Re: Arthur C Clarke, RIP

Peter Knutsen wrote:

> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> 
>> Peter Knutsen <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:47e0e679$0$15885
>>
>>> Now, what I'd really like to see is a definition of science fiction 
>>> that excludes Clarke. Even a half way serious one.
>>
>>
>> Anyone who has written fantasy is not a science fiction author. 
>> Admittedly, it's a terrible definition, but no worse than yours. And 
>> it does exclude Clarke.
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, it is a definition, and it does, as you say, exclude 
> Clarke.
> 
> (I'm taking your word on it, that Clarke has actually written something 
> that can be, or should be, classified as fantasy.)
> 
> 
> But is that a definition you just made up, or is it one you've used for 
> some time? I've used mine for many years. Not quite a decade, I believe,

> but not far from it...
> 

So you've been using your definition for years. I've been using my 
underwear for years, but that doesn't make it a sound argument. Don't 
you think that definition should be left to the writers of science
fiction?

Now, if you, Peter, are a science fiction editor or writer, I don't know 
about it so I'm speaking from ignorance in that place. However, I don't 
think your definition, as crusty as it may be, really holds up against 
the giants of the form.

I'm not going to sit here and cut and paste, but you can start here:

http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html

Okay, just one...Hugo Gernsback, whom I think we can all agree was 
somewhat knowledgeable on the subject:

"a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic
vision"

Close enough to include Bradbury I think.