I also love the account of the meeting that Clarke, C.S. Lewis and Tolkien had in a pub:
"An extensive correspondence with Dr. Lewis led to the a meeting in a famous Oxford pub, the Eastgate. Seconding me was my friend, Val Cleaver, a space buff from way back (and now chief engineer of the Rolls Royce Rocket Division). Supporting Lewis was Professor J. R. R. Tolkien, whose trilogy, The Lord of the Rings created a considerable stir a few years ago. Needless to say, neither side converted the other, and we refused to abandon our diabolical schemes of interplanetary conquest. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis’s parting words were "I’m sure you are very wicked people – but how dull it would be if everyone was good."
"he became general manager and chief engineer of the Rolls Royce's rocket departments, where he was responsible for the engines which powered the Blue Streak missile and Black Arrow launch vehicle"
Sadly the UK did have our own launch capability - but we only ever launched one satellite - Prospero:
It's also worth reading his faintly autobiographical and heavily fact-based book about the development of radar-assisted landing systems during the second world war:
I love his work. He's by leaps and bounds my favorite sci-fi author ever. His optimism remains unparalleled.
It's a measure of how much darker the world has turned recently that I've started in the last few years to think of ACC as perhaps a bit naive. Or maybe he was just too far ahead of the times? That's an optimist thought - albeit a long-term one.
ironically, the first author i have been inclined to call "the new clarke" is liu cixin, based on the anything-but-optimistic "death's end" trilogy. still has a very clarke-like feel, but dark.
check out "the three body problem"; it has a very clarke-like sense of wonder tinged with both optimism and melancholy, and the same blend of science and "magic science", but it also adds a dark feel that is nothing like clarke.
I've only read a few of his novels. I'd say that in 2061, the stowaway suicidal hijacker aboard Galaxy, and her employers, certainly qualify as villains. In 3001, I think it's legitimate to think of the monoliths and whoever built them as villains of a sort.
If you've never read any of the Rama sequels written by Gentry Lee, now is a really good time not to.
The first one has a few nice bits (but so, so few), but they're so bad, and so badly written, and so undermine the magic and majesty of the first book, and the final revelation when we discover who actually built the Rama spacecraft is so hackneyed and underwhelming[1], that they're some of the only books I have genuinely regretted reading.
And I've read some Piers Anthony and late era L. Ron Hubbard!
Well, that describes every thinking thing, good or evil, that ever lived.
It just occurred to me, though, that 2061 (and its villains) do not have a coauthor, although I don't know why that's important to you. Sorry, but your claim that he didn't write villains is just a little silly, and his view of humanity was a little more complicated than "positive."
Arthur C. Clarke: A Life Remembered is a good read for those who want to learn more about Arthur Clarke's life. It features lots of photos and stories about Clarke from his brother and other associates. Here's a review of it [1]
> However, there is no evidence that Clark was one of them […] Edit: since this is being downvoted to -5 […] at least give a reason why you believe that it is not worth pointing out.
How is this not posthumous slander?
If there is evidence of wrongdoing, than present that evidence. Unless I am misreading your comment, you are saying that because Arthur C. Clark was a wealthy European, and that he moved to Sri Lanka where child prostitution occurred at higher than average rates, and nothing more than just these two facts, we should suspect him of wrongdoing?
How does that kind of reasoning not turn any European male with money living in an exotic location into a suspected paedophile?
That's at least something; you showed no sources at all in your earlier comment (edited now with the link you posted above). Still not much to go on considering the rather shifty reputation of the now-defunct News of the World (i.e., gutter press).
Also, in that same article you linked where the former News of the World reporter Graham Johnson recounts his suspicions, Phil Hall, the former editor denies being coerced by Murdoch into not publishing the story:
> I can vaguely remember that story. I do remember that Roger Insall worked on it and I remember it was not published. My only recollection is that the only reason we wouldn't publish it was because of legal reasons. He said Mr Murdoch never asked him to spike stories. News International, publisher of the NOTW, made no comment.
This does not really lend credibility to the rumours bandied about by a tabloid hack.
Congratulations on subscribing to this old piece of fake news. The allegations have been debunked elsewhere, I'll leave finding that as an exercise to the reader.
But really, the main thing here is that ACC was gay, and the paedophilia slander was a way to tarnish his name, initiated by anti-gay militants, in a time when being gay was not culturally okay. You're wading through a very disgusting brew of lies here.
I've also noticed that those who subscribe to the ACC "paedophilia" controversy tend themselves to be religious, conservative, or with an anti-gay streak (either conscious or subconscious) - in other words, are primed by their own biases to see the world in their own image. But perhaps that's just my limited sample size.
What you are saying the reason behind Arthur C Clarke emigrated to Sri Lanka was wrong. He emigrated to Sri Lanka in 1956 mainly to scuba diving.You did not mention references related to that period.
Please go and read Wikipedia about Arthur C. Clarke without categorising countries into good or bad. What you are saying is not connected to smart scientist like Arthur C. Clarke. No matter where he lives he can do his work.
Edit: You are misleading everyone here in this forum. Please read third paragraph
Then You will find why he emigrated to Sri Lanka. There are good and bad things in every country. He enjoyed his late life in Sri Lanka with rich culture and amazing climate.
>I did not see any reference saying he emigrated because of wanting to scuba dive.
Then read up more about his life. There are multiple reasons he left the UK. He stated scuba diving in many of his works. Another potential reason was that he was gay, and the UK was not gay friendly at the time (reference Alan Turing).
I think it's valuable for history. These allegations should be part of any exhaustive historical account of the man. If nothing else to better understand the times of his day.
Edit to clarify my point:
should we erase from history books accounts of baseless accusations of prominent people? People accused of being witches, accused of being traitors because they subscribed to the wrong beliefs etc.
Regarding Clarke, I can easily imagine people having a beef with his (also alleged!) homosexuality prefer to smear him as a paedophile. Indeed the term is used interchangeably by many to this day, by malice or lack of knowledge or both.
If he actually was one, well we may never know. Knowing the nature of mankind, he would not be the first. But we have not been presented with evidence of wrongdoing, so, the allegations are baseless.
>I find it very suspicious that a wealthy European man would choose to live in a wartorn country.
This is the classic example of: "Out of ignorance comes certainty."
You're essentially saying that because you cannot explain the behavior of one individual, then the explanation is likely/must be X.
You don't know = ignorance
It must be X = certainty.
Just as an FYI, he moved there long before it was a wartorn country. He chose to stay. Just as so many wealthy Sri Lankans who could have left did not. Why focus on the wealthy European and not the wealthy locals?
Well it may be perhaps not suspicious but intriguing. There may be any number of reasons for such a move. (For instance he may have felt more at ease fraternising with boyfriends away from prude old England.) Look, I am not trying to whitewash him. But saying: wealthy european moves to wartorn country, therefore paedophile, is using the "jump to conclusions mat" a bit too much.
