[Conrad Nomikos]

just wondering if you can give information between the relationships between Asimov,Clarke and Heinlein. Sorry if this has been dicussed before..

[Hobbit]

What is it you need to know, Conrad?

The 'big three' were called that because at one time (late 60's, early 70's) they were the biggest selling and most published SF writers around, and, perhaps more importantly, were seen as the most influential on other SF writers.

That knew of this.

They had all met each other, and had enormous respect for each other, though sadly Heinlein fell out with Clarke when discussing the 'Star Wars' SDI, Heinlein feeling that it was none of Clarke's business, and Clarke's more positive and less warlike views being seen as inappropriate.

That help?

Mark

[Conrad Nomikos]

Sorry I shouldve been more clear.. But yes info on meeting with eachother.Their feelng toward eachother?rivalries??? Things of that nature..but thanks ur post did help

[psikeyhackr]

Sorry I shouldve been more clear.. But yes info on meeting with eachother.Their feelng toward eachother?rivalries??? Things of that nature..but thanks ur post did help

I haven't read a lot about them but I never got the impression that any of them regarded each others as rivals just that sometimes Heinlein was somewhat of an asshole. This showed up in dealings with Alexei Panshin and Frederick Pohl but it was more about Heinlein being rather self righteous in his opinions about some things.

psik

[Hobbit]

There was a friendly rivalry between Asimov and Clarke. In the so called Clarke-Asimov treaty (http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/isaac-asimov/5-5-What-is-the-Asimov-Clarke-treaty.html), Clarke referred jokingly to Asimov as 'the best science fiction writer in the world' (reserving second best for himself) and Asimov referred to Clarke as the same.

Think in those days things were not really seen as competitive rivalry: more a case that they were all in it (and doing very well!) together.

Here's some more details on the fall out (http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/triffid/sf/triffid20072.htm):

In 1984, Arthur C. Clarke spoke at a meeting convened to discuss Ronald Reagan's strategic defence initiative, the so-called Star Wars plan. Clarke was rather scathing about it. Heinlein just blew up, screaming that Clarke had no moral right to be critical of the defence of the United States. It was a matter of national sovereignty and Clarke wasn't a citizen, so he could not criticize something in which he had no stake. He accused Clarke of "...typically British arrogance."

But as psik has said, Heinlein appears to have been the one who let his mouth run away with him on occasion. I think both regretted it, though as far as I know, Heinlein would never publicly say so.


FURTHER THOUGHT: Think you'll find they all respected each others writing, though they are clearly different. To my mind, Asimov and Clarke are more similar to each other than Heinlein's. As individuals though they were more different. Asimov worked under Heinlein whilst at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard during WW2.

Interesting article at io9: HERE. (http://io9.com/5067227/when-isaac-asimov-burned-robert-heinlein) though.


Mark

[Shonsu]

So wait... Clarke gets scathing about something Heinlein believes in and yet he is said to run his mouth?

[Omphalos]

Everyone in the world had an opinion about SDI. Nobody wants potential rivals with orbital nuke platforms. Clarke should be allowed his, and having an intelligent discussion about itshould not include "ignorant Brit" type comments.

[Hobbit]

Well, there's scathing and scathing.... though Clarke's nickname in UK Fan circles was 'the Ego', it was usually meant as a gentle put-down. I doubt very much it was in the manner of Heinlein.

Heinlein had a reputation for it, whilst Clarke was usually seen (by other authors at least) as reasonable and considerate.

Certainly Clarke's version of it is not quite that, from what I remember (But I can't remember where I read it, exactly: Astounding Days?).

I do remember reading that many of the others at the meeting were shocked by Heinlein's reaction, though.

FURTHER THOUGHT: One of the big differences I would have thought at this time was that Clarke was in regular talks with Russian cosmonauts and scientists over writing and science. Heinlein, though he had travelled to Russia, was a lot less conciliatory about Communism (see Expanded Universe & Tramp Royale) and this may explain their possible differences. Clarke at this time was writing about joint US/USSR space missions to the monolith, whereas Heinlein...wasn't.

Mark

[psikeyhackr]

Everyone in the world had an opinion about SDI. Nobody wants potential rivals with orbital nuke platforms. Clarke should be allowed his, and having an intelligent discussion about itshould not include "ignorant Brit" type comments.

SDI was stupid. LASERs bouncing off mirrors to hit nuclear missiles being launched.

Why not just make the surfaces of the missiles reflective and spin them. DUH!

Did Ronald Raygun actually believe that crap could work?

It was like science fiction without SCIENCE. :eek: :D Only dumber because lots of money was being spent on it.

psik

[marshal atkins]

SDI was stupid. LASERs bouncing off mirrors to hit nuclear missiles being launched.

Why not just make the surfaces of the missiles reflective and spin them. DUH!

Did Ronald Raygun actually believe that crap could work?

It was like science fiction without SCIENCE. :eek: :D Only dumber because lots of money was being spent on it.

psik

It can be said that the threat of it won the cold war for the west. The Russians were sure scared of it and the cost to develop an eastern work around.