Who Was Greater - ISAAC ASIMOV or ARTHUR C. CLARKE?

[@nate_d376]

Asimov clearly had the superior sideburn game.

[@WordsinTime]

@@nate_d376 Haha top tier!

[@mariosalerno8766]

In terms of science fiction alone, I think Arthur Clarke has a better style. Clarke strikes me as a better writer because his books have always been much more satisfying to me.

[@WordsinTime]

@@mariosalerno8766 I really enjoy his writing style.

[@keithdixon6595]

A Fall of Moondust is probably my favourite Clarke novel in its combination of character development and science info. Asimov never quite got there in the same way, but conversely I usually enjoyed reading his work more than I did Clarke's, which got drier and drier through the Rama series. Asimov seemed to have a sense of humour, whereas Clarke was always serious.

[@WordsinTime]

@@keithdixon6595 Interesting! I would agree that A Fall of Moondust has some of Clarke’s better character work.

[@stevezeidman7224]

Personally I was always more wowed by Asimov. He created a galactic empire and the most interesting concept of its time. The short stories, The Last Question, and Nightfall. I really did not love the end of Childhood’s End. Great book but I hated how it ended. I thought Rama was the most boring book he wrote. Had he produced the Aliens, maybe. My favorite Clarke book was a short one called Earthlight. It’s a sleeper. In terms of prose, I agree. It’s Clarke all the way. “One by one the stars are blinking out”.

[@WordsinTime]

@@stevezeidman7224 I’ll have to look up Earthlight!

[@stevezeidman7224]

@@WordsinTime I also recommend a Clarke short story called Rescue Party.

[@timlong9913]

I think that quote was from the short story "The Nine Billion Names of God". A great story.

[@BooksWithBenghisKahn]

As someone who’s read most of the Foundation books and the Gods Themselves and who still hasn’t fallen in love with any Asimov book, sounds like the End of Eternity is a must read! Also having only read Rendezvous with Rama of Clarke’s oeuvre, I need to try some more!

[@WordsinTime]

@@BooksWithBenghisKahn Yes! I would try The End of Eternity and Childhood’s End!

[@lancetschirhart7676]

I agree with Childhood’s End. It’s also like 200 pages which is nice if you have a reading list. I recommended CE to a friend a few years ago (who is not a sci Fi fan) during a long discussion on Ethics, and it’s one of his favorite books

[@juanreinbergcortes7893]

I feel like Clarke struggled with character development until at least the mid 80s, but his concepts are groundbreaking always. Asimov always had a simple straight to the point kind of plot, so his characters are easy to develop. Both got better in time. I feel like Clarke is a better writter but when you read his colaborative works you see the characters shine... I mean, Rendevouz with Rama is like a documentary, but then when you read the sequels with Gendry Lee you get invested with the characters much more. I love Asimov's sequels to the Foundation trilogy, it gave his whole fictional universe cohesion and some future hippie hope for the galaxy as a whole. My opinion is that Clarke might not be as easy to read but his concepts and his way to get the reader to understand technology are great. Asimov is easier to read and is great to get someone to start reading science fiction. The Bailey-Olivaw original trilogy coded as mistery novels is really easy to get into. I love them both

[@WordsinTime]

@@juanreinbergcortes7893 Great points!

[@akweteamanq7243]

Asimov any day anytime, his foundation series is best of all. I love Arthur c clarke too, but between Arthur C clarke, Asimov and Heinlien, Asimov is primus inter pares

[@WordsinTime]

@@akweteamanq7243 I’m glad you enjoyed Foundation so much!

[@akweteamanq7243]

@@WordsinTime yes Sir, i love it with passion cos i knew of it in school library way back 2000-2005. I love your channel too just so you know, i enjoy your reviews and breakdown of stuffs making things simple for understanding👍🕊️🇺🇸

[@WordsinTime]

@@akweteamanq7243 That’s awesome! And thanks for the kind words!

[@truejim]

As a kid I devoured everything by both authors. I’d vote for Asimov too. Even in the serious stories, there’s an underlying humor that makes Asimov’s writing feel “warmer” to me. Clark’s writing has a little more “technical manual” feel to me.

[@nikolaki]

I love Asimov's Robots works, struggle with Foundation because it is so impersonal given its grand scale. Clarke is the best in my estimation. City and the Stars, Childhood's End, Fall of Moondust, Rendezvous with Rama, Space Odyssey. List goes on. The Deep Range! Asimov's technology was more routed in the 20th century than Clarke's was - if that makes sense. Having done most of my reading of these guys' books in the 80s, I found myself jarred out of the future by Asimov's descriptions of tech. Clarke's still blows my mind even today. City and the Stars is a tour de force of technology prophesy.

