Review: 5 star
The difference between Isaac Asimov and Arthur Clarke has always been that of the fantastic and the possible. And I must admit that I am mighty partial towards fantastic, though Asimov would be hurt by my assertion regarding his work.
Clarke had always skirted closer to reality, whereas Asimov had pushed the boundaries of speculation. So, it was but natural for Clarke to be called prophetic. It might be that I am highly biased, but for me the better of the two writers would always be Isaac Asimov. I find the ‘Foundation Series’ to be a more superior work of science fiction than the ‘Space Odyssey’ (though I have read only two of them) – the scale is grander, the imagination prodigious, the characters are talkative but much more interesting than those of Clarke’s.
‘2000: A Space Odyssey’ is a fine book, which gets better in the last 30 pages. What would otherwise have been a mediocre romp, takes a turn for the magnificent as one reaches the part where our protagonist reaches Saturn. Till then, the ride was plain breezy for me. Even HAL failed to amaze me – it was nothing, when one compares it to the numerous conflicts Asimov’s positronic-brained robots had faced. Between his mechanical/bionic creations and the three laws of robotics, Asimov has plumbed the depths of robotic psychology whereas HAL’s dilemma was just surface-treatment to me.
Saturn is where the fun is. I am reading this in 2017, the book was written long back in 1968 – either I haven’t studied my physics properly or my imagination is lacking or Clarke is indeed a great writer – IT BLEW MY MIND! I picturized as I read, and it was damn amazing!
Asimov and Clarke lived in the age of optimists. I unfortunately do not. And that’s why our age hasn’t produced a Herbert or an Asimov or a Clarke. And that’s a shame!
Alienman 