein, but I get it. My fondness for him stems from finding a slew of his 'juvenile' novels in my tiny elementary school library. Clarke I love as a visionary. I read that he and Kubrick had an agreement to release the movie and the book simultaneously, but Kubrick jumped the gun, which was a good move. The book is good, but it doesn't leave you scratching your head saying 'What the eff was all THAT!?'

[@plucas1]

FYI, do NOT ever read the Rama sequels co-written by Gentry Lee. As good as Rendezvous With Rama was (IMHO) these were horrid, poorly-thought out drek. I kept reading them, thinking that with Clark involved, they surely must get better at some point. Instead, they only got worse. And the reason behind the Rama probes revealed in the last book... uuuughggh. -_-

[@VelvetTeacup]

This is a real trap and I definitely fell for it too. Book three still makes me cringe when I recall scenes.

[@kaleishiacann8129]

I read somewhere that Clarke was the ideas-man for the Rama sequals, and that gentry lee did most of the writing. This put me off trying to read rama 2. I've no intention of ever finishing the series, so I'm going to go look up this ending because it always intrigued me.

[@kaleishiacann8129]

I've just spoiled the series ending for myself. Glad I did, and doubly glad that I didnt slog through he series just for the ending. Iike slogging through trash to get to more trash. The mystery surroubding the object is the only thing that pushed me to finish Rama 1, and to see it demystified in such a way sucks

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I gave up partway through the sequels and it was SUCH a relief to do so. They were spoiling the original for me.

[@adamconnor1898]

I found this interesting, in part because Mistress is easily Heinlein's best book, and close to his only good novel. (Stranger in a Strange Land has moments, but too many boring lectures from Jubal.) I can't think of anything readable he published afterwards. And, as far as Heinlein being a dirty old man -- I didn't really feel it strongly in Mistress. The books that came later, yes -- it's part of what makes them unreadable -- and it shows up in Glory Road, too. (I think parents offer the "hero" a chance to sleep with their 12 year old daughter? Yeech.) Asimov wasn't, in my mind, all that great a writer -- his characters tend to be wooden and uninteresting -- but he had a lot of interesting ideas, and I think that's one of the reasons he's still relevant. Agree that Clarke was... kind of bland. I read a bunch of his books in my youth (40 years ago) and barely remember any of it.

[@frankmorlock9134]

I would not describe myself as a SciFi fan, although I've read some in the past. I read the first two Rama books which I liked. I agree that Clarke's books are not character driven, rather they are plot driven. They are memorable for the story which holds up pretty well. I can still recall how they had to improvise a plane to get from one end of the interior of Rama to the other. I never read any Asimov. He was still teaching at Boston University when I was an undergraduate there. But in those days I looked down on Sci Fi and wasn't interested. I like your reviews but I'm curious as to your metaphors with food, specifically this thing you have about lentils. You seem to find them edible and nutritious but not delicious. Frankly, I love them, and would still eat them even if they had no food value. But that's just me. Keep up the good work. BTW have you ever heard of Frances Stevens ? I never had, but her works which were written between 1918 and 1923 have just been published as e-books by Delphi Classics. They include 5 novels and some short stories. Again, nice review.

[@StormDAleph18]

I think you would like Caves of Steel and Naked Sun. It’s a ‘who done it’, but I like the plot and couldn’t put them down.

[@denniscahill9683]

The brief against "Moon" is usually is that is not a science fiction book but a handbook on how to do a revolution. I think your problem with Heinlein is that you are older than 13...

[@Theatre_Of_Noise]

Great video as always. Totally agree with your assessment of Heinlein. Over the last few years, I have been completing his novels chronologically. Recently got about 150 pages into Time Enough For Love and DNF'd it. I thought Stranger In A Strange Land was his worst but TEFL topped it with terrible dialog and just dated and trite romantic and sexual trash. The novels I liked from him are Citizen Of The Galaxy and Tunnel In The Sky. But I'm done trying to read his latter novels.

[@GotterdammerungBaby]

"Like being called to the principal's office and inappropriately touched" = sublimely perfect description of Heinlein's randy-old-man-in-a-silk-robe-who-thinks-he's-hip prose. My reaction to him is precisely the same as yours, and I actually *agree* with libertarian ideas. I made it halfway through The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress last week and gave up. I finished Stranger in a Strange Land when I was 13 and (despite being a typically horny teenager) felt like I needed a shower. It took me 44 years to try him again -- for the last time.

[@stephennootens916]

See I like the horny old man stuff and less so his politics which is why I love Friday and Beyond The Sunset which is all about the honey stuff. Admittedly I have read books like Fanny Hill and Naked Lunch so to me Heinlein's works are positively PG.

