Re: Clarke - two questions

"Mike  Schilling" <mscottschilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:YjfEj.23720
$0w.15336@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For a sufficiently low value of "write". Clarke's works, when they are 
>> good, are good in spite of having been written by him, not because of 
it.
> 
> That's a silly thing to say, unless you're using a very restricted 
meaning 
> of "write".
> 
> "Let's see, I'd like Clarke's ideas, with Clarke's method of presenting 
> them, and Clarke's sense of humor, but use Jack Vance's vocabulary." 
> 

Sometimes that's a pretty short step. Vance this:

	Men had built cities before, but never a city such as this. Some had 
lasted for centuries, some for millenniums, before Time had swept away
even 
their names. Diaspar alone had challenged Eternity, defending itself and 
all it sheltered against the slow attrition of the ages, the ravages of 
decay, and the corruption of rust.
	Since the city was built, the oceans of Earth had passed away and the 
desert had encompassed all the globe. The last mountains had been ground
to 
dust by the winds and the rain, and the world was too weary to bring forth

more. The city did not care; Earth itself could crumble and Diaspar would 
still protect the children of its makers, bearing them and their treasures

safely down the stream of time.