I only read two books this month: British science-fiction first published within two years of each other (Earthlight in 1955 and The Black Cloud in 1957), though set a couple of hundred years apart. They make an interesting comparison.
Clarke (1917-2008) and Hoyle (1915-2001) were contempories, and both renowned populisers of science during the White Heat period (linked in many minds for their non-RP accents - Clarke from Somerset and Hoyle a Yorkshireman). History has been kinder to Clarke, who's widely regarded as a visionary; Hoyle, though not forgotton (but note I feel it necessary to link to his Wikipedia entry, and not Clarke's!), is best remembered for being on the wrong side of too many important arguments (which may have overshadowed his other work and cost him a Nobel Prize). Part of this was down to his belief that "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".
Clarke wrote more about concepts than people - Brian Aldiss wrote that his problems were always ones that could be solved by engineering. When I went through my big Science Fiction phase in my teens I read some of his books, but wasn't inspired by them - they were rather worthy bull dull. The Concept in Earthlight is the colonisation of the Moon (though the futility of war pops in). The 'realistic' descriptions of the habitats there were apparently inspirational, and a crater near the Apollo 15 landing site is named after the book.
I picked up The Black Cloud expecting it to be hard-going. I'd bought it as an oddity, not really expecting it to be readible. Surprisingly, it was far more interesting and readible than the Clarke. Both books are based in observatories and the scientific establishment. The Black Cloud, set in 1964 (a decade after writing) starts as a procedural, scientific novel with the discovery of a cloud of dust rather closer to the Solar System than is confortable, it outlines the series of natural disasters that would then occur, before introducing a sudden twist. A maverick professor of Astronomy at Cambridge (a post Hoyle held) is wrong for interesting reasons, high-handed with politicians and personal liberties and thereby saves the world (he's also the only person in either book who has sex, but that's another matter).
On balance I certainly preferred Hoyle's book - "interesting and wrong" rather than "boring and right"!
I had the opportunity to binge the Amazon Prime "Wheel of Time" a few nights ago; only five episodes so far, but I'm enjoying it. I read the books beginning in 1992ish and gave up after volume 7. I know that the tv series is not what is in the books, but it's keeping me entertained.
ReplyDelete