[@GotterdammerungBaby]

@@stephennootens916 The sexual content doesn't bother me it all. It's the wanna-be hipster, pervy tone of the writing that makes me cringe. It's like an Austin Powers scene that doesn't know it's a joke.

[@stephennootens916]

@@GotterdammerungBaby I get your point. Personally his work for me feels so light and almost through away I feel the sexual contact to be sort of shallow and childish. But than again what little of the golden area science fiction he was apart of feels light compared to my favorite writer Philip K Dick. I know he is not a grand writer but his characters feel like real people just trying to get by which you never feel about any Heinlein's characters.

[@father_flair]

I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" last year and enjoyed it. I never picked up on the libtertarian angle (even though I listen to a lot of socialist commentary and debates with libertarians), so your review gives me something to think about.

[@marcoscs2447]

I agree with incrediblejonas: love rama and the characters doesnt matter in the story, that good is the argument. And I've just bought that book from Shaw "other day other eyes" or something like that. Lets see if it is that good. Great channel by the way, really like the way u expose your books opinions

[@stevezeidman7224]

Been a subscriber for a while, first time commenter. I’d like to say something about Asimov. I’m 70 hrs old and read them all before all for the first time before I was 20. Many of his early novels were actually serialized short stories or novellas. The Foundation trilogy falls into this category. The Robot Novels “The Caves of Steel”, and “The Naked Sun” were unique for their time. They were Scfi mysteries. The Earth suffers from overpopulation. The main protagonist is a sardonic detective that is terrified of being “declassified” and sent back to yeast mines. The stories were originated as novels vs short stories. I found them to be terrific. As far as short stories from him, give “The Last Question” and “Nightfall” a chance. For Clarke, a Novel called “Earthlight” is worth a read. Very short about a war between Earth, Mars, and The Moon. Kind of a prequel to “The Expanse”.

[@Bookpilled]

Thanks Steve. I do intend to read Caves of Steel at some point. I am also curious about the Nightfall novel he cowrote with Silverberg.

[@stevezeidman7224]

@@Bookpilled It’s an expanded version of the ss. Silverberg’s influence is obvious in the prose.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I do think your point about some books being unique in their time is a very valid one. Writers like Clarke and Heinlein defended E E Smith for the same reason despite acknowledging his datedness. Just like Tolkien, now there's elves, hobbits and dwarves everywhere

[@richelliott9320]

The robot stories are actually mysteries. Logic has to be used to figure out the answer

[@titojdavis8374]

lol you do *not* have to read Stranger, it's got literally all the problems that it sounds like Moon does (except the weird russian voice thing). There's literally an old guy character who lives in his mansion hanging by the pool with his three sexy secretaries, a redhead a blonde and a brunette, and spends his time pontificating on religion and capitalism and the state (hint, he likes libertarianism)

[@BigMcLargehuge]

I am doing a Heinlein marathon on my podcast. I share your significant distaste for The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. I started that book twice in 30 years and only forced myself through it for the podcast. I am having the same issue with Friday, which I remember enjoying as a much younger man but I find it cringingly awful now. The Cat Who Walks through Walls though... Blech.

[@alexbarber1566]

kinda weird seeing the Will Smith cover for I, Robot, feel sorry for people that thought it was a cool movie and thought they'd have their first dabble into scifi books they probably wouldn't pick one up again!

[@rishrao2332]

100% agree about Heinlein! Have you read Nemesis by Asimov? I found that to be one of Asimov’s better works. Also, The Fall of Sirius by Wil McCarthy. It’s written in superior prose, explores some novel concepts, and one can easily see its influence on contemporary, big screen sci-fi. It struggles a bit with the plot though. But I like that McCarthy does not get lazy with his world building, everything has an explanation. No hand-waving technologies or over usage of deus ex machina devices. Really good first contact interactions!

[@Jim33142]

Great review, I agree pretty much with you 100%. However, I don’t mean to deride the three classic authors reviewed here but I can think of many modern authors who are much better writers, IMHO.

[@gon8go]

I thought i was the only person who felt that way about Heinlein. People are very defensive about him.

[@darklingeraeld-ridge7946]

So good to hear quality of prose (and authorial voice) being valued… should be whatever the genre.

[@kacpercichosz465]

It's funny how I have completely opposite views on Rama vs 2001 A Space Oddysey. I like Rama more, but regarding 2001 itself - the two parts that I like the most in 2001 are moon part and journey to Jupiter. The parts that I didn't enjoy as much were the apes part and final meeting with Aliens.

[@anderssandstrom545]

Reading I, Robot right now and so far I really like it. Read Foundation before this one and loved them also.