[@rince482]

Of course, Asimov won the dirty limericks award 😊

[@WordsinTime]

Haha good point.

[@paulallison6418]

Hi Jonathan, loved the video! These are two of my all time favorite writers, in fact they are my two favorite writers. I also have Clarke slightly ahead so we agree here. Interestingly my favorite Asimov is The Gods Themselves! Also Childhoods End is a 10/10 for me too but so are 2001 and Rendezvous and I have Childhoods End behind City & The Stars! I did read all these over 40 years ago so re-reading them might be interesting!

[@WordsinTime]

@@paulallison6418 Thanks Paul! And I’m glad you enjoyed those books so much!

[@Deosis]

Didn't know about their agreement, interesting stuff. I've probably read more by Asimov than by Clarke and I really liked some of the Robot stories a lot (Foundation too ofc), so I think I'd pick him over Clarke for now. I loved Childhood's End though and I still have to read quite a few of Clark's novels.

[@WordsinTime]

@@Deosis Nice! Hope you enjoy whatever you read next!

[@BookishChas]

This was really helpful Jonathan! I enjoyed Foundation, but wasn’t blown away. I’m excited to try Clarke and see how they compare for me.

[@WordsinTime]

@@BookishChas I hope you enjoy Clarke’s books as much as I do!

[@ivarbrouwer197]

It’s amazing as to how both these writers influenced science itself, Clarke’s with the concept of satellites and Asimov with robotics

[@WordsinTime]

Yes, incredible! And maybe one day Clarke will have influenced the space tower haha

[@davidranderson1]

Also Asimov's prediction of a world built on big data and predictive algorithms that shape our thoughts and actions.

[@avantgardenovelist]

jonathan, have you ever done a video contrasting sf and fantasy by way of explaining why you prefer the former? would be interesting.

[@WordsinTime]

@@avantgardenovelist I have talked a little about some differences, but haven’t made a dedicated video on it. I haven’t read enough fantasy to make a truly fair comparison, although I try a little more fantasy some time in the future haha

[@xavierxeon]

according to google: Issac Asimov 1.75 meters vs. Arthur C Clarke 1.83 meters

[@WordsinTime]

@@xavierxeon Haha well played sir

[@Steve_Stowers]

I suspect the race would be closer if you gave more consideration to their short stories (which maybe you should, since both of them rose to prominence in a time when people paid more attention to short stories than they do nowadays in SF). But I haven't read enough recently enough to be sure that's fair.

[@WordsinTime]

@@Steve_Stowers Yes, that’s a good point. I mentioned how many short stories they had written and included awards for short stories in their award tallies. But in terms of my analysis I focused on novels because I have read a lot more of their novels and only a handful of short stories.

[@timlong9913]

IMHO Clarke's short stories (many of them) are better than most of his novels. I love the surprise/zinger endings.

[@NevsBookChannel]

I think I agree with absolutely everything you said. Great video Jonathan!

[@WordsinTime]

@@NevsBookChannel Haha cheers Nev! 🤝

[@bartsbookspace]

Great video. I’m also in Camp Clark. 👍 I’ve got to pick up and read “The end of Eternity”.

[@WordsinTime]

@@bartsbookspace Thanks Bart! I hope you like The End of Eternity, I thought it was great, especially the second half.

[@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd]

I'll vote for clarke every time and admittedly have read very little of asimov so far although I've always respected him as a brilliant thinker and tireless advocate for science and rationalism. Haven't ruled out reading the first three foundation books but the issue with novels of ideas is often they have plenty of ideas but not nearly enough action haha. ⚛

[@WordsinTime]

@@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd That is a fair assessment haha

[@splifftachyon4420]

I haven't read a lot of Asimov (something I intend to correct soon!) but I love Arthur C. Clarke, so in that sense I would have to agree with you. I definitely have noticed the difference in the level of prose. Clarke's visions often have very poetic descriptions, which I think definitely lends itself to that sense of wonder you talked about. I recently re-read 2001 and some moments just sent shivers down my spine and I think had the prose been lesser, that wouldn't have been the case.

[@WordsinTime]

@@splifftachyon4420 I’m glad Clarke’s prose resonates with you too!

[@mondostrat]

Didn't even have to watch to know you prefer Arthur C Clark. (but I watched anyway!)

[@WordsinTime]

@@mondostrat Haha I appreciate it. Although I did love The End of Eternity. I think it’s a slightly underrated Asimov book.

