I am a few days late in posting this, since I was busy, but a few days ago, one of the greats of science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke, died. Clarke was most famous for his collaboration with the great movie director Stanley Kubrick, on the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and for authoring the great science fiction novel of the same name, but he also wrote many other novels which inspired my imagination during my teens, and even today when I read them. The City and the Stars, The Nine Billion Names of God and Childhoods End are great imaginative works of fiction, and are well worth reading even if you don't like Science Fiction literature usually.

He also is credited with the invention of the idea of the communications satellite, and wrote many non-fiction books on science.


Arthur Charles Clarke


16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008

He was always one of my favorite authors as well. I think he lived in Sri-Lanka for a while. Did he die there? He will be missed, but his work will live on and on and on....

All of his sci-fi books are well worth reading--especially Childhood's End in my opinion.

Yes, WakeHolden, Sir Arthur C. Clarke lived and died in Sri Lanka at the age of 90.

Yeah, I actually re-read Childhoods End a few days before he died, and it is a fine novel, though in some ways unusual for a "hard science" science fiction writer like Clarke. That is what makes great science fiction; the ideas and themes, not the gadgets, or the little green men.

The 150 mile diameter ring-shaped surface feature with the black center on Iapetus, Saturn's moon, was the TMA-2 Stargate in Clarke's 2001 novel. Clarke predicted it would be there before anyone saw it, which was the early Voyager I NASA mission I believe. There are more recent photos of Iapetus online which show what appears to be a long wall-like feature on the moon's equator. Of course some are saying it was constructed by the progenitors, etc.

Image of the Iapetus equatorial wall feature...

I was an avid science fiction reader as a young child (age 7 through 14), and read all of Asimov, Heinlein, Clark, Bradbury, Vonnegut, Le Guin, Ellison, and a host of others.

Asimov made me think. Bradbury confused me. Heinlein thrilled me and taught me and and made me feel brave. Vonnegut repelled me (at that age). Ellison was tres-cool. Clark... I read everything, but he always left me sad. And Childhood's End, which I read as a child, left me in tears. I think I will go buy it and read it again, and see how my adult mind reacts to it.

I think he wrote 'Childhood's End' before '2001: A Space Odessy', but the 2 novels seemed to deal with the same theme. Evolution.... it happens, perhaps it's directed, speeded, shaped, and guided by external forces, and it's for the ultimate good... but what does it feel like when you see it happening to your own species, and you yourself are left behind? Obselete? A dead end with no future? Left all alone, no hope ahead, nothing to do but wait for the lights to go out.

Yes, Clark lived in Sri Lanka, way back when it was called Ceylon (which sounds much prettier and more musical to my ears, but the Sri Lankans probably despise it).

The City and the Stars also deals with evolution, of the mental, physical and the social kind. I think that the stories that Clarke wrote Pre-1980's were amazing in their ideas, but some of his later works were somewhat disappointing in the light of his earlier work.


Bradbury was poetic, so his works are full of amazing imagery and ideas, but he was more of a fantasy writer than a writer of scientifically exact science fiction, like Clarke was. Of course he also wrote that fine, and often censored, novel about the topics of censorship and the trends he could see in society, "Fahrenheit 451".

Isaac Asimov, a genius of sorts if one looks at the amount and quality of the fiction and non-fiction he wrote. His works are very exciting and easy to read, since he was a gifted storyteller. He wrote the great Foundation series of novels, and thought up the Three Laws of Robotics (actually there ultimately were four laws). Clarke had a friendly rivalry with Asimov, and wrote his own Clarke's Laws, which are also worth a look.

Clark wrote a couple of sequels to 2001: A space Odessy. I haven't read those, has anyone here read them?

He wrote three sequels, I read them all.

2010: Odyssey Two, is an interesting novel and worth a read.

2061: Odyssey Three, isn't too bad, it is classic scientifically exact Clarke.

3001: The Final Odyssey, is disappointing, since it was hinted in a previous novel in the series, that the last Odyssey would take place tens of thousands of years in the future. Nothing amazing in the ideas in it either, since the alien artifact is defeated much too easily.

Clarke often had a habit of writing a chapter into a novel, not for the sake of the story, but to talk about a certain scientific topic. I think I remember a chapter in The Fountains of Paradise or maybe it was in, The Ghost from the Grand Banks, which he seemed to have added the chapter, just so he could talk about fractals. Sometimes Clarke's desire to talk about science, caused the storyline to suffer.

This thread inspired me to research Clarke a little bit on the net, and I was shocked to find he spent his last years vigorously denying and fighting claims by a British tabloid that he was a homosexual pedophile.

Apparently that tabloid printed an interview with Clarke that attributed such statements to him as "Sex with children is alright, it doesn't harm them a bit." and "Certainly they are ready for sex by the time they reach puberty." and "I enjoy having a boy now and again."

This all came out just as he was supposed to be knighted by Prince Charles. He still received the knighthood, but it was delayed because of the bad publicity.

When he died, after years of unsuccessful sting operations conducted on him by child welfare organizations, the Sri Lankan government issued a postmortem statement that no evidence of Clarke committing crimes against children had ever been uncovered and it now considered him to be innocent of the charges of pedophilia, a serious crime in Sri Lanka.

Knowledge is power, but I'm sort of sorry I came across this knowledge. Just as my enjoyment of Woody Allen's film is now compromised and diminished by my knowledge of the things he had done, I suppose I will never be able to read Clarke's works again without the thoughts of possible pedophilia running through my mind. (sigh) Pity. Even though he was posthumously cleared, I can't forget it.

Do you think the tabloid manufactured those quotes out of nothing? Do British tabloids do that as a rule?

Tabloids are capable of anything.

