Arthur C. Clarke vs. Christopher Hitchens

[theaustinescorts]

Today's Clarke's birthday, and yesterday Hitchens passed away [or simply died as he would have preferred to have said]. This moment cries out for some comparison of these two Englishmen of letters.

1.Arthur Clarke wrote the best science fiction book ever written, which was adapted into what may be the best motion picture ever filmed, all well before 1970.

Hitchens was responsible for a film polemic, "The Trial of Henry Kissenger," in which audience members had to squirm and cringe at the sight of the unshaven and unbathed Hitchens.

2.Arthur Clarke was an un-athletic nerd who spent his youth studying technical issues to understand the physical universe and find practical solutions for mankind's material needs.

Hitchens was a cute kid who slept with many girls and rebelled against his conservative parents and establishment to impress people with how cool he was.

3.Arthur Clarke ate mostly curried vegetables and lived productively well into his 90s.

Hitchens ate like a glutton anything full of calories and devoid of any nutritional value, aged quickly and contracted terminal cancer in his 50s.

4.Arthur Clarke lived a quiet life thinking and writing about the purpose of human life, and how it can be advanced.

Hitchens was a narcisstic attention-grabber who ridiculed anyone who disagreed with him and claimed to be morally superior to any other person on earth.

5.Arthur Clarke spoke out against the injustice, futility and waste of war.

Hitchens thought wars he personally liked were moral crusades pitting good versus evil, and that bystanding children and housewives who have to be maimed or killed in the process deserve to be sacrificed for a greater good.

[libertarian]

Arthur C Clarke was a visionary who first proposed the idea of the geosynochronous communications satellite. He also wrote a lot of good short stories. Did you ever read the story called "The Nine Billion Names Of God?". I remember seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey" when I was nine years old at the Southwood Theatre on Ben White Blvd in 1969, It was a heavy movie for a young boy to understand, way before the personal computer age. Libertarian

[greymouse]

The most obvious thing Sir Arthur Clarke and his countryman Christopher Hitchens now have in common is that they are both dead and gone now, like all them Saints. Hitchens, in addition to being a world class public drinker whose wit stayed as sharp as his received pronounciation diction, was a rare combination of a aggressively public atheist and a cheerleader for the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) or maybe GWOMI (Global War on Militant Islamatism). We are now supposed to be out of Iraq now. Does anyone remember why we went in? Not the obvious lies the Bushies gave as an excuse, the real reason? I can't, not even the reasons the late Hitch talked about. He was a great talker. There are a multitude of videos of him holding forth, like this one:http://youtu.be/TfNgCaqLIR0

And if you haven't read Clarke's Against the fall of Night or The City and the Stars you should immediately do so and stop wasting your time here. Both books are the same story told two different ways. Both are well worth reading.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by greymouse

The most obvious thing Sir Arthur Clarke and his countryman Christopher Hitchens now have in common is that they are both dead and gone now, like all them Saints. Hitchens, in addition to being a world class public drinker whose wit stayed as sharp as his received pronounciation diction, was a rare combination of a aggressively public atheist and a cheerleader for the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) or maybe GWOMI (Global War on Militant Islamatism). We are now supposed to be out of Iraq now. Does anyone remember why we went in? Not the obvious lies the Bushies gave as an excuse, the real reason? I can't, not even the reasons the late Hitch talked about. He was a great talker. There are a multitude of videos of him holding forth, like this one:http://youtu.be/TfNgCaqLIR0

And if you haven't read Clarke's Against the fall of Night or The City and the Stars you should immediately do so and stop wasting your time here.
Both books are the same story told two different ways. Both are well worth reading.

Hitchens was merely a spoiled brat/swine contrarian who had contempt for everyone [and thus himself] and delighted in turning against those who nutured him. He did this when he staked-out a sanctimoneous leftist critic against anything done in the name of anti-communism. This is of course simple to do since anti-communism is a pretty vulnerable target. But after this played out some thirty years into it he turned not only on the left [but on anyone opposed to aggression] when he sided with the neocons in defending any attacks and occupations of any middle eastern country. This position was not limited to any war on terror or militant Islam - as it was unleashed against the Iraqi Baathists more than anyone. After he showed his duplicity in this matter whatever friends or admirers he still had were revulsed by him.


The genius of Clarke will be revealed in this way.....

He's the ONLY writer of science fiction [as opposed to science fantasy] to outline these accurate aspects of other intelligences' interactions with humanity:

1. They have always been here.

2. They play an essential role in the human experience.

3. Their nature MUST BE BY NECIESSITY an enigma. Their nature is not material.

4. Their interactions with humans is on the individual level, and nothing more.