[@jorgerapalo2673]

Clarke was perhaps the best writer of discrete works. Asimov was instead a more important personality in the world of science fiction and as a representative of the field for the larger world. He was also a great popularizer of science in his nonfiction books. Also, Asimov's simple/plain style suited itself for translation, so Asimov is much better known in other countries. NOBODY in my country has ever heard of Clarke (or Heinlein) but lots of people have heard of Asimov and his work. So one was better technically while the other was more influential and representative of the field.

[@WordsinTime]

@@jorgerapalo2673 Great points!

[@jorgerapalo2673]

@@WordsinTime Of course, larger widespread popularity is moot when our concern is which one WE like best. Foundation and Empire was the very first book without pictures that I ever read back in 4th or 5th grade. But my favorite works of Asimov were his autobiographical books which ties in with his larger than life personality being his greatest character accomplishment.

[@user-yz7sr6od1x]

Interesting. I think I agree with your conclusion, and I would lean toward giving Clarke a slight edge. But it's close.

[@WordsinTime]

Both very impressive indeed.

[@gabrielepetrocchi1690]

I love them both for different reasons. Clarke for the sense of wonder and his ideas, Asimov for the scale of his stories and his unforgettable characters. I prefer Asimov personally but it's very close.

[@WordsinTime]

@@gabrielepetrocchi1690 I like that perspective!

[@savell234]

Taste is personal. For me, Clarke was an absolutely superior writer and story teller.

[@WordsinTime]

@@savell234 I’m glad you enjoy his books too!

[@SciFiFinds]

Engaging way to break this down. Clarke is the reason I love science fiction today. Sense of wonder sci-fi is a great way to describe his works!

[@WordsinTime]

@@SciFiFinds Thanks! I’m glad you also connected with Clarke!

[@caspasesumo]

not an easy task to separate these two masters of the field. But a really good dissection nevertheless. I also consider that Clarke predicted communication satellites and Asimov invented the three laws of robotics, which are being incorporated into AI systems as we sit here and contemplate the future.

[@WordsinTime]

@@caspasesumo Yes, both very impressive and influential!

[@lightbearer313]

When it comes to novels Clarke is superior on the basis that he wrote more SF novels, and many of them are extremely good. Then if one looks at short stories, whilst Clarke has a number of good ones, Asimov has the more memorably famous stories. So, Clarke is the superior novelist, and Asimov the superior short story writer (in my opinion). Both of them also wrote some non-SF novels, and also of course non-fiction books. Asimov has many more of both these categories than Clarke. Asimov's 'Black Widowers' stories are good fun. So, I would rate Clarke as the greater SF author, and Asimov the greater overall author.

[@WordsinTime]

@@lightbearer313 That’s a fair perspective!

[@Kim_Miller]

Great line-up. I need to go through their lists and see how many of each I've read over the years. But I agree, Clarke for story and Asimov for science. However, Asimov's worst ever book, Lecherous Limericks, needs a mention. 100 limericks, no more than a dozen worth anything. And as one Aussie to another, here's his limerick about a platypus. “We refuse,” said two men from Australia, “Bestiality this saturnalia. For now, we bethink us, The ornithorhynchus Is our down-under type of Mammalia.” 😀

[@WordsinTime]

How bizarre haha

[@Veterans_for_Harris]

Clarke scuba dived in Sri Lanka. Awesome.

[@WordsinTime]

@@Veterans_for_Harris That sounds amazing haha

[@jamesholland8057]

Agree completely with your judgement but for Against The Fall of Night is better to me than City and the Stars. Also their short stories are great.

[@WordsinTime]

I’ve read some short stories but need to read more!

[@buddyb4343]

I would describe them as Clarke is a better story writer, where as Asimov is a better story creator. So with like the Rama series, it was a bit like Clarke describing things for the "wow" factor. He describes the grand canyon, in a spaceship, "WOW" . . . but all those Wows, though interesting and well written, don't really contribute to the story. And personally, though everyone seems to love "Childhoods End," to me it's a -, mostly for concept. (And yes, I wrote that before I got to the end of your video. Rough count, 23 Asimov, 21 Clarke.)

[@WordsinTime]

@@buddyb4343 Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing!

[@johncampbell4389]

Seriously, Clarke had the "hard" SF that he resonated with Apollo so he, rather than Asimov, was on the news to discuss the importance of Apollo 11. Some of us remember... (I got to stay up for the moonwalk; I was 15 at the time...)

[@WordsinTime]

@@johncampbell4389 That’s amazing!

[@johncampbell4389]

@@WordsinTime Well, I was a space geek and SF freak ...