I don't know if he was homosexual or not, but some elements of that can be found in his novels, as far as I can remember. I think there is a passage which hints of it in Empire Earth, though I cannot really comment on him being an active homosexual or not, based upon passages in a novel.

As for his alleged preference for children, that is the first I have ever heard of it. It is easy to make allegations, and often reputations suffer needlessly because of unfounded and/or disproven ones.

The interview was done by the "Sunday Mirror" and I think it was taped. The age of consent in Sri-Lanka is 13...or was...maybe still is. I saw one story that claimed the whole thing was a setup to embarress the Crown. The so-called interview is online..or excerpts of it anyway. He was still an intelligent and imaginative man. That can't be taken from him. He was also an atheist from what I've read about him.

Aw, crap, it's on tape? I was nursing a hope that it was an outrageous slander. (sigh)



Well, I don't give a whiz about the atheism part, but if he buggered little boys I can't find a way to excuse it, no matter how brilliant and amazingly foresighted that I agree he was.

I hate it when someone I admire greatly is revealed to be so greatly flawed. I mean, little flaws are natural, but this one's a big one.

He did spend his last decade of life vigorously denying the whole thing and insisting it was all nonsense. If he said those things freely on tape, why would he waste his time, energy and money fighting something easily proved?

When he was in the RAF he predicted and designed the geostationary orbiting satellite system we know today as GPS, wrote, like Jules Verne, about seeming science fiction which spurred others to create out current reality and its myriad of blessings (and a few plagues) such as space travel, etc. (look up "Clarke belt").

"The good that men do is oft interr’d with their bones, the evil they do lives on."

All people are flawed, let's remember the +ves and not inter them with his bones.

Helice, What is Clarke's contribution to the world of science and literature? Isn't that the more important question? If he was gay, so what? It cannot be proven that he was a pedophile--and Sri Lanka's government has said that it has no evidence that he was. I'm sorry that you can't read his books without thinking of those unproven allegations presented by Google--which only lists published stories by other sites. There is so much more to what he wrote that you may deny because of what you read on Google.

Many of his themes involve evolution, Evolution oftentimes results in dead-ends and disappointments. I am an evolutionary dead-end. That's a fact of my life as it is a fact of a lot of lives.

I believe that Clarke went beyond that fact and suggested--particularly in 2001, The Next Generation that there are more ways of contributing to the advancement of the human race.

He should be remembered for that--

I will have to find the audio of the interview I guess, though even if my opinion of him as a person suffers a blow, I cannot deny my respect for his imagination.

I have gotten the impression from my research, that no audio of such an interview ever surfaced, but found out that on hearing of what was published in the Mirror Clarke said he disliked pedophiles and also said he had not been sexually active in 20 years. I also found out that the Mirror withdrew claims that three boys had come forward to claim Clarke molested him, while still saying the comments during the interview took place, so all we have here are unsupported claims and a damaged reputation.

Yes, I tried to find the interview. Not a single trace. Inquest proved that “victims” were paid. Clarke said that he is not gay, but asexual because of his illness. It also was a reason for his divorce.

Well, whether or not he was a pedophile, I am still capable of recognizing his genius and his brilliant work, but I would be so much happier if he wasn't.

In America, tabloids sometimes make outrageous claims, but because we have some very severe civil and criminal remedies for such outrageous slander as attributing confessions of crimes to prominent figures, they just stay clear of doing that. We have enough foolish young celebrities willing to go on drunken rampages and show off their naughty parts to satisfy the baser prurient cravings of the American public, the tabloid do not generally accuse public figures of anything embarrassing or criminal unless they can dead-on produce proof of it so they won't be sued or indicted. They'd have to produce a video or audio tape, or a signed statement to back up their claims.

It appears that although Interpol demanded the supposed interview tape from the Mirror, they were unable to produce it, so perhaps it's all outrageous slander after all. I certainly hope so.

This is so off-topic, Myr, that I don't mind however you edit it or wherever you decide to move it.

Can anyone explain the system of British Knighthoods to me? Every so often one hears in the news that some entertainer, celebrity, or author is receiving a knighthood.

Why? What does being a knight mean? "Knighthood" is attached to all sorts of medieval tales in my mind, and I really can't understand why there should be a "Sir Elton John" in the world. What is the equivalent award for women, is it "Damehood"? You never hear in the news that someone is about to be "Damed".

I know it isn't hereditory... Is it just the Crown's way of a pat on the back and saying "well done!"? Why not just a statuette and certificate?

Do the American tabloids stay clear of making outrageous claims when the victim lives in Sri Lanka? For that matter, what discourages posting outrageous claims on the internet?

Lacking any uncontrovertible proof I would reformat my brain.

As long as its brief, and does not totally take over the thread, I will leave it here.



Basically it the way the British monarchy, give a reward to those whom they think have given some great service to the UK or have risen to high rank in entertainment.

A man becomes a "Sir" after being knighted, while a woman becomes a "Dame".


It is supposed to be attached to those ideas, since its an award given by the archaic system of monarchy in the UK. It adds to the romance of the award/title.


Yes, women become Dames as far as I know. I think the title "Lady" is reserved for the hereditary or other forms of peership.

But then you wouldn't get to put "Sir" before your name, the romance of award would be reduced, and it would look like you were receiving an Oscar,Grammy or BAFTA award.

I won't belabor it, but I just feel that, well, perhaps it's appropriate to Knight (or "Dame") someone who has done something impressive for the country or the world... perhaps something brave militarily, or a great scientific contribution that improves and advances the quality of life, or a great thinker or philosopher who illuminates us... and yes, even brilliant visionary novelists like Sir Arthur C. Clarke. I can see how they are deserving of such a grand and honorable title.

But.... Sir Elton John...????

What were they thinking!?

Okay, all done.