Re: Writer Arthur C. Clarke dies at 90

Edward McArdle <mcardle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:mcardle-82862D.17443319032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> 
> Not to denigrate his achievements at all, but it is easier to stand
> out when you are earlier. There are probably writers as great as those
> four now, but there are so many it is difficult to rise above the
> crowd. 

It's important to remember that those four were members of the second 
wave: the golden age was twenty to ten years behind them. They had more 
than their fair share of competition. They stood out because they were 
the best of their generation.
 
> There are probably writers as good as Shakespeare (and the other
> greats of his time!) around now, but they are likely to be writing
> television, and they don't stand out as much because (a) there is a
> bigger crowd of achievers, and (b) there are so many arenas now.

I'd probably say that wasn't true. A Shakespeare would be recongized 
irregardless of time or medium, and I haven't really seen any writers 
that have ever come to his mastery of craft or as deep an understanding 
of the human psyche. 
Unfortunately, for about a hundred years now writers seem to have grown 
far more concerned with showing themselves to be clever than giving 
their audiences something to enjoy. So a Shakespeare these days would be 
seen as hopelessly retrograde and wouldn't be able to get anything 
published. If fact he/she might be reading this very message: chin-up, 
you'll get published some day.

    	    	    	    	    	-==Kensu==-