[@kufujitsu]

Asimov had a clear weight advantage, but aside from that they were pretty similar. Maybe they weren't the most poetic writers - you wouldn't compare them to Bradbury or Sturgeon in that sense - but what he heck, Asimov & Clarke were both great entertainers - most of their stories had suspense, & good elements of wonder to them; especially their shorter works.

[@WordsinTime]

@@kufujitsu Very true!

[@timlong9913]

Agree with most everything and this would be my ranking of Clarke over Asimov as well. FWIW, I'd put Heinlein well below them. You should read a collection of Clarke's short stories. IMHO Clarke's short stories might be even better than his novels.

[@WordsinTime]

@@timlong9913 Nice! I need to read more of their short stories.

[@harryseldon362]

My father claimed that Isaac Asimov did not write anything. He employed a team of writers under his direction that produced his works. Asimov was genius, he just couldn't write worth a darn. My 11th grade physics teacher made the exact same claim as my dad. Has anybody else heard about this?

[@WordsinTime]

@@harryseldon362 Haha interesting. I’ve not heard that before.

[@poemasmeusminhasleituras8640]

I don't know about Isaac Asimov, but I suspect Brandon Sanderson does something similar. Maybe he uses IA!

[@mikesmithz]

​@poemasmeusminhasleituras8640 Sanderson is pretty religious though, I can't see him lying about his writing. If he is telling the truth, then Sanderson is a machine! He writes more in a day than I do in a year!

[@Tetsujin-28]

Powell's: A YT'r I follow (Frank Fiction)was there last month. She was on a book buying ban and it ended with a 24 book buying spree in Oregon.

[@WordsinTime]

@@Tetsujin-28 Hahaha

[@flutebasket4294]

They both read like stereo instructions

[@WordsinTime]

@@flutebasket4294 Uh oh, haha

[@ivarbrouwer197]

The Rama series with the co writer Lee had much better character development then most of Clarke’s writing. Also Clarke’s last series with the world being cut up over different historical times showed more skills in character development.

[@WordsinTime]

@@ivarbrouwer197 Interesting! That’s good to hear!

[@timlong9913]

I found the first sequel to be boring as heck after the original novel. Did not read any others. There's a reason the sequels are poorly rated relative to the first Rama book.

[@ivarbrouwer197]

@@timlong9913 I had exactly the opposite experience, there was a lot more depth to the characters and where the first one showed nothing of intent, a lot of depth was added to why those objects were sent to us. It was certainly different from the original in style.

[@marjoriedonnett5467]

When I read Clarke, I become immersed in the world he's building. When I read Asimov, I feel as though I wasted my time - what I read I found forgettable.

[@WordsinTime]

Interesting. Glad you enjoy Clarke!

[@km-bo3zx]

Have you read Asimov's "Pebble in the Sky"?

[@WordsinTime]

@@km-bo3zx I haven’t read that one yet. Did you like it?

[@km-bo3zx]

@@WordsinTime its Asimov’s first novel. It may have been my first exposure to Asimov. I first read it around 1973, when I was 17, and thought it was amazing. I started rereading several years ago, but got sidetracked. I need to try again, but I have such a huge list, it’s hard to add stuff to it, especially when it might displace something more recent.

[@timbock2560]

@@km-bo3zx I found PITS to be really poorly written - which makes sense as it was such an early endeavor. I remember reading somewhere that Asimov himself regretted this novel.

[@Talking_Story]

So hard to pick between 2 Scufi masters.

[@WordsinTime]

@@Talking_Story The Grand Masters of Scufi!

[@Talking_Story]

@@WordsinTime 😂😂

[@alexdevisscher6784]

I generally agree with your assessment. I find Clarke to give a better overall reading experience, but he didn't write something epic that compares with the Foundation series. I see that you didn't read the sequels to the original Foundation books and to Rendezvous with Rama. In the case of Foundation, I highly recommend reading it because Asimov's writing had cleared improved over the decades in between, but I don't recommend reading it in the case of Rama because Gentry Lee completely ruined the experience for me. Lee turned the story into a soap opera and the result is very disjointed, as if you're ready two completely different novels at the same time.

[@WordsinTime]

@@alexdevisscher6784 Thanks for the info!

[@psikeyhackr6914]

So does Heinlein beat Clarke and Asimov for interesting and fleshed out characters?

[@WordsinTime]

@@psikeyhackr6914 I haven’t read any Heinlein, but I plan to try Starship Troopers fairly soon.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@WordsinTime WHAT! It's the Big One, I can't take it. *Methuselah's Children* and *Citizen of the Galaxy.* Not sure why certain books become The Signature Book for particular authors. I suppose that since Military SF is such a significant subgenre *Starship Troopers* is that book for Heinlein. Then it got a movie. Lazarus Long is Heinlein's signature character. Come to think of it Military SF may not have been such a big deal before 1970. I wonder what the Moon landing did for science fiction and Star Trek went into syndication.

