/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6007753]

When it comes to the big 3 of science fiction who do you think was the best and why?

btw I am not a robot.

[Anonymous No.6007755]

Asimov, Dick, and Vonnegut.

[Anonymous No.6007761]

>>6007755
Fuck

[Anonymous No.6007782]

Asimov is the weakest from a literary perspective - the man wrote like a children's author for 90% of his material - but perhaps the strongest speculator.

[Anonymous No.6007902]

>>6007755
>and Vonnegut.
nigga what

[Anonymous No.6007909]

>>6007753

Arthur C Clark

Isaac Asimov

Philip K Dick(greatest)

[Anonymous No.6007938]

Trolling?

Clearly
Lem
Bradbury
Bester
should be up there with Dick

[Anonymous No.6007976]

Never got why Heinlein was considered one of the big 3. Asimov and Clarke have their good points despite many weaknesses in their books, but Heinlein is mostly dreck.

[Anonymous No.6007983]

You people disgust me.
This is why I don't come to /lit/ often

Heinlein is GOAT SciFi author of all time.
With the recently departed Banks, being the best of recent years

[Anonymous No.6008005]

>>6007909

Whoops, Im switching out Asimov for Frank Herbert

[Anonymous No.6008028]

>>6007976
Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke were at one time (up to the 1970s or so) clearly the best-selling science fiction authors.
I agree that Heinlein is dreck. There is very little that he wrote that I have read that went beyond "gosh isn't science and girls neat".

[Anonymous No.6008332]

Asimov, Dick and Herbert

I'd say that Vonnegut's work is more meaningful in his writing than the sf authors I listed, and he's not just a great for sf, he's so much more flexible.

[Anonymous No.6008663]

[Anonymous No.6008665]

>>6007976
Heinlein's early work is good. He's notable because like Asimov and Clarke, he took pains to make sure that his books were "hard". If you'll look at the history of sci-fi, before they all came around in the 50s it was fantastical stuff. There was no dividing line between regular fantasy and "science fiction" other than the fact that you have martians instead of elves. Authors were almost never concerned with the methods or ways things function. They press a button and something works. The big three are noted for their great pains to make consistent and well reasoned universes.

Even in his crazy later years, Heinlein tried to make everything as scientifically feasible as possible - he and his wife would plot out orbit mechanics and travel times for his books to make sure everything matched up.

Unfortunately for Heinlein, he went basically went crazy after he wrote The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and grew completely preoccupied with orgies and free love. Stranger in a Strange Land is a good work, but it's basically a philosophical treatise.

[Anonymous No.6008700]

I'm reading Childhood's End right now and while the plot is nice, the writing is just mediocre. Is this the case with the rest of Clark's work?

[Anonymous No.6008733]

>>6008665
In this fantasy series I am currently reading, calculations have been ran to see how fast one of the main characters needs to be accelerating in order to break orbit. He won't be in a ship or anything like that; he'll be using the world's magic system. Well, the part he has control over. It'll occur at some later point in the series.

I'm excited.

[Anonymous No.6008769]

ursula le guin is severely underrated

[Anonymous No.6008780]

>>6007753
Lem and Dick are both superior to the big three, but I'd probably go with Asimov.

[Anonymous No.6009243]

Can we agree that the Strugatsky brothers are the most underrated sci-fi writers?

[Anonymous No.6009272]

>>6009243
Yup, that's about right.

[Anonymous No.6009279]

Dick mastered the genre and then transcended it

[Anonymous No.6009728]

Is Asimov the greatest science fiction writer of all time?

[Anonymous No.6010195]

>>6008700
>Muh prose

[Anonymous No.6010302]

>>6009728

Philip K Dick, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.6010780]

>>6008700
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6010800]

asimov, PKD, herbert

[Anonymous No.6010820]

Asimov, Clark, and L'Engle.

[Anonymous No.6010858]

So we can all agree that asimov and dick are in every single time, but who's the 3rd?

[Anonymous No.6010916]

>>6010858
f___k h_____t

[Anonymous No.6010936]

Does Gibson deserve a mention?

[Anonymous No.6010947]

I thought it was Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, none of whom I really love.

All a little later, but I think, Le Guin, Wolfe, and Dick are all better. Maybe Herbert too but I've only read the first Dune because people told me the rest were crap.

[Anonymous No.6011312]

>>6008769
And I have no idea why. If there's a better science fiction book than The Dispossessed, I'll be really surprised.

[Anonymous No.6011342]

>>6010936
not really, while lots of people enjoy his books he really hasnt had a bunch of great ones like asimov, dick, clark, herbert, or heinlein. There are other great authors like douglas adams that should get a mention but simply didnt produce enough greats to be seriously considered.

[Anonymous No.6011409]

>>6007782

The guy had a huge imagination, even for a sci-fi author.

Tons and tons of works and always trying something new but I agree with you, it was never too deep.

[Anonymous No.6011469]

>>6010947
>the rest were crap
All the Frank Herbert books were good. I really liked Messiah and Chapterhouse. I didn't read any Brian Herberts but I heard that those weren't so good, or would have been better if they had nothing to do with Dune

[Anonymous No.6011475]

>>6010936
Last time I tried to read Gibson my head started hurting a lot in the middle of the book. I guess I'm just retarded.

[Anonymous No.6012079]

PKD Heinlein, and Clarke are my personal favorites. Honorable mentions are Bester and Dan Simmons, perhaps the most proficient in character development.