[@LivingDeadEnby]

Arthur C. Clarke for me - I haven't read much by Asimov yet, though. Clarke also has the LGBTQI+ bonus 🌈😊 Sadly he lived in the wrong time and couldn't be openly gay (especially not in England). I wonder if he would have written better characters if he would've been able to write without restrictions 🤔

[@JanetDax]

Wowsers, didn't know this. I always loved Clarke's cameo in 2010: The year we make contact. Excellent sequel to 2001

[@LivingDeadEnby]

@@JanetDax Cool, I wasn't aware that there was a sequel to the film. I read all four Odyssey books and liked them all, but especially the first two. Need to watch the film now, thanks for the tip!

[@WordsinTime]

Good question!

[@JanetDax]

@@LivingDeadEnby There is a scene in front of the White House with Clarke sitting on a bench feeding pigeons.

[@timlong9913]

@@LivingDeadEnby 2010 is more "Clarkian" as he wrote it without an movie and Kurbrick involved. It clears up a bunch of stuff from 2001. However they did make it into a movie which was actually quite good although not nearly so famous.

[@oberstul1941]

They were both dry af and not really interested in developing characters. Personally, I'd incline toward ACC. having more favorite reads from him (Rama, 2001, Childhood's End), him also being a little less jokey than Asimov in his writing style and going for a more hard-ish SF than Isaac. Also-also, I think Clarke didn't have the super-inflated ego of Asimov that allowed him to write freaking 3 (THREE) auto-biographies. Cheers!

[@WordsinTime]

@@oberstul1941 Haha fair enough

[@biffstrong1079]

I preferred Herbert and then probably Heinlein. Asimov was more entertaining. More accessible.

[@WordsinTime]

I'm going to read God Emperor of Dune soon.

[@biffstrong1079]

@@WordsinTime I loved that one. I think Im alone on that though he did get Chapterhouse and Heretics of Dune published after God Emperor so some people must have liked God Emperor. I really enjoyed God Emperor the later books featured creatures so distant from actual humans that I'd lost all sympathy and empathy for the characters.

[@hg9675]

I was incredibly bored by Clarke but I eat up anything by Asimov

[@WordsinTime]

Interesting. Glad you enjoy Asimov.

[@Yaoigirlforever]

Asimov, hands down!😅

[@WordsinTime]

@@Yaoigirlforever Haha I’m glad you enjoy his books!

[@heihan1675]

Stanislav Lem.

[@WordsinTime]

@@heihan1675 I love Lem!

[@christinacascadilla4473]

Arthur C. Clark was better just because he lived at the Hotel Chelsea.

[@WordsinTime]

@@christinacascadilla4473 Haha fair enough

[@roberthieber1]

I’m a huge Clarke fan. Asimov had a hard time writing realistic characters and especially dialogue.

[@WordsinTime]

@@roberthieber1 Glad you also love Clarke!

[@31LaschG]

There is a problem with Clarke. There were accusations of him being a pedophile. He was never convicted, but there were several reasons he moved to Sri Lanka.

[@WordsinTime]

@@31LaschG I had heard that he was rumored to be gay, but I had never heard of that accusation before. I just looked it up and Wikipedia says the tabloid Sunday Mirror reported the accusation but then later published an apology. Hopefully it is not true because that would be truly horrible.

[@yveslafrance2806]

That was a common charge at the time to target gay people. Easier to make them look like monsters… Since pedophilia is a compunction, I doubt there would have been only one accusation if it was true

[@31LaschG]

I totally see that if one were accused of being gay it automatically made you a pedophile and that is so completely false! And I could not care less about a persons sexuality, but I still question a few things about Clarke. Moving to Sri Lanka and argueing that would be the the new center for space exploration? And there are some comments he made in interviews, but it could be that my sources are fake news?

[@epiphoney]

Heinlein.

[@WordsinTime]

@@epiphoney Fair enough haha

[@A-Name-101]

I’m sorry 2001 film is horrendously boring 😴 you’ve got to be high on some great stuff to watch it. There is no dialogue, yes the visuals are amazing but I’ve only watched it once and that was on VCR and I used the fast forward button for the majority of the film. Yawn 🥱 As for the book not read it so I’ll reserve a small amount of judgement that it maybe okay, but I don’t hold out much hope as the film was trash & overhyped BS!

[@WordsinTime]

@@A-Name-101 I liked it, but can see why it’s not for everyone.